Reynir Indahl is the Founder and Managing Partner of Summa Equity, a thematic private equity firm investing in businesses that solve structural global challenges across its four focus themes: circularity, energy transition, sustainable food and tech-enabled resilience. Founded in 2016, Summa has raised around €4 billion across three funds and made over 30 platform investments with 16 exits. The firm operates from offices across Northern Europe and is one of the few firms in European private equity to have built a differentiated platform that has invested in these themes from day one.

In this episode, Reynir shares the founding story of Summa, the contrarian conviction that companies solving global challenges would outperform their peers and why the data is now proving that thesis. We explore how Summa navigated the political headwinds around ESG, why Reynir deliberately avoided the impact label early on and what it really takes to build a purpose-driven firm that attracts the right people whilst retaining strong commercial discipline.

Key themes from this conversation:

• Why solving global challenges and generating strong returns are not in conflict
• The aha moment when Summa proved the win-win thesis with Soterra, Sweden's leading recycling business
• Navigating the ESG political backlash and why Reynir sees the green boom and bust as ultimately healthy for the industry
• Why Summa narrowed from three broad megatrends to four specific themes and dropped healthcare entirely
• How geopolitical uncertainty around energy, food and materials has become a net tailwind for Summa's portfolio
• The pandemic test — why every Summa portfolio company outperformed expectations when employees were genuinely connected to the mission
• Building an organisation where deep domain experts and great investors work as one rather than two separate teams
• The decision to go it alone rather than launch under an existing platform
• What Reynir would tell his 2016 self about what was going to be harder than expected

RedeCast Legal Disclaimer

The information discussed in this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, investment recommendation, invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity or an offer to buy or sell any financial product. The views expressed are those of the speakers as at the time of the recording and do not necessarily reflect those of Rede Partners or the firm employing the guest speaker (Guest) or any of their respective affiliates. The information discussed, including any forward-looking statements, should not be relied upon for any purpose and listeners should seek independent professional advice before making any investment decisions. References to specific companies or products are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an endorsement or recommendation. None of the content should be copied, distributed or reproduced.

Past performance, where indicated, is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future results. Any references to past performance, track records, or investment returns are for illustrative purposes only. Actual results may differ materially from any projections, estimates, or implied performance discussed.

Rede Partners is engaged by its clients to market their funds and the firm employing the Guest and/or its affiliates is or has been a client of Rede. In the U.S. Rede Partners operates through its wholly owned subsidiary, Rede Partners Americas LLC, which is a registered broker-dealer with the Securities and Exchange Commission and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. Rede is not a current advisory client or fund investor of its client funds, although its partners and employees themselves invest in client funds via a pooled vehicle established for such purpose which may have negotiated beneficial economic terms in connection therewith (e.g., reduced or no management fees and/or carried interest). For providing its services, Rede is entitled to cash compensation paid by the client rather than the client fund. Rede has a significant economic incentive to solicit investors to commit capital to their clients' funds, resulting in a material conflict of interest on its part.

No compensation has been received by Rede Partners in connection with the Guest's participation in this recording and the views discussed herein do not constitute an endorsement or testimonial of Guest, its employer or its private funds.

The information contained in the Podcast is believed to be accurate as of the date of publication and will not be updated or supplemented to reflect subsequent events.

You're actually able to perform better than your peers by actually doing something that is positive and good.

Yeah, that was also sort of great.

Proving the win win pieces exist.

These themes are anti fragile.

They will do well in good times, but they will even do better in poor times.

And that's what we're seeing playing out.

It was because all of the employees, they wanted the company to succeed because, you know, it's part of their purpose.

And so I was amazed to see how strong that drive and purpose and how important it then was being through such a critical time.

Hello and welcome to reedcast, a podcast series sponsored by Reed Partners, featuring founders and thought leaders in the private markets industry.

I'm your host, Scott Church, a co founder and senior partner at Reed, and it's my absolute pleasure to be leading this discussion today with a good friend and client of mine, Rainer Indahl.

Rainer, welcome and thanks for being here.

Thank you and thanks for having me here.

I have had the pleasure of knowing Rainer and working with him and the team at Sumanau for well over a decade, having collaborated with him on his debut fund and at each fund since, and I'm absolutely thrilled he's accepted our invitation to be our guest today.

First, let me provide a brief rundown on Rayner's background and career.

