1. The EIF is one of the most critical cornerstone investors for European venture capital funds. However, Europe still struggles to mobilize pension funds and insurance companies at the scale seen in the US. Beyond EIF commitments, what structural changes are needed to channel more institutional private capital into European VC funds?

The EIF plays an important catalytic role in the European venture capital market, but public capital alone cannot provide the scale of financing that Europe’s innovative companies will need. The long-term objective must be to mobilise substantially more private institutional capital and establish a market that can increasingly finance itself. In other words, EIF’s aim, if you so wish, is to make itself redundant.

In terms of challenges to address: First, we need regulatory and investment frameworks that enable pension funds and insurance companies to allocate capital to venture capital in a way that reflects their long-term investment horizons, diversification requirements and risk-return objectives.

Second, we need to better promote the many success stories of European VC funds, in particular regarding exits. Ultimately, what matters is the money that flows back to the investors.

Third, we need more European funds with sufficient scale to meet the requirements of larger institutional investors. Fund-of-funds structures and public-private investment partnerships can help by diversifying risk, building investment expertise and providing an efficient entry point for institutions that may not have the resources to select individual venture capital funds themselves.

EIF’s role is to act as a catalyst. It is not a substitute for private capital. Success will mean creating an ecosystem in which institutional investors participate because they see compelling long-term investment opportunities. As a side remark: via trackvc.eu EIF is making performance data for PE and VC funds publicly available, over a period of 20 years.

2. You oversee client relationships across Austria, Slovakia and the Czech Republic. How would you rate the current maturity of the Austrian venture capital ecosystem compared to its regional neighbours and where do you see the biggest untapped potential for EIF-backed funds?

Austria has several important strengths: a strong industrial base, excellent research institutions, highly skilled talent and close economic links to both Western Europe and Central and Eastern Europe. These provide a solid foundation for building internationally competitive technology companies. The country also benefits from its position as a bridge between established Western European markets and the wider CEE region.

Compared with the Czech Republic and Slovakia, I would be cautious about reducing the assessment to a simple rating. The ecosystems have different strengths, industrial structures and levels of development. The Czech Republic has a strong engineering and technology base, while Slovakia has significant industrial capabilities and opportunities to translate that expertise into new technology businesses. Austria benefits from a broad institutional and research infrastructure, but it still has room to deepen its domestic venture capital market and attract more private institutional investors.

From the EIF's perspective, the opportunity is not simply to increase the number of funds, but to build a sustainable ecosystem in which promising managers can raise successive funds, companies can access follow-on capital, and successful businesses can grow internationally while maintaining strong roots in the region. Purely national programmes alone won’t be sufficient for building such ecosystem. The goal must be to think and act from a European perspective, which is what the EIF encourages.

3. Deep tech and hardware-heavy startups require significantly larger checks and longer investment horizons. How is the EIF adapting its fund commitments to ensure European managers can properly back capital-intensive technologies like AI, quantum and biotech through their growth phases?

Companies working in these areas may require substantial investment in research, equipment, testing, regulatory approvals and manufacturing before they can generate meaningful revenues.

EIF’s approach is to support the development of a financing ecosystem that reflects these different capital requirements. Through our equity activities and dedicated investment mandates, the EIF backs fund managers with specialised expertise in areas such as deep tech and life sciences, while also supporting larger funds capable of financing companies at more advanced stages. Programmes such as the European Tech Champions Initiative (ETCI), which is presently being expanded through ETCI 2.0, address the need for larger-scale growth capital for technology companies.

These companies must also be able to raise subsequent rounds without being forced to seek capital outside Europe simply because the required financing is unavailable locally.

To be clear: The objective is not for every venture capital fund to finance every stage. It is to ensure that the European market has the right combination of specialised managers, appropriately sized funds and follow-on investors. That is essential if Europe wants to turn its scientific and technological strengths into globally competitive businesses.

4. Given your extensive background leading EIF’s legal team for equity transactions: It appears that regulatory complexity often slows down fund formation in Europe. What are the most common structural hurdles fund managers face when raising EIF capital and how can teams streamline this process?

Fundraising is demanding in itself, and working with an institutional investor such as the EIF requires fund managers to demonstrate that their structure, governance and investment processes meet the relevant legal, regulatory and operational requirements. This is not simply a documentation exercise: it is about establishing a robust framework that protects investors and supports the fund throughout its life.

Common areas requiring careful attention include the choice of fund jurisdiction and legal structure, the alignment of the limited partnership agreement with the agreed investment strategy, governance and decision-making arrangements, conflicts of interest, fee and carried-interest provisions, and the allocation of responsibilities between the fund manager and other service providers.

The most effective way to streamline the process is to address these matters early. Fund managers should establish a clear and internally consistent fund structure, engage experienced legal and tax advisers, prepare comprehensive and accurate documentation, and ensure that the investment strategy, fund economics and governance arrangements are aligned from the outset.

Standardisation is key to reduce transaction costs and avoid unnecessary negotiations, provided it does not come at the expense of sound governance or the specific needs of the fund. Ultimately, the objective is not to eliminate necessary scrutiny, but to make the process more predictable and efficient so that managers can focus on raising capital and building successful portfolios.

5. With initiatives like the Austrian Fund-of-Funds (Dachfonds) aiming to strengthen the domestic ecosystem, how can local fund managers and institutional players best leverage EIF programs to co-invest and scale regional champions?

The proposed Austrian start-up and scale-up Dachfonds is not yet up and running. Hence, it is difficult at this stage to provide a detailed answer to this question. This said, the Dachfonds is certainly an important opportunity to strengthen the domestic financing ecosystem by bringing institutional investors, public capital and professional fund managers closer together. Its potential goes beyond the capital it can deploy directly. It can help build investor confidence, support the development of local fund management expertise and establish a more sustainable basis for financing Austrian companies.

For local fund managers, the opportunity is to develop investment strategies that are differentiated, internationally competitive and capable of attracting capital from multiple sources. Combining domestic initiatives with relevant EIF-backed investment programmes, where eligibility and mandate conditions permit, can help establish a broader investor base and support the growth of successive fund generations.

Ultimately, the Dachfonds should be seen as a market-building instrument. Its success will depend not only on the amount of capital raised, but also on whether it attracts additional private investors at the level of the underlying investee funds, strengthens professional fund management and supports the emergence of successful companies in those technology sectors that define the coming decades. And at the risk of repeating myself: A national initiative cannot substitute a pan-European approach such as the one EIF is pursuing with ETCI. The latter will put successfully growing national champions in the focus of a much bigger investment capacity that is stimulated through pan-European scale-up capital.