Prior literature suggests two competing theories regarding the role of venture capitalists (VCs) in their portfolio companies. The VC monitoring hypothesis argues that VCs effectively resolve the managerial agency problem through close monitoring and restraining managers' earnings management behavior. The VC moral hazard hypothesis argues that VCs aggravate the private benefits agency problem by exerting influence over managers to artificially inflate exit stock price through earnings management. Using a sample of IPO firms between 1987 and 2002, after controlling for the magnitude of accruals manipulation (AM), I compare the magnitude of real activities manipulation (RM) between venture-backed and non-venture-backed companies. I find that relative to non-venture-backed companies, venture-backed companies show significantly less RM in the first post-IPO fiscal year. The results are robust after controlling for the VC selection endogeneity. The finding supports the VC monitoring hypothesis that VCs restrain managers' RM behavior. Furthermore, I document that venture-backed companies exhibit a significant difference from non-venture-backed companies only in the first post-IPO fiscal year. The difference between the two groups in either the IPO year or the second post-IPO fiscal year is not significant, or at best, is weak. This finding is consistent with the argument that VCs tighten their control during the lockup expiration period when insiders such as managers or founders have strong incentives to inflate earnings. By the end of the second post-IPO fiscal year when VCs exit the portfolio companies, their impact on portfolio companies' RM decreases dramatically which makes the difference between the two groups less significant. In addition, using a sample of venture-backed IPOs from 1987 to 2002, I find that companies backed by high-reputation VCs show significantly less RM than those backed by low-reputation VCs in the first post-IPO fiscal year. The results are robust to alternative VC reputation proxies. This finding is consistent with the argument that high-reputation VCs have more incentives to preserve reputation and better ability to monitor managers than low-reputation VCs.

With the increasing importance of the third mission of universities, namely the commercialisation of science and research, universities have established various mechanisms such as technology transfer offices, business incubators and more. Since many investors tend not to invest in university spin-offs and start-ups due to the risk associated with their early stage, universities have established their own investment units, referred to as university-affiliated venture capital, to provide funding for university spin-offs and start-ups. As there is little academic research on the structure and functioning of these investment units, this paper contributes to this research by analysing the structure and investment process of university-affiliated venture capitals. For this purpose, 10 investment units in Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden were analysed. Among the key findings of this work is the recognition that UVCs essentially look for the abilities ofthe founders and the possibility of developing them into an effective team when selecting ventures. Inaddition, the financing instruments offered, and the ticket sizes of the investment units could be identified. While many UVCs use both equity investment and convertible loans, there is a slight bias towards convertible loans as the potential target companies are at such an early stage that valuations are very difficult to conduct and the UVCs have limited resources. Ticket sizes generally vary between 25,000 and 100,000 thousand euros. / Med den ökande betydelsen av universitetens tredje uppgift, nämligen kommersialisering av vetenskap och forskning, har universiteten inrättat olika mekanismer som tekniköverföringskontor och företagsinkubatorer. Eftersom många investerare tenderar att inte investera i universitetsavknoppningar och nystartade företag på grund av den risk som är förknippad med deras tidiga skede, har universiteten inrättat sina egna investeringsenheter, så kallat universitetsanknutet riskkapital (UVC), för att tillhandahålla finansiering för universitetsavknoppningar och nystartade företag. Eftersom det inte finns så mycket akademisk forskning om strukturen och funktionen hos dessa investeringsenheter, bidrar denna uppsats till denna forskning genom att analysera strukturen och investeringsprocessen för universitetsanknutna riskkapitalbolag. För detta ändamål analyserades tio investeringsenheter; i Danmark, Finland, Nederländerna, Norge och Sverige. Bland de viktigaste resultaten av detta arbete finns insikten att UVC:er i huvudsak letar efter grundarnas förmågor och möjligheten att utveckla dem till ett effektivt team när de väljer ut företag. Dessutom kunde de finansieringsinstrument som erbjuds och investeringsstorlekarna identifieras. Även om många UVC:er använder både kapitalinvesteringar och konvertibla lån, finns det en viss övervikt för konvertibla lån eftersom de potentiella målföretagen befinner sig i ett så tidigt skede att värderingar är mycket svåra att genomföra och UVC:er har begränsade resurser. Investeringsstorlekarna varierar i allmänhet mellan 25 000 och 100 000 tusen euro.

