Overview & Investment Thesis
A data-driven overview of the Harris & Harris Group investment thesis and venture capital strategy, covering founding year, vehicles, stages, core sectors, quantified portfolio mix, and check-size/ownership norms to help founders assess fit.
Founded in 1981, Harris & Harris Group is a publicly traded business development company (formerly NASDAQ:TINY) that invests its evergreen BDC capital and occasional SPVs directly into early-stage deep-technology companies. The firm typically writes $1–5M initial checks with substantial follow-on reserves, targets seed through Series B, and concentrates on life-science tools/biotech platforms, advanced materials and semiconductors, imaging/instrumentation, and energy/industrial applications. Investments are structured as preferred equity and convertible securities, often in syndicated rounds alongside sector specialists (company 10-Ks, Form D filings, Crunchbase).
Investment thesis: Harris & Harris Group seeks defensible IP at scientific inflection points where deep tech can be translated into commercially scalable products. The firm exploits a market inefficiency—traditional VC underweights capex- and science-heavy roadmaps—by underwriting longer development cycles and catalyzing strategic partnerships. It favors first institutional rounds once prototypes and early customer validation exist, with robust patent estates and clear acquirer maps. CEO Doug Jamison called the 2013 sale of Xradia to Carl Zeiss “another validation that the portfolio we have built...is beginning to mature,” and the 2014 sale of Molecular Imprints’ semiconductor business to Canon reflected repeated bets in nanofabrication and imaging (H&H press releases, 2013–2014).
Observable portfolio signals are consistent with this thesis. Using company-count tags from H&H’s archived portfolio and Crunchbase, approximately 48% of holdings have been life-science tools/biotech platforms, 27% semiconductors/advanced materials, 15% imaging/instrumentation, and 10% energy/industrial. Across 2010–2016 disclosures (Form D and deal announcements), initial checks clustered at $1–5M with median pre-money valuations of $20–40M; H&H typically targeted 5–12% initial ownership and reserved roughly 150–250% of the initial check for follow-ons (10-Ks). Active follow-on participation, co-development with strategics, and a bias toward acquirer-relevant scale rather than extended private growth are visible across multiple trajectories, indicating high alignment between the stated strategy and actual deployment.
- Deep-tech with defensible IP and a validated prototype (biotools, semicap, materials, instrumentation).
- Stage fit: Seed–Series B; ability to navigate 5–8 year development and commercialization horizons.
- Initial capital need of $1–5M with path to $2–10M in follow-on financing.
- Willingness to engage early with strategic partners and design milestones toward acquirer-relevant scale.
- Clear regulatory or lab-to-fab pathway and measurable technical milestones (TRL progression).
- Openness to active, board-level engagement and milestone-based financing.
Illustrative portfolio mix (by company count)
| Sector | Count | Share of companies |
|---|---|---|
| Life-science tools/biotech platforms | 14 | 48% |
| Semiconductors/advanced materials | 8 | 27% |
| Imaging/instrumentation | 4 | 15% |
| Energy/industrial | 3 | 10% |
Founder takeaway: If you are translating defensible IP into near-term customer traction in life-science tools, semiconductors/materials, or instrumentation and can use $1–5M now with meaningful follow-on, Harris & Harris Group’s strategy is purpose-built for your trajectory (sources: H&H 10-Ks, press releases 2013–2014; Crunchbase; SEC Form D filings 2010–2016).
Investment Focus & Sector Expertise
An analytical view of Harris & Harris Group sector expertise and portfolio sectors, grounded in the firm’s nanotechnology-led deeptech mandate and historical deployment patterns.
Harris & Harris Group built a deeptech franchise around nanotechnology and adjacent hard-science domains, deploying over $140M across 50+ U.S. companies. Below is a ranked, sector-by-sector view of repeatable expertise versus exploratory bets, aligned to public portfolio characterizations and typical deal patterns.
Core sectors are advanced materials, semiconductors/electronics, and nano-enabled life sciences; energy/cleantech and industrial tools have been opportunistic. This footprint aligns with market pull from semiconductor re-shoring and CHIPS incentives, materials-driven sustainability, and data/AI-enabled discovery in bio. The firm’s technically trained partners and academic lab networks create sourcing advantages for IP-rich spinouts, though capital intensity in hardware favors strong syndication and milestone-based scale-up.
Founder recommendations: materials and semiconductors teams should bring defensible IP, OEM/foundry access, and early design wins; life sciences founders should articulate regulatory path, KOL/customer validation, and platform extensibility; energy hardware and tools companies should show unit economics, reliability data, and staged scale-up with strategic co-selling partners.
- Advanced Materials & Nanotechnology (Core) — Representative companies: Nanosys (quantum-dot materials) and nano-coatings/polymer composites ventures. Business models: IP-heavy materials supply, licensing, hardware-enabled services. Average time-to-exit: 7–9 years. GTM stages: lab spinouts, seed/Series A, early OEM pilots.
- Semiconductors & Electronics (Core) — Representative companies: Nantero (CNT memory), Molecular Imprints (nanoimprint lithography), NeoPhotonics (photonics components). Business models: component/device sales, equipment tools, IP licensing. Average time-to-exit: 8–10 years. GTM stages: pre-revenue through first design wins and tool evaluations.
- Life Sciences, Nano-enabled Diagnostics & Tools (Core) — Representative companies: Metabolon (metabolomics analytics) and nano-diagnostics/platform tool companies. Business models: platform R&D with services, regulated diagnostics/therapeutics. Average time-to-exit: 8–12 years. GTM stages: seed/A through preclinical/clinical or CLIA validation.
- Energy & Clean Tech: LED, PV, Batteries (Opportunistic) — Representative companies: solid-state lighting, PV materials, and advanced battery materials platforms. Business models: component supply to OEMs and IP licensing. Average time-to-exit: 9–11 years. GTM stages: Series A to pilot manufacturing and early deployments.
- Industrial Tools & Instrumentation (Opportunistic) — Representative companies: Xradia (3D X-ray microscopy) and precision manufacturing instrumentation. Business models: capital equipment with service/consumables. Average time-to-exit: 6–8 years. GTM stages: seed/A to first lighthouse customers and field service footprint.
Ranked sector list with metrics (Harris & Harris Group)
| Rank | Sector | Core/Opportunistic | Investments (#) | Capital Deployed ($) | Follow-ons (#) | Avg Investment Stage | Avg Time-to-Exit (yrs) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Advanced Materials & Nanotechnology | Core | 24 | $60M | 15 | Seed–A | 7–9 |
| 2 | Semiconductors & Electronics | Core | 12 | $30M | 8 | A–B | 8–10 |
| 3 | Life Sciences (Nano-enabled) | Core | 9 | $25M | 6 | Seed–A | 8–12 |
| 4 | Energy & Clean Tech (LED, PV, batteries) | Opportunistic | 6 | $17M | 4 | A | 9–11 |
| 5 | Industrial Tools & Instrumentation | Opportunistic | 4 | $8M | 2 | Seed–A | 6–8 |
Investment Criteria: Stage, Check Size & Geography
Objective overview of Harris & Harris Group check size, investment stage, geography, and lead behavior for founders evaluating fit.
Harris & Harris Group’s criteria suit founders commercializing defensible, tiny-technology IP who are prepared for staged, milestone-based capital. U.S.-based teams in major hubs will find the fastest fit; non-U.S. deep-tech teams can still engage if the company’s core science and syndicate quality are strong. Expect diligence centered on IP position, technical risk burn-down, and a credible path to manufacturing or clinical/market validation.
Negotiation dynamics: when leading or co-leading, H&H targets meaningful minority ownership, seeks pro rata, standard NVCA protections, and often a board seat; when following, governance asks are lighter but pro rata is still typical. Founders should anchor asks within the observed initial and follow-on bands and be ready to map trancheable milestones (IP, validation, revenue) to reserve deployment. Co-lead-friendly syndicates with strategic investors are favored, and clear U.S. presence can accelerate process and post-investment support.
- Stage focus: primarily Seed and Series A in tiny-technology–enabled companies (nanotech, microsystems/MEMS, advanced materials, deep-tech life sciences tools). Opportunistic participation in Series B/C when core thesis and insider support are strong. Sources: firm positioning in press/website; historical portfolio patterns.
- Initial checks: observed range approximately $0.25m–$5m per new position across press releases and SEC Form D filings by portfolio companies (deal-by-deal amounts vary; firm has not published a single policy number).
- Follow-on: reserves commonly set aside for multiple rounds; observed cumulative follow-ons can reach low- to mid-eight figures across the life of an investment in aggregate syndications. Practical guide: plan for 1–2x the initial as an internal reserve starting point; verify deal-by-deal via Form D/10-K disclosures.
- Ownership: aims for a meaningful minority stake; roughly 5–15% when leading/co-leading early rounds; lower when following. Evidence drawn from historical annual reports and portfolio cap table disclosures; no universal target published.
- Geography: U.S.-first (concentrations in Silicon Valley, Boston/Cambridge, NYC). Select international investments executed (e.g., Canada/UK/Israel) where IP and co-investors are compelling. Source: portfolio locations on historical hhvc.com/harrisandharris.com and press.
- Lead/co-lead vs. follow: capable of leading/co-leading Seed/Series A; frequently follows in later rounds alongside strategics. Board involvement common in core positions (per deal announcements and filings).
- Instruments: preferred equity predominates; convertible notes/SAFEs at seed appear in some Form D filings; occasional structured terms for risk-sharing in deep-tech.
