🤖 FOLLOW THE SIGNALS, NOT THE NOISE

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending an insightful panel hosted by Introduction Capital, led by the ever-impressive Karen Azlen, on The Role of AI in Startups and Venture Capital. The session, moderated by Kathryn Wortsman (Amplify Capital), featured a sharp and candid conversation with Eva Lau (Two Small Fish Ventures), Matt Cohen (Ripple Ventures), and Peter Shi (Maverix Private Equity).

As someone deeply involved in innovation and capital deployment, this conversation reinforced how artificial intelligence is not just reshaping how companies operate—it’s redefining the fundamentals of venture capital, entrepreneurship, and business building.

🧠 AI ISN’T NEW—BUT THE ACCELERATION IS UNDENIABLE

AI has long been part of the toolkit in sectors like banking and media. Wattpad was using AI in 2012 to analyze millions of data points. Financial institutions have leaned on AI models for credit scoring and fraud detection for decades. But today’s shift isn’t about the tools—it’s about the speed of deployment, the ubiquity of applications, and the expectations from both customers and investors.

Subscribed

⚙️ AI AS INFRASTRUCTURE: IT’S ABOUT OUTCOMES, NOT ALGORITHMS

What resonated deeply was the notion that AI is no longer something we “use”—it’s becoming something we expect. Think customer service platforms that use AI to mine a company’s entire knowledge base for instant answers. Or municipal services like 311 and 911, where AI triage can save time, money, and lives. For example, 911 calls cost ~$50 each, yet 50% are non-urgent. AI can help route them more effectively.

In sectors like legal, AI is already proving transformational—assessing the likelihood of success in personal injury or workplace claims, which number in the hundreds of thousands daily. These insights are key to unlocking legal financing. Process automation is the foundation, but predictive insights are where real value emerges.

Share

💼 THE EVOLUTION OF VENTURE CAPITAL IN AN AI-DRIVEN WORLD

AI is changing how VCs operate just as much as the companies they fund. What used to be a 1-in-10 bet is now a 1-in-5,000 longshot. With generative AI tools enabling faster prototyping, investor diligence is being compressed and automated. Sourcing, due diligence, portfolio monitoring—entire VC workflows can now be partially or fully AI-powered.

But with so many new entrants building in AI, a familiar challenge returns: how do you spot the signal in the noise?
Key factors include:

• Is the problem real, and is the timing right?

• Does the company have IP defensibility beyond being an API wrapper?

• Are the unit economics and go-to-market strategy robust enough to survive scaling?

Some funds, like EQT's Motherbrain, are investing heavily in internal AI to augment their investment strategy. Meanwhile, the real edge may no longer lie in proprietary tech—but in controlling customer relationships and distribution channels.

🔄 BLURRING LINES BETWEEN VENTURE CAPITAL AND PRIVATE EQUITY

As AI startups mature, the distinction between VC and PE is fading. Traditional BPO services (like insurance claims processing) are being replicated by nimble, AI-powered startups. These new entrants need to meet enterprise-grade expectations—on compliance, security, and data privacy—to win contracts. VCs are operating more like PE firms with a platform mindset, while PE firms are adopting earlier-stage tech strategies. It’s a convergence fueled by the democratization of software and the race to own sticky, recurring revenue models.

Share

🔭 EMERGING TRENDS SHAPING THE FUTURE OF AI IN BUSINESS

Some of the most exciting developments discussed:

• Edge computing is becoming vital—on-prem AI is seeing a resurgence for privacy and cost control.

• Generative SEO is transforming how we think about websites—replacing static pages with dynamic, AI-optimized content.

• AI in manufacturing is moving from aspirational to operational, using predictive analytics and real-time optimization.

• AI-designed chips (ASICs) are reducing the time and cost to create powerful hardware optimized for machine learning.

• In the near future, we may not call it “AI” anymore—it will simply be how modern businesses operate.

⚠️ AI RISKS AND THE URGENT NEED FOR TRUST

No conversation about AI is complete without addressing risks. From hallucinations in LLMs to misinformation campaigns in elections (Slovakia was cited as a recent case), the stakes are rising. As AI becomes more powerful, so do the bad actors trying to manipulate it. Responsible AI, data integrity, and social engineering safeguards aren’t optional—they’re essential to building trust in this next era.

🧭 FINAL THOUGHTS

What I appreciated most from this panel was the grounded, thoughtful tone. It was not about AI hype—it was about economic reality, strategic focus, and long-term defensibility. In a world where tech is increasingly commoditized, success will hinge on solving real problems with real urgency—and building businesses that can withstand the next wave of disruption.

Many thanks again to Karen Azlen and Introduction Capital for convening such a rich and relevant conversation. It was a timely reminder that while AI is accelerating everything, the fundamentals still apply: timing, team, traction, and trust.

Share

Peggy Van de Plassche is a seasoned advisor with over 20 years of experience in financial services, healthcare, and technology. She specializes in guiding boards and C-suite executives through transformational change, leveraging technology and capital allocation to drive growth and innovation. A founding board member of Invest in Canada, Peggy also brings unique expertise in navigating complex issues and fostering public-private partnerships—key elements in shaping the Future of Business. Her skill set includes strategic leadership, capital allocation, transaction advisory, technology integration, and governance. Notable clients include BMO, CI Financial, HOOPP, OMERS, GreenShield Canada, Nicola Wealth, and Power Financial. For more information, visit peggyvandeplassche.com.

🧙The Illusion of "Follow Your Bliss"

Most of us have heard the expression “Follow Your Bliss.” And if you are on the personal development bandwagon, you know it without a doubt.

I have been thinking quite a bit about this common idiom and how most of us have understood and acted (or not) on it.

