Establishing a new UK finance escalator for innovative SMEs: the roles of the Enterprise Capital Funds and Angel Co-investment Fund

This paper examines UK public policy addressing the seed and early stage equity finance gap since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Drawing on lessons learned from recent studies of UK and international government equity schemes, two contemporary models of government backed equity finance are examined. The focus is on the Enterprise Capital Funds (ECFs) and the Angel Co-investment Fund (ACF), the UK government’s main schemes operating in the sub-£2m equity finance gap to address the capital requirements for developing the UK’s young, potential high growth businesses. The paper highlights the shortcomings of traditional interim fund performance analysis and presents current demand and supply side evidence that establishes that these schemes are making attributable impacts on their portfolio businesses and the wider UK economy. It also demonstrates that they are playing important roles in the establishment of a new post GFC UK finance escalator. However, whilst these schemes were found to be currently complementary and effective, their future roles within the UK’s evolving post GFC seed and early stage equity markets are also considered. Key Words: Government Equity Schemes, Venture Capital, Potential High Growth SME

Financing SME growth in the UK: meeting the challenges after the global financial crisis

In the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis new forms of SME finance are emerging in the place of traditional banking and equity finance sources. This Special Issue has its origins in a conference organised in June 2014 by the Centre for Enterprise and Economic Development Research (CEEDR) at Middlesex University Business School, where all but the final two papers were presented. The Conference was designed to provide a timely forum for leading academics, practitioners and policy makers to disseminate current research and practitioner knowledge exploring finance gaps and how best to address the financing needs of small high growth potential businesses

The Emergence of the ‘Social Licence to Operate’ in the Extractive Industries?

The ‘social licence to operate’ (SLO) is a construct that has potential to transform the mining sector internationally. The SLO is increasing in importance because it can reduce all risks during the energy project life-cycle that are detrimental to the success of energy projects. This paper analyses how SLO's are at first perceived by interdisciplinary energy scholars before examining the legal nature of an SLO and looking at the effectiveness of such an agreement from the perspectives of both the energy company and the local community. In essence, this research seeks to address what is the legal basis of an SLO. Further, an original case study on Columbia is presented which highlights the SLO in action and its transformative effect. The paper also engages in new debates around the relationship of SLOs to related energy concepts such as the energy justice and environmental impact statements, which are also vital to energy infrastructure developmen

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of issuing longer versus shorter duration (3-month vs. 28-day) prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions: systematic review and economic modelling.

BACKGROUND: To reduce expenditure on, and wastage of, drugs, some commissioners have encouraged general practitioners to issue shorter prescriptions, typically 28 days in length; however, the evidence base for this recommendation is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of shorter versus longer prescriptions for people with stable chronic conditions treated in primary care. DESIGN/DATA SOURCES: The design of the study comprised three elements. First, a systematic review comparing 28-day prescriptions with longer prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions treated in primary care, evaluating any relevant clinical outcomes, adherence to treatment, costs and cost-effectiveness. Databases searched included MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Searches were from database inception to October 2015 (updated search to June 2016 in PubMed). Second, a cost analysis of medication wastage associated with < 60-day and ≥ 60-day prescriptions for five patient cohorts over an 11-year period from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Third, a decision model adapting three existing models to predict costs and effects of differing adherence levels associated with 28-day versus 3-month prescriptions in three clinical scenarios. REVIEW METHODS: In the systematic review, from 15,257 unique citations, 54 full-text papers were reviewed and 16 studies were included, five of which were abstracts and one of which was an extended conference abstract. None was a randomised controlled trial: 11 were retrospective cohort studies, three were cross-sectional surveys and two were cost studies. No information on health outcomes was available. RESULTS: An exploratory meta-analysis based on six retrospective cohort studies suggested that lower adherence was associated with 28-day prescriptions (standardised mean difference -0.45, 95% confidence interval -0.65 to -0.26). The cost analysis showed that a statistically significant increase in medication waste was associated with longer prescription lengths. However, when accounting for dispensing fees and prescriber time, longer prescriptions were found to be cost saving compared with shorter prescriptions. Prescriber time was the largest component of the calculated cost savings to the NHS. The decision modelling suggested that, in all three clinical scenarios, longer prescription lengths were associated with lower costs and higher quality-adjusted life-years. LIMITATIONS: The available evidence was found to be at a moderate to serious risk of bias. All of the studies were conducted in the USA, which was a cause for concern in terms of generalisability to the UK. No evidence of the direct impact of prescription length on health outcomes was found. The cost study could investigate prescriptions issued only; it could not assess patient adherence to those prescriptions. Additionally, the cost study was based on products issued only and did not account for underlying patient diagnoses. A lack of good-quality evidence affected our decision modelling strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Although the quality of the evidence was poor, this study found that longer prescriptions may be less costly overall, and may be associated with better adherence than 28-day prescriptions in patients with chronic conditions being treated in primary care. FUTURE WORK: There is a need to more reliably evaluate the impact of differing prescription lengths on adherence, on patient health outcomes and on total costs to the NHS. The priority should be to identify patients with particular conditions or characteristics who should receive shorter or longer prescriptions. To determine the need for any further research, an expected value of perfect information analysis should be performed. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027042. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme

The NatWest BFA franchise survey

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:6054.510(1995) / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo