The Equity Debate Took Three Years. The Formation Clock Has Not Moved.

Faraz Rizvi · 14 June 2026 · Markdown

Faraz Rizvi is a UK operator-practitioner writing about the work between a research breakthrough and a fundable company. He runs SpinUp Forge.

The average UK deep-tech spinout takes 11 months to form from the moment an investor expresses interest. That figure comes from UKRI's own analysis of the Hickson Review evidence base (UKRI, February 2026). The equity debate that preceded it took three years. The equity reform passed. The clock has not moved.

This is worth sitting with. Between 2022 and 2025, the UK spinout debate ran hot on a single variable: the percentage of founding equity universities retained. Independent reviews were commissioned. Ministerial guidance was issued. The Universities Spinout Investment Terms guide, and its software-specific successor, were drafted and signed by more than fifty institutions. Average university equity fell to 16% — a decade low, confirmed by the Royal Academy of Engineering's June 2026 data (RAEng, Spotlight on Spinouts 2026). The conversation moved.

While it moved, the calendar did not. A founder who secures investor interest this month and then navigates the formation process — negotiation, IP assignment, incorporation, licence execution — will arrive at a signed company, on average, eleven months from now. The investor who expressed interest will have deployed capital elsewhere, allocated attention elsewhere, moved on to the next conversation. The equity on the term sheet will be excellent. The company will be late.

The number the reform didn't address

Eleven months is not a legal minimum; it is an average. The distribution behind it explains why averaging matters.

The 11-month figure from the Hickson Review evidence base is for deep-tech spinouts specifically — the cohort where formation complexity is highest and where the TTO process carries the most procedural weight. The spinout.fyi founder survey puts wider context around it: 56% of spinout deals take more than six months to complete, and 22% take longer than twelve months. The same source pegs average deal completion at around ten months. The Hickson number and the spinout.fyi number are consistent. They are also measuring two different populations — UKRI's figure is deep-tech-specific; spinout.fyi is broader. The convergence suggests the problem is not limited to the most complex cases.

Compare that to the timeline that venture capital works on. A UK seed round, from first serious investor contact to close, typically takes four to six months (rsvrtech.com, seed funding timeline analysis). The TTO formation process, for deep-tech spinouts, takes roughly double that on average. The gap between those two numbers is not a consequence of investor behaviour or market conditions. It is a consequence of institutional process: the negotiation stages, committee approvals, legal scaffolding, and IP assignment sequencing that sit inside every TTO and that the equity reform, by design, did not restructure.

The Times Higher Education framed this precisely. The headline on their coverage of the Hickson Review was direct: "Investment speed, not equity, holding back UK spin-outs" (Times Higher Education, February 2026). It is worth noting that this is a headline, not a peer-reviewed conclusion — but it names the diagnostic that the review's own recommendation set implies. The Hickson Review called for a national task force specifically to reduce the time from investor interest to deal completion (UKRI, Deepening University-Investor Links, February 2026). A task force is what you propose when you have named a structural problem that no existing institution is positioned to fix on its own.

Why the equity frame was the easier reform

Terms are negotiable; institutional calendars are structural.

The equity reform succeeded in part because it was legible. A percentage is a number. You can compare it across universities, publish it, benchmark it, name a target, measure convergence. The RAEng Spotlight on Spinouts 2026 does exactly this: it tracks average university equity across more than 2,000 UK spinouts formed since 2010 and reports the trend. The conversation had a scoreboard, and the scoreboard moved in the right direction.

Formation time is harder to reform because the bottleneck is not a number that can be negotiated down in a single conversation. It is a sequence of institutional steps, each defensible in isolation, that compound into eleven months in aggregate. University committees that approve spinout terms meet on cycles — typically monthly at best. IP assignment requires legal review on both sides. The licence schedule must be consistent with the underlying grant agreements, which requires UKRI clearance in some cases. The incorporation documents require founder sign-off. Each step, individually, is not unreasonable. The aggregate is.

The Hickson Review's recommendation for a national task force acknowledges this implicitly: no single institution — not UKRI, not any individual TTO, not a government department — can compress the aggregate unilaterally, because the aggregate is produced by the interaction of several institutions each acting within their own governance constraints. The task force framing is a political acknowledgement that the fix requires coordination across boundaries, which is the hardest kind of institutional change to execute. The equity reform required universities to change a number in a template. The formation reform requires universities, TTOs, legal panels, and UKRI to re-sequence a process they each own a piece of.

That is not an argument against reform. It is a description of why the formation clock has not moved while the equity number has.

What the calendar costs a founder who cannot shorten it

Seed-to-Series-A conversion has fallen from roughly 12% to 4–5% over five years. The formation window is not free time.

The question for an academic founder who has secured investor interest is not whether the formation process can be compressed — it probably cannot, not by the founder acting alone. The question is what happens to the investor relationship, the team's momentum, and the company's competitive position during the eleven months the process consumes.

The investor calculus is worth naming directly. UK seed-to-Series-A conversion has fallen from approximately 12% in 2020 to roughly 4–5% by 2025–2026, per NavigateVC's analysis of the UK market. An investor who expressed interest in a spinout in month one will re-evaluate that interest at month six, month nine, and month eleven. The company they were interested in had a specific team, a specific IP position, and a specific market window. None of those are static. A competitor can close a round in the time it takes a spinout to form. A market can move. A lead researcher can be offered a grant that changes their availability. The investor's own fund can reach the end of its deployment window.

