Latest news with #VCs
Hans India
3 days ago
- Business
- Hans India
Momentum right for India to accelerate its innovation trajectory powered by AI and Deep Tech: IGIC 2025
Bengaluru: Global Industry experts outlined AI, deep tech, clean tech, structural and process reforms as pillars of Innovation in Viksit Bharat at the 4th edition of India Global Innovation Connect (IGIC) in Bengaluru. The two-day Summit will bring together a powerful global assembly of technology leaders, policymakers, startup founders, investors and academicians to explore the theme "Innovation in the Age of AI: Business, Society and Governance." Entrepreneurs from India, US, Japan, Korea, Germany, Singapore, Israel, Switzerland, France, the UAE and other nations engaged in technology and business interactions on the inaugural day of the Summit. The opening day of the two-day event focused on the transformative role of key sectors in reshaping industries and societal frameworks, with a series of keynotes, dialogues, fireside chats and brainstorming sessions exploring India's positioning as a global innovation powerhouse. The day further witnessed key global industry leaders from Indian and global startup founders, VCs and investors, corporate and government leaders, technology and public policy experts under one common platform. The leaders and industry experts engaged with attendees on a range of topics, including AI and deep tech as the new frontier of innovation, invisible reforms toward 'Developed India' (Viksit Bharat), new developments in fintech, shaping AI for society and society for AI, what next in Aerospace, the coming blood revolution, AI-driven learning revolution innovation dynamics between startups and established corporations, etc. Claude Smadja, Chairman Smadja & Smadja Strategic Advisory said, 'India today stands at a pivotal inflection point, both in its domestic evolution and its global positioning. As we navigate an era marked by transformative shifts in AI and deep tech, the momentum is right for India to accelerate its innovation trajectory. Despite the challenges that major global powers are facing, India is uniquely placed to emerge as a global hub for technological advancement, particularly in the domain of data and big data, where it holds a distinct advantage.' Mohandas Pai, Chairman, Aarin Capital said, " As we prepare for the age of quantum computing and grapple with the reality of machines performing most of the human tasks, we must rethink how we educate the next generation and how we build networks, not just of nations, but of people and cities across the world, to ensure that innovation benefits everyone. And there is no better place to lead this future than Bengaluru."
Forbes
5 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Venture's Journey Into Private Equity
We've seen recently that a number of venture firms are looking to acquire mature businesses and apply AI to drive growth and efficiency. That speaks to the opportunity that we see in this latest revolution, and we expect to see more of this type of activity going forward. While much of the reporting has focused on this as a reason for VCs to enter private equity, I also see a structural aspect of venture that I believe will compel firms to move into private equity; namely, the structural imbalance between the number of startups that venture firms have invested in relative to the rate at which these are being acquired. To set the stage, recall that the best companies in venture drive the majority of returns in the industry. The attempt to invest in and build those companies - which typically scale past $100mm in ARR and keep growing with increasingly efficient unit economics - has led VCs to fund a significant number of companies. A query of PitchBook's data shows over 54k VC-backed companies in existence in the US, with 28k seed companies, 14k series A companies, 6k series B companies, 2.8k series C companies, and 1.2k series D companies as of May 2025. Contrast the sizable inventory of startups with the more tempered pace at which exits are happening as seen in the graph below. If we contrast the inventory of companies with the number of exits at their respective stages, this has averaged over the last decade around 200 Series A company exits per year, 130 Series B company exits per year, 80 Series C company exits per year, and 90 Series D (or later) company exits per year. At that rate, considering just the most mature companies at the Series D stage, we would need about 1.2k / 90 = 13 years for these companies to exit. If we look at the inventory of current Series C stage companies, the historic exit rate would imply roughly 35 years to remove the backlog of VC-backed companies. Exits for startups typically come from getting acquired by a strategic or a private equity fund or going public. When looking at the distribution of exit types, we find that the average exit path over the last 10 years has been 73% acquisition, 19% buyout by a private equity firm, and 8% IPO. In past analyses, we've also seen that a meaningful percentage of startups at each stage either go out of business or continue on as private companies without raising subsequent rounds of financing. If the volume of exits is not there, could