2026 Archives

Posts

Beyond the Last Funding Round: What Are Startup Valuations Really Worth?

11/02/2026/in Market Pulse, News /by Venionaire

Startup valuations often remain tied to the last funding round, even when market conditions and investor expectations change. New academic research suggests that secondary market transactions can offer valuable insights into what venture-backed companies may actually be worth.

The Problem with Yesterday’s Valuation

A startup raises EUR 100 million at a valuation of EUR 500 million. The funding round closes, and the valuation becomes an established reference point. It appears in investor presentations, portfolio reports and financial discussions.

Twelve months later, that number may remain unchanged, even though the economic circumstances behind it have shifted considerably. Perhaps the company has exceeded its growth targets. Meanwhile, competitors may have struggled to secure funding. Public market valuations may have declined, or investors may have become more cautious about deploying capital.

Yet none of these developments necessarily triggers a new financing round. As a result, investors may continue to reference an outdated valuation despite changing market conditions. This is not inherently a flaw in private market investing. Venture capital managers use established valuation methodologies, financial performance indicators and comparable transactions to assess portfolio companies between financing rounds.

Nevertheless, a historical funding valuation does not necessarily reflect what another investor would pay for an existing ownership interest today. This distinction is becoming increasingly important as venture-backed companies remain privately held for longer.

In our previous article, The Private Markets Liquidity Paradox: A Booming Secondary Market, But for Whom?, we examined why growing secondary market volumes do not automatically translate into broader liquidity.

However, the development of secondary markets raises another important question: Can actual transactions provide better information about the value of private investments?

What Secondary Markets Reveal About Startup Valuations

New research from Vanderbilt University suggests that they can.

In their May 2026 working paper, Secondary Markets for VC-Backed Startup Equity, Daniel Bias, Johan Cassel and Berk A. Sensoy examine proprietary transaction data. The data comes from a major intermediary in the secondary market for venture-backed company shares. Their findings show how secondary prices respond to changing market conditions. They also examine how these prices relate to valuations in subsequent venture capital financing rounds.

The researchers find that shares in venture-backed companies typically trade at discounts to previous funding-round valuations. However, these discounts are not static. They tend to narrow when buyer demand strengthens. This suggests that secondary pricing responds to market conditions rather than applying a fixed reduction to the last reported valuation.

Moreover, the study shows that secondary market activity reacts to new information. Both investor order flow and prices respond to venture capital financing events. This suggests that market participants continuously reassess their expectations as new information becomes available. Perhaps the most significant finding concerns the relationship between secondary prices and future financing rounds.

The researchers find that secondary market prices contain information that helps predict valuations in subsequent venture capital financing rounds. They also observe that mutual funds holding startup equity partially incorporate these pricing signals into their portfolio valuations. These findings challenge the traditional perception of secondary markets as mechanisms primarily designed to provide liquidity.

Although transferring existing ownership remains their immediate function, secondary transactions can also contribute to price discovery. This is particularly relevant in an asset class where observable pricing events have historically been infrequent. For venture capital investors, the implications are substantial.

A secondary transaction does more than indicate that someone wanted to sell an investment. It also provides evidence of what another investor was prepared to pay for an existing stake under specific market conditions.

Why Secondary Market Discounts Do Not Necessarily Indicate Overvaluation

Secondary shares frequently trade below previous funding-round valuations. This observation invites an obvious interpretation: perhaps startups are simply overvalued during primary financing rounds.

However, such a conclusion overlooks important differences between primary and secondary transactions. A financing round typically involves newly issued shares. These may include preferential rights, liquidation protections or governance provisions negotiated during the investment.

In contrast, secondary transactions involve existing shares, which may carry different economic rights and transfer restrictions. Therefore, comparing the two prices without considering these differences can be misleading. Transaction circumstances also matter.

An investor may seek liquidity for portfolio diversification, strategic repositioning or an immediate capital requirement. Consequently, that investor may accept a price that another shareholder would reject. Meanwhile, buyers must consider information asymmetries, uncertain exit horizons and the possibility of lower valuations in future financing rounds. A discount can therefore reflect several factors. These include liquidity costs, differences in shareholder rights, changing expectations and the negotiating positions of buyers and sellers.

Additional research provides a complementary perspective. In October 2026, Greg Brown and William Volckmann of the Institute for Private Capital published Private Equity Secondary Pricing: Understanding the Current Market. Their study examines almost 3,000 pricing observations for private equity buyout fund interests between 2015 and 2025. The researchers find that secondary prices averaged approximately 8% below reported net asset value. Furthermore, these discounts were closely linked to broader public equity market developments.

Although this research focuses on private equity fund interests rather than direct venture-backed company shares, it reinforces an important principle. A difference between a reported valuation and an observable transaction price does not automatically mean that one of them is wrong. Instead, investors should examine which economic factors explain the difference and what information each valuation represents.

A secondary discount should therefore not automatically be interpreted as a correction of an inflated startup valuation. Rather, it is a market signal. Its significance depends on the underlying transaction, the characteristics of the shares and the circumstances in which buyers and sellers reach an agreement.

The Uncomfortable Consequences of Better Price Discovery

Greater transparency in secondary market pricing could benefit venture capital managers, institutional investors and family offices.

Observable market transactions provide an additional reference point for assessing existing holdings, evaluating prospective investments and reviewing portfolio valuations. They can also help investors distinguish between historical financing benchmarks and current market expectations without replacing established valuation methodologies.

However, improved price discovery also introduces a less comfortable dimension to private market investing. A company may continue reporting a valuation established during its last funding round. Meanwhile, secondary market participants may express materially different expectations through their bids and transactions.

Such discrepancies do not necessarily invalidate the reported valuation. After all, transaction circumstances and shareholder rights may differ. Nevertheless, recurring secondary transactions at significantly different prices may warrant closer examination.

This creates an interesting tension. Unlike publicly traded securities, private market portfolio valuations are not continuously exposed to daily market fluctuations. That relative stability can support long-term investment strategies. This is particularly relevant when short-term market sentiment has limited significance for a company’s underlying development.

