The Liquidity Question: Why It Matters Earlier Than You Think

Liquidity is often an afterthought, until it isn’t. Businesses, investors, and even individuals frequently overlook its importance The Liquidity Question: Why It Matters Earlier Than You Think

Liquidity is the financial world's silent guardian, invisible when present, catastrophic when absent. While most businesses and individuals focus on growth, returns, and profitability, they often overlook the fundamental lifeline that determines survival: the ability to convert assets into cash quickly without significant loss. This oversight has toppled Fortune 500 companies, devastated investment portfolios, and left countless individuals financially stranded.

Understanding liquidity isn't just about financial prudence, it's about recognizing that cash flow, not profit margins, determines who survives economic storms. From corporate giants to individual households, those who master liquidity management thrive while others merely survive, if at all.

The Silent Assassin of Profitable Businesses

The business graveyard is littered with companies that were profitable on paper but failed due to liquidity crises. A comprehensive study by the U.S. Bank revealed that 82% of business failures stem from poor cash flow management, not inadequate profitability. This statistic exposes a fundamental misconception: that revenue equals resilience.

Case Study: The Toys "R" Us Tragedy

Toys "R" Us exemplifies this principle perfectly. In 2017, the retail giant, with $11.5 billion in annual revenue and a dominant market position, filed for bankruptcy. The culprit wasn't declining toy sales or e-commerce competition alone, but rather the company's inability to service its $5 billion debt load amid deteriorating liquidity. The company had tied up capital in inventory and real estate while carrying unsustainable debt obligations, leaving no cushion for operational flexibility.

The lesson is stark: profitability without liquidity is a house of cards. Revenue can mask underlying financial vulnerabilities until external pressures, economic downturns, supply chain disruptions, or unexpected expenses, expose the truth.

The Working Capital Trap

Many businesses fall into the working capital trap, where success breeds failure. Rapid growth often requires increased inventory, extended payment terms to customers, and upfront investments in infrastructure. Without careful liquidity management, growing companies can become victims of their own success, unable to fund operations despite impressive sales figures.

Personal Finance: The Emergency Fund Imperative

The liquidity crisis extends beyond corporate boardrooms to kitchen tables across America. Federal Reserve data reveals that 37% of Americans cannot cover a $400 emergency expense with cash, forcing them into high-interest debt cycles that compound financial instability.

The 3-6 Month Rule: Your Financial Lifeline

Financial advisors universally recommend maintaining 3-6 months of living expenses in liquid assets, cash, savings accounts, or short-term bonds. This buffer serves multiple purposes:

• Prevents forced asset liquidation: Avoids selling stocks, property, or other investments during market downturns

• Maintains credit health: Reduces reliance on credit cards or loans during emergencies

• Preserves opportunities: Enables strategic moves like career changes or investment opportunities

The Psychological Dividend

Beyond financial protection, liquidity provides psychological benefits. Research from the University of Pennsylvania shows that individuals with emergency funds report lower stress levels and greater life satisfaction, even when controlling for income levels. Liquidity isn't just about money, it's about peace of mind.

Market Liquidity: The Investor's Ultimate Insurance

Investment liquidity separates seasoned investors from amateurs. While illiquid assets like real estate and private equity can generate substantial returns, they can also trap capital when liquidity is most needed.

The 2008 Financial Crisis: A Masterclass in Liquidity

The 2008 financial crisis provided a brutal education in liquidity's importance. Investors holding "valuable" mortgage-backed securities discovered that paper wealth means nothing if nobody will buy your assets. Meanwhile, those with cash reserves capitalized on the chaos.

The Numbers Tell the Story:

• The S&P 500 plummeted 57% from peak to trough (2007-2009)

• Investors with liquidity who purchased undervalued stocks generated returns exceeding 300% during the recovery

• Real estate investors with cash bought distressed properties at 30-50% discounts

The Liquidity Premium

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway consistently maintains massive cash reserves, often criticized as "inefficient" by analysts. Yet this strategy enabled Berkshire to acquire quality companies at discounted prices during the 2008 crisis and the 2020 pandemic. The "liquidity premium”, the cost of holding cash versus investing, pales in comparison to the opportunities liquidity creates during market dislocations.

Corporate Liquidity Metrics: Reading the Warning Signs

Businesses measure liquidity through several key ratios that reveal financial health:

Current Ratio (Current Assets ÷ Current Liabilities)

• Ideal Range: 1.5-3.0

• Interpretation: Measures ability to cover short-term obligations

• Warning Signs: Ratios below 1.0 indicate potential liquidity stress

Quick Ratio (Quick Assets ÷ Current Liabilities)

• Ideal Range: 1.0 or higher

• Interpretation: Excludes inventory, focusing on most liquid assets

• Critical Insight: More conservative than current ratio, better for cyclical businesses

Apple's Liquidity Mastery

Apple provides a masterclass in liquidity management. Despite a current ratio of 0.94 (seemingly concerning), the company maintains over $166 billion in cash and marketable securities. This strategic liquidity enables Apple to:

• Fund massive R&D investments without external financing

• Acquire companies and technologies opportunistically

• Weather economic downturns without operational disruption

• Return capital to shareholders through dividends and buybacks

 The Liquidity Optimization Framework

For Businesses:

• Cash Reserve Strategy: Maintain 3-6 months of operating expenses in liquid assets. This provides operational flexibility and creditor confidence.

• Credit Line Management: Establish revolving credit facilities before needing them. Banks prefer lending to healthy companies, not distressed ones.

• Receivables Management: Implement aggressive collection policies and consider factoring for immediate cash flow.

• Inventory Optimization: Use just-in-time inventory systems to minimize working capital requirements.

 For Individuals:

• Emergency Fund Construction: Build systematically, start with $1,000, then progress to one month's expenses, eventually reaching 3-6 months.

• Asset Allocation Balance: Avoid overconcentration in illiquid assets. Even real estate investors should maintain liquid reserves.

• Liquid Investment Vehicles: Utilize money market funds, short-term CDs, and high-yield savings accounts for emergency funds.

• Debt Management: Minimize high-interest debt that can quickly erode liquidity during emergencies.

The Liquidity Mindset: Beyond Numbers

Liquidity management requires a fundamental shift in thinking, from maximizing returns to optimizing survival. This doesn't mean being overly conservative, but rather maintaining enough flexibility to navigate uncertainty.

The Opportunity Cost Fallacy

Critics often argue that holding cash is "inefficient" due to opportunity costs. However, this perspective ignores liquidity's option value, the ability to act decisively when opportunities arise. During market crashes, recessions, or personal emergencies, liquidity isn't just protective, it's transformative.

Building Financial Resilience

True financial success isn't measured solely by net worth growth but by the ability to maintain stability across various economic conditions. Liquidity provides the foundation for this resilience, enabling individuals and businesses to not just survive but thrive during challenging periods.

Final Thoughts 

Liquidity isn’t just a financial metric, it’s a survival tool. Whether you’re a business owner, investor, or individual, prioritizing liquidity early prevents desperation later.  

As Warren Buffett famously said:  

"Cash is to a business as oxygen is to an individual: never thought about when it is present, the only thing in mind when it is absent."

Don’t wait until the oxygen runs out. 

How to Structure a Cap Table When Building with a Studio

In the fast-evolving world of startups, Venture Studios are becoming a powerful model for company building. Unlike accelerators or incubators, studios co-create startups from the ground up, offering resources, teams, and capital in exchange for equity. As more founders choose to build with studios, one question consistently emerges: how should the cap table be structured?

A well-balanced cap table (short for capitalization table) is not just about equity allocation, it’s a reflection of trust, clarity, and shared incentives between founders, studios, and future investors. In this article, we break down how to approach cap table structuring when launching a startup within a venture studio model.

Understanding the Studio-Startup Relationship

Venture studios usually initiate the idea, assemble the initial team, and contribute significant capital, operational support, and strategic guidance. As such, their role is much deeper than that of a passive investor. Their equity share often reflects this heavier involvement in the early stages.

Startups built with studios typically go through the following early stages:

1. Ideation & Validation – The studio identifies a market gap and develops a viable solution.

2. Team Formation – A founding team is recruited, often led by the studio.

3. MVP Development – Resources like engineering, legal, and marketing are provided.

4. Spinout & Fundraising – Once validated, the startup spins out and raises external capital.

Each of these stages affects the cap table, especially how equity is allocated between the studio, founders, and early team members.

Common Cap Table Structures in Studio Models

Although there’s no one-size-fits-all formula, most cap tables in studio-born startups follow a similar pattern during the spin-out phase:

1. Studio Equity (20%–60%)

Studios generally take a larger equity stake than a traditional investor due to their active role in the company’s creation. This stake typically ranges between 30% and 50%, depending on how much the studio contributed in terms of capital, resources, and risk.

Some models may go as high as 60% in early concept-phase startups, especially where the studio also provides the CEO or core leadership team. Over time, as the startup raises capital and scales, the studio’s ownership usually dilutes.

2. Founding Team Equity (20%–50%)

Founders joining a studio venture may receive 20% to 40% equity, depending on when they join and what responsibilities they take on. A technical co-founder joining post-MVP might receive less equity than one who joins at the ideation stage.

Founders often receive their equity through a vesting schedule, commonly over four years with a one-year cliff, aligning long-term commitment with ownership.

3. Employee Option Pool (10%–15%)

Like any startup, those born from studios need to attract and retain top talent. An option pool—typically 10% to 15% of the cap table, is reserved for employees, especially during the first fundraising round.

Early hires may receive larger chunks from this pool, particularly if they are taking on key operational or product roles in the earliest stages.

4. Investor Equity (5%–30%)

If the startup raises a pre-seed or seed round soon after spinning out of the studio, the new investors’ equity will also need to be accounted for. Early-stage VCs or angel investors may take 5% to 20% depending on the round size and valuation.

This dilutes all existing shareholders, including the studio and founders. Planning for this early ensures the cap table remains fair and balanced post-investment.

Best Practices for Cap Table Planning

● Model Scenarios Early

Before finalizing equity splits, it’s crucial to model various scenarios: What happens if you raise multiple rounds? What if key founders leave early? Having these projections gives clarity and avoids surprises.

● Align Equity with Value Added

The cap table should reflect the actual value contributed. A studio that provides engineers, designers, and growth experts deserves a larger stake than one offering only desk space and mentorship. Likewise, founders driving product and sales should be fairly compensated.

● Use Vesting and Cliff Periods

To ensure long-term commitment, both studios and founders often use vesting schedules. A typical 4-year vesting with a 1-year cliff protects the company from early departures and ensures equity is earned over time.

● Create Clear Operating Agreements

Equity is only one part of the relationship. Make sure legal documents (like operating agreements, term sheets, and founder agreements) clearly outline roles, responsibilities, and equity terms. Transparency builds trust.

How to Think About Studio Involvement Over Time

One unique aspect of cap tables in studio-led startups is the evolving role of the studio. In early stages, the studio is hands-on. But as the founding team grows, external funding is raised, and operations scale, the studio often steps back.

Some studios gradually reduce involvement or maintain board-level influence. This transition should be planned in advance and reflected in vesting or advisory agreements.

Conclusion

Structuring a cap table with a venture studio requires balancing contributions, expectations, and future growth potential. While studios may take a significant early stake, the cap table must remain attractive for future investors and fair to founders who take on operational leadership. By modeling scenarios, aligning value with equity, and using legal clarity, startups can ensure their cap table empowers, not hinders, their long-term success.

As venture studios continue reshaping how startups are born, a thoughtful approach to equity is essential. A well-structured cap table is not just a spreadsheet, it’s a roadmap for shared ownership, mutual accountability, and startup resilience.

AI Startups in PE/VC: Overhyped or Underestimated?

