Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Welcome to Oxford+, the podcast series that explores the myths and truths of the Oxford investing landscape hosted by Susannah de Jager. Since moving to Oxford, Susannah has collaborated with experts, entrepreneurs, and government to shape the conversation around domestic scale-up capital. Oxford+ aims to inform, inspire, and connect. We'll talk to Founders, investors, academics, politicians, and facilitators and explore how Oxford is open for business.
Welcome to Oxford+, the podcast series
that takes you deep into the myths and
truths of the Oxford investing landscape.
I'm your host, Susannah de
Jager and I've spent over 15
years in UK asset management.
My guest today is Ed Bussey.
Ed studied natural sciences at
Cambridge University before starting
his career serving in counter terrorism
operations with the UK military
and national security agencies.
Ed recently took on the role as CEO of
OSE, Oxford Science Enterprises, which
was originally Oxford Science Innovation.
As mentioned in my last interview with
the OSI founder Dave Norwood, OSE is
the largest university venture fund
globally and has brought in over 1.
5 billion of capital to Oxford
since its inception in 2015.
Ed is a serial entrepreneur and
leading UK technology expert having
launched, scaled and successfully
exited three venture-backed
disruptive technology businesses.
I'm really pleased to have Ed here
today, as one of the main messages
of Oxford+ is to dispel myths
and expose truths around Oxford.
OSE is a huge part of the ecosystem and
is often the subject of many of these.
Ed's views and plans on how to
disprove, overcome or dispel some
of these will be exceptionally
informative for anyone who has or
thinks they should invest into Oxford.
So, Ed, thank you so
much for joining today.
My pleasure, it's great to be here.
Wonderful.
So, how is it going?
Five months in.
It's the best job in the
world, honestly, really.
It's almost as if I had to design the
ideal role for me, it's the culmination
of everything I've done along my journey.
I studied science, dare I say, at
Cambridge rather than Oxford, but that
gives me a, but yeah, but that does
mean when I say Oxford is the number
one research university in the world,
I'm saying that very objectively based
off the fact that that's the case.
The period I spent in government
is also proving to be very relevant
and the last two decades, I've
spent building disruptive technology
companies from the ground up through
to exit and fundamentally what OSE is
doing, beyond investing, is building
sort of world changing businesses.
So to bring this all together in a
leadership role is just perfect for me.
I'm not pretending it's without its
challenges, but I actually think this
job is a real privilege, if I look at
what we're doing and with the sorts
of companies and the sort of impact
that they're going to have and are
having, is quite humbling actually.
I'm very pleased to hear
that, that's wonderful.
I've heard it said that in the UK there's
a sort of criticism of venture capital,
of which this is a particular kind of
venture building out of universities,
that it's often intermediated by
financiers and accountants and
that's a kind of complaint about the
fact that it's not entrepreneurs.
So you obviously do have, as
you just referenced, a very
entrepreneurial background.
How do you think that's different in the
way that you're approaching the new role?
Yeah, so I'm lucky that on the
same time I joined, I was joined
by Jack Edmondson who's come in as
our Chief Investment Officer and
two parts really to the answer.
One is, how do I see things differently?
I guess first off, I am a founder.
I've been through that journey and I
know how painful it is, I've run out
of money, I have had very difficult
conversations with my investors, I have
slept in the office, I have had sleepless
nights, had to sacrifice all that goes
with building a business, whether that's
with family and friends and so on.
So I come at this with a very natural
empathy for what the founders of our
businesses are going through and I think
that's a really healthy perspective
to have, because whether we agree with
everything that our founders say, I know
that at the end of the day, these are the
people that need the most support and help
and so that for me is front and center.
So I'm really enjoying going out and
getting time with the portfolio companies,
the founders, and so on, we're doing
site visits, Jack and I, you know, we'll
be, we'll work our way through the whole
portfolio, we're about 40 percent through
the core portfolio already, so I think
that perspective is a really helpful one.
You're like a peer, aren't you really?
Yeah, I can speak to them as a peer.
I can really relate to the decisions
around, you know, the hard decisions
and tradeoffs you're making maybe on a
funding round and you take money from
this investor or that investor and the
things to watch out for the challenge in
the UK, the pressure to sell early, and
you know, I've been there and I know the
conversations that I'd like to have had
with my investors, but frankly never did.
So I can then start to maybe be a
more helpful, empathetic sounding
board from the investor side.
