Finding LGBTQ-Focused Investments Can Be Difficult. Here’s Where to Begin.

While nearly half of U.S. investors surveyed by Morgan Stanley want to invest in companies led by or making products and services for the LGBTQ community, these investments are difficult to find unless you know where to look.

Several LGBTQ-focused ETFs failed in recent years due to lack of investment, though stock investors can still put money in firms with openly queer leadership, such as Tim Cook at Apple. While opportunities for LGBTQ investments stretch across asset classes—startups attract the most attention.

For an answer as to whether this strategy can be successful, look at Grindr. One of the most prominent LGBTQ startups, the social networking app went public in 2022 and has a US$1.78 billion market cap today.

“Almost in every industry that exists, there is an LGBTQ person building [a company],” says Jackson Block, CEO of New York-based LGBT+ VC, a nonprofit addressing investment in the LGBTQ community. This means wide-ranging opportunities to invest in privately-held LGBTQ companies.

Identifying such investments often centres on two key criteria, says William Burckart, co-founder of Colorful Capital, a venture capital firm that invests in early-stage LGBTQ startups: Investors want to know whether someone in the community leads the company or if they are the target market for products and services.

Individuals and families can invest directly in companies getting off the ground or in a growing number of niche funds. Colorful Capital and Gaingels are among several firms that have formed specifically to address a longstanding lack of opportunities for LGBTQ startup founders. Others, like Backstage Capital or Elevate Capital, focus on underserved founders more broadly, including those who are LGBTQ.

According to research from StartOut, a San Francisco-headquartered LGBTQ entrepreneurship nonprofit, only 0.5% of venture funding goes to LGBTQ founders, yet they create 44% more exits, where equity investors earn capital gains through the sale or stock listing of the company, and 114% more patents than the average founder.

Colorful Capital chose to invest in seed- and early-stage funding after determining it was the “glaring gap” that needed to be filled based on conversations with LGBTQ founders, says Burckart.

Backstage Capital and Gaingels, which are syndicates with multiple investors, will support companies at several stages of development. Meanwhile, Elevate Capital, which counts 7% of founders it supports as LGBTQ, offers three funds for investors depending on what stage of investment and type of business they are interested in.

There are economic reasons to consider LGBTQ investments: Multiple studies show correlations between diversity among firm leadership and company performance as measured by internal rates of return, risk management factors, and firm valuations. “From a purely financial benefits perspective, there’s real value in beginning to embrace and integrate that kind of diverse thinking,” Burckart says.

Gaingels, whose members have invested more than US$800 million since 2019, principally invests in health, fintech, and enterprise software, according to Dealroom.co. Recent deals include taking part in a post-seed, series A funding round for San Francisco-based social care platform Grayce and a seed-funding round for Menlo Park, Calif.-based financial community platform AfterHour.

More than 70 unicorns—firms that have reached US$1 billion valuations—have been funded at different stages by Gaingels. These include Seattle-based, goal-oriented telehealth platform Ro and Dapper Labs, a Vancouver-based digital games and entertainment firm.

Block, whose organisation has a mission to educate, train, and mobilise 10,000 LGBTQ and ally investors by 2030, suggests wealthy investors enter the venture capital fray by becoming a limited partner in a fund. This allows investors to get involved with less risk and comparatively steady return expectations compared to angel investing.

Geographically, many LGBTQ companies attracting investment are North American, though regional funds exist in Europe and Latin America, Block says.

For wealthy families, investing in LGBTQ-related businesses can be a strategy to engage the next generation, as products and investment strategies that advance LGBTQ equity and inclusion are in high demand among younger investors (56% of millennials and 67% of Gen Z, according to Morgan Stanley). This is unsurprising, given that Gallup polling suggests more than one in five Gen Z adults and one in 10 millennials identify as LGBTQ.

Morgan Stanley’s Institute for Sustainable Investing estimates that those interested in LGBTQ investments control about one-third, or US$20 trillion of U.S. wealth managers’ assets under management. With the impending generational wealth transfer, the bank says control of interested investors could grow to nearly half of the assets under management at all wealth managers. Block expects that creating opportunities for LGBTQ fund managers will also help grow LGBTQ investments, and will create a “natural pipeline” for them to find roles with major investment banks.

In identifying investments, Morgan Stanley offers strategies that screen-out certain companies, says Emily Thomas, head of Investing with Impact, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, the bank’s platform featuring funds and other investment vehicles for values-based investing.

“Per our survey, 76% of investors interested in LGBTQ impact objectives are also interested in the ability to exclude companies that don’t explicitly include protections for LGBTQ people in their labour rights policies,” Thomas says.