The question of whether AI startups are overhyped or underestimated reveals the fundamental misunderstanding permeating today's investment landscape. Rather than a monolithic sector deserving uniform skepticism or enthusiasm, artificial intelligence represents a complex ecosystem where speculative excess coexists with profound undervaluation. The answer depends entirely on which corner of this vast landscape you examine, and whether you possess the analytical sophistication to distinguish between genuine innovation and cleverly marketed incrementalism.

The Theater of Hype: Where Valuations Defy Gravity

The most visible AI investments often represent the sector's most theatrical performances, where billion-dollar valuations rest on foundations of promise rather than profit. Foundation model companies have captured public imagination and investor capital in equal measure, creating a feeding frenzy that bears an uncomfortable resemblance to previous technology bubbles. These companies command valuations that would make even the most optimistic dot-com investor blush, justified by narratives of artificial general intelligence and revolutionary transformation that remain tantalizingly out of reach.

The application layer presents an even more concerning spectacle of speculation. Countless startups have discovered that adding "AI-powered" to their pitch decks can multiply valuations overnight, regardless of underlying differentiation or sustainable competitive advantages. This phenomenon, dubbed "AI washing" by skeptics, has created a parallel universe where traditional business fundamentals seem quaint and outdated. Consumer-facing AI applications, in particular, have attracted enormous attention despite demonstrating unit economics that would terrify any rational investor operating under normal market conditions.

The Hidden Gems: Where Value Hides in Plain Sight

While headlines fixate on ChatGPT valuations and artificial general intelligence timelines, the most compelling AI investments often operate in the shadows of public attention. Infrastructure companies building the foundational layers of AI deployment represent a dramatically different investment proposition, one characterized by rational valuations, sustainable business models, and defensive competitive positions. These businesses provide the essential plumbing that enables AI deployment at scale, creating platform effects that become more valuable as adoption accelerates.

The vertical AI revolution represents perhaps the most underestimated opportunity in the entire technology landscape. Healthcare AI companies developing FDA-approved diagnostics, financial services firms solving compliance challenges, and manufacturing solutions delivering measurable productivity improvements demonstrate the transformative power of artificial intelligence applied to specific domain problems. European and Asian markets present particularly compelling arbitrage opportunities, where comparable companies trade at significant discounts to American counterparts despite similar growth trajectories and market positions. 

The Sophistication Gap: Why Traditional Frameworks Fail

The challenge facing AI investors extends far beyond simple valuation metrics to encompass fundamental questions about how technological revolutions should be evaluated and financed. Traditional venture capital frameworks, optimized for software businesses with predictable scaling characteristics, struggle to accommodate AI companies' unique cost structures, competitive dynamics, and value creation mechanisms. The result is systematic mispricing that creates both dangerous bubbles and extraordinary opportunities.

Revenue quality emerges as the critical differentiator in this landscape, where two companies with identical top-line growth can justify vastly different valuations based on underlying business model sustainability. Companies achieving platform effects through network externalities, regulatory moats, or proprietary data advantages deserve premium valuations regardless of sector sentiment. Conversely, businesses relying on commodity APIs or consumer adoption without clear monetization paths face inevitable margin compression as market dynamics normalize.

Sector Dynamics: The Tale of Three Markets

Healthcare AI presents the strongest case for systematic underestimation, where regulatory approval processes create natural monopolies and clear value propositions for end customers. The sector's focus on patient outcomes rather than engagement metrics provides sustainable differentiation that pure software companies cannot replicate. FDA breakthrough device designations create competitive advantages measured in years rather than months, while clinical trial data establishes barriers to entry that algorithmic improvements alone cannot overcome.

Financial services AI benefits from regulatory tailwinds as compliance requirements favor established players with deep domain expertise. These companies operate in environments where switching costs are measured in years and relationship-driven sales cycles create additional defensive characteristics. The sector's high-stakes nature means that marginal improvements in fraud detection, risk management, or compliance efficiency can justify substantial technology investments, creating sustainable demand for proven solutions.

Investment Philosophy: Threading the Needle

The AI investment landscape demands portfolio construction that captures legitimate opportunities while avoiding speculative excess. This requires moving beyond binary thinking about sector-wide overvaluation or undervaluation toward company-specific analysis of competitive positioning, market dynamics, and business model sustainability. The most successful investors will be those who can identify genuine innovation amid the noise of marketing hyperbole and venture capital momentum.

Risk management becomes paramount in an environment characterized by extreme volatility and regulatory uncertainty. Scenario planning must incorporate potential AI winter scenarios where speculative investments face significant corrections, while defensive positions in infrastructure and vertical applications provide portfolio stability. Geographic diversification across America, European, and Asian markets helps capture regional arbitrage opportunities while reducing concentration risk in any single regulatory environment.

The temporal dimension adds another layer of complexity, as AI capabilities continue advancing at unprecedented rates while market valuations gyrate wildly based on sentiment and speculation. Patient capital willing to invest through multiple hype cycles will likely be rewarded, while those seeking quick exits may find themselves trapped in valuation bubbles that burst without warning.

Final Thoughts 

The AI investment landscape defies simple categorization as either overhyped or underestimated because it encompasses multiple distinct markets with fundamentally different characteristics and risk profiles. Consumer applications and foundation models trading at extreme multiples clearly exhibit speculative characteristics, while infrastructure companies and vertical AI solutions demonstrate rational valuations based on sustainable business models. The sector's complexity requires sophisticated analysis that moves beyond aggregate funding metrics toward nuanced evaluation of competitive advantages and market positioning. 

Why Corporates Are Launching Their Own Venture Studios

In today’s fast-paced innovation landscape, large corporations are realizing that traditional R&D methods are no longer sufficient to keep up with disruptive startups. As a result, many are turning to venture studios, a powerful model that combines capital, strategic support, and entrepreneurial talent to build new businesses from scratch. But why exactly are corporates launching their own venture studios, and what outcomes are they expecting?

Let’s explore how this shift is reshaping corporate innovation across Europe and beyond. 

What Is a Corporate Venture Studio?

A corporate venture studio (CVS) is an in-house or partnered entity that helps corporates build and launch startups aligned with their long-term strategic goals. Unlike accelerators or incubators that support external founders, a CVS usually creates startups internally, recruits entrepreneurs, and co-owns the ventures.

By leveraging internal resources (capital, data, customer base, infrastructure) and combining them with startup speed and culture, venture studios give corporates a faster, more agile way to explore new markets, technologies, and business models.

Why the Shift to Venture Studios?

Here are five key reasons why corporates are launching venture studios:

1. Faster Innovation Cycles

Corporates typically suffer from bureaucracy and slow decision-making. Venture studios allow them to test and launch ideas in months, not years. Studios build multiple MVPs (minimum viable products), iterate quickly, and kill bad ideas early, much like startups.

This agile experimentation drastically reduces time-to-market and enables corporates to stay ahead of disruptors.

2. Strategic Diversification

Many industries, from insurance and banking to manufacturing and healthcare, are undergoing digital disruption. Corporates can’t afford to stand still. Launching a studio lets them diversify their business models and experiment with innovations outside of their core business, all while maintaining ownership and oversight.

3. Access to Entrepreneurial Talent

Attracting and retaining top entrepreneurial talent within a corporation is notoriously difficult. But a venture studio structure is appealing to founders who want to build, scale, and exit without starting completely from scratch. Corporates are using studios to recruit founders-in-residence, giving them equity, autonomy, and a clear runway to build new ventures.

4. De-risked Corporate Innovation

Studios are designed to fail fast and cheap. Instead of risking millions on a single product that may not fit the market, corporates can spread risk across multiple experiments. When one venture succeeds, it can produce significant ROI. If others fail, they offer learning at a much lower cost than failed internal projects.

This portfolio approach is much more efficient than traditional R&D or M&A strategies.

5. IP Ownership and Strategic Alignment

Unlike investing in external startups or using accelerators, a corporate venture studio allows the parent company to retain full or partial ownership of IP, build ventures that complement their core operations, and align innovation with long-term strategy. This gives them better control over growth areas and exit options.

Real-World Examples of Corporate Venture Studios

Across Europe and globally, several corporates have launched successful venture studios:

• Allianz X (Germany) – A venture arm of Allianz, focused on building and investing in startups in insurtech and beyond.

• Engie Factory (France) – The venture studio of energy giant Engie, which co-creates cleantech startups.

• BCG Digital Ventures (Global) – Although not a corporate itself, BCGDV partners with corporates to co-found and scale ventures that fit their strategic needs.

• Bosch Startup Harbour (Germany) – Focuses on IoT and connected products that can extend Bosch’s innovation capabilities.

• Telefonica Alpha (Spain) – Launched by telecom firm Telefonica to build moonshot tech companies.

These studios often have dedicated teams of product managers, engineers, marketers, and venture architects who operate semi-independently but are strategically aligned with the parent company’s goals.

How Corporate Venture Studios Work

The typical CVS model includes the following steps:

1. Opportunity Identification: Studios analyze trends, gaps, and strategic goals to define promising venture ideas.

2. Venture Design: Teams prototype business models, develop MVPs, and test market traction.

3. Recruitment of Founders: Studios bring in experienced operators or domain experts to lead the startup.

4. Funding & Incubation: The corporate funds the startup’s early stages and provides access to distribution channels, customers, and infrastructure.

5. Spin-Out or Integration: If successful, the startup can either become a standalone company (with shared equity) or be integrated back into the corporate entity.

Common Challenges

Despite the potential, corporate venture studios face some pitfalls:

• Cultural Clashes: Corporate risk-aversion can conflict with the startup mentality.

• Decision-Making Bottlenecks: Too much red tape can slow progress.

• Talent Drain: Retaining entrepreneurial talent after a spin-out can be tough.

• Unclear Exit Plans: Without a clear commercialization or M&A strategy, studios risk building “zombie” startups that don’t scale.

That’s why successful studios build strong governance, KPIs, and incentives from the beginning.

Final Thought

As markets continue to evolve and competition intensifies, corporates can no longer rely solely on internal R&D or passive venture investments. Launching a venture studio offers a powerful way to own the innovation process, unlock new revenue streams, and drive cultural transformation.

For corporates serious about long-term growth, building a venture studio is no longer a luxury, it’s a strategic necessity.

3 Reasons Why LPs Should Look at Studio Models in 2025

The venture capital landscape is experiencing a seismic shift. With traditional VC funds struggling to deliver consistent returns and Limited Partners (LPs) facing unprecedented challenges in deploying capital effectively, a new model is emerging as a compelling alternative: venture studios. As we navigate through 2025, the data tells a clear story, venture studios are not just outperforming traditional investment models, they're redefining what institutional investors should expect from their venture allocations.

1. Superior Returns and Risk-Adjusted Performance

The numbers don't lie: venture studios are delivering exceptional results that should make every LP take notice. Venture studios demonstrate Internal Rates of Return (IRR) that are approximately double those of traditional venture capital benchmarks, with a 24% exit rate compared to just 14% for both accelerators and founders-first VCs. This outperformance becomes even more impressive considering speed to liquidity, studio startups are acquired 33% faster and take 31% less time to IPO.

The systematic approach delivers consistent results: 84% of studio startups raise seed rounds and 72% reach Series A funding, compared to just 42% of traditional ventures reaching Series A. Real-world success stories like Moderna, Twilio, and Bitly demonstrate this isn't coincidence but systematic value creation. For LPs grappling with poor distributions from traditional VC funds, less than 10% of 2021 funds have had any DPI after 3 years, venture studios offer a proven alternative with both higher returns and faster liquidity events.

2. Accelerated Time-to-Market and Capital Efficiency

The venture studio model delivers unprecedented speed and capital efficiency, with startups reaching Series A in just 25.2 months compared to industry averages. This acceleration stems from studios' systematic approach, proactively identifying opportunities, assembling expert teams, and providing comprehensive operational support from day one, eliminating the founder learning curve that typically consumes years and millions. The operational leverage is particularly evident in AI-driven markets, allowing studios to deploy cutting-edge infrastructure across their entire portfolio simultaneously. 