It usually goes like this: you have an artistic passion (it can also be a sport or entrepreneurship), and inspired by the “Follow Your Bliss” philosophy, you decide to make a career out of this passion. Sometimes this happens early in life, sometimes later; sometimes it is advice received as a child or a mentee.

To justify that choice, path examples are given of successful artists, soccer players, content creators, tech entrepreneurs who bet on themselves and followed their bliss with tremendous success (and supposed happiness).

Energized by these examples, you decide to focus full-time on pottery; after all, with social media, Etsy, and WFH, how difficult could it be to make a solid income from your passion?!! And then troubles usually follow shortly after. Whether studies or corporate jobs are abandoned (or not started), savings are dipped into—and usually all of the above—the upheaval has started.

In the first part of the process, you are usually excited and make a lot of wrong decisions in naively following your blissful path: wrong allocation of capital, time, and energy summarize most of the mistakes made.

After a while, probably not too long, you start wondering what it is that you are doing wrong… You should be well on your way to success by now… You have followed all the social media trainings, you are a master at pottery, you have launched your own online course and community, diversified your portfolio of activities as recommended by the gurus of the new economy, and even registered for a mastermind for potters. Maybe you are not visualizing your success well enough, sending the wrong messages to the universe. You can’t really put your finger on it, but the bottom line is: tremendous inputs, very limited outputs… and your bank account is not giving very encouraging signs. You really don’t get it—others seem to have it totally under control based on their Instagram. Confusion and frustration settle in, finally that freaking pottery sucks and now you are in debt (or have severely dipped into your retirement/education savings).

You wonder what went wrong—you did follow your bliss, how is it that it is not working?!

Share

🤯What went wrong

The idea for this newsletter came from my own observations, reflections, and a recent discussion with one of my high school friends whose 8-year-old daughter is very artistic. Visibly, the little girl absolutely loves to dance, recite poetry, act in plays, and so on. After telling me that, my girlfriend (who studied at the same B-School I did) started going on with the “Follow Your Bliss” mantra, saying that if her daughter loves dancing, she will find a way to make a living out of it.

For context, my friend burned out from her corporate job last year and has since been following multiple trainings—from hypnosis to pottery—trying to find her own bliss. So there is definitely some projection happening here.

And here is the exact moment things can go terribly wrong.

This idea that “Follow Your Bliss” means: 1) an easy path, 2) success is guaranteed, 3) your bliss needs to be your full-time career / what pays your bills.

There is so much to say about this freelancer / portfolio of activities craziness that usually comes with the “Follow Your Bliss” approach. Mainly, that most people are not sustaining themselves financially. Not just because it takes time and investment to see traction, but because most of these businesses are not financially viable in the first place. And yes, some people—maybe more talented, maybe more hard-working, maybe who got in at the right time, maybe less ethical (🧌The Top 10 Bad and Ugly Truths about Being an Entrepreneur)—have been able to be a success at this particular endeavor, but this is rare. And I would still ask them to show me their financials, hourly rate, and genealogy tree.

Case in point: I was reading W magazine last night. The article was about “Nine emerging models, musicians, and actors who are carving out their own niches.” As I was glancing through the text, something recurring caught my eye: their “ancestry.” From Sting to Nicole Kidman and Luc Besson, more than half of the “emerging talent” showcased were the scions of pretty powerful and famous people in their own fields. So yes, of course, if your mom is Nicole Kidman or your dad is Sting, “Follow Your Bliss” full-time and make a career out of it is an amazing philosophy! However, for my friend and her daughter, I don’t think so.

If you are curious and want to learn more on the topic of becoming an artist (but really, same-same for any independent endeavors), I recommend a wonderful book: Good Artists from The White Pube, a British collective—yes, it is a play on the name The White Cube. It recounts, in a very dramatized way, the path of an artist graduating from art school and their “Hero’s Journey” to become an artist. My main takeaways: 1) you need to already be wealthy to be a successful full-time artist, 2) being an artist doesn’t mean it has to be your main occupation, nor financially sustain you. Also, the size of the student loans—C$140K for one of the authors out of Central Saint Martins—seems pretty impossible to cover mathematically with a beginner artist income (which is probably $0). So from the get-go, an unsustainable value proposition.

The book went on to explain how artists have to pay not only for their own materials and studio—they also have to cover the exhibition costs (considering that most young and not-so-young artists are not represented by galleries) and marketing-related expenses (and so on). When represented by a gallery, 30–50% of the listed price goes to the gallery. And no, artists don’t make a living by directly selling their pieces through social media. Not many people actually see financial success via social media (💡3 Marketing Truths from Starting a Platform From the Ground Up).

This reminded me very much of my experience as an author, where (unless you are already successful) you pick up most of the costs but share the profits.

The big challenge with the “Follow Your Bliss” approach is that your passion very quickly becomes less exciting when it now has to be your main source of income and you have to produce. An artist is usually dependent on the whims of the buyers (when one is lucky to have buyers). Whether the gallerist (who also needs to make a living, actually) requests a certain size of pieces in order to move more inventory—yes, a giant fresco is nice but difficult to place—or a sponsor requests a specific color theme, in addition to a specific size and theme, the creative process is more curtailed than one thinks. A similar dynamic will apply if you are a musician, a writer, an actor, etc…

Share

💵The Opportunity Cost

The opportunity cost is the other side of the “Follow Your Bliss” equation: what didn’t you learn, earn, do as you were pursuing this passion of yours? This calculation can quickly lead to tremendous monetary amounts (and regrets). Whether a young adult was channeled into the wrong studies, a recent grad into the wrong career, a mid-career professional into entrepreneurship—these choices can end up being very costly, and not just financially. Of course, there will always be people for whom it worked out, but unfortunately this simple extrapolation of a tiny sample forgets that these successful people tend to be the rare exceptions, not the rule. These people have also usually made tremendous sacrifices and taken tremendous risks to get where they are (do not minimize the importance of timing and luck either). And, as demonstrated in the W article, they can also have had a very strong head start. I also want to put the emphasis again on social media success: it has nothing to do, most of the time, with financial reality.

