In our new SFR Private Wealth study, we asked one hundred investors how domestic growth and the investment environment in Finland should be strengthened. The message was clear: Finland does not need only minor fine-tuning, but a clearer direction and bolder dismantling of barriers.
In this blog post, we highlight the most important observations regarding the prerequisites for domestic growth from the investors who participated in the study. We also share insights from the study’s launch event, where the discussion focused on domestic ownership and what kind of Finland we should build from the perspective of growth and economic wellbeing.
Completed in spring 2026, the SFR Private Wealth study examines the investment activities, wealth management models, service needs, service provider experiences and views on the market environment of Finnish investment companies, family offices and wealthy private investors. The study also covers current themes such as domestic growth, artificial intelligence and geopolitics.
For the study, SFR Research personally interviewed 100 investors between October 2025 and February 2026. The median investment wealth of the interviewees was EUR 11.5 million and the average was EUR 44.3 million. More information about the study is available here.
According to the investors who participated in the SFR Private Wealth study, domestic growth is created by:
Growth requires decisions — and above all, the courage to build a country where people dare to be entrepreneurial.
A recurring experience among the investors interviewed for the study is that attitudes toward entrepreneurship and wealth creation in Finland are conflicted. Success is not seen as an unambiguously positive thing, but is also associated with disapproval and suspicion. Society is not perceived as valuing risk-taking, being an employer or building a company.
This is seen as having partly led to a lack of societal courage, where caution and fear of failure hold back initiative, entrepreneurship, investment, innovation and capital expenditure. An atmosphere that supports growth would require more willingness to experiment, more ambition and greater acceptance of the fact that growth and entrepreneurship also involve uncertainty. This is also connected to attitudes toward failure: if failure is seen as stigmatizing rather than as part of learning, the threshold for trying something new becomes higher.
Several investors emphasize the role of public debate and the media. Business and economic news often highlight bankruptcies, difficulties and confrontation, while success stories, growth and the positive impact created by companies receive less attention or are treated more cynically.
Based on the views expressed, an atmosphere that supports entrepreneurship, risk-taking and investment would require a more balanced culture of discussion. It would be important to strengthen the perception that entrepreneurship, succeeding as an entrepreneur and building something new are valuable for society as a whole.
Based on the responses, it can also be said that the atmosphere has improved in some respects, particularly among younger age groups. However, this is not yet described as a sufficient change or one that cuts through society as a whole. A change in atmosphere alone may not solve the prerequisites for growth, but it forms an important underlying factor in whether Finland is seen as a place where it is worth investing and taking risks.
Growth and investments are not supported by an environment that is perceived as erratic, short-term or prone to confrontation. Several respondent comments suggest that trust would be strengthened by a more long-term investment and entrepreneurship environment that extends across government terms.
The interviewees also reflected on the importance of education, cooperation between educational institutions and companies, and financial education in promoting a change in atmosphere. A few respondents also emphasized that the support network available to entrepreneurs is significantly weaker than that available to employees, which does not promote a culture of growth.
Investors’ views on the need to develop taxation can be summarized under three themes: inheritance and succession taxation, corporate taxation and earned income taxation. The responses do not primarily emphasize the need for small individual tax adjustments, but rather a desire for a better tax structure that would support capital accumulation, investment and work.
Inheritance and gift taxation are highlighted particularly from the perspective of generational transitions. Investors describe the current system as heavy, requiring extensive advance planning and diverting resources away from the development of business operations. This ties up time, capital and attention away from the business itself.
Suggested solutions included abolishing inheritance tax and moving toward a model similar to Sweden’s, where taxation is realized later through capital gains taxation. Such a change was seen as making it easier to transfer ownership to the next generation, reducing the need to withdraw funds from companies to pay taxes and supporting the retention of domestic ownership. Many were concerned about capital flight from Finland due to taxation and observed an accelerating trend in this direction.
When discussing corporate taxation, investors believe that taxation should better enable capital to grow within companies. Many interviewees refer to thinking similar to the Estonian model, where profits are taxed only when funds are withdrawn from the company. This is seen as supporting investment in particular, strengthening balance sheets and improving companies’ ability to withstand weaker economic cycles without immediately having to cut growth, investment or personnel.
By contrast, respondents did not form an equally strong view on lowering the corporate tax rate. Several noted that small percentage-point changes alone would not decisively change the investment environment. What appears more essential is the structure of taxation: does it direct funds out of companies, or does it encourage companies to leave capital in the business for growth and investment? Many wondered why previously proven tax models from the period after Finland’s 1990s recession are not reintroduced.
At the level of investment companies, investors would like taxation to be clarified and interpretative ambiguities removed, particularly for investment companies focused on private equity. At present, the planning of tax structures takes up too many resources and steers operations and their structuring too heavily. Tax incentives related to domestic companies could support the availability of financing for Finnish companies.
Regarding earned income taxation, investors’ comments repeatedly reflect the idea that working and accepting work should be more financially worthwhile than they are today. High marginal tax rates and incentive traps in particular are seen as problematic for growth. The perspective is not limited to individual purchasing power or the attractiveness of work; it is also seen as a factor supporting the availability of skilled labour. High earned income taxation is also viewed as one reason why expertise and capital leave Finland.