Prior to this, he was the CEO of a company called Ignis Photonics, an investment Director with Kistefos Venture Capital, and an engagement Manager with McKinsey Company.

Rayner holds an MBA from HBS and a Bachelor of Science in Economics from the Wharton School at Pennsylvania.

He's a board member of EGAIN and Sorterra.

In his role at Summa, Rayner enjoys everything from being part of the deal teams to driving performance and innovation in portfolio companies.

Additionally, I can attest to this, he's super compelling at telling the Summa story to investors and about how Summa is creating value through its strategy of investing to solve global challenges.

Indeed, Rainer has dedicated his life and work to facing the significant challenges the world faces head on, choosing to be part of the solution.

While establishing the Summa Fund together with the Summa foundation is his main commitment to this endeavor, he also finds inspiration in the projects he and his colleagues run in Africa as well as closer to home, helping to improve the lives of the disadvantaged.

And now briefly, on the firm Rayner founded, Summa Equity is an investment firm focusing on on the thematic areas of circularity, energy transition, sustainable food and tech enabled resilience.

The mission of Summa is to invest in solving global challenges.

Summa has raised some 4 billion euros and made over 30 platform investments across the three funds raised to date with 12 exits across the portfolio.

The investments address the challenges we need to solve as a society, enabling the potential for long term sustainable outperformance.

The team is located globally with offices in Stockholm, Oslo, Munich and the us.

Partnerships are part of Summa's DNA, exemplified by being a certified B Corporation, a member of the PRI System Stewardship Advisory Committee, the GIN Investors Council and collaborating with Harvard Business School and Capital Coalition.

So let's get into it.

Rainer Summa was founded what now?

Over a decade ago in what many would have considered a contrarian thesis at the time.

What was your original thesis?

How were others approaching it and what did you see differently?

Well, it's a great question and there were some challenges in starting it up because many sort of questioned the thesis.

And, and the thesis was basically to invest in those companies which address some of these challenges that we have.

And if you look at the world, I mean we live on a finite planet, we do have our planetary boundaries which sets the boundaries we have to operate within and we're not.

So clearly that is going to have some effect over time.

So the thesis was just to go deep in some of the critical issues and invest in those companies that are already now having solutions that need to be scaled up within them.

Yeah, excellent.

And how much of what Summa has become was by design and how much emerged, say from iteration?

Looking back, where were you most?

Right.

And where did reality perhaps surprise you?

So I think if you look back at the original concept note, we have kept really well within it.

So the fundamental thesis hasn't changed that much.

I think what has, I would say not changed, but improved over time is that we have been able to go deeper in them.

We are more knowledgeable in them and I think we're more aware of at what boundaries do we put on ourselves?

What are we really good at and are we not that great at?

So I would say, you know, very little changes that has happened.

More sort of a development and learning.

Yeah, good.

And I guess now we are at Sima's 10 year anniversary.

Looking back across the last decade, was there ever an aha moment when the strategy felt genuinely proven to you?

So initially I was a bit worried around how many great companies are there to buy within these areas.

So the Whole thinking was novel and I was worried around was the TAM and the investment space big enough?

And then when we started really deploying and getting into it and we saw how many great companies there were within these different areas and also our ability to transact and get preference in the deal processes and get into those situations.

So that was an aha moment that suddenly, wow, there is really a huge opportunity space.

Yeah, a lot to do here.

I think another one was the whole thesis that companies that are actually providing positive externalities and are sustainable, that they will perform better than their peers.

There was several aha moments around that.

I remember with the Sotera, which became one of the top recycling companies in Sweden, we were part of developing the first sustainability report so they could show everyone in the industry and the customers how sustainable, how much they recycle and how much that improved the world.

And they were actually able to grow organically more than the market and they had the highest price points in the industry.

So they were actually able because suddenly the customers thought that, you know, this is a company, I want them to handle my waste because I don't want to be in the newspaper that my waste have ended up places it shouldn't.

So just to see that it's actually.

You're actually able to perform better than your peers by actually doing something that is positive and good.

That was also sort of great.

Proving the win win pieces exists.

And I guess we did quite intentionally use the term impact, especially when you launched.

I guess impact investing as a concept has carried some baggage, especially more recently, some would say that it implies below market returns, niche LP base viewed with skepticism by mainstream private equity.

Do you still think of Summa as an impact firm?

So you're right in that the label impact is a bit difficult because when we started up, the narrative was that if you do impact investing, it's like giving away money.