I was chatting with one of my friends who did this corporate-to-entrepreneurship shift a few years ago and who gladly came back into corporate after several years of not-so-exciting daily tasks as an entrepreneur. It is challenging for someone who has been working for large organizations at a senior level to find intellectual stimulation and impact in an early-stage venture. A lot of the work is actually quite mundane, as being solo or in a small team means doing everything from picking the color of that last social media post, to doing the taxes, to booking the client meetings, to selling and executing, and so on.

You might be thinking that this is different when one starts a tech startup. I would say not really, actually. Most of these companies go belly-up too—the difference is that they do so after having raised external capital. Many of these entrepreneurs took on a lot of personal debt, often remortgaging their house (if not selling it) to get their business off the ground. It is difficult to run two parallel realities at the same time, but I have no doubt that some of these entrepreneurs (even those whose companies might still be operating after a decade) still left a lot of money (and hair) on the table had they gone the corporate route.

Last but not least, these endeavors—artists, content creators, soccer players, entrepreneurs—can be very lonely (and competitive). One will need a very strong supportive network and community around them in order to keep that sense of connection and also keep learning. It is easy to become quite isolated when you “Follow Your Bliss.”

↪️ Bottom Line

It is not about becoming an accountant from a place of fear for the future, but it is about being realistic with how economics work. Most “Follow Your Bliss” endeavors are not economically viable, especially when weighing the success/failure probabilities. At the end of the day, you still need to pay your rent at some point (unless you are blessed with generational wealth, and then none of that applies to you!).

So find a career you enjoy enough, and be an artist / entrepreneur / soccer player during the weekends, the vacations, after work. Kids have tons of after-school programs—why would it have to be different for adults?

Peggy Van de Plassche is a seasoned advisor with over 20 years of experience in financial services, healthcare, and technology. She specializes in guiding boards and C-suite executives through transformational change, leveraging technology and capital allocation to drive growth and innovation. A founding board member of Invest in Canada, Peggy also brings unique expertise in navigating complex issues and fostering public-private partnerships—key elements in shaping the Future of Business. Her skill set includes strategic leadership, capital allocation, transaction advisory, technology integration, and governance. Notable clients include BMO, CI Financial, HOOPP, OMERS, GreenShield Canada, Nicola Wealth, and Power Financial. For more information, visit peggyvandeplassche.com.

👩‍💼Why I Don't Let My Identity Dictate My Beliefs (And Why That Matters Now More Than Ever)

🗳️ Why I’m Not Running for Office (And Probably Never Will)

I’ve often been asked, "Why don’t you run for public office?" It’s flattering, of course. But the honest answer is: I struggle with the expectation to follow the party line.

Political affiliation today feels a bit like subscribing to a bundled package—one that doesn’t let you swap out the parts that don’t work for you. You buy into one position, and suddenly, you’re expected to take a stand on 10 others. Even if some don’t sit right.

Personally, I prefer the tasting menu.

🍽️ A Taste for Independent Thinking

Some parties have compelling ideas on some issues. Others have better solutions elsewhere. My brain doesn’t work in binaries. And more importantly, neither does the world.

This is why I’ve always worked best in environments that value independent thinking over allegiance. It’s why, as a leader, I surround myself with people who don’t always agree with me. And it’s why I’ve never made a habit of being a yes-woman.

One of my earliest mentors, a boss at CGI, told me something that’s stayed with me for decades:

“If an employee always has the same opinion as their boss, one of them is redundant—and it’s not the boss.”

Share

💡 Innovation Needs Friction

That ethos has shaped my entire professional life. And it’s one reason I’m passionate about innovation: it doesn’t emerge from consensus. It comes from friction. From diversity of thought. From respectfully challenging assumptions and, yes, disagreeing.

This is what made Janan Ganesh’s recent Financial Times piece resonate so deeply. Reflecting on Danish politics, he noted that the country doesn’t fit neatly into left/right categories. Denmark is liberal and capitalist. It’s pro-welfare and pro-market. It’s compassionate but pragmatic. It doesn’t bundle beliefs—it thinks issue by issue.

🇩🇰 The Danish (and Refreshing) Approach

This “case-by-case” thinking might sound slow or inconvenient, but in many ways, it’s the mark of a mature democracy. And of an independent mind.

Contrast that with what Ganesh calls the "Vibes Theory of Politics": choose your tribe, and inherit the whole belief package. If you know someone’s stance on Gaza, you probably know their views on climate, lockdowns, DEI, and a half dozen unrelated topics. Not because they thought each through, but because it comes with the jersey.

🧠 Tribalism Is Not Clarity

In an age of hyper-alignment, nuance is often mistaken for inconsistency. Or worse—disloyalty. But as Ganesh writes, the real tragedy is that this tribalism masquerades as clarity. When in fact, it’s efficiency at the cost of critical thinking.

This matters beyond politics. It’s just as relevant inside organizations, on boards, and in leadership teams. Groupthink isn’t just intellectually lazy—it’s dangerous. And in high-stakes environments, it leads to blind spots, risk, and missed opportunity.

💬 The Courage to Disagree

We don’t need more consensus. We need more courage—the kind that allows people to say, “I agree with you on this. I don’t on that.” And to still remain part of the conversation.

That’s not contrarianism. It’s integrity.

And maybe, just maybe, the real leadership we need isn’t about finding the right tribe. It’s about having the right spine.