the values associated with exits tell us something different? What we look at exits by dollar value, we find that the source of the best returns - the IPO market - has been effectively closed the last few years. IPOs generate the best outcomes in terms of total market capitalization, but the window at this point has closed for all but the largest startups. Given the longer hold time for companies, we've already seen venture firms exercising fund extension rights with limited partners as well as establishing continuation funds to keep investing in portfolio companies. We've also seen venture firms increasingly look to sell stakes in their portfolio companies to secondary buyers as a way to generate distributions to limited partners. The problem with these solutions is that they don't match the scale of the inventory of good companies that exist. I believe that the natural evolution of venture will be to build out private-equity-like capabilities, whether through the addition of teams with PE experience or by raising funds specifically focused on rollup strategies. In effect, venture funds will move to a model where they can sponsor their existing companies to grow through acquisitions and drive scale and efficiency. For entrepreneurs, this means that the exit strategy could increasingly be a focus on identifying complementary startups that they can merge with as part of this evolution. This trend has already begun over the last several years, and may become a meaningful exit path as venture funds increasingly look to drive scale and ultimately exits for their portfolio companies. This is by no means an easy path, however. Venture companies tend to be concentrated in waves. At one point in the past we had identified at least 29 venture-funded antivirus software companies competing for that market. Today we see similar volumes of new companies being funded in similar markets in the current wave of AI companies. Building and scaling defensible data or distribution strategies and meaningful market shares will be required for this type of transition into more of a private equity-type model to work. We expect to see operators from private equity firms be brought onboard by the larger venture funds given the scale of the capital tied up in their portfolios over time. We've already seen investment bankers hired into capital markets or advisory roles at the larger funds, and I believe this type of rollup persona will become increasingly common in the years ahead. While there are plenty of opportunities to buy mature companies and drive efficiencies via AI, I believe the imbalance between the supply of good companies versus the volume of exits will by itself drive the transformation of our industry.
Forbes
27-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Decoding Midas: The Data Behind Forbes' VC Power Rankings
The Midas List is compiled using data submissions from VC firms and publicly available deal information. The goal? To form the Midas model: a comprehensive, data-driven picture of top investors and their portfolios. Decoding Midas: The Data Behind Forbes' VC Power Rankings Fueled by advancements in AI, startups and the broader tech sector are a driving force behind today's market – with venture capital serving as its lifeblood. Every year, Forbes and TrueBridge collaborate to produce the Midas List, highlighting the top 100 venture capitalists whose savvy investments have delivered the strongest returns in the industry. Celebrating its 15th year in the current configuration, the Midas List spotlights the best-performing VCs by analyzing which investors have generated the strongest returns as measured by portfolio companies that have gone public, been acquired, or raised funding at higher valuations. It's a deeply data-driven process that pulls from both public information and thousands of investment deals submitted from hundreds of investors. Although the methodology has remained largely unchanged since its launch, the team has continuously refined various aspects of the Midas model to improve its accuracy. To compile the list, the Midas team spends months each year gathering, verifying, and analyzing data to build a comprehensive view of top investors and their portfolios. The process begins each year in January, when venture firms are invited to confidentially submit their information. The teams at Forbes and TrueBridge also conduct extensive outreach to identify additional standout investors and encourage them to participate. While many investors appear on the Midas List year after year, we're always seeking out fresh talent and aim to broaden the pool of submissions, especially from emerging groups, sectors and geographies. Investors are evaluated based on deals from the past five years, including companies that have gone public or been acquired for at least $200 million, or private companies currently valued at $400 million or more. For the Midas Seed List, eligibility is based on companies that have exited at $50 million or higher, or have an unexited private valuation of at least $100 million within the five-year window. In addition to valuations, the confidential data submissions include information such as when a firm first invested in a company, the