So I think that's important.
The second part of the answer is with
Jack, as I say, joining alongside me as
CIO and OSE having split the role into
two parts, frankly I am not clear how
it could have been done properly as a
merged role historically, because they're
two completely different skill sets.
So my role as CEO at OSE is to design
a strategy and execute that strategy
with a focus on how do we do that?
How do we build and scale
the organization efficiently?
And what I've done all the way through
my journey is work through in different
sectors, how do you efficiently scale
organizations and deliver results?
And Jack's focus alongside me is on making
very high quality investment decisions
and running a very robust investment
process, but that is a skill set that,
you know, he has clear expertise and
experience of, I have received that
money, but my focus is on how do we
organise OSE efficiently to scale?
Because I want to really challenge
all of our stakeholders, our
investors, our team to be much more
ambitious around what we could do.
But to do that means we need to
scale the organisation far more
efficiently and so that's where
my experience comes in alongside
and very complementary to Jack's.
That's really clear and
actually, as you describe it,
I'm inclined to agree with you.
It's hard to envisage that somebody
could focus on the day job.
You said yourselves, you've only got
40 percent of the way through the
portfolio, you've both been in situ
for five months, I think it is now,
you know, it's a big portfolio, it's
a lot of work and so the idea you
could do that and build a strategy
and scale, it sounds like a really
good call that they've been split out.
So in terms of building and scaling, why
is that such a large objective of yours?
How have you come to that conclusion?
And what are the benefits both for
your stakeholders, but also presumably
for the university for that to happen?
Yeah, so if I go back to the beginning
and in fact, this came out of my own
due diligence on OSE before coming
in and I've come into this with my
eyes wide open, as did Jack and we
had a lot of conversations over the
summer before we started in September.
What's clear is we are not touching the
sides of the container in terms of the
scale of the opportunity and for all sorts
of reasons the organisation has been, and
I'm not saying this as a criticism, it's
necessarily been a bit inward looking the
last few years, but from conversations
we've both had and certainly I've had
across the university and in departments
and within academics, there are a
whole number of spin out opportunities
that we haven't even looked at.
It's not a numbers game, without
compromising the quality of what we're
trying to do, we could be doing a lot
more and to do a lot more, we need
to be really clear about how we work.
So one of the things that folks on
very early on, is to define what I call
our operating model, how do we work?
And to then think about that
operating model and all the different
stages and how do we do each one?
How do we address each of those
stages in a much more scalable way?
Because I think there are many aspects
of what OSE is doing to level of
excellence, but that excellence and
best practice isn't being run across the
whole organisation necessarily in all
areas in a really clear and consistent
way and that's where, actually, if we
want to go, you know, the opportunity
is, you know, current plan, you know,
roughly, let's just say we're worth a
billion, one billion and three now, the
current plan takes us to three billion.
I think we need to be much
more ambitious than that.
I think we could be doing
a hundred percent of that.
We could be square brackets
working on a path now, how do we
get to seven or eight billion?
Yeah.
But to do that, you know, this isn't
about doubling the headcounts and
doubling the number of the companies
that we're investing in, but it is
about doing what we do more efficiently
and that's where this comes in.
But to be more efficient, we need
to really understand how do we work
across all the different stages
of the sequence of what OSE does.
So I will try and walk you
through this in the air.
The elevator pitch.
Yeah.
So the first thing is we need
to maximise the number of high
potential spin outs that we generate.
So at the top of the funnel and there are
a number of departments in the university
where we have really amazing engagement.
Some of our team members are in there
regularly, at least once a week, coffees,
walking the corridors, talking to the
academics, there's a, you know, really
sort of vibrant level of discussion and
an idea generation, which is amazing.
On the other end of the spectrum, there
are some departments we have zero contact
with at all, despite the fact we've been
on the ground here, you know, we've got 55
people, we've been here for eight years.
So we can see there are some opportunities
and we need to think about how we
better engage with those departments.
So it can't be a cookie cutter approach.
We need to think in some areas
and do we need to offer a prize?
In other areas it might be more
effective to bring in some of the
successful academics who work with
us who can come back and showcase
by example what's possible.
But in all cases what's really
important, again we might come on
talk about this, is OSE needs to
be a lighthouse of inspiration.
We have a very privileged
position here in Oxford and we
should not take that for granted.
