Navigating the AI Correction: Assessing the Contagion Risk and Strategic Impact of the Bank of England’s Tech Bubble Alarm on HealthTech Valuations and Investment

Nelson Advisors
Oct 10
17 min read

Executive Summary: The Financial Policy Committee (FPC) Mandate and HealthTech’s Exposure

The global financial system is currently operating under a pervasive and quantifiable risk of a sharp market correction, a hazard explicitly documented by the Bank of England's (BoE) Financial Policy Committee (FPC) in its October 2025 update. The core driver of this instability is the hyper-concentration and seemingly limitless valuation of assets tethered to Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology. The FPC has raised a clear warning regarding the growing risk that tech stock prices, inflated by the AI boom, could burst.

A. Thesis Statement

The official assessment confirms that "equity market valuations appear stretched, particularly for technology companies focused on artificial intelligence". This speculative fervor mirrors previous bubbles and introduces systemic financial risk, which is highly transmissible to global markets, including the United Kingdom’s financial system.

Within the HealthTech sector, AI has commanded a significant valuation premium, with AI-enabled startups achieving an 83% higher average deal size compared to their non-AI counterparts. However, a systemic market correction will inevitably test the viability of these valuations. The capital freeze resulting from a macro-shock will disproportionately affect non-validated, speculative business models, particularly those reliant on substantial, long-term venture capital runways, such as AI Drug Discovery (AIDD), which must navigate complex, multi-year clinical and regulatory approval pathways.

B. Projected Scenarios for the HealthTech Sector

The market faces two primary trajectories following the BoE’s alarm:

Hard Landing: This scenario envisions a severe downturn comparable to the dot-com bust of 25 years ago. This outcome would be triggered by a confluence of waning investor optimism regarding AI’s immediate impact and a potential political or monetary stability shock (such as a loss of confidence in the U.S. Federal Reserve’s credibility). Such an event would result in "finance drying up" instantly for households and businesses, annihilating speculative valuations and reordering the entire tech landscape.
Soft Landing/Segmentation: A more gradual normalization of valuations, where the correction primarily affects generalized AI foundation models. HealthTech’s destiny in this scenario is bifurcated: Administrative AI tools that demonstrate clear, rapid Return on Investment (ROI) and operational efficiency show resilience, while high-burn, long-horizon research sectors like AIDD face steep and immediate valuation haircuts until they can generate tangible clinical proof points.

C. Critical Action Mandate

In anticipation of this volatility, the critical mandate for institutional investors is to fundamentally pivot diligence away from mere technological capability and toward demonstrable clinical validation, verifiable commercial viability, superior capital efficiency, and proprietary data moats. For HealthTech operators, the focus must shift to fortifying runways, enhancing operational compliance, and integrating solutions deeply into physician workflow to ensure contract stickiness irrespective of market conditions.

The following table summarises the macro-financial indicators that underpin the BoE’s current assessment.

Key Indicators of Global AI Market Overvaluation (Q4 2025)

Indicator	BoE/Analyst Assessment	Historical Context/Implication
Stock Market Concentration (S&P 500 Tech Weight)	≈ 30%-40% of S&P 500 Value	Highest concentration in over half a century; amplifies systemic risk
Risk Premia Levels	Compressed relative to historical distributions	Prices do not adequately account for downside risk, signaling complacency
CAPE Ratio (Shiller P/E)	Exceeding 30 in major tech segments	Historically correlates with bubble territory (e.g., Great Depression, 2000 Dot-com)
Valuation Trajectory	Equity valuations appear "stretched," comparable to the late 1990s dot-com boom	Signals potential for sharp, aggressive repricing

The Macro-Financial Stability Warning: Deconstructing the Bank of England’s Alarm

A. The FPC’s October 2025 Assessment: Stretched Valuations and Correction Risk

The Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee, tasked with safeguarding financial stability across the UK, issued a pointed warning on Wednesday, October 8, 2025, regarding the state of global equity markets. The central bank explicitly flagged the potential for tech stock prices, which have been significantly "pumped up by the AI boom," to suddenly burst.The official determination was clear: "The risk of a sharp market correction has increased," based on the observation that "equity market valuations appear stretched, particularly for technology companies focused on artificial intelligence".

This environment has been likened by analysts to the "dizzying heights seen during the dot-com bubble of 25 years ago," underscoring the peril inherent in speculative fervor. Jamie Dimon, a prominent voice in financial markets, conceded that a portion of the vast sums currently invested in AI would "probably be lost," suggesting an inevitable pruning of non-viable ventures.

