Alexa von Tobel has high hopes for ‘fintech 3.0'
Since then, von Tobel became Northwestern Mutual's first chief digital officer, then chief innovation officer, before launching an early-stage venture firm of her own, Inspired Capital, with former U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker. She's also a New York Times bestelling author, and she's about to launch a new interview podcast, 'Inspired with Alexa von Tobel.'
In a conversation with TechCrunch, von Tobel recalled the hectic period around the acquisition, which closed literally days before the birth of her first child, and when she knew it was time to start her own firm.
Von Tobel explained that she created Inspired to be the investor she'd dreamed of — one with a 'cultish commitment to entrepreneurship' — when she was a founder herself. And while Inspired is a generalist firm, she said she feels both 'urgent and optimistic' about fintech, the sector where she launched her career. (One of her pre-Inspired fintech investments, Chime, just went public.)
'We think of this wave as fintech 3.0,' von Tobel said. 'The next wave of innovation won't come from superficial tweaks but from fundamental deep product reinvention — tools that meet the needs of a changing economy and a more diverse, digitally native population.'
The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Congratulations on the 10-year anniversary of the acquisition. Looking back, what do you feel proudest of?
First, Northwestern Mutual is an incredible company, and our software became an incredibly important part of the customer experience. And I am so proud that so many of the LearnVest team stayed at Northwestern Mutual for so long, and it really was just a merger of actual values. It's just amazing how simple some things are, it comes down to the values of two companies and the missions of two companies.
I sold on a Wednesday and went into labor with my first child that weekend. All jokes aside, I always say it took me about a year to mentally just recover from being, like, all systems were go, my brain was being pushed to manage so many things. Literally, I was having my first child. It was like the world threw a bus at me and I caught it.
So when you were closing the deal, was there a ticking clock in your mind, that you had to finish everything before this whole other thing happens?
Of course. If you think about it, we literally signed on, I think, 11am on March 25 and then we did a press tour with the CEO, and then the next day, we did a stand up with the entire team, and then I went to sleep and literally woke up in labor.
Having your first child is priceless. There's nothing in the world that is more valuable to me than having my children, nothing. And so I kept being like, 'We have to get this done, because I'm not leaving the hospital to come back and close a deal. I actually need to focus on this human being that I'm bringing into the world.' I always joke that the lawyers took me very seriously.
When people on the outside talk about an acquisition, obviously, the first thing they talk about is usually the financials, and then one of the signs of success is the product. LearnVest as a product doesn't exist anymore, but it sounds like it was less about having LearnVest as a standalone product and more about transforming Northwestern Mutual.
It was so much bigger than a product. [Northwestern Mutual's] John Schlifske, he's no longer CEO, but he is one of the people I look up to most in the world, just a formidable human being. And he kept being like, 'We're gonna merge the companies.' And I would laugh — one is a $40-billion-a-year company, and [the other is] little tiny LearnVest. But he really meant it. He was like, 'We're gonna use this as a catalyst.' It was a catalyst for an entire digital transformation.
I became the company's first ever chief digital officer, and then chief innovation officer, and it was really about taking everything and merging it into the broader parent company. My CTO of LearnVest became the CTO of the parent company.
You stayed for four years?
Yeah, [my last day] was basically end of January 2019, and that day we launched Inspired.
How did you know it was time to leave, and where did the idea for Inspired come from?
I'm always at my best when I'm building something that I wish existed for me. And I've said many times that the idea for Inspired actually happened when I dropped out of business school, and I was a really all-in entrepreneur in every way — I dropped out basically December 18 of 2008, at the bottom of the worst recession in 81 years, not necessarily the the the most inviting time to start a company.
And I really was looking for a capital partner that didn't exist. I had this vision of what it should look and feel like, this sort of rigor and camaraderie and in-the-trenches-ness of what an early stage capital partner could be, and I didn't see it in the market. That was New York in 2008, 2009, and I had this long-term plan of one day, I want to come back and build that.