We have a special relationship with the
university, but I would never want an
academic to come to us and nor would
they off the base of the fact that we
have an agreement with the university.
I want people to come to us as the first
place they call because they have an idea
of a business that they would consider
spinning out and they come to us because
they can see the strength of our offering.
So the first thing we need to do is we
need to improve our engagement across the
university with, at the department level.
to increase the top of the pipeline.
Now, that is necessarily going to
mean we're going to say no to things.
We can't back every single business.
But I want to invest more at that
upfront stage and arguably, we're going
to take some resource from the top
end of the business at the later stage
and bring it back down to that early
stage, what we call sourcing phase.
The second phase on the operating
model is then the venture building
phase and what we need to do
here is we need to accelerate the
speed at which we build companies.
Again, just being very candid for a
very obvious good reasons, OSE's done
a really good job actually of building
businesses, but we arguably stay in the
build mode for a bit too long and it's
a really simple thing, we just need to
have a clearer gate between the point
at which the company is self standing
and good to go and we can then let go
and not sort of saying with a drift that
we're sort of still building sort of
X years in because once we've built a
standalone company, the measure of success
should be that maybe bar a seat on the
board, we can step right back, job done.
So I'll give you an example of that,
rather than us doing the hiring for
the companies all the way through
the journey, we should be embedding
people in the companies to do that
hiring more effectively themselves.
How do we equip the companies
and the founding teams to build
the company more efficiently and
effectively themselves rather than
us doing all the heavy lifting?
And I presume, sorry to interject, but
you know, there will be culture that is
specific to those companies too, and if
you are too involved, you risk trying to
make them homogenous or it by happening
by accident, not even trying and that
whatever is unique about that founder,
might be a little bit diluted and that
could actually have an impact on the
probability of success in itself and yeah.
Absolutely and there's going to be a
phase right at the beginning, you know,
we have one academic, we have some science
and you know, and a legal framework of
a company and some IP, but that's it.
So in the early days, we're going
to need to do that heavy lifting
and helping build the team.
And that's what somebody would expect
from a good investor, is help and
guidance and advice, to a point.
To a point and I think if we
were to look at this point in
tangible terms, what does it mean?
It means that actually we incentivise
the teams inside OSE that the success
metric is the number of successful builds,
yeah, that we can create in a year,
rather than it's somewhat open ended.
So that's the second way,
we need to get that right.
But I would say there's real excellence.
I mean, one of the myths
around OSE, of which there are
a number, is that we are...
I've never heard any of them!
Ok, sure.
of them is that we're
an investor, full stop.
We are an investor, but that
is a fraction of what we do.
I set up my first business at Cambridge.
There was no organisation like OSE and
frankly, if I had seen an OSE, I would
have bitten the arm off the organisation
to do what we do, for free, to help
our academics build their company.
So this venture building phase, we find
the fractional CFO, we help put the EMI
share option plan in, we get the lab
space, we find the chairman, sometimes we
need to find the, I mean, it's a huge, we
make sure they've got two bank accounts
rather than one bank account with SVB,
you know all these sorts of things.
Yeah, there's a long list and that
takes 18 to 36 months of heavy lifting.
So we do that well, but we know there's
more efficiency needed around it.
The third phase is how do
we help our companies scale?
Obviously, there's some overlap with
the venture building phase when we're
thinking about scale then as well.
But how do we manage that
scale phase more efficiently?
And so this is where we move into more
of a portfolio management role and we
need to think about how we manage a
sort of growing portfolio of companies
in a more traditional sort of VC sort
of P manner where we've created the
company and then we can step back.
So I think there's some things we
need to think about and work on there.
The fourth phase might initially
sound a bit outta place, but
I think it's really important.
We want our companies to impact
the world's greatest challenges.
So if we go right back to the beginning,
we are looking for companies that
have the potential to become billion
pound businesses and solve the world's
greatest challenges and frankly, that's
why many of the team, if not everyone
on the team comes into work and it's
partly why I've taken this role.
It's a really inspiring mission that we
are explicit about internally and so on
that journey, which sounds quite sort of
operational from finding the spin outs
and venture building them and then manage
them in a scalable way, that's all great.
But also we want to make sure we don't
lose sight of the fact that, you know,
from an ESG perspective, but also from
a motivational point of view, we're also
looking to create companies that have a
positive impact on the world and we need
to get that right to drive the fifth
stage of the flywheel, which is we need
to deliver returns for our shareholders.