A fundamental concern articulated by the BoE is the extreme level of systemic concentration risk. Share prices for major technology firms, including giants such as Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet, Amazon, and Meta, now constitute approximately 30% of the S&P 500's total value. Some economic analyses place the aggregate weighting of tech stocks closer to 40% of the S&P 500. This high level of concentration has not been witnessed in over half a century, leaving equity markets acutely vulnerable "should expectations around the impact of AI become less optimistic".

B. Quantitative Indicators of Hyper-Valuation and Financial Instability

Market analysts support the central bank's warning by pointing to key quantitative indicators of excessive optimism. Symptoms cited include the rapid, unmoored growth in tech stock prices, valuations that are "stretched" beyond their fundamental underlying worth, and a "general sense of extreme optimism" despite the enormous uncertainties surrounding the ultimate yield of this technology. Historical metrics, such as Shiller's Cyclically Adjusted Price-to-Earnings (CAPE) ratio, serve as a potent warning; markets where this ratio exceeds 30 have historically been categorized as bubble territory, preceding major events like the Great Depression and the 2000 dot-com crash.

Furthermore, the FPC observed that risk premia across a range of risky asset classes are compressed relative to their historical distributions. This indicates widespread investor complacency, where current asset prices fail to adequately account for potential downside risks. The BoE also identified specific non-financial downside risks that could crystallise and trigger a sudden correction, including shortages in critical inputs such as electricity, essential data, or advanced chips, or technological shifts that diminish the need for the currently dominant AI infrastructure.

C. The Compounded Contagion Risk and Structural Dependencies

The risks facing the market are not merely isolated to AI valuations; they are compounded by macroeconomic vulnerabilities. The BoE explicitly connected the AI bubble risk to threats concerning the political and operational credibility of the U.S. Federal Reserve. The FPC cautioned that "a sudden or significant change in perceptions of Federal Reserve credibility could result in a sharp repricing of U.S. dollar assets," potentially impacting sovereign debt markets and increasing global borrowing costs.

This interdependency means that a domestic US market correction, driven by AI valuation decompression, when combined with a potential US monetary or political stability shock, creates a severe double-leveraged risk factor. For HealthTech ventures, this implies that valuation decompression is not simply an internal consequence of failure to deliver product, but an immediate external credit shock, ensuring that private finance, particularly for high-risk development ventures, will instantly and materially contract.

This systemic fragility is exacerbated by the reliance on a handful of mega-cap technology companies. While the major players driving AI development are established and diversified, a crucial difference from the 2000 bubble , the sheer concentration of capital in these "Magnificent Seven" and large foundation model players means that any significant correction in their stock, even if they remain fundamentally solvent, triggers a much broader equity market downturn.

This structural dependency ensures that the HealthTech ecosystem, which relies on the overall health of the VC-backed IPO environment for successful exits, faces an amplified systemic risk from the financial performance of the AI giants. A liquidity freeze stemming from a general market decline will severely impair exit opportunities and cripple the late-stage fundraising pipelines essential for HealthTech growth.

The AI Hype Cycle and Lessons from Prior Tech Corrections

A. Historical Analogs: Dot-com vs. Digital Health 1.0 (2021)

The current market environment, characterised by intense investor focus on technical metrics over traditional financial fundamentals and the introduction of new valuation methodologies, strikingly follows classic historical bubble patterns.Market narratives inherently fuel bubbles and crashes, necessitating extreme caution for long-horizon investors.

The HealthTech sector itself offers a recent, relevant precedent: the 2021 Digital Health correction. Following the peak of pandemic-era funding exuberance, the sector experienced a steep market correction. By 2024, total cash raised by healthcare startups had fallen by 58% compared to the 2021 annual total, while the overall deal count was down 32%.This sudden reversal left a cohort of later-stage companies that had received "lofty valuations" during the hype cycle caught in a debilitating "valuation trap". Success in the subsequent recovery phase has been defined by a new, higher bar, demanding "clearer paths to profitability, more efficient growth, and a differentiated path to value creation".

B. Capital Flow Dynamics and Concentration of Risk (2024-2025)

The enthusiasm around AI translated into explosive capital growth. The year 2024 marked a breakout period for AI funding, reaching over $100 billion, an increase of more than 80% year-over-year from 2023. This aggressive funding trajectory continued into 2025, driven heavily by massive megarounds.