So it's sort of seen as philanthropy.

Right.

And our whole thesis was that companies that are actually solving challenges, so by definition have to provide positive externalities and hence impact within the areas that we have been investing.

They would actually do better than other companies.

So we had to reframe it a bit.

So in the beginning I tried to avoid using the word impact, talk more about companies being future proof.

And the whole thesis is that they should be solving some of our problems, they should do it in a profitable way, and that's how they will actually be able to grow faster, be more profitable, and there will be better investments.

And then for a while the whole world started to go Sustainable.

More funds were calling themselves impact funds.

We started using the word impact, but carefully because we don't want to be put in that wrong bucket around it.

But all businesses have impact or externalities, positive and negative.

We choose to invest in those companies which are actually solving our challenges, not creating the challenges.

Hence by definition they will have more positive externalities than negative.

Right?

Yeah.

And I guess in certain parts of the world there's been a real shift in the political climate over recent years.

In some places it definitely feels like the will toward the ESG agenda has been significantly eroded, not least my home country.

How have you been navigating these winds of change at Summa?

I think we've been fairly agnostic to them because we don't invest.

I never started this because I expected sort of a lot of, you know, political goodwill or anything and that this was going to boost it.

This is just, you know, the hard realities.

We are overstepping our planetary boundaries.

These are constraints that we have to find way of optimizing within those constraints.

And of course companies that just have better solutions and are able to operate within them, they will be long term winners.

Right.

But while those that are overstepping those planetary boundaries and causing us to do it, they at some point will get negative.

Either higher cost or they are restricted in some way or form.

Yeah.

So I do think, you know, I think what has happened in the whole call it the ESG space I think is actually pretty good because for a while, I mean I remember back to the dot com areas when I was in Q.

He's the FOSS that you mentioned.

So it was a while everything was going dot com.

Right.

But you could have a pure paper based business and you could call yourself.com and then you got sort of a billion valuation.

Right?

Yeah.

And then when the dot com crash happened then you know, there were a few left standing who was doing the real thing, so.

And they did disrupt the world.

Indeed.

And I felt also that here we were, we've been really focusing hardcore on the areas that we needed to solve great companies.

Then suddenly everyone was doing supposedly what we were doing and calling it ESG and responsible and all of this.

And it wasn't the same that we were doing.

So I think it was actually pretty good that some of this was called out and it was a bit of a call the green boom and bust and a little bit of an ESG boom and bust.

And I think that's has made it much more healthy because now we can talk about the real stuff.

Yeah, yeah.

For sure.

I guess drilling down a little bit more on the investment thesis and the strategy at somal, the focus is delivering outperformance by investing in solutions to these global challenges we've referred to now a couple times.

Can you walk us through how those challenges have evolved since Summa's founding and how that has impacted your strategy?

So we were, from the beginning we were focusing what we call.

There was three themes that were driven by the megatrends.

So it was resource efficiency, changing demographics and tech enabled transformation.

And what we have done over time is that, and these are quite broad, big, broad themes.

And where you see what we have narrowed it down to now we are investing, as you mentioned, in sustainable food, the whole energy transition, circularity and the waste space and tech enabled resilience.

So those are more concrete and more narrow from sort of the biggest themes we started with.

So we can't be champions of everything.

And I think really the focus and getting the domain knowledge and diving deep into certain areas have made us much better investor and much more credible investors.

So nothing has changed other than that we have actually become more narrow and more focused and really want to be best at what we're doing.

Excellent.

Yeah.

Well, I suppose portfolio companies, where the impact and the commercial thesis are in lockstep, is your sweet spot.

How do you find businesses where those two things genuinely reinforce each other rather than just sitting alongside each other?

So I think given that the areas that I mentioned that we invest within, if you're not genuine, are able to improve and work within the boundaries that are set, you will die as a business over time.

So inherently in the companies we pick is collinear what kind of problem they're solving.

So positive externality is a positive impact and their business model.

So take a waste company.

If you're a waste company, only shifting the waste from one place to a landfill, that's a transportation business.

And you know that business is going to die over time because that's not what we're going to do for the next hundreds of years, solving any problems.

Right.

But if you're a recycling company and you do that profitably, you know, you know that that's a business that is not going to go out of business anytime soon.

Sure.

So hence it is the, the companies we pick.

This is collinear.

Yeah.

