venture capital research paper

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How Venture Capitalists Make Decisions

• Paul Gompers,
• Will Gornall,
• Steven N. Kaplan,
• Ilya A. Strebulaev

For decades now, venture capitalists have played a crucial role in the economy by financing high-growth start-ups. While the companies they’ve backed—Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google, and more—are constantly in the headlines, very little is known about what VCs actually do and how they create value. To pull the curtain back, Paul Gompers of Harvard Business School, Will Gornall of the Sauder School of Business, Steven N. Kaplan of the Chicago Booth School of Business, and Ilya A. Strebulaev of Stanford Business School conducted what is perhaps the most comprehensive survey of VC firms to date. In this article, they share their findings, offering details on how VCs hunt for deals, assess and winnow down opportunities, add value to portfolio companies, structure agreements with founders, and operate their own firms. These insights into VC practices can be helpful to entrepreneurs trying to raise capital, corporate investment arms that want to emulate VCs’ success, and policy makers who seek to build entrepreneurial ecosystems in their communities.

An inside look at an opaque process

Over the past 30 years, venture capital has been a vital source of financing for high-growth start-ups. Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Gilead Sciences, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Whole Foods, and countless other innovative companies owe their early success in part to the capital and coaching provided by VCs. Venture capital has become an essential driver of economic value. Consider that in 2015 public companies that had received VC backing accounted for 20% of the market capitalization and 44% of the research and development spending of U.S. public companies.

• PG Paul Gompers is the Eugene Holman Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.
• WG Will Gornall is an assistant professor at the University of British Columbia Sauder School of Business.
• SK Steven N. Kaplan is the Neubauer Family Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance and the Kessenich E.P. Faculty Director of the Polsky Center for Entrepreneurship at the University of Chicago.
• IS Ilya A. Strebulaev is the David S. Lobel Professor of Private Equity and a professor of finance at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is also the founder of the Stanford GSB Venture Capital Initiative and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research.

Partner Center

16 research papers every VC should know

Posted by Shaun Gold | October 10, 2022

Understanding venture capital is more than reading decks and tweaking your fund’s investment thesis. It requires an edge that comes from knowledge. Here are thirteen of the best research papers on VC to help you obtain that edge.

Table of Contents

1. many of the largest u.s. companies owe a vc.

VC powers the U.S. economy

Will Gornall (University of British Columbia (UBC) - Sauder School of Business) and Ilya A. Strebulaev (Stanford University - Graduate School of Business; National Bureau of Economic Research) showcase that Venture capital-backed companies account for 41% of total US market capitalization and 62% of US public companies’ R&D spending. Among public companies founded within the last fifty years, VC-backed companies account for half in number, three quarters by value, and more than 92% of R&D spending and patent value. This only transpired after the 1970s ERISA reforms. The paper further shows that US VC industry is causally responsible for the rise of one-fifth of the current largest 300 US public companies and that three-quarters of the largest US VC-backed companies would not have existed or achieved their current scale without an active VC industry.

2. Geographic Concentration of VC Investors in a Syndicate is Correlated to Deal Structure, Board Representation, Follow-On Rounds, and Exit Performance

Geographic concentration of venture capital investors, corporate monitoring, and firm performance. 

A May 2019 Dartmouth paper by Jun-Koo Kang, Yingxiang Li, and Seungjoon Oh finds that compared to VC investors that are geographically dispersed, those that are geographically concentrated use less intensive staged financing and fewer convertible securities in their investments, are less likely to have board representation in their portfolio firms, and are more likely to form successive syndicates in follow-up rounds. Moreover, their firms experience a greater likelihood of successful exits, lower IPO underpricing, and higher IPO valuation.

3. VC firms that lack diversity perform 11%-30% lower on average

VC firms that lack diversity pay a higher cost

A 2017 paper from Paul A. Gompers and Sophie Q. Wang of Harvard documents the patterns of labor market participation by women and ethnic minorities in venture capital firms and as founders of venture capital-backed startups. If the partners of the VC firm are from the same school, the fund has a lower performance of 11%. If the partners have the same ethnicity, the fund has a lower performance of 30%. If the fund is all men, there is a 20% lower performance.

4. Venture Capital infusion harms non-VC backed industries in communities

The Silicon Valley Syndrome

A 2019 paper from Doris Kwon and Olav Sorenson of Yale University demonstrates that an infusion of venture capital in a region actually is more harmful than beneficial. The paper illustrates that VC infusion in a region is associated with declines in entrepreneurship, employment, and average incomes in other industries in the tradable sector while at the same time an increase in entrepreneurship and employment in the non-tradable sector and income equality overall in the region.

For example, the boom of Silicon Valley caused real estate prices in the Bay Area to rise which priced out low-salaried workers in the non technology sector. This caused other firms to lose talent to a handful of Silicon Valley technology companies. This is similar to the Netherlands in the 1960s after the discovery of natural gas which led to booming petroleum exports and the value of the Dutch currency to rise. Yet this also caused harm to other firms due to rising operating costs and to them losing workers to the natural gas extraction industry. The economy was left more vulnerable overall.This became known as “Dutch Disease.”

5. VC’s who’ve been fortunate to succeed once keep succeeding as initial success brings them quality deal flow

The persistent effect of initial success

A 2019 paper from Sampsa Samila (IESE Business School), Olav Sorenson (Yale), and Ramana Nanda (Harvard) illustrated that each additional initial public offering (IPO) among a VC firm’s first ten investments predicts as much as an 8% higher IPO rate on its subsequent investments, though this effect erodes with time. Successful outcomes result in large part from investing in the right places at the right times; VC firms do not persist in their ability to choose the right places and times to invest; but early success does lead to investing in later rounds and in larger syndicates. This pattern of results seems most consistent with the idea that initial success improves access to deal flow. That preferential access raises the quality of subsequent investments, perpetuating performance differences in initial investments. What does all this mean?

Get lucky once and everyone thinks you have the right stuff which results in more opportunities and quality deal flow.

6. Half of VC investments are predictably bad—based on information known at the time of investment

Predictably Bad Investments: Evidence from Venture Capitalists

Diag Davenport of the University of Chicago Booth School of Business argued in a 2022 paper that institutional investors fail to invest efficiently. By combining a novel dataset of over 16,000 startups (representing over $9 billion in investments) with machine learning methods to evaluate the decisions of early-stage investors, Davenport showed that approximately half of the investments were predictably bad. This was based on information known at the time of investment and that the predicted return of the investment was less than readily available outside options. Suggestive evidence also illustrated that an over-reliance on the founders’ background is one mechanism underlying these choices. The results suggest that high stakes and firm sophistication are not sufficient for efficient use of information in capital allocation decisions.

7. Getting funded by a reputable VC with a strong brand adds a lot of value

This paper by Darden pressor Ting Xu, Shai Bernstein of Harvard Business School, Kunal Mehta of AngelList LLC, and Richard Townsend of the University of California, San Diego  analyzed a field experiment conducted on AngelList Talent. During the experiment, AngelList randomly informed job seekers of whether a startup was funded by a top-tier investor and/or was funded recently. Startups received more interest when information about top-tier investors was provided. Information that included the most recent funding amount had no effect. The effect of top-tier investors is not driven by low-quality candidates and is stronger for earlier-stage startups. Essentially, the potential employees cared about who funded it and not the amount. The results demonstrated that venture capitalists can add value passively, simply by attaching their names to startups.