Fast forward to 2018, 2019 I'd started really actively dreaming about what that could look like. And one day I was like, it has to happen, it's now.
We're now almost seven years in. We're a dedicated early stage venture fund, generalist, headquartered in New York, but investing everywhere. And I feel like I've been here for one minute. It literally is the best job I've ever had.
You mentioned having this idea of a capital partner that you wished you'd had. How do you put that into practice?
What was I looking for in that capital?
What were you looking for, and how did you get everyone at the on-board with that vision?
So, when I talk to entrepreneurs, I always say Inspired is different for four key reasons. The first reason is that we are extremely long duration capital. It means when we back a founder, we truly put blinders on for 20 years. When you're building a company, there's choices you have to make as a CEO, which is, 'Do I do the thing for next month so that things look good, or do the harder thing that won't look good next month, maybe it pays off in three years, or not?' And what we always say is, 'Do the harder thing, do the thing that's creating far more long-term value and worry less about synthetic results.'
The second thing is, our team's pretty unique in that we've built and scaled more than 10 businesses that have touched hundreds of millions of users around the world. That mentality is so different when you're sitting in the seat working with an entrepreneur, because we haven't necessarily lived every experience, but we've lived a lot, and we appreciate the contours. It's almost like seeing 3D versus 2D.
The third thing is that our team operates like one unit. So when we back a company, you actually get the entire team. At many firms, you get one partner, that's the person they know, they know you, and if, God forbid, that partner leaves, it's like you've evaporated your social equity that you built up with that partner. We operate like a swarm, where you get all of us and we actively do weekly stand ups on the entire portfolio, so that everybody's up to speed.
And then the final thing, because of [Inspired co-founder Penny Pritzker], she's on the board of Microsoft, was U.S. Secretary of Commerce. So we like to say that, there are many, many, many, many ways that we can help companies get access to things that are really hard to get as just a sole founder in your 20s or 30s, where we can actually be a tremendous business accelerant to our companies in a pretty unique way, with access to tech and government and many other vectors.
So in short, that was the firm I wanted.
I wanted a deeply cultish commitment to entrepreneurship. We always talk about this Inspired future — one of the things I love so much about entrepreneurship is, no great entrepreneur shows up and is like, 'Let's make the world worse,' right? They show up and they're like, 'Here's a big problem that's facing a billion people. Let's go fix it.'
I think some of the biggest founders in the world, their companies poured out of their DNA. I started LearnVest because my father had passed away, and my mom overnight had to manage our finances. And I was like, I never want a family to feel financially destabilized, and I wanted to go build the solution.
When we look back at the broader ecosystem over the last 10 years, one of the big transitions is leaving behind that period of zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) for VC and startups. Have you seen a change in the venture ecosystem in the last few years, and has that affected the way you approach investing at Inspired?
So just a helpful framework — Inspired is a full generalist fund. We will touch everything from deep tech to health tech to consumer, looking for the biggest, most important ideas of the next 15 years. Every day, when I come to work, I literally mentally walk into this office in 2035. And that's how we're thinking about where the world is going and the problems be solved
And I think when ZIRP existed, many things that I would say weren't venture bets, would get backed. And I almost think it would be confusing, because you'd be like: What categories are not venture categories? Lots of categories are not venture categories by nature — if you think about power law, everything that we back ideally has a real chance to be worth $10 billion. There's not a lot of those.
I built LearnVest at the bottom of the worst recession in 81 years, and actually LearnVest was not an easy business. It was regulated, there were so many other things that were really hard about what we were doing. I really like hard businesses, because they have defensibility. They have reasons to exist. They have less copycats.
I think a lot of things got funded over the last period of, like, 2014 to 2021, that should've been getting a different source of capital.
How are you feeling about the state of fintech in 2025? Where are there still opportunities for startups?