The positive externality or the positive impact they have is that's their business and they're doing so profitably and hence they will succeed.

The companies will succeed financially, but that means that the planet will also benefit from it.

Yeah.

Can you talk me through Rainer, how your thematic focus has evolved since the founding of Summa and maybe some of the key drivers.

Yeah.

So I think the strategy to invest in and by these four themes, those have been our major themes since the start.

We also invested in healthcare or changing demographics which we have discontinued because we saw more volatility.

We have had great returns in that space but that's also where we had volatility on the returns.

But if you look back, I mean my whole idea was that these areas are anti fragile so we need to solve them.

And hence the more people we become on the planet, the more the economy grows, the more pressing these boundaries will be and the more important it will be to actually solve these challenges.

And then you think what has happened since now in Europe with the Ukraine war, now with Iran and the Middle east, you know, suddenly these are not only sort of great areas that we need to solve.

Sovereignty and self sufficiency in Europe, around energy, around food, around materials or circularity or to stay resilient have just become even more important.

That is true.

So it's like, it's quite interesting.

It was two thoughts having this strategy.

One is that companies that are actually solving our challenges, they will outperform and become more worth and do better financially.

So that was one sort of proven.

The second one that these themes are anti fragile.

They will do well in good times, but they will even do better in poor times.

And that's what we're seeing playing out.

So now all these areas are super hot for our sovereignty and self sufficiency.

Not only Europe but in most regions.

Yeah, absolutely.

I guess again the four theme, circularity, sustainable food, energy, transition, tech enabled resilience, they feel quite distinct from each other.

What holds them together as a coherent strategy do you think?

And how do you avoid the portfolio feeling like four separate funds under one roof?

Yeah, so it goes back to I think the common narrative around it is boundaries.

So the planetary boundaries.

So we have many of these boundaries and we have overstepped several of them.

So our food system is under threat, our material system is under threat, our energy system definitely.

Especially now what's happening on the AI and the mount side as well.

And then to stay resilient in the world we're in.

So it's really the boundaries where you're looking at sort of and these are all large.

So food and energy, materials and to stay protected and comply in the current world is a large part of the economy where there are the same constraints that we're operating under.

So that's what keeps them together.

Right.

But of course, the domain knowledge in one area can somehow translate to some of the other areas.

But we have really gone deep into them to make sure that we have a setup and organization that have deep domain knowledge within these areas.

I see.

So the constraint is the unifying feature.

Interesting.

You recently published a major research project or research report on the circular economy and sustainable aquaculture.

That's a big investment for a firm of some size.

Why is devoting such resources to a project like that so important to you?

So it's back to that.

We have to be really good at what we're doing.

So doing the research, forming the thesis around this.

So we start for each of our sort of sub areas, whether that's waste or we just came out with a report on water, we're coming out on one on the grid system.

We always start with what's the problem we're trying to solve.

And then we look at how can this be solved over the next 20 years with what's available now of both technologies and systems and what is that system change that needs to happen and how do we get from here to there what we call the theory of change or a roadmap for solutions.

So by doing that work, it really makes us very much aware of what's the direction of travel.

What we don't put into our research report is how we break down the investment landscape and what we think is opportune right now over the next three to five years during our ownership period.

So, but we use it very much as a lens to look at sort of where should we invest.

And then by sharing it with the world and our investors, they can clearly see, okay, they bought this company that sort of fits well with the thesis.

So that must be a good area to invest in.

So we've been early into a lot of these areas where others have sort of realized it a little bit later on that these are pretty attractive pockets of the economy to go into.

So we want to be knowledgeable on it.

We also want to be seen as thought leaders.

It helps us in the sourcing of companies.

So it serves multiple purposes.

Got it.

Is there a ceiling to how large summa can grow?

As a thematic specialist where focus is genuinely the competitive advantage and how will you know you've reached that?

So I think the constraints is not in the themes.

If you look at how many trillions the world needs to invest to really operate within the planetary boundaries in these areas, the investment space is huge.

So for us, the constraint is that we Want to be the best at what we're doing.

Which means that we have to be very selective on where we are focusing our attention.

So we have become more specialized over time.

And that does sort of constrain then the growth because then we do select a sub theme and go deep in that.

Yeah.

And follow, follow that.

So that sets their constraints.

Yeah.

Your capacity as a team, I suppose switching maybe to the via Summa model and value creation, I guess five pillars to that.