Entreprenörskap och företagande är essentiellt för ekonomisk tillväxt i ett land. Det bidrar med innovativa idéer som utvecklar samhället och möjliggör fler arbetstillfällen. För att entreprenörer och företag ska kunna utveckla dessa idéer krävs kapital, vilket emellertid kan vara svårt att erhålla. Nystartade- och tillväxtföretag förknippas med hög risk då de befinner sig i ett stadie där informationsasymmetrin är stor och utfallet av en investering är svår att beräkna. Venture Capital (VC) är en form av riskkapital som finansierar nystartade- och tillväxtföretag med hög risk. De bidrar med finansiering och erfarenhet i utbyte mot en andel av företaget. VC är därmed essentiellt för entreprenörskap, företagande och i längden även samhället. Under våren 2020 utbröt Covid-19-pandemin i Sverige och orsakade en instabilitet i samhället och dess ekonomi. Syftet är därmed att undersöka Covid-19-pandemins eventuella påverkan på den svenska VC-marknaden. För att studera dessa eventuella effekter undersöks förändringar i investeringsantal, investeringsvolym samt vilket stadie dessa investeringar genomförs. Dessutom undersöks förändringar i investeringsmönster, branschförskjutning samt hur den sociala distanseringen kan ha påverkat VC-marknaden. Forskningsfrågan besvaras genom insamling av realdata från Crunchbase samt intervjuer med aktörer på marknaden.  Resultatet av studien indikerar att antal VC-investeringar under året har minskat med 18,1%, däremot är investeringsvolymen fortsatt hög och har under året ökat med 155,1%. Det som framförallt kan utläsas är att Seed-investeringar, det vill säga investering i ett tidigt stadie, har drabbats hårdast. Antalet investeringar i detta stadie har minskat med 21% under året. Vidare indikerar resultatet även att den sociala distanseringen till följd av de införda restriktionerna har haft en indirekt inverkan på VC-marknaden. Detta då det inneburit en förändring i VC- processen och arbetssättet. Sammanfattningsvis kan det konstateras att VC-marknaden i Sverige har påverkats av Covid-19-pandemin. Däremot kan ingen större krasch identifieras då investeringsvolymen är fortsatt hög trots en minskning i antal investeringar. Studiens implikationer är en ökad förståelse för hur marknaden fungerar samt hur den har påverkats av Covid-19-pandemin. Resultatet kan vara av intresse för ett flertal intressenter, däribland entreprenörer, investerare, VC-bolag, forskare men framförallt politiska beslutsfattare. Genom en förståelse för marknaden kan politiska beslutsfattare upprätthålla samt stimulera den ekonomiska tillväxten.

The leaders of all countries of each sector and level of society are compelled to work together to address [social and environmental] challenges by maintaining sustainable human development and ensuring that the benefits of globalization are shared more widely. It is in the interests of businesses that these benefits continue both for companies and for others in society.   The Venture Capital is a financial capital provided to the startup firms in their early stages which has a high potential for growth but also entail high risk. The Venture capital firms typically look for new and small businesses with a perceived long term growth potential that will result in a high payout for investors. Venture capital is a subset of private equity of the firms. On other hand, Private equity is an asset class consisting of equity securities, which are not quoted in the stock market. An investment in private equity most often involves either an investment of capital in a mature firms as well as buyout firms.             The purpose of this study is to explore the gap between UK and U.S venture capital and private equity firms on the base of ESG criteria into investment decision making process. To find a relationship between venture capital and private equity firms mainstream investment with ESG criteria and also highlight new trends and the issues, which are potential barrier of ESG criteria implementation in UK and US firms. The authors used different academic literature, previous studies to find a gap and a relationship of ESG criteria into mainstream investment decision making process in UK and U.S firms.   The research is based on both primary & secondary data under descriptive nature of study. A technique with the name of content analysis was used to collect the quantitative data from the U.K and U.S Venture Capital and Private Equity firms. These firms are further categorized in the sample size under the umbrella of clean tech and non-clean tech. Total sample size is 120 firms (60 VC & 60 PE), where 56 are clean tech and 64 are Non-clean tech firms. The find a relationship between variables regression analysis technique is used through SPSS for verifying the validity and variability of collected Data.   We found that, an ESG criterion is on development stage, and there is no such technique and standards that are developed by the venture capital and private equity firms. We found, that firms are mostly focusing on responsible investment strategy; it is somehow same like whole ESG for purpose of their investment screening process. We found that ESG consideration in some UK and U.S venture capital and private equity firms exist, but vary from firms to firms. Some firms are considering just one factor while some other firms consider more than one.  Large firms have more focus on ESG as compared to small firms; due to the nature of business and size, and number of employees, focus is only limited towards investment options and development of strategies for the firm. The result of this study interpret that the U.S firms are focusing more on investment returns, and pay less attention towards ESG as compared to U.K firms, Where UK Venture capital and private equity firms results shows that, they are more focused towards ESG and feel free to incorporate ESG criteria into their investment strategies without incurring any cost in terms of risk and returns.

