Search results

Take the image of the entrepreneur as a driven accepter of risk, an individual (or set of individuals) hungry to amass a fortune as quickly as possible. This image is consistent with the traditional finance theory view of entrepreneurial startups, one that assumes that profit maximization is the firm’s sole motivation (Chaganti, DeCarolis & Deeds, 1995). Myers’s (1994) cost explanation of the pecking order hypothesis (i.e. entrepreneurs prefer internally generated funds first, debt next, and external equity last) incorporates this economically rational view of entrepreneurs’ financing preferences. According to this view, information asymmetry and uncertainty make the availability of external financing very limited and the cost of it prohibitively high. To compensate, entrepreneurs must give up greater and greater control in order to “buy” funds needed to achieve the desired growth and profitability. Indeed, Brophy and Shulman (1992, p. 65) state, “Those entrepreneurs willing to relinquish absolute independence in order to maximize expected shareholder wealth through corporate growth are deemed rational investors in the finance literature.” Undoubtedly, cost and availability explanations of financing choices are valid for many new and small businesses. However, many entrepreneurship researchers have long been dissatisfied with the incompleteness of this perspective.

The chapter provides a practical guide to identify and define different funding sources for entrepreneurial and innovation endeavors, including a methodology to describe return on investment expectations from funding sources. Also, the authors provide recommended key performance indicators and valuation methods when pitching to potential investors.

Past entrepreneurship research has emphasized the importance of the context of the entrepreneur (e.g., personality) along with environmental characteristics as predictors of the success of new ventures. Additional literature has expanded our understanding of how implementation processes such as business planning, social networking, and external financing may be key to new venture performance. This paper offers 12 propositions that link these two literatures. Specifically, we argue that the personality and goals of the entrepreneur, as well as the dynamism and munificence of the environment, may affect how well implementation processes enhance new venture performance.

This chapter analyses how capital is raised and employed by a sample of 28 European biotechnology companies listed on Europe’s new stock markets from 1996 to 2000. We find that biotechnology companies rely heavily on IPO proceeds in order to finance their growth. We compare the behaviour of European firms to a sample of comparable U.S. firms. The analysis reveals that European companies tend to raise more capital at the IPO and to invest more aggressively in the short-run, whereas U.S. biotech firms tend to have more cash available before the IPO and invest more conservatively in the short-run.

In the international arena, there is an ongoing debate over the lack of newly started businesses in general and over how to obtain sustainable growth in these businesses in particular. Policy-makers in Europe have sought to ease this problem of paucity of new firm's start-ups, which is mainly caused by a lack of financial resources for new innovative ideas as problematic (European Commission (2007–2013); Groen, Jenniskens, & van der Sijde, 2005). Consequently, during the latest decade, there has been an increase in the number of public sector financial schemes designed to promote entrepreneurship in very early-stage businesses (COM, 2005, 2006). These efforts have, however, escaped criticism. Those who promote public financing believe that with the right tools and governance this type of support is an important complement to the private sector financial market (Oakey, 2003). However, bankers and venture capitalists often state that the main issue is not the lack of available capital but the inability of entrepreneurs to convince investors of the merits of their business ideas (Mason & Harrison, 2002). There have also been arguments against the socioeconomic efficiency (Storey, 1994).

There exists a shortage of studies that establish linkages between entrepreneurial orientation and debt financing in family businesses. In line with this research stream, the purpose of this chapter is to examine the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and debt financing of family businesses. Specifically, the study investigates how the five entrepreneurial orientation dimensions – risk-taking, innovativeness, proactiveness, competitive aggressiveness, and autonomy influence family business debt financing. By adopting a qualitative research methodology and based on empirical evidence gathered through a 10-case study design involving face-to-face interviews with owners of family businesses in Nigeria, the study examines the influence of entrepreneurial orientation on debt financing. The results suggest that the entrepreneurial orientation of family businesses seems to play a pivotal role in influencing debt financing. If a firm is entrepreneurial-oriented, it is reasonable to expect that it will focus attention on new and emerging opportunities for obtaining debt financing. The study advances research on entrepreneurial orientation and debt financing in family businesses. It develops an empirically theoretical framework at the intersection of the family business and entrepreneurial orientation research, filling a gap in the literature. Future research could substantiate the findings of this study on a broader empirical base, using quantitative methods. This study offers a new perspective to the study of entrepreneurial orientation and, at the same time, contributes with findings from research on entrepreneurial orientation to the study of debt financing in family businesses.

We extend theories of the firm to the entrepreneurial finance setting and argue that R&D-focused start-up firms will have a greater likelihood of financing themselves with equity rather than debt. We argue that mechanisms which reduce information asymmetry, including owner work experience and financier reputation, will increase the probability of funding with more debt. We also argue that start-ups that correctly align their financing mix to their R&D focus will perform better than firms that are misaligned. We study these ideas using a large nationally representative dataset on start-up firms in the United States.

The financing of entrepreneurship has seen marked changes over time and continues to evolve rapidly. From the traditional sequence of self-funding, Angel financing, the rigors of securing Venture Capital, and, for successful firms, Initial Public Offerings (IPOs), the funding sequence has undergone substantial changes. Recent observations such as in the Wall Street Journal (November 05, 2018) suggest that many successful young firms (often tech companies) have continued to raise capital from private equity sources rather than in the public equity markets via IPOs. These additional fundraising efforts generally follow an extended period of business development and revenue generation wherein when many successful entrepreneurial firms that had proven large enough to go public stayed private (so called “unicorns”) because of the extent to which their funding requirements can in recent times flow from private sources. But today, there are many indications that some such firms (e.g. Uber, Lyft) are now seeing the advantages of going public, engaging in IPOs, which are often followed rapidly in very recent times by raising additional public share capital in a relatively short interval after the IPO.

This chapter presents research to assess the impact of the recent financial crisis on technology-based small firms (TBSFs) in the United Kingdom based on findings from an extended telephone survey with the owner-managers of 49 young and 51 more mature TBSFs, undertaken in 2010. Even before the onset of the global financial crisis in 2007, it was generally acknowledged that TBSFs faced greater obstacles in accessing finance than conventional SMEs. This is because banks have difficulty assessing the viability of new technology-based business ventures due to information asymmetries, whilst risk capital providers may have difficulty providing appropriate or sufficient funds on terms acceptable to entrepreneurs. Given the recent difficulties that SMEs, in general, have faced in obtaining external finance, we would expect TBSFs to have been particularly adversely affected by the financial crisis. Our evidence showed that TBSFs exhibited a strong demand for external finance between 2007 and 2010, related to their growth ambitions and achievements. They sought finance mainly from banks but also with younger TBSFs seeking business angel finance and more mature TBSFs seeking venture capital finance. However, our evidence indicates that both debt and equity finance became harder to access for TBSFs, particularly for early-stage and more R&D-intensive firms. Where funding was offered, it was often on unacceptable terms with regards to the levels of collateral or equity required. The chapter provides evidence of a growing funding gap and concludes that the ability of TBSFs to contribute to economic recovery is hampered by ongoing problems in obtaining external finance.