Grindr, one of the most prominent LGBTQ startups, went public in 2022 and has a US$1.78 billion market cap today.
Getty Images

There are also companies owned or run by individuals with family and friends who are LGBTQ and want to make sure their company helps support and gives back to the community.

Recently, a banking executive spoke about their experience being raised by lesbian parents at an LGBT+ VC ally event. Morgan Stanley reports 76% of heterosexual investors with an LGBTQ household member want such investment options, more than the general population.

The biggest barrier to finding LGBTQ investment strategies is being able to gather data on the community, Thomas says.

Individuals can have reservations about sharing information regarding sexual orientation or gender identity—54% of LGBTQ individuals in the U.S. live in areas without state-level protections. Ongoing stigma against the community also prevents some people from openly identifying as LGBTQ.

“Only with more data can we know the extent of inclusion in, and exclusion from, the structures that make up the foundation upon which the U.S. economy is built,” Colorful Capital said in a May report.

(There are forces trying to change this. Earlier this year, the U.S. Census Bureau’s monthly American Community Survey announced it is looking into asking about sexual orientation and gender identity.)

Because of the sensitive nature of data and laws around personally identifiable information, there isn’t readily available data on the percent of employees who identify as LGBTQ or what representation looks like at senior levels, unlike for gender diversity. Comparably more data is available on corporate policies on LGBTQ matters, so some asset managers use that to identify companies as investments, Thomas says.

“For example, [an] asset manager can tilt portfolios toward companies that offer domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples,” she says. Other strategies could include screening for companies that offer LGBTQ diversity training or have not faced Equal Employment Opportunity Commission disciplinary actions. Investors can also use benchmarks such as the Human Rights Campaign Corporate Equality Index, which scores about 1,400 publicly and privately held firms on several areas of LGBTQ policies and practices, including whether they offer domestic partner and transgender-inclusive benefits,

Institutional Allocators for Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion, a nonprofit group of asset owners aiming to promote those principles within investment management, has a publicly available diverse manager database, which allows funds to self-report LGBTQ affiliation, Thomas says.

Reporting season has once again reminded investors that a strong profit does not guarantee a rising share price, and a large loss does not always trigger a sell-off. What matters most is how each result compares with expectations and, increasingly, what management says about the year ahead. During the August 2026 season, companies offering credible turnarounds or unexpectedly strong guidance were rewarded handsomely, while those flagging weaker margins, slowing demand or greater uncertainty were punished.

The following ranking draws on Morningstar’s review of 164 ASX-listed companies and measures each company’s share-price movement on the day it reported. This captures the market’s immediate response to the earnings announcement, before subsequent economic developments, dividends and company-specific news cloud the picture. Here are the five biggest winners, and the five hardest-hit losers, of the season so far.

The five winners

1. Bapcor (ASX:BAP): +41.0%

Bapcor delivered reporting season’s largest relief rally after presenting early evidence that its troubled automotive-parts business was stabilising. Although underlying revenue fell 1.8% to $1.92 billion and underlying NPAT collapsed 85% to $10.8 million, underlying EBITDA of $152.5 million exceeded guidance.

More importantly, working-capital initiatives released $68.5 million in the second half, lifting cash conversion to 109.4% and reducing net debt by 63% to $135 million. The statutory loss was $431.6 million, largely because of non-cash impairments. Investors focused on improving operational momentum, stronger liquidity and management’s expectation of modest FY27 revenue growth.

2. Zip Co (ASX:ZIP): +18.2%

Zip comfortably surpassed its FY26 targets, sending the buy-now-pay-later provider’s shares sharply higher. Transaction volume rose 23% to $16.7 billion, while cash earnings before tax, depreciation and amortisation jumped 58% to a record $268.9 million. Statutory profit climbed 46% to $116.4 million, and the cash operating margin expanded by 4.2 percentage points to 20%.

The strongest signal was guidance for FY27 cash earnings of $340 million—around 26% growth and above analysts’ forecasts. US transaction volume increased 42.5% and now represents three-quarters of group volume, offsetting weaker customer activity in Australia.

3. CSL (ASX:CSL): +17.3%

CSL’s result was hardly spectacular in isolation, but it cleared a market bar that had fallen dramatically following earlier downgrades and restructuring announcements. Underlying NPATA was US$3.1 billion, down 2% in constant-currency terms, while operating cash flow reached US$3.51 billion.

CSL maintained its full-year dividend at US$2.92 per share and completed a A$1 billion buyback. The real catalyst was FY27 guidance for approximately 5% underlying profit growth, compared with market expectations closer to 2%. After an extended period of earnings disappointments, investors interpreted the outlook as evidence that CSL’s core plasma business was approaching a sustainable recovery.

