Loading ...
Techceler...
Other
Investments
22
0
Try Now
Log In
Pricing
The Capital Behind Venture 2020 Insights from the investors behind Europe’s Venture Capital Ecosystem Stay updated CapitalBehindVenture.com This report is for information purposes only. You should not construe any such information or other material as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice. All content in this report is information of a general nature and does not address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Nothing in the report constitutes professional and/or financial advice, an offer, invitation or inducement to purchase or acquire interest in any of the companies presented, nor does any information in the report constitute a comprehensive or complete statement of the matters discussed or the law relating thereto. Mountside Ventures is not a fiduciary by virtue of any person’s use of, or access to, this report. You alone assume sole responsibility for evaluating the merits and risks associated with the use of any information or other content in this report and of making any decisions based on such information or other content. In exchange for using this report, you agree not to hold Mountside Ventures, its affiliates or any third party service provider liable for any possible claim for damages arising from any decision you make based on information or other content made available to you through this report. The information set forth herein has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but this is not guaranteed. This publication is provided with the understanding that the authors and publisher shall have no liability for any errors, inaccuracies or omissions therein and, by this publication, the authors and publisher are not engaged in rendering consulting advice or other professional advice to the recipient with regard to any specific matter. 63 Limited Partners with offices in over 15 countries contributed to the report, over a period of three months. We used Typeform to collect the data, along with manual checks to check whether participants were in fact LPs. The contents of this publication are protected by copyright. All rights reserved. The contents of this publication, either in whole or in part, may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, without written permission of the publisher. © Copyright 2020 Mountside Ventures. Mountside Ventures is the trading name of Mountside Venture Partners LLP. It is regulated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales for a range of investment business activities and is registered at 27 Old Gloucester Street, London, WC1N 3AX. © Copyright 2020 Allocate Events Ltd, which is registered at 207 Regent Street, Third Floor, London, W1B 3HH. Disclaimer 2 Before we get started Foreword © 2020 Mountside Ventures, Allocate Events Ltd 3 ¹ Pitchbook Despite COVID and BREXIT, this remains a very exciting - albeit challenging - time for the European technology venture capital ecosystem. For fund managers and investors alike, there is very little information in the public domain on best practice, preferred terms and practical advice on raising a VC fund. Our goal in writing this report is to reduce barriers for VC fund managers, but also show Limited Partners how their peers are exploring investing into European Venture Capital funds. We hope that this report is a first step towards making the ecosystem more transparent and shedding some light on the mechanics of this exciting and growing space. Heading into 2020, there was cause for optimism within the European VC Ecosystem. While American investment slowed, European VC deal value in 2019 recorded a record-breaking high as deal sizes swelled across the continent, with over 110 billion Euros being invested in European startups, across 48 countries, in the last five years¹. We would like to thank all our survey respondents and distribution partners without whom this report would not have been possible. Jonathan Hollis Managing Partner, Mountside Ventures Lomax Ward, Managing Partner, Luminous Ventures; Co-founder, ALLOCATE Andrew J Scott Managing Partner, 7percent Ventures; Co-founder, ALLOCATE Executive Summary 5 6 7 9 10 Overview of participants Why venture? Building LP relationships LP investment thesis 13 14 Emerging VC managers Practical insights for VC funds 17 21 22 23 25 You've raised, now what? COVID-19 Improving the Ecosystem Our public contributors 26 27 Distribution partners About the producers Contents 54 Government funding of European VC Collectively, our LP respondents met with over 2,000 prospective VCs in the last 12 months. Over the last 3 years, they invested in 360 VCs. European taxpayers (via government backed LPs) are responsible for a large proportion of VC investing. Building relationships takes time: just 20% of LPs had invested in a fund they'd known for less than a year. Over 70% wanted to meet VCs as early on in their fundraising journey as possible. 90% of LPs were willing to take a risk with emerging fund managers, now or in the future. Over 80% had already invested in them, with half as their biggest investor. 65% of LPs were interested in alternatives to investing solely in VC funds to get exposure to this asset class, such as investing directly into companies, investing in fund-of-funds and secondaries. The most common blockers to funding VCs were geography, fund size, ESG and sectors. 