8. VCs invest in the team rather than the product or technology

How do venture capitalists make decisions?

This paper was written by a rockstar team composed of Steven Kaplan, Neubauer Distinguished Service Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and Kessenich E.P. Faculty Director of the Polsky Center, along with Paul Gompers at Harvard University Graduate School of Business; Will Gornall at the Sauder School of Business at the University of British Columbia; and Ilya Strebulaev at the Stanford University Graduate School of Business. They surveyed 885 institutional venture capitalists at 681 firms about practices in pre-investment screening, structuring investments, and post-investment monitoring and advising. The results showed that VCs see the management team as somewhat more important than business-related characteristics such as product or technology. VCs also view the team as more important than the business to the ultimate success or failure of their investments. The VCs rated deal selection as the most important factor contributing to value creation, more than deal sourcing or post-investment advising.

9. VC has real limitations in its ability to advance substantial technological change

Venture Capital’s Role in Financing Innovation: What We Know and How Much We Still Need to Learn  

In this paper, Harvard professors Josh Lerner and Ramana Nanda argue that despite the growth VC brings into technology companies, there remain real limitations in regard to technological change. They are concerned about the very narrow band of technological innovations that fit the requirements of institutional venture capital investors; the relatively small number of venture capital investors who hold and shape the direction of a substantial fraction of capital that is deployed into financing radical technological change; and the relaxation in recent years of the intense emphasis on corporate governance by venture capital firms. They believe this may have ongoing and detrimental effects on the rate and direction of innovation in the broader economy.   

10. More collaborative experience among VCs leads to M&A while less leads to an IPO

The Past Is Prologue? Venture-Capital Syndicates’ Collaborative Experience and Start-Up Exits  

Dan Wang of Columbia, Emily Cox Pahnke of the University of Washington, and Rory McDonald of Harvard argue that as prior collaborative experience within a group of VCs increases, a jointly funded start-up is more likely to exit by acquisition (which they call a focused success); with less prior experience among the group of VCs, a jointly funded start-up is more likely to exit by initial public offering (which they term a broadcast success). This tested their hypotheses using data from Crunchbase on a sample of almost 11,000 U.S. start-ups backed by venture-capital (VC) firms, using the VCs’ previous collaborative experience to predict the type of success that the start-ups will experience.

11. Solo-founded startups are strongly associated with more rapid growth to unicorn status

In a paper by Greg Fisher, Suresh Kotha, and S. Joseph Chin, startups that have reached unicorn status are thoroughly examined. This is done through prior research on growth and valuation of unicorns as well as examining the dynamics to view the variations in which they reach a billion dollars in valuation. Ultimately, the paper demonstrates that the founder's age, gender, and affiliation with the Ivy League were not significantly related to the growth of unicorns. Furthermore, solo-founded startups are more associated with rapid growth to a unicorn valuation.

12. Warm introductions lead to 13x higher chance of funding

UK Venture Capital and Female Founders Report

Alice Hu Wagner, Calum Paterson, and Francesca Warner illustrate that startup decks that come in warm are far more likely to get funded. This rewards founders who have a great network and are connected but harms the multitude who lack these connections. If founders lack a network of investors, bankers, angels and other founders, fewer will be able to reach a proper VC.  

13. Venture capitalists should stay in their lane

Venture capitalists are specialists.

Tyler J. Hull argues that VC performance is much better in the sub-industry they focus on rather than sub-industries where they have limited experience. And they underperform more the further outside their focus they go. Co-investing with another venture capitalist that has the same investment focus as the investment firm partially mitigates this effect. Additionally, the negative effect is shown to be more pronounced the greater the degree of difference between the venture capital’s preferred investment industry and the investment industry.   

In other words, VCs should stay in their lane and make investments in their area of focus.

14. Data makes all the difference

Hatcher+ and need for data driven forecasting. 

Hatcher+ is a globally diversified, multi-sector, early-stage technology investment fund founded in 2018. Based in Singapore, the managers use a combination of data science, modeling, workflow automation, and machine learning to execute a global venture investment strategy capable of unprecedented scale in terms of the number of investments. As a result, they produced a paper on venture capital transaction history to define and refine its approach to early stage investing. Via their own research, they discovered that data quality is actionable for a data-driven VC firm, accelerator rounds provide a strong opportunity for investment, deal flow is essential (especially for firms with large portfolios), large portfolios with follow on increases viability and adds round diversification, and that larger portfolios by investment count are key to early stage success.

15. Founders can become VCs but that doesn’t guarantee success

Success and failure as a founder plays a role if a founder becomes a VC

Paul A. Gompers & Vladimir Mukharlyamov explore whether or not the experience as a founder of a venture capital-backed startup influences the performance of founders who become venture capitalists. They discovered that almost 7% of VCs were previously founders of a venture-backed startup. Having a successful exit (an acquisition or IPO) as well as being male and white increased the probability that a founder transitioned into a career in VC. Successful founder-VCs have investment success rates that are 6.5 percentage points higher than professional VCs while unsuccessful founder-VCs have investment success rates that are 4 percentage points lower than professional VCs. The primary benefit of a founder-VC is not deal flow but the value add that they provide to their portfolio companies.

16. Successful founders have similar personality traits

The impact of founder personalities on startup success

Paul McCarty et alii. ran a large-scale study over 21,000 startups worldwide and found that personality traits of startup founders differ from that of the population at large. Successful entrepreneurs show high openness to adventure, like being the centre of attention, have higher activity levels. Six different personality types appear for founders: Accomplisher, Leader, Operator, Developer, Engineer, Fighter.

Venture capital is still a young industry and has more bragging rights than most realize. By effectively reading the research conducted by some of the leading academics at top universities, you can give yourself an edge and competitive advantage. This doesn’t cost but I promise you that it will pay.

Did we miss a great research paper that you think VCs should add to their arsenal of knowledge? Email me at [email protected] and I will add it.

OpenVC is a radically open platform that helps tech founders connect with the right investors.

POPULAR Posts

An LP take on VC portfolio construction

How to write a top 1% cold email to VCs

Pitch deck for startups - 9 templates compared

How to Model a Venture Capital Fund

How to whitelist OpenVC

Startup financial models - 12 templates compared

You might also enjoy

Why Seed Funding Is a Pool Party

You might think you’re fundraising, but what you’re actually doing is throwing a pool party. Venture funding dynamics in the Seed Phase have evolved differently than venture capital at Series A and beyond. A Seed fund would almost never take the whole round, even if it could.

Launching a VC fund? Why not a FAST instead?

With more funds in the market than ever, managers need to stay relevant and develop new models. Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology are coming to the forefront of the £10tn UK Asset Management industry. With that in mind, let me introduce you to FAST, a plug-and-play tokenized investment vehicle for hands-on syndicates and accelerators.

Roadmap to a SaaS IPO: how to unicorn your way to $100M revenue

Uncover 7 golden metrics leading to a SaaS IPO - timeframe, growth rate, EBITDA, funding, exit milestones, sales, and headcount.

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

The role of venture capital investment in startups’ sustainable growth and performance: focusing on absorptive capacity and venture capitalists’ reputation.

