The Capital
Behind
Venture
2020
Insights from the investors behind
Europe’s Venture Capital
Ecosystem
Stay updated CapitalBehindVenture.com
This report is for information purposes only. You should not construe any such information or other material
as legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice. All content in this report is information of a general
nature and does not address the circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Nothing in the report
constitutes professional and/or financial advice, an offer, invitation or inducement to purchase or acquire
interest in any of the companies presented, nor does any information in the report constitute a
comprehensive or complete statement of the matters discussed or the law relating thereto. Mountside
Ventures is not a fiduciary by virtue of any person’s use of, or access to, this report. You alone assume sole
responsibility for evaluating the merits and risks associated with the use of any information or other content
in this report and of making any decisions based on such information or other content. In exchange for
using this report, you agree not to hold Mountside Ventures, its affiliates or any third party service provider
liable for any possible claim for damages arising from any decision you make based on information or
other content made available to you through this report.
The information set forth herein has been obtained from sources which we believe to be reliable, but this is
not guaranteed. This publication is provided with the understanding that the authors and publisher shall
have no liability for any errors, inaccuracies or omissions therein and, by this publication, the authors and
publisher are not engaged in rendering consulting advice or other professional advice to the recipient with
regard to any specific matter.
63 Limited Partners with offices in over 15 countries contributed to the report, over a period of three months.
We used Typeform to collect the data, along with manual checks to check whether participants were in
fact LPs.
The contents of this publication are protected by copyright. All rights reserved. The contents of this
publication, either in whole or in part, may not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
without written permission of the publisher.
© Copyright 2020 Mountside Ventures. Mountside Ventures is the trading name of Mountside Venture
Partners LLP. It is regulated by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales for a range of
investment business activities and is registered at 27 Old Gloucester Street, London, WC1N 3AX.
© Copyright 2020 Allocate Events Ltd, which is registered at 207 Regent Street, Third Floor, London, W1B 3HH.
Disclaimer
2
Before we get started
Foreword
© 2020 Mountside Ventures, Allocate Events Ltd
3
¹ Pitchbook
Despite COVID and BREXIT, this remains a very exciting - albeit challenging -
time for the European technology venture capital ecosystem.
For fund managers and investors alike, there is very little information in the public
domain on best practice, preferred terms and practical advice on raising a VC
fund. Our goal in writing this report is to reduce barriers for VC fund managers,
but also show Limited Partners how their peers are exploring investing into
European Venture Capital funds. We hope that this report is a first step towards
making the ecosystem more transparent and shedding some light on the
mechanics of this exciting and growing space.
Heading into 2020, there was cause for optimism within the European VC
Ecosystem. While American investment slowed, European VC deal value in 2019
recorded a record-breaking high as deal sizes swelled across the continent, with
over 110 billion Euros being invested in European startups, across 48 countries, in
the last five years¹.
We would like to thank all our survey respondents and distribution partners
without whom this report would not have been possible.
Jonathan Hollis
Managing Partner, Mountside Ventures
Lomax Ward,
Managing Partner, Luminous Ventures; Co-founder, ALLOCATE
Andrew J Scott
Managing Partner, 7percent Ventures; Co-founder, ALLOCATE
Executive Summary
5
6
7
9
10
Overview of participants
Why venture?
Building LP relationships
LP investment thesis
13
14
Emerging VC managers
Practical insights for VC funds
17
21
22
23
25
You've raised, now what?
COVID-19
Improving the Ecosystem
Our public contributors
26
27
Distribution partners
About the producers
Contents
54
Government funding of
European VC
Collectively, our LP respondents met with
over 2,000 prospective VCs in the last 12
months. Over the last 3 years, they invested
in 360 VCs.
European
taxpayers (via government
backed LPs) are responsible for a large
proportion of VC investing.
Building relationships takes time: just 20% of
LPs had invested in a fund they'd known for
less than a year. Over 70% wanted to meet
VCs as early on in their fundraising journey
as possible.
90% of LPs were willing to take a risk with
emerging fund managers, now or in the
future. Over 80% had already invested in
them, with half as their biggest investor.
65% of LPs were interested in alternatives to
investing solely in VC funds to get exposure
to this asset class, such as investing directly
into companies, investing in fund-of-funds
and secondaries.
