I was excited to see Lord Patrick Vallance take up the role of Minister for Science last month and in an interview with Sifted this week (https://lnkd.in/emY29TC5) is already hitting on one of the big issues facing UK Deep Tech companies – growth funding. There is a lack of lead investors in Europe for deep tech rounds of >£50m. This is a significant challenge for Europe's deep tech businesses, but potentially an enormous opportunity for the right funds! Here are some of my observations: 📈 Perceived risk/understanding – Deep tech businesses don’t always have meaningful revenue before they need to raise these larger rounds. The recent McKinsey Deep Tech report suggests that this does not make these companies riskier than their “shallow tech” counterparts, with cumulative graduation rates being comparable. However, it does mean that data points other than revenue need to be examined. We need more funds who are willing to understand these. 💰 Size of fund - Bigger cheques means bigger funds. For a venture fund to be able write a larger lead cheque (£20m+), the total size of the fund would need to be commensurately large. Assuming a portfolio of 15 companies with some follow-on capacity a fund would need to be >£500m – there are very few of these in Europe. 🌍 Regional Support – Across Europe governments and regional fund vehicles are putting significant capital to work supporting growth stage Deep Tech companies. For example, we saw Dutch start-up Axelera raise a record breaking $68m Series B supported by Invest-NL, EIC and Innovation Industries (fund backed by Dutch pension funds PMT and PME). Well done to all involved!! The UK needs to figure out how to keep up with this! As Lord Vallance says initiatives like the Mansion House reforms could play a key role in releasing more capital intro growth stage deep tech businesses. I hope the capital finds its way to where it is needed most!
Well said Owen. Minister Vallance, as we should have expected, handled this press briefing with an impressive grasp of the subject matter. I thoroughly enjoyed working with him on this. Looking forward to policy interventions that help us put the wood behind the arrow of our world beating UK semiconductor companies.
Spot on analysis here Owen. Similar discussion was had at a recent The Bessemer Society in Sheffield. The UK is pretty well placed for initial funding rounds now - but the gap identified is part of the reason struggle to build huge global companies in the UK.
Completely agree Owen. The outcome is great technology unable to raise the growth round and being sold to international corporates at a bargain price and the tech lost to the UK. We are working extensively in the Netherlands and just in photonics the Government has committed €1bn+ of funding to be a globally recognised centre of excellence for photonics.
Really good assessment Owen - I think we could have exciting times ahead if policy and the market needs can start aligning
Well said Owen! We need to fix this.
Good points Owen Metters
Excellent summary Owen.
Board & CXO Adviser ⎮ Life Sciences & Technology ⎮ Growth & Scaling Businesses ⎮ Strategy, Finance, Fundraising, Planning, Corporate Development, Operations ⎮ Coach & Mentor ⎮
4moThis is a very complex issue and political influence is only a small piece of it: Deeptech requires patient capital. AI and other “trendy” sectors offer nearer term returns. GP’s and LP’s are focused on returns and reuse of capital to increase returns. Deeptech offers huge potential returns but they are slow. Too many small/new VC funds were established in the past few years (because of easy access to capital). Many of those are unable to show necessary returns and will unlikely be able to raise follow-on funds. This destroys the VC model as they will likely retain remaining funds to support existing investments rather than deploy into new investment opportunities. Or even worse for the VC’s, have to return funds to the GP’s and LP’s. The expected release of pension funds capital into riskier investments assumes it will be deployed into riskier/VC type investment opportunities. Realistically, pension funds are risk averse so capital deployment is likely to be into later stage opportunities (lower risk), rather than development and growth stage funds. What we need to understand and develop is a strategy for balancing risk/time/opportunity/return & impact and where Gov should actually be involved (patient & strategic capital)?