3. Market Momentum and Strategic Positioning for the Future

The institutional investment landscape is rapidly shifting toward venture studios, positioning early LP adopters for significant advantages. In 2024, venture studio funds were nearly twice as common as accelerator funds, accounting for 10.3% of all venture capital funds launched compared to 5.5% for accelerators.

This trend reflects a broader recognition among sophisticated investors that the traditional VC model faces structural challenges. VC fundraisers raised $76.1 billion in 2024, making it the lowest fundraising year since 2019, while only 30% of Limited Partners (LPs) are looking to add VC managers to their portfolios, down 36 points from previous years. The shift represents more than just performance metrics, it's about alignment and control. Traditional VC funds face inherent conflicts between generating management fees and optimizing portfolio returns. Venture studios, by contrast, earn equity through direct value creation and capital investment, aligning their interests more closely with LP returns.

Final Thoughts 

The venture capital industry stands at an inflection point, with traditional models struggling to deliver consistent returns in today's fast-paced, technology-driven market. Venture studios represent a fundamental reimagining of how institutional capital can be deployed, offering LPs superior risk-adjusted returns, faster liquidity, and strategic positioning for the future backed by robust data and proven track records. The question isn't whether venture studios will continue to outperform traditional VC models, the data already confirms this reality, but whether LPs will recognize this shift early enough to capture the significant alpha still available. As we progress through 2025, the LPs who embrace venture studios today will likely look back on this decision as a defining moment that positioned them at the forefront of the next generation of venture capital.

Studio vs Accelerator: Which Model Drives Better Founder Outcomes?

In the fast-evolving startup ecosystem, founders face a fundamental question: Should I launch my startup through a venture studio or an accelerator? Both models offer unique advantages, but they cater to different founder profiles and startup stages.

This article explores the key differences between venture studios and accelerators, and which model ultimately delivers better outcomes for founders.

What Is a Venture Studio?

also known as a startup studio, company builder, or venture builder, is an organization that ideates, builds, and launches startups internally. Unlike accelerators that assist external startups, venture studios create their own concepts in-house, test them for market fit, and then recruit co-founders or CEOs to lead these ventures.

Key characteristics of venture studios include:

• Idea Generation: Studios develop startup ideas internally, based on market gaps, trends, and research.

• Validation: These ideas are tested and refined before any company is formally created.

• Founder Recruitment: Once the idea is validated, the studio brings on founders to execute and scale the startup.

• Infrastructure and Capital: The venture studio provides initial funding, legal support, design, product, HR, and technology resources, removing much of the early operational burden from founders.

This model allows founders to focus purely on execution with much less risk. Instead of starting from zero, they’re stepping into a machine that’s already moving, with a pre-validated idea, seed capital, and expert support.

What Is an Accelerator?

A startup accelerator supports early-stage companies through fixed-term programs that typically last between three and six months. Unlike venture studios, accelerators work with startups that already exist and have a founding team in place.

Features of accelerators include:

• Founders Apply With Their Own Idea or MVP: Startups need to be at the idea or product stage to be considered.

• Mentorship and Training: Accelerators offer guidance through workshops, networking, and mentor matching.

• Seed Funding: Participating startups receive small amounts of funding (e.g., $100K–$150K) in exchange for equity.

• Demo Day and Investor Access: At the end of the program, startups pitch to investors for future funding rounds.

Well-known examples include Y Combinator, Techstars, and 500 Startups. These programs often boost visibility and credibility, opening doors to venture capital and strategic partnerships.

Key Differences

Which Drives Better Founder Outcomes?

  For First-Time Founders: Venture Studios

Venture studios de-risk entrepreneurship. Founders join validated projects with funding, a support team, and a clear go-to-market strategy. This is ideal for:

• Domain experts (e.g., engineers, marketers) new to startups

• Entrepreneurs who want operational backing

• Those who prefer execution over ideation

 Example: Antler and eFounders in Europe have helped dozens of first-time founders build multi-million-dollar SaaS and fintech companies with minimal prior startup experience.

For Experienced Founders: Accelerators

Accelerators work best for founders who:

• Already have a clear idea or MVP

• Seek exposure, mentorship, and network effects

• Can leverage the accelerator’s brand to raise funding

Accelerators can supercharge momentum and lead to large seed or Series A rounds, especially in hot sectors like AI and fintech.

Example:Flutterwave (a leading African fintech unicorn) emerged from the Y Combinator accelerator and rapidly scaled after launch.

A Hybrid Approach?

Some founders even benefit from a hybrid approach: building with a studio, then joining an accelerator to scale and raise capital. As startup ecosystems mature, the lines between the two models are beginning to blur.

Final Thoughts

Both venture studios and accelerators have their place in the startup journey. The key is knowing your stage, strengths, and support needs.

If you need structure, capital, and deep operational support, studios are the way to go.
If you already have traction and seek funding and connections, accelerators will help you scale faster.

The best model for founders depends on their experience, the idea stage, and the kind of startup they want to build.

How We See the Future of Company Building at Mandalore Partners

At Mandalore Partners, we believe the future of company building is fundamentally different from what we've seen before. As we navigate through 2025, we're witnessing a paradigm shift that goes beyond traditional venture capital models, and we're positioning ourselves at the forefront of this transformation.

The old playbook of throwing capital at promising startups and hoping for exponential returns is not just outdated; it's counterproductive in today's complex business environment. We've observed that the most successful companies of the past five years weren't just well-funded, they were strategically guided, operationally supported, and deeply integrated into their target industries from day one.

Our Vision: Beyond Capital to Strategic Partnership

We've spent years observing the venture capital landscape, and frankly, we believe the traditional model is broken. The industry generated $149.2 billion in exit value in 2024, yet despite a $47 billion increase in overall deal value, we saw 936 fewer deals compared to the previous year. This tells us something profound: the market is demanding quality over quantity, strategic depth over transactional relationships.

At Mandalore, we see this as validation of our core thesis. The future belongs to companies that receive more than just capital, they need strategic expertise, operational support, and deep industry integration. This is why we've pioneered our Venture Capital-as-a-Service (VCaaS) model.

What We Mean by Venture Capital-as-a-Service

At Mandalore Partners, we don’t just write checks and step back, we embed ourselves as strategic partners through our VCaaS model, transforming how corporations build and scale innovation. Unlike traditional VCs, we stay hands-on from idea to market leadership, providing not only capital but deep regulatory expertise, industry networks, and operational insight. Our work with insurtech startups shows how this integrated approach turns potential into market dominance, proving that success hinges on more than just technology—it demands the right strategic guidance. With 93% of CEOs set to maintain or grow corporate venture investments in 2024, our model is exactly what forward-thinking companies need: a trusted partner to co-architect their future.

Our 6 Ss Framework: The Architecture of Success

We've developed what we call the 6 Ss model, our proprietary framework that has become the gold standard for successful company building in the modern era. This isn't theoretical; it's battle-tested across dozens of portfolio companies and multiple market cycles:

1.Strategy: We believe every successful company begins with a clear strategic vision aligned with market realities. Our data-driven approach ensures the startups we partner with address genuine market needs rather than pursuing solutions seeking problems.

2. Sourcing: We've built a global network and AI-powered sourcing capabilities that enable us to discover breakthrough technologies and visionary entrepreneurs before they become obvious opportunities. We're not followers, we are discoverers.

3. Scaling: Growth without foundation leads to failure. We provide operational expertise that helps companies build sustainable scaling mechanisms, from technology infrastructure to team development and market expansion strategies.

4. Synergy: We facilitate strategic partnerships that amplify growth potential and create competitive advantages. The most successful companies of the future will be those that create meaningful connections within their ecosystems.

5. Sustainability: Our investment thesis prioritizes companies building solutions for tomorrow's challenges. We consider long-term viability across financial, environmental, and social dimensions.

6. Success: We measure success not just in financial returns, but in creating lasting value for all stakeholders, entrepreneurs, corporations, and society at large.

How We're Leveraging Technology Convergence

We're particularly excited about the convergence of artificial intelligence, IoT, and robotics. These technologies aren't just changing how companies operate, they're fundamentally transforming how they're built.

Our portfolio companies are reimagining traditional industries through technological integration. We're backing robotics companies creating new paradigms for industrial automation and AI-powered startups revolutionizing risk assessment in insurance. What excites us most is witnessing the emergence of hybrid business models that combine digital innovation with deep industry expertise, creating defensible moats that traditional tech companies can't replicate.
This convergence represents more than technological advancement; it's the foundation of sustainable competitive advantage in the next decade.

Our Take on Market Corrections and Opportunities

The valuation corrections from 2021 highs have created what we see as unprecedented opportunities. While others view down rounds and unicorn devaluations as challenges, we see them as market efficiency improvements that favor strategic investors like us.

We're witnessing trends like co-investments, extensions, and significant valuation cuts, all of which play to our strengths as strategic partners who provide more than capital. When financial investors retreat, strategic value becomes even more important.

This market correction has also revealed something crucial: companies built on solid fundamentals with strong strategic partnerships weather economic storms better than those relying solely on financial backing. Our portfolio companies have demonstrated remarkable resilience during this period, with several achieving profitability ahead of schedule while their purely VC-backed competitors struggled with runway management.

What We Predict for the Next Decade

Based on our market position and portfolio insights, we see several key trends defining the next decade of company building:

• Ecosystem Integration: We believe successful companies will be those that seamlessly integrate into broader innovation ecosystems, creating value through partnerships rather than competition. This aligns perfectly with our VCaaS model. Companies that try to build everything in-house will find themselves outmaneuvered by those that strategically leverage ecosystem partnerships.

• Regulatory Proactivity: Companies that anticipate and shape regulatory frameworks rather than merely comply with them will gain significant competitive advantages. Our deep industry expertise positions us to help companies navigate this complexity. We've seen companies gain 18-month market advantages simply by understanding regulatory trends before their competitors.

• Stakeholder Capitalism: We're investing in companies that create value for all stakeholders, customers, employees, investors, and society, rather than optimizing for single metrics. This isn't just about ESG compliance; it's about building sustainable business models that can weather long-term market cycles.

• Global-Local Balance: Future companies will need to operate globally while maintaining deep local expertise and cultural sensitivity. Our network enables this balance, helping companies expand internationally while maintaining local market authenticity.

• AI-Human Collaboration: The future belongs to companies that enhance human capabilities rather than replace them. We're particularly excited about companies that use AI to augment human decision-making rather than automate it away entirely.

Our Competitive Advantage

What sets us apart is our unique position at the intersection of corporate strategy and entrepreneurial execution. We combine the best of corporate strategic thinking with entrepreneurial agility, creating sustainable competitive advantages for all stakeholders.

Our VCaaS model enables corporations to maintain focus on core operations while building breakthrough innovation capabilities. We're not just facilitating transactions, we're architecting the future of corporate innovation.

Why This Matters Now

The companies that will define the next decade are being built today. We're not just predicting this transformation, we're actively creating it through strategic partnerships with forward-thinking corporations and breakthrough technology companies.

Our approach transcends traditional venture capital limitations by creating a new category of value creation. We're building bridges between corporate resources and entrepreneurial innovation, enabling both to achieve outcomes neither could reach alone.

Our Commitment Moving Forward

At Mandalore Partners, we're committed to leading this transformation in company building. We're creating exceptional value for entrepreneurs, corporations, and society at large by reimagining how strategic capital, operational expertise, and market access can be combined.

The future of company building belongs to those who can successfully navigate the intersection of technology, strategy, and execution. We're not just participants in this evolution, we're architects of it.

Final Thoughts 

The venture capital industry is at a turning point, and Mandalore Partners is leading the way with a bold alternative to outdated, transactional investing. Through our Venture Capital as a Service (VCaaS) model, we combine the strategic resources of established corporations with the agility of innovative startups to create lasting value beyond traditional VC limitations. As markets demand quality, strategic depth, and sustainable growth, we’re building companies that leverage technology, industry expertise, and regulatory foresight to drive real impact. At Mandalore, we’re not just funding businesses, we’re designing the infrastructure for tomorrow’s economy. Join us to shape this transformation, not just react to it.

