From the lab to the stock market? The characteristics and impact of university-oriented seed funds in Europe

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Federico Munari ; Martina Pasquini ; Laura Toschi
• 关键词：University ; oriented seed funds ; VC investments ; University technology transfer ; Funding gap ; Academic spin ; offs ; M13 ; G24 ; G28 ; L26
• 刊名：The Journal of Technology Transfer
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：December 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：40
• 期：6
• 页码：948-975
• 全文大小：615 KB
• 参考文献：Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. E. (2005). Do university policies make a difference? Research Policy, 34(3), 343-47.CrossRef
  Baldini, N., Grimaldi, R., & Sobrero, M. (2006). Institutional changes and the commercialization of academic knowledge: A study of Italian universities-patenting activities between 1965 and 2002. Research Policy, 35(4), 518-32.CrossRef
  Brander, J. A., Egan E., & Hellmann T. F. (2008). Government sponsored versus private venture capital: Canadian evidence. NBER working paper no. 14029.
  Bruneel, J., Ratinho, T., Clarysse, B., & Groen, A. (2012). The evolution of business incubators: Comparing demand and supply of business incubation services across different incubator generations. Technovation, 32(2), 110-21.CrossRef
  Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Mustar, P., & Knockaert, M. (2007). Academic spin-offs, formal technology transfer and capital raising. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 609-40.CrossRef
  Colombo, M. G., & Delmastro, M. (2002). How effective are technology incubators? Evidence from Italy. Research Policy, 31(7), 1103-122.CrossRef
  Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R. R., Rosenberg, N., & Sampat, B. N. (2002). How do university inventions get into practice? Management Science, 48(1), 61-2.CrossRef
  Conti, A., & Gaule, P. (2011). Is the US outperforming Europe in university technology licensing? A new perspective on the European Paradox. Research Policy, 40(1), 123-35.CrossRef
  Cressy, R., Munari, F., & Malipiero, A. (2007). Playing to their strengths? Evidence that specialization confers competitive advantage in the private equity industry. Journal of Corporate Finance, 13, 647-69.CrossRef
  Cressy, R., Munari, F., & Malipiero, A. (2011). Creative destruction? Evidence that buyouts shed jobs to raise returns. Venture Capital, 13(1), 1-2.
  Croce, A., Martí, J., & Murtinu, S. (2013). The impact of venture capital on the productivity growth of European high-tech firms: ‘Screening-or ‘value added-effect? Journal of Business Venturing, 28(4), 489-10.CrossRef
  Cumming, D. (2006). The determinants of venture capital portfolio size: Empirical evidence. Journal of Business, 79(3), 1083-126.MathSciNet CrossRef
  Cumming, D., Fleming, G., & Schwienbacher, A. (2008). Financial intermediaries, ownership structure and the provision of venture capital to SMEs: Evidence from Japan. Small Business Economics, 31, 59-2.CrossRef
  Cumming, D., & Johan, S. (2009). Pre-seed government venture capital funds. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 7(10), 26-6.CrossRef
  Cumming, D. J., & MaCIntosh, J. G. (2003). A cross-country comparison of full and partial venture capital exits. Journal of Banking & Finance, 27(3), 511-48.
  D’Este, P., & Perkmann, M. (2011). Why do academics engage with industry? The entrepreneurial university and individual motivations. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36, 316-39.CrossRef
  Geuna, A., & Rossi, F. (2011). Changes to university IPR regulations in Europe and the impact on academic patenting. Research Policy, 40(8), 1068-076.CrossRef
  Giuri, P., Munari, F., & Pasquini, M. (2013). What determines university patent commercialization? Empirical evidence on the role of IPR ownership. Industry and Innovation, 20(5), 488-02.CrossRef
  Gompers, P. A., Kovner, A., & Lerner, J. (2009). Specialization and success: Evidence from venture capital. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 18(3), 817-44.CrossRef
  Gompers, P. A., & Lerner, J. (1999). What drives venture capital fundraising? NBER working paper series, no. 6906.
  Gulbranson, C. A., & Audretsch, D. B. (2008). Proof of concept centers: Accelerating the commercialization of university innovation. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33(2), 249-58.CrossRef
  Hayter, C. (2011). In search of the profit-maximizing actor: motivations and definitions of success from nascent academic entrepreneurs. Journal of Technology Transfer, 36(3), 340-52.CrossRef
  Hochberg, Y., Ljungqvist, A. P., & Lu, Y. (2007). Whom you know matters: Venture capital networks and investment performance. Journal of Finance, 62(1), 251-01.
  Hsu, D. H. (2007). Experienced entrepreneurial founders, organisational capital and venture capital funding. Research Policy, 36, 722-41.CrossRef
  Hulsink, W., Suddle, K., & Hessels, S. J. A. (2008). Science and technology-based regional entrepreneurship in the Netherlands: Building support structures for business creation and growth entrepreneurship. ERIM report series research in management, no. ERS-2008-048-ORG.
  J??skel?inen, M., Maula, M. V. J., & Murray, G. C. (2007). Profit distribution and compensation structures in publicly and privately funded hybrid venture capital funds. Research Policy, 36, 913-29.CrossRef
  Jacob, M., Lundqvist, M., & Hellsmark, H. (2003). Entrepreneurial transformations in the Swedish university system: The case of Chalmers University of Technology. Research
• 作者单位：Federico Munari (1)
  Martina Pasquini (2)
  Laura Toschi (1)
  
  1. Department of Management, University of Bologna, Via Capo di Lucca, 34, 40126, Bologna, Italy
  2. IE Business School, IE University, Calle María de Molina, 31 bis, 28006, Madrid, Spain
  
• 刊物类别：Business and Economics
• 刊物主题：Economics
  Business
  Technology Management
  Industrial Organization
  Management
  Commercial Law
  Economic Growth
  
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1573-7047

文摘

This work investigates the role of university and PRO-oriented seed funds (USFs)—VC funds with an explicit mission to make investments in academic spin-offs and support technology transfer—as instruments for addressing funding gaps and facilitating the commercialization of academic technologies. We first offer an overview of USFs in Europe, highlighting their heterogeneity and principal characteristics. Second, we exploit a unique data set of 1,497 start-ups (including 733 USF-backed start-ups and another 764 start-ups backed by other VC funds) to analyze how USF-backed companies perform in terms of exit rates, staging, and syndication levels when compared with non-USF-backed companies. Empirical evidence suggests that USF-backed companies perform better in staging and syndication but worse in exit rates. Moreover, our analyses show that, within the group of USF-backed companies, the ones that can attract more follow-on funding and investors are those financed by USFs that are internally managed by a universities/PROs and are linked to universities with high scientific rankings. Keywords University-oriented seed funds VC investments University technology transfer Funding gap Academic spin-offs