Strategic resilience, high performing organizations, product and tech, commercial engine and platform scaling.

It's covering a lot of ground.

In your experience, which of these interventions has the greatest impact on value creation and return outcomes?

So I think we do buy and builds in all of our platforms.

Growth.

If we buy a company that is delivering a great solution and solving some particular challenge, the more we can make that company grow both organically but also scale up the platform inorganically will make it more attractive and make it outperform.

Yeah.

So hence we are very, very focused on is this a platform?

When we buy a company, is this a platform we can do add on acquisitions to and how can we help them scale organically as well?

So then it's just some of the pure stuff that I think a lot of the other private equity firms do as well.

How do you make sure that this is a platform where you can do many add on acquisitions?

Do they have systems in place?

Do they have the right management team in place?

And then we're going to sell it to a much larger private equity player or strategic.

So it needs to be a business where you just haven't consolidated and not really made a true platform out of it.

So that is sort of the bread and butter.

Just make sure that we have all systems and organization and everything in place to be able to scale it up.

I think the other dimension which where some of the work we've done with Harvard Business School around as well in purpose led companies, how do you really reinforce the purpose of the company?

How do you make every employee excited about what the company does?

And why do they all want to go the extra mile?

Suddenly it becomes coming to work is part of their life.

It's not only a job.

And we've seen take the pandemic.

All of our portfolio companies did better through the pandemic than before.

And if you look at what we sent our investors, we sent them a bi weekly update with the green, yellow and red flags on all of our companies.

And our whole portfolio I think was red and yellow going into the pandemic.

And then you come out of it.

And even some of these cyclical businesses like in waste and recycling actually made more money coming out of the pandemic than going into it.

And it's like, and we were totally wrong and too negative in our assessment of it.

Why was that?

It was because all of the employees, they wanted the company to succeed and, and because, you know, it's part of their purpose.

And so I was amazed to see how strong that drive and purpose and how important it then was being through such a critical time.

Yeah, interesting.

We'll circle back to culture in a minute.

But when I hit on the energy transition, it's such an important one of your themes since the start.

But the political backdrop has shifted obviously pretty considerably.

U.S. policy reversals, European energy security, as you mentioned, concerns post Ukraine questions about the pace of the green transition.

Has that changed your view on what the most attractive parts of the theme are?

So if you look at our portfolio within energy transition, we have been purely, until recently the last couple of years been purely focusing on energy efficiency companies.

So companies that were actually reducing the energy usage for other companies a lot within the whole building sector and building automation.

And that was because we only want to go into areas that are driven by the economic demand.

And if you look at the whole energy generation and renewable side, it wasn't profitable when we started up.

It has since pivoted to profitability.

Now with the, you know, China has helped us down the cost curve on a lot of these things.

So it's very different landscape now than only when you saw four or five years ago.

So we've been very selective in and that's why we have not been part of going through the whole green boom and bust.

So our portfolio has done really well.

So we've been cherry picking those areas which we feel were safe and the risk reward was better.

Now we've done an investment within the whole grid space.

So a company called EA Technologies which delivers software and data and components to the grid, the grid is the biggest bottleneck we have now with the data center and AI increasing the demand.

If you look at, in Europe, we've gone off Russian gas, we have cut our coal, energy production, nuclear, etc.

So we have a large gap demand, supply gap and at the same time we want to do it in the low carbon way.

And, and, and the grid is the biggest issue.

Yeah.

In this.

So we see huge potential in the whole grid related space.

So I think what you will see now going forward we will deploy a lot more within the energy Transition than we have over the last 10 years due to some of these areas now being quite profitable and very attractive.

And we need to do some changes to the current systemic setup.

Yeah, interesting.

That's exciting.

Summa's geographic focus is northern Europe with offices across the continent.

How much has the geopolitical environment, say trade tension, supply chain reshoring, European self sufficiency actually changed the deal landscape for you?

Has it been net positive or net negative?

I would say net positive.

I mean it's not without issues.

Right.

You wake up every morning to check the news and you don't know what the tariffs will be and whatever.

So of course it makes it everything a little bit more unpredictable and volatile.

When that is said, if you look at the companies that we usually, so we are in the lower mid market, so there are more local businesses in Europe and how these four themes have become because of exactly that, even more important, both our energy system, our food system, our material system, and to protect and defend ourselves in the current environment.

So I would say it has a net positive effect for us.

Yeah.