How Venture Studios Are Redefining Early-Stage Investment in Europe

In recent years, the European startup ecosystem has witnessed a quiet revolution,one led not by individual entrepreneurs or traditional venture capitalists, but by venture studios. Also known as startup studios, company builders, or venture builders, these organizations are fundamentally transforming how startups are launched, scaled, and funded.

From Berlin to Stockholm, venture studios are redefining early-stage investment by creating startups from scratch, combining operational expertise, in-house resources, and capital, and this model is gaining significant momentum across Europe.

What Is a Venture Studio?

A venture studio is a company that creates new startups. Unlike accelerators or incubators that support existing startups, venture studios build their own ventures. They identify business opportunities internally, develop prototypes, and assemble teams to lead the new companies.

They typically provide:

• Business ideas

• Early-stage funding

• Design and development resources

• Marketing and go-to-market strategies

• Recruitment of founding teams

The goal is to reduce startup risk and increase the chances of success by providing hands-on support from day one.

The Rise of Venture Studios in Europe

While the model originated in the U.S. (with pioneers like Idealab and Rocket Internet), Europe has rapidly embraced the venture studio approach, adapting it to local contexts.

Some notable venture studios in Europe include:

• Founders Factory (UK)

• Antler (Pan-European)

• eFounders (France & Belgium)

• Zebra Labs (Germany)

• Rainmaking (Denmark)

The rise of these studios aligns with Europe's growing appetite for innovation, digital transformation, and scalable tech-driven solutions,particularly in sectors like fintech, insurtech, and AI.

Why Venture Studios Are Gaining Ground

1. De-risking Early-Stage Investment

Traditional early-stage investment is risky. Many startups fail due to team mismatches, lack of product-market fit, or execution issues. Venture studios address these challenges by:

• Carefully selecting problems worth solving

• Testing ideas before significant capital is deployed

• Bringing in proven operational teams

• Providing institutional knowledge and repeatable processes

This de-risks early-stage investment, making it more attractive for investors who want exposure to innovation without shouldering all the volatility.

2. Combining Capital and Execution

Venture studios provide more than just money, they bring in execution. Studios typically invest capital alongside deep operational support in product development, marketing, legal, and hiring.

3. Faster Time-to-Market

With in-house resources and processes, studios can launch startups in months rather than years. Time is money in the startup world , and venture studios know how to save both.

4. Stronger Founder Matches

Studios recruit and match founders to ideas after validating those ideas. This approach ensures founders work on something with traction, not just personal passion. It increases the likelihood of founder-market fit.

Case Studies: Success Stories from European Venture Studios

eFounders: Reinventing the Future of Work

Paris-based eFounders has launched over 30 companies in the SaaS space, including:

• Spendesk – a corporate expense management platform

• Front – a shared inbox for teams

• Aircall – cloud-based phone systems

With a portfolio now valued at over $2 billion, eFounders is a prime example of how studios can build repeatable, scalable, and high-value businesses.

Founders Factory: Partnering with Corporates

Founders Factory, headquartered in London, takes a collaborative approach by partnering with corporates like Aviva, L’Oréal, and easyJet to co-create new ventures. This model blends industry expertise with startup agility, resulting in better distribution and exit opportunities.

Challenges for the Venture Studio Model

While the benefits are significant, venture studios also face key challenges:

1. High Operational Costs – Running a studio with multiple teams, developers, and resources is expensive.

2. Talent Bottlenecks – Finding experienced, entrepreneurial founders is not easy, especially for niche industries.

3. Ownership Structures – Studios often retain significant equity in startups they build, which can sometimes discourage later-stage investors or founders.

4. Scalability Issues – Unlike VCs who can deploy capital across dozens of deals, studios require hands-on involvement, making scaling slower.

Yet, many of these challenges are being overcome with better models, diversified funding sources, and growing demand for startup building.

The Future: What’s Next for Venture Studios in Europe?

The next decade looks bright for venture studios in Europe.

1. Niche Studios Will Emerge

Expect to see industry-specific venture studios in areas like:

• HealthTech

• ClimateTech

• InsurTech

• Food and Agriculture

These studios will leverage sector expertise and regulatory knowledge to build highly targeted solutions.

2. More Corporate-Backed Studios

Corporations looking to innovate outside their core business are increasingly turning to studios. This trend will grow as legacy firms in banking, insurance, and logistics face digital disruption.

3. Studio-VC Hybrids

Some studios are evolving into studio-VC hybrids, combining the company-building model with traditional fund investing. This allows them to back external founders while still building in-house ventures.

4. More Government and EU Support

As European governments continue to promote entrepreneurship and innovation, expect more support for venture studios via grants, incubator partnerships, and regulatory incentives.

Final Thoughts

Venture studios represent a powerful shift in how startups are built and funded in Europe. By reducing risk, providing hands-on support, and accelerating time-to-market, they are making early-stage investing more efficient and effective.

As innovation becomes a priority across sectors, and the demand for high-quality startups continues to rise, venture studios are well-positioned to become a central pillar of Europe’s startup ecosystem.

Is AI Transforming Venture Capital?

Methodology: Mapping AI’s Impact Across the VC Value Chain

This analysis draws from recent VC investment trends, AI tooling adoption across fund operations, startup market behavior, and published reports from leading firms in venture and enterprise AI. We focus on identifying how artificial intelligence influences sourcing, due diligence, portfolio support, and decision-making within venture capital firms, and whether it’s enhancing efficiency or replacing core human functions.

In Brief: What’s Changing?

• AI tools are being widely adopted for deal sourcing, screening, and due diligence.

• LPs are showing increased interest in VC funds with a defined AI advantage.

• New firms are emerging with AI-built investment platforms, offering algorithmically driven portfolios.

• Portfolio support is becoming more data-informed, from hiring intelligence to pricing optimization.

• The human element of venture capital: relationships, trust, judgment, remains irreplaceable, but it’s being redefined

Rethinking Venture Capital: Why Evolution Isn’t Optional

While venture capital has long been considered a relationship-driven business, it’s also a sector rich in data, startup metrics, founder backgrounds, market dynamics, and exit multiples. As these datasets grow, VCs are increasingly turning to AI-powered platforms to extract insight, surface opportunities, and reduce operational burden.

Tools like Affinity, PitchBook’s AI modules, and custom GPT-based systems are now used to automate initial sourcing and provide predictive scoring on potential investments. Some firms, like SignalFire and Zetta, have fully integrated AI into their scouting stack.

“What used to take weeks of founder outreach and CRM updates can now be done in hours,” says one GP at a data-native early-stage fund.

AI-Driven Deal Flow: Filtering Noise with Signal

One of AI’s most impactful applications has been in the triage of inbound deal flow. Firms now deploy models that rank incoming decks and emails based on historic performance patterns, investment thesis fit, and keyword matching.

Some early-stage firms are even experimenting with LLM-powered memo generation, allowing analysts to summarize founder calls and create investment memos in minutes rather than days.

However, this is not about removing human insight; it's about freeing teams to focus on founder evaluation, industry diligence, and partnership building.

Due Diligence Gets Smarter and Faster

Diligence used to be slow, expensive, and heavily manual. With AI, venture teams now automate:

• Market sizing analysis

• Competitor landscape mapping

• Sentiment tracking across social/web

• Technical benchmarking using code or API audits

Firms like a16z and FirstMark have invested in internal tools that run structured diligence pipelines, combining data scraping with analyst review. AI makes the process leaner without compromising depth.

Still, human interpretation, especially for early-stage, pre-revenue bets, remains essential.

AI at the Portfolio Level: Coaching and Insight at Scale

Beyond the investment decision, AI is reshaping how firms support their startups. From hiring intelligence (e.g,. identifying likely candidate attrition) to churn risk detection and customer segmentation, venture teams are leveraging platforms to give founders smarter feedback, faster.

Portfolio dashboards with embedded AI modules offer near real-time insights, transforming GPs into strategic advisors supported by robust tooling.
Some emerging fund models even offer “productized venture support”, giving founders access to plug-and-play AI toolkits as a default benefit of the partnership.

What AI Won’t Replace

For all its analytical power, AI has limitations. Venture remains a trust business. Relationship building, founder empathy, and strategic thinking still matter deeply, particularly at the earliest stages, where conviction often precedes data.

The winning firms in this new landscape won’t be the ones that replace people with bots, but those that use AI to scale what humans do best: pattern recognition, intuition, and judgment.

Final Thought: AI Is Reshaping Venture Quietly and Permanently

AI is not replacing venture capital but it is changing the pace, process, and precision with which it’s practiced. Firms embracing this shift are seeing faster cycles, smarter insights, and a competitive edge in both sourcing and portfolio management. Those resisting risk falling behind not because they can’t find deals, but because they’re spending time where AI can already add value. The future of VC isn’t fully automated. It’s augmented and the transformation is already well underway.

What Are the Characteristics of a Unicorn Founder?

Unicorn founders possess distinct traits and strategies that set them apart in the entrepreneurial landscape. Contrary to the belief that technological innovation is the primary driver of success, evidence shows that effective strategy, leadership, and timing are crucial for building billion-dollar companies. Here are the key characteristics of successful unicorn founders:

1. Strategic Vision

Unicorn founders excel at identifying and capitalizing on emerging trends. They have a keen ability to spot opportunities in the market and navigate their ventures with a strategic mindset. This skill allows them to lead their companies effectively, even in competitive environments.

Example:

• Steve Jobs improved existing technology rather than creating it from scratch, demonstrating that strategic enhancement can lead to substantial success.

2. Focus on Execution Over Innovation

While innovation is important, it is not the sole factor for success. Many billion-dollar entrepreneurs succeed by imitating and refining existing ideas rather than relying on breakthrough technology. They understand that execution and strategy often outweigh raw innovation.

Notable Founders:

• Bill Gates purchased software and enhanced it.

• Jeff Bezos imitated online booksellers and revolutionized e-commerce infrastructure.

3. Independence from Venture Capital

A significant percentage of billion-dollar entrepreneurs—94%—build their businesses without heavy reliance on venture capital (VC). They prioritize maintaining control over their companies, often delaying or avoiding VC funding until they are in a position of strength.

Key Cases:

• Mark Zuckerberg delayed VC involvement to retain control of Facebook.

• Jan Koum bootstrapped WhatsApp before its acquisition for $19 billion.

4. Leadership Skills

Unicorn founders possess strong leadership capabilities that enable them to guide their companies through various stages of growth. They are adept at rallying teams, making pivotal decisions, and executing their vision effectively.

Leadership Insights:

• Founders who remain in control often retain 2x to 7x more wealth compared to those who hand over leadership to professional CEOs after receiving VC funding.

5. Ability to Adapt and Scale

Successful unicorn founders can adapt their strategies to changing market conditions and scale their businesses efficiently. They leverage their understanding of the industry to navigate challenges and capitalize on new opportunities.

Examples of Adaptation:

• Brian Chesky (Airbnb) took the concept of online rentals and significantly improved it, helping landlords maximize their rental potential.

6. Emphasis on Wealth Creation and Impact

Unicorn founders focus not just on building successful companies but also on creating lasting impact and wealth for themselves and their stakeholders. They understand that true success encompasses both financial rewards and positive societal contributions.

Conclusion

The characteristics of unicorn founders challenge the conventional narrative that technology alone drives success. Instead, it is the combination of strategic vision, execution, independence from VC, leadership skills, adaptability, and a focus on impact that defines these exceptional entrepreneurs. As we rethink entrepreneurship education, it is essential to emphasize these traits to cultivate the next generation of successful founders.