level of involvement an investor had in that company and to what extent the investment has been realized. The five-year lookback period is designed to quantify recent success, giving more weight to VCs who've made strong, timely bets. For example, a successful IPO can increase an investor's chances of making the list, but only for a limited time. That investment remains eligible for consideration for five years after going public, with its impact gradually decreasing each year. After the fifth year, it's no longer factored in, making room for newer deals to shape the rankings. Recent lists have certainly felt the impact of that five-year window. With IPO deals remaining at record lows for another year and down-rounds are on the rise, investors have felt the blow of certain deals aging out or gradually decreasing in impact, with fewer recent exits available to take their place. Since last year's Midas List, companies with standout exits like Uber, Slack, and Lyft have aged out. While top names like ByteDance and SpaceX continue to dominate the upper ranks, the five-year lookback window has created room for significant shifts throughout the list, which we expect to continue in the AI era. TrueBridge receives confidential submissions from venture firms worldwide. Investors backing companies from personal balance sheets or for a single corporation don't qualify as they often have objectives outside of pure financial returns driving their investment strategy. In addition, the Midas team collects publicly available data on financing rounds, public offerings, and M&A transactions. This information is used to validate and supplement firms' submissions, cross-referencing them with other submissions, past Midas data, public records, and expert insights on the deals and market trends. This comprehensive data set helps us identify which VCs are delivering the strongest performance and returns, ultimately shaping the Midas List. Each year, more firms submit data for consideration, contributing to a growing pool of tens of thousands of data points. This year, the average investor on the list reported 12 qualifying deals. This reflects the rapid pace of investment activity in recent years. However, it's not just the quantity of deals that matters, it's the quality of the returns and the investor's active involvement in the companies they back. By relying on verified quantitative factors from multiple data sources, we believe that the Midas List is the most data-driven ranking of its kind. Venture capital plays a pivotal role in global innovation and our goal is not only to highlight the investors backing the next generation of standout companies, but also to offer insight into the venture capital industry and how it operates. We look forward to recognizing the investors who aren't just funding innovation, but those who are actively working alongside founders to help bring bold ideas to life. Additional details on the Midas model and the quantitative factors that influence the list can be found at the submission site: If you're interested in being notified when submissions open each year, please email midas@
TechCrunch
20-05-2025
- Business
- TechCrunch
You've got 6 days to save $900 on Disrupt 2025 tickets
Less than one week left to save big on TechCrunch Disrupt 2025 passes! Disrupt 2025 prices increase on May 25 at 11:59 p.m. PT. Grab your pass now and: Save up to $900 on your ticket Bring a friend, colleague, co-founder, or tech enthusiast for 90% off The clock is ticking — lock in your massive savings here. Why attend TechCrunch Disrupt 2025? From October 27–29, join the ultimate gathering of startups, VCs, product leaders, and tech enthusiasts at Moscone West in San Francisco. It's Disrupt's 20th anniversary, and we're doubling down on what matters: Six main stages packed with tech and VC pioneers who'll share next-gen insights packed with tech and VC pioneers who'll share next-gen insights 250+ sessions with industry icons with industry icons 200+ expert-led discussions expert-led discussions Startup Battlefield 200 — where selected Pre Series A startups pitch competitively live Epic networking with the 10,000+ decision-makers and investors attending — where selected Pre Series A startups pitch competitively live with the 10,000+ decision-makers and investors attending 200+ innovations to explore in the Expo Hall Image Credits:Getty Images Speaker sneak peek For 20 years, TechCrunch Disrupt has spotlighted the innovation that drives startups forward. In 2025, we're going bigger. Join us to hear firsthand from the founders, executives, and investors leading the next wave of tech. Explore our initial speaker lineup — and check back on the speaker page as new pioneers are announced weekly. Ryan Peterson of Flexport will take the Builders Stage at TechCrunch Disrupt 2025, taking place from October 27-29, 2025 in Moscone West, San Francisco. Image Credits:Slava Blazer / TechCrunch Stay ahead of the curve and save big before time's up Don't miss your chance to save big for Disrupt — prices jump after May 25 at 11:59 p.m. PT! Lock in up to $900 in savings, bring a colleague for 90% off, and experience one of the year's top tech events. Register now to secure your spot and your savings.
