Investors discuss the Wennink Report

Can you outline what your funds focus on?
Bagijn: ‘Our focus is primarily on private equity, and increasingly on private credit. We provide capital to funds, we co-invest with private equity managers directly in companies, and we are a major player in secondaries. That means we acquire existing stakes in funds. In doing so, we offer liquidity to investors and funds that want to sell their positions, for example because they want to reallocate or need cash. We work globally with the best private equity managers and are a professional deal partner for both funds and institutional investors.’
De Vries: ‘We are a deep tech venture capital fund. We invest in companies working on innovative technologies in the fields of semiconductors, photonics, and energy. The technology has already been proven, but the route to market is long and capital-intensive. We are not just a lender, but also assist with strategy, networking, talent development, financing, and building an organization. Our latest fund totaled over 500 million euros, large enough to support companies over the long term; the next one may well reach a billion euros.’

Could you cross paths in the financing chain? Is it possible for a company in Harm’s portfolio to end up with Ruulke?
De Vries: ‘Yes, that is possible, but often only after years of development. Deep tech companies need a lot of time to mature. They have to develop, test, and scale up their technology. Only then do they enter the phase where they come into the sights of private equity firms.’

Ruulke, when is a company or fund interesting to you?
Bagijn: ‘A certain scale helps, but so does a successful and proven strategy, a clear market position, and an organization that is robust enough to continue growing. For a fund, the track record is important, but ultimately it is about confidence in the future. We take a broad view: at the quality of the companies in the portfolio, the fund's strategy, the composition of the team, and the organization surrounding it.’

You were both invited to one of the thirty roundtable sessions where Peter Wennink sought input. How do you look back on that?
De Vries: ‘At our table, insights were gathered from the financing world. The question was what is specifically needed to get certain sectors in the Netherlands off the ground. The conclusion was structural investments, a consistent policy, and the right preconditions. Think of easily attracting talent, good employment conditions, and an attractive business climate. And practically: infrastructure. Companies must, for example, have access to the power grid.’
Bagijn: ‘Our message was: there is no shortage of capital. The main question is how to put that capital to work. If you want institutional investors to invest, there needs to be a mature ecosystem. That means sufficiently strong funds, experienced managers, and structures capable of absorbing large amounts of capital. Think of private equity firms with scale and a proven track record, but also of structures such as funds of funds and co-investment platforms. At least as important is the expertise to invest that capital in the right way. Europe has it all. There is scale, there are high-quality private equity and venture capital funds, and there are parties that bridge the gap between capital and investments.’

How do you view current geopolitical developments, and what impact do they have on the investment landscape?
Bagijn: ‘The Wennink report fits into a broader trend in which geopolitical developments increasingly determine where capital and production go. In Europe, we are seeing a resurgence of industrialization emerging, particularly in energy, defense, and technology. These are massive markets; combined investments could reach around nine trillion dollars. While defense and innovation have long been intertwined in the U.S., Europe is now taking that step as well. Additionally, energy has become a key issue. For a long time, the focus was on sustainability; now it is also about security: reliable and affordable energy. There is another factor at play. Many institutional investors have become over-allocated to the US in recent years – in part because returns in the US have been so strong. Now they are rebalancing their portfolios, and more capital is flowing towards Europe, precisely at a time when new opportunities are emerging here.’

What do the geopolitical shifts and new economic priorities in Europe mean for your funds?
De Vries: ‘For us, it is positive. The enormous investments in the economy are largely going toward technology – precisely the domain in which we operate. We see opportunities and are noticing that more institutional investors are willing to invest in European venture funds. This helps venture funds continue to grow and compete with large American funds. Europe still has a lot of catching up to do, but this gives us a welcome boost.
Moreover, a new sector has emerged: defense. The focus is now primarily on dual-use technology, technology with both civilian and military applications. Investing in defense is no longer taboo, but strategic and necessary. That is a fundamental shift that has significantly expanded the early-stage market. Our strategy remains the same: we focus on the technology. For example, we are investing in Axelera, an energy-efficient chip for AI applications that can also be used for defense applications. That makes the market markedly more attractive for our portfolio companies.’
Bagijn: ‘We, too, are seeing interest in Europe grow. Partly because institutional investors are rebalancing their portfolios, and partly because more opportunities are emerging. Investors see that. At the same time, it is also true that Europe has always been an important market. About thirty-five percent of the global private equity market is in Europe. And yes, new investment opportunities are emerging, but it will take some time before they are fully realized. Defense is an example of this. There are new funds specifically targeting this sector, and that is causing parties to position themselves. I see that movement gaining momentum. We are closely monitoring developments.’

