Attending the Canadian Semiconductor Council Summit in Ottawa (Tuesday, February 6th) was an excellent opportunity to participate in a focused discussion on Canada’s current and future semiconductor strategy. Not only was the discussion open and bringing in the key representatives from the relevant players present in Canada but there was also direct participation of key government officials. This direct coupling of discussion and (government-supported) execution made the Summit a unique event, superbly managed and led by Paul Slaby and his team.
Building on Canada’s rich semiconductor history (who does not remember ATI, Newbridge, and Mitel to name a few), Canada today is focusing on growing its role in the semiconductor supply chain for EVs. The important role of Canada in this supply chain, ranging from power electronics to batteries, is highlighted by some of the key players choosing Canada for major parts of their operations. Infineon choosing Ottawa as its center of excellence for power electronics is a good example of a major player in the automotive semiconductor market choosing Canada as a key location for its activities. Research, development, and production of key components using the latest technologies such as GaN and SiC is going to be strategic to maintain and grow current market positions.
Many founders who receive a Non-Binding Offer consider it a big achievement. Especially after months or years of development, a potential acquirer looks like a sign that hard work is bearing fruit. But being excited sometimes may lead founders to make mistakes.
A successful deep-tech M&A transaction requires more than just buying and selling — it requires unique insights that no ‘typical’ advisor should have access to. The success of such a complex deal hinges on knowing how new technologies relate to other technologies, IP, and current & future market trends.
Many founders underestimate how different deep tech fundraising really is. Deep tech funding rounds don’t follow the same rules as software funding rounds. These rounds take more time, they are larger, and are validation-driven due to long-lasting R&D cycles and capital intensity. Imagine that each round answers the question, then what question would it be?