Aswath Damodaran: The Sugar Daddy Effect

In his latest article, NYU professor Aswath Damodaran explores the common challenges faced by three types of entities that have access to assured funding: corporate venture capital (CVC), sovereign wealth funds (SWF), and green energy investments.

In Aswath’s opinion, while CVCs, SWFs, and green energy investments have significant potential due to their access to capital, they often fall short because of a lack of urgency, mixed missions, insufficient accountability, and poor transparency.

Here are the key takeaways:

  • Assured Funding and Lack of Accountability: All three entities benefit from assured funding—CVCs from parent companies, SWFs from governments, and green energy from impact investors. However, this financial security often leads to a lack of urgency and accountability. Without the fear of running out of capital, these entities may underperform compared to their more competitive counterparts, such as traditional venture capitalists or conventional energy companies.
  • Mixed Missions Create Confusion: Each of these entities often has multiple, sometimes conflicting, objectives. For example, SWFs may be tasked with both maximizing returns and supporting national interests like economic development. This mixed mission complicates decision-making and can dilute focus on core goals, leading to inefficiencies.
  • Underperformance and Lack of Pruning: Despite their size and resources, these entities tend to underperform in aggregate compared to their peers. One reason is the lack of “ruthlessness” in cutting off failing projects or companies. Unlike traditional venture capitalists who quickly exit underperforming investments, CVCs and SWFs tend to continue funding weak ventures for too long.
  • Transparency Issues: Many CVCs and SWFs operate with limited transparency, making it difficult to assess their true performance. This opacity often shields inefficiencies and prevents effective accountability.
  • Learning from Failures: Aswath emphasizes that failure should be seen as a strength if it leads to better decision-making in the future. Entities need clear contingencies for funding based on performance metrics, a focused core mission, and realistic expectations about the trade-offs between financial returns and social objectives.

Share the news

Disclaimer of liability

The above has been prepared by Børsgade ApS for information purposes and cannot be regarded as a solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security. Nor can the information etc. be regarded as recommendations or advice of a legal, accounting or tax nature. Børsgade cannot be held liable for losses caused by customers’/users’ actions – or lack thereof – based on the information in the above. We have made every effort to ensure that the information in the above is complete and accurate, but cannot guarantee this and accept no liability for errors or omissions.

Readers are advised that investing may involve a risk of loss that cannot be determined in advance, and that past performance and price development cannot be used as a reliable indicator of future performance and price development. For further information please contact info@borsgade.dk

You might also find this interesting:

Aswath Damodaran: The Sugar Daddy Effect

In his latest article, NYU professor Aswath Damodaran explores the common challenges faced by three types of entities that have access to assured funding: corporate venture capital, sovereign wealth funds, and green energy investments.

Bill Nygren: Investing without a catalyst

In a recent interview, Bill Nygren from Oakmark reflects on his 40-year investment career, highlighting the significance of both financial metrics and management quality in selecting companies.