The formation period is not a holding pattern. It is a period of real operational risk during which the founding team carries full exposure but has no legal entity, no bank account, no ability to sign contracts, no payroll, and no formal governance. The TTO backstops some of that — managing IP, fielding investor queries — but the TTO is not running the company. Nobody is running the company. There is no company.

The Hickson Review's full report is direct on what this means for investor engagement: early investor involvement — before the formal formation process begins — is one of its explicit recommendations precisely because the formation window is long enough to lose investor conviction if the relationship goes cold. The recommendation is essentially: start the relationship earlier so there is more runway for it to survive the institutional process. That is a sensible workaround. It is not a fix.

The lever the founder actually holds

The formation clock cannot be shortened from inside the lab. The pre-formation window can be used.

There is a version of this argument that concludes with a policy ask: UKRI should fund the national task force, TTOs should adopt streamlined formation protocols, the sector should standardise. All of that is true. None of it is available to a founder who received a term sheet last month and is now eleven months from having a company.

The lever the founder holds is narrower, and it is about what gets built in the formation window rather than how long the window lasts.

A spinout in pre-formation has a research result, a founding team, and a set of conversations already underway with investors, potential customers, and the TTO. What it does not have is a company. That gap is usually treated as empty time — months in which the founders wait for the institutional process to complete while continuing their academic work. The alternative is to treat it as the first operational quarter: the window in which the procedures, workflows, and knowledge layer that will underpin the company get built before the clock starts ticking on the seed runway.

The operational substrate described in Piece 3 of this series is not contingent on having a legal entity. Named workflows with typed inputs and outputs, a structured knowledge layer carrying IP position and customer-discovery synthesis, a rolling financial model, a board-pack template — none of these require an incorporation certificate. A founder who arrives at company formation with six months of customer-discovery notes already synthesised, a financial model already versioned, and a board-pack cadence already established is not wasting the formation window. They are reclaiming it.

That is not the same as compressing the TTO process. The institutional calendar runs on its own logic, and the founder has almost no direct lever over it. What the founder controls is the substrate they build while the calendar runs. The formation window, treated as operating time rather than waiting time, produces the one thing that cannot be retrospectively manufactured: a track record of operational discipline that pre-dates the company.

The task force and the gap it leaves

The Hickson Review names the right problem. The national task force it recommends does not yet exist.

The Hickson Review was published in February 2026. UKRI's response committed to developing a long-term vision across seven themes, including earlier investor engagement, stronger commercial expertise inside universities, and clearer IP and equity frameworks (UKRI, February 2026). The national task force to speed formation — the recommendation most directly targeted at the eleven-month figure — is, as of the time of writing, a recommendation. It has not yet been constituted, staffed, or given a mandate.

That is not a criticism of UKRI. Constituting a cross-institutional task force is itself a process, and one that requires the cooperation of institutions with different governance structures, different legal frameworks, and different commercial incentives. A life-sciences TTO at a Russell Group university and a software TTO at a post-92 institution face structurally different problems; a single task force has to hold both. The equity reform worked partly because it converged on a single number that all those institutions could adopt independently. Formation reform requires them to coordinate, which is categorically harder.

The gap the task force leaves in the interim is the gap between the policy intent — faster formation — and the founder's actual situation, which is the eleven-month average the intent has not yet moved. That gap is real. It is also, for any individual founder, unaddressable at the structural level. The founder cannot convene the task force. The founder can decide what to do with the time the task force is still being organised.

The equity debate moved the number that was easiest to move. The formation clock is the number that matters next. Both things are true, and neither cancels the other: the equity reform was worth doing, and the formation reform is worth doing, and neither is done yet. The clock the Hickson Review named is the constraint that academic founders will spend 2026 and 2027 living inside, whatever the task force eventually produces.

Sourcing and assumption notes: The 11-month average formation time is for deep-tech spinouts specifically, as reported in UKRI's February 2026 news release summarising the Hickson Review evidence base; the qualifier "deep-tech" is preserved throughout the piece. The 56% (over six months) and 22% (over twelve months) figures, and the approximately ten-month average deal completion figure, are from the spinout.fyi FAQ, which draws on founder survey data; the survey methodology is not independently audited and the population includes spinouts beyond deep-tech specifically. The seed round duration figure (four to six months, active fundraising to close) is from rsvrtech.com's UK seed funding guide; this is a practitioner synthesis, not a primary dataset. The seed-to-Series-A conversion figures (approximately 12% in 2020, approximately 4–5% by 2025–2026) are from NavigateVC's published analysis of the UK market; these figures are for all UK tech startups and not specific to spinouts, where RAEng Enterprise Hub data suggests higher conversion rates for deep tech specifically. The 16% average university equity figure is from RAEng Spotlight on Spinouts 2026 (Dealroom data across more than 2,000 UK spinouts). The national task force recommendation is from the Hickson Review as published by UKRI in February 2026; UKRI's response commits to seven themes but does not, as of the date of this piece, confirm the task force has been formally constituted. The "Piece 3" reference is to the SpinUp Forge thought piece "Chat Plus SaaS Is No Longer Enough," published at operator-substrate-first-18-months.html.

← Back to SpinUp Forge