The French Tech Mission is opening a national consultation on exits, a subject long relegated behind financing and hypergrowth. Julie Huguet, director of the Mission, assumes the diagnosis: the French ecosystem has grown, but it is now stumbling over the question of exits. However, without more legible outputs, the entire mechanism of venture capital seizes up, and, ultimately, France’s capacity to keep its technologies and its jobs. She tells us about her analysis and the outlines of this consultation:
A more mature French Tech, facing the “exit phase”
For Julie Huguet, French Tech has entered a phase of maturity with more structured companies, sometimes already profitable, and for some with high turnover levels. She cites the Next40/120, a significant proportion of the companies supported are profitable, and several already generate “several hundred million” in turnover.
This maturity changes the nature of the decisions to be made. Having reached a certain stage, these companies must “start thinking about exits”, in the broad sense: total or partial sale, or IPO. Not only to “return capital” to investors, but above all to restart the cycle to allow funds to reinvest, and create a virtuous circle within the ecosystem.
The French weak point: too few exits… and too few European buyers
Julie Huguet sees a double risk in the lack of dynamism of M&A in Europe, firstly, economic: if exits do not take place, capital becomes blocked. She reports that around 35% of investors say they are reducing their investment amounts due to lack of returns on the first tickets, precisely because resales are not happening at a sufficient pace. Then, a strategic risk, because in the absence of French or European buyers, technologies and headquarters could leave Europe. She explicitly mentions the danger of seeing companies bought by American or Chinese actors, with the result of a loss of sovereignty and a weakening of employment in the territory. For her, the subject of exits therefore goes beyond just finance, it involves the country’s capacity to retain technological assets deemed critical.
A consultation to get out of the “fuzziness” and produce data and feedback
For Julie Huguet, the debate on exits lacks material, little quantified data, little feedback, few operational stories on preparation, due diligence, negotiation, post-deal integration. She says she experienced it personally during the sale of her business in 2021 when she was looking for testimonials, benchmarks, “things to pay attention to”, and found almost nothing.
The consultation therefore aims to lay a documented basis: a study that is both quantitative and qualitative, addressed to three categories of stakeholders:
- entrepreneurs who have already completed an exit,
- major acquiring accounts (those who “succeeded” as well as those who “failed”),
- intermediaries and advisors (M&A advisors, banks, consultants).
Its objective is to identify “structural” but also “cultural” obstacles, those which are difficult to see in a questionnaire and require in-depth interviews.
The deliverable is not a “formal” report: it is an action program
Julie Huguet does not present the consultation as a communication exercise. The study must lead to a “real support program”.
What is a “good exit” according to Julie Huguet
Asked about the definition of what a “good exit” is, Julie Huguet shares with us a vision that is less financial than systemic, with a first criterion, assumed “in the sense of sovereignty”, namely ideally, a French or at least European buyer, the objective being to maintain jobs, technology and decision-making centers.
Second criterion: the creation of real value. She summarizes this with a formula: a successful exit is when “1 + 1 = 10”, the value is not only financial, it can be in the improvement of processes, commercial acceleration, a better customer experience, the ability to become a European or international leader.
Finally, the third criterion and not the least, the quality of human integration. She takes her own example, describing her company’s own sale as “successful” because the teams have integrated and some employees are still present several years after the sale. A successful exit is one that does not crush the acquired organization, but gives it a trajectory.
Why large French groups buy little… and why a “second wave” is possible
Julie Huguet describes a history of failed attempts. The first waves of buyouts would sometimes have consisted of acquiring startups as shiny “toys”, in a context where valuations were high, and where the business models of the startups were very far from the rhythms and methods of the large groups. Result: integrations that “kill” agility, and therefore failures that have discouraged buyers.
But she also describes a change in context, according to her, relations between startups and major accounts have progressed significantly in recent years, in particular via “I choose French Tech”, with an evolution of the POC towards more strategic contracts. Startups, for their part, would be more mature, more structured, and valuations more “reasonable”. This would make a “second wave” of M&A possible, provided the cultural and organizational obstacles are addressed.
The taboo of exits: a cultural problem that the consultation wants to break
Finally, the Director of the FrenchTech mission identifies a cultural node, the exit remains a “taboo” subject. On the entrepreneur side, talking about it can be seen as “wanting to leave with a check”, on the investor side, it is sometimes interpreted as a logic of cash-out rather than support. As a result, we do not anticipate, we do not prepare, we do not organize competition between buyers, we engage in long processes which fail, and this leaves traces on the market.
Behind the scenes: a battle of perception on tech
Beyond financial mechanisms, Julie Huguet places the question in the way in which tech is perceived by the general public. She notes that the ecosystem still suffers from an image, often considered elitist, sometimes summarized as a logic of rapid financial gains. The expression “startup nation”, initially mobilizing, has itself become ambivalent, even negative.
For the director of the French Tech Mission, this gap in perception poses a fundamental problem. Tech is not limited to fundraising operations or company resales, it is also a concrete lever for economic and social progress: improvement of medical research, acceleration of the development of new treatments, creation of qualified jobs throughout the territory, strengthening of the technological autonomy of the country.
It is in this logic that the question of exits must be explained and made readable. Even if the subject is technical, its consequences are collective. A successful exit does not only concern founders or investors: it conditions the ability to retain strategic technologies, maintain jobs in France and Europe, and consolidate an industrial and innovative base.