Yet stability in reported valuations should not be confused with stability in economic value. Market expectations can change regardless of how frequently an asset receives a formal valuation. More developed secondary markets may simply make those changes visible sooner. Therefore, better price discovery does not necessarily produce higher or more attractive valuations.

Instead, it introduces additional evidence against which investors can assess existing assumptions.

Some evidence may confirm prevailing expectations. Other evidence may challenge them. Both outcomes can help investors better understand the risks and economic value of their portfolios.

From Periodic Valuations to Better Market Information

Private markets are still far from the continuous price discovery mechanisms of public stock exchanges.

Venture-backed company shares remain subject to ownership restrictions, uneven information availability and relatively limited trading activity. Moreover, transactions may concentrate among a small number of prominent companies. Less established businesses, meanwhile, may continue to attract little secondary market interest.

A single transaction may also provide limited information about the value of an entire company. For example, the price of a minority holding may reflect circumstances that do not apply to other shareholders. Similarly, negotiated prices may not represent the terms available to the wider market.

The Vanderbilt study itself remains a working paper based on proprietary intermediary data. Therefore, its findings should not automatically be applied to every segment of venture capital. Nevertheless, the research points towards an important development.

As secondary markets expand, investors may gain access to more observable pricing signals between traditional financing events. These signals can complement financial models, company performance indicators and comparable market data. Together, they may improve the information available for investment and portfolio management decisions. Valuation benchmarks such as DealMatrix Multiples can provide additional context. The platform offers EV/Sales and EV/EBITDA multiples across industries, company stages and regions, complementing secondary market pricing signals when assessing private company valuations.

Importantly, better market information benefits more than investors seeking an exit. A venture capital fund planning to hold an investment for several more years may still benefit from understanding how other market participants assess that asset. Similarly, institutional investors evaluating private market allocations may use secondary prices to better interpret reported portfolio valuations. However, the distinction between liquidity and price discovery remains essential.

Liquidity concerns the practical ability to buy or sell an investment. Price discovery, by contrast, concerns the information that market activity generates about its value. Although these functions are connected, they are not interchangeable.

Even markets with relatively limited trading volumes may produce useful price signals. However, the reliability of those signals depends on the quality, frequency and representativeness of the underlying transactions.

A Market That Reveals More Than Exit Opportunities

Secondary markets are frequently presented as a solution to one of private investing’s most persistent challenges: converting ownership interests into cash before a final exit.

This remains an important function, particularly as companies stay privately held for longer and investors face changing portfolio requirements. However, emerging research suggests that secondary markets may contribute something equally valuable: a more informed understanding of private company valuations.

The Vanderbilt findings indicate that secondary prices respond to new information. They also contain signals about subsequent venture capital financing valuations. This does not make secondary prices inherently more accurate than other valuation approaches. Nor does it eliminate the uncertainty surrounding investments whose future performance remains difficult to predict.

Nevertheless, secondary market transactions introduce another observable dimension into private market valuations. Traditionally, investors have relied heavily on periodic financing events and valuation models. For private market investors, the implications extend beyond the ability to sell. More accessible and informative secondary markets could improve how investors evaluate investments, understand risks and make portfolio decisions.

The next stage of secondary market development may therefore be measured by more than the amount of capital changing hands. Equally important is how much useful information those transactions generate.

After all, knowing what an investment was worth at the last funding round is one thing. Understanding what the market is prepared to pay for it today is quite another.

References

Academic Research

Bias, D., Cassel, J., & Sensoy, B. A. (2026). Secondary Markets for VC-Backed Startup Equity. Vanderbilt University, Working Paper, 11 May 2026. Read research.

Brown, G., & Volckmann, W. (2026). Private Equity Secondary Pricing: Understanding the Current Market. Institute for Private Capital, 5 October 2026. Read research.

The Private Markets Liquidity Paradox: A Booming Secondary Market, But for Whom?

10/27/2026/in Market Pulse, News /by Venionaire

Private equity secondaries are breaking records, yet liquidity remains far from universal. New research highlights a fundamental distinction between market growth and market access – and raises questions about how private market liquidity should be measured.

A USD 260 Billion Market. Still Difficult to Exit?

Private equity has a liquidity problem. That is hardly news. What is more interesting is that the problem persists even as the market designed to address it reaches unprecedented scale.

According to Lazard’s Interim 2026 Secondary Market Report, global secondary transaction volume reached USD 124 billion in the first half of 2026, up approximately 28% year-on-year. Over the preceding twelve months, transactions totalled an estimated USD 260 billion.

By almost any conventional measure, the secondary market is thriving. Institutional investors are increasingly using secondaries to manage portfolio exposures, while private equity managers employ continuation vehicles to provide liquidity without necessarily selling the underlying assets.

Yet there is an important distinction between a market that trades substantial volumes and one in which investors can readily find buyers. A record-breaking secondary market does not automatically mean that private investments have become easier to sell. For a large institutional investor disposing of a diversified fund portfolio, the secondary market offers an established ecosystem of buyers, advisers and transaction structures. For a family office holding a smaller position, or an early investor seeking to sell shares in a private company, the situation may look rather different.

The assets themselves may be attractive. Finding a buyer willing and able to acquire them is another matter.

Where the Secondary Market Still Falls Short

The concentration of secondary market activity offers some perspective. Jefferies’ 2025 Global Secondary Market Review reports that transactions below USD 250 million represented 41% of total deal count but just 13% of transaction volume. The ten largest secondary buyers accounted for approximately half of total market volume.

These figures also reveal encouraging developments. Smaller specialist buyers are becoming more active, and the market is gradually broadening beyond its largest participants.

Nevertheless, transaction economics continue to favour scale. A secondary transaction involves identifying potential buyers, assessing available information, agreeing on a valuation, negotiating contractual terms and, frequently, obtaining transfer approvals. These processes require time and resources, regardless of whether the underlying position is worth USD 5 million or USD 200 million.

For smaller transactions, the relative cost of execution can become a significant obstacle. This creates an important distinction: An investment may have economic value without having an economically viable route to liquidity.

