A new mandate for sovereign investment
For most of their history, sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) have been evaluated by a narrow set of financial metrics: risk-adjusted returns, capital preservation, and global portfolio diversification. Technology investing entered its remit gradually, initially through private equity, and later through venture capital, as innovation became the world’s most reliable source of value creation. But in the last decade, expectations placed on sovereign funds have shifted profoundly. Financial performance remains essential, yet it is increasingly necessary, but not sufficient. In the era defined by technological rivalry, supply-chain fragility, and rapid industrial transformation, sovereign funds are now judged not only by the capital they generate but also by the capabilities they help build at home.
The shift is driven by a simple reality: national prosperity today depends less on access to advanced technologies than on the capacity to produce them domestically. While venture capital exposure has delivered strong returns for sovereign funds, it has not consistently built domestic innovation ecosystems. The problem is not performance; it is where that performance accrues.
The geography of venture capital and its value creation
The startups that receive sovereign funding generate economic opportunity where they operate, not where the capital originates. Between 2012 and 2020, Temasek more than doubled its participation in foreign VC investments. Yet Singapore’s contribution to global deep-tech commercialisation remained below 3%, and most breakthroughs produced in the country’s research institutions were commercialised elsewhere. Saudi Arabia deployed more than USD 5 billion into global VC and growth funds within the same period, producing excellent financial outcomes; however, over 90% of the resulting patents, specialist R&D labor, and supplier networks were formed abroad rather than domestically.
This is not a flaw in venture capital; it is a feature. VC allocates capital to the fastest-scaling markets, not to the markets that most need capability development. It rewards liquidity, not industrial strategy. Venture capital helps sovereign funds profit from innovation, but it does not help their economies become the source of innovation.
Why venture building offers a structural alternative
Venture building, also known as the venture studio model, has emerged as a strategic instrument for sovereign investors because it reverses the causality of innovation. Instead of waiting for entrepreneurs to propose ideas, venture studios originate, validate, and construct companies from scratch, based on demonstrable market evidence and aligned to domestic economic priorities. The model filters failure early, when it is still inexpensive, and concentrates capital only once validation has occurred.
The performance gap is substantial. Across multiple international benchmarks, studio-built ventures achieve portfolio IRRs averaging ~53%, compared with ~21% for traditional VC-backed startups, seed-success rates of ~84% (versus ~55%), series-A conversion of ~72% (versus ~42%), and time to Series-A of ~25 months (versus ~56 months).
The difference is not marginal. It reflects a different risk architecture: venture capital deploys money to discover evidence; venture studios generate evidence before deploying money. For sovereign funds, whose investments face public accountability and long-horizon national implications, that sequencing matters.
Singapore: From research power to commercial power
Singapore offers a striking example of how venture building can change the economic trajectory of innovation. Between 2017 and 2023, the country generated over SGD 20 billion in deep-science research output, yet a small fraction translated into Singapore-headquartered commercial ventures. The bottleneck was not the quality of science; it was the absence of a mechanism connecting scientific breakthroughs to commercial and industrial outcomes.
Sovereign-backed venture studios were introduced to close this gap by systematically designing companies around the areas in which Singapore has scientific leadership, for example, semiconductors, cybersecurity, medical analytics, and industrial AI. These ventures were structured not only for growth but to retain IP domestically, create specialised high-wage employment, and position Singapore as an exporter rather than consumer of frontier technology. Venture capital did not disappear in this system. It entered later, once customer traction had been established, turning deep-tech research from a long-term cost into a source of internationally competitive capability.
UAE: Building the suppliers of the future industrial economy
United Arab Emirates adopted venture building with a different ambition: to create domestic suppliers for the industries that will anchor its future economic model. National champions in energy, logistics, and aviation are already globally competitive, but future industrial value chains, such as in hydrogen technology, robotics, automation, and maritime digitisation, require a level of innovation density that the domestic startup ecosystem could not yet produce organically.
Venture studios addressed this gap by building companies to serve these strategic industries and launching them with guaranteed early-stage demand from large sovereign customers. Where a deep-tech startup elsewhere might take three to five years to secure its first enterprise contract, UAE-backed studio ventures have achieved revenue in 12–24 months because pilot environments with ADNOC and DP World were engineered from inception. Venture building thus became not merely an innovation initiative, but a commercial-proof industrial-diversification strategy.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar: accelerating capability formation
Saudi Arabia and Qatar pursued venture building as a way to shorten the time required to build frontier-sector capabilities. Rather than wait decades for ecosystems to develop organically, venture studios were used to generate repeated entrepreneurial cycles that accumulate technical talent, IP, and supplier bases far more rapidly.
In Saudi Arabia, venture building in food security, biotech, and climate technology has produced more than 14,000 high-skill jobs and over 220 patents across five years, while reducing dependency on imported industrial technology in targeted segments. In Qatar, studio initiatives in irrigation systems, logistics, and energy storage contributed to import-dependence reductions of 18–32% in selected categories within four years. These are not startup metrics but macroeconomic outcomes.
The strategic realisation among sovereign funds
Although Singapore, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar deploy venture building for different reasons, commercialising research, developing domestic suppliers, and accelerating capability formation, the insight underlying their decisions is the same that venture capital allows sovereign funds to benefit from innovation generated elsewhere, and to create innovation capacity within their own economies.
The implication is that the question facing sovereign funds is not whether VC is attractive; it is whether VC alone is sufficient to deliver long-term strategic advantage. The evidence increasingly suggests it is not. Venture capital captures value from innovation. Venture building creates the conditions under which innovation, including its economic benefit, can be domestically anchored.
Conclusion
The global economy is entering a phase in which competitive advantage will depend less on the ability to import advanced technologies and more on the ability to produce frontier innovation domestically and repeatedly. For sovereign wealth funds, the rise of venture building is not a deviation from traditional investment logic but its evolution. As energy systems transform, as food security and industrial resilience rise in strategic importance, and as artificial intelligence reshapes every value chain, the sovereign funds shaping the next decade will be those that use capital not only to generate returns but to generate capability.
References
Venture Studio Index: Global Performance Benchmark Report (2024)
Bundl: Venture Building Benchmark and Series-A Conversion Report (2023)
Big Venture Studio Research: Survival Ratio Analysis of Venture-Built Startups (2024)
International Forum of Sovereign Wealth Funds (IFSWF): Innovation, Allocation, and Domestic-Capability Trends (2022–2024)
Boston Consulting Group: The Venture Builders Strategy for Principal Investors (2022)