I'm feeling both urgent and optimistic about the state of fintech today. Financial services remain foundational to a functioning society, but they haven't kept pace with the rapid technological, demographic, and social shifts we're experiencing. The growing federal debt, rising income inequality, and increasing poverty — especially among older Americans — underscore the need for more adaptive and inclusive financial tools. Not to mention the rapid job loss due to AI.
This moment presents a major opportunity for startups to reimagine financial products from the ground up. We think of this wave as fintech 3.0. The next wave of innovation won't come from superficial tweaks but from fundamental deep product reinvention — tools that meet the needs of a changing economy and a more diverse, digitally native population. We're excited by founders who see this challenge clearly and are building bold solutions to address it.
You launched LearnVest on-stage at the TechCrunch 50 conference in 2009. If you were a judge at our Startup Battlefield in 2025, what would you be looking for in the winning team?
I would be looking for a founder who, based on who they are and their lived experience, has a powerful, unique insight to a problem that touches hundreds of millions of people, if not more. Two, I would be looking for something that is non-obvious. You know, I think some of the biggest and best ideas are non-consensus, people don't think they're interesting. Third, I would look for an entrepreneur who's living and breathing a decade out. They see this very powerful future.
And the final thing I would look for is the founder who has — there's a spikiness, there's a grit and resilience, but also a command, that you can sit with them and you can like it's palpable, that they will figure out a way to succeed. Those are the key ingredients that you look for.
Errore nel recupero dei dati
Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio
Errore nel recupero dei dati
Errore nel recupero dei dati
Errore nel recupero dei dati
Errore nel recupero dei dati
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Higher U.S. tariffs will extend uncertainty for businesses, experts say
President Trump's executive order hiking tariffs on U.S. imports could drive up consumer prices and prolong uncertainty for millions of businesses, trade experts said. Materials issued by the White House on Thursday outline new tariff rates for dozens of countries, but details remain scant on how to implement the trade agreements, said Barry Appleton, co-director of the New York Law School Center for International Law. "The last thing businesses want to have are unanswered questions. They were looking for certainty, and what we have instead is a gigantic Rubik's Cube," he told CBS MoneyWatch. "Everyone has been waiting for 'Liberation Day' to be finished," he added, referring to the country-based tariff announcements Mr. Trump first made in early April. "Instead, with this announcement, we have another perpetuation of what's going on." Under the Trump administration's new import duties, most countries will face a baseline tariff of at least 15%, although other nations will faces levies of more than 40%. The U.S. effective tariff rate is now 17%, according to Fitch Ratings — the highest in decades. That could mean pricier garments from Vietnam, shoes and toys from China, chocolate from Switzerland, and coffee from Brazil, according to economists. As a result, the revised U.S. tariffs could cost Americans an average of $2,048 per year, according to a new analysis from the National Taxpayers Union, a nonpartisan advocacy organization. Mr. Trump has argued his tariff strategy is necessary to correct what he views as unfair trading practices and revive American manufacturing, and points to still-fairly-low inflation rates. But many economists warn tariffs can lead to higher inflation and more sluggish economic growth, and some of the president's early trade moves rattled financial markets. The White House has said that Mr. Trump's trade policies benefit Americans. "President Trump's trade deals have unlocked unprecedented market access for American exports to economies that in total are worth over $32 trillion with 1.2 billion people," White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement to CBS MoneyWatch. "As these historic trade deals and the Administration's pro-growth domestic agenda of deregulation and The One Big Beautiful Bill's tax cuts take effect, American businesses and families alike have the certainty that the best is yet to come." On social media, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the tariffs are "a knockout win over the distorted global trading order that has disadvantaged American workers, farmers, and manufacturers for decades." He added that Trump's foreign trade policy has achieved "expansive new market access for U.S. exporters, increased tariffs to defend critical industries, and trillions of new manufacturing