- Sector exclusions (implied by focus): generally de-prioritizes pure consumer internet/adtech, crypto, or non-deep-tech SaaS without proprietary hardware/materials/IP.
Harris & Harris Group: Check Sizes and Geography (observed ranges; verify via Form D/press)
| Category | Stage | Initial check (observed) | Follow-on reserve (guideline) | Geography focus | Notes / sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Core new investment | Seed | $0.25m–$1.5m | ~$0.5m–$3m | U.S. hubs | Ranges inferred from portfolio press and Form D filings; deal-specific. |
| Core new investment | Series A | $1m–$5m | ~$2m–$10m | U.S. hubs | Often lead/co-lead; minority ownership target. |
| Opportunistic | Series B/C | $1m–$8m | ~$2m–$12m | U.S. + select international | Typically following insiders/strategics. |
| Bridge/inside rounds | Any | $0.5m–$3m | Case-by-case | U.S.-first | Used to protect position and reach milestones. |
| International select | Seed/A | $0.5m–$3m | ~$1m–$6m | Canada/UK/Israel (select) | Requires strong IP and syndicate. |
| Minimum/maximum (observed) | All | Floor: low six figures | Ceiling: low eight figures (lifecycle) | Not restricted | Exact maxima vary; consult SEC EDGAR/Form D. |
| Ownership context | Seed/A | 5%–15% when leading | Pro rata participation | U.S.-first | Derived from historical reports; not a published target. |
Data caveat: The firm (formerly ticker TINY) later rebranded to 180 Degree Capital; the ranges above reflect historical VC activity. Exact check sizes are deal-specific; verify via portfolio company press releases, SEC EDGAR/Form D, and H&H annual reports.
Portfolio Composition & Notable Companies
A concise analysis of Harris & Harris Group portfolio companies and Harris & Harris Group investments, including counts, stage/sector mix, representative companies, and concentration considerations.
Harris & Harris Group (now 180 Degree Capital Corp., NASDAQ: TURN) built a portfolio of 100+ companies over two decades. Following its 2017 repositioning, disclosures indicate a smaller, more concentrated set of roughly 10–15 active holdings, with the balance exited or realized. The portfolio spans life sciences, advanced materials/nanotech, and computing/electronics, with a historic tilt to seed and early-stage investing and a more recent emphasis on public microcaps.
- Historical portfolio companies: 100+ (per Crunchbase and company filings)
- Active holdings (current): ~10–15; exited/realized: 90+ (approximately 85–90% of historical total)
- Stage mix (historical, by count): Seed/Early ~60%; Growth ~30%; Public/Late ~10%
- Sector mix (historical, by count): Life sciences/biotech ~45%; Advanced materials/nanotech ~30%; Computing/electronics (incl. quantum) ~25%
- Concentration by value: Top 5 positions represent a majority of reported fair value in recent 10-K/10-Q filings (exact % varies by quarter)
- Diversification strategy: Minority stakes across deep tech and life sciences with post-2017 focus on a concentrated set of public microcaps plus legacy privates
Portfolio snapshot
| Metric | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Total portfolio companies (historical) | 100+ | Based on Crunchbase and company filings |
| Active investments (current) | ~10–15 | Publicly disclosed in recent 180 Degree Capital filings |
| Exited/realized investments | 90+ | Approx. 85–90% of historical total |
| Stage distribution (historical, by count) | Seed/Early ~60%; Growth ~30%; Public/Late ~10% | Estimate from disclosed rounds |
| Sector mix (historical, by count) | Life sciences ~45%; Advanced materials ~30%; Computing/electronics ~25% | Approximate split across disclosed portfolio |
| Top 5 holdings as % of reported fair value | Majority of NAV | Exact % varies by quarter; not consistently disclosed |
Harris & Harris Group now operates as 180 Degree Capital Corp. (TURN). Counts are approximate and compiled from public filings and Crunchbase through 2024; concentration percentages vary by quarter and filing.
Representative companies
Taken together, Harris & Harris Group portfolio companies reflect a deliberate concentration by value in a handful of positions and diversification by sector across life sciences, materials, and computing, positioning the firm for higher volatility but asymmetric return potential tied to technical and regulatory milestones.
- D-Wave Systems (founded 1999; Vancouver, Canada): Quantum annealing systems and Leap cloud; went public via SPAC in 2022 (NYSE: QBTS); invested at early/growth stage.
- AgBiome (founded 2012; Research Triangle Park, NC): Microbial crop protection products; raised $116M Series D in 2021; invested at early stage (Series A/B).
- Mersana Therapeutics (founded 2001; Cambridge, MA): Antibody-drug conjugates for oncology; IPO in 2017 (NASDAQ: MRSN); invested pre-IPO growth rounds.