43% of institutions or fund-of-funds said COVID has accelerated their deployment into VC, while family offices said it had slowed their deployment. Overall, only 20% of respondents said COVID had slowed their investment activities. This report is based on detailed data collected from 63 Limited Partners (LPs) globally who invest in, or are interested in investing in, European Venture Capital (VC) funds. Financial Returns Option to deploy capital into later rounds Market intelligence Contributing to the venture ecosystem Diversification LPs' appetite to invest in a particular VC is driven by, in order of importance: Executive summary 55 1 2 3 4 5 Geographic spread Despite European VC funds securing just 13% of aggregate capital raised globally, the region represents a favourable fundraising environment: 90% of venture capital vehicles raised by European managers met or exceeded their target size, compared to only 79% of North America based funds¹. Our view is that this is as a result of the recent EU Venture Capital Funds (EuVECA) regulations which address certain issues arising from the Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (AIFMD). The changes included greater flexibility on VC investments across the region, as well as limiting the imposition of host fees and charges, making the asset class more attractive to investors. Overview of participants The majority of respondents were located across Europe Many Limited Partners and Family offices are also based in America, and are interested in what Europe has to offer. Respondents also included those based in South East Asia and the Middle East. All respondents were offered anonymity. Many LPs and Family Offices continue to remain private. 6 ¹ Ancillary data from Pitchbook You have the right to remain silent Shared data & published their name Shared data Declined to participate 23 40 35 Types of Limited Partners Capital flows into VC funds from Limited Partners (LPs) such as pension funds, other venture capital funds, university endowments, government agencies, fund of funds, and high net worth (HNW) individuals or family offices. Some of these players have a stronger focus on private markets, whilst others such as pension funds and university endowments, allocate more of their capital to the public markets. 2018 was a record high for fundraising in Europe, with over 11b Euros being committed ¹. Types of LPs surveyed, as a percentage of total respondents In the US, endowments and foundations are comparatively more aggressive, and willing to take more risk by allocating larger portions to VC asset classes, whereas in Europe, they are less active. T̀his category had the greatest increase in European VC from 2014-2018.¹ Fund-of-funds are established as an intermediary to allow larger institutional investors to research, access, and manage VC investments. They contributed 1b Euros in 2018, more than any other LP type apart from government agencies.¹ Family offices & HNWs are a significant source of capital for VC funds. According to the World Wealth Report, wealthy families and individuals control about 36 trillion Euros globally. 7 ¹ The State of European Tech 2019 Report Fu nd of Fu nd s Fa m ily Of fic es & HN W Co rp or ates & Pe ns ion s Go ve rnm en t En do wm en t Ot he r V C Fu nd s 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Why venture? The European ecosystem is maturing, closing in on and now rivalling the US and Asian ecosystems. Europe produced more tech IPOs than the US in the years 2012- 2018* and VC deal value in 2019 hit a record-breaking 110b Euros invested in European startups, across 48 countries, over the last five years.² Europe was responsible for completing over 4,600 rounds* in 2019 into high-growth sectors such as healthcare, artificial intelligence and financial services. Factors including the deregulation of certain sectors, lower costs of living and established corporates investing in VC have all contributed to Europe’s progress, whilst helping the ecosystem flourish. In the UK alone, the focal point for European tech, early-stage companies were responsible for around 500 exits in both 2018 and 2019, many with strong multiples on their initial valuations. The benefits of having such a booming startup scene reach far and wide, not only increasing jobs, but creating innovation that can dramatically improve our personal and working lives. Over the last 9 years, UK startup expenditure has soared, increasing by £10b in investment, from £2b in 2011 to £12b in 2020. Moreover, investors have been driving growth by deploying significant cash into the economy marked by startups securing £2.7b in equity investment in Q3 2020, a 48% increase from Q2 2020 and just a 1% drop from Q3 2019, despite the pandemic. ¹ Data provided by Beauhurst ² Pitchbook, 2019 *State of European Tech Report, 2019 8 Partner Input Over 70% of LPs strive to engage as early as possible, with 16% (mostly family offices) engaging after soft commitments and the rest looking to engage after the first investments have been made. The venture ecosystem has always been rooted in forging trusted relationships between managers and investors. COVID-19 and the move to remote working has arguably put a strain on the VC/LP dynamic in 2020. Relationships are based on trust, transparency and time in person. Most venture relationships have to last longer than most marriages (typically over a decade), so it is crucial to know who you are partnering with. LP's want to understand intimately how VCs invest and how they do business in general. Building LP relationships Collectively, respondents met with over 2,000 prospective VC funds each year. 20% of respondents had invested in a fund which they’d known for less than a year, with over 50% taking one to two years to build the relationship, and 30% more than two years. 