投资邻近性与风险资本回报

C. Krishnan, Daniel X. Nguyen
{"title":"投资邻近性与风险资本回报","authors":"C. Krishnan, Daniel X. Nguyen","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3535961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Using a large dataset of 82,818 investments in start-up firms from December 1965 through August 2019, we document detailed descriptive statistics. The biggest group of investors are venture capital firms (about 79% of all observations). The number of all venture investments were few in the 60’s and 70’s, but peaked in the 90’s. The majority of in-state investments are found clustered in California (with the San Francisco VC Hub), Massachusetts (with the Boston VC Hub) and New York. Out-of-state investments are more widely spread-out. Returns generated from early round investing to late round decreases generally: early investors get a higher return than late stage investors, and IPO exits entail the highest return. We find that geographical proximity is significantly and positively associated with cumulative returns or annualized returns. This result holds whether we use actual distance (in km) between the VC investment firm HQ and portfolio firm HQ, or a cross-region indicator variable when the portfolio firm HQ is out-of-state as compared to VC investment firm HQ. Using both univariate as well as multivariate tests that control for other possible determinants of returns, we find that cross-region variable is a strong indicator of returns, being negative and statistically significant across all exits or only successful exits, across VC investor types, across entry timing – whether early stage or late stage, whether the VC firm HQ location is in a previously-documented VC hub or not, and whether the investment is to a previously-documented favored VC industry or not. The relation between investment proximity and returns continues to be robust even when we include additional portfolio company variables, and in a matched-sample analysis where we pair each proximate investment with a matched distant investment. We find that VC Director and other outside directors as a proportion of all Directors on the boards on portfolio companies is significantly higher, on average, for in-state and shorter distance investments as compared to out-of-state or longer distance investments, indicating better involvement by VCs in their more proximate investments. The percentage of VC-appointed and other outside directors in a portfolio company is also significantly and positively associated with both cumulative and annualized returns, indicating better governance, and better monitoring by VCs in their more proximate investments.","PeriodicalId":204440,"journal":{"name":"Corporate Governance & Finance eJournal","volume":"280 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investment Proximity and Venture Capital Returns\",\"authors\":\"C. Krishnan, Daniel X. Nguyen\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3535961\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Using a large dataset of 82,818 investments in start-up firms from December 1965 through August 2019, we document detailed descriptive statistics. The biggest group of investors are venture capital firms (about 79% of all observations). The number of all venture investments were few in the 60’s and 70’s, but peaked in the 90’s. The majority of in-state investments are found clustered in California (with the San Francisco VC Hub), Massachusetts (with the Boston VC Hub) and New York. Out-of-state investments are more widely spread-out. Returns generated from early round investing to late round decreases generally: early investors get a higher return than late stage investors, and IPO exits entail the highest return. We find that geographical proximity is significantly and positively associated with cumulative returns or annualized returns. This result holds whether we use actual distance (in km) between the VC investment firm HQ and portfolio firm HQ, or a cross-region indicator variable when the portfolio firm HQ is out-of-state as compared to VC investment firm HQ. Using both univariate as well as multivariate tests that control for other possible determinants of returns, we find that cross-region variable is a strong indicator of returns, being negative and statistically significant across all exits or only successful exits, across VC investor types, across entry timing – whether early stage or late stage, whether the VC firm HQ location is in a previously-documented VC hub or not, and whether the investment is to a previously-documented favored VC industry or not. The relation between investment proximity and returns continues to be robust even when we include additional portfolio company variables, and in a matched-sample analysis