“You tend to see opportunity in what you’re used to seeing succeed. That is pattern recognition. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only place talent lives.”

— Anna Blanding

Emerge

You’ve worked inside institutional investing for years. From your perspective, why do diverse managers and operators still struggle so much to access capital? 

Anna Blanding

Much of investing still comes down to pattern recognition. 

People naturally place confidence in what feels familiar: networks they know, strategies they have seen work, and profiles that resemble prior successes. Pattern recognition is an important part of investing, but it can also narrow your aperture if institutions are not intentional about testing their assumptions. We tend to see opportunity in what we’re used to seeing succeed. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only place talent lives.  

What I’ve seen repeatedly is that highly capable managers and operators may not have had the same access to relationships, early institutional backing, or opportunities to build track records at scale. If no one gives you the opportunity to build that experience, then your lack of institutional scale can become the reason you continue not getting funded. It becomes self-reinforcing. 

That’s one reason I will make introductions for colleagues who run funds. Investors may take a warm call from someone they know before they take a cold call from a manager outside their existing network. I view relationship capital as a form of capital, and opening my networks to talented people is important. 

Emerge

You mentioned consultants. I don’t think people outside institutional investing always realize how influential they are.

Anna Blanding

They can be incredibly influential. In many institutional settings, consultants play an important role in helping investment committees navigate an enormous and complex opportunity set. That means their sourcing networks, research frameworks, and underwriting processes can materially influence which managers receive serious consideration. 

The challenge is that every investment ecosystem develops patterns around what has historically looked “institutional.” Those patterns can be useful, because they reflect experience and risk discipline, but they can also unintentionally narrow the field of vision. Emerging managers, first-time funds, and talented investors outside established networks may have fewer opportunities to build the scale and track records institutions understandably want to see. 

For me, the question is whether institutions are applying rigorous standards while maintaining a sufficiently broad opportunity set to identify differentiated talent. 

Experience and track record matter. At the same time, relevant investing experience should be evaluated thoughtfully. If someone has spent 20 years building a strong record at a leading investment firm and then launches a first fund, the absence of a long standalone fund history should not erase the experience and judgment developed over that career.

Emerge

There’s often a tendency to frame this conversation as purely moral or social. But you seem to view it as a business issue too.

Anna Blanding

Absolutely. Across multiple segments of asset management, women- and minority-owned firms continue to manage a disproportionately small share of industry assets. To me, that raises an investment question as much as a social one: are institutions fully accessing the available universe of talent and opportunity? 

I’m a strong believer in diversity of investments and perspectives from both a return and risk-management standpoint. If capable investors and operators are systematically overlooked or undercapitalized, institutions may be leaving opportunity on the table. 

Investment decisions are made by people, and all of us bring experience, networks, and pattern recognition into the room. That is one reason I believe diversity of perspective can be valuable. When decision-making groups include people with different professional backgrounds, market experiences, networks, and lived perspectives, they may be better positioned to challenge assumptions, identify blind spots, and recognize opportunities that a more homogeneous group could overlook. It improves decision quality and expands an institution’s ability to identify talent, assess risk, and capture opportunity. Investors and operators who are close to the communities and markets they intend to develop products and solutions for, should have greater insight, access to supply, all sorts of things that are accretive. 

Emerge

You’ve spoken before about the importance of intentionally creating pathways for emerging managers. Are there models you think have worked well? 

Anna Blanding

One model I found particularly interesting was supported by the William Caspar Graustein Memorial Fund, where I serve as a trustee. The premise was straightforward: rather than expecting diverse or first-time managers to somehow appear with institutional scale, create a structure through which talented managers can build institutional experience and a demonstrable track record over time. 

That may mean beginning with a smaller allocation, since often LP’s can only be a certain percentage of the total fund—perhaps $1,000,000 vs $10,000,000. A well-structured initial commitment can help a manager establish credibility and potentially attract additional capital downstream. 

Experience is a real qualifier in this industry. Institutions are responsible for stewarding significant pools of capital, and that responsibility matters. But if the ecosystem creates too few pathways for talented people to gain relevant institutional experience, it risks reproducing the same opportunity set over and over again. 

Since we all know access and experience are connected, it helps everyone to build disciplined pathways through which promising managers can demonstrate performance.

Emerge

You’ve also talked about the importance of challenging bias when you see them.

Anna Blanding

Yes, because sometimes people genuinely do not realize how familiarity is influencing a judgment. 

I’ve been in investment discussions where very similar fact patterns are interpreted differently depending on how familiar the person, strategy, or profile feels to the decision-makers in the room. One founder may be described as “visionary,” while another with comparable experience is viewed as “too risky” or “not yet proven.” 

That is where good governance matters. Sometimes the most valuable question in the room is simply: What evidence is driving that distinction? Are we applying our standards consistently? Are we evaluating the underlying opportunity, or are we allowing familiarity to influence our perception of risk? 

Emerge

You’ve also worked extensively around philanthropy and impact investing. What role can foundations uniquely play here?

Anna Blanding

Philanthropy can use forms of capital that traditional investors may be less positioned to provide. Many capital gaps are not about a lack of talent or viable ideas; they are about structure. The questions become: Who can absorb early risk? Who can provide flexible or patient capital? Who can offer guarantees or other forms of credit enhancement? Who can help create a bridge to larger pools of institutional investment? 

In real estate and place-based development specifically, philanthropic equity can be catalytic especially in the pre-construction phase. On a project of significant scale, capital often comes from multiple sources and on different timelines—bank debt, public funding, tax-credit structures, philanthropic support, and other forms of investment. Those pieces do not always move in sync. 

For First Haven, flexible philanthropic support has been an important part of helping the broader capital strategy move forward. We would not have been able to acquire the site, do all the planning, permitting, without our philanthropic partner. That kind of capital can be catalytic in a very practical sense: it can provide time, flexibility, and balance-sheet strength while other sources of capital are assembled. 

Emerge

Your work now sits at the intersection of investing and place-based development. How do you think about the role family foundations and family offices can play in that work?

Anna Blanding

I think family foundations and family offices can play a distinctive role, particularly because they may have the flexibility to take a long-term view and develop deep relationships with the communities and institutions they care about. 

Large national institutions often operate within complex governance structures and face multiple stakeholder considerations. Family foundations and family offices can sometimes move differently. They may be able to provide patient capital, support organizational capacity, or invest in relationships over a longer horizon. 

One family foundation connected to our work is a good example. The relationship was rooted in shared values and developed over many years. The family was willing to support not only a specific project, but also the institutional capacity and balance-sheet strength of a Black-led organization investing in a historically Black community. 

Importantly, that relationship did not happen overnight. It was the result of years of trust-building, learning, and alignment around values and strategy. People sometimes assume partnerships materialize because a project sounds compelling. But effective place-based investing is deeply relational work. 

The strongest partnerships are often built long before the capital is deployed.

Emerge

Are there areas where foundations and family offices still underestimate their own influence?

Anna Blanding

Definitely. One of the most important things they can do is convene. Foundations and family offices can bring together institutions, investors, nonprofits, developers, civic leaders, and other stakeholders that might not naturally coordinate on their own. That convening power can be enormously valuable because complex capital gaps are rarely solved by one organization acting alone. 

There are also institutions that have maintained a durable focus on issues such as equitable economic development, community investment, health, and expanding opportunity. The Kresge Foundation is one example of an institution with a longstanding commitment to strengthening communities and advancing opportunity. 

These are not fringe economic questions. They go directly to how communities grow, how markets develop, how talent is cultivated, and how institutions build long-term resilience. The challenge is to maintain disciplined, durable commitment even as political and economic environments change.