1. Introduction

2. background: the five stages of startup growth, 3. theory and hypotheses development, 3.1. signaling effects of venture capital investment on startups, 3.2. moderating effects of startups’ learning capability: absorptive capacity, 3.3. moderating effects of the reputation of vc companies, 4.2. variables, 6. discussion, author contributions, conflicts of interest.

• Barry, C.B.; Muscarella, C.J.; Peavy Iii, J.W.; Vetsuypens, M.R. The role of venture capital in the creation of public companies: Evidence from the going-public process. J. Financ. Econ. 1990 , 27 , 447–471. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kaplan, S.N.; Strömberg, P. Financial contracting theory meets the real world: An empirical analysis of venture capital contracts. Rev. Econ. Stud. 2003 , 70 , 281–315. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kortum, S.; Lerner, J. Assessing the contribution of venture capital to innovation. RAND J. Econ. 2000 , 31 , 674–692. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Hellmann, T.; Puri, M. Venture capital and the professionalization of start-up firms: Empirical evidence. J. Financ. 2002 , 57 , 169–197. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, S.; Zhou, H. Staged financing in venture capital: Moral hazard and risks. J. Corp. Financ. 2004 , 10 , 131–155. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gompers, P.; Lerner, J. The venture capital revolution. J. Econ. Perspect. 2001 , 15 , 145–168. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Byers, B. Relationship between venture capitalist and entrepreneur. In Pratt’s Guide to Venture Capital Sources ; Venture Economics: Wellesly Hills, MA, USA, 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bygrave, W.D.; Timmons, J.A. Venture Capital at the Crossroads ; Harvard Business School Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gompers, P.A. Optimal investment, monitoring, and the staging of venture capital. J. Financ. 1995 , 50 , 1461–1489. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Maula, M.; Murray, G. Complementary value-adding roles of corporate venture capital and independent venture capital investors. J. Biolaw Bus. 2001 , 5 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Teece, D.J. Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Policy 1986 , 15 , 285–305. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Antarciuc, E.; Zhu, Q.; Almarri, J.; Zhao, S.; Feng, Y.; Agyemang, M. Sustainable venture capital investments: An enabler investigation. Sustainability 2018 , 10 , 1204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Wang, G.; Li, L.; Jiang, X. Entrepreneurial business ties and new venture growth: The mediating role of resource acquiring, bundling and leveraging. Sustainability 2019 , 11 , 244. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Repullo, R.; Suarez, J. Venture capital finance: A security design approach. Rev. Financ. 2004 , 8 , 75–108. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wright, M.; Lockett, A. The structure and management of alliances: Syndication in the venture capital industry. J. Manag. Stud. 2003 , 40 , 2073–2102. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gompers, P.; Lerner, J. An analysis of compensation in the US venture capital partnership. J. Financ. Econ. 1999 , 51 , 3–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Jain, B.A.; Kini, O. Venture capitalist participation and the post-issue operating performance of IPO firms. Manag. Decis. Econ. 1995 , 16 , 593–606. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sapienza, H.J. When do venture capitalists add value? J. Bus. Ventur. 1992 , 7 , 9–27. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Burgel, O.; Fier, A.; Licht, G.; Murray, G.C. Internationalisation of high-tech start-ups and fast growth-evidence for UK and Germany. Zew-Discuss. Pap. 2000 , 00–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Manigart, S.; Van Hyfte, W. Post-investment evolution of Belgian venture capital backed companies: An empirical study. In Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 1999. Nineteenth Annual Entrepreneurship Research Conference ; Babson Center for Entrepreneurial Studies: Babson Park, MA, USA, 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anton, J.J.; Yao, D.A. Expropriation and inventions: Appropriable rents in the absence of property rights. Am. Econ. Rev. 1994 , 84 , 190–209. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bhattacharya, S.; Ritter, J.R. Innovation and communication: Signalling with partial disclosure. Rev. Econ. Stud. 1983 , 50 , 331–346. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ueda, M. Banks versus venture capital: Project evaluation, screening, and expropriation. J. Financ. 2004 , 59 , 601–621. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yosha, O. Information disclosure costs and the choice of financing source. J. Financ. Intermediation 1995 , 4 , 3–20. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruhnka, J.C.; Young, J.E. A venture capital model of the development process for new ventures. J. Bus. Ventur. 1987 , 2 , 167–184. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Valentim, L.; Lisboa, J.V.; Franco, M. Knowledge management practices and absorptive capacity in small and medium-sized enterprises: Is there really a linkage? RD Manag. 2016 , 46 , 711–725. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ruhnka, J.C.; Young, J.E. Some hypotheses about risk in venture capital investing. J. Bus. Ventur. 1991 , 6 , 115–133. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baum, J.A.; Oliver, C. Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Adm. Sci. Q. 1991 , 187–218. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cox Pahnke, E.; McDonald, R.; Wang, D.; Hallen, B. Exposed: Venture capital, competitor ties, and entrepreneurial innovation. Acad. Manag. J. 2015 , 58 , 1334–1360. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ueda, M. Bank versus venture capital. Upf Econ. Bus. Work. Pap. 2000 , 522. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Lukkarinen, A.; Teich, J.E.; Wallenius, H.; Wallenius, J. Success drivers of online equity crowdfunding campaigns. Decis. Support Syst. 2016 , 87 , 26–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wang, L.; Wang, S. Economic freedom and cross-border venture capital performance. J. Empir. Financ. 2012 , 19 , 26–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zhang, H.; Sun, X.; Lyu, C. Exploratory orientation, business model innovation and new venture growth. Sustainability 2017 , 10 , 1–15. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ang, S.H. Country-of-origin effect of VC investment in biotechnology companies. J. Commer. Biotechnol. 2006 , 13 , 12–19. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bacon-Gerasymenko, V.; Eggers, J.P. The dynamics of advice giving by venture capital firms: Antecedents of managerial cognitive effort. J. Manag. 2019 , 45 , 1660–1688. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lounsbury, M.; Glynn, M.A. Cultural entrepreneurship: Stories, legitimacy, and the acquisition of resources. Strateg. Manag. J. 2001 , 22 , 545–564. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aldrich, H.; Auster, E.R. Even dwarfs started small: Liabilities of age and size and their strategic implications. Res. Organ. Behav. 1986 , 8 , 165–198. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rickne, A. Connectivity and performance of science-based firms. Small Bus. Econ. 2006 , 26 , 393–407. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Pisano, G.P. Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning: An empirical analysis of process development. Strateg. Manag. J. 1994 , 15 , 85–100. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Teece, D.J. Competition, cooperation, and innovation: Organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 1992 , 18 , 1–25. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Carter, R.; Manaster, S. Initial public offerings and underwriter reputation. J. Financ. 1990 , 45 , 1045–1067. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Shan, W.; Walker, G.; Kogut, B. Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 1994 , 15 , 387–394. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stuart, T.E.; Hoang, H.; Hybels, R.C. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Adm. Sci. Q. 1999 , 44 , 315–349. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Stuart, T.E. Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 2000 , 21 , 791–811. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 1991 , 17 , 99–120. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gulati, R.; Higgins, M.C. Which ties matter when? The contingent effects of interorganizational partnerships on IPO success. Strateg. Manag. J. 2003 , 24 , 127–144. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Heeley, M.B.; Matusik, S.F.; Jain, N. Innovation, appropriability, and the underpricing of initial public offerings. Acad. Manag. J. 2007 , 50 , 209–225. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hsu, D.H.; Ziedonis, R.H. Resources as dual sources of advantage: Implications for valuing entrepreneurial-firm patents. Strateg. Manag. J. 2013 , 34 , 761–781. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Bhatt, G.D. Organizing knowledge in the knowledge development cycle. J. Knowl. Manag. 2000 . [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Grant, R.M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996 , 17 , 109–122. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Prahaland, C.; Hamel, G. The core competence of the corporation. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1990 , 82–84. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cohen, W.M.; Levinthal, D.A. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990 , 35 , 128–152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ben-Oz, C.; Greve, H.R. 2015. Short- and Long-Term Performance Feedback and Absorptive Capacity. J. Manag. 2015 , 41 , 1827–1853. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zahra, S.A.; George, G. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002 , 27 , 185–203. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Engelen, A.; Kube, H.; Schmidt, S.; Flatten, T.C. Entrepreneurial orientation in turbulent environments: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Res. Policy 2014 , 43 , 1353–1369. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Volberda, H.W.; Foss, N.J.; Lyles, M.A. Perspective—Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity: How to realize its potential in the organization field. Organ. Sci. 2010 , 21 , 931–951. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bergh, D.D.; Lim, E.N.K. Learning how to restructure: Absorptive capacity and improvisational views of restructuring actions and performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 2008 , 29 , 593–616. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Lane, P.J.; Koka, B.R.; Pathak, S. The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2006 , 31 , 833–863. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Flatten, T.C.; Greve, G.I.; Brettel, M. Absorptive capacity and firm performance in SMEs: The mediating influence of strategic alliances. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2011 , 8 , 137–152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Covin, J.G.; Lumpkin, G.T. Entrepreneurial orientation theory and research: Reflections on a needed construct. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2011 , 35 , 855–872. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Zott, C. Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intraindustry differential firm performance: Insights from a simulation study. Strateg. Manag. J. 2003 , 24 , 97–125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dierkens, N. Information asymmetry and equity issues. J. Financ. Quant. Anal. 1991 , 26 , 181–199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rosenstein, J.; Bruno, A.V.; Bygrave, W.D.; Taylor, N.T. The CEO, venture capitalists, and the board. J. Bus. Ventur. 1993 , 8 , 99–113. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chahine, S.; Filatotchev, I.; Bruton, G.D.; Wright, M. “Success by Association”: The Impact of Venture Capital Firm Reputation Trend on Initial Public Offering Valuations. J. Manag. 2019 , 0149206319847265. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Croce, A.; Ughetto, E. The role of venture quality and investor reputation in the switching phenomenon to different types of venture capitalists. J. Ind. Bus. Econ. 2019 , 46 , 191–227. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chung, K.H.; Pruitt, S.W. A simple approximation of Tobin’s q. Financ. Manag. 1994 , 70–74. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Geroski, P.A. Understanding the implications of empirical work on corporate growth rates. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2005 , 26 , 129–138. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mowery, D.C.; Oxley, J.E.; Silverman, B.S. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strateg. Manag. J. 1996 , 17 , 77–91. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Acad. Manag. J. 2001 , 44 , 996–1004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keller, W. Absorptive capacity: On the creation and acquisition of technology in development. J. Dev. Econ. 1996 , 49 , 199–227. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Veugelers, R. Internal R & D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Res. Policy 1997 , 26 , 303–315. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee, P.M.; Pollock, T.G.; Jin, K. The contingent value of venture capitalist reputation. Strat. Organ. 2011 , 9 , 33–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Chen, J.; Chen, Y.; Vanhaverbeke, W. The influence of scope, depth, and orientation of external technology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms. Technovation 2011 , 31 , 362–373. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Agarwal, R.; Sarkar, M.; Echambadi, R. The conditioning effect of time on firm survival: An industry life cycle approach. Acad. Manag. J. 2002 , 45 , 971–994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cooper, A.C.; Gimeno-Gascon, F.J.; Woo, C.Y. Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. J. Bus. Ventur. 1994 , 9 , 371–395. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cooper, A.C.; Gascon, F.J.G. Entrepreneurs, processes of founding, and new-firm performance. The State of the Art of Entrepreneurship ; Sexton, D.L., Kasarda, J.D., Eds.; PWS-Kent: Boston, MA, USA, 1992; pp. 301–340. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bontis, N.; Wu, S.; Chen, M.C.; Cheng, S.J.; Hwang, Y. An empirical investigation of the relationship between intellectual capital and firms’ market value and financial performance. J. Intellect. Cap. 2005 . [ Google Scholar ]
• Beard, D.W.; Dess, G.G. Corporate-level strategy, business-level strategy, and firm performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1981 , 24 , 663–688. [ Google Scholar ]
• Erhardt, N.L.; Werbel, J.D.; Shrader, C.B. Board of director diversity and firm financial performance. Corp. Gov. 2003 , 11 , 102–111. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Shrader, R.C.; Simon, M. Corporate versus independent new ventures: Resource, strategy, and performance differences. J. Bus. Ventur. 1997 , 12 , 47–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Beatty, R.P.; Ritter, J.R. Investment banking, reputation, and the underpricing of initial public offerings. J. Financ. Econ. 1986 , 15 , 213–232. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Brainard, W.C.; Tobin, J. Pitfalls in financial model building. Am. Econ. Rev. 1968 , 58 , 99–122. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bertoni, F.; Colombo, M.G.; Quas, A. The role of governmental venture capital in the venture capital ecosystem: An organizational ecology perspective. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2019 , 43 , 611–628. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Jeong, J.; Kim, J.; Son, H.; Nam, D.-i. The Role of Venture Capital Investment in Startups’ Sustainable Growth and Performance: Focusing on Absorptive Capacity and Venture Capitalists’ Reputation. Sustainability 2020 , 12 , 3447. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083447