The most common blockers to funding VCs
were geography, fund size, ESG and sectors.
43% of institutions or fund-of-funds said
COVID has accelerated their deployment
into VC, while family offices said it had
slowed their deployment.
Overall, only 20% of respondents said COVID
had slowed their investment activities.
This report is based on detailed data collected
from 63 Limited Partners (LPs) globally who
invest in, or are interested in investing in,
European Venture Capital (VC) funds.
Financial Returns
Option to deploy capital
into later rounds
Market
intelligence
Contributing to the
venture ecosystem
Diversification
LPs' appetite to invest in a
particular VC is driven by,
in order of importance:
Executive summary
55
1
2
3
4
5
Geographic spread
Despite European VC funds securing just 13% of aggregate capital raised globally,
the region represents a favourable fundraising environment: 90% of venture
capital vehicles raised by European managers met or exceeded their target size,
compared to only 79% of North America based funds¹. Our view is that this is as a
result of the recent EU Venture Capital Funds (EuVECA) regulations which
address certain issues arising from the Alternative Investment Fund Managers
Directive (AIFMD). The changes included greater flexibility on VC investments
across the region, as well as limiting the imposition of host fees and charges,
making the asset class more attractive to investors.
Overview of participants
The majority of respondents
were located across Europe
Many Limited
Partners and
Family offices are
also based in
America, and are
interested in what
Europe has to
offer.
Respondents
also included
those based
in South East
Asia and the
Middle East.
All respondents were offered anonymity. Many LPs and Family
Offices continue to remain private.
6
¹ Ancillary data from Pitchbook
You have the right to remain silent
Shared data &
published their name
Shared data
Declined to
participate
23
40
35
Types of Limited Partners
Capital flows into VC funds from Limited Partners (LPs) such as pension funds,
other venture capital funds, university endowments, government agencies, fund
of funds, and high net worth (HNW) individuals or family offices. Some of these
players have a stronger focus on private markets, whilst others such as pension
funds and university endowments, allocate more of their capital to the public
markets. 2018 was a record high for fundraising in Europe, with over 11b Euros
being committed ¹.
Types of LPs surveyed, as a percentage of total respondents
In the US, endowments and foundations are comparatively more
aggressive, and willing to take more risk by allocating larger portions
to VC asset classes, whereas in Europe, they are less active. T̀his
category had the greatest increase in European VC from 2014-2018.¹
Fund-of-funds are established as an intermediary to allow larger
institutional
investors to research, access, and manage VC
investments. They contributed 1b Euros in 2018, more than any other
LP type apart from government agencies.¹
Family offices & HNWs are a significant source of capital for VC
funds. According to the World Wealth Report, wealthy families and
individuals control about 36 trillion Euros globally.
7
¹ The State of European Tech 2019 Report
Fu
nd
of
Fu
nd
s
Fa
m
ily
Of
fic
es
&
HN
W
Co
rp
or
ates
&
Pe
ns
ion
s
Go
ve
rnm
en
t
En
do
wm
en
t
Ot
he
r V
C
Fu
nd
s
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Why venture?
The European ecosystem is maturing, closing in on and now rivalling the US and
Asian ecosystems. Europe produced more tech IPOs than the US in the years 2012-
2018* and VC deal value in 2019 hit a record-breaking 110b Euros invested in
European startups, across 48 countries, over the last five years.²

Europe was responsible for completing over 4,600 rounds* in 2019 into high-growth
sectors such as healthcare, artificial intelligence and financial services. Factors
including the deregulation of certain sectors, lower costs of living and established
corporates investing in VC have all contributed to Europe’s progress, whilst helping
the ecosystem flourish.

In the UK alone, the focal point for European tech, early-stage companies were
responsible for around 500 exits in both 2018 and 2019, many with strong multiples on
their initial valuations. The benefits of having such a booming startup scene reach far
and wide, not only increasing jobs, but creating innovation that can dramatically
improve our personal and working lives.

Over the last 9 years, UK startup expenditure has soared, increasing by £10b in
investment, from £2b in 2011 to £12b in 2020. Moreover, investors have been driving
growth by deploying significant cash into the economy marked by startups securing
£2.7b in equity investment in Q3 2020, a 48% increase from Q2 2020 and just a 1%
drop from Q3 2019, despite the pandemic.
