The financing of entrepreneurial firms in the UK: a comparison of business angel and venture capitalist investment procedures

Although just a minority of all small firms in the UK, high-growth entrepreneurial ventures are becoming widely recognised for their role in job growth and economic prosperity. However, due to their inherently high-risk nature, many of these early-stage firms experience difficulty in securing outside finance from institutional investors, which ultimately limits their growth and economic potential.Fortunately, two investor types, business angels (BAs) and venture capitalists (VCs), do fund a small proportion of these entrepreneurial ventures, although they, especially BAs, often have much more financial capital available for such investments. Since many aspects of BA and VC investment processes remain unknown, it is hoped that a better understanding of how and why these investors fund particular investments may aid in further lessening the entrepreneurial funding problem.This research study, therefore, conducts the first-ever detailed comparison of the investment criteria and procedures of these two financiers across the full investment process. To make the study more robust, a theoretical base is adopted (based on agency theory) to form research hypotheses which propose that BAs and VCs in the UK may use different approaches to limit potential agency risks in their investments (i.e. the risks associated with an entrepreneur's potential misuse of the investor's money). Utilising data from 40 personal interviews and 262 questionnaire responses, this study empirically supports the main hypothesised notion that, although both investors reduce agency risks at all stages of the investment process, BAs place more emphasis on doing so ex-post investment (the incomplete contracts approach), whilst VCs stress doing so more ex-ante investment (the principal-agent approach).In supporting the hypothese, empirical information is gathered about each investment stage and each investor group's heterogeneity. Possible implications of these findings are then discussed in the hope of aiding, no matter how slightly, the funding efficiency of small entrepreneurial firms.</p

The financing of entrepreneurial firms in the UK: a comparison of business angel and venture capitalist investment procedures

<p>Although just a minority of all small firms in the UK, high-growth entrepreneurial ventures are becoming widely recognised for their role in job growth and economic prosperity. However, due to their inherently high-risk nature, many of these early-stage firms experience difficulty in securing outside finance from institutional investors, which ultimately limits their growth and economic potential.</p><p>Fortunately, two investor types, business angels (BAs) and venture capitalists (VCs), do fund a small proportion of these entrepreneurial ventures, although they, especially BAs, often have much more financial capital available for such investments. Since many aspects of BA and VC investment processes remain unknown, it is hoped that a better understanding of how and why these investors fund particular investments may aid in further lessening the entrepreneurial funding problem.</p><p>This research study, therefore, conducts the first-ever detailed comparison of the investment criteria and procedures of these two financiers across the full investment process. To make the study more robust, a theoretical base is adopted (based on agency theory) to form research hypotheses which propose that BAs and VCs in the UK may use different approaches to limit potential agency risks in their investments (i.e. the risks associated with an entrepreneur's potential misuse of the investor's money). Utilising data from 40 personal interviews and 262 questionnaire responses, this study empirically supports the main hypothesised notion that, although both investors reduce agency risks at all stages of the investment process, BAs place more emphasis on doing so ex-post investment (the incomplete contracts approach), whilst VCs stress doing so more ex-ante investment (the principal-agent approach).</p><p>In supporting the hypothese, empirical information is gathered about each investment stage and each investor group's heterogeneity. Possible implications of these findings are then discussed in the hope of aiding, no matter how slightly, the funding efficiency of small entrepreneurial firms.</p

The financing of entrepreneurial firms in the UK: a comparison of business angel and venture capitalist investment procedures

Although just a minority of all small firms in the UK, high-growth entrepreneurial ventures are becoming widely recognised for their role in job growth and economic prosperity. However, due to their inherently high-risk nature, many of these early-stage firms experience difficulty in securing outside finance from institutional investors, which ultimately limits their growth and economic potential.Fortunately, two investor types, business angels (BAs) and venture capitalists (VCs), do fund a small proportion of these entrepreneurial ventures, although they, especially BAs, often have much more financial capital available for such investments. Since many aspects of BA and VC investment processes remain unknown, it is hoped that a better understanding of how and why these investors fund particular investments may aid in further lessening the entrepreneurial funding problem.This research study, therefore, conducts the first-ever detailed comparison of the investment criteria and procedures of these two financiers across the full investment process. To make the study more robust, a theoretical base is adopted (based on agency theory) to form research hypotheses which propose that BAs and VCs in the UK may use different approaches to limit potential agency risks in their investments (i.e. the risks associated with an entrepreneur's potential misuse of the investor's money). Utilising data from 40 personal interviews and 262 questionnaire responses, this study empirically supports the main hypothesised notion that, although both investors reduce agency risks at all stages of the investment process, BAs place more emphasis on doing so ex-post investment (the incomplete contracts approach), whilst VCs stress doing so more ex-ante investment (the principal-agent approach).In supporting the hypothese, empirical information is gathered about each investment stage and each investor group's heterogeneity. Possible implications of these findings are then discussed in the hope of aiding, no matter how slightly, the funding efficiency of small entrepreneurial firms.</p

Improving the Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Medical Devices

Medical devices (MDs) have distinctive features, such as incremental innovation, dynamic pricing, the learning curve and organizational impact, that need to be considered when they are evaluated. This paper investigates how MDs have been assessed in practice, in order to identify methodological gaps that need to be addressed to improve the decision-making process for their adoption. We used the CHEERS checklist supplemented by some additional categories, to assess the quality of reporting and consideration of the distinctive features of MDs. Two case studies were considered: Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI) representing an emerging technology, and Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICDs) representing a mature technology. Economic evaluation studies published as journal articles or within Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports, were identified through a systematic literature review. A total of 19 studies on TAVI and 41 studies on ICDs were analysed. Learning curve was considered in only 16% of studies on TAVI. Incremental innovation was more frequently mentioned in the studies of ICDs but its impact was considered in only 34% of the cases. Dynamic pricing was the most recognised feature but was empirically tested in less than half of studies of TAVI and only 32% of studies on ICDs. Finally, organizational impact was considered in only one study of ICDs and in almost all studies on TAVI, but none of them estimated its impact. By their very nature, most of the distinctive features of MDs cannot be fully assessed at market entry. However, their potential impact could be modelled, based on the experience with previous MDs, in order to make a preliminary recommendation. Then, well-designed post-market studies could help reducing uncertainties and make policy-makers more confident to achieve conclusive recommendations