Jeong J, Kim J, Son H, Nam D-i. The Role of Venture Capital Investment in Startups’ Sustainable Growth and Performance: Focusing on Absorptive Capacity and Venture Capitalists’ Reputation. Sustainability . 2020; 12(8):3447. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083447

Jeong, Jihye, Juhee Kim, Hanei Son, and Dae-il Nam. 2020. "The Role of Venture Capital Investment in Startups’ Sustainable Growth and Performance: Focusing on Absorptive Capacity and Venture Capitalists’ Reputation" Sustainability 12, no. 8: 3447. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083447

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Corporate Venture Capital Research: Literature Review and Future Directions

Management World

Posted: 9 Jan 2021

Gary Dushnitsky

London Business School; University of Pennsylvania - Management Department

Business School, Sun Yat-sen University; Peking University - Guanghua School of Management

Jiangyong Lu

Peking University

Date Written: November 4, 2020

The innovation and growth of entrepreneurial ventures rely heavily on the availability of both monetary and non-monetary resources. In such a background, corporate venture capital (CVC) has become an indispensable part of the entrepreneurial financing landscape. The rapid development of CVC practice has encouraged plenty of academic works from multiple perspectives. This article offers an integrated review of the current research on CVC in China as well as Europe and the US. To the best of knowledge, it is the first review that integrates findings not only based on CVC patterns in the Western world, but also in the large Chinese market. The review is based on 98 top journal papers published during 1980-2019. We discuss the key concepts and research topics of this group of literature and organize the key findings across five topics: (1) the drivers of corporate’s CVC investments, (2) CVC’s strategic effects on corporate, (3) CVC unit’s organization management, (4) the drivers of entrepreneurial ventures’ choice on CVC, and (5) CVC’s strategic effects on an entrepreneurial venture. By doing so, we identify the research gaps within each topic and discuss the future research opportunities in the Chinese context.