The problem is not necessarily a shortage of capital interested in private assets. It may be the difficulty of connecting that capital with specific investment opportunities under workable transaction conditions. Illiquidity is therefore not exclusively a characteristic of the asset. It can also be a consequence of how the market operates.

What the Research Reveals About the Cost of Liquidity

Academic research provides useful evidence of these market frictions. In their 2019 study, The Liquidity Cost of Private Equity Investments: Evidence from Secondary Market Transactions, Taylor Nadauld, Berk Sensoy, Keith Vorkink and Michael Weisbach analysed transactions involving private equity fund interests. They found that buyers earned approximately five percentage points higher annual market-adjusted returns than sellers across their sample. For more typical mid-life fund transactions, the difference was smaller, at approximately three percentage points.

These findings illustrate the economic value of supplying liquidity. Investors willing to acquire positions from sellers seeking an exit can earn additional returns, partly reflecting information asymmetries and limited market depth.

More recently, a study published on 5 October 2026 by Greg Brown and William Volckmann of the Institute for Private Capital examined almost 3,000 pricing observations involving buyout fund interests between 2015 and 2025. Their paper, Private Equity Secondary Pricing: Understanding the Current Market, found that transaction prices averaged approximately 8% below net asset value, with discounts closely related to broader financial market conditions. Despite record transaction activity, the researchers found no indication that aggregate secondary pricing through 2025 was inconsistent with a properly functioning market.

But perhaps the most interesting finding concerns something other than pricing. The factors determining whether an investment trades are not necessarily the same as those determining the price it achieves.

That distinction is fundamental. An asset might command a reasonable valuation if a suitable buyer could be found. Yet without access to that buyer, its theoretical market value provides little practical liquidity. Conversely, a lack of transactions does not automatically imply that the asset is unattractive or incorrectly valued.

The research concerns private equity fund interests rather than individual venture capital shareholdings. Its conclusions should not simply be transferred to every segment of the private markets. Nevertheless, it reinforces an important principle: Transaction prices alone cannot capture the full extent of market accessibility.

The Next Opportunity Is Not Just More Capital

There is little reason to believe that private equity or venture capital will ever offer the same liquidity characteristics as publicly traded securities. Nor should that necessarily be the objective. Private investments involve different information requirements, ownership structures and investment horizons. Transfer restrictions, approval rights and complex valuations serve legitimate purposes, even when they complicate transactions.

But not every obstacle is inherent to private ownership. Fragmented buyer networks, limited visibility of available investment opportunities and disproportionately high transaction costs are questions of market organisation and market organisation can evolve. More efficient ways of identifying counterparties, exchanging reliable information and managing transaction processes could make certain secondary transactions commercially viable where traditional approaches struggle to justify the effort.

That does not eliminate investment risk or guarantee liquidity. It can, however, improve the conditions under which willing buyers and sellers find one another.

For private markets, this matters beyond individual exits. Companies and funds often require long investment horizons to create value. Investors, meanwhile, may face changing liquidity needs, portfolio allocations or strategic priorities. An investment does not necessarily become less attractive simply because its original investor needs to sell.

A more accessible secondary market could help separate the investment horizon of the underlying asset from the holding period of an individual investor.

From Transaction Volume to Genuine Market Access

The remarkable growth of private equity secondaries is evidence of an increasingly mature market. Yet maturity should not be measured exclusively in billions traded.

The more revealing questions concern participation: Which investors can realistically sell? Which positions attract buyers? And at what transaction cost does a potential sale cease to make economic sense?

The answers are likely to vary considerably across fund interests, direct company shareholdings and transaction sizes. Improving market access will not make every private investment liquid. Some assets will remain difficult to sell for perfectly rational economic reasons. But where illiquidity results primarily from fragmented information, limited counterparty access or inefficient transaction processes, there may be room for meaningful progress.

The secondary market has demonstrated that it can attract capital. Its next test is whether it can connect that capital with a broader range of investment opportunities.

After all, the real measure of a functioning market is not simply how much changes hands – but how effectively willing buyers and sellers can transact.

References

Academic Research

Nadauld, T. D., Sensoy, B. A., Vorkink, K., & Weisbach, M. S. (2019). The Liquidity Cost of Private Equity Investments: Evidence from Secondary Market Transactions. Journal of Financial Economics, 132(3), 158–181. Read publication.
Brown, G., & Volckmann, W. (2026). Private Equity Secondary Pricing: Understanding the Current Market. Institute for Private Capital, 5 October 2026. Read research.

Market Research

Lazard (2026). Interim 2026 Secondary Market Report. 13 August 2026. Read report.
Jefferies Private Capital Advisory (2026). 2025 Global Secondary Market Review. Read report.

The AI Investment Cycle Is Entering Its Next Phase

10/12/2026/in Market Pulse, News /by Venionaire

For the past three years, the AI investment cycle has largely rewarded speed.

More capable models attracted more capital. That capital financed expanding computing capacity, semiconductor production, data centres and energy infrastructure. Expectations of exponential growth supported rising valuations across public and private markets. However, developments in September and October 2026 suggest that the investment landscape is changing. AI safety concerns, rising infrastructure financing requirements and the approaching IPOs of leading AI developers are bringing greater scrutiny to the economics behind the industry’s expansion.

The central question is shifting from how quickly AI can advance to whether its growth can generate sustainable returns on invested capital.

For private equity and venture capital investors, this transition has significant implications.

AI Safety Meets Competitive Reality

In September, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called for a more deliberate pace of frontier AI development, warning that capabilities are advancing faster than the industry’s ability to understand and control their risks.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman subsequently supported greater caution and ruled out an OpenAI IPO in 2026, citing safety concerns. Yet slowing development presents a competitive dilemma.

Anthropic continued releasing new models amid growing competition from OpenAI, while the US and China remain committed to technological leadership. This introduces pacing risk into the AI investment equation. Stricter safety requirements could affect development timelines and infrastructure spending, although slower frontier development would not necessarily reduce demand for existing AI applications.

