The 2017 State of European Tech is on its way. Contribute now!

Written on September 13, 2017 by Yoram Wijngaarde

Where is Europe’s tech now and where is it headed?

You tell us.

In November 2017, Atomico and Slush will publish their annual State of European Tech report, the most comprehensive deep-dive into the local ecosystem and the issues that impact it most — from talent and capital, to the strength of communities and the challenges and opportunities of deep tech.

A core part of the report is an annual survey of the people that make up the European ecosystem: the entrepreneurs, investors, developers and the individuals across Europe’s many start-up hubs.

Dealroom is proud to support the survey as it sets out to become the definitive dataset of tech communities in Europe.

Please click here to help make they survey a success and have your say

It should take no more than 5 minutes to complete – 5 free Slush 2017 tickets are also up for grabs for those who complete the survey before 8 October.

Thanks for helping to make the voices at the heart of European tech heard.

Dealroom’s Presentation from XXII ACCIÓ Investment Forum in Barcelona

Written on July 16, 2017 by Yoram Wijngaarde

On July 6th, entrepreneurs and investors met at ACCIÓ’s XXII Investment Forum in Barcelona, Catalonia’s most important event on the field.

Over 700 people attended the event, including many prominent investors such as Index Ventures, Hoxton and many others. Read more about the event itself here. Dealroom’s founder Yoram Wijngaarde gave the keynote, titled “Is it morning in European tech?” which is available here:

9-page report on the Dutch angel investing landscape in partnership with Angel Academy

Written on May 14, 2017 by Yoram Wijngaarde

European angel investing has increased sharply in the first quarter of 2017, Dealroom data shows, in a 9-page report published jointly with Angel Academy. Funding rounds with at least one angel participating reached a value of €700 million, compared with €180 million in the first quarter of 2016. The number of such rounds quadrupled during the same period. Growth was strongest in the UK, France, Spain, and Sweden.

In the Netherlands however, angel investing has failed to catch up, according to Dealroom data (although limited disclosure of angel-backed rounds maybe partly to blame here). Given the importance of business angels in supporting new ventures in their earliest stages of development, it is important that the Netherlands develops and nurtures angel investing, by creating a favorable climate.

Jointly, Angel Academy (the Dutch Academy for private investors) and Dealroom published an initial 9-page overview of the Dutch angel investing landscape. Ohad Gilad from Angel Academy handed over the report personally to the Dutch minister of economic affairs Henk Kamp, who also announced a new €10 million government scheme to support angel investing.

As a next step, Dealroom and Angel Academy have begun development of an online overview of all active Angel Investors in the Netherlands. The objective is to provide startups with easier access to investors while at the same time providing better insights to business angels about attractive investment opportunities. A comprehensive ranking of Angel Investors will also be published to provide a clear overview of the most active and successful angel investors in the Netherlands.

Get the 9-page report here:

About Angel Academy:

The Angel Academy was founded in 2016 and is an initiative of the Keadyn Angel VC team. The purpose of the academy is for to promote angel investing, to connect angels and to educate.

  • Promote: Get more smart capital to angel rounds by making angel investing more popular
  • Connect: Stimulate angels to share knowledge and opportunities through, for instance, joined
    investment structures (syndicates)
  • Educate: Enable angels to learn from experienced investors and experts in various topics by
    organizing workshops and informal sessions

For more information about Angel Academy, please visit: or contact Martijn Don: [email protected]


Atomico + Slush + Dealroom +

Written on September 15, 2016 by Yoram Wijngaarde

Screenshot (1)

Last year, Slush and Atomico published an impressive piece of research titled the State of European Tech. The presentation was viewed over 170,000 times. Soon it is time for the 2016 edition! Dealroom will be core data partner this year, along with the great people at

Apart from Dealroom data, an important part of the report is a survey. If you are a founder, entrepreneur, investor or tech employee in Europe, your voice will be very important. All it takes is 5 minutes. Start the survey now!

Your contribution is highly appreciated! Thank you.