Obviously, we're an investment
business, yes, and we're all coming
into work to make a difference.
But at the end of the day, we also
have to deliver the best possible
financial returns for our shareholders
and this is the stage where, you
know, Jack really comes into his own.
He is responsible with my and Jim
Wilkinson's support, the CFO, to maximise
returns for our shareholders and the
sixth and final stage of the flywheel,
I've gone sort of round the clock, is if
we get all of that right, then we help
communicate the message that OSE is the
partner of first choice for academics
and for investors and other stakeholders
that want to participate on this mission
because if we get all of those things
right, then we become a very compelling
partner to invest in, we've become a
really compelling partner to help grow
your business and we become an exciting
place to work and that is the operating
model and my job as CEO is, well, having
helped to define that is then now to
build a strategy that then executes
on all of those different six areas.
Thank you, that was very clear
and I imagine normally you have an
infographic that helps you with that.
I'm trying to, yeah, paint in the air!
But hopefully it came across!
Thank you.
So at the end there you're talking
about the partner of choice and you've
obviously bought an enormous amount
of money into Oxford university since
inception in 2015, there's been a lot
of businesses that come out and you
know, you have already built a lot.
There's a lot of brilliant stuff that's
come out of OSE as an entity and yet,
when you say partner of choice, you
are alluding to the fact that there
is perhaps a little bit of a sentiment
among some, and I wouldn't say all
by any stretch, that perhaps for some
reasons, that hasn't been the case and
you alluded, you know, or you mentioned
outright, rather, some departments
have been better interacted with than
others and they have borne more fruit,
inevitably, maybe a better specialist,
maybe just personalities at play.
But you also spoke earlier about your
role as a founder, your empathy for
the founders, the importance of being
involved, but then stepping back and it
is candidly one of the, you know, if we
were to call them myths, but perhaps,
you know, one could go further that
I have heard about OSE is that there
is a propensity to sometimes have a
playbook, flip the founder out and the
management team and clearly there's a few
things in there, one is the investment
cycle that you yourselves are to a
degree answerable to as are all venture
capital firms to a degree, but also
there is a risk that a really great
founder might say, well I don't know,
they've got a bit of this reputation
and so you've in part answered it, but I
would sort of name it out front because
it is there to be overcome, I think.
Yeah, it's a really important point
and look, I can relate to it on my
own journey and you know, I think if I
think back to when I brought the first
VC money onto my third business, I've
been through the journey twice and
I'd seen it work well with one founder
and less well with another founder.
So I'd seen some data points around this.
Actually, I made a point with that VC
on the third business of saying to them
when they came in, look, if at any point
you think I'm not the right CEO for this
business, let's just sit down and have
a conversation, because the reality is,
in most cases, the founding CEO is not
necessarily the same and best person
to take it all the way through to exit
and if you look at OSE's journey, we've
been on our own sort of startup journey
and you know, Dave Norwood, who I've had
many conversations with in the run up to
taking the role, you know, he needed a
particular energy to, you know, to really
get this off the ground and to knock
some things together and so on, and to
have real vision, whereas arguably today,
the role needs more operational focus.
It's about scale and detail,
it's a different focus.
So it's not a, there's no
implied criticism in this.
So I think almost unapologetically, I
think as a responsible investor, when
you're a custodian of other people's money
and in our case, that includes people's
pension money, for example, but lots of
people's money, it's incumbent on us to
make the right decisions for our companies
and sometimes that does mean we have to
make some hard decisions and I say, I've
been on the receiving end of this, so
I know what that's like and it's very
difficult when you've taken your baby and
you've put your life, soul, everything
into it, it's a deep emotional attachment
you have to the business that you've
taken from nothing to something, it's very
difficult to step aside, but it's really
important that founders, me included, know
when it's the right time to step aside.
Now, having said all that, I think it's
also incumbent on OSE and other investors,
particularly those of us, you know, we are
doing a very specific type of investment
because we're investing right at the
beginning before there is a business.
I really believe in transparency
internally and I have a
sort of term called radical
transparency, which I try to adopt.
But just on this, it's really important
we're transparent with our founders at
the beginning and we say to them, look,
we might know at that point, you know,
you could be an amazing chief science
officer or an amazing chief technology
officer, but you know, candidly, we don't
think you've got the right skill set to
be the CEO and if we know that at the
beginning, we need to be clear about that.