investments that will create great American jobs." Which products could get pricier? In the U.S., the products most commonly imported from abroad — and therefore most likely to see their prices rise because of sharply higher tariffs — include household appliances, furniture, cars, clothing, sports equipment, toys and cleaning products, according to an analysis from Oxford Economics. The price of such goods rose about 1% in June, or more than double the increase in May, according to the investment research firm's analysis of consumption data, a sign that tariffs are starting to seep into the cost of everyday items. "The question is really what's not going to go up in price. The costs were being eaten in the profits of companies, but that's not sustainable," Appleton said. Mr. Trump slapped some of the highest tariffs on key trade partners like Canada, a major provider of lumber to U.S. companies. That could lead to higher housing costs, according to Oxford. Some fruits and vegetables also could get pricier this winter as grocery stores leans on imports to stock store shelves, he said. U.S. automakers including Ford, GM and Stellantis have recently warned that higher U.S. tariffs will reduce their profits by billion of dollars. That is likely to increase new car prices, said Terence Lau, dean of the Syracuse University College of Law and formerly a government affairs executive at Ford. "My advice to consumers back in April was that they should wait to buy cars," said Lau, who expects dealer prices for 2026 models to rise between 4% and 6%. "In August, my advice is to buy now." Although many businesses are still selling inventory they imported earlier this year in a bid to avoid higher tariffs, subsequent imports will likely be subject to the newly announced levies when they arrive at U.S. ports, according to trade experts. "A lot of businesses front-loaded goods to get them in the door before tariffs were announced. They'll now have to increase their costs as inventories dwindle and businesses start replenishing them," Oxford Economics' senior U.S. economist Matthew Martin told CBS MoneyWatch. "We expect cost hikes to peak in the second half of the year," Along with facing potentially higher prices, U.S. consumers could face reduced product choices stemming from supply-chain delays, according to economists. That's largely because companies unable to reshore manufacturing to the U.S. are likely to stop importing low-margin goods as they move to control costs. "In many cases, tariffs will be so high that we'll create embargoes," Martin said. "That will make it more difficult for retailers and distributors to get things out to market." Rodney Manzo, a supply-chain expert and senior director at Sage, a business management software company, said higher tariffs often end up affecting businesses and consumers in ways beyond the cash register. "For the average shopper, the effects don't always show up as a big price hike on the shelf. Instead, it's subtler — fewer options, smaller quantities and less generous promotions," he said. "Companies are quietly reducing [their stockpiles], reworking product specs or stripping out expensive components to hit margin targets." Arkansas officials reveal new details about Devil's Den murders of husband and wife The A.I. Divide | America Unfiltered Defense attorneys refuse new cases in Massachusetts, citing unfair pay Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mega Millions winning numbers for Aug. 1: $140 million jackpot
The Mega Millions jackpot rose to $140 million for the drawing on Friday, Aug. 1, after no one matched all the winning numbers in the drawing on Tuesday, July 29. If someone matches all six numbers on Friday, they will have the option of a one-time cash payment of $62 million. There have been four Mega Millions winners this year, with the most recent being the June 27 win in Virginia of a jackpot of $348 million. Before then, on April 18, an Ohio player took home a $112 million jackpot, a lucky lottery ticket holder in Illinois took home a $344 million jackpot on March 25 and another lucky person hit the Mega Millions jackpot on Jan. 17 for $113 million. Here are the winning numbers from the Mega Millions drawing on Friday, August 1, 2025. Mega Millions winning numbers for 8/1/25 The winning numbers for Friday, August 1, will be posted here once drawn. Winning lottery numbers are sponsored by Jackpocket, the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network. Did anyone win the Mega Millions? Any Mega Millions winners will be posted here once announced by lottery officials. To view the list of past winners, visit the Mega Millions website. How to play the Mega Millions To play the Mega Millions, you have to buy a ticket. You can do this at a variety of locations, including your local convenience store, gas station or even grocery store. In some states, Mega Millions tickets can be bought online. Once you have your ticket, you need to pick six