9 1-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% The number of times LPs have met VCs before they invest LP investment thesis ~50% of Limited Partners are interested in direct investment opportunities (investing into startup companies). The majority of these being family offices or HNW individuals. Neither pension funds or the government backed entities considered a direct investment strategy. 58% of Limited Partners were interested in co-investment opportunities (where LPs invest directly alongside a VC). This is possible, for example, when a VC cannot take their whole allocation in a follow-on round. 34% of LPs were interested in secondaries (where LPs acquire portfolios of VCs). VC funds are an illiquid asset class, and secondaries allow increased liquidity for funds that may not be able to continue funding the ongoing capital requirements of their portfolio companies. Direct investment of Limited Partners are interested in deploying capital, beyond straight VC fund investing Only 12% of LPs were interested in allocating capital to fund of funds (funds which invest into other VC funds). This can be a good way to achieve diversification, to gain wider exposure to a specific market or sector, or alternate investment stage. Co-investment Fund of funds Secondaries 65% 10 Preferred sectors Over half of respondents indicated that they do not have a specific sector preference. Those that did, invested in a wide range: enterprise software, life sciences, pharma & biotechnology, edtech, autonomous vehicles/mobility/transportation, artificial intelligence, consumer, fintech, agriculture, industrial manufacturing and defence. Restrictions 44% of LPs stated that they had restrictions as part of their investment thesis. The most common restrictions identified in the survey were geographic restrictions, fund size restrictions, ESG considerations, fund number and sector restrictions.. Track record Although a VC's thesis is an important consideration for an LP, the exact details of the thesis pale in comparison to an investor's primary criteria when considering an investment: investment track record. This comes as no surprise. Potential fund managers need to be able to clearly articulate their value add propositions above that of purely being able to leverage their network; having a clear differentiation will not only allow you to raise from LPs but also allow you to access competitive deals. Sam Ettelaie, Investment Manager 11 Sector popularity Most popular Least popular Percentage of respondents who thought these factors were most important A potentially good VC fund cannot only be judged by the investment track record; it is a combination of different key factors alongside this 1. Team 2. Investment Strategy 3. Track Record 4. Terms...' Strength of relationships between the VCs Alignment of Interest Fund investment thesis Size of network Reputation of the fund 60% said track record was the most important factor. We love funds that can offer high volume, high quality co-investments A handful of LPs said these factors were most important Investment criteria summary 12 9% 9% 12% This report provides unique behind-the-scenes analysis, highlighting the maturing venture capital ecosystem in the UK and Europe across all stages, seed to growth. A worthwhile read for any aspiring fund manager! Europe is home to world-leading technology thought leaders, supported by a strong science and developed innovation ecosystem, enabling the growth in category leaders in groundbreaking technologies. Kerry Baldin, Vice Chair, BVCA gap, or pump more financial resources into the private venture capital market. Public funding in VC has remained relatively stable, although private wealth that has accumulated over the past decade from exited entrepreneurs is, now more than ever, being channeled back into the VC ecosystem, with Atomico reporting a 38m Euro increase in commitment from private individuals over 2017-2018.¹ Public policies for VC have sparked an active theoretical and empirical debate. First, do European governments need to intervene in the VC market in the first place? Previous reports emphasise that government intervention can be justified as a result of the “equity gap”, which arises from a lack of funding for entrepreneurs. Private investors also have limited resources and may decide not to fund ventures requiring high set up costs and large R&D budgets. Therefore, a considerable number of potentially promising ventures may remain unfunded, and the shortage of capital may constrain their development and growth. It is, therefore, natural for governments to either invest in companies that are adversely affected by the equity Government funding of European VC of the 360 VC funds were invested in by government backed LPs Governmental institutions account for a large proportion of investment activity. 13 5 120 ¹ The State of European Tech 2019 Report Our objective has always been to foster innovation and support the development of a sustainable market, independently of the economic cycles. By funding massive European GPs, and thanks to stronger performances, this market has become attractive for private investors; we now see more and more VC funds being oversubscribed!” David Dana, EIF Fund I - II 30% First Fund 25% Fund I - III 19% Emerging Market 14% Previous Experience 12% greater uncertainty about the political, economic, legal and regulatory environments longer holding periods may be needed to develop an asset to the point where it is suitable for a trade sale, reducing liquidity a lack of a viable IPO exit route in some markets Defined emerging as a manager targeting emerging markets. Investing in emerging markets comes with a number of challenges, in particular: Emerging VC managers saw first-time fund managers with no prior institutional investing experience, but with angel investing or operating backgrounds as emerging managers. There is no one size fits all when it comes to "emerging fund managers". Nor is there a consensus between LPs as to how they are defined. The diagram below presents data on how respondents define an emerging manager: consider VCs continue to be emerging after having deployed their first fund, and a further 19% still within the scope when raising their third. Some LPs believed the definition was more nuanced. Such as: those 'with "small, agile teams" or those with "sufficient investment experience". 