The difference in scale is likely due to the regional focus of many venture-backed startups in Asia, which are frequently localised versions of Western successes. These companies can be leaders in their respective regions but often struggle to expand outside of them, resulting in smaller total addressable markets (TAMs). Additionally, these startups frequently compete with global players in their local markets, which in many cases could limit or delay their market potential. For example, Coupang and Amazon competed in the South Korean e-commerce market. Though the former is now the leader in its region, the data above shows it is clearly not to the scale of the latter globally.
In fact, scaling up in Asia generally takes longer, leading to extended times to liquidity events like an IPO. This delay is often due to the need for companies to build underlying infrastructure before achieving significant growth. A simple example would be that of an e-commerce business building out everything from logistics to payments instead of just adding a software layer on top of existing infrastructure available to many Western startups.
Are Asian VC markets overcapitalised?
With these unique factors in mind, we believe many Asian VC funds may overestimate potential investment outcomes, leading to overcapitalisation of startups. This, in turn, further pushes out the liquidity window for companies, potentially contributing to the lower DPI noted above. For instance, a startup valued at US$500 million after raising US$250 million would need to reach a valuation of US$1.5 billion to ensure a successful IPO with sufficient float for its shareholders whereas a company with a leaner capital table would have a much easier path to listing, even at the US$500 million valuation.
Take Southeast Asia (SEA) as an example. The five largest SEA-focused venture funds formed in 2021 – 2022 cumulatively raised ~US$2.5 billion. Figure 6 illustrates the dilemma this presents: