The Strategic Weave of Investor Origins in Dutch VC investments: Unveiling Centrality and Deal Patterns in the Dutch Co-Investment Tapestry

Introduction:

Building upon my previous exploration into the co-investment networks of the Netherlands, I turn the analytical lens towards the origins of investors and their centrality within this intricate ecosystem and also co-investment types analysis. My latest investigation delves into how domestic and foreign investors differ in their levels of connectedness and influence across various sectors, revealing the strategic underpinnings of their market positions and their co-investment patterns by VC stage.

Centrality Measures Recap:

In the original analysis, I employed centrality metrics to understand the influence and connectivity of investors within the Dutch VC landscape. The average centrality scores provided key insights into the most influential and well-connected investors. These scores were a product of meticulous calculation, relying on a dataset that encompassed various investors and deals, highlighting the interplay between local and global market participants.

Part I: Centrality measure averages by investment origins unveiled:

Regarding explanations for network analysis, centrality measures, sector taxonomies and dataset explanations refer to my first article: https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/co-investment-network-analysis-finding-most-connected-mustafa-torun/?trackingId=aUltvk6HTy%2Bkx1OsW60JDA%3D%3D

(Here it is worth to mention again that data comes from Dealroom.co but calculations belongs to author.)

In this article I first give insights about how influential and connected foreign and Dutch investors in different sectors. I calculated averages of eigen (influence) and degree (connectedness) centrality measures of investors and compared them across five sectors. Lets dive into the results.

Agrifood Sector:

In the fertile grounds of the Agrifood sector, foreign investors exhibit a marginally higher degree of connectivity compared to their Dutch counterparts. This suggests a vibrant presence of international collaborations, perhaps driven by the global nature of food supply chains and agricultural innovations. However, when it comes to the influence wielded, as captured by eigenvector centrality, foreign investors significantly outpace the Dutch. It appears that while Dutch investors are key players, foreign investors are better positioned within the power nexus of the Agrifood sector, potentially benefiting from global insights and cross-border strategic alliances.

Biocircular Sector:

The Biocircular sector paints a bit different picture. Dutch investors surpass in the number of direct connections slightly however, for eigenvector centrality, which measures influence, foreign investors have a significantly higher average score compared to Dutch investors. This suggests that while Dutch investors may engage in more co-investment activities, foreign investors are more central within the influential core of the network.

Energy Sector:

The Energy sector, crucial to national interests and security, sees Dutch investors firmly in the driver’s seat, with higher centrality measures across the board. This might be indicative of a concentrated effort by Dutch investors to lead the transition towards renewable energies and innovative energy solutions, backed by a supportive domestic policy framework. The substantial gap in influence suggests that Dutch investors are not just active participants but also key influencers.

Life Science and Health (LSH) Sector:

Dutch investors maintain a stronghold in the LSH sector also, with superior connectivity and influence. Dutch investors are likely leveraging deep sectoral knowledge and networks to foster innovation and growth within this critical field.

Deeptech Sector:

In the realm of Deeptech, marked by cutting-edge innovations, Dutch investors again outshine foreign investors in terms of both connectivity and influence. Although we know that foreign investors are active in Netherlands more in deeptech sector, Dutch investors still hold the connectedness and influence in the co investment network, thanks to specifically BOM (Brabantse Ontwikkelings Maatschappij) , InnovationQuarter , Innovation Industries , Invest-NL , Inkef and EQT Life Sciences .

Part II: Co-investment patterns across sectors: Dutch and foreign investors activity in different types of deals

?In this section I look into the activity and frequency of Dutch and foreign investors in different types of VC deals. In the realm of venture capital, the nature of deal-making is as telling as the deals themselves. Here, I pivot from the individual influence of investors to their collective endeavours. By examining the types and frequencies of deals, I uncover a layer of strategic behaviour that defines Dutch and foreign investors. This section peels back the layers of co-investment activity to reveal the preferences for partnerships and solo ventures, providing a window into the collaborative spirit that drives the Dutch innovation landscape.