14 14% 25% 30% Other ideas Perhaps surprisingly, 12% believed emerging managers were those with 'previous experience'. A minority It is very hard for emerging VC funds to raise, especially with increasing competition. It’s also hard for LPs to build conviction on new VC managers, but it happens. Focus on building your track record, having a truly differential strategy and ensuring there is economic alignment to build LP interest. Martin Punt, BVCA 82% 50% first-time funds had received individual investment, with 80% of the VCs' partners being first-time institutional investors. of Limited Partners are interested in investing in emerging fund managers now or in the future. 80% of those LPs led as a cornerstone investor. 117 90% 15 of all the LPs have invested in emerging fund managers. of non-governmental LPs have invested in emerging fund managers. We feel this is a very encouraging statistic for the European ecosystem. The time to market has always been critical for startups as much as it is for venture funds. Backing emerging managers is a great opportunity to spot new funds with a more sophisticated and innovative investment thesis, giving them a competitive advantage over us (as a direct investor) and more established funds to access the best deals. Bilal Djelassi, Orange Performance Across Europe the median net IRR for 2006-2014 vintage first-time venture capital funds sits three percentage points higher at 12.9% than that of experienced managers at 9.9%. However, their risk levels (measured by standard deviation of net IRR) sit at 19.1%, with higher vintage funds at 15.6% ² While all LPs understand that thoughtful allocation to VC can lead to super-normal returns, many will invest only in "brand name" VCs. While this might appear the optimal strategy, data from Cambridge Analytics suggests such an approach may not be as profitable as it used to be. There are many specialist emerging managers that have unparalleled expertise in their respective markets or verticals, and consequently are often the first choice for the best founders. First time funds Over 30% of the VC funds that reached a final close in 2018 were first-time funds, compared to 25% in 2016². Funds under $100m represent about 5-10% of total capital committed in any given year, and since 2012 22b Euros was raised by 870 micro-VC managers¹. Emerging managers have a fresh approach to investing; a unique origination capability, and lean operating models with low fees. A family office. Higher returns Hunger, ambition & persistence Closer relationships Differentiated The emerging fund manager's competitive advantage Some investors cite the lack of track record and possible resource constraints as the biggest challenge when investing in emerging fund managers, but many Limited Partners now consider emerging managers to have other advantages. 16 ¹ Pitchbook. ² Intertrust, 2018 Practical insights for VCs Lack of investment experience or understanding VCs that lack fundraising experience should strive to obtain individual fundraising experience through angel investing or leading investments at established firms to build their track record. Lack of transparency or honesty Ensure you are transparent on any perceived weaknesses - remember that your relationship with an LP will be a long one and needs to be built on mutual trust. Weak competitive differentiator Ensure you are clear on your fund's USP - differentiate yourself from your competitors. Not recognising the need to build long-term relationships with LPs Only 20% of respondents have invested in a fund whom they’ve known for less than a year. The majority take 1-2 years to build a relationship before investing, with 27% taking more than 2 years. What are the biggest sources of frustration for LPs when being pitched to by VCs? They don't try to understand your situation and process before pitching Big and unnecessary words The banality of language they use to try to impress me 17 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Luxembourg UK Cayman Jersey Guernsey Europe's smallest country (at just 82 km long and 57 km wide) Luxembourg has for many years provided corporate structures favoured by the industry. In 2013, Luxembourg companies law was amended to simplify and modernise the limited partnership regime via the special limited partnership, enabling full tax transparency. The government has since pledged to make Luxembourg the primary on-shore centre for venture capital by 2020. The Reform Bill (2016) which came into force on 23 August 2016 was another step forward in achieving this aim. It introduced key changes in the context of cross-border venture capital transactions. For example, new tools were introduced which help investors to facilitate venture transactions structured through Luxembourg. Consistent with the industry standard, the majority of LPs still expect a "2 and 20” fee structure (2% annual