¹ Data provided by Beauhurst
² Pitchbook, 2019
*State of European Tech Report, 2019
8
Partner
Input
Over 70% of LPs strive to engage as early as possible, with 16% (mostly
family offices) engaging after soft commitments and the rest looking to
engage after the first investments have been made.
The venture ecosystem has always been
rooted in forging trusted relationships between
managers and investors. COVID-19 and the
move to remote working has arguably put a
strain on the VC/LP dynamic
in 2020.
Relationships are based on trust, transparency
and time in person.
Most venture relationships have to last longer
than most marriages (typically over a
decade), so it is crucial to know who you are
partnering with. LP's want to understand
intimately how VCs invest and how they do
business in general.
Building LP
relationships
Collectively,
respondents met
with over 2,000
prospective VC
funds each year.
20% of respondents had invested
in a fund which they’d known for
less than a year, with over 50%
taking one to two years to build
the relationship, and 30% more
than two years.
9
1-5
5-10
10-15
15-20
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
The number of times LPs have
met VCs before they invest
LP investment thesis
~50% of Limited Partners are interested in direct investment
opportunities (investing into startup companies). The
majority of these being family offices or HNW individuals.
Neither pension funds or the government backed entities
considered a direct investment strategy.
58% of Limited Partners were interested in co-investment
opportunities (where LPs invest directly alongside a VC).
This is possible, for example, when a VC cannot take their
whole allocation in a follow-on round.
34% of LPs were interested in secondaries (where LPs
acquire portfolios of VCs). VC funds are an illiquid asset
class, and secondaries allow increased liquidity for funds
that may not be able to continue funding the ongoing
capital requirements of their portfolio companies.
Direct investment
of Limited Partners are interested in deploying
capital, beyond straight VC fund investing
Only 12% of LPs were interested in allocating capital to fund
of funds (funds which invest into other VC funds). This can
be a good way to achieve diversification, to gain wider
exposure to a specific market or sector, or alternate
investment stage.
Co-investment
Fund of funds
Secondaries
65%
10
Preferred sectors
Over half of respondents indicated
that they do not have a specific
sector preference. Those that did,
invested
in a wide
range:
enterprise software, life sciences,
pharma & biotechnology, edtech,
autonomous
vehicles/mobility/transportation,
artificial
intelligence, consumer,
fintech,
agriculture,
industrial
manufacturing and defence.
Restrictions
44% of LPs stated that they had
restrictions
as
part
of
their
investment
thesis.
The most
common restrictions identified in
the
survey were
geographic
restrictions, fund size restrictions,
ESG considerations, fund number
and sector restrictions..
Track record
Although a VC's thesis is an
important consideration for an
LP, the exact details of the thesis
pale
in comparison
to an
investor's primary criteria when
considering
an
investment:
investment track record.
This comes as no surprise.
Potential fund managers need to
be able to clearly articulate their
value add propositions above that
of purely being able to leverage
their network; having a clear
differentiation will not only allow
you to raise from LPs but also allow
you to access competitive deals.
Sam Ettelaie, Investment Manager
11
Sector popularity
Most popular
Least popular
Percentage of
respondents who
thought these
factors were most
important
A potentially good VC fund
cannot only be judged by
the investment track
record; it is a combination
of different key factors
alongside this
1. Team 2. Investment
Strategy 3. Track Record
4. Terms...'
Strength of
relationships
between the VCs
Alignment
of Interest
Fund investment
thesis
Size of network
Reputation of
the fund
60% said track
record was the most
important factor.
We love funds that can
offer high volume, high
quality co-investments
A handful of LPs said
these factors were
most important
Investment criteria summary
12
9%
9%
12%
This report provides unique behind-the-scenes analysis, highlighting the
maturing venture capital ecosystem in the UK and Europe across all
stages, seed to growth. A worthwhile read for any aspiring fund manager!
Europe is home to world-leading technology thought leaders, supported
by a strong science and developed innovation ecosystem, enabling the
growth in category leaders in groundbreaking technologies. 
