4 Houston finance leaders announce new $275M fund for small businesses

money moves

Four Houston investment professionals have joined forces to create a new fund. Photos via genesis-park.com

Four Houstonians, each with decades of finance experience under their belts, have teamed up to create a new fund to support growth of startups.

Curtis Hartman, Gina Luna, Paul Hobby, and Peter Shaper have joined forces to create GP Capital Partners, a new $275 million fund structured as a Small Business Investment Company that will provide funding for privately-held, lower middle market businesses. The fund, which received its SBIC license from the U.S. Small Business Administration last month, extends the Genesis Park private investment platform.

"The types of companies with which we plan to partner are the backbone of our regional economy. They create good jobs and are poised for growth," says Curtis Hartman, principal of the fund, in a news release. "While small businesses disproportionally drive economic growth and employment, they are underserved by traditional banks and other capital providers. We are here to support and accelerate their success."

The fund, which will target companies based in Texas, as well as the Gulf Coast and southern regions of the country, will make both debt and equity investments across industries. According to the release, the fund will focus on communications, information technology, business and industrial services, and advanced and tech-enabled manufacturing — all industries the founders of the fund have expertise in.

GP Capital Partners plans to make a total of 20 to 25 investments ranging from $5 million to $20 million. In addition to the capital deployed, the four fund founders will offer their experience across private equity, private credit, banking, professional services, and as operating company executives.

"This is not a one-sided deal where we make a loan or equity investment and sit-back, simply monitoring performance. We are in this to help these companies grow, transition and succeed," says GP Capital Partners Principal Gina Luna in the release. "I love working with owners and management teams and helping them take their company to the next level. That's what we have all done for most of our careers. We know that if our partners are successful, we are successful, and that drives us every day."

Texas Monthly has a new owner. Texas Monthly/Facebook

Houston billionaire energy exec buys Texas Monthly

Media on media

For the second time in less than three years, Texas Monthly has a new owner. Randa Duncan Williams, chairman of Houston-based midstream oil and gas company, Enterprise Products Partners LP, has purchased the Austin-based magazine. The terms of the sale were not disclosed.

The magazine will become a part of Enterprise Products Company (EPCO), "a privately held company which owns interests in commercial real estate and ranching, as well as a substantial interest in Enterprise Products Partners L.P., a publicly traded midstream energy company," says a release.

"I have been an avid Texas Monthly reader since I was a teenager," says Duncan Williams, chairman of Texas Monthly, LLC, and of EPCO, in the release. "My family is delighted to provide the resources to support this iconic Texas institution which is nationally recognized for its editorial flair."

Williams is the daughter of EPP's late founder, Dan L. Duncan. She has a net worth of $6.2 billion, according to Forbes.

In TM's official statement, president Scott Brown is quoted as saying Duncan Williams wants to own the magazine "forever."

Forever may be what the magazine needs, following a tumultuous era for Texas Monthly, considered to be both a beacon of Texas culture and a shining example of long-form magazine journalism. In 2016, it was purchased from Emmis Communications by Genesis Park, a private investment firm led by Paul Hobby of the famed Houston-based Hobby family. Following that purchase, Hobby took over the role of chairman and CEO of the magazine, launching an arguably rocky tenure for Texas Monthly.

In February 2017, Hobby announced that Tim Taliaferro would be taking over the editor in chief position from Brian Sweany, a longtime TM staffer who climbed the ladder from intern in 1996 to taking the editor position following Jake Silverstein's departure for The New York Times Magazine in 2014. About a dozen notable writers left after Sweany's departure, though it's unfair to say it was a result of the masthead shakeup.

Just a few weeks into the Hobby-Taliaferro regime, journalism watchdog Columbia Journalism Review reported that Texas Monthly, a 13-time National Magazine Award winner, was going in a lifestyle direction. Reader reaction — not to mention the response from the journalism world — was swift, forcing the magazine to backpedal.

A year later, the magazine faced another misstep, this one involving Bumble and an alleged pay-for-play on social media. The somewhat salacious story also broke in the Columbia Journalism Review and eventually led to Taliaferro being moved into the newly created role of chief innovation officer. Thus began a year-long search that ended with Dan Goodgame being named editor in January 2019.

It's not breaking news to say it's an uncertain time for journalism, and Texas Monthly has clearly not survived unscathed. But hopefully Duncan Williams' purchase will help move the "national magazine of Texas" into a new era, one with a clear and bold vision.