Competition continues to favour acceleration, even as safety concerns become increasingly important.

Revenue Growth Faces the Profitability Test

Anthropic’s IPO preparations illustrate the industry’s economic challenges.

According to Reuters, Anthropic generated approximately $4.6 billion in 2025 revenue, representing twelvefold annual growth. However, it recorded an operating loss exceeding $8 billion and spent $7.33 billion on computing and infrastructure. Its prospectus also outlines approximately $518 billion in future cloud, computing and infrastructure obligations. These figures illustrate the capital required to maintain technological leadership.

Meanwhile, competitive pressure on inference prices raises questions about long-term margins. The challenge is that rapid revenue growth does not automatically translate into sustainable profitability. This distinction became particularly visible when OpenAI’s annualised September revenue was reported at approximately $50 billion, compared with an earlier indication approaching $70 billion. The discrepancy primarily reflected differences in revenue reporting rather than deteriorating customer demand. Nevertheless, the market reaction highlighted growing sensitivity to AI financial expectations.

Investors must increasingly distinguish between commercial adoption, reported revenue, profitability and free cash flow.

Infrastructure Financing Becomes a Critical Constraint

The same pressure extends throughout the AI value chain.

On October 12, Broadcom CEO Hock Tan identified capital availability as a major constraint on AI expansion. A proposed $60 billion financing package involving Broadcom and Anthropic illustrates the industry’s increasing dependence on institutional capital. The structure reportedly includes $42 billion in senior secured financing and $18 billion in junior debt. M

eanwhile, Financial Times reporting shows AI-related debt issuance declining to approximately $23 billion in September, following a June peak of $113 billion. Although earlier borrowing partly explains the slowdown, financing conditions are becoming an increasingly important consideration. For lenders and infrastructure investors, the question is whether future AI demand can justify capital expenditure, debt obligations and long-term infrastructure commitments.

Counterparty concentration, asset utilisation, technological obsolescence and refinancing risk are therefore becoming central underwriting considerations.

Public Markets Will Test Private Valuations

These developments are increasingly influencing public-market expectations.

Although leading frontier AI developers remain privately held, their spending supports revenues across listed semiconductor manufacturers, cloud providers and infrastructure companies. Changing expectations for private AI companies can therefore affect public valuations throughout the supply chain. The anticipated IPOs of Anthropic and OpenAI could introduce more direct public-market price discovery, exposing their profitability, capital intensity and valuation assumptions to broader investor scrutiny. Recent developments suggest that ambitious private valuations will not necessarily translate into successful listings.

In October, Nvidia-backed AI infrastructure company Firmus Technologies withdrew its planned Australian IPO, which had targeted a valuation exceeding $30 billion, approximately three times its valuation two months earlier. The withdrawal illustrates the difference between valuations negotiated in private funding rounds and prices public investors are willing to support.

This reinforces the importance of continuously reassessing valuation assumptions. This reinforces the importance of regularly reassessing private-market valuations against relevant benchmarks. Sector-, stage- and region-specific EV/Sales and EV/EBITDA multiples, as reflected in Venionaire DealMatrix Multiples, can provide additional context as market conditions and investor expectations evolve.

Venture Capital: Capital Concentration and Exit Discipline

Despite growing scrutiny, venture investment remains substantial. However, capital is increasingly concentrated in a limited number of companies and larger financing rounds.

Venionaire Capital’s European Venture Sentiment Index (EVSI) for Q3 2026 rose to 5.4, exceeding the expected 4.4 and signalling improving investor confidence. Yet 56.2% of the $24.7 billion invested across European venture capital went into late-stage rounds, while seed and angel financing accounted for just 7.4% of capital, highlighting increasingly selective capital allocation.

For VC investors, upcoming AI IPOs could provide liquidity and establish clearer valuation benchmarks. Conversely, disappointing public-market valuations could pressure late-stage portfolio marks and exit expectations. Investment strategies must also distinguish between capital-intensive frontier developers and AI application companies with potentially more scalable economics. For application companies, declining model costs can improve margins while simultaneously lowering barriers to entry.

Defensibility becomes essential. Proprietary data, customer relationships, distribution, workflow integration and measurable productivity benefits may provide more sustainable competitive advantages than access to AI technology alone.

Private Equity: The Productivity Gap

For private equity, AI presents opportunities for operational improvement, but the financial benefits are far from automatic.

Gerhard Kürner’s September 2026 report, Work After AI, highlights the gap between individual productivity improvements and measurable company-level results. Drawing on McKinsey research, the report finds that 80% report individual productivity gains, while only 37% identify benefits in operating results. Just 6% report a measurable operating-result improvement of at least 5%.

This distinction matters for PE investors.

AI adoption may increase employee productivity without necessarily improving EBITDA. Capturing financial value often requires organisational restructuring, workflow redesign and changes in resource allocation rather than simply deploying AI tools. At the same time, AI threatens established business models, particularly in software and labour-intensive services.

According to the Bank for International Settlements, outstanding private credit loans to software businesses exceeded $500 billion by the end of 2025, representing approximately 19% of direct lending. AI-driven disruption could therefore affect both equity valuations and borrowers’ creditworthiness.

For PE investors, acquisition underwriting must increasingly assess whether historical earnings, recurring revenues and competitive advantages remain defensible. The opportunity lies in identifying businesses capable of translating AI adoption into measurable operational improvements while maintaining sustainable competitive positions.

From Acceleration to Validation

The AI investment cycle is not necessarily ending. Demand continues expanding, technological progress remains rapid and capital deployment remains substantial.

However, technological transformation does not guarantee attractive investment returns.

For public markets, the next phase will test profitability and infrastructure economics. For venture capital, it will test private valuations, liquidity and business model defensibility. For private equity and private credit, attention will increasingly shift toward operational resilience, cash-flow quality and disciplined underwriting.

After years dominated by acceleration, the next phase of AI investing may be defined by financial validation: the ability to translate technological progress into durable economic returns.