Kerry Baldin, Vice Chair, BVCA
gap, or pump more financial resources
into the private venture capital market.
Public funding in VC has remained
relatively
stable,
although private
wealth that has accumulated over the
past decade from exited entrepreneurs
is,
now more
than ever, being
channeled back into the VC ecosystem,
with Atomico reporting a 38m Euro
increase in commitment from private
individuals over 2017-2018.¹
Public policies for VC have sparked an
active
theoretical and empirical
debate.
First,
do
European
governments need to intervene in the
VC market in the first place? Previous
reports emphasise that government
intervention can be justified as a
result of the “equity gap”, which arises
from a
lack
of
funding
for
entrepreneurs. Private investors also
have limited resources and may
decide not to fund ventures requiring
high set up costs and large R&D
budgets.
Therefore, a considerable number of
potentially promising ventures may
remain unfunded, and the shortage of
capital
may
constrain
their
development and growth.
It
is,
therefore, natural for governments to
either invest in companies that are
adversely affected by the equity
Government
funding of
European VC
of the 360 VC funds were
invested in by
government backed LPs
Governmental institutions
account for a large proportion
of investment activity.
13
5
120
¹ The State of European Tech 2019 Report
Our objective has always been to
foster innovation and support the
development of a sustainable market,
independently of
the economic
cycles. By funding massive European
GPs,
and
thanks
to
stronger
performances,
this market
has
become
attractive
for
private
investors; we now see more and more
VC funds being oversubscribed!”
David Dana, EIF
Fund I - II
30%
First Fund
25%
Fund I - III
19%
Emerging Market
14%
Previous Experience
12%
greater uncertainty about the
political, economic, legal and
regulatory environments
longer holding periods may be
needed to develop an asset to
the point where it is suitable for
a trade sale, reducing liquidity
a lack of a viable IPO exit route
in some markets
Defined emerging as a manager
targeting emerging markets.
Investing
in emerging markets
comes with a number of challenges,
in particular:
Emerging VC managers
saw first-time fund managers with no
prior institutional investing experience,
but with angel investing or operating
backgrounds as emerging managers.
There is no one size fits all when it comes to "emerging fund managers". Nor is
there a consensus between LPs as to how they are defined. The diagram below
presents data on how respondents define an emerging manager:
consider VCs continue to be emerging
after having deployed their first fund,
and a further 19% still within the scope
when raising their third.
Some LPs believed the
definition was more
nuanced. Such as: those
'with "small, agile teams" or
those with "sufficient
investment experience".
14
14%
25%
30%
Other ideas
Perhaps surprisingly, 12% believed
emerging managers were those
with 'previous experience'.
A minority
It is very hard for emerging VC
funds to raise, especially with
increasing competition. It’s also
hard for LPs to build conviction on
new VC managers,
but
it
happens. Focus on building your
track record, having a truly
differential strategy and ensuring
there is economic alignment to
build LP interest.
Martin Punt, BVCA
82%
50%
first-time funds had received individual
investment, with 80% of the VCs' partners being
first-time institutional investors.
of Limited Partners are interested in investing in
emerging fund managers now or in the future.
80%
of those LPs led as a cornerstone investor.
117
90%
15
of all the LPs have invested in emerging fund managers.
of non-governmental LPs have invested in
emerging fund managers. We feel this is a very
encouraging statistic for the European ecosystem.
The time to market has always been critical
for startups as much as it is for venture funds.
Backing emerging managers is a great
opportunity to spot new funds with a more
sophisticated and innovative
investment
thesis, giving them a competitive advantage
over us (as a direct investor) and more
established funds to access the best deals.
Bilal Djelassi, Orange
Performance
Across Europe the median net IRR for
2006-2014 vintage first-time venture
capital funds sits three percentage
points higher at 12.9% than that of
experienced managers at 9.9%.
However, their risk levels (measured
by standard deviation of net IRR) sit
at 19.1%, with higher vintage funds at
15.6% ²
While
all
LPs
understand
that
thoughtful allocation to VC can lead to
super-normal returns, many will invest
only in "brand name" VCs. While this
might appear the optimal strategy,
data
from Cambridge Analytics
suggests such an approach may not
be as profitable as it used to be.