Unleash UK’s tech scene onto Europe (don’t Brexit)

Written on May 27, 2016 by Yoram Wijngaarde

Mattias Ljungman, Partner at one of Europe’s largest VC funds Atomico, made yet another important case for the UK to remain in the European Union. He is clear that staying in the EU does not mean “more of the same”, and instead gives the UK “a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shape Europe’s future […] into what we want it to be.”

I couldn’t agree more. This is a time of rapid technological change (artificial intelligence, self-driving cars, …). And London is in a unique position as the epicentre of European tech (although other’s are catching up). On a global scale, London is arguably taking a strong second place, behind Silicon Valley.

One could be forgiven for taking London’s leadership position for granted, given the City’s long-standing importance in world financial markets. In the case of technology however, it is not about bankers pushing around capital from their Bloomberg computer screens (to put in bluntly). Rather, it is about companies which deliver tangible benefits to consumers across Europe and beyond. The innovation and creativity are happening inside the UK, but it needs easy access to Europe’s markets and free-flow of skilled labor to be competitive.

Silicon Valley, which had the benefit of a single USA market, is shaping our daily lives immeasurably (think of Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Netflix, and so forth). Imagine what the UK can do, too, if it remains in one of the the biggest single markets in the world (500 million people).

Proponents of a Brexit should ask themselves what they want UK’s tech sector to be in 10-20 years: a global leader such as the City’s financial sector, or a follower alongside other players who are benefitting from big open markets.

A digital VC market

Written on November 1, 2015 by Yoram Wijngaarde

For the last five years or so there has been a lot of buzz about software-driven innovation in the venture capital industry. Innovations such as AngelList syndicates, crowdfunding, and digital M&A marketplaces play an increasing role. The USA is leading this development, predominantly in seed stage investing.

But by and large, today’s VC industry remains “business as usual”. We’ve recently seen the launch of so called “quantitative funds”, but this an incremental change; not a game-changer for capital markets as a whole. In this post I will argue why such change hasn’t happened yet, why it would be beneficial, and what is required to make change finally happen.

Let’s for a moment look at the public stock market. Today, public stock markets are fully electronic, but they used to have an open outcry system. Traders used shouting and hand gestures to communicate pricing and give buy/sell orders (remember that brilliant movie Trading Places?). It took most stock markets an awful long-time to finally switch to electronic trading platforms. The New York Stock Exchange only converted as late as 2006! A notable exception is the London Stock Exchange which converted early on in 1986.

What took Wall Street so long? The answer is that financial markets were held back by special interest groups wanting to keep open outcry in place, as it gave many people very lucrative jobs, and kept the market opaque enough to maintain higher margins for insiders. The eventual catalyst to convert came in the form of a new special business interest. High frequency traders and the hedge fund industry created a new revenue stream: providing “VIP” services to hedge funds (high-speed access stock to exchanges), combined with  increased volumes from high frequency trading would eventually dwarf the old market making industry by revenues.

So what could be a similar catalyst for change in the venture capital and private equity industry? The following special interests could play role, ranked by order of likely influence:

  • Young but big private companies that are not ready to go public due to their high investment requirements and short financial history
  • Fund managers, who traditionally invested via venture capital funds as LPs, require more flexibility to invest and divest
  • Blockchain technology could help create a global clearing and settlement system that is both global and decentralised at the same time
  • The advent of crowdfunding

is a digital VC market useful? There would be huge efficiency agains for sure. There’s a potential to create combine the best attributes from public market and private market investing. Here’s what a true digital venture capital market could look like:

  • Electronic transfer of shares
  • An electronic ledger for clearing and settlement, possibly using blockchain technology (but not necessarily)
  • Standardised financial and operating reporting (1)
  • Widely syndicated deals become the norm, individual large bets the exception
  • Self-reporting: no obligation to file, but a strong incentive
  • Global access to company data on request, as and when needed (qualified investors only, not the entire general public per se)


Note 1 : Accounting standards exist of course, but for private companies these are once a year occurrences, and not much good for VC investing. Here we are talking about a standardised set of quarterly management reports including basic VC-style KPIs. This is inevitable as data acquired through artificial intelligence would otherwise overshadow self-reported figures and companies loose control over their reporting.