Sources

Venionaire Capital strengthens Southeast Asia presence with Lukas Naujack as Associate Partner

09/18/2026/in Corporate News, News /by Venionaire

Venionaire Capital AG, the Vienna-headquartered international investment and corporate finance firm, has appointed Lukas Naujack as Associate Partner, strengthening the firm’s cross-border M&A and strategic advisory capabilities and expanding its presence in Southeast Asia.

Strengthening Venionaire’s International Advisory Network with Lukas Naujack

Founded in Vienna in 2012, Venionaire Capital has developed into an internationally active venture capital, private equity and corporate finance specialist. Over more than a decade, the firm has built a track record spanning transactions and investment projects with an aggregate volume of more than €1 billion, advising companies, investors and institutions across M&A, venture capital, private equity and strategic investments.

Today, Venionaire operates from its headquarters in Vienna with an international footprint spanning London, Luxembourg, New York, San Francisco and other key markets, supported by a global network of investment professionals, industry experts and Associate Partners. The appointment of Naujack represents a further step in extending this network into Southeast Asia.

Expanding Cross-Border M&A Capabilities in Southeast Asia

Based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and regularly active in Singapore, Naujack specialises in supporting European companies pursuing investments, acquisitions and strategic expansion in Southeast Asia. In his new role, he will work with Venionaire clients across Malaysia, Singapore and the wider region, with a particular focus on cross-border M&A, strategic investments and market expansion.

“Southeast Asia is becoming increasingly relevant for European companies looking for growth, diversification and access to dynamic new markets. At the same time, successful transactions in the region require much more than financial expertise – they require local market knowledge, networks and an understanding of how business is actually done on the ground,” says Berthold Baurek-Karlic, Founder and CEO of Venionaire Capital. “With Lukas, we are adding precisely this combination to our international partner network. It gives our European clients direct access to expertise on the ground while at the same time creating a stronger bridge between Southeast Asian opportunities and our European investment ecosystem.”

Local Expertise Combined with Corporate Strategy Experience

Naujack is the Founder and Managing Director of FalkensteinAsia, an advisory firm supporting European companies in establishing and strengthening their presence in Southeast Asia. The firm provides strategic investment and M&A advisory as well as support for companies entering and expanding within the region.

Before founding FalkensteinAsia in 2026, Naujack spent more than five years with Evonik Industries in Germany and Southeast Asia. His roles included Finance, Business Analytics in Kuala Lumpur, Head of Division Strategy APAC for Nutrition & Care in Singapore and, most recently, Director Strategic Projects for Care Solutions & Animal Nutrition, where he led strategic investment projects across the Asia-Pacific region.

His experience combines corporate strategy, investment projects and transaction work with several years of first-hand operating experience in Southeast Asia. In 2026, he also contributed to the professional debate on cross-border transactions in the region with an article for M&A REVIEW examining M&A opportunities in Southeast Asia, with a particular focus on Malaysia.

Building a Bridge Between Europe and Southeast Asia

“European companies often see the growth potential in Southeast Asia, but turning that potential into a successful investment or transaction requires a strong bridge between both regions,” says Lukas Naujack. “I am very pleased to join Venionaire and combine its transaction expertise and international network with my experience and presence on the ground in Southeast Asia. Together, we can support companies from strategy through to execution.”

Naujack holds a Master of Science in Industrial Engineering and Management from Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) and completed the Emerging Leaders programme at IMD. His earlier professional experience also includes roles at Accenture.

With the appointment, Venionaire further expands its international network of Associate Partners and its ability to support cross-border investment and M&A mandates. Naujack will serve as Venionaire’s local partner across Malaysia and Singapore, while covering opportunities throughout Southeast Asia.

About Venionaire Capital

Venionaire Capital AG is an independent international investment and corporate finance firm headquartered in Vienna, Austria. Founded in 2012, the company specialises in venture capital, private equity, M&A and strategic corporate finance, supporting investors, companies, public institutions and high-growth businesses throughout the investment and transaction lifecycle.

Venionaire combines investment expertise with hands-on transaction execution, including due diligence, company valuation, deal structuring, negotiations, fundraising and alternative investment fund management. The group has been involved in transactions and investment projects with an aggregate volume of more than €1 billion.

Headquartered in Vienna, Venionaire maintains an international presence across Europe, the United States and other global markets, including London, Luxembourg, New York and San Francisco, complemented by a network of international Associate Partners and industry experts.

Best Practice in Startup-Investor Reporting: How Consistent Communication Builds Stronger Relationships

08/31/2026/in Market Pulse, News /by Venionaire

For startups, closing an investment round marks the beginning of a new relationship. Founders now have investors on their cap table who can provide much more than capital. However, unlocking that value requires one essential ingredient: consistent and transparent investor reporting.

Strong startup-investor reporting keeps investors informed, builds trust, and gives them opportunities to actively support the company. Moreover, it can strengthen relationships with prospective investors and lay the groundwork for future funding rounds.

Why Regular Investor Reporting Matters

Investors should never have to chase founders for information about their portfolio companies. Instead, startups should establish a predictable reporting cadence.

For early-stage companies, monthly updates often work particularly well. As companies mature, quarterly reporting may become more appropriate. Nevertheless, consistency matters more than the exact frequency.

Regular reporting demonstrates discipline and transparency. It also gives investors a continuous view of the company’s development rather than isolated snapshots during board meetings or fundraising rounds.

Importantly, founders should communicate both successes and challenges. Hiding negative developments can quickly damage trust. Instead, founders should explain what happened, what they learned, and what actions they are taking.

What Should a Startup Investor Update Include?

An effective investor update does not need to become a lengthy report. Investors often work with numerous portfolio companies, so information should remain concise, structured, and easy to scan. At the same time, the update should give investors a clear picture of where the company stands, what has changed, and where their support can make a difference.