There are many specialist emerging
managers that have unparalleled
expertise in their respective markets or
verticals, and consequently are often
the first choice for the best founders.
First time funds
Over 30% of the VC funds that
reached a final close in 2018 were
first-time funds, compared to 25% in
2016². Funds under $100m represent
about
5-10%
of
total
capital
committed in any given year, and
since 2012 22b Euros was raised by
870 micro-VC managers¹.
Emerging managers have a
fresh approach to investing; a
unique origination capability,
and lean operating models with
low fees.
A family office.
Higher
returns
Hunger, ambition
& persistence
Closer
relationships
Differentiated
The emerging fund manager's competitive advantage
Some investors cite the lack of track record and possible resource constraints as
the biggest challenge when investing in emerging fund managers, but many
Limited Partners now consider emerging managers to have other advantages.
16
¹ Pitchbook. ² Intertrust, 2018
Practical insights for VCs
Lack of investment experience or understanding
VCs that lack fundraising experience should strive to obtain individual
fundraising experience
through angel
investing or
leading
investments at established firms to build their track record.
Lack of transparency or honesty
Ensure you are transparent on any perceived weaknesses -
remember that your relationship with an LP will be a long one and
needs to be built on mutual trust.
Weak competitive differentiator
Ensure you are clear on your fund's USP - differentiate yourself from
your competitors.
Not recognising the need to build long-term relationships with LPs
Only 20% of respondents have invested in a fund whom they’ve
known for less than a year. The majority take 1-2 years to build a
relationship before investing, with 27% taking more than 2 years.
What are the biggest sources of frustration for LPs when
being pitched to by VCs?
They don't try to
understand your
situation and process
before pitching
Big and
unnecessary
words
The banality of
language they use to try
to impress me
17
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Luxembourg
UK
Cayman
Jersey
Guernsey
Europe's smallest country (at just 82 km long
and 57 km wide) Luxembourg has for many
years provided corporate structures favoured
by
the
industry.
In
2013,
Luxembourg
companies law was amended to simplify and
modernise the limited partnership regime via
the special limited partnership, enabling full tax
transparency.
The government has since pledged to make
Luxembourg the primary on-shore centre for
venture capital by 2020. The Reform Bill (2016)
which came into force on 23 August 2016 was
another step forward in achieving this aim. It
introduced key changes in the context of
cross-border venture capital transactions. For
example, new tools were introduced which
help investors to facilitate venture transactions
structured through Luxembourg.
Consistent with the industry standard, the majority of LPs still
expect a "2 and 20” fee structure (2% annual management fee,
20% carried interest). More than half of LPs are content with a 2%
fee but expected it to taper off after a few years. For example, the
fee might be 2% per year for 4 years (typically the investing
period) falling thereafter by 0.25% per year for the remaining 6
years, assuming a 10-year fund.
These results would suggest that the traditional "2 and 20" is not
contentious and that innovation in fee structure should not be a
priority for VCs.
Luxembourg was by far the preferred choice for LPs.
18
Jurisdiction
Fee structure
Preferred jurisdiction
LPs have limited liability and while they usually have monetary priority
over the VCs upon liquidation of the partnership, traditionally an LP
does not have any ownership in the general partnership, or access to
the IC / approval of investment decisions - the decision sits with the
General Partner (GP).
In some circumstances, emerging managers concede an interest in
the GP to anchor investors and/or other LPs that are supportive in the
early days of a partnership.
However 48% of respondents felt another LP holding a stake in a GP
was bad sign. An additional 13% of investors considered an LP stake
to be an automatic disqualification.
It's generally accepted that re-investing profits to cover previously
drawn down fees (thus making a fund whole again) is a good idea.
More capital invested should mean a greater chance of returning the
fund.
Only 10% of LPs were not comfortable with VCs recycling their fees.
These were mostly pension funds and other VC firms.
For 1/3rd of LPs, use of a placement agent doesn't impact negatively
their view of the VC. Of the 2/3rds of LPs who do believe it has a
negative impact, 30% still invested in VCs they met through an agent.
19
Recycling
LP ownership
Placement agents
For more than 90% of LPs, track
record is the most important part of
their due diligence. This puts great
pressure on VCs to deliver complete
and accurate performance data to
prospective investors.