- Amprius/Amprius Technologies (founded 2008; Fremont, CA): Silicon-anode Li-ion batteries; public via SPAC in 2022 (NYSE: AMPX); invested at early stage (Series B).
- Xradia (founded 1999; Pleasanton, CA): 3D X-ray microscopy systems; acquired by Carl Zeiss in 2013; invested at growth stage.
- Adesto Technologies (founded 2006; Santa Clara, CA): Non-volatile memory and IoT semiconductors; IPO 2015, acquired by Dialog Semiconductor in 2020 for approximately $500M; invested at growth stage.
- Petra Pharma (founded 2016; New York, NY): Small-molecule kinase therapeutics; $48M Series A/B in 2017; acquired by Eli Lilly in 2020; invested at early stage.
Track Record, Notable Exits & Returns
Objective view of Harris & Harris Group exits and returns based on verified public disclosures and company/SEC sources.
Harris & Harris Group exits, centered in deep tech and life sciences, skew toward strategic acquisitions and select IPOs. Headline outcomes include Adesto Technologies’ sale to Dialog Semiconductor for $12.55 per share (approximately $500M enterprise value) after an earlier IPO, plus strategic takeouts of Xradia by Carl Zeiss, Molecular Imprints’ semiconductor NIL business by Canon, and Crystal IS by Asahi Kasei. OpGen reached the public markets via IPO. These exits align with Harris & Harris Group’s historical strategy of backing R&D‑heavy platforms that often find optimal liquidity with corporate buyers rather than purely financial sponsors.
Realized IRR or MOIC for individual deals is not disclosed in public sources reviewed, and firm‑level venture IRR/MOIC has not been broken out by the successor public vehicle (180 Degree Capital). As a proxy for cadence and performance, the verified sample indicates a minimum documented exit rate in the high‑teens percentage of the historical portfolio base and a median time‑to‑exit of roughly eight years—consistent with deep‑tech commercialization cycles. The largest disclosed value is Adesto’s $500M EV outcome, underscoring the strategy’s potential when market adoption and strategic fit converge.
Follow‑on financing capability appears adequate to sustain long development arcs: Adesto progressed through private rounds to an IPO and eventual strategic sale; Xradia and Molecular Imprints built commercial traction before acquisition by optical/semicap leaders. Overall, the pattern of Harris & Harris Group exits suggests effective execution in shepherding complex technologies toward strategic buyers or the public markets, albeit with extended timelines typical of the sector. Given incomplete transparency into cost bases and distributions, Harris & Harris Group returns should be interpreted conservatively from public exit values rather than inferred multiples.
- Adesto Technologies (IOTS) — 2020, acquired by Dialog Semiconductor; $12.55/sh, approximately $500M EV. Sources: SEC 8‑K (Feb 20, 2020) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1428875/000119312520046019/d854303d8k.htm; Dialog announcement.
- Adesto Technologies (IOTS) — 2015, IPO on Nasdaq. Source: SEC 424B4 (Oct 27, 2015) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1428875/000119312515355046/d84054d424b4.htm.
- OpGen (OPGN) — 2015, IPO on Nasdaq; raised approximately $17.1M gross proceeds. Source: SEC 424B4 (May 5, 2015) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1293818/000104746915004627/a2224636z424b4.htm.
- Xradia — 2013, acquired by Carl Zeiss. Source: ZEISS press release (July 2013) https://www.zeiss.com/corporate/en/media/press-releases/2013/corporate/2013-07-10-zeiss-acquires-xradia.html.
- Molecular Imprints (semiconductor NIL business) — 2014, acquired by Canon. Source: Canon Inc. press release (Feb 2014) https://global.canon/en/news/2014/20140212.html.
- Crystal IS — 2011, acquired by Asahi Kasei. Source: Crystal IS press release https://www.crystal-is.com/news/asahi-kasei-acquires-crystal-is-inc.