Again, playing into the constraint side of the equation.

Another key topic on everybody's lips lately, AI.

It's clearly going to reshape multiple sectors, including several of the ones you invest in.

Where does that create opportunity for your portfolio companies and where does it create risk?

Or a business model predicated on deep domain expertise being a moat?

Yeah.

So I'm very enthusiastic and positive to what AI can do with all of our thematic areas.

If you look at our energy system, our food system, our material system, AI can help us navigate within those boundaries in a better way.

So optimize.

So these are a lot of physical businesses where if we can optimize our system using AI, it's great.

On the tech enabled resilience part, we have invested a lot in regulatory driven companies, so compliance a lot within health and safety and we have invested within data security and cybersecurity as well as and for all of these businesses, I mean they are quite local businesses where it's a critical part of their compliance, where there's deep domain experience that we build on in our SaaS companies.

So what we have seen is that we don't have any companies that are sort of in the general functional or horizontal layer.

We have deep versions, verticals and we've done a lot of buy and builds bringing those companies within the same domain into several countries.

If you look at the customer base, if you look at how important these systems are to the customers, we see opportunities and several of Our companies have really started employing AI, both getting more revenues from it, but also on the whole cost side and efficiency side.

So we are very excited about it.

I think there's not any part where I would say there is a lot of disruption risk.

The disruption risk will be if we are not good at really staying at the edge and employing AI in the right way, then of course these businesses will be disrupted.

Yeah, good.

Taking a step back, perhaps there's a broader debate about whether private capital is genuinely capable of solving environmental and social challenges at scale.

What's your honest answer, Rainer?

Where can PE private equity genuinely make a difference and where does it perhaps fall short?

So we operate start with the last part of it.

I think what private equity is very good at is making better businesses and scaling them up.

And we're not in venture, so it's really taking something that is already proven and scaling it up, doing it through buying builds and accelerating what they're doing organically as well.

And I think private equity is much better than that than the public market.

So I think we have, and I see so much more of the innovation and the new thinking and agility in smaller businesses than in the listed companies.

Those are large by nature.

So that's why I see much more innovation and new thinking and exciting ways of doing things a little bit differently in the private market than I see in the public market.

So productivity has a huge role to play going forward in, in helping the companies that are really transformative to be scaled up.

Yeah, well, we certainly agree with you there.

I said we'd circle back to culture, people and the Sumates as we call them.

What was the culture you wanted to build at Summa and how has that shaped maybe some strategic decisions you've made for the firm, who you hire, how you operate, which deals you do do and won't do?

Yeah.

So the core of us is that everyone has to genuinely care about solving some of these challenges.

So the whole purpose of SIMA and that we have, and we want to be able to work with people that we really enjoy working with, where we can come to work every day and have fun.

And truly, if you're going to solve something, you have to put several minds together.

If not, you're not going to solve any new problems in a good way.

So I think we've been able to really build cohesive team based culture formed around the same purpose of investing, to solve global challenges.

And that has worked really well.

Good.

Summa is now, I guess what, 80 people or so across European offices at what point does a firm like this, whether the founder's conviction and values, or where the founder's conviction values are central to the identity, need to alter its culture.

And how do you do that without losing what's made it distinctive?

Well, we're 10 years old.

I hope we'll get to 200 and 200 years.

And I think if I look at how we have evolved our culture over time, I would say it hasn't changed dramatically, although we've become a lot more people.

And I think it's because we've been very sort of center around our purpose and what we're trying to build.

So will we have a very different culture, you know, 10 years from now?

I think it will be strengthened.

It will be something a little bit different from what it is now.

Sure.

But I don't think that's negative.

I think it's an involvement.

Yeah, for sure.

I think to start with the easier.

It's.

There's so much investment opportunities within our focus areas and I was afraid that this was a very narrow strategy where.

Where it wasn't maybe that easy to find good investment opportunities.

So that I would have told myself,.

The world's throwing you more problems than you could have ever dreamt of.

Yeah.

Either we are doing a terrible job at solving those challenges or the world keeps throwing challenges at us.

I think what has been more difficult is definitely organizational peace, because if you think about it, you're putting together an investment organization where no one had really been thematically focused or had the domain knowledge.

And then you bring in the industrialists and called operating partners, which you don't want to set it up such that they feel like second citizen and a sort of, you know, investment organization.