The structure of this funding reflects the highly concentrated macro risk identified by the BoE. In Q3 2025, capital concentration reached historic highs: $45 billion, or approximately 46% of global venture funding, was directed to the AI sector. Crucially, over 30% of all venture funding was concentrated into just 18 megarounds of $500 million or more, overwhelmingly allocated to foundational AI model companies like Anthropic, xAI, and Mistral AI.

This macro trend has defined HealthTech investment. AI has progressed from a desirable feature to a strategic imperative in healthcare. As a result, AI-focused companies captured 62% of all HealthTech venture capital dollars in the first half of 2025.

C. The Contradiction in HealthTech Funding and Temporal Mismatch

An examination of HealthTech capital flows reveals a critical contradiction: while the sector is attracting substantial interest, the overall investment landscape remains highly selective. Digital health venture funding reached $6.4 billion in the first half of 2025, up slightly from $6.0 billion in H1 2024, signaling resilience. However, the number of deals (245) represents the lowest potential annual total since 2020 if the pace continues.

Simultaneously, the average deal size has surged to $26.1 million in H1 2025, an increase from $20.4 million in 2024. This pattern confirms an aggressive market filter: investment is flowing, but only into established, later-stage AI players perceived as frontrunners. While this selectivity suggests prudence, the rising median deal sizes, particularly in Series B and D rounds , inflate the current cohort, potentially setting them up for a 'second wave' valuation trap akin to the post-2021 vintage.

Furthermore, a significant temporal mismatch exists between investor expectations and clinical reality. General Partners (GPs) face mounting pressure from Limited Partners (LPs) to deliver high returns within short fund lifecycles. Yet, the core value-creating segments in HealthTech, such as complex AI-enabled medical devices or drug discovery platforms, have clinical and regulatory timelines that demand five to ten years to achieve regulatory approval and a successful exit.

The market attempts to resolve this inherent conflict by accepting high entry valuations—often reported to be three to five times higher than in other sectors. A financial market correction will instantly expose this temporal gap, forcing GPs to accept lower internal rates of return or face massive write-downs on portfolios built upon speculative clinical timelines.

HealthTech Valuations: The AI Premium and Risk Assessment

A. The Quantified AI Valuation Multiplier and M&A Dynamics

The AI integration into HealthTech is directly responsible for a quantifiable valuation multiplier. AI-enabled startups command an 83% premium in funding, reflected by an average funding round size of $34.4 million compared to $18.8 million for non-AI firms. This premium extends across early and middle stages, with Series A and Series B deal sizes seeing significant inflation.

This capital flow reflects the investor consensus that AI is a necessary, high-growth asset class. While deal volume has declined, the M&A landscape shows that valuation multiples were climbing their way back up to 2021 levels as of Q1 2025. This suggests frothy, highly selective pricing for premium AI assets, with average revenue multiples in M&A transactions ranging between 4x and 6x.

B. Stress-Testing Valuation Methodologies

The systemic risk flagged by the BoE directly compromises conventional private market valuation practices. The Venture Capital (VC) Method, which relies heavily on projecting high expected returns at the time of exit , is most vulnerable. A sudden, sharp repricing of public AI stocks, resulting from a macro correction, immediately invalidates the crucial exit multiple assumption used in VC calculations.

Furthermore, traditional Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis, typically suited for more mature startups with consistent revenue , is often poorly applied to early-stage AI companies. These firms typically lack the operational history and predictable revenue visibility required for robust, long-term DCF projections, forcing reliance on speculative, market-driven valuation methods that are easily invalidated during a downturn.

The ultimate risk is the sudden reversal of compressed risk premia. The FPC warned that investors had not fully accounted for potential downside risks. A market correction represents the violent, sudden, and forced repricing of that risk. The currently compressed risk premia, noted by the BoE , will instantly snap back to historical averages, triggering violent valuation compression across private markets overnight.

C. Erosion of the AI Moat and Public Market Discipline

The 83% valuation premium afforded to AI HealthTech is only justified if the AI component creates a durable competitive moat. However, the decreasing cost of developing and implementing generalized AI is intensifying competition. During a correction, investors will aggressively distinguish between companies that are merely "AI-enabled" (those using third-party large language models) and those that possess "Proprietary AI" (owning unique foundational models, deep clinical intellectual property, or specialized, inaccessible datasets). The valuation premium will entirely vanish for the former, leading to the steepest valuation falls. For example, the success of AI scribes, a hot segment, could quickly dissipate if major electronic health record (EHR) vendors integrate free competing tools.