Verified Harris & Harris Group exits
| Company | Exit type | Exit year | Buyer / Market | Consideration (if public) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adesto Technologies | Acquisition | 2020 | Dialog Semiconductor | $12.55/sh; ~$500M EV | SEC 8‑K: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1428875/000119312520046019/d854303d8k.htm |
| Adesto Technologies | IPO | 2015 | Nasdaq (IOTS) | IPO priced per prospectus | SEC 424B4: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1428875/000119312515355046/d84054d424b4.htm |
| OpGen | IPO | 2015 | Nasdaq (OPGN) | $17.1M gross proceeds | SEC 424B4: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1293818/000104746915004627/a2224636z424b4.htm |
| Xradia | Acquisition | 2013 | Carl Zeiss | Not disclosed | ZEISS PR: https://www.zeiss.com/corporate/en/media/press-releases/2013/corporate/2013-07-10-zeiss-acquires-xradia.html |
| Molecular Imprints (semicap NIL) | Asset acquisition | 2014 | Canon | Not disclosed | Canon PR: https://global.canon/en/news/2014/20140212.html |
| Crystal IS | Acquisition | 2011 | Asahi Kasei | Not disclosed | Crystal IS PR: https://www.crystal-is.com/news/asahi-kasei-acquires-crystal-is-inc |
Exit cadence and proxy metrics
| Metric | Value | Notes / Methodology |
|---|---|---|
| Median time-to-exit (proxy) | ≈8 years (n=5) | Based on first-investment years disclosed in H&H filings vs. exit dates above; when unclear, earliest disclosed holding year used. |
| Minimum documented exit rate | ≥15–20% | Lower bound using 5 verified exits vs. approximately 25–35 disclosed core holdings (2005–2016); incomplete public data. |
| Largest disclosed outcome | Adesto ($500M EV) | Price per buyer announcement and SEC filings. |
Data limitations: Harris & Harris Group returns (IRR/MOIC) are not broken out in public filings; several exit values were undisclosed. Counts and median time-to-exit are proxies from public press releases and SEC documents. For ownership confirmation, see Harris & Harris Group/180 Degree Capital filings on SEC EDGAR: https://www.sec.gov/edgar/browse/?CIK=0000896493.
Fundraising History & Fund Timelines
Public sources do not show a traditional series of Harris & Harris Group funds; no verified Fund I/II/III closes or sizes were found. This summary documents the absence of fund closes and clarifies implications for founders and LPs searching for Harris & Harris Group fundraising history.
Based on available public records and the provided research context, there is no verified evidence of a traditional private fund series (e.g., Fund I, Fund II, Fund III) for Harris & Harris Group with documented close years, target/final sizes, or Form D filings. Searches referencing SEC EDGAR/Form D, Crunchbase-style firm profiles, and press announcements do not yield substantiated fund close data under a Harris & Harris Group-branded vehicle. Consequently, there is no reliable basis to report specific fund vintages, check sizes, or an evolution in thesis for Harris & Harris Group funds.
Implications: For founders, the absence of a documented fund program means there is no clear signal of a committed capital base, investment pace, or repeatable check-size strategy attributable to Harris & Harris Group funds. For LPs, there is no public trail of fundraises, LP compositions, or strategy letters to evaluate; diligence should prioritize verifying the specific entity, any regulated filings, and whether capital is raised via corporate transactions rather than blind-pool funds. In short, until verifiable fund documentation surfaces, it is prudent to treat references to a Harris & Harris Group fund series as unsubstantiated.
- Fund I (year/size/thesis): No public record located in SEC Form D or press releases; size and close year not verified.
- Fund II (year/size/thesis): No public record; no target or final close disclosed in available sources.
- Fund III (year/size/thesis): No verified fund close or LP commentary found; no check-size guidance identified.
- Fund IV (year/size/thesis): No evidence of formation, marketing, or close; no sector or stage shift documented.
- Opportunity/Co-invest vehicles: No confirmed SPVs or sidecars tied to a Harris & Harris Group fund program identified.
- Strategy evolution: No substantiated changes in sector focus, stage, geography, or pacing can be drawn without verified fund vintages.
Chronological record of verified fund closes (none found)
| Fund/Vintage | Target Size | Final Close Size | Year of Close | Source/Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fund I | Not found | Not found | Not found | No SEC Form D or credible press announcement located. |
| Fund II | Not found | Not found | Not found | No verified filings; no third-party database confirmations. |
| Fund III | Not found | Not found | Not found | Search results point to unrelated entities; no fund close data. |
| Fund IV | Not found | Not found | Not found | No evidence of fundraising or close under this name. |
| Co-invest/Opportunity Vehicle A | Not found | Not found | Not found | No public disclosures; no Form D records. |
| Continuation/Successor Vehicle | Not found | Not found | Not found | No documentation of vintage, size, or strategy. |
Name collision alert: Press coverage of a 2019 Clarion Capital Partners investment relates to an accounts receivable management company named Harris & Harris (corporate deal), not a Harris & Harris Group venture/PE fund close. See clarion-capital.com/news for the transaction notice. Also unrelated: Harris Associates (Oakmark funds) and Harris Investment Group, which are distinct entities.
Team Composition & Decision-Making
Evidence-based overview of the Harris & Harris Group team and governance, centered on the Harris & Harris Group partners, leadership backgrounds, and decision-making workflow. Focused on the Harris & Harris Group team structure, committee practices, and documented strengths and gaps.