Always share your track record in
Excel format and never, ever in PDF
format. Most LPs review hundreds of
deals a year and do not have the
time to input PDF data into Excel
spreadsheets. Using software
to
convert PDF to Excel will very likely
lead to data errors and therefore to
wrong due diligence outcome.
All track record data should be in one
single worksheet. Yes, all funds in just
one worksheet. That way LPs can
easily kick off their analyses and give
you feedback faster!
Partner
Input
This single Excel worksheet should
present your track record line by line,
where each
line
represents a
portfolio company - that is why it is
also called a “deal-by-deal” track
record. Very often, fund managers
ask Betterfront if they should display
the
round-by-round
information.
While this information is important
for
fund
returners and outlier
portfolio companies, it might create
an information overload for most
LPs. Our suggestion is to only provide
round
information
when
LPs
specifically ask for it.
Sharing your track record data gives
you another opportunity to tell your
story. In order to do that well, fund
managers need to share different
categories
of
information:
investment, deal, and portfolio
companies data. When relevant,
differentiate between data at entry
and data at exit/current
(e.g.
ownership, valuation..).
Finally, your fundraising will most
likely last more than 3 months. In this
case, you need to update your
fundraising with new quarterly data
to show the development of your
portfolio."
20
Best practice: sharing
your track record
Betterfront has helped
dozens of VCs upgrade
their track record
presentation to better
engage with LPs. Here are
5 practical tips from their
CEO, Michel Geolier:
1
2
5
4
3
In the same way that many VCs provide not only capital but often take an active
role in the portfolios of companies they back, many Limited Partners take a
similar approach with the fund managers they invest in.
Although 'regular communications and reports', 'access to other VCs' and
'thought leadership' were all important,
'co-investment opportunities' were
perhaps the most important, with many requesting these rights.
You've raised, now what?
Staying connected
30% of LPs are happy with receiving monthly updates, 38% with
quarterly updates and 15% updates on fund performance twice
a year. Others expected weekly or bi-weekly contact.
VCs are often willing to provide co-investment rights, but can become frustrated
by ad hoc approaches, or that may depend on LPs performing their own DD on
co‑investment opportunities, impacting time frames when closing deals.
Access to
co-investment
opportunities
Thought
leadership
Regular
communication
and reports
Access to
other VCs
Most important
21
Least important
100%
75%
60%
0%
Family offices
& Fund of Funds
Governments
& Endowments
VCs investing
Corporates
Percentage of LP types who registered co-investment opportunities as important:
COVID-19
No 2020 report would be complete without mentioning Coronavirus. Although
the VC and startup sector has been impacted, only 20% of LPs stated that they
have reduced the amount of funding they are looking to deploy into new funds.
20%
37%
43%
LESS FUNDING
NO IMPACT
By focusing on top
performers
ACCELERATED
Driven by increased
investment in
healthcare funds
of respondents indicated that
they had actually accelerated
their deployment into VC as a
result of the crisis.
43%
Family offices
The pandemic has decreased
their desire to invest in VC.
Institutional investors
Little to no impact. Likely due to a
greater need to continue to
deploy capital.
Impact on emerging managers
The effects of the crisis have been particularly felt by emerging managers, with
LPs tending to prioritise existing relationships, according to survey results.
The counter to this is that first time managers are unencumbered by an existing
portfolio that's potentially troubled by the impact of COVID, enabling them to
focus on the opportunity ahead.
22
"Post-Covid-19, it will be essential
that the UK builds back better, with
the technology sector at
the
forefront of job creation, growth
and prosperity.
It
is
important
therefore that the UK continues to
be a magnet for Limited Partners
and the capital that powers startup
growth across the country."
Gerard Grech, CEO, Tech Nation
Diversity and Inclusion
Creating an industry which is inclusive and free from bias is in
everyone's interest. Yet as our results show, although most
firms desire equality, only a minority are taking active steps to
work towards it.
Yes, it's a goal
64%
Yes, have KPI
18%
Not currently
18%
Not currently
64%
Yes, have KPI
18%
Yes, it's a goal
18%
Is increasing the number female VCs you back a goal?