For the sake of one of the nation's best magazines, we hope so.

------

This article originally ran on CultureMap.

Capital Factory's Texas Startup Roadshow made a pit stop in Houston to discuss investment. Photo by Tim Leviston/Getty Images

Houston still needs capital, talent, and success stories to grow its innovation ecosystem, according to a panel of experts

Show me the money

While Houston has increased its number of capital investments in startups over the recent years, there's more work to be done.

A panel of experts at Capital Factory and J.P. Morgan's Texas Startups Roadshow discussed what the city still needs if it is going to accomplish its mission of being a vibrant, successful place for innovation.

For Blair Garrou, managing director of Mercury Fund, Houston has experienced a growth in the number of opportunities for deals, but his firm can only do so much.

"There's more activity going on right now than my 20 years here — it's coming," Garrou says. "And we don't have enough capital to support it."

Garrou says out-of-Houston firms want to invest in deals here, but they don't want to lead a round — they want Mercury Fund to, and they'll follow. For Garrou, that indicates a credibility problem that needs to be addressed.

Houston Exponential is attempting to right the course on this issue with its HX Venture Fund, says Sandy Wallis, managing director. The fund of funds puts money into non-Houston VCs in hopes that those VCs turn around and invest back into Houston.

"The number one problem I'm trying to help with, which I hear a lot from entrepreneurs, is getting more venture here, Wallis, who co-founded Weathergage Capital, says. "What we're trying to do is make sure that our entrepreneurs are meeting with VCs — not just the ones HX invests in, but all the ones that get into town."

She wants to connect the dots for startups — both to visiting VCs and local corporations, which, she says, are already engaged and interested.

"You can see the fluid activation of our corporates here," Wallis says. "Those corporates are engaging directly with the innovation going on in Houston, and we have our headliner tech companies in place."

One of the things that would spir interest and investment into Houston companies is more success stories coming out of Houston, says Paul Hobby, founding partner at Genesis Park. Focusing on talent — developing leadership, recruitment, and retention — is what the city needs to get there. It has all the other ingredients, he says.

"In Houston, we have the means, the opportunity, the will, the capital, and the risk tolerance to solve our own problems," Hobby says to the crowd.

Houston has been working on developing talent and providing resources for entrepreneurs for the past couple years, and many of those accelerator and incubator programs — like Station Houston, The Cannon, Impact Hub Houston, MassChallenge Texas, etc. — have launched to serve startups.

"We probably have 12 to 15 startup development organizations all with different flavors," Garrou says. "And in doing that, we're still looking to the outside for best practices, like Capital Factory, to ask how we could do this better."

The focus on improving resources for startups will continue, he says, and even more will deliver. However, not every single effort will see success, but that's OK, Garrou says.

"All of these are grand visions that Houston has to keep building," Garrou says. "Some of that won't pan out, but the fact that it's all happening and if 50 percent is successful, then I think we've done our jobs to meet entrepreneurs where they are."

Wallis agrees — in capitalism, you can't win it all.

"Developing Houston is going to have failures and successes, and it's about failing successfully," she says.

Ad Placement 300x100

Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Houston innovator on how health tech’s rise offers roadmap for climatetech growth

guest column

Over the past several decades, climate tech has faced numerous challenges, ranging from inconsistent public support to a lack of funding from cautious investors. While grassroots organizations and climate innovators have made notable efforts to address urgent environmental issues, we have yet to see large-scale, lasting impact.

A common tendency is to compare climate tech to the rapid advancements made in digital and software technology, but perhaps a more appropriate parallel is the health tech sector, which encountered many of the same struggles in its early days.

Observing the rise of health tech and the economic and political support it received, we can uncover strategies that could stabilize and propel climate tech forward.

Health tech's slow but steady rise

Health tech’s slow upward trajectory began in the mid-20th century, with World War II serving as a critical turning point for medical research and development. Scientists working on wartime projects recognized the broader benefits of increased research funding for the general public, and soon after, the Public Health Service Act of 1944 was passed. This landmark legislation directed resources toward eradicating widespread diseases, viewing them as a national economic threat. By acknowledging diseases as a danger to both public health and the economy, the government laid the groundwork for significant policy changes.

This serves as an essential lesson for climate tech: if the federal government were to officially recognize climate change as a direct threat to the nation’s economy and security, it could lead to similar shifts in policy and resource allocation.

