Search results
1 – 2 of 2Prateek Gupta, Shivansh Singh, Renu Ghosh, Sanjeev Kumar and Chirag Jain
The purpose of this study is to comprehensively analyse and compare equity crowdfunding (ECF) regulations across 26 countries, shedding light on the diverse regulatory frameworks…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to comprehensively analyse and compare equity crowdfunding (ECF) regulations across 26 countries, shedding light on the diverse regulatory frameworks, investor and issuer limits and the evolution of ECF globally. By addressing this research gap and providing consolidated insights, the study aims to inform policymakers, researchers and entrepreneurs about the regulatory landscape of ECF, fostering a deeper understanding of its potential and challenges in various economies. Ultimately, the study contributes to the advancement of ECF as an alternative financing method for small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and startups, empowering them to access much-needed capital for growth.
Design/methodology/approach
The study used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) model for a systematic literature review on global ECF regulations. Starting with 74 initial articles from Web of Sciences and Scopus databases, duplicates were removed and language criteria applied, leaving 42 articles. After a thorough full-text screening, 20 articles were excluded, resulting in the review of 22 papers from 2016 to 2022. PRISMA’s structured framework enhances the quality of systematic reviews, ensuring transparency and accessibility of findings for various stakeholders, including researchers, practitioners and policymakers, in the field of ECF regulations.
Findings
This study examines ECF regulations across various countries. Notably, the UK has advanced regulations, while the USA adopted them later through the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act. Canada regulates at the provincial level. Malaysia and China were early adopters in Asia, but Hong Kong, Japan, Israel and India have bans. Turkey introduced regulations in 2019. New Zealand and Australia enacted laws, with Australia referring to it as “crowd-sourced equity funding”. Italy, Austria, France, Germany and Belgium have established regulations in Europe. These regulations vary in investor and issuer limits, disclosure requirements and anti-corruption measures, impacting the growth of ECF markets.
Research limitations/implications
This study’s findings underscore the diverse regulatory landscape governing ECF worldwide. It reveals that regulatory approaches vary from liberal to protectionist, reflecting each country’s unique economic and political context. The implications of this research highlight the need for cross-country analysis to inform practical implementation and the effectiveness of emerging ECF ecosystems. This knowledge can inspire regulatory adjustments, support startups and foster entrepreneurial growth in emerging economies, ultimately reshaping early-stage funding for new-age startups and SMEs on a global scale.
Originality/value
This study’s originality lies in its comprehensive analysis of ECF regulations across 26 diverse countries, shedding light on the intricate interplay between regulatory frameworks and a nation’s political-economic landscape. By delving into the nuanced variations in investor limits, investment types and regulatory strategies, it unveils the multifaceted nature of ECF regulation globally. Furthermore, this research adds value by comparing divergent perspectives on investment constraints and offering an understanding of their impact on ECF efficacy. Ultimately, the study’s unique contribution lies in its potential to inform practical implementation, shape legislative frameworks and catalyse entrepreneurial ecosystems in emerging economies, propelling the evolution of early-stage funding practices.
Details
Keywords
Ishwar Singh Darji and Suman Dahiya
This study aims to evaluate the financial performance of the textile industry in Haryana located in the northern part of India.
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to evaluate the financial performance of the textile industry in Haryana located in the northern part of India.
Design/methodology/approach
Input-oriented Cooper, Charnes and Rhodes (CCR) and Banker, Charnes and Cooper (BCC) techniques of data envelopment analysis, as well as the return to scale (RTS) technique, were used to conduct the analysis.
Findings
The findings show that textile units in Haryana have hugely underperformed financially with a consolidated technical efficiency score of only 0.35. Both private and public limited textile companies with respective scores of 0.46 and 0.24 are technically efficient. Public limited textile companies are more efficient than private limited companies. Private limited textile companies need to increase their input scale because they are operating at an increasing return to scale while public limited textile companies have to lower their input scale because most companies are operating at a decreasing return to scale to enhance their efficiency.
Originality/value
The study can assist in decision-making to all key stakeholders (Shareholders, management, government, tax authorities, debtors and creditors, among others) by identifying efficient and inefficient companies. Appropriate policies can be framed based on that knowledge.
Details