With nuance,
Peggy

Share

Peggy Van de Plassche is a seasoned advisor with over 20 years of experience in financial services, healthcare, and technology. She specializes in guiding boards and C-suite executives through transformational change, leveraging technology and capital allocation to drive growth and innovation. A founding board member of Invest in Canada, Peggy also brings unique expertise in navigating complex issues and fostering public-private partnerships—key elements in shaping the Future of Business. Her skill set includes strategic leadership, capital allocation, transaction advisory, technology integration, and governance. Notable clients include BMO, CI Financial, HOOPP, OMERS, GreenShield Canada, Nicola Wealth, and Power Financial. For more information, visit peggyvandeplassche.com.

🤑Silicon Valley & Washington: A History of Power, Wealth, and Selective Memory

Last week, I had the pleasure of attending “U.S. Politics and Big Tech Power: Past, Present, and Future,” hosted by the Innovation Policy Lab at the University of Toronto’s Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy.

The conversation—led by Margaret O’Mara (University of Washington) and Tom Kemeny (Munk School)—took us deep into the origin story of Silicon Valley, its relationship with Washington, and the consequences of that alignment (and misalignment) today.

It also surfaced an uncomfortable but essential question:

How did Big Tech become so dominant—economically, politically, even philosophically—while convincing itself it stands apart from the institutions that built it?

Subscribe now

🛠️ Built by Government, Branded as Rebellion

Silicon Valley has always told a story of garage-born innovation, lone genius, and private ingenuity. But the historical record is less romantic—and far more entangled with the state.

• In the 1940s, HP thrived on Pentagon defense contracts.

• Fairchild Semiconductor—the original startup—built the chip industry off NASA space contracts.

• The internet itself was a Pentagon invention, not a startup story. Please note the debate between my dear friend Ruth Woolmer and I who are each rooting for a different origin story. Read hers & mine.

• In the 1980s, Steve Jobs lobbied Congress to bring Macs into classrooms.

• The 2023 SVB bailout was just the latest reminder: when the system falters, tech turns to the state.

From infrastructure to procurement to regulation, the U.S. government has been fundamental to Silicon Valley’s rise.

And yet, many of these same companies have built their brands—and worldviews—on anti-government sentiment:
“Government is broken. We move fast. They slow us down.”

The result is a kind of cognitive dissonance:
An industry that thrives on public infrastructure and political access, while promoting a philosophy of radical individualism and free-market absolutism.

🤖 Techno-Libertarianism, from Counterculture to Corporate

In the post-Vietnam era, a new ethos took hold in the Valley:
small government, big tools for individual empowerment.

This worldview shaped the Whole Earth Catalog, the personal computing movement, and eventually, techno-libertarianism:

• Steve Jobs described the computer as “a bicycle for the mind.”

• John Perry Barlow’s “Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace” cast governments as obsolete.

• Many tech founders saw Washington not as a partner, but as the establishment to be disrupted.

This philosophy celebrated hyper-individualism, decentralization, and the idea that innovation should be unshackled from bureaucracy.

But as tech companies grew—and as their political power increased—those values became increasingly inconvenient.

🏛️ The Long History of Lobbying

Despite the rhetoric, Big Tech has never stayed out of politics.

• In the 1980s, as Japan challenged U.S. tech dominance, Silicon Valley lobbied Reagan for 100% tariffs.

• Steve Jobs campaigned in D.C. to shape education policy.

• Obama held fireside chats with Zuckerberg. His administration became a revolving door with the Valley.

• And in 2025, for the first time, tech billionaires wrote $1M+ checks to the presidential inauguration committee.

This isn’t new. It’s just more visible now.

Today, tech CEOs are not just company leaders—they’re political actors, policy influencers, and in some cases, philosopher-kings of a new digital order.

⚠️ What Happens When Tech Questions Democracy?

A lot of the most provocative moments in the event came from the audience—noting the growing distance between tech’s philosophical leanings and democratic ideals.

Some tech leaders now flirt with “dark enlightenment”—a belief system that questions democracy itself. Think:

• No elections

• No consensus-building

• A CEO-led governance model for society

• A suspicion that democratic institutions are too slow, too compromised, or simply obsolete

The implications are chilling. And yet they echo in corners of the industry.

In AI. In crypto. In space.

Platforms like OpenAI, Blue Origin, and SpaceX are now shaping global trajectories—but often without public input or democratic guardrails.

💸 Supersizing of Power & Wealth

The concentration of wealth in tech is unprecedented:

• In 2020, Bezos and Musk alone gained $200B+ in net worth, more than the GDP of 139 countries.

• Tech CEOs have reached celebrity-political hybrid status—with massive social and geopolitical influence.

• Antitrust enforcement remains underused, despite having mechanisms in place.

SVB’s collapse and government bailout was a perfect case study:
Socialize the risks, privatize the rewards. And all under the banner of “disruption.”

We’ve entered a moment where tech is not just an industry. It’s a parallel governance structure—but with fewer checks and balances.

🧭 What Now?

Tech likes to position itself as building “the future.” But whose future, and who gets a say?

As we navigate this next chapter of AI, digital platforms, and space colonization, we have to ask:

• Can democracy keep up with the pace—and scale—of tech?

• Can we rein in monopolies and still innovate?

• What’s the right relationship between public policy and private power?

Because at the end of the day:
Democracy isn’t a bug in the system. It’s the operating system.

Let’s remember that—and build accordingly.

Would love to hear your thoughts.
👉 Where do you see the relationship between Big Tech and government going from here?

