The impact of venture capital on the productivity growth of European entrepreneurial firms: ‘Screening’ or ‘value added’ effect?

We aim to ascertain to what extent the better performance of European venture capital (VC)‐backed firms in high-tech industries is due to either ‘screening’ or ‘value added’ provided by VC investors. We compare portfolio firms' productivity growth before and after the first VC round, using a matched control group as benchmark. We show that productivity growth is not significantly different between VC and non-VC-backed firms before the first round of VC financing, whereas significant differences are found in the first years after the investment event. We also find that the value-adding services provided by VC investors ‘imprint’ the portfolio firm.     

Does acquiring venture capital pay off for the funded firms? A meta-analysis on the relationship between venture capital investment and funded firm financial performance

Researchers and practitioners frequently propose that venture capital (VC) is an important resource to increase the performance of funded firms, especially in environments of uncertainty. In this paper we scrutinize these theoretical propositions, following an evidence-based research approach. We synthesize 76 empirical samples on 36,567 firms. We find a small positive performance effect of VC investment on funded firm performance; however, the effect vanishes if researchers control for industry selection effects. Furthermore, we find that the performance effect mainly relates to firm growth while profitability is unaffected. We also uncover that performance effects are reduced when the funded firms are very young or very mature. In addition, studies focusing on IPO events, which constitute the majority of studies, determine a substantially smaller performance effect. We discuss theoretical implications and offer suggestions for future research on VC.     

Incremental impact of venture capital financing

This paper investigates the differences in the return generating process of venture capital (VC)-backed firms and their peers that operate without VC financing. Using a unique hand-picked database of 990 VC-backed Belgian firms and a complete population of Belgian small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), we focus on the extent to which the presence of a VC investor affects the sensitivity of a firm’s returns to the changes in the capital structure, in the operating cycle, and in the industry dynamics. The differences may stem from the (self-) selection of better companies into VC portfolios, from the venture capitalists’ (VCs) value-adding activities, and/or from both. We examine these factors in the context of a complex simulation procedure which allows separating selection from value-adding when traditional approaches are difficult to implement. Our results indicate that VC-backed firms are able to extract more rent from the changing industry conditions and from the optimizations in their capital structure. The presence of VCs in the firm’s equity seems to have only a marginal effect on the operating cycle efficiency. Overall, the results are suggestive of the value-adding being the main driver of the VC-backed firm’s performance.     

The relationship between venture capital backing and the top management team quality of firms going public and implications for initial public offerings

We make use of hand-collected data on a large sample of entrepreneurial firms going public to analyze the association between venture capital (VC) backing and the top management team (TMT) quality of firms at the time of their initial public offerings (IPOs), and the effect of both VC-backing and TMT quality on the growth in their post-IPO operating performance and IPO firm valuations. We first show that VC-backing is associated with higher TMT quality. We then show that both higher TMT quality and VC-backing lead to higher growth in post-IPO operating performance and higher IPO valuations. We find that the above two variables affect the growth in post-IPO operating performance through an “ability channel,” whereby the TMTs of such firms choose projects with higher equilibrium scale and implement them more ably. Further, TMT quality and VC-backing affect IPO firm valuations not only through the above ability channel, but also through a “certification channel,” whereby higher TMT quality and VC-backing credibly certify intrinsic firm value to the IPO market, thus reducing the extent of asymmetric information facing such firms in the IPO market and yielding these firms higher IPO valuations. Finally, we show that TMT quality and VC-backing act as complements in their effect on IPO firms' growth in post-IPO operating performance.     

Board composition,family ownership,institutional distance and the foreign equity ownership strategies of Turkish MNEs

In much of the developing world, families represent the dominant form of firm ownership. This study investigates how this influences equity ownership strategies when firms venture abroad. Drawing on agency theory and institutional theory, we investigate the direct effect of board composition and family ownership on the equity-based ownership strategies of multinational enterprises (MNEs) in their affiliates, and how institutional distance may moderate this. Examining foreign affiliates of listed Turkish MNEs, we find that a high ratio of independent directors is negatively linked to levels of equity ownership of MNE affiliates. We also find that a high ratio of inside directors on the board is positively associated with the equity stake of MNEs in their affiliates. The significant interaction effect between board composition, family ownership and institutional distance helps explain the unexpectedly weak effects of institutional distance.     