For start-up businesses, the source of outside capital can be retrieved from the venture capital industry. The venture capital industry has grown substantially over the past 50 years, reaching its pinnacle during the internet bubble in the 1990s and serves as an important contributor to the economy. After some time, and optimally when the start-up has matured into a successful business, venture capitalists want to receive money in return for their investments. Most commonly, the exiting of venture capital investments is retrieved through an IPO. An IPO refers to the transition from a private corporation to a public corporation and occurs when a private corporation offers its shares to the public for the first time. The existing literature of IPOs is commonly associated with the depiction of abnormal returns. More precisely, the offer price is often underpriced in comparison to the closing price on the first day of trading. In addition, the returns 1 to 5 years after going public are often subject to subsequent declines (Miller & Riley, 1987; Ritter, 1998). A part of the underperformance of IPOs is anchored in the type of capital structure, venture capital. Thus, this study examines the relationship between venture capital backed IPOs and IPO performance. Furthermore, the relationship between the degree of venture capital, the amount of capital held by the venture capital firm in the IPO, and IPO performance are examined in order to discover eventual correlations. Concerning the performed analysis, the study concludes that there is no clear positive relationship between venture capital backing and IPO performance in the short run. However, one could interpret that being a VC-backed IPO can be prosperous for long-term performance since VC has a positive impact on ROA. Regarding the degree of venture capital, it had a negative impact on the ROA, i.e., the level of degree of venture capital does not have a positive impact on the IPO performance.