You are positive about the future of Europe, but there will also be challenges. What do you foresee?
De Vries: ‘We need to be patient. If you are investing in technology, you have to accept that lead times are long. That requires a consistent long-term policy and an ecosystem that grows alongside it. Such an ecosystem is not solely about capital. In addition to investors, industry, and startups, you also need strong universities and research institutions. The whole picture has to add up. Moreover, if you want to scale up, there need to be larger funds capable of investing substantial amounts. There are areas that are relatively easy to improve, such as tax regulations and employee stock options. That can be a huge help in attracting talent.’
Bagijn: ‘In the US, it is easier to start a business, hire people and, if necessary, let them go. That flexibility means entrepreneurs are more willing to take risks. Additionally, the capital markets in the US are deeper. It is easier to raise funding, and also to execute an exit. That creates a flywheel effect: successful companies generate capital that is reinvested. That mechanism is still less strong in Europe.’

It is said that Europe needs a different entrepreneurial culture. Where exactly is the problem, and can we change that?
De Vries: ‘Europe has enough entrepreneurship. The problem lies mainly in the framework conditions. If it is too complicated to start a business, for example due to regulations, you discourage entrepreneurs. The key is: make it simpler, think more liberally and on a larger scale. But also: embrace success. In Europe, we tend to want to do a little bit of everything; that is not how you build winners. We need to make choices and give the market more room to grow.’
Bagijn: ‘In America, people invest more in stocks and therefore feel more connected to companies and entrepreneurship. In Europe, the emphasis is much more on saving. That starts as early as childhood. We open a savings account for them. If we want to change the mindset, we need to start at a young age to approach money and investing differently.’

Institutional capital is often seen as the key to growing a sector. Harm, you succeeded in attracting pension funds. What was your approach?
De Vries: ‘We managed to bring a pension fund on board early on. That not only provided capital but also credibility. We also got the chance to professionalize. We had invested a lot of time and money to reach an initial closing. Ultimately, it comes down to several factors: telling the right story, getting to the table with the right people, persevering, and a little bit of luck. What helps, by the way, is that pressure from society and politics is growing. Pension funds are increasingly expected to play a more active role.’

Ruulke, how do you view the role of pension funds?
Bagijn: ‘A number of pension funds are already investing in venture capital, healthcare, or defense. That is positive. It is often difficult because they need a certain scale to invest their large capital effectively. It is important that pension funds have sufficient knowledge and capacity. Without the right expertise, investing in private markets can entail undesirable risks.’

For investors, the lack of liquidity has been a problem for some time. How do we solve this?
Bagijn: ‘Liquidity is a problem in both Europe and the US. Fewer exits are being realized in the private equity market. As a result, capital is returning to investors more slowly. There have been a few large transactions in the U.S., but the number of deals has fallen, and lagging exits make fundraising more difficult. I think it is cyclical. Private equity naturally moves in waves. Last year we already saw signs of recovery: there was more liquidity, there were more distributions, and the number of deals rose. Due to geopolitical uncertainty and valuation adjustments in the software sector, liquidity remains a challenge.’

In his report, Wennink advocates for a national investment institution to kickstart the desired industrialization in the Netherlands. Is this a good idea?
Bagijn: ‘Absolutely. We see successful examples in other European countries. Such an institution can pool capital and enable large-scale or high-risk projects that the market itself does not take on, for example in the energy transition. One point that is often overlooked is that a national investment institution can give the government more room to invest without increasing the budget deficit. This means that the Netherlands can make major investments – for example, in energy infrastructure, innovation, or the defense industry – at the moment they are economically necessary, rather than waiting until there is room within the annual national budget. In addition, the real power lies in scale: by pooling existing funds and institutions, capital can be raised more cheaply and deployed more efficiently, thereby greatly increasing investment capacity. Studies show that pooling capital can create up to 100 billion euros in additional borrowing capacity. That can provide a massive boost to innovation, from start-ups to large technology companies.’
De Vries: ‘I completely agree. The advantage is that such an institution can operate across cabinet terms, unlike temporary growth funds that are often dependent on political decision-making.’

How do you ensure that the market remains engaged?
Bagijn: ‘It is important that such an entity does not compete with the market but rather complements it. The institution can, for example, offer long-term financing, reduce refinancing risk, and operate professionally and independently with a clear risk discipline and return requirements. A national investment institution can bridge the gap between investors and the government, provide structure, and translate market insights into policy.’
De Vries: ‘By systematically attracting people from both the public and private sectors. And by establishing clear rules and formulating a long-term strategy.’

Do you think the Wennink Report will lead to success?
De Vries: ‘Europe has so much to offer. We have excellent universities, and there is an urgent need to build a strong technology sector. The most important thing now is implementation, ensuring that we seize those opportunities.’
Bagijn: ‘I believe the chance of success is greater than ever. Our prosperity and security are at stake. We have seen in previous transitions that such momentum is a stronger catalyst than anything else.’

This interview was published in Management Scope 04 2026.