This macro pressure is quickly transmitted to the private market through the public exit environment. The recent, tentative thawing of the IPO freeze, marked by companies like Hinge Health and Omada Health making notable debuts , signaled a crucial opening for private market liquidity. However, the BoE's alarm signals that this fragile exit window could immediately slam shut. As a direct consequence, private market valuations, which had been creeping up toward 2021 levels , will stall or reverse instantly. Late-stage venture investors will rapidly impose aggressive financial covenants, including down rounds and stringent anti-dilution measures, to protect their existing capital against anticipated public market turbulence, thereby trapping late-stage HealthTech companies that need near-term liquidity.

Deep Dive: Vulnerability Segmentation of AI HealthTech Sub-Sectors

The impact of a market correction will vary dramatically across HealthTech sub-sectors based on their maturity, regulatory burden, and proximity to tangible revenue generation. The following table provides a matrix for assessing differential risk exposure:

HealthTech AI Sub-Sector Risk and Funding Profile

Sub-Sector	Primary Function/Value	Funding Reliance (Risk Exposure)	Clinical/Regulatory Barrier	Valuation Vulnerability
AI Drug Discovery (AIDD)	Target identification, synthesis route prediction, accelerated R&D	Extremely High (5-10 year runway needed)	Very High (Zero drugs approved)	Highest (Extreme clinical timeline mismatch)
Diagnostic/Patient AI	Imaging analysis, triage, clinical decision support	Medium-High (Requires validation trials)	High (Systemic failure/Bias risk)	High (Trust deficit, regulatory scrutiny)
Administrative/Operational AI	Provider operations, cybersecurity, billing, data analytics	Low-Medium (Clear, rapid ROI)	Low (Primarily data governance/compliance)	Lowest (Defensive, demonstrable cost savings)

A. High-Risk, High-Reward: AI Drug Discovery (AIDD)

AIDD represents the high-water mark of speculative investment, attracting massive capital based on the promise of revolutionizing R&D, streamlining drug discovery, and reducing costs. However, this segment is defined by the "Clinical Chasm": despite substantial investments over the last decade, "few AI-discovered or AI-designed drugs have entered human clinical trials, and none have achieved clinical approval" as of late 2024/early 2025.

This lack of validated results, coupled with the long development lifecycle—where VC-backed companies aim for an exit in 3-5 years, but pivotal clinical trials can take up to 10 years for FDA approval —makes AIDD the most exposed sector to a sudden capital market freeze. High burn rates combined with protracted regulatory timelines guarantee that a market correction will immediately challenge the survival of all but the best-capitalised and clinically-validated AIDD platforms.

B. Systemic Clinical Risk: Diagnostic and Patient-Facing AI

AI used in diagnostics, triage, and patient-facing clinical decision-making carries a unique, systemic clinical risk. While 83% of doctors view AI as a net positive, a striking 70% express serious concern regarding its use in the diagnostic process. This apprehension is well-founded, given reported instances of AI "hallucinating" transcriptions.

The risk is magnified because a single inaccurate or biased medical algorithm, trained on non-representative data, could propagate clinical errors across thousands of patients simultaneously, escalating an isolated error into a systemic healthcare crisis. Furthermore, the "black box" nature of many deep learning models prevents clinicians from identifying the specific data points that influenced the AI’s conclusion, forcing doctors to rely on outputs they cannot independently verify. A correction scenario is likely to accelerate regulatory scrutiny, penalising companies that failed to proactively address issues of data bias and model transparency, thereby adding friction to an already uncertain commercial pathway.

C. Defensive Positioning: Administrative and Operational AI

This sub-sector, encompassing provider operations, cybersecurity, and administrative data analytics, holds a defensive position in a correction. These tools deliver quantifiable productivity gains and cost reduction, focusing on pain points such as anti-money laundering, fraud combatting, and cybersecurity. This rational value proposition led to Administrative HealthTech generating 50% of 2024 HealthTech AI investment, translating to $4 billion in funding.

While delivering benefits, the sector introduces new, critical systemic risks related to operational resilience. The increasing reliance on external providers for AI-related services, predominantly Big Tech firms, exposes financial institutions to heightened concentration risks, potentially making these third-party providers systemically critical.