It really doesn't know from the start these areas and then you have these super knowledgeable people who really know these areas but are not necessarily great investors.

And how do you blend that and how do you make a value creation team which is going to work with the companies no one really likes.

When you know, I'm here from the owner, I'm here to help you.

So really, how to create this organization where we have the domain knowledge, where we are the best investor, where we're able to accelerate the companies much harder than I thought.

And that's several.

Our value creation approach, I think we are now at 3.0.

So the first ways of doing it didn't work out.

So you have to iterate.

So that part is much more difficult.

And I probably would have done it a little bit differently if I knew about all those challenges.

So definitely something I would have told myself.

Yeah.

Good.

I'm curious, is there a decision you made in the early years of Summa Investment Hire or Strategic Call that looked risky at the time, but has turned out to define what the firm became?

I would say to go it alone because in the beginning we had several.

We had several possibilities.

This could have been an extension or a new fund within the altar.

Yeah.

Umbrella where I came from, there were a few other companies that were also wanted to bring us on board.

Yeah.

And that would have probably if for me back then it looked a lot less risky because it was easier to.

If you're part of a platform to raise the capital.

Yeah.

And then I'm thinking now, you know, had we done that and not built up some to what it is today, we would have been completely different.

So it was a super risky.

And I didn't know if we were going to be able to raise or fund one.

Luckily you guys took the chance on us.

But you were also a bit skeptical in the.

We were.

I remember that you did a good job of convincing us.

Yeah.

So I think that was probably the risky move, which I'm super thankful for today.

Yeah.

Excellent.

Well, looking ahead, Rainer, what does progress look like for Summa over the next five to 10 years?

And is there a version of this firm that you'd consider genuinely transformative?

Not just a very good private equity firm, but something that really moved the needle on the challenges you set out to solve.

I'm very impressed with all of our thematic teams on how they have been genuinely transformative in their all different ways.

The area that I have worked most within is the whole circularity theme.

And I think what we have been able to do now, first, you know, with Zotero, now with NG Nordic, where we have really shown how you can build a scalable model which performs better than others and are the most advanced on recycling, it's, you know, there and you know, we're a case study at Harvard Business School around it and everything.

So I do think in a few areas, but that's also an area where Scandinavia and the Nordic was already a bit ahead.

Sure.

And then to put it in the system to create the number one platform, really look hard at how can we transform some of the waste streams and make them valuable you know, I love waste and it's and to get rid of it.

That's why, you know, it's it's a problem that we can solve.

Yeah, Excellent.

Well, Reina, this has been an absolute pleasure.

Thank you again for joining us and I look forward to another great decade of our collaboration.

Absolutely.

Thank you for for having me here.

Thank you.

Disclaimer the information discussed in this podcast is for general information purposes only and does not constitute financial advice, investment recommendation, invitation or inducement to engage in investment activity or an offer to buy or sell any financial product.

The views expressed are those of the speakers as at the time of the recording and do not necessarily reflect those of Reed Partners or the firm employing the guest speaker or any of their respective affiliates.

The information discussed, including any forward looking statements, should not be relied upon for any purpose and listeners should seek independent professional advice before making any investment decisions.

References to specific companies or products are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an endorsement or recommendation.

None of the content should be copied, distributed or reproduced.

Past performance, where indicated, is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future results.

Any references to past performance, track records or investment returns are for illustrative purposes only.

Actual results may differ materially from any projections, estimates or implied performance discussed.

Reid Partners is engaged by its clients to market their funds and the firm employing the guest and or its affiliates is or has been a client of reed in the U.S. reed Partners operates through its wholly owned subsidiary, Reed Partners Americas llc, which is a registered broker, dealer with the securities and Exchange Commission and a member of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

Reid is not a current advisory, client or fund investor of its client funds, although its partners and employees themselves invest in client funds via a pooled vehicle established for such purpose, which may have negotiated beneficial economic terms in connection therewith, for example Reduced or no management fees and or carried interest for providing its services.

Reid is entitled to cash compensation paid by the client rather than the client fund.

Reid has a significant economic incentive to solicit investors to commit capital to their clients funds resulting in a material conflict of interest on its part.

No compensation has been received by Reed Partners in connection with the guest's participation in this recording and the views discussed herein do not constitute an endorsement or testimonial of Guest, its employer, or its private funds.

The information contained in the podcast is believed to be accurate as of the date of publication and will not be updated or supplemented to reflect subsequent events.