Keywords: Corporate Venture Capital, Venture Capital, Entrepreneurship, Innovation, China

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Gary Dushnitsky (Contact Author)

London business school ( email ).

Sussex Place Regent's Park London, London NW1 4SA United Kingdom

HOME PAGE: http://faculty.london.edu/gdushnitsky/index.html

University of Pennsylvania - Management Department ( email )

The Wharton School Philadelphia, PA 19104-6370 United States

Business School, Sun Yat-sen University ( email )

No. 66, Gongchang Rd., Guangming Dist. Shenzhen, Guangdong 518107 China

Peking University - Guanghua School of Management ( email )

Peking University Beijing, Beijing 100871 China

Peking University ( email )

No. 38 Xueyuan Road Haidian District Beijing, Beijing 100871 China

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, entrepreneurship & finance ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Econometric Modeling: Corporate Finance & Governance eJournal

Environment for innovation ejournal, innovation finance & accounting ejournal.

Venture Capital’s Role in Financing Innovation: What We Know and How Much We Still Need to Learn

Venture capital is associated with some of the most high-growth and influential firms in the world. Academics and practitioners have effectively articulated the strengths of the venture model. At the same time, venture capital financing also has real limitations in its ability to advance substantial technological change. Three issues are particularly concerning to us: 1) the very narrow band of technological innovations that fit the requirements of institutional venture capital investors; 2) the relatively small number of venture capital investors who hold, and shape the direction of, a substantial fraction of capital that is deployed into financing radical technological change; and 3) the relaxation in recent years of the intense emphasis on corporate governance by venture capital firms. While our ability to assess the social welfare impact of venture capital remains nascent, we hope that this article will stimulate discussion of and research into these questions.

Harvard Business School’s Division of Research provided funding for this work. Terrence Shu provided excellent research assistance. The ideas in this essay draw, among other sources, on those in Gompers and Lerner (2001a), Kerr, Nanda, and Rhodes-Kropf (2014), Lerner (2012), and Ivashina and Lerner (2019). We thank Gordon Hanson, Enrico Moretti, Tim Taylor, and Heidi Williams for valuable feedback. We owe a debt of gratitude to Paul Gompers, Bill Janeway, Steve Kaplan, Victoria Ivashina, Matthew Rhodes-Kropf, William Sahlman, and especially Felda Hardymon for many helpful conversations over the years. We thank Jeremy Greenwood for pointing out the Arrow interview. Lerner has received compensation from advising institutional investors in venture capital funds, venture capital groups, and governments designing policies relevant to venture capital. All errors are our own. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

Published Versions

Working groups, more from nber.

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

Advertisement

VC Funded Start-Ups in India: Innovation, Social Impact, and the Way Forward

• Perspective
• Published: 22 May 2022
• Volume 17 , pages 104–113, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Kshitija Joshi   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2588-065X 1 ,
• Deepak Chandrashekar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9128-3418 2 ,
• Krishna Satyanarayana   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9577-0558 2 &
• Apoorva Srinivas   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8937-0862 2  

1017 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Venture Capital (VC) is regarded as one of the most powerful financial innovations of the twentieth century. Although in the initial years, the VC-funded start-ups in India faced challenges of scaling up, off-late, both Initial Public Offerings and Mergers and Acquisitions have emerged as viable options for growth and international expansion. Given this context, this paper tries to understand the overall impact of the valuations and VC funding on the components of the entrepreneurial ecosystem—and its repercussions on the overall economic situation in the country. Specifically, the paper examines the recent state of start-up valuations, losses being carried forward, and proposes some long-term implications emanating out of the current practices. It further contemplates on the influence of current business models followed by the VC-funded start-ups on the society and labor market, as well as examines the impact of VC funding on wealth creation at the Bottom of the Pyramid and on innovation. Based on the review of the above critical issues, it proposes pragmatic next steps to be taken by the policy-makers and practitioners to ensure a much more inclusive and equitable growth of the sector and economy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Source: Dasgupta ( 2020 )

Similar content being viewed by others

Venture Capital Funding of Companies in the Context of Innovative Economic Development

Entrepreneurial Finance

Venture’s economic impact in australia.

Agarwal, S., Ghosh, P., Li, J., & Ruan, T. (2020). Digital payments and consumption: Evidence from the 2016 Demonetization in India.  Available at SSRN 3641508 .

Aiginger, K., Bärenthaler-Sieber, S., & Vogel, J. (2013). Competitiveness under new perspectives (No. 44). WWW for Europe Working Paper .

Bain Consulting. (2014). India Private Equity Report. Retrieved from: http://www.bain.com/Images/BAIN_REPORT_India_Private_Equity_Report_2014.pdf . Accessesd 01 Dec 2021

Baum, J. A. (1989). Liabilities of newness, adolescence, and obsolescence: Exploring age dependence in the dissolution of organizational relationships and organizations. Proceedings of the Administrative Science Association of Canada, 10 (5), 1–10.

Google Scholar  

Bernier, M., & Plouffe, M. (2019). Financial innovation, economic growth, and the consequences of macroprudential policies. Research in Economics, 73 (2), 162–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rie.2019.04.003

Article   Google Scholar  

Bottazzi, L., & Da Rin, M. (2002). Venture capital in Europe and the financing of innovative companies.  Economic Policy ,  17 (34), 229–270, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1344676

Certo, S. T. (2003). Influencing initial public offering investors with prestige: Signaling with board structures. Academy of Management Review, 28 (3), 432–446. https://doi.org/10.2307/30040731

Chatterji, A., Delecourt, S., Hasan, S., & Koning, R. (2019). When does advice impact startup performance? Strategic Management Journal, 40 (3), 331–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2987

Chemmanur, T. J., Loutskina, E., & Tian, X. (2014). Corporate venture capital, value creation, and innovation. The Review of Financial Studies, 27 (8), 2434–2473. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhu033

Cocca, T. D. (2005) What made the internet bubble burst? A butterfly flapping its wings, or how little things can make a big difference . Social Science Research Network (April 2005). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com

Da Rin, M., Nicodano, G., & Sembenelli, A. (2006). Public policy and the creation of active venture capital markets. Journal of Public Economics, 90 (8–9), 1699–1723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.09.013

Dasgupta, R. (2020). These billion dollar Indian start-ups are losing over 200 crores rupees a year . Flop2hit.com. Retrieved from flop2hit.com/insights/loss-making-startups-india/. Accessed 01 Dec 2021

Dash, S. (2020). OYO founder Ritesh Agarwal admits the share buyback in 2019 was ‘bad timing’ . Business Insider. Retrieved from https://www.businessinsider.in/business/startups/news/oyo-founder-ritesh-agarwal-admits-the-share-buyback-in-2019-was-bad-timing/articleshow/75125466.cms . Accessed 01 Dec 2021

DeLong, J. B., & Magin, K. (2006). A short note on the size of the dot-com bubble . National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper 12011. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w12011/w12011.pdf

Fehn, R., & Fuchs, T. (2003). Capital market institutions and venture capital: Do they affect unemployment and labor demand?. Available at SSRN 388642 .