Exploring the Link Between Venture Building and VC-as-a-Service

In the ever-evolving startup ecosystem, two models have emerged as key players in fostering innovation and entrepreneurship: venture building and VC-as-a-Service (Venture Capital-as-a-Service). While their approaches differ significantly, they are interconnected in ways that create synergies and drive value for startups, investors, and corporations alike. This article explores the definitions, differences, and the link between these two models.

What is Venture Building?

Venture building refers to the process of systematically creating startups from scratch within a structured environment, often led by venture studios or startup studios. These studios act as co-founders, providing resources, expertise, and funding to build and launch startups.

Key characteristics of venture building include:

• Idea Generation: Studios identify market gaps and develop startup ideas.

• Operational Involvement: They take an active role in building the team, developing products, and managing operations.

• Shared Resources: Startups benefit from shared infrastructure, such as legal, marketing, and technical support.

• Equity Ownership: Studios typically hold equity in the startups they create.

Venture building minimizes the risk of failure by providing startups with a strong foundation and access to expertise, making it an attractive model for entrepreneurs and investors alike.

What is VC-as-a-Service?

VC-as-a-Service is a model where a venture capital firm offers its expertise and services to manage investments on behalf of external entities, such as corporations, family offices, and institutional investors. Instead of raising a traditional VC fund, these firms act as strategic partners, deploying capital into startups that align with the client’s goals.

Key characteristics of VC-as-a-Service include:

• Customized Investment Strategies: Investments are tailored to the client’s objectives, whether financial returns, strategic innovation, or market access.

• Outsourced Expertise: Clients leverage the VC firm’s network, deal flow, and knowledge without building an internal team.

• Focus on Innovation: Corporations often use VC-as-a-Service to invest in disruptive startups that align with their long-term vision.

This model is particularly appealing to organizations looking to innovate through external investments while mitigating the risks and complexities of direct startup engagement.

How Venture Building and VC-as-a-Service are Linked

Though venture building and VC-as-a-Service serve different purposes, they intersect in several ways, creating opportunities for collaboration and mutual benefit:

1. Complementary Roles in the Startup Ecosystem

• Venture builders focus on creating startups from the ground up, often in the pre-seed or seed stage.

• VC-as-a-Service providers focus on funding and scaling startups, often at later stages.

This complementary relationship allows venture studios to collaborate with VC-as-a-Service firms to secure funding for their portfolio startups, while VC-as-a-Service firms gain access to high-quality, de-risked investment opportunities.

2. Partnerships for Strategic Investment

Venture studios often partner with VC-as-a-Service providers to attract external capital for their startups. For instance:

• A corporation using a VC-as-a-Service model might invest in startups created by a venture studio as part of its innovation strategy.

• Venture studios benefit from these partnerships by securing funding and strategic support for their startups.

3. Integrated Models

Some organizations combine both models under one roof. For example:

• A venture studio may offer VC-as-a-Service to external partners, allowing them to co-invest in the startups the studio creates.

• This hybrid approach aligns the interests of venture builders and investors, creating a streamlined pipeline from startup creation to scaling.

4. Focus on Innovation and Risk Mitigation

Both models aim to foster innovation while reducing risks:

• Venture building reduces the risk of startup failure by providing operational support and expertise.

• VC-as-a-Service diversifies investment risks by spreading capital across multiple startups.

Together, they create a robust ecosystem where startups are not only built but also funded and scaled efficiently.

Key Differences Between Venture Building and VC-as-a-Service :

Conclusion

Venture building and VC-as-a-Service are two distinct yet interconnected models that play vital roles in the startup ecosystem. Venture studios focus on the creation of startups, while VC-as-a-Service enables the funding and scaling of these ventures. Together, they form a powerful combination that drives innovation, reduces risks, and creates value for all stakeholders involved.

As the startup ecosystem continues to evolve, the collaboration between venture builders and VC-as-a-Service providers is likely to grow, creating new opportunities for entrepreneurs, investors, and corporations to thrive.

La réindustrialisation en France : Un bilan contrasté entre défis et opportunités

Source : https://www.journaldeleconomie.fr/Le-bilan-mitige-de-la-reindustrialisation-en-France_a13883.html

La réindustrialisation est un enjeu crucial pour la France, tant sur le plan économique que stratégique. Après plusieurs décennies de désindustrialisation, la France a mis en place divers dispositifs pour inverser cette tendance, en soutenant la création de nouvelles usines et en promouvant l’innovation industrielle. Cependant, les résultats du premier semestre 2024 révèlent un bilan mitigé, marqué par des fermetures d’usines, des délocalisations, mais aussi des signes encourageants dans certains secteurs, notamment liés à la transition énergétique et au recyclage.

Les défis de la réindustrialisation

Malgré des efforts soutenus, la réindustrialisation rencontre de nombreux obstacles. Les données du baromètre Trendeo montrent une baisse des ouvertures de sites industriels de 4 % au premier semestre 2024 par rapport à l’année précédente. En parallèle, les fermetures d’usines ont augmenté de 9 %, ce qui suggère une tendance négative pour le tissu industriel français. De janvier à juin 2024, 61 fermetures d’usines ou d’ateliers de plus de 10 salariés ont été recensées, contre 79 nouvelles ouvertures. Si le solde net reste positif avec 18 ouvertures supplémentaires, il est en nette baisse par rapport à 2023, où le solde s’élevait à 26.

Cette situation est aggravée par une augmentation des faillites, en particulier chez les petites et moyennes entreprises (PME). La Cour des Comptes a récemment critiqué l’insuffisance des mécanismes de détection et de soutien pour ces PME en difficulté. Ces entreprises, pourtant vitales pour l’économie locale, sont souvent les premières à être touchées par les fermetures.

Un mouvement de délocalisations toujours en cours

Le phénomène de délocalisation continue également de peser lourdement sur le secteur industriel français. Des géants comme IBM ont annoncé la suppression de 260 postes en France en 2024 dans le cadre d’une optimisation des centres de services partagés offshore. De même, Stellantis a transféré deux de ses trois lignes de production de boîtes de vitesses à Metz vers l’Inde et l’Italie. Bosch a également délocalisé la production de directions assistées électriques vers l’Europe de l’Est.

Ces décisions ont des répercussions sur l’emploi industriel, accentuant les difficultés économiques dans certaines régions. La perte d’emplois dans des secteurs stratégiques renforce la nécessité pour la France de redoubler d’efforts pour maintenir ses capacités de production sur le territoire national et ne pas perdre davantage de savoir-faire technologique.

Secteurs en croissance : l’énergie et le recyclage en tête

Malgré ces difficultés, certains secteurs se démarquent positivement, notamment ceux liés à la transition énergétique et au recyclage. Ces domaines montrent des signes encourageants de réindustrialisation. Par exemple, le site de Constellium à Neuf-Brisach a renforcé ses capacités de recyclage d’aluminium, témoignant de la vitalité de l’industrie du recyclage en France. Ce secteur représente une opportunité majeure de relance industrielle, en cohérence avec les objectifs de durabilité et de souveraineté économique du pays.

Le projet Hydrovolt, coentreprise entre Norsk Hydro et NorthVolt, illustre également ce dynamisme. Ce site dédié au recyclage de batteries à Hordain (Nord) représente une avancée significative dans le cadre de la transition énergétique. De plus, Enerdigit, une société spécialisée dans l’optimisation de la consommation électrique, s’apprête à ouvrir un atelier à Nantes pour la fabrication de boîtiers de suivi énergétique, participant ainsi à la réindustrialisation du secteur technologique en France.

D’autres initiatives, telles que la construction d’une usine de produits cosmétiques à base d’algues par TechNature en Bretagne, montrent que l’innovation industrielle est bien présente en France. Ces projets, en phase avec les nouvelles exigences écologiques, permettent non seulement de créer de nouveaux emplois, mais aussi de positionner la France comme un leader dans les secteurs clés de l’avenir.

Politiques gouvernementales : des résultats contrastés

La réindustrialisation en France ne serait pas possible sans une intervention gouvernementale forte. Depuis plusieurs années, le gouvernement a mis en place des mesures pour soutenir les investissements industriels et améliorer la compétitivité des entreprises. Le programme France Relance, lancé après la pandémie de Covid-19, et plus récemment France 2030, visent à encourager les projets industriels innovants, notamment dans les secteurs des énergies renouvelables, du numérique, et de la santé.

Cependant, ces politiques peinent parfois à compenser les tendances négatives observées dans certaines branches de l’industrie. Le rapport de la DGE (Direction Générale des Entreprises) souligne que, malgré une amorce de réindustrialisation observée depuis le milieu des années 2010, les crises successives – pandémie, guerre en Ukraine – ont fortement perturbé les chaînes d’approvisionnement et renchéri les coûts des matières premières, retardant ainsi la reprise complète du secteur.

L’un des principaux enjeux pour le gouvernement reste la compétitivité-coût. En effet, le coût horaire de la main-d’œuvre en France reste élevé par rapport à d’autres pays européens comme l’Allemagne, limitant l’attractivité du pays pour certaines entreprises. Cela incite encore certaines industries à se tourner vers des pays à moindre coût de production.

Conclusion : Des perspectives d’avenir à affiner

Le bilan de la réindustrialisation en France pour 2024 est donc contrasté. D’un côté, les fermetures d’usines, les délocalisations et la fragilité des PME continuent d’entraver le redressement du secteur industriel. De l’autre, certains secteurs, notamment ceux liés à l’énergie et au recyclage, affichent des signes encourageants de croissance et de dynamisme.

Les politiques publiques, bien que nécessaires, devront être ajustées pour mieux soutenir les entreprises locales et favoriser une transition industrielle durable. Si la France parvient à surmonter ces défis et à maintenir le cap sur les innovations industrielles, elle pourra solidement s’inscrire dans la dynamique de réindustrialisation en Europe. 

Sources :

1. Aurélien Delacroix, “Le bilan mitigé de la réindustrialisation en France”, 24 septembre 2024.

2. P.B. avec AFP, “Usines en France : la réindustrialisation connaît une baisse de régime”, 23 septembre 2024.

3. “Les Thémas de la DGE, Mai 2024”, Direction Générale des Entreprises.

Secondary Markets Amidst Decreased Insurtech Funding

The Rise of Secondary Markets Amidst Decreased Insurtech Funding

The Insurtech sector, once a magnet for venture capital (VC) funding due to its potential to revolutionize the insurance industry, has recently experienced a significant slowdown in new investments. Economic uncertainties and a more cautious investor mindset have contributed to this decline in primary market activity. As a result, secondary markets—where stakeholders can trade existing shares of private Insurtech companies—have become increasingly important. These markets now serve as a critical source of liquidity for investors and employees, especially as securing new funding rounds becomes more challenging.

A Shift in Insurtech Investment Dynamics

The Insurtech industry, known for its innovation in streamlining and digitizing traditional insurance services, has been notably affected by the broader economic downturn. According to Fintech Global, funding for Insurtech companies in the U.S. dropped by 67% year-over-year, reflecting a shift from growth-oriented investments to a focus on profitability. This change in investment strategy has left many Insurtech firms struggling to raise new capital. In this environment, secondary markets have emerged as a vital alternative, providing a means for stakeholders to realize value from their investments when primary market opportunities are scarce.

With companies staying private longer and facing challenges in attracting new capital, secondary transactions offer a crucial lifeline. Early investors and employees can turn to these markets for liquidity, as traditional funding rounds become more difficult to secure. This trend is supported by BCG, which notes that the Insurtech hot streak has cooled, underscoring the necessity of alternative liquidity solutions.

Secondary Markets as a Response to Funding Challenges

The slowdown in Insurtech funding has led to significant discounts in secondary market valuations. According to Insurance Business Magazine, many Insurtech companies are trading at valuations up to 40% lower than their last funding rounds. This reflects the broader challenges these companies face in securing new capital. Despite these discounts, investor interest in secondary Insurtech shares remains strong, driven by the potential for long-term gains once market conditions improve.