management fee, 20% carried interest). More than half of LPs are content with a 2% fee but expected it to taper off after a few years. For example, the fee might be 2% per year for 4 years (typically the investing period) falling thereafter by 0.25% per year for the remaining 6 years, assuming a 10-year fund. These results would suggest that the traditional "2 and 20" is not contentious and that innovation in fee structure should not be a priority for VCs. Luxembourg was by far the preferred choice for LPs. 18 Jurisdiction Fee structure Preferred jurisdiction LPs have limited liability and while they usually have monetary priority over the VCs upon liquidation of the partnership, traditionally an LP does not have any ownership in the general partnership, or access to the IC / approval of investment decisions - the decision sits with the General Partner (GP). In some circumstances, emerging managers concede an interest in the GP to anchor investors and/or other LPs that are supportive in the early days of a partnership. However 48% of respondents felt another LP holding a stake in a GP was bad sign. An additional 13% of investors considered an LP stake to be an automatic disqualification. It's generally accepted that re-investing profits to cover previously drawn down fees (thus making a fund whole again) is a good idea. More capital invested should mean a greater chance of returning the fund. Only 10% of LPs were not comfortable with VCs recycling their fees. These were mostly pension funds and other VC firms. For 1/3rd of LPs, use of a placement agent doesn't impact negatively their view of the VC. Of the 2/3rds of LPs who do believe it has a negative impact, 30% still invested in VCs they met through an agent. 19 Recycling LP ownership Placement agents For more than 90% of LPs, track record is the most important part of their due diligence. This puts great pressure on VCs to deliver complete and accurate performance data to prospective investors. Always share your track record in Excel format and never, ever in PDF format. Most LPs review hundreds of deals a year and do not have the time to input PDF data into Excel spreadsheets. Using software to convert PDF to Excel will very likely lead to data errors and therefore to wrong due diligence outcome. All track record data should be in one single worksheet. Yes, all funds in just one worksheet. That way LPs can easily kick off their analyses and give you feedback faster! Partner Input This single Excel worksheet should present your track record line by line, where each line represents a portfolio company - that is why it is also called a “deal-by-deal” track record. Very often, fund managers ask Betterfront if they should display the round-by-round information. While this information is important for fund returners and outlier portfolio companies, it might create an information overload for most LPs. Our suggestion is to only provide round information when LPs specifically ask for it. Sharing your track record data gives you another opportunity to tell your story. In order to do that well, fund managers need to share different categories of information: investment, deal, and portfolio companies data. When relevant, differentiate between data at entry and data at exit/current (e.g. ownership, valuation..). Finally, your fundraising will most likely last more than 3 months. In this case, you need to update your fundraising with new quarterly data to show the development of your portfolio." 20 Best practice: sharing your track record Betterfront has helped dozens of VCs upgrade their track record presentation to better engage with LPs. Here are 5 practical tips from their CEO, Michel Geolier: 1 2 5 4 3 In the same way that many VCs provide not only capital but often take an active role in the portfolios of companies they back, many Limited Partners take a similar approach with the fund managers they invest in. Although 'regular communications and reports', 'access to other VCs' and 'thought leadership' were all important, 'co-investment opportunities' were perhaps the most important, with many requesting these rights. You've raised, now what? Staying connected 30% of LPs are happy with receiving monthly updates, 38% with quarterly updates and 15% updates on fund performance twice a year. Others expected weekly or bi-weekly contact. VCs are often willing to provide co-investment rights, but can become frustrated by ad hoc approaches, or that may depend on LPs performing their own DD on co‑investment opportunities, impacting time frames when closing deals. Access to co-investment opportunities Thought leadership Regular communication and reports Access to other VCs Most important 21 Least important 100% 75% 60% 0% Family offices & Fund of Funds Governments & Endowments VCs investing Corporates Percentage of LP types who registered co-investment opportunities as important: COVID-19 No 2020 report would be complete without mentioning Coronavirus. Although the VC and startup sector has been impacted, only 20% of LPs stated that they have reduced the amount of funding they are looking to deploy into new funds. 20% 37% 43% LESS FUNDING NO IMPACT By focusing on top performers ACCELERATED Driven by increased investment in healthcare funds of respondents indicated that they had actually accelerated their deployment into VC as a result of the crisis. 