Félix, E. G. S., Pires, C. P., & Gulamhussen, M. A. (2013). The determinants of venture capital in Europe—Evidence across countries. Journal of Financial Services Research, 44 (3), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10693-012-0146-y

Fitzgibbon Jr., J. E. (1996). ‘‘Yahoo! Jumps 152% in Day One,’’ IPO Reporter, April 22, 1996. Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com

Gompers, P., & Lerner, J. (2001). The venture capital revolution. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15 (2), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.15.2.145

Goodnight, G. T., & Green, S. (2010). Rhetoric, risk, and markets: The dot-com bubble. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 96 (2), 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/00335631003796669

Greenspan, A. (1996). Remarks by Chairman Alan Greenspan at the Annual Dinner and Francis Boyer Lecture of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, DC. Federal Reserve Board , December 5, 1996.

Hart, S. L., & Christensen, C. M. (2002). The great leap: Driving innovation from the base of the pyramid. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44 (1), 51.

Huggins, R., & Izushi, H. (2015). The competitive advantage of Nations: Origins and journey. Competitiveness Review, 25 (5), 458–470. https://doi.org/10.1108/CR-06-2015-0044

Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2017). Introducing regional competitiveness and development: Contemporary theories and perspectives . Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783475018

Book   Google Scholar  

Impact Investors Council Report. (2020). 2020 in Retrospect. India Impact Investment Trends. Retrieved from https://iiic.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/IIC-2020-in-Retrospect-Final.pdf . Accessed 14 Dec 2021

Indo-Asian News Service. (2021). Unicorns flipping to avoid Indian regulations. Retrieved from https://www.mid-day.com/technology/article/unicorns-flipping-to-avoid-indian-regulations-23190090 . Accessed 03 Mar 2022

Venture Intelligence. (2020). Database on private company financials, transactions & valuations for India . Retrieved from http://www.ventureintelligence.com

Joshi, K. (2018). Emergence and persistence of high-tech start-up clusters: An empirical study of Six Indian clusters. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 13 (1), 15–34.

Joshi, K. (2020). The economics of venture capital firm operations in India . Cambridge University Press.

Joshi, K. A., & Bala Subrahmanya, M. H. (2014). What drives Venture Capital fundraising in India: An empirical analysis of systematic and non-systematic factors. In 2014 IEEE international conference on management of innovation and technology (pp. 35–40). IEEE.

Joshi, K., & Chandrashekar, D. (2018). IPO/M&A exits by venture capital in India: Do agency risks matter? Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy, 7 (3), 534–563. https://doi.org/10.7545/ajip.2018.7.3.534

Kenney, R. F. M., & Florida, R. (2000). Silicon valley and route 128 won’t save us. California Management Review, 33 (1), 68–88.

Leo, L. (2021). PharmEasy buys 66% stake in Thyrocare. Livemint.com. Retrieved from https://www.livemint.com/companies/news/pharmeasy-buys-66-stake-in-thyrocare-11624644197444.html . Accessed 01 Dec 2021.

Lerner, J. (2012).  The architecture of innovation: The economics of creative organizations . Harvard Business Press.

Miloud, T., Aspelund, A., & Cabrol, M. (2012). Startup valuation by venture capitalists: An empirical study. Venture Capital, 14 (2–3), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691066.2012.667907

Momaya, K. S. (2018). Innovation capabilities and firm competitiveness performance: Thinking differently about future. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 13 (1), 3–9.

Momaya, K. S. (2019). The past and the future of competitiveness research: A review in an emerging context of innovation and EMNEs. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 14 , 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42943-019-00002-3

Mustafa, R., & Werthner, H. (2011). Business models and business strategy—Phenomenon of explicitness. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 6 (1), 14–29.

NASSCOM—Zinnov Start-up Report. (2020). Indian Tech Start-up Ecosystem—On march to a trillion dollar digital economy . NASSCOM, New Delhi, India.

NASSCOM—Zinnov Start-up Report. (2019). Indian tech start-up ecosystem—Leading tech in the 20s . NASSCOM, New Delhi, India.

MoneyControl News. (2021). Zomato IPO listing | Food delivery giant makes a stellar debut with nearly 66% premium, at Rs 125.85. Retrieved from https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/business/ipo/zomato-ipo-listing-food-delivery-giant-crosses-rs-1-lakh-crore-m-cap-after-stellar-debut-with-nearly-53-premium-7210471.html . Accessed 01 Dec 2021.

Nielsen, (2019) Connected Commerce. The Neilson Company (US) LLC. https://www.nielsen.com/wpcontent/uploads/sites/3/2019/04/connected-commerce-report.pdf . Accessed 16 May 2022.

Novet, J. (2021). Amazon’s cloud division reports 32% revenue growth . CNBC.com. Retrieved from https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/29/aws-earnings-q1-2021.html . Accessed 01 Dec 2021.

Ozmel, U., Reuer, J. J., & Gulati, R. (2013). Signals across multiple networks: How venture capital and alliance networks affect interorganizational collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 56 (3), 852–866. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.0549

PNGrowth. (2016). A 3-day bootcamp for software product entrepreneurs, iSPIRT Foundation, Bangalore, India. Retrieved from https://pn.ispirt.in/tag/pngrowth/

Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nation . The Free Press.

Rajan, A. T., Koserwal, P., & Keerthana, S. (2014). The Global epicenter of impact investing: An analysis of social venture investments in India. The Journal of Private Equity, 17 (2), 37–50.

Ravi, S., Gustafsson-Wright, E., Sharma, P., & Boggild-Jones, I. (2019). The promise of impact investing in India . Brookings India Research Paper No. 072019.

Romain, A., van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2004). The economic impact of venture capital. Working paper: WP-CEB04/14, Centre Emile Bernheim, Research Institute in Management Studies, Solvay Business School, Bruxelles, Belgium

Samila, S., & Sorenson, O. (2011). Venture capital, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93 (1), 338–349.

Schwienbacher, A. (2008). Innovation and venture capital exits. The Economic Journal, 118 (533), 1888–1916. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2008.02195.x

SEBI. (2015). Alternate capital raising platform . Retrieved from http://www.sebi.gov.in/cms/sebi_data/attachdocs/1427713523817.pdf . Accessed 01 Dec 2021

SEBI. (2019). Framework for issuance of Differential Voting Rights (DVR) Shares . Retrieved from https://www.sebi.gov.in/sebi_data/meetingfiles/aug-2019/1565346231044_1.pdf . Accessed 01 Dec 2021

Shah, S., & Peermohamed, A. (2021). Byju's acquires Aakash Educational Services in nearly $1-billion deal . The Economic Times. Retrieved from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/startups/byjus-to-acquire-aakash-educational-services-in-700-million-deal/articleshow/81910598.cms . Accessed 01 Dec 2021

Sharma, S., Singh, A. K., & Singh, A. P. (2020). Innovation at the bottom of the pyramid: Empowering rickshaw pullers. South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 9 (2), 168–177.

Subbaraman, K., & Mishra, P. (2014). With $1 billion in a year, team India is just fabulous: Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos. Retrieved from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/services/retail/with-1-billion-in-a-year-team-india-is-just-fabulous-amazon-ceo-jeff-bezos/articleshow/43756389.cms . Accessed 03 Mar 2022

The Indian Express. (2021). Byju’s list of acquisitions: Great Learning, Epic, Aakash Educational Services, WhiteHat Jr and more . Retrieved from https://indianexpress.com/article/business/startups/byjus-list-of-aquisitions-great-learning-epic-aakash-educational-services-toppr-whitehat-jr-and-more-7424898/ . Accessed 01 Dec 2021.