where we pair each proximate investment with a matched distant investment. We find that VC Director and other outside directors as a proportion of all Directors on the boards on portfolio companies is significantly higher, on average, for in-state and shorter distance investments as compared to out-of-state or longer distance investments, indicating better involvement by VCs in their more proximate investments. The percentage of VC-appointed and other outside directors in a portfolio company is also significantly and positively associated with both cumulative and annualized returns, indicating better governance, and better monitoring by VCs in their more proximate investments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":204440,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Corporate Governance & Finance eJournal\",\"volume\":\"280 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Corporate Governance & Finance eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3535961\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corporate Governance & Finance eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3535961","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

利用1965年12月至2019年8月期间对初创公司的82,818笔投资的大型数据集,我们记录了详细的描述性统计数据。最大的投资者群体是风险投资公司(约占所有观察数据的79%)。所有风险投资的数量在60年代和70年代很少,但在90年代达到顶峰。大多数州内投资集中在加利福尼亚州(有旧金山风险投资中心)、马萨诸塞州(有波士顿风险投资中心)和纽约。州外投资的分布更为广泛。从早期到后期的投资回报率普遍降低:早期投资者的回报高于后期投资者,IPO退出的回报最高。我们发现地理邻近性与累积收益或年化收益显著正相关。无论我们使用风险投资公司总部与投资组合公司总部之间的实际距离(以公里为单位),还是当投资组合公司总部与风险投资公司总部相比位于州外时,使用跨区域指标变量,这个结果都成立。使用单变量和控制其他可能决定回报的多变量测试,我们发现跨区域变量是回报的一个强有力的指标,在所有退出或仅成功退出,风险投资者类型,进入时间(无论是早期还是后期,风险投资公司的总部位置是否在先前记录的风险投资中心)中都是负的和统计显著的。以及投资对象是否为之前有记录的受青睐的风投行业。投资接近度和回报之间的关系仍然是稳健的,即使我们包括额外的投资组合公司变量,并且在匹配样本分析中,我们将每个近距离投资与匹配的远距离投资配对。我们发现,与州外或长途投资相比,在州内和短途投资中,VC董事和其他外部董事占投资组合公司董事会所有董事的比例平均要高得多,这表明VC在更近的投资中参与得更多。在投资组合公司中,风投任命的董事和其他外部董事的比例也与累积和年化回报显著正相关,表明风投在更近的投资中有更好的治理和更好的监控。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Investment Proximity and Venture Capital Returns
Using a large dataset of 82,818 investments in start-up firms from December 1965 through August 2019, we document detailed descriptive statistics. The biggest group of investors are venture capital firms (about 79% of all observations). The number of all venture investments were few in the 60’s and 70’s, but peaked in the 90’s. The majority of in-state investments are found clustered in California (with the San Francisco VC Hub), Massachusetts (with the Boston VC Hub) and New York. Out-of-state investments are more widely spread-out. Returns generated from early round investing to late round decreases generally: early investors get a higher return than late stage investors, and IPO exits entail the highest return. We find that geographical proximity is significantly and positively associated with cumulative returns or annualized returns. This result holds whether we use actual distance (in km) between the VC investment firm HQ and portfolio firm HQ, or a cross-region indicator variable when the portfolio firm HQ is out-of-state as compared to VC investment firm HQ. Using both univariate as well as multivariate tests that control for other possible determinants of returns, we find that cross-region variable is a strong indicator of returns, being negative and statistically significant across all exits or only successful exits, across VC investor types, across entry timing – whether early stage or late stage, whether the VC firm HQ location is in a previously-documented VC hub or not, and whether the investment is to a previously-documented favored VC industry or not. The relation between investment proximity and returns continues to be robust even when we include additional portfolio company variables, and in a matched-sample analysis where we pair each proximate investment with a matched distant investment. We find that VC Director and other outside directors as a proportion of all Directors on the boards on portfolio companies is significantly higher, on average, for in-state and shorter distance investments as compared to out-of-state or longer distance investments, indicating better involvement by VCs in their more proximate investments. The percentage of VC-appointed and other outside directors in a portfolio company is also significantly and positively associated with both cumulative and annualized returns, indicating better governance, and better monitoring by VCs in their more proximate investments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
What Do Outside CEOs Really Do? Evidence from Plant-Level Data Energy Finance The Pricing of Acquired Intangibles Inclusive Managers How Do Independent Directors View Generalist vs. Specialist CEOs? Evidence from an Exogenous Regulatory Shock
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1