Japan Times
18-05-2025
- Business
- Japan Times
Government capital is not just 'silly money'
Silicon Valley-minded venture capitalists (VCs) around the world tend to blindly criticize government capital for innovation as 'silly money.' For sure, there has been a global trend to replicate concepts from Silicon Valley with regards to the 'power law' of venture capital, 'move fast, break things' disruption, avoidance of government and the 'fake it until you make it' confidence, among others. Nothing could be more wrong — especially when Silicon Valley is fundamentally a sui generis culture and ecosystem. Unlike Silicon Valley's predominantly private-sector-driven ecosystem, many Asian societies exhibit greater risk aversion, necessitating proactive government involvement to stimulate entrepreneurial activity. Historically, government funding and industrial policy have played a pivotal role in fostering innovation and supporting startups across Asia, starting with Japan, followed by other countries like South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, among others. And we must not forget that, even in the establishment of the Silicon Valley ecosystem, the U.S. government and military played a big role in the postwar years and the military even laid the foundation for the invention of the internet and the semiconductor chip. In particular, the commercialization of cutting-edge fundamental research at universities carries high risks and very long gestation periods that could be unpalatable to private-sector players. Further, deep-tech and life-science research from universities are often of strategic interest to governments, particularly from the angles of national security and economic development, which typical investors may not be attracted to. Indeed, government-backed VCs, including public university VCs are more inclined to invest in early-stage companies, particularly those emerging from academic or research institutions. On the other hand, independent VCs tend to focus on later-stage investments where the risk is lower and the potential for returns is clearer. This approach often leads to underinvestment in nascent technologies and startups that require more time and support to mature. A study by Iqbal Muhammad and Stephanie Serve analyzing 3,817 firms across nine Asian developing countries from 1991 to 2017 found that government-backed startups were more likely to receive early-stage financing compared to those backed by independent VC firms. And while government-backed VCs may have a lower likelihood of successful exits compared with independent VCs, which tend to follow more rigorous due diligence processes and market-driven strategies, government-backed startups perform better in the expansion and later stages thanks to early investments aimed at unlocking exponential innovation. As examples across Asia, Singapore's government actively supports startups through initiatives like the Startup SG Equity program. Last year, an additional $338 million was allocated to this program, increasing the investment cap per startup from $6 million to $9 million. Taiwan's government has invested approximately $211.6 million over five years to support local equipment and materials suppliers in building research and development capabilities. Meanwhile, mainland China exemplifies a robust government-led approach to innovation. In 2022, tax rebates for corporate R&D reached 1.3 trillion Chinese yuan (approximately $180 billion), marking a 28.8% annual growth rate since 2018. Additionally, in 2025, China launched a 1 trillion yuan ($138 billion) government-backed venture fund targeting emerging technologies like quantum computing and artificial intelligence. With this context, a key platform to commercialize fundamental research — especially from universities and research institutions — are government-backed university VCs and incubation programs. In the early stage deep-tech space, incubators turn basic research into commercializable ideas and found companies, while university VCs would invest when startups at the seed stage are ready to create products based on their intellectual property and beyond. In 2022, the Japanese government launched the University Fund of Japan, a ¥10 trillion ($68.5 billion) endowment aimed at revitalizing the nation's research capabilities and fostering innovation. This initiative addresses concerns over declining research performance and aims to position Japanese universities as global leaders in scientific research. Profits from the investments are distributed to selected universities, with a maximum annual allocation of ¥300 billion ($2 billion). The duration is suitably long for early stage deep-tech investments — the support is structured to continue for up to 25 years, providing long-term financial stability to recipient institutions. Universities are chosen based on their strategies for research excellence and organizational reform. Tohoku University was the first institution selected under this program. Public university VCs like Kyoto-iCAP (Kyoto University Innovation Capital), where the author works, are also designed to take high risks to commercialize fundamental university research through government funding alongside private-sector limited partners. Its funds, with a capital size of more than $220 million, have a duration of 12 to 15 years to reflect the high risks and long gestation periods. Indeed, according to Global University Venturing, Japan has one of the most advanced university VC ecosystems in Asia — 85% of its top universities have an investment vehicle to support its startups. Other notable Japanese university VCs are University of Tokyo Edge Capital Partners (UTEC) — which leads the pack with an approximate capital size of $594 million, University of Tokyo Innovation Platform, Osaka University Venture Capital and Tohoku University Venture Partners. More than 40% of European institutions and more than half of Australian campuses have funds too. In contrast, only about a third of U.S. universities maintain such investment vehicles, which goes back to the U.S. and Silicon Valley having a unique private-sector-dominated ecosystem that is backed by a highly entrepreneurial and risk-taking culture. Some of the successful exits that have emerged from the university VC ecosystem are Kyoto iCAP-funded Cuorips and Chordia Therapeutics, UTEC-funded PeptiDream and Spiber, National University of Singapore-incubated and Temasek-backed VC fund Vertex-funded PatSnap and Oxford Science Enterprises-backed Oxford Nanopore Technologies and Immunocore. Going forward, especially when deep-tech fields like semiconductors, materials, clean energy, AI and life sciences become more strategically important for Asian societies, further funding from governments and universities are crucial. This can eventually scale the early stage of a deep-tech startup ecosystem and encourage risk-sharing that could attract more private-sector players. Raymond Woo is the Singapore Office Representative of Kyoto-iCAP (Kyoto University Innovation Capital), Kyoto University's venture capital firm.