Now it's a hard judgment
and maybe we don't know.
It might be we say, look, we're really
happy to back you now, but we're going
to need to review this in two years.
So I think those questions need to
be had in an open and transparent way
and it's not a criticism because not
everyone is cut out for every single
role in the building of a business and
people need to be highly self aware and
open to feedback and guided to play to
their strengths for the interests of
the whole team and the whole business
and by the way that includes OSE.
So those are my thoughts on that,
but it's a question that's come
up very close to my heart, a
number of times on my own journey.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
One of the other kind of things that
one has heard over the years is that
because we're this number one leading
university in Oxford and we've got all
the great science that sometimes we have
given the impression to other investors
that might want to come in and bring
capital to play here, sort of almost
that we don't need them, which of course
is never going to be anyone's intent
and couldn't be further from the truth.
You've just talked about scaling,
clearly that would require more capital.
But, you know, if those investors
hopefully might possibly be
listening, what would you say?
And in this role, how do you
view those investors coming in?
I think the most important thing I can
say on this, just to be really clear,
is we are open for business, full
stop and I can stop right there, but
let me expand on why I'm saying that.
I understand why there is a perception
that OSE is in some areas perceived
as a gatekeeper, maybe even as
a blocker, to other investors
coming into the ecosystem here.
But I categorically can tell you
it is not true today and Jim and
I are on a mission to really reset
the false narrative around this.
But let's just go back because
it hasn't come from nowhere.
It's come from a time, I think, in the
early days of OSE when, you know, it was
for sure the key, biggest, only major
player on the ground in this area in
Oxford and it had an approach where it
was looking to do a hundred percent of
every single spin out that came out.
That is not the case today and
hasn't been for the last few years.
I've asked my team because I've
had this fed back to me a number
of times in the first five months.
The numbers speak for themselves.
We've invested approaching a billion
pounds in Oxford in the last eight years.
We have now leveraged another billion on
top, so two billion pounds that we've put
into Oxford University spin outs, that
other billion has come from north of 300
co investors who we have brought into
the ecosystem to invest alongside us.
We had a deep tech event in London a
couple of weeks ago where we wanted to
showcase some of the really exciting
companies in the deep tech portfolio.
We had 140 investors, attendees
at that event and we're doing this
because number one, it makes total
economic sense for us to share the
load of what we're trying to do.
We cannot do this and do not
want to do this on our own.
We don't want to be sat owning 100 percent
of every single company in our portfolio.
We want to bring in smart investment
capital to sit alongside us, to support
us and support our companies financially.
But also to validate the theses of
our investments, many of the companies
we're investing are doing things that
have never been done before and so
the more brains and smart capital
we have alongside us, the better.
So I say, I can see where it's come
from, but we actively want more
investors in the ecosystem here.
The challenge we've got now, and I'm
saying this in a, OSE has 55 people
on the ground here, just numerically
we've invested in more people, in
more departments, we're sponsoring
more courses, more PhDs, I mean, we're
spending millions just in the ecosystem
here and so we are very present and
there will be some Investors who don't
want to get on the 50 minute train
from Paddington to Oxford, but frankly,
they're missing out and from our point
of view, we would love to see them.
We'd love to have them here.
But, I think we, you know, we should be
confidently saying that we collectively,
as in the university and OSE, OUI, we've
built something really incredible in OSE.
We believe we are the largest
venture builder of spin outs
outside the United States.
That's something we should be really proud
of and if you just look at the capital we
brought in, it far outstrips anything else
across Europe and so I say we should be
really proud of that and we're saying that
with a view to how do we use that success
to be a magnet to bring in even more
capital than we currently have and that's
what I say we're on a mission to sort of
course correct in terms of the narrative.
Okay, so I'm going to lay the final
one out for you Ed, because you know,
we're on a roll now, killing the myths.
One of the other things that I have
sometimes heard, and I'm sure you have,
and to be honest, it's now sort of been
brought to the fore by, you know, Irene
Tracey being a co author of the spin
out review and one of the things that
was in there was equity stakes and have
historically heard that, you know, the
perception was that the equity stakes
taken by Oxford and by extension by OSE
in many cases was too large and that
was having a dampening effect on other
great investors that you just alluded
to wanting to have alongside for all
of the great signaling and you know
what they can bring in their networks.
So what would you say to that
particular sort of perception?