#bigtech #democracy #publicpolicy #AI #innovation #siliconvalley #techpower #geopolitics #ethicsintech

Peggy Van de Plassche is a seasoned advisor with over 20 years of experience in financial services, healthcare, and technology. She specializes in guiding boards and C-suite executives through transformational change, leveraging technology and capital allocation to drive growth and innovation. A founding board member of Invest in Canada, Peggy also brings unique expertise in navigating complex issues and fostering public-private partnerships—key elements in shaping the Future of Business. Her skill set includes strategic leadership, capital allocation, transaction advisory, technology integration, and governance. Notable clients include BMO, CI Financial, HOOPP, OMERS, GreenShield Canada, Nicola Wealth, and Power Financial. For more information, visit peggyvandeplassche.com.

🤝Cooperation in Conflictual Times: Can We Reimagine a Different Way Forward?

Can Cooperation Outperform Competition? 💪

We are living in an era of increasing polarization. From political turmoil to economic uncertainty, from social divides to ideological clashes, the dominant narrative of our time is conflict. The rise of extremist parties, culture wars, corporate greed, and the growing disconnect between governments and citizens all contribute to a world that feels more adversarial than ever.

But is there another way?

Professor Bernard E. Harcourt explored this question at a recent event at the Munk School, drawing from his latest book, Cooperation: A Political, Economic, and Social Theory. His argument: we have built our political and economic systems on competition—but what if we shifted our focus to cooperation?

Harcourt proposes a radical alternative to capitalism and hierarchical governance—a cooperative model where democracy, economic production, and social relations are restructured around collaboration rather than competition. His work isn’t abstract theory—it’s rooted in historical precedents and current realities, from worker cooperatives to mutual aid networks to decentralized governance experiments.

This idea is not new, but its relevance today is undeniable. If we are serious about solving systemic inequality, economic instability, and political dysfunction, we need to rethink the very foundation of our institutions.

🛠 The Cooperatist Model: A Different Political Economy

At the core of Cooperatism is a shift away from punitive, reactionary systems toward preventive, community-driven solutions.

🔹 Current System: The Punitive Paradigm

• Low investment in prevention (education, healthcare, social mobility).

• High spending on reactionary measures (policing, incarceration, emergency medical care).

🔹 The Cooperative Alternative

• Democratic self-governance across all areas of life.

• Worker cooperatives, banking co-ops, and decentralized governance models.

• An economic system that prioritizes long-term collective well-being over short-term individual gains.

This isn’t just theoretical—it’s already happening in pockets around the world:

✅ Mondragon Corporation (Spain) – A worker-owned conglomerate where the CEO-to-worker pay ratio is 4:1 (compared to 3,100:1 at McDonald’s).
✅ Jackson, Mississippi – Community-driven development projects reshaping local economies.
✅ Black Panther Party’s Community Programs – Free breakfast programs, healthcare clinics, legal services—microcosms of cooperation in response to systemic neglect.
✅ Financial Cooperatives – Models such as Crédit Mutuel (France), Mutual Farm (USA), and Desjardins (Canada) demonstrate how finance can function within a cooperative framework, emphasizing member ownership and long-term stability.

Harcourt argues that before dismantling failing systems, we must first build viable alternatives. But how do we do that when existing institutions actively resist change?

Share

⚖️ Gandhi, the Black Panthers, and the Limits of Nonviolence

During the event, I asked Bernard about how Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolent resistance fits within the cooperatist model. The Black Panthers, as Harcourt had highlighted, combined cooperative principles with self-defense and strategic opposition to state oppression—a contrast to Gandhi’s strict commitment to nonviolence.

We later followed up via email, discussing a quote from Gandhi that encapsulates the dilemma:

“Where choice is set between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.”

Harcourt expanded on this in an essay, reflecting on Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha, which he describes as exceptionally demanding—requiring a level of fortitude that not everyone possesses. What happens when cooperation alone isn’t enough? Harcourt admitted that he, too, questions whether he would always have the strength to adhere to nonviolence. I know I would not have the fortitude required by Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha. The level of sacrifice, patience, and resilience it demands is beyond my reach.

This led me to reflect: Is a purely cooperative system truly sustainable if it lacks mechanisms for protection and resistance? Even if cooperation is the goal, history shows that systems built on mutual aid are often dismantled precisely because they threaten established power structures.

So where do we draw the line? When does cooperation demand confrontation?

🛑 The Limits of Cooperatism: My Thoughts on Where It Breaks Down

While Harcourt’s vision is compelling, I see several challenges that could hinder the establishment of a cooperative-based system. Nonetheless I believe some of these challenges could be addressed with the right incentives and we could live the rest…no system is perfect, ever!

🚧 How do you fund parallel systems?

If we want to shift from a punitive to a cooperative paradigm, we can’t simply dismantle existing structures overnight.

• But running two systems simultaneously (e.g., current “sickcare” vs. preventive healthcare) would be prohibitively expensive and face extreme political pushback.

• Who funds the transition, and how do we ensure its sustainability?

🚧 How do you prevent free-riders?

• If everyone contributes equally, how do you ensure some don’t take advantage of the system while giving nothing back?

• I personally embody this challenge growing up in France—where the government invested heavily in my education, healthcare, and opportunities—only for me to leave for Canada. France took the cost, Canada reaped the benefits.

• This state of affairs didn’t prevent multiple people (even some supposedly educated and informed) from telling me to go back to France. Visibly for some geniuses, immigrants are not allowed to question the system even if they are participating in it and funding it 😉. Pay up and shut up! is visibly what is expected from us.

🚧 Does cooperatism reduce mobility?

Would a worker cooperative or a mutualist governance model function like a business partnership—where members are locked in and leaving is costly?

• How do you prevent people from extracting resources and then abandoning the system?

• Would cooperative systems restrict individual freedom in ways we don’t yet fully understand?

🚧 What happens when cooperation isn’t enough?

The Black Panthers mastered cooperative structures—yet still faced brutal government suppression.