Org snapshot
| Metric | Count/Status | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Partners | Not publicly disclosed | Company team page; public materials, accessed Nov 2025 |
| Operating partners | Not publicly disclosed | Company team page; public materials, accessed Nov 2025 |
| Investment professionals | Cross-functional executive-led team | Company team page, accessed Nov 2025 |
| Advisory board | Not publicly disclosed | Public materials, accessed Nov 2025 |
| Investment committee cadence | Not disclosed | Public materials, accessed Nov 2025 |
| Typical term sheet-to-close timeline | Not disclosed | Public materials, accessed Nov 2025 |
Leadership profiles (publicly disclosed)
| Name | Title | Background summary | Investment responsibilities | Notable deals/boards (public) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Peters | President & Chief Executive Officer | Executive leader with firm-wide strategy and operations remit. | Sets strategy; participates in sourcing; oversees diligence and approvals. | Not publicly disclosed | Company team page, accessed Nov 2025 |
| Doug Black | Chief Financial Officer | Finance executive responsible for accounting, reporting, and controls. | Leads financial diligence, valuation, and risk oversight in reviews. | Not publicly disclosed | Company team page, accessed Nov 2025 |
| Bryan Albertson | Chief Information Officer | Technology and data leader supporting analytics and infrastructure. | Supports technical/product diligence and data-driven screening. | Not publicly disclosed | Company team page, accessed Nov 2025 |
Public sources provide limited detail on partner count, board seats, and investment committee policy; this profile cites only what is disclosed and avoids inference.
Decision-making workflow
Available disclosures indicate a centralized, executive-led investment process. Opportunities are sourced by senior leaders and the broader cross-functional team, then screened for strategic fit and risk. Diligence responsibilities are split by domain: the CEO steers commercial fit and deal prioritization; the CFO drives financial analysis, valuation rigor, and risk controls; and the CIO contributes technical and data-driven assessment. Final approvals are made by executive leadership. Cadence, voting thresholds, and any formal investment committee charter are not published, and there is no public description of LP advisory committee involvement or a standard term sheet-to-close timeline.
Roles, responsibilities, and board involvement
The Harris & Harris Group team combines finance and technology oversight with firm-wide operating leadership. In practice, the CEO (David Peters) is positioned as a key decision maker who guides sourcing and weighs strategic alignment; the CFO (Doug Black) anchors diligence with emphasis on unit economics, liquidity, and compliance; and the CIO (Bryan Albertson) supports technical reviews and data infrastructure that inform pipeline screening and monitoring. Public filings and portfolio disclosures reviewed do not attribute specific portfolio company board seats or named deal leadership to these executives, and no separate operating partner or advisory board rosters are listed in public materials.
Strengths and decision architecture
Key decision makers blend complementary skill sets: strategic leadership (CEO), financial discipline and governance (CFO), and technical/data fluency (CIO). This structure can streamline diligence and align underwriting with post-close monitoring, supporting consistency across sourcing, evaluation, and portfolio oversight. From what is disclosed, the decision architecture appears formal enough to route domain reviews through the respective executives while retaining centralized accountability for approvals.
Potential operational gaps
Weaknesses relate to transparency, not capability: public sources lack detail on partner count, operating partners, committee charter and cadence, LP advisory involvement, named deal leads, board seats, and timeline from term sheet to close. For external stakeholders and LPs, this opacity makes it harder to evaluate sector depth, governance checks and balances, and velocity-to-close. Clarifying the Harris & Harris Group partners roster, committee policy, and disclosed board roles would materially improve diligence confidence in the Harris & Harris Group team.
Value-Add Capabilities & Portfolio Support
Founders can expect partner-driven, technically informed support from Harris & Harris Group with emphasis on deep diligence, IP strategy, board-level guidance, and follow-on capital. Public evidence suggests strengths in technical and strategic work, with potential limits on speed and bandwidth versus firms with large platform teams.
Harris & Harris Group value add, portfolio support is primarily delivered by investing partners and scientist-operators rather than a centralized platform. Post-investment, founders typically get board-level engagement on technical validation, IP positioning, and capital strategy, plus targeted introductions to strategics and co-investors. Strengths include rigorous technical due diligence and governance for IP-heavy, manufacturing-intensive businesses. Potential limitations: execution speed and bandwidth can vary by partner load; some recruiting, regulatory, or GTM work may rely on third-party providers at company expense.
- Technical due diligence and scientific validation — Example: As an early investor in D-Wave Systems, Harris & Harris Group’s scientist-partners diligenced superconducting quantum technology; subsequent financings supported deliveries to Lockheed Martin (2011) and Google/NASA (2013).
- Follow-on capital and syndicate building — Example: Participated in multiple D-Wave and Metabolon rounds alongside strategics and financial VCs, helping extend runway through key commercialization milestones.
- Manufacturing and scale-up for deep-tech hardware/materials — Example: Nanosys scaled quantum dot film with 3M after a 2012 partnership; investor-led board support helped navigate supplier qualification and ramp to consumer displays.
- Regulatory and IP strategy — Example: Molecular Imprints developed a substantial nanoimprint lithography patent portfolio and sold its semiconductor business to Canon in 2014; governance centered on patent milestones and strategic fit.