Secondary markets provide investors with a more affordable entry point into the Insurtech sector, which continues to be seen as a high-risk, high-reward industry. The attractiveness of these markets is heightened by the correction in primary market valuations from their previous highs. For Insurtech companies, engaging in secondary market transactions not only helps sustain investor interest but also provides much-needed liquidity to employees holding stock options, which might otherwise be difficult to monetize. Insights from Tenity reinforce the role of secondary markets in offering liquidity solutions amidst a challenging funding environment.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Insurtech Secondary Markets

As the Insurtech industry continues to navigate through a period of reduced funding, secondary markets are expected to play an increasingly critical role. The anticipated recovery of the IPO market could provide better pricing benchmarks, potentially stabilizing valuations and making secondary investments more appealing. However, until that recovery materializes, secondary markets will remain a key mechanism for liquidity in the Insurtech sector.

Moreover, as Insurtech companies mature and look for ways to sustain growth without relying solely on new VC rounds, secondary markets will provide a necessary outlet for early investors and employees to capitalize on their holdings. This trend is likely to persist, particularly as Insurtech continues to attract attention for its innovative potential and the ongoing digital transformation of the insurance industry. Insurance Times, highlights that while funding has plummeted, secondary markets are stepping in to offer much-needed support and liquidity.

In conclusion, the decline in Insurtech funding has underscored the growing importance of secondary markets as a vital tool for liquidity and investment. As the Insurtech industry adapts to new financial realities, secondary markets are poised to remain central to its continued growth and evolution.

Sources:

1. Funding for Insurtech companies in US dropped by 67% YoY as investors pull back - Fintech Global

2. Insurtech’s Hot Streak Has Ended. What’s Next? - BCG

3. Global Insurtech funding falls below $1 billion in Q1 2024 - Insurance Business Magazine

4. Insurtech funding: The state of Insurtech in 2024 - Tenity

5. US Insurtech investment activity in freefall as funding declined 78% YoY - FinTech Global

6. Insurtech funding plummets in Q1 2024 - Insurance Times

Qu'est-ce que le crédit patrimonial et comment fonctionne-t-il ?

Le crédit patrimonial est un type de financement qui permet aux particuliers et aux entreprises de tirer parti de leur patrimoine pour obtenir des fonds. Contrairement aux crédits traditionnels, qui sont souvent basés sur les revenus ou les antécédents de crédit de l'emprunteur, le crédit patrimonial repose sur la valeur des actifs détenus, tels que des biens immobiliers, des actions, ou d'autres formes de patrimoine. Ce type de crédit est particulièrement utile pour les personnes disposant d'un patrimoine important mais ayant besoin de liquidités sans pour autant vouloir vendre leurs actifs. Cet article explore en détail ce qu'est le crédit patrimonial, comment il fonctionne, et quels en sont les avantages et les inconvénients.

1. Comprendre le crédit patrimonial

Le crédit patrimonial, également connu sous le nom de prêt adossé à des actifs ou crédit collatéralisé, permet aux emprunteurs de mettre en gage des actifs pour obtenir des fonds. Ces actifs peuvent inclure :

• Biens immobiliers : maisons, appartements, terrains, ou propriétés commerciales.

• Portefeuilles d'investissements : actions, obligations, fonds communs de placement, ou autres titres.

• Actifs tangibles : objets de valeur tels que des œuvres d'art, des bijoux, ou des véhicules de collection.

• Participations dans des entreprises : parts ou actions dans des entreprises privées.

Le montant du crédit est généralement déterminé par la valeur marchande des actifs mis en gage, avec un ratio de prêt sur valeur (LTV) qui définit le pourcentage de la valeur des actifs pouvant être emprunté. Ce ratio varie en fonction du type d'actif et du niveau de risque associé. Par exemple, les biens immobiliers peuvent permettre un LTV plus élevé que les investissements en actions, qui sont plus volatils.

2. Fonctionnement du crédit patrimonial

Le processus de crédit patrimonial suit plusieurs étapes clés :

1. Évaluation des actifs : L'emprunteur doit fournir une estimation de la valeur de ses actifs. Pour les biens immobiliers, cela peut impliquer une évaluation professionnelle ; pour les portefeuilles d'investissements, une déclaration de compte peut suffire.

2. Détermination du LTV : Le prêteur évalue le risque associé aux actifs et fixe le ratio de prêt sur valeur (LTV). Par exemple, pour un bien immobilier évalué à 500 000 €, un prêteur pourrait offrir un LTV de 70 %, ce qui permettrait d'emprunter jusqu'à 350 000 €.

3. Conditions du prêt : Le prêteur établit les termes du prêt, y compris le taux d'intérêt, la durée du remboursement, et toute garantie additionnelle nécessaire. Les taux d'intérêt peuvent être fixes ou variables, et sont souvent inférieurs à ceux des crédits non garantis, car le risque est atténué par la valeur des actifs mis en gage.

4. Utilisation des fonds : Une fois le prêt approuvé, les fonds peuvent être utilisés pour diverses fins, telles que l'achat de biens, le financement d'un projet d'entreprise, ou la gestion de flux de trésorerie. Contrairement à certains types de crédits, le crédit patrimonial offre souvent une grande flexibilité dans l'utilisation des fonds.

5. Remboursement et récupération des actifs : L'emprunteur rembourse le prêt selon les conditions convenues. En cas de défaut de paiement, le prêteur a le droit de saisir les actifs mis en gage pour récupérer les fonds prêtés. Une fois le prêt remboursé, les actifs sont restitués à l'emprunteur.

3. Avantages du crédit patrimonial

Le crédit patrimonial présente plusieurs avantages pour les emprunteurs :

• Accès rapide aux liquidités : En mettant en gage des actifs, les emprunteurs peuvent rapidement accéder à des fonds importants, ce qui est particulièrement utile pour les situations d'urgence ou les opportunités d'investissement immédiates.

• Taux d'intérêt compétitifs : Les prêts garantis par des actifs ont généralement des taux d'intérêt plus bas que les prêts non garantis, car le risque pour le prêteur est réduit.

• Flexibilité d'utilisation : Les fonds obtenus via un crédit patrimonial peuvent être utilisés pour presque n'importe quel besoin financier, offrant une flexibilité que l'on ne retrouve pas toujours avec d'autres types de crédits.

• Optimisation fiscale : Dans certains cas, les intérêts payés sur un crédit patrimonial peuvent être déductibles d'impôt, en particulier si les fonds sont utilisés pour des investissements ou des activités générant des revenus.

• Conservation des actifs : Plutôt que de vendre des actifs pour obtenir des liquidités, les emprunteurs peuvent les mettre en gage, ce qui leur permet de conserver leur patrimoine tout en accédant à des fonds.

4. Inconvénients et risques du crédit patrimonial

Malgré ses nombreux avantages, le crédit patrimonial comporte aussi des risques et des inconvénients :

• Risque de perte d'actifs : En cas de défaut de paiement, le prêteur peut saisir les actifs mis en gage, ce qui peut entraîner une perte de patrimoine importante.

• Fluctuation de la valeur des actifs : Si la valeur des actifs mis en gage diminue, le prêteur peut exiger des garanties supplémentaires ou réduire le montant du prêt, ce qui peut entraîner des complications financières pour l'emprunteur.

• Coûts supplémentaires : Des frais d'évaluation, de gestion et d'administration peuvent s'ajouter au coût du crédit, réduisant ainsi les avantages financiers pour l'emprunteur.

• Engagement à long terme : Le remboursement d'un crédit patrimonial peut s'étendre sur plusieurs années, et les emprunteurs doivent être prêts à s'engager sur le long terme, surtout si les taux d'intérêt sont variables.

5. Qui peut bénéficier du crédit patrimonial ?

Le crédit patrimonial est particulièrement adapté pour :

• Les particuliers fortunés qui possèdent des actifs importants et souhaitent accéder à des liquidités sans vendre leur patrimoine.

• Les entrepreneurs cherchant à lever des fonds pour financer de nouveaux projets ou des investissements dans leur entreprise.

• Les investisseurs immobiliers qui souhaitent refinancer des propriétés pour obtenir des liquidités supplémentaires.

• Les retraités qui possèdent des biens immobiliers et souhaitent améliorer leur trésorerie sans vendre leur résidence principale.

Conclusion

Le crédit patrimonial est une solution financière puissante pour ceux qui disposent d'un patrimoine substantiel et qui souhaitent accéder à des liquidités tout en conservant leurs actifs. En offrant des taux d'intérêt compétitifs, une grande flexibilité et un accès rapide aux fonds, il représente une alternative intéressante aux crédits traditionnels. Cependant, il est essentiel pour les emprunteurs de bien comprendre les risques associés, notamment la possibilité de perte des actifs mis en gage, et de s'assurer qu'ils peuvent respecter les conditions de remboursement pour éviter des complications financières. En fin de compte, le crédit patrimonial peut être un outil précieux pour gérer son patrimoine de manière stratégique, à condition d'en connaître les tenants et les aboutissants.

Trois stratégies distinctives pour assurer la pérennité des fonds de capital-risque d’entreprise (CVC)

Les fonds de capital-risque d’entreprise, connus sous l’acronyme CVC, traversent une phase de transformation. Historiquement, ces fonds étaient perçus comme éphémères, souvent dissous avant même d’avoir pu traverser un cycle complet d’investissement, qui dure généralement entre sept et dix ans. La blague courante suggérait que leur durée de vie moyenne était de quatre ans. Cependant, cette perception est en train de changer. D’après l’enquête annuelle GCV Keystone de 2024, environ 60 % des fonds CVC actifs ont maintenant dépassé cette marque de quatre ans, et un nombre croissant d'entre eux — environ 17 % — ont franchi le cap des dix ans.

Ces unités entrent alors dans ce que GCV appelle la « phase de résilience ». À ce stade, les fonds ont survécu à divers changements internes et cycles de marché. Leur valeur est non seulement reconnue par leur société mère, mais ils sont également moins susceptibles d’être perturbés par des événements internes ou externes, ayant appris à naviguer dans un environnement complexe et souvent instable.

Atteindre la phase de résilience : Trois stratégies pour durer

Pour les CVCs qui cherchent à rejoindre le club des dix ans et plus, il existe plusieurs pratiques qui les distinguent. Grâce à l’analyse des données issues de l'enquête GCV Keystone 2024, voici trois stratégies qui ressortent chez les CVCs résilients.

1. Évolution de la structure de reporting : s’éloigner de la supervision du PDG

L’un des changements notables chez les CVCs en phase de résilience est leur tendance à s’éloigner d’une supervision directe par le PDG. Traditionnellement, beaucoup de fonds CVC étaient sous la responsabilité du PDG, ce qui permettait de démontrer l’engagement de la haute direction envers le programme d’investissement. Cependant, pour les CVCs qui perdurent, seulement 19 % continuent de rendre compte directement au PDG, comparativement à 35 % dans le groupe général. Cette évolution vers une supervision par le directeur de la stratégie (chief strategy officer) ou d’autres postes stratégiques permet aux CVCs de s'aligner davantage sur les objectifs à long terme de l’entreprise tout en bénéficiant d’une plus grande autonomie.

Ce changement de reporting reflète une maturation organisationnelle. En se plaçant sous la responsabilité d’un dirigeant stratégique plutôt que du PDG, les unités CVC peuvent se concentrer sur leur mission principale sans les pressions immédiates de la direction générale, tout en restant alignées sur la stratégie d’entreprise. Cela réduit aussi le besoin d’une supervision constante par la haute direction, permettant aux CVCs de prouver leur valeur par leurs résultats plutôt que par un suivi direct.

2. Intégration des unités opérationnelles dans le comité d’investissement

Une autre pratique clé chez les CVCs résilients est l’implication accrue des unités opérationnelles dans le processus de prise de décision d’investissement. Environ 50 % des CVCs durables incluent des responsables des unités commerciales dans leur comité d’investissement, contre seulement 36 % dans le groupe général. Cette approche permet d’assurer que les investissements réalisés sont alignés sur les besoins concrets de l’entreprise et favorise des synergies entre les startups du portefeuille et les divisions opérationnelles.