• As Gandhi’s quote suggests, is it better to resist violently than to be complicit in oppression?

• How do we balance cooperation with self-defense in an inherently conflict-driven world?

💡 Final Thoughts: Can We Make This Work?

My background is in finance, and since the 2008 financial crisis, I’ve been pondering our economic system, which I see as anchored in the mutualization of costs and the privatization of profits—while neglecting the benefits of prevention in favor of after-the-fact care.

The food and healthcare industries are prime examples of this dynamic:

🍟 Step 1: Corporations sell ultra-processed, unhealthy food (privatization of profits by food companies + low/no investment in health promotion/prevention by the medical-industrial complex).
🏥 Step 2: People get sick (privatization of profits by the medical-industrial complex, healthcare financed by taxpayers—mutualization of costs).
🧠 Step 3: Poor nutrition impacts cognitive function and decision-making, making populations easier to manipulate and get addicted to unhealthy lifestyle—a perfectly self-reinforcing cycle.

You can expand this cycle to the financial services and technology industry very easily:

• Tech companies want cheap labor to preserve their margins and fuel their growth, countries attract loads of immigrants, tech companies & institutional investors thrive (privatization of profits combined with tax optimization schemes), overall population supports the costs of infrastructure (mutualization of costs). Cherry on the pie: Immigrants and governments are blamed.

• Financial institutions offer exotic high margins products, they thrive (privatization of profits combined with tax optimization schemes), system collapses after being pushed to the limits by corporates and individuals’ greed, overall population picks up the check (mutualization of costs).

This is why I’ve always been intrigued by financial cooperatives and union-based financial models. Unlike shareholder-driven banks, where short-term gains dominate decision-making, cooperative banks (like Desjardins, Crédit Mutuel) prioritize long-term stability, ethics, and members well-being.

But even in financial services, incentives and power dynamics favor extractive models over cooperative ones.

So, the question remains:

✔ Can cooperatism be scaled effectively, or will it remain a niche alternative?
✔ Can prevention-focused models gain enough traction when they don’t produce immediate ROI?
✔ How do we prevent the exploitation or co-optation of cooperative systems?

I don’t have the answers. But I do know that staying on our current path is not sustainable.

💬 What do you think?

Let’s continue the conversation.

Until next time,
Peggy

Peggy Van de Plassche is a seasoned advisor with over 20 years of experience in financial services, healthcare, and technology. She specializes in guiding boards and C-suite executives through transformational change, leveraging technology and capital allocation to drive growth and innovation. A founding board member of Invest in Canada, Peggy also brings unique expertise in navigating complex issues and fostering public-private partnerships—key elements in shaping the Future of Business. Her skill set includes strategic leadership, capital allocation, transaction advisory, technology integration, and governance. Notable clients include BMO, CI Financial, HOOPP, OMERS, GreenShield Canada, Nicola Wealth, and Power Financial. For more information, visit peggyvandeplassche.com.

#democracy #economy #Cooperation #conflicts

💸 Billions & Jobs Lost: Why Are Canadian Pension Funds Hiring Foreign Money Managers?

A few weeks ago, I wrote about a big, uncomfortable question:

📌 Why don’t Canada’s pension funds have a mandate to support provincial and national economic growth?
📌 Why do they invest billions in direct investments abroad while overlooking opportunities in our own companies and infrastructure projects?

But direct investments are only part of the story.

💡 What about indirect investments?

Every year, Canadian pension funds deploy billions into public equity, private equity, and debt markets—but instead of channeling these assets through Canadian money managers, a substantial portion goes to foreign firms.

Why?

Why are we outsourcing capital management when we have some of the best money managers in the world right here at home?

It’s time for Canada to rethink who manages our money.

(Missed my last piece? Read it here)

📢 The UK Just Shifted Billions—But Not to Its Own Money Managers

Recently, The People's Pension, one of the UK's largest pension funds, shifted £28 billion (approximately CAD $47.6 billion) from State Street (U.S.) to Amundi (France) and Invesco (U.S.), citing a stronger alignment with ESG principles. (ft.com)

👉 A move made for ESG alignment, but it raises an important question:

💡 Why do pension funds consistently overlook their own country’s top-tier investment professionals?

And it’s not just the UK.

Canada does the same.

🍁Canada’s Pension Paradox: We Have the Talent, But They’re Not Always the First Choice

Canadian pension funds control over CAD $2.5 trillion in assets—yes, trillion with a T. (fitchratings.com)

Yet, a substantial portion of these assets is managed by foreign firms instead of homegrown investment powerhouses.

👉 So, while Canadian fund managers are flying overseas pitching their expertise to international investors, our own institutions aren’t always giving them a fair shot.

Does that make sense? Nope. Is it costing us billions in potential job creation, tax revenues, and economic growth? Absolutely.

Share

📉 What Happens When We Don’t Invest in Our Own People?

Every dollar sent to a foreign money manager is a dollar not supporting Canadian economic growth. When we don’t prioritize our own investment talent:

❌ We miss out on job creation. The asset management industry is a massive employer, and growing it at home could mean thousands of high-paying finance and tech jobs.

❌ We shrink our tax base. Canadian money managers pay taxes here. Foreign firms? Not so much.

❌ We are not building an even stronger financial services industry. A thriving domestic asset management sector benefits pension funds, institutional investors, and the broader economy, ensuring Canada remains a global leader in financial services.

🍁Canada First Doesn’t Mean Canada Only—But It Should Mean Canada More

This is not about shutting out global investment firms—it’s about making sure Canadian money managers get a fair shot at managing Canadian capital.

📌 Keeping more of our capital management industry at home means more high-value jobs in Canada.

📌 It strengthens our financial sector, which in turn benefits institutional investors and pensioners.