The role of public advocacy and federal support

The growth of health tech wasn’t solely reliant on government intervention. Public advocacy played a key role in securing ongoing support. Voluntary health agencies, such as the American Cancer Society, lobbied for increased funding and spread awareness, helping to attract public interest and investment. But even with this advocacy, early health tech startups struggled to secure venture capital. VCs were hesitant to invest in areas they didn’t fully understand, and without sustained government funding and public backing, it’s unlikely that health tech would have grown as quickly as it has.

The lesson here for climate tech is clear: strong public advocacy and education are crucial. However, unlike health tech, climate tech faces a unique obstacle — there is still a significant portion of the population that either denies the existence of climate change or doesn’t view it as an immediate concern. This lack of urgency makes it difficult to galvanize the public and attract the necessary long-term investment.

Government support: A mixed bag

There have been legislative efforts to support climate tech, though they haven’t yet led to the explosive growth seen in health tech. For example, the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 and the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 gave universities and small businesses the rights to profit from their innovations, including climate-related research. More recently, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 has been instrumental in advancing climate tech by creating opportunities to build projects, lower household energy costs, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite this federal support, many climate tech companies are still struggling to scale. A primary concern for investors is the longer time horizon required for climate startups to yield returns. Scalability is crucial — companies must demonstrate how they will grow profitably over time, but many climate tech startups lack practical long-term business models.

As climate investor Yao Huang put it, “At the end of the day, a climate tech company needs to demonstrate how it will make money. We can apply political pressure and implement governmental policies, but if it is not profitable, it won’t scale or create meaningful impact.”

The public’s role in scaling climate tech

Health tech’s success can largely be attributed to a combination of federal funding, public advocacy, and long-term investment from knowledgeable VCs. Climate tech has federal support in place, thanks to the IRA, but is still lacking the same level of public backing. Health tech overcame its hurdles when public awareness about the importance of medical advancements grew, and voluntary health agencies helped channel donations toward research and innovation.

In contrast, climate nonprofits like Cool Earth, Environmental Defense Fund, and Clean Air Task Force face a severe funding shortfall. A 2020 study revealed that climate nonprofits aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions only received $2 billion in donations, representing just 0.4% of all philanthropic funding. Without greater public awareness/sense of urgency and financial support, these groups cannot effectively advocate for climate tech startups or lobby for necessary policy changes. This type of philanthropic funding is also known as ‘catalytic capital’ or ‘impact-first-capital’. Prime Impact Fund is one such fund that does not ‘view investments as concessionary on return’. Rather their patient and flexible capital allows support of high risk, high-reward ventures.

A path forward for climate tech

The most valuable insight from health tech’s growth is that government intervention, while critical, is not enough to guarantee the success of an emerging sector. Climate tech needs a stronger support system, including informed investors, widespread public backing, and nonprofits with the financial resources to advocate for industry-wide growth.

If we can channel the same sense of urgency and public commitment toward climate change as we did for health crises in the past, climate tech could overcome its current obstacles.The future of climate tech depends not just on government policies, but on educating the public, rallying financial support, and building a robust infrastructure for long-term growth.

———

Nada Ahmed is the founding partner at Houston-based Energy Tech Nexus, a startup hub for the energy transition.

This article originally ran on EnergyCapital.

Houston schools lead rankings for best entrepreneurship programs for 6th consecutive year

top of class

Rice University and the University of Houston have once again topped The Princeton Review and Entrepreneur’s lists of the best graduate and undergraduate schools for entrepreneurship studies.

Rice ranks first in the graduate category for the sixth consecutive year, and UH ranks first in the undergraduate category for the sixth consecutive year.

“At Rice Business, our students learn both inside and outside the classroom, drawing on our strong industry and community connections in Houston and beyond,” says Peter Rodriguez, dean of Rice’s Jones Graduate School of Business. “With small class sizes and tailored programs, we aim to equip our students with the skills to create new ventures and excel in a fast-changing business landscape.”

UH President Renu Khator praises the ranking as recognition for the impact of the Cyvia and Melvyn Wolff Center for Entrepreneurship at the C.T. Bauer College of Business.

“This program is a tremendous asset not only to the University of Houston and the Bauer College of Business, but also to the city of Houston, where entrepreneurship fuels both socioeconomic mobility and economic growth,” Khator says. “We are proud to see the impact of this program reverberate throughout our community.”