L’implication des unités commerciales est cruciale pour maximiser l’impact stratégique des investissements. Cela facilite la création de ponts entre les startups et les opérations courantes de l’entreprise, rendant les innovations plus accessibles et exploitables pour l’ensemble de l’organisation. De plus, cela permet de transformer les relations avec les startups en véritables partenariats opérationnels, augmentant ainsi les chances de succès des projets pilotes et des intégrations technologiques.

À l’inverse, dans les CVCs plus jeunes, la présence du PDG dans le comité d’investissement est souvent plus fréquente, avec 51 % des unités rapportant une telle structure. Si le soutien direct du PDG est précieux pour établir le fonds et donner une impulsion initiale forte, les CVCs plus matures démontrent qu'une approche distribuée de la gouvernance est plus durable sur le long terme.

3. Diversification par des investissements indirects

La troisième caractéristique des CVCs qui atteignent la phase de résilience est leur stratégie d’investissement diversifiée, notamment par l’adoption de positions de partenaire limité (LP) dans d'autres fonds de capital-risque. Environ 59 % des CVCs résilients investissent dans d’autres fonds VC, contre 47 % dans le groupe général. En outre, 66 % des CVCs durables ont des participations dans trois fonds VC ou plus, tandis que cette proportion n'est que de 40 % dans le groupe général.

Cette approche permet aux CVCs de bénéficier d’un effet multiplicateur en accédant à un plus grand nombre d’opportunités d’investissement et en étendant leur réseau dans l'écosystème de l'innovation. En investissant indirectement dans d'autres fonds, les CVCs peuvent également apprendre des meilleures pratiques d'autres investisseurs, diversifier leurs risques et avoir une exposition à des secteurs ou à des stades d'investissement qu'ils ne couvriraient pas autrement directement. Cela crée un effet de levier qui permet aux CVCs de maximiser leur impact stratégique tout en répartissant les risques.

Conclusion

Pour qu'un fonds CVC survive et prospère dans un environnement souvent imprévisible, il doit évoluer au-delà de ses premières années en adaptant sa structure de gouvernance, en impliquant les unités opérationnelles et en diversifiant ses investissements. Ces stratégies permettent non seulement de renforcer la résilience des fonds, mais aussi de les transformer en véritables moteurs d'innovation stratégique pour leur entreprise mère, capables de générer une valeur durable et significative au fil du temps. Pour les CVCs, la clé est d'aller au-delà des simples investissements et de s'intégrer profondément dans la stratégie globale de l'entreprise.

Comment réinvestir 60% de son capital après un apport-cession en holding en 2024

Source : https://www.tudigo.co/media/analyses/150-0-b-ter

L'article 150-0 B ter du Code général des impôts (CGI) représente une avenue fiscale avantageuse pour les entrepreneurs qui cherchent à optimiser leur imposition sur les plus-values mobilières. Ce dispositif permet un report d'imposition lors de l'apport de titres d'une société à une holding, suivi par la cession de ces mêmes titres, sous condition de réinvestissement.

Mécanisme de l'Apport-Cession selon l'article 150-0 B ter

Ce mécanisme offre la possibilité de reporter l'imposition sur la plus-value générée par la vente de titres d'une entreprise, à condition que ces titres soient préalablement apportés à une holding. L'intérêt principal réside dans la capacité à différer la fiscalité et, sous certaines conditions, à réinvestir un montant supérieur dans des activités économiques ou des fonds de placement éligibles.

Conditions de Réinvestissement

Le cœur de cette stratégie repose sur l'obligation de réinvestir 60% du produit de la cession dans les deux ans suivant la vente, dans des activités ou des placements précisément définis par le législateur. Ce réinvestissement doit s'effectuer dans des secteurs d'activité éligibles qui contribuent à l'économie réelle, offrant ainsi une opportunité de croissance pour l'entreprise et l'économie en général.

Réinvestissements Éligibles

Les options de réinvestissement admissibles sous l'article 150-0 B ter sont diversifiées et incluent :

• Le financement direct d'activités opérationnelles : Cela peut concerner le développement d'une nouvelle branche d'activité au sein de la holding ou le renforcement de ses activités existantes.

• L'acquisition de titres d'entreprises opérationnelles : L'achat de titres d'autres entreprises opérationnelles, sous condition de contrôle ou sans contrôle, pour étendre le portefeuille d'activités de la holding.

• La souscription à des parts de fonds de capital-investissement : Investir dans des fonds qui soutiennent financièrement des entreprises européennes, avec une obligation de détention minimale qui assure un engagement à long terme.

Avantages pour les Chefs d'Entreprise

En choisissant cette voie, les chefs d'entreprise peuvent significativement réduire leur charge fiscale immédiate sur la plus-value réalisée lors de la cession de leurs parts. Ce report d'imposition n'est pas seulement un avantage fiscal mais permet également de réinvestir dans des activités à forte valeur ajoutée, favorisant ainsi la croissance et le développement économique.

Cas Pratiques

Pour illustrer concrètement l'application de l'article 150-0 B ter, prenons l'exemple d'un entrepreneur qui, après avoir apporté et vendu ses titres via sa holding, a choisi de réinvestir dans un fonds de capital-investissement éligible. Cette démarche lui a permis non seulement de différer l'imposition sur la plus-value mais aussi de participer activement au financement de startups innovantes

Conclusion

L'article 150-0 B ter du CGI ouvre des perspectives intéressantes pour l'optimisation fiscale des plus-values mobilières à travers l'apport-cession. Il incite les entrepreneurs à réinvestir dans l'économie réelle, contribuant ainsi à leur croissance personnelle et au développement économique. Une consultation avec un expert est essentielle pour tirer le meilleur parti de cette stratégie, en alignant les intérêts fiscaux avec les objectifs de croissance et d'investissement.

Corporate Venture Capital: Balancing Financial Returns and Strategic Objectives

Corporate Venture Capital (CVC) is a powerful strategy for driving innovation and strategic growth. However, balancing the pursuit of financial returns with achieving strategic objectives is a complex task that requires careful planning and execution. This article explores how CVC units can effectively balance these dual goals to maximize their impact.

Understanding the Dual Goals of CVC

1. Financial Returns

• Profit Generation: Like traditional venture capital, one of the primary goals of CVC is to generate financial returns from investments in high-potential startups.

• Portfolio Diversification: Investing in a diverse range of startups helps mitigate risk and enhance the potential for high returns.

2. Strategic Objectives

• Innovation and Technology Acquisition: CVC allows corporations to access cutting-edge technologies and innovations that can be integrated into their operations.

• Market Expansion: Investing in startups can open new markets and customer segments for the parent company.

• Strategic Partnerships: CVC can foster strategic partnerships and collaborations that drive long-term growth and competitive advantage.

Strategies for Balancing Financial Returns and Strategic Objectives

1. Clear Investment Thesis

• Define Priorities: Clearly define the primary objectives of the CVC unit, whether it’s financial returns, strategic innovation, or a balanced approach. This helps in making consistent investment decisions.

• Alignment with Corporate Strategy: Ensure that the investment thesis aligns with the overall corporate strategy and long-term goals of the parent company.

2. Dual Evaluation Criteria

• Financial Metrics: Evaluate potential investments using traditional financial metrics such as ROI, IRR, and market potential. This ensures the financial viability of the investments.

• Strategic Metrics: Simultaneously assess the strategic fit of the startups, including their alignment with the company’s innovation goals, market expansion plans, and technology needs.

3. Balanced Portfolio Approach

• Diversification: Maintain a balanced portfolio of investments that includes both high-risk, high-reward startups and more stable, strategically aligned companies. This helps manage risk while pursuing strategic goals.

• Stage Diversification: Invest in startups at different stages of development, from early-stage ventures with high growth potential to later-stage companies with proven technologies and market presence.

4. Active Portfolio Management

• Regular Reviews: Conduct regular reviews of the portfolio to assess the performance of each investment against both financial and strategic metrics.

• Adapt and Pivot: Be prepared to adapt the investment strategy based on market changes, technological advancements, and shifts in corporate strategy. This includes divesting from underperforming investments and reallocating resources to high-potential opportunities.

5. Strategic Collaboration and Integration

• Integration Plans: Develop clear plans for integrating the technologies and innovations from portfolio companies into the parent company’s operations. This ensures that the strategic benefits are realized.

• Collaborative Projects: Foster collaborative projects between the parent company and the startups to drive mutual growth and innovation. This can include joint product development, co-marketing initiatives, and technology sharing.

6. Performance Metrics and KPIs

• Financial KPIs: Track key financial performance indicators such as revenue growth, profitability, and exit multiples. These metrics provide insights into the financial health of the portfolio.

• Strategic KPIs: Develop strategic KPIs to measure the impact of CVC investments on the parent company’s strategic goals. This can include metrics like technology adoption rates, market share growth, and innovation outcomes.

7. Governance and Oversight

• Strategic Committees: Establish strategic committees comprising senior executives and industry experts to oversee the CVC activities. These committees ensure that investments align with both financial and strategic objectives.

• Transparent Reporting: Maintain transparent reporting and communication channels with stakeholders, including regular updates on the performance and strategic impact of the CVC portfolio.

Case Studies and Examples

1. Google Ventures: Google Ventures (GV) is known for its balanced approach, investing in a wide range of sectors and stages. GV focuses on both financial returns and strategic alignment with Google’s innovation goals, resulting in successful investments in companies like Uber, Nest, and Slack.

2. Intel Capital: Intel Capital invests in startups that align with Intel’s strategic focus areas, such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and IoT. This dual focus has allowed Intel to drive innovation while achieving significant financial returns from its investments.

3. Johnson & Johnson Innovation: Johnson & Johnson Innovation combines financial investments with strategic collaborations in the healthcare sector. Their CVC unit invests in startups that can complement and enhance Johnson & Johnson’s product portfolio and research capabilities.

Conclusion

Balancing financial returns and strategic objectives in Corporate Venture Capital requires a clear investment thesis, dual evaluation criteria, and a balanced portfolio approach. By actively managing the portfolio, fostering strategic collaborations, and tracking both financial and strategic KPIs, CVC units can maximize their impact and drive sustainable growth.

The success of a CVC program depends on its ability to align with the parent company’s broader strategic goals while delivering financial returns. By following the strategies and best practices outlined in this article, corporations can navigate the complexities of CVC and unlock its full potential, ensuring long-term success and competitive advantage in the market.

Navigating the Legal and Regulatory Landscape in Corporate Venture Capital

Corporate Venture Capital (CVC) is a powerful tool for driving innovation and strategic growth. However, navigating the legal and regulatory landscape is crucial to ensure that investments are compliant and that potential risks are mitigated. This article explores the key legal and regulatory considerations for CVC units and provides best practices for managing these aspects effectively.

Key Legal and Regulatory Considerations

1. Securities Regulations

• Registration Requirements: Depending on the jurisdiction, certain securities offerings may need to be registered with regulatory authorities. Understanding these requirements helps avoid legal pitfalls and ensures compliance.

• Accredited Investors: Many jurisdictions have specific rules regarding who can invest in private securities. Ensuring that all investors meet the criteria for accredited investors is essential for compliance.

• Disclosure Obligations: Transparency is crucial in CVC transactions. Proper disclosure of material information to investors and stakeholders is necessary to comply with securities laws.

2. Antitrust and Competition Laws

• Market Power and Monopoly Concerns: Investments that significantly impact market dynamics may attract scrutiny from antitrust authorities. It’s important to evaluate the competitive implications of CVC investments.

• Mergers and Acquisitions: When a CVC unit acquires a controlling interest in a startup, it may trigger merger control notifications or approvals. Understanding the thresholds and requirements in different jurisdictions is essential.