📌 It ensures that Canadian money is working for Canada, not just fueling financial growth abroad.

And with a federal election on the horizon, this is a key topic that deserves attention.

Share

📢 It’s Time to Have This Conversation

This isn’t just about finance—it’s about jobs, economic growth, and Canada’s financial future.

If we don’t take action now, we risk becoming a country that produces world-class investment talent—only to have them take their expertise elsewhere.

Let’s talk about it.

Drop your thoughts below. Let’s make some noise on this. 🚀

Peggy Van de Plassche is a seasoned advisor with over 20 years of experience in financial services, healthcare, and technology. She specializes in guiding boards and C-suite executives through transformational change, leveraging technology and capital allocation to drive growth and innovation. A founding board member of Invest in Canada, Peggy also brings unique expertise in navigating complex issues and fostering public-private partnerships—key elements in shaping the Future of Business. Her skill set includes strategic leadership, capital allocation, transaction advisory, technology integration, and governance. Notable clients include BMO, CI Financial, HOOPP, OMERS, GreenShield Canada, Nicola Wealth, and Power Financial. For more information, visit peggyvandeplassche.com.

#CapitalAllocation #InstitutionalInvestment #PensionFunds #FinancialStrategy #PublicPolicy #CanadianEconomy #InvestmentStrategy #AssetManagement

🎯 The Art of Dodging Tariffs: Strategic Moves for Smart Businesses

If you've been following my newsletters, you know I’ve covered the importance of lobbying, navigating business uncertainty, pension funds investing locally, and lowering trade barriers within countries like Canada. All of these are critical pieces of the puzzle when it comes to creating a stable and profitable business environment. But today, we’re diving into another high-stakes issue: tariffs—how companies are working around them, and what strategies actually work (because let’s be honest, bending the rules—legally—is a time-honored tradition in business).

Tariffs have been a business headache for centuries. In 1881, American customs officials caught a sugar importer altering the color of their product to game the tariff system—an act the Supreme Court ultimately ruled legal. Fast forward to today, and companies are still playing chess with trade regulations to stay competitive. With Donald Trump threatening new duties on imports, businesses must get creative to protect their bottom lines.

🔍 Navigating the Tariff Minefield

Tariffs are more than just taxes—they’re tools of economic warfare. Companies face two choices: absorb the cost (hurting profits) or find legal ways to sidestep them. And given that $4 billion was spent on lobbying in the U.S. in 2023, it’s clear that businesses are actively shaping trade policies to their advantage. But what if you don’t have a team of lobbyists on speed dial? Here’s what smart companies are doing instead (hint: they’re not just rolling over and paying up).

💡 1. Tariff Engineering: Redesigning to Reclassify

One of the most effective strategies is tweaking product designs to fall into a lower tariff category. Consider:
🔹 Converse, which altered its Chuck Taylor shoes by adding a thin layer of fabric under the insole—cutting tariffs from 48% to 7.5%.
🔹 Columbia Sportswear, which strategically added pockets below the waist to reclassify shirts and blouses into lower-taxed categories.
🔹 Spanish exporters who shifted to product varieties that were exempt from tariffs (Minondo, 2023a, 2023b).
🔹 Lu and Hsu (2021) identified six product design strategies for Chinese home appliance firms to legally reduce tariff costs.

Don’t forget that the U.S. is the only nation in the world that has gendered based tariffs. They are higher on womenswear than on menswear…a golden opportunity for products reclassification.

🔁 2. Country of Origin Maneuvering

Shifting production entirely to a tariff-friendly country is costly, but partial production relocation, supplier diversification, and contract manufacturing can be game-changers.
🔹 Hyundai’s cable harnesses are technically manufactured in China, but final assembly and packaging happen in South Korea—allowing the company to benefit from South Korea’s preferential trade agreements with the U.S.
🔹 Many firms shift parts of their supply chains to Vietnam, Thailand, or Malaysia—but beware, Trump has floated the idea of expanding tariffs to these regions (so the game of whack-a-mole continues).
🔹 Supplier Diversification: Switching suppliers to avoid regions hit by high tariffs. Gereffi et al. (2021) found that firms actively swap suppliers to circumvent trade restrictions. Spanish exporters neutralized tariff increases by substituting products from unaffected countries (Minondo, 2023a, 2023b).
🔹 Manufacturing Location Shifts: Instead of moving entire production lines, some businesses shift only critical portions of their supply chain. Saiz and Uribetxebarria (2012) showed that shifting assembly from China to Brazil significantly reduced tariff burdens.

📦 3. Leveraging “First-Sale” Pricing

A little-known court ruling from 1988 allows importers to pay tariffs based on the manufacturer’s price, not the higher retail price charged by middlemen. This tactic works especially well for brands that source from multiple suppliers before selling finished goods.

⏳ 4. Delaying Duties with Bonded Warehouses & Temporary Bonds

Cash flow is king. Companies are increasingly using:
🔹 Bonded warehouses, where goods can be stored tariff-free until sold.
🔹 Temporary import bonds, which defer duties on products set to be re-exported.

📊 5. Operational Tactics

Companies also adjust their logistics and operations to minimize tariff impacts:
🔹 Inventory Management: Research by Muris et al. (2023) found that a 30% tariff leads to a 65% reduction in inventory-sales ratios. Firms adjust stock levels to weather tariff changes.
🔹 Order Timing Optimization: Johnson and Haug (2021) found that businesses pre-order goods before new tariffs take effect, reducing exposure.

🚀 The Future: Tariff Loopholes & Government Crackdowns

The ingenuity of businesses to navigate tariffs is undeniable—but so is the government’s ability to tighten the noose. In 2008, U.S. customs attempted to scrap the “first-sale” rule, only for trade lawyers to fight back successfully. If Trump (or any future president) clamps down on existing workarounds, expect businesses to find new and creative solutions.