[pt] A indústria de Capital de Risco tem recebido atenção significativa de formuladores de políticas, investidores e empreendedores em todo o mundo devido à sua história de sucesso em mercados desenvolvidos, especialmente nos Estados Unidos. No entanto, sua implementação em países em desenvolvimento enfrenta desafios que levam os investidores a se adaptar, especialmente nos estágios iniciais e mais arriscados. Nesses segmentos, outros investidores, como Anjos, Aceleradoras e Corporate Venture Capital (CVC), tornam o ambiente mais competitivo, fornecendo mais opções para empreendedores que buscam capital. No entanto, a literatura ainda não aborda os efeitos que esses investidores de diferentes perfis têm em suas startups investidas. O paradigma da escada financeira, que implica que os IVCs atuam apenas em estágios avançados, ainda está presente, mas isso tem mudado na última década nos Estados Unidos e mais recentemente no Brasil. Nesta tese, examinamos os efeitos de diferentes investidores em startups em estágios iniciais nos Estados Unidos e no Brasil por meio de três artigos de pesquisa relacionados. No primeiro artigo, realizamos uma revisão sistemática da literatura de CVC de 2005 a 2019, identificando mecanismos impulsionadores e efeitos em empreendimentos investidos. Isso fornece uma compreensão mais ampla dos múltiplos fatores que influenciam a relação entre investidores e empreendimentos, as diferenças nos perfis e incentivos de diferentes tipos de investidores de VC e como eles influenciam os empreendimentos. Este artigo também revela tendências e lacunas na literatura que orientam os artigos seguintes. No segundo artigo, investigamos os efeitos comparativos e conjuntos dos principais tipos de investidores de VC (IVC, CVC, Grupo de anjos e Aceleradoras) em 13.098 empreendimentos em estágios iniciais que receberam sua primeira rodada de investimento nos Estados Unidos de 2005 a 2016. Os resultados mostram que empreendimentos em estágios iniciais apoiados por IVCs alcançaram melhores resultados do que seus pares em todos os objetivos de estágios iniciais, contradizendo o efeito de marco esperado de investidores como Grupos de anjos e Aceleradoras e levantando questões sobre a validade de alguns aspectos do paradigma da escada financeira. No terceiro artigo, focamos nos resultados de 1.937 empreendimentos de estágio inicial que receberam seu primeiro investimento no Brasil entre 2000 e setembro de 2022. Examinamos empreendimentos apoiados por IVCs, CVCs, Anjos e Aceleradoras, e os resultados indicam diferenças significativas em relação aos EUA. No Brasil, os IVCs não apresentaram presença tão marcante como nos EUA, e o desempenho positivo esperado foi observado apenas em empreendimentos apoiados por IVCs altamente experientes. Além disso, os Anjos apresentaram o melhor desempenho para objetivos específicos de estágio inicial. No geral, nossa análise dos dois mercados demonstra diferenças significativas nos efeitos dos investidores de VC sobre o desempenho de empreendimentos de estágio inicial. O modelo de investidor IVC demonstra superioridade em relação aos seus pares no mercado americano, enquanto no Brasil, outros investidores também se destacam, especialmente Anjos. Essas diferenças podem ser devido a fatores no ambiente econômico local, moldando os perfis dos investidores e influenciando a maneira como eles operam no país. / [en] The Venture Capital industry has gained widespread attention from policymakers, investors, and entrepreneurs worldwide due to its success history in developed markets, particularly in the United States. How ever, its implementation in developing countries faces challenges that drive investors to adapt, particularly in the earliest and riskiest stages. In these segments, other investors, such as Angels, Accelerators, and Corporate Venture Capital (CVC), make the environment more competitive, providing more options to entrepreneurs seeking capital. Nevertheless, the literature still fails to address the effects these investors of different profiles have on their invested startups. The finance escalator paradigm, implying that IVCs only act in advanced stages, is still present, but this has been changing in the last decade in the US and more recently in Brazil. In this thesis, we examine the effects of different investors on early-stage startups in the US and Brazil through three related research articles. In the first article, we conduct a systematic review of the CVC literature from 2005 to 2019, identifying driving mechanisms and effects on invested ventures. This provides a broader understanding of the multiple factors influencing the relationship between investors and ventures, the differences in profiles and incentives of distinct types of VC investors, and how they influence ventures. This article also reveals trends and gaps in the literature that guide the following articles. In the second article, we investigate the comparative and joint effects of the main VC investor types (IVC, CVC, Angel Group, and Accelerator) on 13,098 early-stage ventures that received their first investment round in the US from 2005 to 2016. The results show that early-stage ventures backed by IVCs achieved better results than their peers in all early-stage goals, contradicting the milestone effect expected from investors like Angel Groups and Accelerators and raising questions on the validity of some aspects of the finance escalator paradigm. In the third article, we focus on outcomes for 1,937 early-stage ventures that received their first investment round in Brazil between 2000 and September 2022. We examine ventures backed by IVCs, CVCs, Angels, and Accelerators, and the results indicate significant differences from the US. In Brazil, IVCs have not shown a pervasive presence as in the US, and the expected positive performance was only true for ventures backed by highly experienced IVCs. Additionally, Angels revealed the best performance for specific early-stage goals. Overall, our analysis of the two markets demonstrates significant differences in the effects VC investors have on the performance of early-stage ventures. The IVC model investor demonstrates superiority over its peers in the American market, while in Brazil, other investors also stand out, especially Angels. These differences may be due to factors in the local economic environment, shaping investors profiles and influencing the way they operate in the country.