Well, I think the consensus of the
review was that actually we've landed
in exactly the right place in so far as
the university has a 20 percent position
in spin outs that include IP that has
been somehow, some form funded by the
university and again, historically, it
was a bigger percentage and so you can
see where it's come from, but I think
everyone, no, well, it's not everybody,
most people I'm talking to think that's,
you know, bearing in mind the maturity
of the ecosystem here, most people
feel that's about the right balance.
So the founders have 80 percent and
the university, based off its ownership
of the IP, lands at 20% and that model
is, and that template has, is being
followed by Northern Gritstone in
Manchester, by Midlands Mineforge and
others, I gather even in Australia,
they're copying the same template.
I feel relatively comfortable,
and most of the people I'm
talking to feel it's about right.
Now, when we're maybe at the level of
MIT and you know, this flywheel is just
throwing off spin outs and you know,
there's an enormous amount of money coming
back into the University Endowment Fund
and the College Endowment Fund, maybe
we can take another look at it, but
we're not there yet, we're not close.
Now our ambition and my ambition with
OSE is we get it to that sort of level,
but that is not where we are right now.
So I think over time we need to, we might
need to review it again, but I think
it's about right for where we are now.
Perfect, thank you.
So talking about MIT and Institutes of
Technology, how do you think the Ellison
Institute for Technology is going to
impact Oxford and what's your view?
Well, I mean, I think, it's an incredible
stamp of approval and validation on the
quality of the science that's here and I
think that's just a, you know, a massive
tick in the box for Oxford in the broadest
sense and you know it's exciting, again
it's just the sense that Larry Ellison has
picked Oxford for this and is investing
a significant amount of capital in Oxford
to create something so exciting, I think
just speaks to, and I'm saying this as
a Cambridge graduate, speaks to what is
actually really special about Oxford and
why, when I look at just the mind blowing
science that's coming out of the labs
that we're seeing, that we're turning
into companies that will change the world.
I can see why he's chosen Oxford and
I think it just reinforces the, power
of the ecosystem and the brand that we
have here, which is globally recognised.
I mean, essentially, if you look at our
cap table, a significant proportion of
our investors come from outside the UK
and the draw is the Oxford brand, the
quality of the science and the quality
of the companies that are coming out
of the ecosystem off the back of that.
Yeah, really interesting and
you spoke about your experience
in government earlier.
What are the interactions that
you're having on that front
at the moment in your role?
So I guess there are a couple of themes.
So I'm talking, I'm on different
round tables, sort of up to a
ministerial level, I was in 10
Downing Street a couple of months ago.
I think there's a few themes to this and
it's a dialogue that's work in progress.
But one of the themes is that I truly
believe that the university science
ecosystems that we are building here in
the UK are a national asset and I want to
challenge the awareness of this because
I think we're sat on, if I quote somebody
who's taken a look at our portfolio,
we're sat on their equivalent of Gulf Oil.
There are very few countries that
dominate, well we dominate the
university league table and if you
look at the science and the spin
outs coming out, it is world class.
So I don't think there is as widespread
understanding, sort of more nationally,
around how valuable this is as an asset
to the whole country, so that's one thing.
I can see that's understood at a
senior level in government, but I think
we could do more to really amplify
how valuable this is to everybody.
Well, but it's only
valuable if we keep it here.
And that's my second point!
And there are different schools of thought
on this and I do understand at some
point, you know, you need to follow the
money and follow where the returns are.
But my second challenge is, and I'm
watching this sort of ringside seats.
We, as in not just OSE, but others, are
doing an incredible job taking the most
advanced science on the planet, going
through all the hard yards and pain of
building a self standing company, raising
considerable amounts of capital and then
we catapult it out of the UK, to list
somewhere on NASDAQ or somewhere else and
look, that's in and of itself, that's not
a bad thing and you get good valuations
and so on, but some of our companies are
critical to the national interest, they're
strategically valuable to the UK and so
again, I just want to just challenge, I'm
not saying it's the wrong thing to do.
I just want to challenge the,
status quo because right now that
is almost the default conveyor belt.
We build the business, we invest in it and
then we launch it off into another market
and then when the big liquidity event
happens, I know the listing or whatever,
that capital, the flow of that capital,
then cascades down somewhere else and what
we need to then inspire and capitalise the
next generation of entrepreneurs, which is
why the US has been so successful, we need
that to happen in Oxford, in Cambridge
and in Manchester and Leeds and Sheffield,
that's where we need to have it and so
that we can start recycling that capital.