A strong update can include:

Executive summary: Start with the most important developments of the reporting period, including major achievements, changes, or challenges.
Key figures and KPIs: Share relevant metrics such as revenue, sales volume, growth, gross margin, burn rate, runway, customer development, or other business-specific KPIs. Also, explain significant changes where necessary.
Key developments: Outline what the team has achieved since the previous update. This can include product improvements, integrations, partnerships, customer wins, or operational changes.
Upcoming priorities: Provide visibility into what comes next, from hiring and market expansion to product launches and fundraising preparations.
Core strategic initiatives: Explain major projects and their expected impact on areas such as growth, margins, retention, or scalability.
Challenges and learnings: Communicate setbacks openly and explain what the team is doing about them. Transparency builds credibility.
Specific asks: Tell investors where they can contribute. This might include introductions to customers, partners, candidates, industry experts, or future investors.

A well-structured update therefore combines performance, progress, outlook, and actionable asks.

Turn Investor Reporting Into Active Engagement

Good investor relations should create a two-way relationship.

Instead of simply reporting that enterprise sales remain a priority, for example, founders can ask for introductions to specific companies or decision-makers. Likewise, they can request introductions to potential hires, partners, advisors, or industry experts.

As a result, an investor update becomes an actionable tool rather than a passive information document. Furthermore, regular communication keeps the company top of mind within the investor’s network.

At Venionaire Capital, we take this principle one step further. Our CEO, Berthold Baurek-Karlic, recommends that startups consider providing regular updates not only to existing investors, but also to selected prospective investors.

Why? Because fundraising should not start when the runway becomes short.

Keep Prospective Investors Close Before the Next Round

Investors meet promising startups constantly. Regular updates help founders remain visible and demonstrate progress over time.

Instead of approaching an investor after twelve months of silence with a new fundraising deck, startups can build the relationship continuously. Prospective investors can observe milestones, growth, execution, and how management responds to challenges.

Moreover, consistent communication creates a stronger starting point for the next funding round. The investor already understands the company, its strategy, and its development. Therefore, the fundraising conversation starts with an established relationship rather than a cold introduction.

Of course, founders should carefully consider which information they share outside the existing shareholder base. Confidential or highly sensitive information requires appropriate safeguards. Prospective investors can receive a more selective version of the regular investor update.

Investor Reporting Is Relationship Building

Ultimately, effective startup-investor reporting is not about producing more reports. It is about building trust through consistent communication and creating opportunities for active engagement.

Keep investors informed. Be transparent about challenges. Share progress and upcoming priorities. Make specific asks. Moreover, keep relevant prospective investors close.

When the next strategic challenge or funding round arrives, those relationships may become one of the startup’s most valuable assets.

Emerald Horizon Reaches Unicorn Status Following Vienna Stock Exchange Debut

06/26/2026/in Corporate News, News /by Venionaire

Austrian clean energy company Emerald Horizon AG made history today, closing its first day of trading on the Vienna Stock Exchange (VIE: SMRX) with a market capitalisation above €1 billion, officially reaching unicorn status on the public markets.

Shares opened at €760.00 and climbed to a closing price of €1,010.00, a first-day gain of +32.89%. It marks a historic moment for Austria’s capital markets and a major milestone for the European deep tech ecosystem.

What Is Emerald Horizon?

Founded in Graz, Emerald Horizon is building the next generation of clean energy infrastructure. The company’s mission: make reliable, carbon-free energy available at scale, 24 hours a day, anywhere in the world.

Its technology portfolio spans two complementary solutions:

DUALstore PLUS: A market-ready hybrid energy storage system combining lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, molten-salt thermal storage, and AI-driven energy management. Built to solve renewable energy’s biggest problem: what happens when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.
ADES (Accelerator-Driven Energy System): A thorium-based microreactor designed for carbon-free baseload power. Unlike conventional nuclear, ADES uses no uranium and relies on an externally controlled neutron source rather than a self-sustaining chain reaction — making it a fundamentally safer next-generation approach.

The Listing: Key Facts

Today’s admission to the Official Market of the Vienna Stock Exchange is a listing of all existing shares rather than a traditional IPO. Key details:

Ticker: SMRX (Vienna Stock Exchange, Xetra T7)
Opening price: €760.00
Closing price: €1,010.00 (+32.89%)
Market cap at close: >€1 billion
Market makers: Baader Bank AG and Hauck & Aufhäuser Privatbankiers AG

The listing was supported by Wiener Privatbank, with Venionaire Capital serving as a supporting advisor on the company’s path to the public markets.

At the opening bell ceremony, CEO Florian Wagner, VP Operations Philipp Pölzl, and VP International Relations Robert Holzmann formally welcomed Emerald Horizon to the public markets.

Why This Matters for European Deep Tech

Emerald Horizon’s debut is more than a single company milestone. It signals that Europe’s deep tech ecosystem is maturing, producing companies capable of tackling global infrastructure challenges and attracting serious capital market interest.

Deep tech listings of this scale remain rare in Austria and across continental Europe. Today’s unicorn valuation is a reminder that transformational energy companies don’t only come from Silicon Valley or Asia. They are increasingly being built right here.

What’s Next

A stock exchange listing is not an exit, it’s an accelerant. For Emerald Horizon, going public means greater transparency, broader stakeholder access, and more flexibility to fund the next phase of development.

The road ahead is long. Breakthrough energy technologies take years to scale, and success will depend on continued engineering execution, regulatory progress, and industrial partnerships. But the foundation is in place.

We congratulate Florian Wagner, Philipp Pölzl, Robert Holzmann, and the entire Emerald Horizon team. The future of energy is being built and today, it rang the opening bell in Vienna.

Watch the Full Podcast Interview with CEO Florian Wagner

To explore these ideas in more detail, listen to our latest Let’s Talk About Tech episode featuring Florian Wagner, CEO & Founder of Emerald Horizon.

YouTube

Spotify

Apple Podcasts

KISAB Mandates Venionaire Capital to Structure Nine-Figure Private Equity Transaction

06/01/2026/in Uncategorized / not displayed in blog /by Venionaire

Vienna-based Venionaire has been commissioned by Kiselkarbid i Stockholm AB (“KISAB”) to structure and support the company’s next financing round. The mandate includes investor relations, investor communications, and strategic preparation for the financing, with a focus on growth-oriented private equity and strategic investors. The goal is to raise a total of more than 100 million euros, with a majority acquisition by an investor also being an option.