Resources access needs and capabilities as mediators of the relationship between VC firm size and syndication

Drawing from the resource-based view and transaction costs economics, we develop a theoretical framework to explain why small and large firms face different levels of resource access needs and resource access capabilities, which mediate the relationship between firm size and hybrid governance. Employing a sample of 317 venture capital firms, drawn across six European countries, we empirically assess our framework in the context of venture capital syndication. We estimate a path model using structural equation modeling and find, consistent with our theoretical framework, mediating effects of different types of resource access needs and resource access capabilities between VC firm size and syndication frequency. These findings advance the small business literature by highlighting the trade-offs that size imposes on firms that seek to manage their access to external resources through hybrid governance strategies.     

Exploring the innovation strategies of young firms: Corporate venture capital and venture capital impact on alliance innovation strategy

We investigate how governance structure and power influence alliance exploration strategy. Adopting a real options perspective and the agency view, we suggest that innovation strategies differ based on the firm's governance authority. We find that the motivations of corporate venture capitalist firms, venture capitalists, and firm founders may have an impact on the formation of exploratory alliances among adolescent firms. Using a sample of 122 adolescent firms, we examine the influence that governance structure has on the firm's alliance portfolio and innovation potential. While the influence of corporate venture capitalist firms alone do affect alliance formation strategy, corporate venture-backed firms with founders having high influence (knowledge or ownership in the firm) are more likely to form innovation-focused alliances. In contrast, venture capitalist-backed firms tend to avoid innovation-focused alliances, preferring more exploitive ones, even when founders have high influence within the firm.     

Reassessing the relationships between private equity investors and their portfolio companies

The scope and purpose of this special issue is to reassess the relationships between private equity (PE) investors and their portfolio companies in the light of the need for venture capital/ private equity (VC/PE) firms to adapt their strategies for value creation in the light of the recent financial crisis. We particularly focus upon VC/PE characteristics that differently contribute to portfolio firm performance. The papers presented in this special issue capture this aim in various ways, reflecting the heterogeneity of VC/PE investors and the firms in which they invest. We begin this introductory paper by providing a brief overview of each paper’s contribution. We articulate themes for an agenda for future research relating to the heterogeneity of investor types and the contexts in which they invest.     

How venture capital firms differ

Four potential sources of differences between venture capital (VC) firms were examined—venture stage of interest, amount of assistance provided by the VC, VC firm size, and geographic region where located. Through a questionnaire, 149 venture capitalists provided data about their firms, about what they look for in evaluating an investment, and about how they work with a portfolio company following an investment.Firms were divided into four groups based on venture stage of interest. The earlier the investment stage, the greater the interest in potential investments built upon proprietary products, product uniqueness, and high growth markets. Late-stage investors were more interested in demonstrated market acceptance.There were no differences by stage regarding the desired qualities of management. However, after the investment was made, earlier stage investors attached more importance to spending their time evaluating and recruiting managers. Earlier stage investors sought ventures with higher potential returns—a 42% hurdle rate of return for the earliest stage investor versus 33% for the late-stage investor.Late-stage investors spent more time evaluating a potential investment. However, after the investment was made, there was little difference in the amount of time spent assisting the portfolio company. There were, however, differences in the significance that VCs attached to particular post-investment activities. Firms were split into three groups based upon the amount of time the VC spent with a portfolio company after an investment was made as lead investor. The most active group averaged over 35 hours per month per investment, and the least active group averaged less than seven hours.The difference in assistance provided was not strongly tied to differences in investment stage of interest. There were major differences in the importance the VCs attached to their post-investment activities. Not surprisingly, high involvement VCs viewed their activities as more important.Based upon the amount of capital they managed, firms were also split into three groups. Average fund size varied from 278 to 12 million dollars. The larger firms had more professionals and managed more money per professional. The large firms provided the least, and the medium-sized firms the most, assistance to portfolio companies. Large firms also made larger individual investments. Even though they invested over half their funds in late-stage investments whereas smaller firms focused on the earlier stages, the large firms were still a major source of early stage financing.There were no differences between geographic regions in the proportion of investments where the venture capital firm served as lead investor. There were, however, major regional differences in investment stages of interest. Also differences were observed between regions that were not a result of differing size and investment stage.     

Strategic Interactions,Bargaining Power and Stability of Joint Venture in an Emerging Nation

We model strategic interaction between a domestic firm and a foreign firm involved in a joint venture, incorporating negotiations over equity shares and its implications for stability in the context of an emerging country. The foreign firm has superior technology, whereas the domestic firm has better local market knowledge. Modelling simultaneous innovation effort and bargaining power over equity share, we provide a rationale for the stability of the joint venture. We find that a certain level of technological knowledge can empower the bargaining power under certain parameter configurations and assumptions, such that the firms will negotiate to agree over their equity shares and maintain the joint venture. In this context, the stability of the joint venture is always an expected outcome. We have also shown that the domestic firm’s bargaining power and knowledge acquisition directly affect the domestic firm’s R&D effort and threaten the stability of the JV. We try to justify a probable situation where the firms may negotiate hard over equity shares but still maintain the joint venture.