According to investors, the key development need in domestic financing relates especially to access to funding for growth companies that need the next scale of capital for expansion, internationalization or larger investments. Several respondents say that equity financing is difficult to obtain domestically and that the terms of debt financing have tightened, particularly regarding collateral requirements.
Finland is perceived as lacking long-term commitment, professional ownership and larger domestic funds capable of financing companies further along their growth path without forcing premature exits. This is reflected in concerns that some companies remain underfunded, acquisitions are made too early and ownership moves out of Finland just when the companies’ greatest value creation still lies ahead.
Some investors believe that there are already enough public financiers and that subsidies are sometimes granted too generously or inefficiently. Many critical respondents highlighted the project-based nature of public financing, its civil servant-driven approach and the support it provides to the business of the same consultants, without the activity being genuinely company-driven or generating sustainable growth. On the other hand, several investors believe that the private market is currently unable to close the financing gap on its own, which means that public capital has a clear complementary role.
The involvement of public capital in new private equity fund initiatives, for example, is seen as almost essential. Models in which the public sector acts as a market-complementing guarantor, anchor investor or co-investor that leverages private capital receive particular support. It is also seen as essential that financing models become nationally permanent across government terms and that they are developed at EU level to build genuine growth rather than being project-driven.
Some respondents believe that solutions could simply be found through the pension system. If a small portion of pension companies’ assets were directed toward the growth of Finnish companies, this could have a significant and decisive impact with positive multiplier effects. Many wondered why they should bear responsibility for Finland if this is not even required by legislators and institutions.
According to respondents, there is too much administrative friction related to entrepreneurship in Finland and more broadly in Europe, especially for small and growing companies, relative to the benefits it produces. Issues raised include various permit and notification procedures, mandatory training, slow official processes, delays in VAT refunds and a general experience that regulation slows down investments and the launch of new business activities.
Long permit processes and the possibility of delaying significant investments for long periods through appeals are considered particularly problematic. Some respondents also point to sector-specific regulation that is perceived as preventing investment, for example in the energy, mining and healthcare sectors. According to them, the essential elements of lighter regulation would be reducing overlapping requirements, speeding up processing, harmonizing interpretations and shifting the focus from formal requirements to the actual substance of operations and risk-based regulation.
Respondents would like labour markets to become more flexible so that the risk associated with recruitment would decrease. Several respondents feel that hiring an employee is too expensive, risky and rigid, especially for small companies. The criticism focuses both on the total cost of hiring and the difficulty of dismissals. In addition, the rules governing work are considered too inflexible in some situations, for example in seasonal work or in cases where the employee themself would be willing to work more than regulation or practices allow.
Labour market flexibility is also connected to the broader idea of incentivizing work and ensuring the availability of skilled labour. Some respondents link labour market functionality to attracting foreign talent and streamlining work permit processes: if skilled people are needed, employing them and helping them settle in Finland should be easier than it is today.
Investors’ responses highlight expertise, education and internationalization. Several interviewees still consider the education system to be one of Finland’s strengths, but at the same time express concern about the development of educational attainment, the shortage of skilled labour and the extent to which education supports entrepreneurship, industrial expertise and international growth.
Closer cooperation between universities and companies, more practical skills development, and the attraction and retention of foreign talent are considered important. In particular, work-based immigration, the integration of students and attitudes toward welcoming international expertise were seen as affecting whether Finland can strengthen its growth potential in the coming years.
In the panel discussion at the study’s launch event, family entrepreneur and board member Anna Miettinen of Ensto Invest, Member of Parliament and entrepreneur Noora Fagerström, and Aalto University Professor of Ownership Samuli Knüpfer discussed how domestic ownership could be strengthened. The discussion was moderated by Kimmo Jyllilä, founder of Paree Group and former Chair of the Board of Tesi.
The key message of the panel discussion was that strengthening domestic ownership requires both more private capital and a better ownership culture. Domestic owners understand the local operating environment and can therefore enable projects that may not appear attractive to foreign investors. At the same time, attitudes toward ownership, entrepreneurship and wealth creation in Finland remain conflicted, which weakens the atmosphere and owners’ willingness to be visible publicly.
The panelists emphasized that ownership should be discussed more openly and with a broader range of voices, so that it would be seen as a force that builds society. Challenges raised included the passivity of domestic capital, the relocation of wealthy private owners abroad, difficulties in financing SMEs, bureaucracy and technical barriers in legislation. Proposed solutions included growing private capital and keeping it in Finland, more active communication by owners and encouraging private individuals to invest also in unlisted companies.
In the new Private Wealth study, SFR recognizes the best-performing wealth managers. The results are based entirely on the assessments given by the investors interviewed in the study and the overall score compiled from those assessments.
Explore the award-winners here!
The SFR Private Wealth study provides high-quality information on the investment activities, wealth management models and service needs of Finnish investment companies, family offices and wealthy private investors. It also covers current themes such as domestic growth, artificial intelligence and the impact of geopolitical change.
The study is used by investment service providers, companies, decision-makers and experts who want to understand the market in greater depth, develop their services and make decisions based on both trends and investor needs.
SFR Research is an independent research company founded in the early 1990s. We provide high-quality research on wealth management, investing and capital markets for the benefit of the entire investor community. Our respected studies are built on long-term trust and cooperation with the investors interviewed. Explore all our studies here!