Tornikoski, E. T., & Newbert, S. L. (2007). Exploring the determinants of organizational emergence: A legitimacy perspective. Journal of Business Venturing, 22 (2), 311–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.12.003

World Bank. (2018). Retrieved from https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/629571528745663168/pdf/Volumes-1-AND-2-India-SCD-Realising-the-promise-of-prosperity-31MAY-06062018.pdf

Zhao, W., Wang, A., Chen, Y., & Liu, W. (2021). Investigating inclusive entrepreneurial ecosystem through the lens of bottom of the pyramid (BOP) theory: Case study of Taobao village in China. Chinese Management Studies, 15 (3), 613–640. https://doi.org/10.1108/CMS-05-2020-0210

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge and thank all the anonymous reviewers and the editors in particular for their valuable and detailed feedback which has enabled the authors to significantly improve the quality of the paper.

There has been no funding received from any sources toward the creation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Nomura International, London, UK

Kshitija Joshi

Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, Bangalore, India

Deepak Chandrashekar, Krishna Satyanarayana & Apoorva Srinivas

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

KJ and DC conceptualized the study. KJ prepared the draft of the article. While DC and KS revised the article, AS assisted DC and KS with material facts and review inputs. All the authors have read the article, and concurred on the content in the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Krishna Satyanarayana .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest, including financial and non-financial interests, or competing interests to declare that are relevant to this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Joshi, K., Chandrashekar, D., Satyanarayana, K. et al. VC Funded Start-Ups in India: Innovation, Social Impact, and the Way Forward. JGBC 17 , 104–113 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42943-022-00055-x

Download citation

Received : 18 December 2021

Accepted : 28 April 2022

Published : 22 May 2022

Issue Date : June 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42943-022-00055-x

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Venture capital
• Labor contracts

JEL Classification

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

A Systems View Across Time and Space

• Open access
• Published: 05 March 2022

Empirical examination of relationship between venture capital financing and profitability of portfolio companies in Uganda

• Ahmed I. Kato   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1811-6138 1 &
• Chiloane-Phetla E. Germinah 1  

Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship volume  11 , Article number:  30 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

5535 Accesses

2 Citations

Metrics details

In recent times, venture capital (VC) financing has evolved as an alternative feasible funding model for young innovative companies. Existing studies focus on whether VC enhances profitability. While helpful, this body of work does not address a critical question: whether VC firms are more profitable than non-VC firms. The co-existence of both VC and non VC firms in Africa provides an opportunity to address this question. Accordingly, this paper sought to extend the understanding of the relationship between VC financing and the profitability of portfolio companies in Uganda, a rapidly growing VC market. We utilised a mixed methods approach, which involved quantitative data collected from 68 key VC stakeholders, and qualitative data collected from 16 semi-structured face-to-face interviews. The results confirm the superior performance of VC-financed enterprises when compared to non-VC-financed enterprises. The study makes a vital contribution by offering a diversified framework for enterprise success. The framework will assist VC firms in evaluating and customising funding programmes that can propel early-stage firms’ success in Uganda, and in similar emerging economies. Secondly, our results contribute to extant knowledge about recent developments in Uganda’s VC industry and how it influences the profitability trends of SMEs, also in similar emerging economies.

Introduction

In recent times, venture capital (VC) financing has evolved as the most feasible funding model for young innovative companies. VC firms provide the needed capital in exchange for equity shares in the portfolio companies (Amornsiripanitch et al., 2019 ; Gompers & Lerner, 1999 , Gompers et al., 2020 ; Hirukawa & Ueda, 2008 ; Kato & Tsoka, 2020 ; KPMG & EAVCA, 2019 ; Li & Zahra, 2012 ; SAVCA, 2011 ). Seen from a different standpoint, the contribution of VC to the profitability of early-stage enterprises has not been extensively deliberated among scholars in developing countries, therefore, inadequate evidence is available to acknowledge its impact on the growth of small firms (Ernst & Young, 2016 ; Shanthi et al., 2018 ). In this context, this paper sought to extend the understanding of the role VC in boosting the profitability of portfolio companies in Uganda.

Tykvova ( 2018 ) disclosed that the VC finance framework is not a one-size-fits-all framework. Venture capitalists (VCs) select only companies with high growth potential, and consequently, only a few start-up firms qualify for VC investment. While several studies highlight the benefit of VC investment to young companies, the relationship between VC financing and the profitability of the portfolio companies has been under-researched. As a result, a review of previous research offers inadequate conclusions to account for these differences in performance, moreover, many of these studies focused mainly on developed economies.

VC firms and practitioners typically utilise profitability as the principal financial measure to project the success of the portfolio companies (Emerah & Abomeh, 2020 ). However, some scholars criticise this approach to measuring business performance, because it is restricted to past performance. In addition, it is regarded as an unrealistic technique of treating depreciation and amortisation as part of the company expenses, yet it does not involve direct cash outflows. That said, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with demonstrated profits find it easy to inspire VC investors that are experienced in financing high-risk entrepreneurial firms. VCs make investments in portfolio companies in which they earn returns of between 20 and 30% from the invested capital (Gompers & Lerner, 1999 ). Nevertheless, the concept of VC financing has remained misunderstood in Uganda, despite the vital role it can play in the country’s economy.

Although VC has surged globally in the last 20 years, in, for instance, the United States of America (US), Europe, Canada and China, it has largely focused on the technological sectors, with a nominal allotment of funds to the manufacturing and agro-business sectors that form a colossal share of the SME ecosystem, especially in developing economies, such as Uganda (AVCA, 2020 ; Kato & Tsoka, 2020 ; SAVCA, 2014 ). Thus, only a few portfolio companies have the opportunity to be financed by VC investors, hence, widening the financing gap. Likewise, Ekanem et al. ( 2019 ) observed that VCs transplanted the Silicon Valley model to emerging markets without making meticulous adjustments to reflect the needs of their business environment. This VC myopia has been identified as hampering SMEs’ growth.

Furthermore, few empirical studies have engaged the mixed technique for data collection, moreover, a significant number of empirical studies were conducted 20 years into the past (Gompers & Lerner, 1999 ; Lerner, 2010 ). Prior literature suggests that most of the research assessing the impact of VC on the performance of SMEs essentially engaged business owners/ managers as the key respondents (Biney, 2018 ; Kwame, 2017 ). Therefore, the present study is distinct as it focuses on all the key players in the VC market. The research adopted a mixed method approach and presents a current understanding of the impact of VC on the profitability of the portfolio companies in the public domain. Worse still, these studies largely present results from advanced economies, henceforth, widening the literature gap that compels demand for future research in Africa. In addition, Uganda’s VC market is under-explored, with little evidence to explain how VC financing has influenced SMEs’ performance (Kato & Tsoka, 2020 ; UIA, 2016 ).

Therefore, we reviewed the current literature to identify existing gaps in our current understanding that may provide a foundation for this study. We also reviewed the successful experiences of the VC landscape from developed economies, and conflicting experiences of duplications globally. The paper was guided by two fundamental research questions:

Does venture capital financing spur the profitability growth of the portfolio companies?