     

Venture Capitalists, Syndication and Governance in Initial Public Offerings

This paper examines the development of effective boards in venture capital (VC)-backed initial public offerings. It argues that VC-backed IPOs suffer from two sets of agency costs which are related to principal–agent and principal–principal relationships between the founders and members of the VC syndicate. Using a unique sample of 293 entrepreneurial IPOs in the UK it shows that VC syndicates invest in relatively more risky firms. VC-backed IPOs have more independent boards than IPOs with no VC involvement, with board independence being higher in syndicated VC-backed firms. These results are consistent with assumption that these governance factors are used to mitigate agency costs associated with VC involvement in IPO firms. We also find that in syndicated IPOs there is a higher equity presence of passive private equity firms investing alongside VC firms.     

Do Venture Capitalists Add Value to Small Manufacturing Firms? An Empirical Analysis of Venture and Nonventure Capital‐Backed Initial Public Offerings

We examine a set of small, venture capital (VC)-backed manufacturing firms and compare it to a control sample of nonVC-backed manufacturing firms going public between 1990 and 1996. We use the degree of underpricing, three-year sales growth, three-year cumulative stock return, and three-year survivability as measures of success. First, we test if the presence of VC backing results in significant differences in success between the two samples. Next, we test if certain VC and deal characteristics are discriminators within the VC-backed sample of firms. Despite previous literature, which argues for either inferior or superior VC post-initial public offering (IPO) performance, these tests indicate no significant differences between VC- and nonVC-backed firms. Additionally, it is found that VC and deal characteristics are not discriminating factors within the VC sample.     

Learning from own and others’ previous experience: the contribution of the venture capital firm to the likelihood of a portfolio company’s trade sale

The objective of this paper is to examine to what extent different venture capital firms contribute to the likelihood that the portfolio company in which they invested will realize a trade sale. We use arguments from learning theory to hypothesize the relationship between vicarious, experiential and congenital learning of the venture capital (VC) firm and the trade sale hazard of its portfolio companies. Based on our analysis of 206 VC-backed UK start-ups, we find that both trade sale experience of the VC and learning from syndicate partners with trade sale experience significantly increase the trade sale hazard. The routines and procedures learned from experienced syndicate partners complement experience accumulated through trial and error. Congenital trade sale experience of the investment managers on the contrary has no significant influence on the acquisition hazard.     

The interplay of need and opportunity in venture capital investment syndication

This study examines the syndication of investments novel to a VC firm as a function of the firm's need and opportunity to do so. We distinguish two types of uncertainty that firms face when considering novel investments: egocentric, pertaining to making the right decisions, and altercentric, pertaining to being evaluated as a potential partner on the investment. Whereas the former increases the firm's need to syndicate the investment, the latter reduces the firm's opportunity to do so, making it contingent upon the firm's status and reputation for attracting potential partners. Using data on first-round venture capital investments, we find that novel investments are more likely to be syndicated. Moreover, this relationship is stronger for firms with higher status and weaker for firms with higher reputation. These results highlight a relational aspect of uncertainty, inherent in a particular VC firm — investment dyad, and suggest that status and reputation play different roles in aligning the need and opportunity to syndicate novel investments.     

