Criteria used by venture capitalists to evaluate new venture proposals

A questionnaire was administered to one hundred venture capitalists to determine the most important criteria that they use to decide on funding new ventures. Perhaps the most important finding from the study is direct confirmation of the frequently iterated position taken by the venture capital community that above all it is the quality of the entrepreneur that ultimately determines the funding decision. Five of the top ten most important criteria had to do with the entrepreneur's experience or personality. There is no question that irrespective of the horse (product), horse race (market), or odds (financial criteria), it is the jockey (entrepreneur) who fundamentally determines whether the venture capitalist will place a bet at all.The question is if this is the case, then why is so much emphasis placed on the business plan? In a business plan there is generally little to indicate the characteristics of the entrepreneur—it is generally devoted to a detailed discussion of the product/service, the market, and the competition. To us, the implications are obvious—such content is necessary, but not sufficient. The business plan should also show as clearly as possible that the “jockey is fit to ride” —namely, indicate by whatever feasible and credible means possible that the entrepreneur has staying power, has a track record, can react to risk well, and has familiarity with the target market. Failing this, he or she needs to be able to pull together a team that has such characteristics and show that he or she is capable of leading that team.Factor analysis of the results indicate that venture capitalists appear to assess ventures systematically in terms of six categories of risk to be managed. These are: risk of losing the entire investment: risk of being unable to bail out if necessary; risk of failure to implement the venture idea; competitive risk; risk of management failure; and risk of leadership failure.Finally, three clusters of venture capitalists were identified: those who carefully assess the competitive and implementation risks: those who seek easy bail out; and those who deliberately keep as many options open as possible.     

Robust min–max portfolio strategies for rival forecast and risk scenarios

We consider an extension of the Markowitz mean–variance optimization framework to multiple return and risk scenarios. It is well known that asset return forecasts and risk estimates are inherently inaccurate. The method proposed provides a means for considering rival representations of the future. The optimal portfolio is computed, simultaneously with the worst case, to take account of all rival scenarios. This is a min-max strategy which is essentially equivalent to a robust pooling of the scenarios. Robustness is ensured by the noninferiority of min–max. For example, a basic worst-case optimal return is guaranteed in view of multiple return scenarios. If robustness happens to have too high a cost, guided by the min–max pooling, it is also possible to explore other pooling alternatives. A min–max algorithm is used to solve the problem and illustrate the robust character of min–max with return and risk scenarios. We study the properties of the min–max risk–return frontier and compare with the potentially suboptimal worst-case where the investment strategy and the worst case are computed separately.     

Finite sample evidence on the performance of stochastic frontier models using panel data

Most stochastic frontier models have focused on estimating average productive efficiency across all firms. The failure to estimate firm-specific effiicency has been regarded as a major limitation of previous stochastic frontier models. In this paper, we measure firm-level efficiency using panel data, and examine its finite sample distribution over a wide range of the parameter and model space. We also investigate the performance of the stochastic frontier approach using three estimators: maximum likelihood, generalized least squares and dummy variables (or the within estimator). Our results indicate that the performance of the stochastic frontier approach is sensitive to the form of the underlying technology and its complexity. The results appear to be quite stable across estimators. The within estimatoris preferred, however, because of weak assumptions and relative computational ease.The refereeing process of this paper was handled through J. van den Broeck.     

An Analysis of Materiality and Reasonable Assurance: Professional Mystification and Paternalism in Auditing

Critical analyses of the audit profession have become more common in recent years. Many of these analyses focus on the entire audit profession in developing their criticisms and concerns. In this paper, the scope of analysis is narrowed to examine in depth the auditing profession's use of the concepts of reasonable assurance and materiality in audit performance and audit communications. Reasonable assurance and materiality are the terms that auditors use to describe the scope of their responsibility to the public. Similarly, reasonable assurance and materiality are the key determinants of audit effort. An overview of official guidance, practitioner reports, and academic research reveals that these two key concepts are not well specified nor are they consistently applied in audit practice. These findings are evaluated from two competing perspectives on professions – the traditional, functionalist perspective and the critical theorists' perspective. Evaluation from the latter perspective leads to a conclusion that the profession's use of these key terms to guide practice and communication leaves the profession open to charges of mystification and unjustified paternalism.     

Intrinsic Motivations of Public Sector Employees: Evidence for Germany

We examine differences in altruism and laziness between public sector employees and private sector employees. Our theoretical model predicts that the likelihood of public sector employment increases with a worker's altruism, and increases or decreases with a worker's laziness depending on his altruism. Using questionnaire data from the German Socio‐Economic Panel Study, we find that public sector employees are significantly more altruistic and lazy than observationally equivalent private sector employees. A series of robustness checks show that these patterns are stronger among higher educated workers; that the sorting of altruistic people to the public sector takes place only within the caring industries; and that the difference in altruism is already present at the start of people's career, while the difference in laziness is only present for employees with sufficiently long work experience.