At the end of the day, demand always wins. As one trade lawyer put it, “People want stuff, and they’ll get it one way or another.”

💬 What’s your strategy for navigating tariffs? Are you playing defense or getting ahead of the game? Let’s discuss.

Peggy Van de Plassche is a seasoned advisor with over 20 years of experience in financial services, healthcare, and technology. She specializes in guiding boards and C-suite executives through transformational change, leveraging technology and capital allocation to drive growth and innovation. A founding board member of Invest in Canada, Peggy also brings unique expertise in navigating complex issues and fostering public-private partnerships—key elements in shaping the Future of Business. Her skill set includes strategic leadership, capital allocation, transaction advisory, technology integration, and governance. Notable clients include BMO, CI Financial, HOOPP, OMERS, GreenShield Canada, Nicola Wealth, and Power Financial. For more information, visit peggyvandeplassche.com.

#CapitalAllocation #InstitutionalInvestment #PensionFunds #FinancialStrategy #PublicPolicy #CanadianEconomy #InvestmentStrategy #AssetManagement

💼The Business of Politics: Why Lobbying is a Power Play, Not a Dirty Word

If you think politics is just about governance, think again. Politics is marketing—branding, positioning, and influence. And in today’s world, if you’re running a business, navigating politics isn’t optional; it’s a survival skill.

I recently attended Intersection of Business and Politics: Insights for Leaders, led by Dr. Ken Chan, Partner at Optimus SBR. This event laid bare the realities of corporate lobbying and why even governments themselves hire lobbyists. The key takeaway? If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.

💼 Lobbying: A Legitimate Business Strategy

Lobbying isn’t a shadowy backroom deal—it’s a structured, strategic process that connects businesses with policymakers. Done right, it contributes positively to both business performance and public policy. Consider these stats:

• $4 billion spent on lobbying in the U.S. in 2023.

• 12,000 lobbyists registered in the EU.

• 7,000 lobbyists registered in Canada.

Corporations that engage in lobbying see tangible business advantages—reduced risks, competitive edges, and a seat at the policymaking table.

🌍 Why Businesses Need to Master the Political Landscape

The event made one thing crystal clear: business and politics are deeply intertwined. Whether you’re a multinational or a startup, you need to understand and leverage government relations. Key reasons include:

• Aligning with government priorities: If your business goals and policy trends don’t align, you’re already behind.

• Regulatory navigation: Governments create the rules of the game. Smart businesses work to shape those rules.

• Risk mitigation: Policy shifts can make or break industries overnight. Engaging early reduces exposure to sudden regulatory risks.

Share

🔥 The Evolution of Lobbying: The Trump Effect

In response to my question after the event, Dr. Chan pointed out that traditional lobbying playbooks are being thrown into chaos under Trump 2.0. His unpredictable approach to policymaking is disrupting conventional lobbying tactics, leaving firms scrambling to adapt. This uncertainty continues to reshape how lobbying is done today.

📖 The Lobbying Playbook: How to Do It Right

Dr. Chan’s research, based on 65 elite interviews with business leaders and policymakers, provides a clear roadmap for effective lobbying:

1. In-House vs. Outsourced Lobbying

   • Companies with in-house government relations teams often still hire external lobbyists. Why? External experts provide political intelligence, validation, and access to key networks.

   • Lesson: Even governments hire lobbyists to navigate their own bureaucracy. You should too.

2. Trade Associations as a Collective Voice

   • Businesses can wield more influence when they advocate together.

   • Lesson: If you can’t lobby alone, join forces with industry associations that can amplify your message.

3. Understanding How Policymakers Think

   • Ministers and advisors prioritize ethical engagement, a deep understanding of government processes, and solutions that align with public interest.

   • Lesson: Building credibility is key. Political staffers remember who plays fair—and who doesn’t.

🍻 The Best Hiring Tip in Government Relations? Head to the Bar.

A lighthearted but valuable insight: If you’re serious about building political influence, hire young former political staffers. Where do you find them? The bars near government offices. These are the people who know the inner workings of policymaking and can be your best asset in navigating government relations.

🎯 Non-Market Strategy: A Critical Business Lever

Unlike traditional competitive strategies that focus on pricing, branding, or innovation, non-market strategy refers to how businesses engage with governments, regulators, and the public to shape the business environment. Lobbying is one of the most effective non-market strategies—helping businesses shape policies that directly impact their industries.

🏆 Final Thought: If You’re Not in the Game, You’re Losing

Lobbying isn’t just for Fortune 500 companies. It’s a tool for any business serious about long-term success. In an era of regulatory uncertainty, global interconnectivity, and policy-driven market shifts, staying politically savvy isn’t optional—it’s a business imperative.

If your business isn’t engaging with politics, it’s time to rethink your strategy. Because whether you like it or not, politics is marketing, and the most powerful brands know how to play the game.

Let’s discuss: How is your business navigating the political landscape?

Peggy Van de Plassche is a seasoned advisor with over 20 years of experience in financial services, healthcare, and technology. She specializes in guiding boards and C-suite executives through transformational change, leveraging technology and capital allocation to drive growth and innovation. A founding board member of Invest in Canada, Peggy also brings unique expertise in navigating complex issues and fostering public-private partnerships—key elements in shaping the Future of Business. Her skill set includes strategic leadership, capital allocation, transaction advisory, technology integration, and governance. Notable clients include BMO, CI Financial, HOOPP, OMERS, GreenShield Canada, Nicola Wealth, and Power Financial. For more information, visit peggyvandeplassche.com.

#Lobbying #Politics #PublicPolicy #BusinessStrategy