D. Systemic Opportunity Cost and Regulatory Shifts

The intense focus on the risks of overvaluation must be balanced against the parallel risk of AI underuse in healthcare. The failure to fund transformative but capital-intensive clinical AI systems due to a funding crisis imposes a high societal "opportunity cost," which economists define as the difference in productivity and quality gains between an AI-supported health system and one that does not utilise AI sufficiently. This zero-sum economic outcome, the potential loss of delayed drug breakthroughs or missed diagnostic efficiencies—underscores why investors must continue highly selective funding for capital-efficient, clinical AI platforms with strong early data, positioning them as essential societal infrastructure rather than pure speculative tech bets.

Concurrently, the BoE’s focus on cybersecurity as the highest potential systemic risk necessitates a shift in investor due diligence. HealthTech is uniquely vulnerable; analyses show 90% of healthcare organizations expose sensitive data to AI tools due to governance failures, including widespread use of "shadow AI" and the presence of "ghost users". Investors must mandate a stringent cyber-risk assessment, immediately penalizing companies with inadequate security posture regarding third-party data reliance and unsanctioned generative AI usage. This is vital because security failures represent unmitigated liability risks, resulting in catastrophic regulatory fines (e.g., HIPAA and GDPR) that a startup cannot survive during a funding winter.

Consequences of Deleveraging: Operational Impact on HealthTech Startups

A. The Regulatory and Clinical Trial Crunch

A macro-financial correction immediately translates into an operational crisis for early-stage HealthTech companies. Economic uncertainty, market volatility, and stringent regulatory barriers combine to make capital acquisition demonstrably more "difficult and more expensive" for high-risk ventures.

Venture capital is crucial for financing pivotal studies and accelerating the development milestones required for US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. When global finance dries up, a direct risk cited by the BoE FPC , R&D expensing and critical clinical trials are immediately jeopardized, delaying the time-to-market for digital therapeutics and novel devices. The intrinsic difficulty of obtaining regulatory approvals, which increases costs and creates uncertainty , is multiplied by a capital contraction, making the already long 5-to-10-year runways impossible to sustain for the vast majority of startups.

B. The Mandate for Operational Efficiency and Interoperability

To survive a deleveraging event, HealthTech operators must embrace "smart growth" strategies centered on capital efficiency and regulatory compliance. The cultural chasm between traditional tech, which champions the "move fast and break things" ethos and clinical healthcare, where product risks require teams to "proceed with caution", is amplified by the funding crunch. Investors will now reward AI firms that embed risk management, clinical safety, and regulatory competence into their core operating model, favoring clinical and operational experts over pure technologists.

Operational survival also hinges on ensuring product stickiness and alignment with market dynamics. The commercial strategy must pivot from selling raw technology to integrated solutions that demonstrate verifiable, positive impacts on physician workload and interoperability. Companies that successfully integrate their AI applications into value-based care models, delivering both increased efficiencies and better outcomes, are best positioned to navigate chronic reimbursement headwinds and sustain growth during an economic slowdown.

Furthermore, the restoration of R&D expensing in certain jurisdictions allows companies to reclaim deductions for software development, AI training, and clinical trials. Management teams must leverage these financial tools to aggressively build intellectual property moats against competitors, making their technology difficult and costly to replicate.

C. The Rise of the 'Capital-Efficient Moat'

In a recessionary environment, the market will decisively favor HealthTech solutions that prioritize capital efficiency.While the development of large foundation models requires vast computational resources , the immediate investment priority must shift to platforms that can scale rapidly with minimal additional capital expenditure. This favors solutions, typically in the administrative or operational AI space, that utilize existing enterprise infrastructure (cloud services, EHRs) and deliver immediate, quantifiable labor cost savings. These solutions offer a clear, defensible return profile, establishing a "capital-efficient moat" that outperforms bespoke, research-intensive AIDD platforms in a constrained funding environment.

Strategic Recommendations for Investors and Operators

The Bank of England’s warning is a crucial signal for risk mitigation. The following recommendations provide a strategic playbook for institutional investors and HealthTech management teams to navigate the impending market volatility.