Limited attention and the role of the venture capitalist

This research analyzes the venture capitalist's incentives to maximize the profits of the entrepreneurs of ventures and the limited partners of a venture fund. Venture capital is a professionally managed pool of capital invested in equity-linked private ventures. Entrepreneurs turn to venture capitalists for financing because high-technology startup firms have low or negative cash flows, which prevent them from borrowing or issuing equity. In addition, venture capitalists are actively involved in management of the venture to assure its success. This solves the problem of startup firms that do not have the cash flows to hire management consultants.Venture capital contracts have three main characteristics: (1) staging the commitment of capital and preserving the option to abandon, (2) using compensation systems directly linked to value creation, and (3) preserving ways to force management to distribute investment proceeds. These characteristics address three fundamental problems: (1) sorting the venture capital among the entrepreneurial ventures, (2) providing incentives to motivate venture capitalists to maximize the value of the funded ventures, and (3) providing incentives to motivate entrepreneurs to maximize the value of the ventures. Venture capitalists fund only about a dozen projects a year out of a thousand evaluated. Each project may receive several rounds of financing. Payoffs to VCs can be very high or be a complete loss.The typical venture capital (VC) firm is organized as a limited partnership, with the venture capitalists serving as general partners and the investors as limited partners. General partner VCs act as agents for the limited partners in investing their funds. VCs invest their human capital by placing their reputation on the line. The goal is to begin to convert the investment into cash or marketable securities, which are distributed to the partners. VC management companies receive a management fee equal to a percentage (usually 2.5%) of the capital of each fund. They also receive a percentage (15–30%) of the profits of each fund, called carried interest. Periodic reports are made by the VC firm to the limited partners. Usually these are only costs of managing the fund, and so revenues are negative. Most contracts specify the percentage of time that the VC will devote to managing the fund.The analysis of this research deals with the incentives of the VC who has limited attention to be allocated between improving current ventures and evaluating new ventures for possible funding. The analysis shows that the VC, as agent for both the entrepreneur and the general partners, does not have the incentives required to maximize their profits. The VC allocates attention among ventures and venture funds less frequently than required to maximize the entrepreneurs' and limited partners' profits. However, the VC does maximize the total profits of all ventures. Because the VC considers the opportunity cost of attention, the VC's allocation of attention is efficient. The implication of this result is that, although the entrepreneurs and limited partners could be made better off with a different allocation of the VC's time, this would be an inefficient use of the VC's time.     

Venture capital investor type and the growth mode of new technology-based firms

Independent venture capital (IVC) investors have more powerful incentives than corporate venture capital (CVC) investors to take actions that signal their capabilities (i.e. to “grandstand”). We argue that this should engender differences in the treatment effect of IVC and CVC on the mode of growth of portfolio companies. Short-term sales growth of IVC-backed firms in the period that immediately follows the VC investment should outpace that of CVC-backed firms, while we expect no difference in employment growth. We find support for these theoretical predictions on a sample of 531 Italian new technology-based firms, using several panel estimators to control for endogeneity of IVC and CVC.     

Determinants of the Incidence and Scale of Seed Capital Investments by Venture Capital Firms

Employing both behavioral decision making and agency theories, our study seeks to identify those factors that influence a venture capital (VC) firm’s decision to undertake seed capital investments and, subsequently, the scale of such activity. Using data on the investments made by 2949 VC funds raised worldwide between 1962 and 2002, we find investor age, timing of investment, and fund location to be of importance. In addition, the size of the fund and the existing number of portfolio firms exert opposite influences on the level of seed capital activity of the VC firm. These results suggest that seed activity is a valuable source of market intelligence for leading VC firms seeking proactively to identify and invest in novel technologies.      

Does venture capitalist activism improve investment performance?

We investigate whether venture capitalist (VC) activism is associated with higher investment returns. Advising portfolio firms is time consuming and creates tradeoffs between intensity of VC activism and portfolio size. As the number of assisted firms expands, advice can be stretched too thin, reducing portfolio company prospects. We test the hypothesis that increasing the number of investments while intensely assisting portfolio companies is negatively associated with investment returns (the profit destruction effect). We find that aggressive VC activism does predict higher investment returns, but the profit destruction effect operates as well. Portfolio size growth thus risks overextending scarce VC resources and lowering returns.     

How to Design Public Venture Capital Funds: Empirical Evidence from South Korea

This study examines the effects of several features of government‐managed, sponsored venture capital (VC), and private VC funds on overall VC investments in new technology‐based firms (NTBFs) during two developmental stages (i.e., growth and restructuring) in South Korean VC market and suggests hints for designing effective government VC programs. Our results from data on 463 funds in the period 1995–2005 indicate the factors bearing a positive effect on VC investments targeted to NTBFs. Such factors are the fund specialization focusing on certain industrial sectors, performance‐sensitive compensation for venture capitalists in private and government VC funds.     

When is a Firm Born? Alternative Criteria and Consequences

There are a number of ways to determine the birth date of a new firm. These include the date of a start-up venture’s initial transactions, initial registry listing, initial labor input, and initial profits. Utilizing the responses from the second Panel Study of Entrepreneurial Dynamics (PSED) cohort, it appears that different criteria for a firm’s birth date are associated with substantial differences in the proportion of start-ups that became new firms, the time required to become a new firm, survival following a new firm birth, and the provision of new jobs. This variation may help explain some inconsistent research findings related to firm births.