Behind closed doors: investment platforms vs. proprietary dealflow

Written on March 15, 2015 by Yoram Wijngaarde

A year ago I wrote a post titled “Proprietary dealflow isn’t dead and for good reason”. But with the rapid emergence of online investment platforms, how much is left of the rationale for keeping an investment opportunity behind closed doors?

Too many investors: the winner’s curse  
According to conventional wisdom, a hyper competitive auction-style process may drive up the asking price so much that only the last “fool” will invest. But what if investment platforms make it possible to invest a smaller amount in a single deal? Then, total demand in $ terms does not change that much, so the bidding price is much less affected. Even if the price would go up somewhat, investors receive compensation in the form of diversification: they get to make more smaller bets, instead of fewer bigger bets (just like public market investing).

Compensation for time spent on due diligence
Another underlying argument for keeping a deal private, is that due diligence is a time-consuming and costly process. To justify spending time on an investment opportunity, investors generally like to have some degree of upfront certainty that they can invest if they decide to make an offer. But what if more company transparency and better online due diligence tools, can make this process less time consuming? And if an investment platform allows for smaller bets on a single deal, it would justify doing less due diligence on a single deal (again, comparable to public market investing).

What really drives private equity and venture capital returns?
Investment returns for funds with a 3-5 year investment horizon are basically driven by: the price paid at entry, and the price at exit (plus some dividends in between). Deal access (networking) will become less of a differentiator, and also price paid (negotiation) increasingly will become market-driven. In the end, investment performance will be mainly driven by picking the right deals: making better “yes/no” investment decisions than others, but based on the same information access (once again, like stock picking).

At we let the client decide which investors they give dataroom access. So it is up to them to cast the net wide or narrow. But the market is noticeably moving into the direction of wider not narrower. Investment platforms are an unstoppable force, that will require a slightly different mind-set from professional investors. The main thing holding back an even more rapid advance of investment platforms right now is the problem of adverse selection, which is ultimately a problem of not enough transparency. Innovation can ultimately solve this. I plan to write another post about this soon.

Also see: Proprietary deal-flow isn’t dead and for good reason


FinTech and the corporate finance profession

Written on February 26, 2015 by Yoram Wijngaarde

Corporate finance can be broken down in two different areas: deal origination and deal execution.

Deal origination (pitching investment ideas, networking, providing actionable market intelligence) is increasingly taken over by data providers, using SaaS business models, especially around early stage companies and reporting on past events. What such SaaS models are not capturing yet, are deeper insights and forward-looking information on larger companies.

Deal execution is where the fees are made: creating marketing materials (IM or investment deck), finding potential investors, soliciting offers, managing the due diligence process, and deal negotiation. Part of the reason why deal fees are often so high is that bankers need to be compensated for (a) time spent on deal origination and (b) executing deals that do not result in a completed transaction. FinTech is now making it possible to significantly reduce these costs (a) and (b). And of course, it will no longer be needed to spend $100,000 on an online dataroom.

Then, what is left of corporate finance, after it’s been stripped off the costly and least efficient processes, are the more value-added human involvement such as: creating marketing documentation, tactical advice, negotiation. In summary, then, corporate finance seems ideally suited to be disrupted by FinTech. Customers stand to benefit through lower costs, more control and higher service levels. This disruption is likely to take place with early growth stage companies first, and mid-market companies second.

Funding marketplaces or VC data analytics: why not both?

Written on November 11, 2014 by Yoram Wijngaarde

Finally, FinTech is arriving to the world of VC, private equity and corporate finance, spurred by at least three major trends.

1) Venture capital firms have started to embrace software to become more efficient

2) The traditional lines between LPs and GPs are blurring. The type of investors is diversifying: corporates, super angels, investor clubs, micro funds, SWFs, …

3) Growth trajectories of tech companies are shortening, creating a need for real-time actionable data and intelligence

Many promising tools for VCs have been launched in response to this. In particular we’ve seen the emergence of two types of software models:

(a) marketplaces as platform for funding (many-to-many

(b) tools to discover and track startups (one-to-many)

Screenshot 2014-11-11 15.14.37

a) Marketplaces as a platform for funding

Marketplaces are in theory a logical way of matching supply and demand for startup investing. Marketplaces bring transparency, market discipline (the invisible hand), and create a level-playing field. Once critical mass is reached, marketplaces tend to grow stronger and stronger thanks to positive network effects. Taken to the extreme, they could eliminate proprietary deal-flow, although I have expressed some skepticism about proprietary deal-flow completely disappearing.