KISAB Mandates Venionaire Capital to Structure Nine-Figure Private Equity Transaction

06/01/2026/in Corporate News, News /by Venionaire

KISAB and Venionaire Capital have entered into a strategic partnership to support the next growth phase of one of Europe’s most promising semiconductor companies.

Vienna-based Venionaire Capital AG has been appointed by Swedish silicon carbide (SiC) specialist Kiselkarbid i Stockholm AB (KISAB) to structure and support the company’s upcoming financing round. The mandate includes investor relations, investor communications, and transaction preparation aimed at growth-oriented private equity firms and strategic investors.

The financing initiative is designed around a nine-figure euro transaction, with both minority growth capital investments and a potential majority acquisition by a strategic or financial investor remaining possible outcomes.

KISAB and Venionaire: Supporting Europe’s Semiconductor Future

The collaboration between KISAB and Venionaire comes at a time when demand for advanced semiconductor materials is accelerating worldwide.

Headquartered in Kista, near Stockholm, KISAB develops and manufactures advanced silicon carbide semiconductor materials. The company’s products are used in high-growth sectors including electric mobility, power grid infrastructure, renewable energy systems, and industrial electronics.

As power electronics become increasingly important for electrification and energy efficiency, silicon carbide has emerged as a critical enabling technology.

KISAB’s 8-Inch Silicon Carbide Platform

At the center of KISAB’s growth strategy is its advanced 8-inch BPD-free n-type silicon carbide wafer platform.

The transition from smaller wafer formats to 8-inch production represents a significant technological milestone for the semiconductor industry. Larger wafers enable improved manufacturing efficiency, lower production costs, and increased scalability for next-generation power semiconductor devices.

As demand continues to grow, KISAB is preparing to significantly expand its production capabilities.

Building on a Strong Investor Base

KISAB has previously raised approximately €24 million through several financing rounds.

Publicly disclosed investors include:

Fairpoint Capital
Industrifonden
Ingka GreenTech
LPE

Through this new mandate, Venionaire Capital will support KISAB in refining its equity story, structuring investor outreach, and positioning the company for its next phase of industrial expansion.

How the KISAB-Venionaire Partnership Started

The relationship between KISAB and Venionaire originated through international business networks.

The collaboration was initiated following a visit by Venionaire Capital CEO Berthold Baurek-Karlic to Phoenix, Arizona, where he delivered a presentation to the International Trade Committee of the Arizona House of Representatives.

“We are delighted to support one of Europe’s most promising technology companies on its growth journey. It may seem somewhat paradoxical that two European companies connected through the United States, but it also demonstrates that pan-European collaboration is more important than ever. Such cooperation is essential if Europe aims to remain competitive with the United States as an economic region.”

— Berthold Baurek-Karlic, CEO, Venionaire Capital AG

Strengthening Europe’s Deep-Tech Ecosystem

The partnership between KISAB and Venionaire highlights the growing importance of European semiconductor innovation.

Global demand for advanced power electronics is being driven by electrification, energy transition initiatives, industrial automation, and the modernization of power infrastructure. Silicon carbide technologies play a central role in enabling these developments through improved efficiency, performance, and reliability.

By supporting KISAB’s next financing round, Venionaire Capital continues its mission of helping innovative European technology companies secure growth capital, attract strategic partners, and scale internationally.

Investors and strategic partners interested in learning more about KISAB and the upcoming financing opportunity are invited to contact Venionaire Capital directly.

Small Modular Generators: A New Layer of Energy Infrastructure

03/31/2026/in Insights, News, Tech /by Venionaire

Small Modular Generators (SMGs) are emerging as a new category of energy technology that sits between traditional nuclear, renewables, and industrial-scale infrastructure.

Global markets are entering a phase where energy systems, technological innovation, and capital allocation are increasingly intertwined. Stability, scalability, and cost-efficiency are no longer optional. They are prerequisites for any energy solution that aims to operate at scale.

In this context, SMGs represent a shift not just in technology, but in how energy systems are designed and financed.

From Reactors to Generators

For years, Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) have been positioned as the future of nuclear energy. However, SMGs introduce a fundamentally different approach.

Instead of relying on a continuous chain reaction, SMGs use accelerator-driven systems to trigger energy release. This removes several of the structural risks associated with nuclear energy and reframes the entire category.

As discussed in our latest Let’s Talk About Tech episode with Florian Wagner, CEO and Founder of Emerald Horizon, the concept is to retain the benefits of nuclear energy while eliminating its key drawbacks .

The result is a system that behaves less like a traditional power plant and more like a controllable energy device. Energy generation becomes something that can be switched on and off, rather than something that must be continuously managed at scale.

Modular by Design, Not by Label

One of the core differences lies in how SMGs approach modularity.

While many “modular” energy systems are still large-scale infrastructure projects, SMGs are designed from the ground up as container-sized units. Each unit delivers meaningful output on its own and can be combined depending on demand.

This changes the economics entirely. Instead of building one large asset, energy capacity can be deployed incrementally. It also reduces dependency on large grid expansions, as production can move closer to consumption.

From a capital markets perspective, this introduces a manufacturing logic into energy. Scaling is no longer tied to project size, but to production capacity.

Rethinking Energy Supply Chains

A central element of SMG technology is thorium.

Unlike uranium, thorium is widely available and geographically distributed. It already exists as a by-product of industrial processes, particularly in rare earth mining. This fundamentally changes the supply-side dynamics of energy.

Rather than relying on concentrated resource regions, energy systems can be built on more globally accessible inputs. This reduces geopolitical exposure and introduces a different level of resilience into the system.

At the same time, thorium-based systems avoid many of the regulatory and safety concerns that have historically slowed nuclear adoption .

Energy as a Scalable System

What makes SMGs particularly interesting is not just the technology, but the system logic behind it.

Traditional energy infrastructure is defined by scale, long timelines, and high upfront capital intensity. SMGs shift this toward a model that resembles industrial production.