So that's my second challenge, I think
there's more around skills and so on,
but I think those are the two big themes.
Yeah, no, it's really interesting and I've
had, you know, in projects I've worked on
discussions with government and you know,
in particular focused on scale up capital
that companies need and where there's a
real drop off in domestic capital and it's
an interesting question because domestic
capital clearly keeps companies in the UK.
But you've got international
capital, but you're domestically
based, so that can work too.
It doesn't have to mutually exclusive.
Yeah, absolutely.
But you know, actually one of our guests
previously was Alderman Nicholas Lyons,
who was the Lord Mayor that brought
across the Mansion House Compact and
very successfully getting defined
contribution pension plans to commit
to 5 percent in unlisted by 2030,
which will be a huge amount of money.
How do you see that playing
into these problems?
Are you looking to capture
some of that money?
Are you..?
Absolutely and so by the way, when I say
I just want to raise this, it's to be fair
to the people I'm speaking in government.
I'm preaching to the converted by
the way, so this is not new news.
They're they're quite good
at agreeing and maybe...
I'm giving a live example of, the
implications of this not being the case
right now, because I'm saying we're
watching this live with some really
exciting, globally unique companies
looking at moving, their headquarters
out of the UK to other countries.
So the momentum is not
in the right direction.
It's not in the right direction.
So I think the government
understands this.
I think the mansion house compact is
really, it's really encouraging, you know,
in our world, five years is a long time.
Okay, so I think if we can work, we
collectively can work this through,
it'd be, it would be a good, there's
clearly a significant pool of capital
and yes, we have conversations running
as well with pension funds and hopefully
we can fast track some of that process.
But this process needs to work because
it's a critical missing piece right
now and we have, the capital is sat
there and if we can unlock it in
the way that it, what we're talking
about that could solve some of these
issues, it could be a game changer.
So there's a bit of me that's really
excited about it, but as I say,
five, six years is a long wait.
So I'm really hoping that, you know, we'll
get some movement on that within that
timeframe rather than we have to wait
till 2030 to see the first funds flowing.
Yeah, I couldn't agree more.
It's four trillion nearly, that we've
got in pension capital and less than
one percent invested and so I think the
government are slightly hamstrung by
the financial circumstance but you know,
tax breaks, UK ISAs, encouraging our
own pension funds to invest, all these
seem like, you know, low hanging fruit.
So that's exciting, hopefully.
Well, listen, thank you so much, Ed.
You've been really candid and open, and
I hope you don't mind me sort of throwing
you the sacred cows to kill, as it were.
Is there anything else that you kind
of particularly wanted to have as a
parting thought for anyone listening?
First of all, thanks to you for giving
me the opportunity to share my thoughts.
My approach is always to be very
candid, I think that's really the only
way, not everyone's going to agree.
But I guess probably all I would say
is, I genuinely believe that we have
something quite remarkable here.
I want to say we have, what we
have is not just OSE, we have an
ecosystem with the most incredible
science, with some really incredible
talent and the capital and a brand.
We have all the ingredients to build
something amazing and I'm determined
to make that happen and I guess my ask
of people in the ecosystem is please
help, please help us, because the more
of us that can get behind this endeavor,
broader than building OSE, but build the
endeavor of building a really exciting
ecosystem around this, the better.
That's probably one thing and the second
thing is, you know, inevitably when you're
trying to do something new, you're going
to misstep and there's going to be some
trip ups along the way and in the same
way I am candid in what I say, I'm also
very open and approachable on feedback and
I really encourage anyone who, if there
are any missteps on our part or issues
that, you know, people just call me.
Come and tell me.
I'm interested to understand
where can we do better?
What could we do differently?
I am just interested in building
something incredible and the more I
can learn from where we're getting
things wrong, as well as things right,
the more likely we can be successful.
Thank you, I'm sure that will be well
received and thank you so much for
your time and your candor Thanks for
listening to this episode of Oxford+
presented by me, Susannah de Jager.
If you want to stay up to date with all
things Oxford+, please visit our website
OxfordPlus.co.uk and sign up to our
newsletter so you never miss an update.
Oxford+ was made in partnership
with Mishcon de Reya and is produced
and edited by Story Ninety-Four.