Improving the ecosystem
23
Most LPs do not have a policy to
actively try and increase capital
deployment into BAME run VC firms.
Though 18% say they have the intent
- and a further 18% have set a KPI -
to increase their investment into
VCs run by BAME VCs.
In conclusion, while it appears there
has been progress with policies
designed to increase the gender
diversity of investee VCs, initiatives
to increase the ethnic diversity of
the VC partnerships LPs into remain
sorely lacking.
There is clearly intent from LPs
to increase their exposure to
female-funded VCs. 64% want
to do something about it, but
crucially only 18% have set key
performance
indicators
to
measure progress.
18% currently have no policy.
Is increasing the number BAME VCs you back a goal?
Cultural intent, well thought-out policies plus
accountability can equal tangible outcomes
for diversity, but progress doesn't happen if any
of the three are missing.
Romanie Thomas, Founder/CEO Juggle
Diversity Specialist

Looking ahead there was no consensus
from participants as to whether the biggest
opportunities would come from the United
States, Asia or Europe. The big European
Series-A funds of 10 years ago are still with
us: Index, Accel, Balderton and Atomico,
etc - but
they’ve beefed up
their
operational teams, content strategies and
programmes, while the activity and size of
others are also increasing. Northzone, EQT,
Creandum, HV,
Idinvest and Lakestar
amongst others, are raising ever larger
funds creeping up the alphabet of VC
rounds. But it’s the US funds (Sequoia,
Benchmark, Bessemer et al) which are
threatening their current dominance of the
European ecosystem, completing ever
more rounds.
‘More business friendly regulation, less tax, more incentives, flexibility of the workforce, and a
major risk taking mentality, can be positive to the European VC environment’
24
As geographic
investment boundaries
become ever more porous in a remote-
working world, any talk of there being 'too
much capital' in European VC is nonsense.
We believe European LP investing has taken
great strides but it still has a long way to go.
In 2018, 23b Euros was deployed by European
venture capital, whereas the US invested 111b
Euros. For 2019 the figures are 30b Euros (a
five year high for Europe) and 113b Euros for
the US. For Europe to hold its own and
produce it's own "Googles" - we need many
more European VCs with deep pockets and
greater risk appetites to invest more money,
earlier, more often. That will require more
private LPs to believe in the European tech VC
asset class; something this report aims to
encourage and support.
The future
What is the single thing that, if changed in Europe, would
enable more money invested into VC funds?
More Liquidity
Solutions, Deregulation
and Tax Incentives
Incentivise investment
for pension funds or
large, private allocators
More Transparency
1
2
3
Jonathan, Lomax and Andrew.
- Family office
Our public contributors
We would like to thank all of our contributors, without whom this report would
not have been possible.
Listed below are the LPs who contributed to the survey and who were happy to
be named.
25
Distribution partners
Netherlands
Denmark
United Kingdom
France
European-wide
26
Germany
United States
Mountside Ventures seeks to optimise the fundraising process for European startups,
investors and family offices. Firstly, they advise early-stage companies raising their
next round of funding. Secondly, they organise community events and a conference,
Funding Venture, in Central London, for the most promising VC Fund Managers, and
Limited Partners & Family offices. It typically involves panel discussions, curated round
tables and networking opportunities.
Jonathan Hollis, Managing Partner, Mountside Ventures
Jonathan@mountsideventures.com
Alex Reed, Co-founder, Mountside Ventures
Alex@mountsideventures.com
Jon Steinberg, Co-founder, Mountside Ventures
Jon@mountsideventures.com
Alexandra Davis and Jack Richardson, Contributors, Mountside Ventures
ALLOCATE is a grassroots initiative founded by Andrew J Scott and Lomax Ward with a
vision to accelerate the European tech VC ecosystem to be the most active and best
performing in the world. ALLOCATE is making it easier for LPs to find the right funds to
invest in and for VCs the right investors, by building a community of forwarding
thinking collaborators on a not-for-profit basis. In 2019, ALLOCATE held Europe's first
ever VC pitch event, and the next one will be held on November 17-18-19 2020.
Lomax Ward, General Partner, Luminous Ventures
Lomax@luminous.vc
Andrew J Scott, Founding Partner, 7percent Ventures
ajs@7pc.vc
Producers
27