numbers. Five of them will be white balls with numbers from 1 to 70. The gold Mega Ball ranges from 1 to 24. If you're feeling especially unlucky or don't want to go through the hassle of picking, you can ask for a "Quick Pick" or an "Easy Pick.' These options let the computer randomly generate numbers for you. Mega Millions tickets now include a built-in multiplier, which increases non-jackpot prizes by two, three, four, five, or 10 times. Before, players had to pay an extra dollar to add the "Megaplier.' Where can you buy lottery tickets? Tickets can be purchased in person at gas stations, convenience stores and grocery stores. Some airport terminals may also sell lottery tickets. You can also order tickets online through Jackpocket, the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network, in these U.S. states and territories: Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Washington, D.C., and West Virginia. The Jackpocket app allows you to pick your lottery game and numbers, place your order, see your ticket and collect your winnings all using your phone or home computer. Jackpocket is the official digital lottery courier of the USA TODAY Network. Gannett may earn revenue for audience referrals to Jackpocket services. Must be 18+, 21+ in AZ and 19+ in NE. Not affiliated with any State Lottery. Gambling Problem? Call 1-877-8-HOPE-NY or text HOPENY (467369) (NY); 1-800-327-5050 (MA); 1-877-MYLIMIT (OR); 1-800-981-0023 (PR); 1-800-GAMBLER (all others). Visit for full terms. Fernando Cervantes Jr. is a trending news reporter for USA TODAY. Reach him at and follow him on X @fern_cerv_. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Mega Millions winning numbers for 8/1/25: Jackpot at $140 million


New York Post
5 minutes ago
- New York Post
Columbia Sportswear sues Columbia University over merch in latest legal battle for Ivy
For decades, T-shirts, sweatshirts and other clothing under the Columbia Sportswear brand and clothing emblazoned with the Columbia University name coexisted more or less peacefully without confusion. But now, the Portland-based outdoor retailer has sued the New York-based university over alleged trademark infringement and a breach of contract, among other charges. It claims that the university's merchandise looks too similar to what's being sold at more than 800 retail locations including more than 150 of its branded stores as well as its website and third-party marketplaces. Columbia Sportswear has filed a lawsuit against Columbia University because the campus's merchandise looks identical to its brand. Columbia Sportswear In a lawsuit filed July 23 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Columbia Sportswear, whose roots date back to 1938, alleges that the university intentionally violated an agreement the parties signed on June 13, 2023. That agreement dictated how the university could use the word 'Columbia' on its own apparel. As part of the pact, the university could feature 'Columbia' on its merchandise provided that the name included a recognizable school insignia or its mascot, the word 'university,' the name of the academic department or the founding year of the university — 1754 — or a combination. But Columbia Sportswear alleges the university breached the agreement a little more than a year later, with the company noticing several garments without any of the school logos being sold at the Columbia University online store. Many of the garments feature a bright blue color that is 'confusingly similar' to the blue color that has long been associated with Columbia Sportswear, the suit alleged. The lawsuit details that the Ivy League institution violated an agreement the parties signed on June 13, 2023. Spiroview Inc. – The lawsuit offered photos of some of the Columbia University items that say only Columbia. 'The likelihood of deception, confusion, and mistake engendered by the university's misappropriation and misuse of the Columbia name is causing irreparable harm to the brand and goodwill symbolized by Columbia Sportswear's registered mark Columbia and the reputation for quality it embodies,' the lawsuit alleged. The lawsuit comes at a time when Columbia University has been threatened with the potential loss of billions of dollars in government support. Last week, Columbia University reached a deal with the Trump administration to pay more than $220 million to the federal government to restore federal research money that was canceled in the name of combating antisemitism on campus. Under the agreement, the Ivy League school will pay a $200 million settlement over three years, the university said. Columbia Sportswear aims to stop all sales of clothing that violate the agreement, recall any products already sold and donate any remaining merchandise to charity. Columbia Sportswear is also seeking three times the amount of actual damages determined by a jury. Neither Columbia Sportswear or Columbia University couldn't be immediately reached for comment.