43% Family offices The pandemic has decreased their desire to invest in VC. Institutional investors Little to no impact. Likely due to a greater need to continue to deploy capital. Impact on emerging managers The effects of the crisis have been particularly felt by emerging managers, with LPs tending to prioritise existing relationships, according to survey results. The counter to this is that first time managers are unencumbered by an existing portfolio that's potentially troubled by the impact of COVID, enabling them to focus on the opportunity ahead. 22 "Post-Covid-19, it will be essential that the UK builds back better, with the technology sector at the forefront of job creation, growth and prosperity. It is important therefore that the UK continues to be a magnet for Limited Partners and the capital that powers startup growth across the country." Gerard Grech, CEO, Tech Nation Diversity and Inclusion Creating an industry which is inclusive and free from bias is in everyone's interest. Yet as our results show, although most firms desire equality, only a minority are taking active steps to work towards it. Yes, it's a goal 64% Yes, have KPI 18% Not currently 18% Not currently 64% Yes, have KPI 18% Yes, it's a goal 18% Is increasing the number female VCs you back a goal? Improving the ecosystem 23 Most LPs do not have a policy to actively try and increase capital deployment into BAME run VC firms. Though 18% say they have the intent - and a further 18% have set a KPI - to increase their investment into VCs run by BAME VCs. In conclusion, while it appears there has been progress with policies designed to increase the gender diversity of investee VCs, initiatives to increase the ethnic diversity of the VC partnerships LPs into remain sorely lacking. There is clearly intent from LPs to increase their exposure to female-funded VCs. 64% want to do something about it, but crucially only 18% have set key performance indicators to measure progress. 18% currently have no policy. Is increasing the number BAME VCs you back a goal? Cultural intent, well thought-out policies plus accountability can equal tangible outcomes for diversity, but progress doesn't happen if any of the three are missing. Romanie Thomas, Founder/CEO Juggle Diversity Specialist Looking ahead there was no consensus from participants as to whether the biggest opportunities would come from the United States, Asia or Europe. The big European Series-A funds of 10 years ago are still with us: Index, Accel, Balderton and Atomico, etc - but they’ve beefed up their operational teams, content strategies and programmes, while the activity and size of others are also increasing. Northzone, EQT, Creandum, HV, Idinvest and Lakestar amongst others, are raising ever larger funds creeping up the alphabet of VC rounds. But it’s the US funds (Sequoia, Benchmark, Bessemer et al) which are threatening their current dominance of the European ecosystem, completing ever more rounds. ‘More business friendly regulation, less tax, more incentives, flexibility of the workforce, and a major risk taking mentality, can be positive to the European VC environment’ 24 As geographic investment boundaries become ever more porous in a remote- working world, any talk of there being 'too much capital' in European VC is nonsense. We believe European LP investing has taken great strides but it still has a long way to go. In 2018, 23b Euros was deployed by European venture capital, whereas the US invested 111b Euros. For 2019 the figures are 30b Euros (a five year high for Europe) and 113b Euros for the US. For Europe to hold its own and produce it's own "Googles" - we need many more European VCs with deep pockets and greater risk appetites to invest more money, earlier, more often. That will require more private LPs to believe in the European tech VC asset class; something this report aims to encourage and support. The future What is the single thing that, if changed in Europe, would enable more money invested into VC funds? More Liquidity Solutions, Deregulation and Tax Incentives Incentivise investment for pension funds or large, private allocators More Transparency 1 2 3 Jonathan, Lomax and Andrew. - Family office Our public contributors We would like to thank all of our contributors, without whom this report would not have been possible. Listed below are the LPs who contributed to the survey and who were happy to be named. 25 Distribution partners Netherlands Denmark United Kingdom France European-wide 26 Germany United States Mountside Ventures seeks to optimise the fundraising process for European startups, investors and family offices. Firstly, they advise early-stage companies raising their next round of funding. Secondly, they organise community events and a conference, Funding Venture, in Central London, for the most promising VC Fund Managers, and Limited Partners & Family offices. It typically involves panel discussions, curated round tables and networking opportunities. Jonathan Hollis, Managing Partner, Mountside Ventures Jonathan@mountsideventures.com Alex Reed, Co-founder, Mountside Ventures Alex@mountsideventures.com Jon Steinberg, Co-founder, Mountside Ventures Jon@mountsideventures.com Alexandra Davis and Jack Richardson, Contributors, Mountside Ventures ALLOCATE is a grassroots initiative founded by Andrew J Scott and Lomax Ward with a vision to accelerate the European tech VC ecosystem to be the most active and best performing in the world. ALLOCATE is making it easier for LPs to find the right funds to invest in and for VCs the right investors, by building a community of forwarding thinking collaborators on a not-for-profit basis. In 2019, ALLOCATE held Europe's first ever VC pitch event, and the next one will be held on November 17-18-19 2020. Lomax Ward, General Partner, Luminous Ventures Lomax@luminous.vc Andrew J Scott, Founding Partner, 7percent Ventures ajs@7pc.vc Producers 27