One of the hurdles for marketplaces is the adverse selection problem: the best companies often won’t list themselves on any platform because they enjoy already plenty of love and attention from VCs eager to invest. Secondly, professional investors do not like the idea of investing in companies via platforms. VCs and angels like to take the initiative. They generally don’t like the idea of being pitched or passively being fed deals.

b) Tools to discover marketplaces

Some data analytics tools have been created to discover and track winning tech companies. These services were built on top of free sources like CrunchBase but massively improved them. Using data-crawling technology to filter out the noise and find growth is a great value proposition. Such tools sit much better with what VCs want, allowing them to be be in the driver’s seat, be the hunter so to speak. It allows them to discover “hidden gems” (= proprietary deal-flow), as well as filter out the noise (= low quality businesses).

There are caveats however. Firstly, there are negative network externalities: more users make the product less valuable (aka “congestion”). Secondly, private company data is not easy to find and often stale. And the public data that can be crawled is fairly easy and cheap to find, making it harder to justify a subscription fee. Indeed, many VCs have built their own in-house technology at low cost.

This begs the question: why not both?


So where does fit into this?

Dealroom’s model is a little different: we’re neither a marketplace nor a data provider, but a hybrid.

Killing the adverse selection problem: we track the growth of all companies, not just the ones seeking capital. The way we organised our data is very much about finding context and connecting the dots. For example, if company A is raising capital, what other activity is there in this space, and how does their performance compare with their peers?

Avoiding negative network effects of data: we realise that data is power, but data is also ubiquitous and therefore not that valuable by itself. So we decided to offer most of our data for free, and also enable the crowd to further improve our data. Company data can be edited by its founders and investors requesting editing rights. The owner of the data has control over who can view it (all users, or only invited parties). Why would companies publish their own company data? Improving the data we have on your company improves its ranking in our recommendation algorithm. And those who have growth to demonstrate, have an incentive to display it.


Corporate Finance in the FinTech era

Written on October 29, 2014 by Yoram Wijngaarde

Today we are witnessing banking activities being disrupted, vertical by vertical. Instead of banks sitting on technology and using it to their own benefit, FinTech is about giving the end-user the power of technology, via user-friendly products.

Is the corporate finance industry (incl. venture capital, private equity, investment banking advisory) ready for FinTech? And if so, what would that look like?

So far corporate finance has gone through two major phases and it is about to enter a third major phase:

– Until 1980s: personal relationship based finance

– From 1980s until now: balance sheet driven finance

– Next up: technology driven finance (= FinTech)


Finance 1.0: relationship based finance

Until roughly the early 1980s, finance was dominated by Wall Street based and London based firms, and business revolved largely around personal relationships. These firms were mostly partnerships, led by a handful of power brokers who today still have famous banks named after them (although most names disappeared during the industry consolidation that came with Finance 2.0). Bankers of this era were seen as a major catalyst for industrial and technological progress. One of these power brokers was John Pierpont Morgan, founder of JP Morgan.


He was super connected in both the business and political world. He played a major role in the formation of US Steel and General Electric (he also invested in the Titanic). Governments had close relationships with him and other brokers as they were seen as crucial to finance deficits caused by  wars.

JP Morgan has some great quotes attributed to him. My favorite JP Morgan quote is: “A man generally has two reasons for doing a thing. One that sounds good, and a real one”. But a more relevant quote is: “A man I do not trust could not get money from me on all the bonds in Christendom”.

This type of “old-fashioned” relationship based finance lasted until about the 1980s.

Finance 2.0: balance sheet based finance

Then, in the early 1980s, a new type of finance emerged: balance sheet driven finance, or Finance 2.0. This change came because of a “perfect storm” of de-regulation and financial innovation.

