Search results

New venture “startups” are financed via three standard methods: self‐funding, “friends and family” or possibly “angel” investors; seed capital from venture capitalists; and large corporations’ venture funds. Each of these financial structures has its own set of risk and reward trade‐offs. Corporate venture funding has been seen as the least risky funding method, but also the least likely to be available for the entrepreneur. Each of these funding methods is likely to engender a different kind of corporate culture that could impact the e‐commerce venture’s long‐term development. The self‐ or privately‐funded company must continuously scramble for scarce funds and may not be able to develop internally the necessary culture of knowledge creation. Companies supported primarily by venture capitalists may develop a culture that over‐focuses on quick return of capital to investors. Alternatively, the slow decision‐making processes of large corporations are often antithetical to Internet time.

How are city demographics correlated with the amount of venture capital they receive? This chapter uses a unique dataset of 58,000 venture deals from 2000 to 2014 from the CrunchBase dataset and census data from the same period. Place and the role of venture capital asserts venture capital’s spatial dependency and uses statistical software to find a strong positive correlation between the amount of venture capital funding and foreign, international, male professionals within a city, the gendering of venture capital, and the negative correlation of unskilled, foreign labor with funding.

As venture capital travels along social ties, this chapter suggests that foreign, international, and male professionals’ positive correlation may be due to these members having a wider and more diverse social network, allowing the ability to conjure funds. Moreover, the demographic may be a synonym for Sassen’s International Class, allowing the study to dovetail with a broader set of research. Finally, this chapter also provides a mechanism to classify cities based off their venture capital activity. The implications of this study are a better understanding of the trends correlated with venture capital, a classification system for cities, and a possible caveat to “virtuous cycle” theory. A supplement to the paper and to visualize implications for cities, we also created this D3 visualization visualizing the geographic positioning and relationships of those 58,000 deals, providing communicable and interactive research.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of human and intellectual capital on start-ups’ attainment of government venture capital (GVC). It is theorized that as a result of government predisposition toward enhancing knowledge spillover and certifying underinvested start-ups, different types of human and intellectual capital possessed by start-ups will distinctly affect GVC funding.

The Kauffman Firm Survey, a panel data set of 4,928 new US firms over a five-year period (2004-2008), serves as the data source. Ordinary least squares regression, coupled with generalized estimating equations to check for robustness, is used to determine the effect of human and intellectual capital on GVC funding.

Founders’ educational attainment has a greater impact than their occupational experience in GVC funding. While the number of patents owned by the start-up increases GVC funding, the number of trademarks and copyrights negatively influence GVC funding.

By distinguishing between different aspects of human and intellectual capital, this study provides a more nuanced understanding of the influence of new venture resources in the context of GVC.

Men founders raise almost 50× more venture capital (VC) than women. As 93 per cent of VCs are men, because of the significant gender imbalance in gatekeepers and investment decision-makers for early-stage capital, there may be critical outcomes for women entrepreneurs who are being caused from men having overweighed in decision-making roles. Outcomes include biases against women by VCs that prevent their ventures from being considered for funding from the pitch as well as obtaining opportunities to pitch VCs in consideration for funding from biases in the evaluations of the businesses themselves.

This paper is a consolidation of several studies the author has conducted in VC decision-making and gender bias to understand the drivers of the enormous gender gap in VC funding. The author presented it as a talk at the University of Regina and was asked to submit a paper about it here.

The findings reveal how the 93 per cent male context of the VC industry is in itself a significant cause of the gender gap in funding. If there were more women VCs, more women entrepreneurs would be funded.

The author showcases how the gender gap in decision-making roles in VC has important implications for women entrepreneurs to obtain funding.

This paper seeks to understand the dynamics of new venture financing across 20 business start‐ups.

A total of 20 cases were explored, via initial discussions with the founder(s), and follow‐up contact to confirm sources of financing acquired during new venture creation. This approach was adopted because of the challenges associated with acquiring full details of start‐up financing, and in particular informal forms of new venture financing.

Significant variation in, and scale of, new venture financing was identified. In multiple cases, funding patterns did not tally with established explanations of small business financing.

The primary limitation of the analysis is the focus on a small number of individual cases. Although this allowed for more detailed analysis, it does not make the findings applicable across the small business population as a whole. New ventures acquired very different forms of finance, and in different configurations or “bundles”, so creating a wide range of start‐up financing patterns and overall levels of capitalisation. This suggests that multiple factors influence founder decisions on start‐up funding acquisition. It also indicates the wide divergence between highly capitalised and under‐capitalised start‐ups.