Rankings for The Princeton Review and Entrepreneur’s 2025 lists were based on a survey of administrators at nearly 300 schools in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and Europe that offer entrepreneurship studies. Among the more than 40 factors used for the rankings were academic programs, faculty credentials, mentorship opportunities, and alumni entrepreneurship ventures.

The top 10 schools on the list of the 50 best undergraduate schools for entrepreneurship studies are:

University of Houston
University of Texas at Austin
Babson College
University of Washington
Washington University in St. Louis
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of Maryland-College Park
Miami University of Ohio
Tecnológico de Monterrey in Mexico
Northeastern University

The top 10 schools on the list of the 50 best graduate schools for entrepreneurship studies are:

Rice University
University of California-Los Angeles
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
Washington University in St. Louis
Babson College
University of Washington
University of Texas at Austin
University of Virginia
Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands
University of South Florida

2 Houston suburbs rank among top 10 US cities for population growth in 2023

by the numbers

Two burgeoning Houston suburbs – Atascocita and Conroe – are among the top 10 U.S. cities that have experienced the biggest population booms nationwide from 2022 to 2023.

A new population growth analysis by SmartAsset examined U.S. Census population estimates for 2023, 2022, and 2018 to determine one-year and five-year population changes for 610 U.S. cities with populations of at least 65,000 residents in 2023 (where the most recent data was available).

Silver Spring, Maryland had the No. 1 biggest population boom from 2022 to 2023, SmartAsset found. The Washington, D.C. suburb grew 12.86 percent year-over-year, bringing the city's total population from 75,313 to 84,996 residents in 2023.

Atascocita trailed close behind with a 11.03 percent increase in population from 2022 to 2023, which landed it the No. 5 spot in the one-year population change analysis. The city gained 11,876 new residents in that time, adding up to a total population of 119,502 residents in 2023.

This should come as no surprise to those who already live in Atascocita, who may know their hometown was ranked one of the most livable small cities in America in 2022, and earned a top-30 spot in a recent ranking of best U.S. suburbs for house renters in 2024.

According to SmartAsset's five-year population comparison, Atascocita had the second highest growth rate in the country, at 38.56 percent. There were only 86,243 residents living in the far-flung Houston suburb in 2018, showing an increase of 33,259 residents within the five-year period.

The report also examined the changes within Atascocita's working-age population:

Number of working-age residents in 2022 – 54,095
Number of working-age residents in 2023 – 58,297
Percent of population of working age in 2022 – 50.26 percent
Percent of population of working age in 2023 – 48.78 percent
One-year change in the number of working-age residents from 2022 to 2023 – 7.77 percent increase

Meanwhile, Conroe ranked No. 9 nationally with a 6.73 percent one-year change in total population. Conroe gained over 6,800 residents from 2022 to 2023, bringing the city's total population to 108,244 residents. The city had a far more dramatic five-year growth rate, at 23.49 percent.Conroe has also earned some well-deserved time in the spotlight as one of the best small cities in America in 2024, and the fifth best city for renters in Texas.

The report suggested major population shifts in communities like Atascocita and Conroe can result in "a variety of interwoven economic and social impacts."

"The magnitude of the population change can affect demand for businesses and services, which in turn may impact costs – or even the availability of such amenities," the report's author wrote. "Similarly, the relative age of the population can determine the strength or weakness of the local job market, as well as have an impact on local culture, economic trajectory, tax base and more."

Fast-growing cities elsewhere in Texas
Texas cities dominated the top 10 list of cities where population grew the most from 2022 to 2023.

New Braunfels, a San Antonio suburb, ranked No. 2 nationally with an 12.49 percent one-year population boom, and a 29.68 percent growth rate from 2018 to 2023. The city gained 12,318 new residents in that time, adding up to a total population of 110,961 residents in 2023.

The North Austin suburb of Georgetown (No. 4) ranked one spot above Atascocita with an 11.34 percent one-year population boom, and a 29.85 percent growth rate from 2018 to 2023.

The top 10 U.S. cities where population grew the most from 2022 to 2023 are:

No. 1 – Silver Spring, Maryland
No. 2 – New Braunfels, Texas
No. 3 – Glen Burnie, Maryland
No. 4 – Georgetown, Texas
No. 5 – Atascocita, Texas
No. 6 – Pine Hills, Florida
No. 7 – Elgin, Illinois
No. 8 – Lehi, Utah
No. 9 – Conroe, Texas
No. 10 – Dale City, Virginia