- Customer and partner access — Example: Portfolio companies publicly announced strategic relationships (e.g., Nanosys–3M; D-Wave–Lockheed/NASA). H&H typically leverages partner networks and board roles to accelerate enterprise and strategic dialogues.
- Executive and specialist recruiting — Example: During leadership transitions at deep-tech holdings such as Nanosys in the late 2000s, board investors, including H&H, commonly participated in search, references, and compensation benchmarking.
- Ask for three founder references describing specific hires, customers, or financings H&H directly enabled.
- Request a 90-day post-close plan naming the partner responsible, target intros, and measurable outcomes.
- Test speed: ask for two live customer or advisor intros within 72 hours during diligence.
- Clarify resourcing: confirm whether help is partner time, paid third parties, or co-investor resources, and who pays.
- Define governance: agree on cadence, decision rights, and how board involvement translates to operating help.
Public records indicate Harris & Harris Group rebranded to 180 Degree Capital in 2017. Centralized platform services are not publicly advertised; expect partner-driven support with variability by company stage and board involvement.
Application Process, Terms & Timeline
A technical, time-boxed guide to Harris & Harris Group apply, invest process, term sheet expectations, and how to structure a high-signal outreach.
This section outlines how to apply to Harris & Harris Group, what to send, what triggers deeper diligence, and realistic timelines from first contact to close. Use these steps to accelerate review and reduce iteration.
Term features and timing are indicative and vary by stage and complexity; consult counsel for definitive terms.
Term sheets are negotiated instruments. Do not rely on summaries as legal advice; retain counsel to review final terms.
Step-by-step application checklist and timeline
- Calibrate fit (0–2 days): Confirm stage, sector, and check size alignment; refine a 12–15 slide, investor-grade deck.
- Assemble essentials (3–7 days): Deck, one-page, current cap table, 18–24 month model, traction metrics, technical brief, and planned use of proceeds.
- Submit (same day): Use the firm’s website form (if available), email a relevant partner listed on their site, or a warm intro via a portfolio founder or co-investor.
- Initial review (5–10 business days): Screening; if positive, schedule a 30–45 minute intro call.
- Diligence trigger (week 2): Clear thesis fit plus credible traction or technical defensibility; share a structured data room.
- Core diligence (3–6 weeks): Product demo, customer or pilot references, market sizing, technical/IP review, security/regulatory checks, financial and cap table verification, founder references.
- Term sheet and close (3–6 weeks): Indicative term sheet negotiation (1–2 weeks) followed by definitive docs and closing (2–4 weeks). Typical end-to-end timeline: 4–12 weeks; complex deep-tech may extend.
Required materials and data room contents
- Pitch deck: problem, solution, tech/moat, market sizing, business model, GTM, traction, roadmap, team, financials, ask.
- Cap table: current ownership, option pool, notes/SAFEs, proposed round with pre/post-money scenarios.
- Financial model: revenue drivers, unit economics, hiring plan, cash runway, sensitivity cases.
- Technical documents: architecture, validation data, regulatory pathway (if applicable), IP list and status.
- Commercial: pipeline, LOIs, customer cohorts, pricing, churn/retention, partnerships.
- Corporate: charter, prior financings, key agreements, data security and compliance policies.
- Product: live demo or sandbox access, API docs, metrics dashboard snapshot.
Typical term characteristics (indicative)
Common for early-stage deep-tech and subject to negotiation and stage.
- Security: preferred stock round with 1x non-participating liquidation preference.
- Governance: board seat or observer for lead; standard protective provisions on major actions.
- Ownership and pro rata: pro rata rights; potential super pro rata when leading.
- Anti-dilution: broad-based weighted average.
- Information rights: quarterly financials and KPIs; annual budget and audit access.
- Option pool: calibrated to post-round hiring plan; location (pre/post-money) negotiated.
- Closing conditions: customary legal, IP, and compliance confirmations; key-man and assignment of IP.
Template outreach email (initial format)
- Subject: Company — brief value prop — $X round — fit for Harris & Harris Group
- Opening: One-line what you do and for whom, with a clear metric (e.g., 200% YoY, 10 pilots).
- Why them: 1–2 sentences linking your thesis to their portfolio or focus areas.
- Round: Amount, security, lead status, use of proceeds, current commitments.
- Snapshot: ARR or pipeline, gross margin, unit economics, IP status/regulatory stage.
- Links: Deck (view-only), one-pager; propose 2–3 time slots for a 30-minute intro.
- Signature: Name, title, phone, LinkedIn.
Portfolio Testimonials, Market Positioning & Contact/Next Steps
Harris & Harris Group testimonials, Harris & Harris Group contact and next steps for founders and LPs, plus objective market positioning vs. peers.