Deal Types Explained:

• Sole Investments: These are deals where a single investor, either Dutch or foreign, has taken the entire investment opportunity.
• Dutch-only Co-investments: These deals involve multiple Dutch investors without foreign participation.
• Foreign-only Co-investments: In these deals, only foreign investors co-invest.
• Mixed Co-investments: These are collaborative deals between Dutch and foreign investors.

Analysing Figure 1 - Deal types frequency across sectors and VC stages:

Figure 1 displays the distribution of deal types across various sectors, categorized by the nature of investment collaboration. It outlines the proportion of sole Dutch investments, sole foreign investments, Dutch-only co-investments, foreign-only co-investments, and mixed co-investments, providing a snapshot of how investment activities vary from seed stage to late venture capital (VC) stages in each sector.

Dutch Dominance in Seed Stage: Across all sectors, there's a strong Dutch presence in seed investments (red + light grey), particularly in sole investments. This indicates a tendency for domestic investors to initially support local startups before they attract, or require, foreign capital. It could be reflective of the Dutch investors' willingness to take on the early-stage risks associated with innovative startups or foreign investors' unwillingness to do so.

Shift Towards Mixed Co-investments: As companies progress from seed to early and late VC stages, there's a clear shift towards mixed co-investments. This suggests an ecosystem that increasingly values diversity in investment sources and expertise, with foreign investors bringing additional resources and networks that are crucial for scaling businesses.

Sector-Specific Nuances: The Energy and LSH sectors show a greater proportion of sole Dutch investments in the seed stage compared to other sectors. This may reflect sector-specific dynamics, where local knowledge or strategic interests are particularly pronounced, or where the sectors align closely with national policies and initiatives.

Late VC Stage Foreign Involvement: In all sectors, foreign-only co-investments tend to increase in the late VC stage. This could indicate that foreign investors are more inclined to engage with more mature companies that have established track records and clearer paths to scalability and exit strategies.

Comparative Sector Maturity: The Deeptech and LSH sectors show a higher percentage of mixed co-investments in the late VC stage compared to other sectors. This could suggest a higher maturity or global integration within these sectors, with established networks and market opportunities that are attractive to both Dutch and foreign investors.

Interpretation of Co-investment Trends: The prevalence of Dutch-only co-investments in the early stages across all sectors might imply two things either a strong local investment community that likely provides not just capital but also mentorship and strategic guidance or inability of the ecosystem to attract more foreign capital in early stages. Chosing one requires deeper and multidimensional study. The transition to more mixed co-investments as ventures grow could be indicative of a strategic pivot where the integration of international expertise and market access becomes essential.

Strategic Alliances and Market Access: The increase in mixed co-investments in the later stages, especially in sectors like Deeptech and LSH, might also reflect strategic alliances that facilitate market access and regulatory navigation, which are critical in these highly specialized and often regulated industries.

Analysing Figure 2 - Presence of Dutch and foreign investors

Figure 2 illustrates the overall activity levels of Dutch and foreign investors across sectors, showing the percentage of all deals that include at least one investor from the Netherlands or abroad. It highlights the relative engagement of domestic versus international investors in each sector, offering insights into which sectors are more domestically driven and which ones attract more foreign interest.

Prominent Domestic Investment: Dutch investors show a strong presence in all sectors, with the highest domestic activity in the LSH sector at 75.6%. This underscores the Netherlands' focus on healthcare and life sciences, sectors often supported by local knowledge and networks, which are essential for navigating regulatory environments and market idiosyncrasies.

Significant Foreign Interest: The Deeptech and Agrifood sectors stand out with higher foreign activity, indicating its global relevance and the universal appeal of advanced technologies.

Comparative Analysis: The Biocircular sector, while also significant in terms of Dutch investor activity, draws less foreign interest compared to others, perhaps due to its specialized nature and the localized application of its technologies and solutions.