Many of the new ventures were started with low levels of capitalisation, which as the literature suggests is a strong determinant of reduced prospects for survival. This suggests a possible “financing deficit”, rather than gap, for a proportion of business start‐ups.

The paper provides an alternative methodology for considering new venture financing, and as a result concludes that standard, rational theories of small business financing may not always hold for new ventures.

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.

Policymakers have long supported the development of venture capital markets on the basis that venture capital fills a perceived gap in the availability of early stage seed capital funding for new technology-based firms (NTBFs).¹ Support from policymakers, however, has not been matched by academic research on NTBF financing. This is a major concern because NTBF financing is not well understood. The theoretical focus of this chapter is the life cycle or stage model of financing, which has proved the dominate paradigm in the analysis of financing in NTBFs. It is particularly relevant to this study, as the stage model is explicitly endorsed by venture capitalists who structure deals in phases in order to effectively monitor the investee firm's progress (Sahlman, 1990).

We explore factors determining board membership of venture capitalists (VCs) in a syndicate in privately held entrepreneurial ventures. We suggest that board membership is determined by the bargaining process between VCs and new ventures in governing those ventures. Specifically, VCs are more likely to become board members in new ventures if they are highly reputable due to the success of their prior new venture investees, whereas VCs are less likely to gain board rights in new ventures with greater bargain power from superior innovation or marketing track records. Our empirical analysis using 1,812 dyads of investment ties formed between VCs and new ventures support our predictions.

The purpose of the study is to review and understand firm selection mechanism involved in government venture capital (GVC) funding and identify key factors influencing selection of tech-based firms for GVC funding.

This paper is based on real-time methodology. The data was generated from interviews of 60 young applicants, who applied for startup funding, and analyzed using statistical techniques to draw the results.

This review identifies financial viability, market viability and technological innovation to have the strongest predictive ability in firm selection process of the GVC funding program for tech-based youth-owned startups in the first round of interview. This review also highlighted that social impact is not a statistically significant variable in firm selection process in GVC funding.

This study tests the validity of the theory of GVC based on quantitative analysis of field data and identifies key factors with strong predictive abilities for GVC funding, more particularly for the youth-owned tech-based startups. This study brings to light the mechanism adopted for GVC funding and addresses gaps in the literature relevant to firm selection mechanism in GVC programs. This study would help GVC Fund Managers to review their own GVC programs in terms of selection mechanism and help them in appropriate designing of such programs.

An important but neglected area of investigation in digital entrepreneurship is the combined role of both core and peripheral members of an emerging technological field in shaping the symbolic and social boundaries of the field. This is a serious gap as both categories of members play a distinct role in expanding the pool of resources of the field. I address this gap by exploring how membership category is related to funding decisions in the emerging field of artificial intelligence (AI).

The first quantitative study involved a sample of 1,315 AI-based startups which were founded in the period of 2011–2018 in the United States. In the second qualitative study, the author interviewed 32 members of the field (core members, peripheral members and investors) to define the boundaries of their respective role in shaping the social boundaries of the AI field.

The author finds that core members in the newly founded field of AI were more successful at attracting funding from investors than peripheral members and that size of the founding team, number of lead investors, number of patents and CEO approval were positively related to funding. In the second qualitative study, the author interviewed 30 members of the field (core members, peripheral members and investors) to define their respective role in shaping the social boundaries of the AI field.

This study is one of the first to build on the growing literature in emerging organizational fields to bring empirical evidence that investors adapt their funding strategy to membership categories (core and peripheral members) of a new technological field in their resource allocation decisions. Furthermore, I find that core and peripheral members claim distinct roles in their participation and contribution to the field in terms of technological developments, and that although core members attract more resources than peripheral members, both actors play a significant role in expanding the field’s social boundaries.

Core AI entrepreneurs who wish to attract funding may consider operating in fewer categories in order to be perceived as core members of the field, and thus focus their activities and limited resources to build internal AI capabilities. Entrepreneurs may invest early in filing a patent to signal their in-house AI capabilities to investors.

The social boundaries of an emerging technological field are shaped by a multitude of actors and not only the core members of the field. The author should pay attention to the role of each category of actors and build on their contributions to expand a promising field.

This paper is among the first to build on the growing literature in emerging organizational fields to study the resource acquisition strategies of entrepreneurs in a newly establishing technological field.