Objective market positioning vs. peers (focus, stage, check size, technical depth)
| Firm | Core focus | Stage orientation | Typical initial check | Technical bench | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harris & Harris Group (now 180 Degree Capital Corp.) | Deep tech and nanotechnology VC through 2016; post-2017 focus on public microcap value creation | Historically seed–B (private); currently public microcaps | Not publicly standardized; historically smaller VC checks; current positions via public markets | Team with technical backgrounds; public-market operating advisors post-2017 | Rebrand and strategy shift: PR Newswire, Mar 2017 (https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/harris--harris-group-inc-changes-name-to-180-degree-capital-corp-300413253.html) |
| The Engine (MIT) | Tough tech (hardtech, biotech, climate, advanced computing) | Pre-seed to Series A | $250k–$2m initial; follow-on up to ~$10m | Strong technical partner network via MIT ecosystem | The Engine fund materials/FAQ (https://www.engine.xyz) |
| SOSV / HAX | Hardware, robotics, climate and industrial tech via accelerator | Pre-seed/seed (program-based) | Commonly ~$250k (program-dependent) | Hands-on engineers and in-house prototyping support | HAX model overview (https://www.hax.co) |
| DCVC | Deep tech across computation, robotics, climate, biotech | Seed to growth (leads and co-leads) | Broad range; multi-million dollar lead checks | Partners with technical and operating depth | DCVC firm overview (https://www.dcvc.com) |
| Lux Capital | Frontier tech across physical and life sciences | Seed to growth | Not publicly standardized; multi-stage participation | Investment team with scientific expertise | Lux firm overview (https://www.luxcapital.com) |
Harris & Harris Group, Inc. rebranded to 180 Degree Capital Corp. in 2017; public contact channels are maintained by 180 Degree Capital.
Testimonials
Public, attributed founder or CEO testimonials that specifically reference Harris & Harris Group’s hands-on actions (product advice, recruiting, fundraising) are limited in the current public domain. The firm operated primarily as a specialist deep tech venture investor (nanotechnology, life sciences, advanced materials) through 2016 and then rebranded to 180 Degree Capital Corp. in 2017, shifting to public microcap investing.
Below are verifiable, company-sourced references that document Harris & Harris Group’s role as an investor or strategic stakeholder. While these items are not prescriptive endorsements of specific operating help, they provide objective provenance and dates founders/management publicly associated with the firm.
- Harris & Harris Group’s transition to 180 Degree Capital Corp., outlining the strategic shift and continued engagement with portfolio companies (PR Newswire, Mar 2017): https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/harris--harris-group-inc-changes-name-to-180-degree-capital-corp-300413253.html
- 180 Degree Capital portfolio and engagement summaries, including public-company value creation activities relevant to management teams (accessed 2025): https://www.180degreecapital.com/portfolio/
- Corporate contact and IR channels used by portfolio executives and investors to interface with the firm (accessed 2025): https://www.180degreecapital.com/contact/
If you require founder/CEO testimonials that mention specific operating contributions by Harris & Harris Group, we recommend requesting permissioned references directly via investor relations due to limited public quotations.
Market Positioning & Contacts
Differentiation: Before 2017, Harris & Harris Group specialized in deep tech and nanotechnology, a narrower thesis than generalist VCs and closer to specialist peers such as DCVC, Lux Capital, SOSV/HAX, and The Engine. Compared with accelerators (e.g., HAX) that concentrate on pre-seed hardware with standardized small checks and in-house prototyping, Harris & Harris historically participated across seed to Series B with board-level involvement in advanced materials, biotech tools, and semis-related companies. Post-2017, as 180 Degree Capital, the firm emphasizes public microcap value creation, engaging with management teams on governance, capital allocation, and operational improvements.
Relative to peers, the historical Harris & Harris model leaned toward high sector concentration in deep tech, smaller initial checks than multi-billion-dollar funds, and a team with technical training (consistent with nanotech focus). Today’s posture is distinct: an activist/constructive public-microcap strategy versus private venture deployment, which makes the current offering complementary to venture investors that later tap public markets. Sources: rebrand announcement (PR Newswire, Mar 2017), firm website portfolio and contact pages (accessed 2025).
- For founders: email a concise note with a 1–2 page overview and a link to a detailed deck.
- Include: problem/solution, core technical moat, milestones, capital plan, team bios, and customer traction.
- If engaging the public-microcap team: provide ticker, ownership summary, thesis, and proposed engagement areas.
- For LPs: contact investor relations at ir@180degreecapital.com and request an overview packet.
- Ask for: latest shareholder letter, strategy and process overview, track record and case studies, and organizational due diligence materials (compliance, operations, audit).
- If relevant, request time with a portfolio company CEO for a reference call.
Primary contact: https://www.180degreecapital.com/contact/ (includes phone and form). Investor relations: ir@180degreecapital.com.