A. Investment Due Diligence: Mitigating Bubble Contagion

De-risking Valuation Assumptions: Investors must immediately stress-test all portfolio company valuations against a projected 30% to 50% decline in public market tech multiples, which represents a realistic hard landing scenario. Investment models must be revised to incorporate plausibly lower exit multiples and extended time-to-exit horizons (7 to 10 years), reflecting the inherent clinical gestation time.
Forensic Moat Analysis: Due diligence must demand verifiable evidence of proprietary data access, deep algorithmic innovation, and robust clinical validation. Companies that provide only a superficial user interface layered atop a commoditized foundation model must be aggressively de-valued, as their premium will not survive a correction.
Operational Risk Scoring: A new emphasis must be placed on operational compliance. Investors should prioritize companies that demonstrate strong internal governance over data privacy, data security, and the control of shadow AI usage, recognizing that failures in these areas introduce unmitigated legal and regulatory liability risks that can cause existential failure.
Distressed Asset Strategy: Institutional investors should prepare capital to acquire distressed assets resulting from either the lingering 2021 valuation bubble or the new AI correction. The focus should be on securing strong intellectual property, unique data assets, or proven clinical data, which may become available at significantly reduced valuations from companies that failed to manage their capital burn.

B. Operational Strategies for HealthTech Management Survival

Embrace Capital Efficiency and Extend Runway: Management teams must prioritize core revenue generation and aggressively extend their runway. The ability to pivot quickly and maintain a clear, defensible path to profitability is paramount for survival in a volatile funding environment.
Build a Regulatory and Clinical Fortress: Regulatory engagement, compliance planning, and clinical validation must be treated as critical, non-negotiable capital expenditures. Clear, defensible clinical results and proactive mitigation of bias/black box risks are the ultimate commercial shields against valuation critique and regulatory friction.
Prioritise Provider Workflow Integration: Commercial strategies must shift entirely from marketing abstract "technology" to providing "integrated solutions" that demonstrably ease physician workload and improve interoperability within existing healthcare IT infrastructure. This deep integration ensures contract stickiness, crucial for maintaining revenue during an economic slowdown.
Leverage R&D Tax Benefits: Companies must fully utilize available tax provisions, such as the restoration of full expensing of research and development costs, to maximize deductions for software development and clinical trials, effectively minimizing taxable income and freeing up cash for operations.

The current market is fundamentally characterized by an aggressive sorting process, contrasting the valuation metrics seen during the last major HealthTech peak against the selective funding climate of 2025.

HealthTech Valuation and Investment Dynamics Comparison (2021 Peak vs. H1 2025)

Metric	2021 Peak	H1 2025	Change/Implication
Total Annual Cash Raised (Index 100)	Peak	Down 58% (vs. 2021 annual total)	Sharp reduction in overall market funding volume; constrained environment.
Average Deal Size (Digital Health)	Lower (Broad funding base)	$26.1 million (Multi-year high)	Capital concentrated into fewer, larger, later-stage AI-focused companies.
AI Funding Allocation (Digital Health)	Lower Percentage	62% of VC dollars	AI established as the strategic funding focus and primary valuation driver.
M&A Multiples	High	Climbing back towards 2021 levels	Buyers are intensely selective but willing to pay premium multiples for proven, high-quality AI assets.

Nelson Advisors > MedTech and HealthTech M&A

Nelson Advisors specialise in mergers, acquisitions and partnerships for Digital Health, HealthTech, Health IT, Consumer HealthTech, Healthcare Cybersecurity, Healthcare AI companies based in the UK, Europe and North America. www.nelsonadvisors.co.uk

Nelson Advisors regularly publish Healthcare Technology thought leadership articles covering market insights, trends, analysis & predictions @ https://www.healthcare.digital

We share our views on the latest Healthcare Technology mergers, acquisitions and partnerships with insights, analysis and predictions in our LinkedIn Newsletter every week, subscribe today! https://lnkd.in/e5hTp_xb

Founders for Founders > We pride ourselves on our DNA as ‘HealthTech entrepreneurs advising HealthTech entrepreneurs.’ Nelson Advisors partner with entrepreneurs, boards and investors to maximise shareholder value and investment returns. www.nelsonadvisors.co.uk

#NelsonAdvisors #HealthTech #DigitalHealth #HealthIT #Cybersecurity #HealthcareAI #ConsumerHealthTech #Mergers #Acquisitions #Partnerships #Growth #Strategy #NHS #UK #Europe #USA #VentureCapital #PrivateEquity #Founders #BuySide #SellSide #Divestitures #Corporate #Portfolio #Optimisation #SeriesA #SeriesB #Founders #SellSide #TechAssets #Fundraising #BuildBuyPartner #GoToMarket #PharmaTech #BioTech #Genomics #MedTech