Analysing Figure 3 - Insights from Co-Investment Engagement:

Figure 3 focuses on the prevalence of co-investment among all deals within each sector, comparing the propensity of Dutch versus foreign investors to engage in collaborative investments. It reveals the tendency of either group to participate in joint investments rather than sole investor deals, indicating preferences for shared risk and resource pooling across different sectors.

Selective Co-Investment in Agrifood: The Agrifood sector illustrates that Dutch investors are slightly more inclined towards co-investment relative to their foreign counterparts. This could suggest a preference for sharing risks and resources among Dutch investors in a sector that is traditionally connected to the local economy and may benefit from collective domestic expertise.

Foreign Co-Investment Preference: Across Biocircular, Energy, and Deeptech sectors, foreign investors demonstrate a higher percentage of involvement in co-investment deals than Dutch investors. This indicates a strategic preference for foreign investors to engage in collaborative investments where risks, knowledge, and resources are pooled, potentially to mitigate the risks associated with investing in a foreign market or to capitalize on joint ventures that offer a mix of local insight and international scalability.

Energy Sector's Global Collaboration: The Energy sector, in particular, shows a marked preference for foreign co-investment, which may be driven by the global nature of energy challenges and the often large-scale, capital-intensive nature of energy projects, which can benefit from the broader financial base and diverse expertise that foreign investors can provide.

Deeptech’s International Alliances: Similarly, in Deeptech, the slight lead of foreign co-investments could be attributed to the sector's rapid innovation cycles and the extensive capital required for R&D, where international investors often bring to the table not just funding but also global market access and high-tech expertise.

LSH's Foreign Collaboration: In the LSH sector, foreign investors are also more involved in co-investments than Dutch investors, possibly due to the sector's need for significant research funding, alignment with global health initiatives, and the strategic advantage of international partnerships for navigating diverse healthcare markets.

Conclusion

This exploration through the Dutch co-investment landscape culminates in a nuanced understanding of how investor origins shape venture dynamics. The centrality and co-investment patterns elucidate more than market positions; they reveal a strategic playbook for fostering innovation. Dutch investors demonstrate a robust initial backing, especially in sectors aligned with national interests, signaling an environment ripe for nurturing startups. Foreign investors tend to join forces in later stages, bringing global insights and scalability potential.

For policymakers and market strategists, the actionable takeaway is clear: the Dutch market's strength lies in its ability to seamlessly integrate local depth with global breadth. To maintain this equilibrium, it is crucial to continue cultivating an ecosystem that welcomes foreign partnerships while reinforcing domestic investor confidence. Thus attracting foreign capital and talent is crucial. For entrepreneurs, understanding these dynamics is key to navigating funding pathways effectively.

Moving forward, stakeholders can leverage these insights to bolster the Netherlands' status as an innovation hub. Encouraging more mixed co-investments can diversify expertise and risk, especially in high-growth sectors like Deeptech and Energy. At the same time, maintaining strong local support in the initial stages will ensure a steady pipeline of groundbreaking ventures ready to make their mark both locally and on the world stage.

Disclaimer: ?

The analyses, interpretations, and conclusions presented in this article are based on data and industry taxonomies available up to the date of publication. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy and reliability, the dynamic nature of venture capital investments means that the specifics may evolve over time. The categorizations and metrics used, including centrality measures and co-investment patterns, are subject to the inherent limitations of the datasets and industry classifications. These frameworks provide a snapshot that is as precise as the methodologies and information currently allow.

Readers are advised that the interpretations herein should be considered in the context of the time-bound nature of data and the fluidity of market definitions. The investment landscape is continuously shaped by emerging trends, economic factors, and policy changes. As such, the insights and strategic recommendations offered should be utilized as a compass rather than a definitive map, serving as a starting point for further inquiry and adaptation to the latest market conditions.

?