De-regulation enabled the formation of mega banks and also allowed banks to take more risks using their own balance sheet. Instead of competing for business based on personal relationships, banks used their balance sheet to “muscle” their way into profitable business opportunities. In this “pay to play” game, the bigger you were, the better for you. This of course incentivised industry people to chase mega deals (“elephant hunting”), thus paving the way for mega buyouts, such as the iconic $25 billion leveraged buyout of RJR Nabisco by KKR in 1989. Such mega-deals required large amounts of finance, involved high arrangement fees for participating banks. De-regulation almost immediately also led to the first bailouts, during the Savings & Loan crisis between 1989 and 1995.

A second big catalyst for Finance 2.0 was financial innovation: option pricing theory and computerised trading, which led to the growth of the hedge fund industry and “prop trading” activity inside banks. Banks created huge trading floors which often became their main profit centers. As with de-regulation, also financial innovation led to a large bail-out: in 1998 the hedge fund LTCM imploded and threatened to drag the whole stock market in the back hole it had created.

Markets supposedly had become hyper-efficient: electronic trading, seamless global markets, and financial innovation made markets less risky. Or so most of us thought, regulators included. In reality, financial institutions had merely found new ways to take margins through the back-door by underwriting risks others were unable to take, but -as we now all know- risks which eventually re-emerged elsewhere and ended up mostly borne by unsuspecting others (taxpayers, central banks, and less sophisticated market participants). In hindsight, financial markets were characterised by in-transparency, secrecy and complexity nobody fully understood, under the guise of hyper-efficiency and innovation.

Complexity also led to excesses and sometimes super high payouts which from hindsight were not all merit based. We tried so hard to incentivise the financial sector (including investment funds) to work hard in our interest and reward them well for it, but we turned out to have been paying for very mediocre or even bad performance. From hindsight, the financial industry had become imbalanced and rigged, mostly working for the benefit of itself.


Although finance 2.0 and banking 2.0 are today still very much alive, and in fact still a growing industry, we are on the verge of moving to a new era of fintech, or finance 3.0.

Finance 3.0

Today we are witnessing banking activities being disrupted, one by one. Instead of banks sitting on technology while servicing the end users, FinTech is about giving the end-user direct access to technology, via user-friendly products, and free flow of information.


The potential benefits are multitude, but here are a few:

1) Simplification

Peer-to-peer loan businesses are stripping out unnecessary costs by using technology and eliminating branches et cetera thus creating a sustainable competitive advantage. This is very much analogous to the airline revolution where low cost operations have structurally reduced the cost and hurdles of flying.

2) Transparency

Transparency results in the removal of hidden fees, while providing users with real-time information about where their money is and what the service provider is doing for them.

3) Less friction and barriers

De-institutionalisation ultimately means a more open playing field, where historical pedigree is less important and real-time reputation more important. In venture capital we see fragmentation and emergence of smaller funds, micro funds, super angel investors, and entrepreneurs instead of institutional funds.

Seed Stage / Angel Investing

The cost of launching a startup been reduced dramatically. Creating a prototype can be done in a matter of weeks, tested in the market in months, and a company doesn’t need millions to get off the ground. So platforms are ideally suited to micro-fund a company and then invest more as there is proof of concept.

Simultaneously, crowdfunding is potentially making seed investing more viable by enabling small investors to spread risks more. Since seed investing in a startup is like investing in an out of the money option, with very low success changes, spreading bets is valuable. Still, the problems of adverse selection and asymmetric information still need to be solved by these platforms. Future returns achieved by the average crowdfunding investor will be the metric to judge this by: they need to be able to achieve a return at least close to that of the stock market (say 8%+ being realistically attainable for most investors).

How fits into all this: corporate finance

Dealroom’s mission is (1) to help professional investors make the better investment decision based on all the information available and (2) to simplify the process of capital raising for founders of rapidly growing companies.

Furthermore, our platform is built based on the expectation that venture capital and private equity in the future will involve less traditional closed-end GP funds and involve more direct investing by LPs, through syndicates that are lead by investors with good reputations. To enable this, we need platforms where market participants are closely connected, can easily exchange data, and can choose to share investment opportunities, while keeping track of everyone’s activity, reputation and investment performance.


This is what we are working on. John Pierpont Morgan himself said: “Go as far as you can see. When you get there, you’ll be able to see farther.” Exactly what we plan to to do.