4. Judo Capital (ASX:JDO): +16.9%

Judo Capital demonstrated strong operating leverage as its specialist business-lending franchise expanded. Full-year profit before tax rose 34% to $168.1 million, while pre-provision profit increased 42%. Gross loans and advances grew 18% to $14.7 billion, reaching the top of the bank’s guidance range and comfortably exceeding broader system growth.

Deposits increased 24% to $12.2 billion, return on equity improved by 1.1 percentage points to 6.4%, and earnings per share rose 29% to 9.9 cents. Reaffirmation of the FY27 outlook gave investors confidence that loan growth could continue without sacrificing margins or credit quality.

5. Super Retail Group (ASX:SUL): +15.8%

The owner of Supercheap Auto, rebel, BCF and Macpac reported record sales of $4.2 billion, up 3.2%, despite cautious discretionary spending. Profitability went backwards: normalised profit before tax fell 7% to $306 million and normalised NPAT declined 2.8% to $226 million as transformation spending weighed on margins. Nevertheless, the result exceeded subdued expectations, online sales grew 5.3% and membership across the group’s loyalty programs reached 13.1 million. Investors were also encouraged by positive early FY27 trading, stable gross margins and continued market-share gains. A fully franked 33-cent final dividend added to the appeal.

The five losers

1. Hansen Technologies (ASX:HSN): –21.2%

Hansen’s historic result met expectations, but investors recoiled from its outlook. The utility and communications software provider achieved an underlying EBITDA margin of 31%, exceeding its 30% target, while generating strong cash flow. However, management designated FY27 an “investment and transition year”, signalling a roughly five-percentage-point margin contraction as spending on products, sales capabilities and organisational changes increased.

Revenue had already been broadly flat, leaving investors concerned that the investment program would depress earnings before new growth appeared. Leadership changes, including the chief executive’s departure, added uncertainty. Management expects revenue growth and margins above 30% to return in FY28, but the market was unwilling to wait.

2. Life360 (ASX:360): –19.4%

Life360’s headline growth was impressive: quarterly revenue rose 38% to US$159 million, subscription revenue increased 31%, and adjusted EBITDA climbed 53% to US$31.1 million. Monthly active users reached 102.4 million and paying circles grew 27% to 3.2 million. The sell-off reflected expectations rather than a collapsing business.

Net income fell 18%, the net margin contracted from 6% to 3%, hardware shipments dropped 18%, and full-year EBITDA guidance was merely maintained. After a strong valuation run, investors wanted a larger upgrade and clearer evidence that heavy investment in advertising, international expansion and artificial intelligence would generate additional earnings.

3. PEXA Group (ASX:PXA): –17.0%

PEXA reported a 7% increase in continuing-operations revenue and 12% EBITDA growth to $152 million, accompanied by a two-percentage-point margin expansion. Free cash flow increased 39%, suggesting the core Australian electronic-conveyancing platform remained highly profitable. Investors instead concentrated on management’s warning that property-transfer volumes could decline, alongside regulatory uncertainty surrounding the fees PEXA can charge.

The company is also continuing to invest heavily in its loss-making international expansion. Morningstar considered the market reaction excessive, arguing that structural transfer-volume assumptions had not materially changed, but the combination of softer near-term activity and regulatory risk overwhelmed the respectable headline numbers.

4. SEEK (ASX:SEK): –14.3%

SEEK produced solid FY26 figures, including 10% revenue growth to $1.20 billion, a 15% rise in EBITDA and 28% growth in adjusted earnings per share. It also lifted its fully franked annual dividend by 13% to a record 52 cents. Those achievements were overshadowed by falling paid job-ad volumes and cautious FY27 assumptions.

The statutory accounts included a $201 million loss from the SEEK Growth Fund and $377 million of significant items, making the headline result considerably less attractive. Investors were particularly concerned that economic weakness could limit volumes while the company continued investing in platform integration and artificial-intelligence products.

5. JB Hi-Fi (ASX:JBH): –12.3%

JB Hi-Fi’s full-year result was broadly respectable, with group sales rising 5% to $11.1 billion and underlying earnings per share increasing 6% to $4.48. The damage came from its current-trading update. Australian sales were almost flat during the June quarter and deteriorated further in July, while earnings in the core Australian electronics business fell 3.6%.

Housing-related categories were particularly weak as higher living costs and interest rates constrained household budgets. With JB Hi-Fi entering the season on a demanding valuation, an in-line historic result was not sufficient: the loss of sales momentum prompted investors to rapidly reduce their expectations for FY27.

Overall, the season showed that share prices react less to whether profits rose or fell than to the gap between results and expectations. Bapcor was rewarded for being less troubled than feared, while several fundamentally profitable companies were punished because their outlooks failed to justify elevated valuations.