3. Intellectual Property (IP) Rights

• IP Due Diligence: Conduct thorough due diligence to assess the startup’s IP portfolio, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. This ensures the startup has robust IP protection and avoids potential infringement issues.

• IP Ownership and Licensing: Clearly define the ownership and licensing rights of IP developed during the collaboration. This includes ensuring that the parent company has the necessary rights to use and commercialize the IP.

4. Contractual Agreements

• Investment Agreements: Draft clear and comprehensive investment agreements that outline the terms and conditions of the investment, including funding, equity stakes, governance rights, and exit strategies.

• Partnership Agreements: Establish partnership agreements that define the roles and responsibilities of each party, collaboration terms, and dispute resolution mechanisms.

• Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreements: Protect sensitive information through confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). These agreements help safeguard proprietary information and maintain competitive advantage.

5. Regulatory Compliance

• Industry-specific Regulations: Depending on the startup’s industry, there may be specific regulatory requirements to comply with. This includes regulations related to healthcare, finance, technology, and other sectors.

• Data Privacy and Security: Ensure compliance with data privacy and security regulations, such as GDPR, CCPA, and other relevant laws. This is particularly important for startups handling sensitive customer data.

Best Practices for Managing Legal and Regulatory Aspects

1. Engage Legal Experts

• In-house Legal Team: Establish a dedicated in-house legal team with expertise in venture capital, securities law, IP, and regulatory compliance. This team can provide ongoing legal support and ensure compliance with relevant laws.

• External Legal Advisors: Engage external legal advisors with specialized knowledge and experience in CVC transactions. They can provide valuable insights and help navigate complex legal and regulatory issues.

2. Conduct Thorough Due Diligence

• Legal Due Diligence: Conduct comprehensive legal due diligence to assess the startup’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations. This includes reviewing corporate documents, contracts, litigation history, and regulatory filings.

• Regulatory Risk Assessment: Evaluate the regulatory risks associated with the startup’s business model and operations. This helps identify potential compliance challenges and develop mitigation strategies.

3. Develop Clear Policies and Procedures

• Compliance Policies: Develop and implement clear compliance policies and procedures for the CVC unit. This includes guidelines for due diligence, investment approvals, and ongoing monitoring of portfolio companies.

• Training and Education: Provide regular training and education to the CVC team and portfolio companies on legal and regulatory compliance. This ensures that everyone understands their responsibilities and stays updated on regulatory changes.

4. Monitor Regulatory Changes

• Regulatory Watch: Establish a regulatory watch function to monitor changes in laws and regulations that may impact the CVC unit and its portfolio companies. This helps in proactively addressing compliance issues.

• Industry Associations: Participate in industry associations and advocacy groups to stay informed about regulatory developments and engage in policy discussions. This can also provide a platform for influencing regulatory changes.

5. Implement Robust Contract Management

• Standardized Contracts: Use standardized contracts and templates to ensure consistency and compliance across all CVC transactions. This simplifies the contracting process and reduces legal risks.

• Contract Management System: Implement a contract management system to track and manage all contractual agreements. This helps in maintaining oversight and ensuring compliance with contractual obligations.

Conclusion

Navigating the legal and regulatory landscape in Corporate Venture Capital is essential for ensuring compliance, mitigating risks, and achieving strategic success. By focusing on key legal and regulatory considerations and implementing best practices, CVC units can effectively manage these aspects and enhance their investment activities.

Engaging legal experts, conducting thorough due diligence, developing clear policies, monitoring regulatory changes, and implementing robust contract management are critical steps in this process. By following these best practices, corporations can build a strong foundation for their CVC programs, driving innovation and growth while ensuring legal and regulatory compliance.

Best Practices for Sourcing and Evaluating Startups in Corporate Venture Capital

In the competitive landscape of Corporate Venture Capital (CVC), sourcing and evaluating startups effectively is crucial for success. Identifying the right startups to invest in can drive innovation, strategic growth, and financial returns for the parent company. This article outlines best practices for sourcing high-potential startups and conducting thorough evaluations to ensure strategic alignment and investment success.

Best Practices for Sourcing Startups

1. Building a Robust Network

• Industry Events and Conferences: Attend industry-specific events, conferences, and trade shows to network with innovative startups and stay updated on the latest trends.

• Academic and Research Partnerships: Collaborate with universities, research institutions, and innovation hubs to identify early-stage startups working on cutting-edge technologies.

• VC and Accelerator Partnerships: Establish partnerships with traditional venture capital firms, accelerators, and incubators. These entities often have access to a pipeline of high-potential startups.

2. Leveraging Internal Resources

• Internal Innovation Programs: Encourage internal innovation programs and idea contests within the parent company. Employees can often identify promising startups through their industry connections and market insights.

• Cross-functional Teams: Involve cross-functional teams from various departments (e.g., R&D, marketing, finance) in the startup sourcing process. Their diverse perspectives can help identify startups with the highest strategic fit.

3. Utilizing Technology and Platforms

• Startup Databases and Platforms: Use online startup databases and platforms such as Crunchbase, AngelList, and PitchBook to identify and track emerging startups.

• Social Media and Online Communities: Monitor social media platforms and online communities where startups often showcase their innovations and seek partnerships.

4. Developing a Strategic Focus

• Clear Investment Criteria: Define clear investment criteria that align with the parent company’s strategic goals. This includes target industries, technology areas, and stages of development.

• Thematic Sourcing: Focus on specific themes or problem areas that are strategically important to the parent company. This helps in identifying startups that can address key business challenges and opportunities.

Best Practices for Evaluating Startups

1. Comprehensive Due Diligence

• Market Analysis: Assess the startup’s target market, including market size, growth potential, and competitive landscape. This helps determine the startup’s potential for scalability and market penetration.

• Technology Assessment: Evaluate the startup’s technology, including its uniqueness, scalability, and potential for integration with the parent company’s existing technologies.

• Financial Health: Conduct a thorough financial analysis, including revenue streams, profitability, cash flow, and funding history. This ensures the startup has a solid financial foundation.

2. Team and Leadership Evaluation

• Founders’ Expertise and Track Record: Assess the founders’ backgrounds, expertise, and previous entrepreneurial experience. Strong leadership is often a key indicator of a startup’s potential for success.

• Team Dynamics and Culture: Evaluate the startup’s team dynamics, culture, and organizational structure. A cohesive and motivated team is crucial for executing the startup’s vision and strategy.

3. Strategic Fit and Synergy

• Alignment with Corporate Strategy: Ensure the startup’s vision and goals align with the parent company’s strategic objectives. This includes assessing potential synergies and the startup’s ability to complement the company’s existing operations.

• Integration Potential: Consider the ease of integrating the startup’s technology or products with the parent company’s systems and processes. Successful integration can drive greater value from the investment.

4. Risk Assessment

• Regulatory and Legal Risks: Identify any regulatory or legal risks associated with the startup’s business model or market. This includes intellectual property rights, compliance issues, and potential legal liabilities.

• Market and Competitive Risks: Assess the risks related to market competition, customer adoption, and technological obsolescence. Understanding these risks helps in making informed investment decisions.

5. Pilot Projects and Proof of Concept

• Pilot Collaborations: Conduct pilot projects or proof-of-concept collaborations to test the startup’s technology and its potential impact on the parent company’s operations. This provides practical insights into the startup’s capabilities and strategic fit.

• Feedback and Iteration: Use feedback from pilot projects to refine the evaluation process and identify areas for improvement. This iterative approach helps in making more accurate investment decisions.

Conclusion

Sourcing and evaluating startups effectively is a critical component of a successful Corporate Venture Capital program. By building a robust network, leveraging internal resources, utilizing technology, and developing a strategic focus, CVC units can identify high-potential startups that align with their corporate objectives.

Comprehensive due diligence, team evaluation, strategic fit assessment, risk assessment, and pilot projects are essential best practices for evaluating startups. By following these practices, CVC units can make informed investment decisions, drive innovation, and achieve strategic growth.

Ultimately, the success of a CVC program depends on its ability to identify and invest in startups that offer both financial returns and strategic value. By implementing the best practices outlined in this article, corporations can enhance their CVC programs and unlock the full potential of their investments in the startup ecosystem.

Measuring the Success of Corporate Venture Capital: Key Metrics and Best Practices

Corporate Venture Capital (CVC) is not just about financial investments; it’s also about achieving strategic goals that align with the parent company's vision. To ensure a CVC program is delivering value, it’s essential to measure its success accurately. This article explores key metrics for evaluating CVC performance and best practices for implementing these measurements.

Key Metrics for Measuring CVC Success

1. Financial Metrics

• Return on Investment (ROI): ROI measures the profitability of investments. It’s a straightforward metric that calculates the gain or loss generated relative to the investment cost.

• Internal Rate of Return (IRR): IRR is a more sophisticated financial metric that considers the time value of money. It’s used to evaluate the profitability of potential investments and compare the desirability of various investments.

• Exit Multiples: This metric compares the exit value of an investment to its original investment amount. It provides a clear picture of the financial return achieved upon exiting an investment.

2. Strategic Metrics

• Innovation Adoption Rate: This metric tracks how successfully the innovations from CVC-backed startups are integrated into the parent company’s operations. It includes metrics like the number of new products or technologies adopted.

• Market Penetration: Measures how the CVC investments help the parent company enter new markets or expand within existing ones. It includes market share growth and geographic expansion.

• Technology Transfer Success: Assesses how effectively new technologies from the startups are transferred to and utilized by the parent company. It includes the number of technology integrations and their impact on the company’s operations.

3. Operational Metrics

• Deal Flow Quality: Measures the quality and quantity of investment opportunities sourced by the CVC unit. It includes the number of deals reviewed, the percentage of deals that meet investment criteria, and the number of deals closed.

• Time to Deal: Tracks the efficiency of the investment process by measuring the time taken from identifying an opportunity to closing a deal. Faster deal cycles can indicate a more agile and effective CVC unit.

• Portfolio Company Performance: Evaluates the performance of the startups in the CVC portfolio. This includes revenue growth, market position, and progress toward strategic milestones.

4. Relationship Metrics

• Startup Satisfaction: Measures the satisfaction levels of the startups with the support and value provided by the CVC unit. This can be assessed through surveys and feedback mechanisms.

• Internal Stakeholder Engagement: Tracks the level of engagement and collaboration between the CVC unit and other departments within the parent company. Higher engagement levels often lead to better strategic alignment and innovation adoption.

Best Practices for Implementing CVC Metrics

1. Balanced Scorecard Approach

• Utilize a balanced scorecard approach to integrate financial, strategic, operational, and relationship metrics. This holistic view ensures that all aspects of the CVC program are measured and aligned with corporate objectives.

2. Regular Performance Reviews

• Conduct regular performance reviews to assess the progress of the CVC unit. These reviews should involve key stakeholders and include both quantitative and qualitative assessments.

3. Dynamic Metrics Adjustment

• Be prepared to adjust metrics as the CVC program evolves. The business environment and strategic goals can change, requiring new metrics or the adjustment of existing ones.

4. Clear Communication

• Communicate the importance and relevance of CVC metrics to all stakeholders. Ensure that everyone understands how these metrics align with the broader corporate strategy and objectives.

5. Data-Driven Decisions

• Base decisions on data and insights derived from the metrics. This helps in making informed and objective decisions regarding investments, strategic shifts, and operational improvements.

6. Stakeholder Involvement

• Involve key stakeholders in the development and review of CVC metrics. This ensures buy-in and helps align the CVC activities with the expectations and needs of the parent company.

7. Continuous Learning

• Foster a culture of continuous learning within the CVC unit. Use the insights gained from the metrics to improve processes, refine strategies, and enhance overall performance.

Conclusion

Measuring the success of a Corporate Venture Capital program is essential for ensuring it delivers both financial returns and strategic value. By implementing a balanced set of metrics and following best practices, companies can gain a comprehensive understanding of their CVC performance. This, in turn, enables them to make informed decisions, optimize their investment strategies, and achieve their long-term strategic objectives.