The ever-growing awareness of sustainable living brings us to Cleantech - a technology that aims to reduce pollution and enhance efficiency by developing environmentally friendly products and services. Investors nowadays claim they are moving towards investments incorporating CSR and ESG issues, which is closely connected to Cleantech investments. As a growing sector, the most concerning issue is the financing. Since Cleantech was introduced around 2006, the market has seen investors with different profiles. Among them venture capitalists (VC) have played a vital role in supporting Cleantech growth. It is noticeable that state-owned VCs, together with private VCs, have been actively participating in Swedish Cleantech investments. This study sets out to evaluate how public VCs differ from private VCs in terms of investment strategies, in Swedish Cleantech context. The results of the study aim to give an understanding of roles of different VCs in investment evaluations, which affect the decision making of their Cleantech investments. Through Cleantech Scandinavia’s database we have collected information regarding previous investments made in Swedish Cleantech between 2007 and 2011. The results showed that public VCs and private VCs had similar stage preferences, focusing at seed and commercialization stages with little touch on expansion stages. The co-investing activities were mainly targeted at energy related segments in Cleantech. Based on this rough understating about Swedish Cleantech investments we conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 VCs, both public and private, to gain a deeper understanding on their investment strategies. We found that the difference between public and private VCs lies merely in the sense that public VCs operates under governmental guidelines, which they have to comply with when making an investment decision. The majority of the public VCs must co-invest with private investors, which opens a door for private VCs seeking co-financing for Cleantech projects. Particularly public VCs with a regional focus work under both local governments’ and EU’s regulations, which make them restricted to some degree. On the contrary private VCs have the freedom to decide whatever they want under different circumstances. Apart from that, public and private VCs share a great deal of similarities in their investment strategies and evaluations in Cleantech investments.

This paper extends recent research studying biases in venture capitalist's decision-making. We contribute to this literature by analyzing biases arising due to similarity between a venture capitalist and members of a venture team. We summarize the psychological foundations of such similarity effects and derive a set of hypotheses regarding the impact of similarity on the assessement of team quality. Using data from a conjoint experiment with 51 respondents, we find that venture capitalists tend to favor teams that are similar to themselves w.r.t. the type of training and professional experience. Our results have important implications for academics and practitioners alike. (authors' abstract)

Existing variance studies of venture capital (VC) provide an incomplete understanding of VC emergence, emphasizing either macro-level enabling conditions or the efficient fund-level operation of the VC cycle. While important, such perspectives do not provide for a complete understanding of the systemic, processual character of VC emergence. A multistage process model of emergence is developed, linking industry structural characteristics and their underlying processes to precursor resources through the intermediate processes of coproduction and diffusion. Using data from multiple embedded case studies in South Africa and Botswana, this model integrates four processes--simultaneity, coproduction, diffusion, and the VC cycle. These processes are linked by a logic that is dominated by initial conditions and includes elements of rational choice (conditioned by path dependence) and altruism. The establishment of appropriate simultaneity conditions enables the diffusion of the established VC model and related institutions from other populations. In the presence of a market failure, government investors and private fund managers can then cooperate to fill the equity gap, creating the signal necessary for replication of additional VC funds through the functioning of the VC cycle.

Drawing from social network theory, scholars have identified two ways in which social ties influence venture capital investment decisions: directly through personal ties and indirectly through status hierarchies. Previous research has examined these effects independently. Our study is the first to perform a joint examination of the role of social ties and status hierarchies in venture capital decision making. We examine the relative importance of these two mechanisms through an adaptive choice-based conjoint experiment comprising of 3,132 investment decisions made by 86 venture capitalists from the United States and Europe. Our experimental context allows us to explore whether, under high levels of market uncertainty, strong personal ties exert more influence over investment decisions than the presence of a high-status investor in the deal. We also explore the moderating effects that market structure and experience play in shaping these decision processes. Our findings reveal that personal ties are more important in venture capital decision making when compared to the relative status of other venture capital firms participating in the investment syndicate. Building on our main findings, we show that the influence of personal ties is less pronounced in the European investment community, as compared to more densely networked U.S. investors. We also find a U-shaped relationship between venture capitalist experience and the influence of personal networks on investment decisions. (authors' abstract)