Energy capacity can be added in units, deployed where needed, and scaled over time. This creates a more flexible system that aligns better with real-world demand patterns.

It also opens the door to new business models, where energy is not only produced centrally, but distributed in a modular and adaptive way.

The Investor Perspective

From an investment standpoint, SMGs sit at the intersection of deep tech, infrastructure, and energy transition.

They combine long-term structural relevance with a fundamentally different scaling dynamic. This makes them comparable to other emerging categories where technology redefines how infrastructure is built and monetized.

At the same time, the space remains early. Many comparable companies operate without revenues, and valuations are often driven by expectations rather than realized performance .

This creates a familiar pattern for investors: high potential, paired with execution and regulatory risk.

Europe’s Strategic Position

For Europe, SMGs could offer a unique pathway forward.

Energy policy across the region remains fragmented, particularly when it comes to nuclear. SMGs introduce a middle ground by offering a technology that captures the benefits of nuclear energy without its most controversial elements.

This creates the potential for a broader consensus on energy strategy, especially in a context where resilience and independence are becoming increasingly important .

Watch the Full Discussion

To explore these ideas in more detail, listen to our latest Let’s Talk About Tech episode featuring Florian Wagner, CEO & Founder of Emerald Horizon.

YouTube

Spotify

Apple Podcasts

Conclusion

SMGs are not just another iteration of existing energy technologies. They represent a shift in how energy systems are conceptualized.

If successful, they could move energy from large, centralized infrastructure toward modular, scalable systems that behave more like technology platforms than traditional utilities.

For investors, this is where the real relevance lies. Not only in the technology itself, but in the structural change it introduces to one of the most fundamental industries in the global economy.

Disclaimer

This publication is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, legal, or tax advice. The content reflects general market perspectives and does not represent an offer, solicitation, or recommendation to buy or sell any securities or investment products. Past performance and market observations are not indicative of future results. Readers should seek independent professional advice before making investment decisions.

Asia VC: Capital Rotation, Hard-Tech Sovereignty, and the New Cross-Border Playbook

03/31/2026/in Corporate News, Market Pulse, News /by Venionaire

This article offers a focused insight into one of the core mechanisms shaping markets in 2026. The full Market Outlook 2026 provides the broader, integrated context across macro, public markets, private capital and digital assets.

Download Full Report

Asia’s VC rebound is not a return to globalised beta. Instead, it reflects a rotation toward ecosystems that can host long-term capital under tighter cross-border conditions.

The rebound is selective, not cyclical

You can see Asia’s venture recovery in the headline figures. However, the composition is more decision-useful. Total Asian VC funding reached USD 73.6bn across 4,308 transactions. Moreover, late-stage and technology-growth rounds carry meaningful weight.

Implication: capital is likely to keep favouring maturity signals. That means later-stage scale-up capacity and fewer, higher-impact bets. It also means less broad-based early-stage risk appetite.

Capital has returned – but only where scale, structure, and exit pathways are already legible.

Geopolitics rewires the investment filter

The report frames 2026 as a period of shifting geopolitical realities. As a result, cross-border strategies recalibrate and investors become more selective.

Implication: underwriting in Asia increasingly shifts from “market size first” to friction management. Therefore, policy credibility and regulatory clarity matter more. Likewise, investors prefer repeatable pathways for capital and exits.

Hard-tech sovereignty replaces platform scaling

The report describes a 2025 reset for China’s VC scene. It also notes a more active government role. In that context, capital flows into strategic “hard tech”. Examples include semiconductors, aerospace, quantum, and advanced AI.

Implication: for China-linked exposure, the question changes. Investors move from “can it scale fast?” to “can it compound inside a sovereignty-first priority set?”. Consequently, timelines can extend and execution matters more.

Japan and Singapore as institutionalisation plays

The report positions Japan as a beneficiary of reform and DeepTech strength. It also points to momentum in automation and robotics.

Implication: Japan can screen as an “institutionalisation” market. Governance, reform, and DeepTech depth can support deployment conditions. Still, the return profile may look less momentum-driven.

The report describes Singapore as a scale-up gateway. It highlights a globally competitive business climate and “regional expansion readiness”.

Implication: Singapore strengthens as a platform for scaling and funding across Asia. In particular, this holds when investors prioritise regulatory clarity and repeatable cross-border setups.

Dual domiciliation becomes a core structuring choice

The report notes a growing number of startups exploring relocation or dual domiciliation. It highlights this dynamic especially for China-linked companies. The stated aim is access to neutral capital markets, hedging political risk, and unlocking international expansion routes.

Implication: domicile becomes part of the investment thesis. Therefore, terms, governance, and exit planning move up the checklist. Investors will also test whether cross-jurisdiction operation adds avoidable financing friction.

In Asia, institutional readiness – not innovation alone – determines where global capital can stay invested.

“Institutional readiness” as the practical filter

The report makes its framing explicit for 2026. It highlights ecosystems that combine regulatory clarity, executional talent, and scalable infrastructure. It also calls out those that “match innovation with institutional readiness”.

Implication: the investable edge shifts from the most innovative companies to the most financeable ecosystems. In other words, capital prefers places where it can deploy, scale, and repatriate with fewer surprises.

The report describes India’s upside as tied to improved regulatory throughput. It also emphasises a specific unlock: simplifying visa, tax, and capital repatriation frameworks. The goal is converting international interest into sustained investment flows.

Implication: India’s opportunity set may expand if friction falls. However, allocations remain sensitive to whether throughput improvements materialise in practice.

What this means for investors in 2026

Asia is less a single VC bucket and more a portfolio of regimes. Accordingly, the report points to rotation toward jurisdictions and hubs that combine policy and regulatory clarity with scale-up infrastructure.

Implication: the winning playbook looks less like rebound chasing and more like structuring for durability. Therefore, investors map geopolitical exposure explicitly. They also build jurisdiction-aware governance. Finally, they plan financing for episodic exit windows rather than smooth reopening.

To explore the full regional frameworks, capital flows, and structural filters shaping Asia and global venture markets in 2026, download the complete Market Outlook 2026 report.