How does the venture capitalists’ involvement influence the success of the portfolio companies?

This paper makes four major contributions: firstly, the paper highlights the demand for government to enhance VC supply to early-stage firms, as well as to create a favourable investment environment which will inspire foreign VC firms to invest in the country. This may involve government support to reduce the taxes levied on capital gains on the disposal of business assets during initial public offerings (IPOs) or trade sales. Secondly, the results from this study will benefit the VCs in their efforts to make ideal investment decisions to enhance VC market development. Thirdly, the study makes a vital contribution to knowledge by offering a diversified framework for enterprise success in emerging economies. The framework is expected to benefit the key players in the VC market in their efforts to evaluate and customise sufficient funding programmes that can propel the success of early-stage firms. Finally, this paper also extends our knowledge about recent developments in the VC industry and how it influences the profitability trends of SMEs in emerging economies, such as in Uganda.

The rest of the article is divided into five sections. The next section presents the theoretical literature review, while " Empirical literature review and hypotheses development " section discusses the empirical literature review and hypotheses development. " Research design " section describes the research design. Finally, " Empirical results and discussion " section presents the empirical results.

The theoretical literature review

Agency theory demonstrates the nexus between the VCs who are the principals in the VC contract and the business entrepreneurs (agents), delegated to work on behalf of the VCs. The principal–agent relationship (VC contract) is established when the entrepreneurs agree with VCs to invest in the start-up firms in exchange for equity shares (Bertoni et al., 2019 ; Cumming et al., 2017 ).

Hα1: The venture capitalists’ involvement in the portfolio companies influences their success

The principal–agent problem postulates interrelated conflicts of interest which could emerge in the execution of the contract. This often arises at the time when VCs exit the company through either trade sale or initial public offerings (IPOs), leading the agents into divergence from the best interests of the principal. However, VCs are aware of such barriers that may have behaviour or outcome-based impediments to their interests. Therefore, VC investors insist on stringent control measures and monitoring aspects to guard their business interests through secure minority seats on SMEs’ board of directors (BOD). They maintain a sound business and add value to portfolio companies to recover worthy return on investment (ROE) shares (Cumming & Johan, 2016 ). It is well documented that misunderstandings usually emerge at the exit of the VCs, particularly if this is not well managed from the inception stage. There is noticeable principal–agent conflict that emanates from information asymmetries and fear of the business owner losing control over their investments (Amit et al., 1998 ).

That being said, the VC contract is vital to guard against eventual disputes between the portfolio managers and VCs. The VC financing concept resonates well with the agency theory (Hellmann & Puri, 2002 . This certainly requires SMEs to agree with VCs in order to access the financing needed for their growth and expansion, thus, enforcing VC contracts to protect the interests of both parties.

Hα1: Venture capital financing model spurs the profitability growth of the portfolio companies

The principal–agent relationship concept has been proven to stimulate SMEs’ performance in terms of sales revenue profitability, return on equity (ROE) and return on assets (ROA). This theory provides a firm foundation for our research hypothesis. However, imperfections in the market indicate that this assumption is not fully valid. Pragmatic evidence has disclosed that start-up firms seek external financing sources only if their retained earnings are insufficient to meet their business needs (Myers & Majluf, 1984 ). In addition, some entrepreneurs may not welcome VCs in their business because it compromises their control power, hence they are compelled to depend on retained earnings although they may not sufficient to foster the SME’s growth. Therefore, it is not usually accurate for VCs to assume that the entrepreneur may not abide by the VC contract, and therefore, it may be unnecessary to set the stringent rules in VC contracts. That seemingly appears to be biased, having no consideration for the fears of the entrepreneurs, specifically in the appropriation of profits.

Empirical literature review and hypotheses development

This section delivers a detailed review of the extant literature that underwrites the relationship between VC finance and the profitability of portfolio companies to inform and elucidate our insights. The paper primarily describes the central concepts of VC and the theoretical framework underlying its influence on the performance of VC-financed companies, which provides the foundation for the study.

Venture capital and the profitability growth of portfolio companies

One of the very first studies assessing VC-financed enterprises’ performance, was piloted by the Venture Economics Incorporation for the US General Accounting Office in 1982. The study disclosed that VC-backed companies realised tremendous growth in sales turnover, employment creation, and tax payments, if compared to other companies. In line with the benefits of VC financing, the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) ( 2021 ) discovered that the VC-backed companies grew faster than their national industry counterparts in terms of employment, sales, and wages. Similar results were also obtained in Europe (KPMG & EAVCA, 2019 ), where venture-backed companies achieved a yearly sales growth of 35%, compared to the 14% of other associated European public firms, and employment grew 30.5%. Therefore, such mixed conclusions necessitate a novel empirical study that would be able to fill these literature gaps.

Several researchers, mainly from technologically advanced economies, have confirmed that VC finance is a reality in augmenting the growth of SMEs (Deloitte & NVCA, 2009 ; Gompers & Lerner, 1998 ; Lerner, 2010 ). VC financing is connected to faster growth in early-stage firms, and that it is a precursor for innovation and the internationalisation of the portfolio companies (Kelly & Hankook, 2013 ; Mason, 2009 ; Bruton et al., 2015 ; Chemmanur et al., 2011 ). While there are various reasons for starting a commercial enterprise, profit maximisation is the primary objective (Kenawy & Abd-el Ghany, 2012 ). It is common knowledge that early-stage enterprises certainly need to earn profits to attract patient capital to ensure their continued commercial growth and expansion over time. Albeit VC finance has been extensively studied, its subsequent impact on the profitability of the portfolio companies is comparatively underexplored.

Profitability is a significant pointer to estimate the growth of SMEs, which is also a rising concern for VC investors. Audretsch and Lehmann ( 2004 ) and Chahine et al. ( 2012 ) discovered that VC-financed firms are highly associated with good profitability and market performance, if compared to non-VC-financed companies. However, some scholars present conflicting results, asserting that VC financing does not necessarily encourage enterprise growth. This is attributable to the selection criteria wherein VC investors identify high-growth potential firms that would probably have grown, even without receiving funding from the VC firms. Similarly, Tykvova ( 2018 ) reveals that the primary goal of the VC investors is to reap high returns from the funded companies, and SME growth is a spin-off to their primary purpose.

Furthermore, Puri and Zarutskie ( 2012 ), Kelly and Hankook ( 2013 ) and Paglia and Harjoto ( 2014 ) showed that VC financing positively influences the VC-funded companies’ profitability growth. Jaki et al. ( 2017 ) asserted that profitability growth changes progressively in the early stage of 3 to 5 years, and subsequently a decline is recognised when the VCs plan to exit. However, Harris et al., ( 2014 ) reported unsatisfactory results in terms of returns on invested capital. This ignited further studies of this kind to accentuate the critical role played by VC in enhancing the profitability of the investee companies.

While most literature paints an intriguing picture of VC investment, the reality is that VC is one of the riskiest investment models. VCs firms lose a third (1/3) on the entire investment, and then expect to get a third (1/3) of nominal investment returns, and expect to generate a third (1/3) on the bulk of the investment returns (Kato & Tsoka, 2020 ). Since many VCs do not want to expose their failed ventures, there is a lack of relevant data, especially in Africa. Therefore, such mixed conclusions necessitate a novel empirical study that would be able to fill these literature gaps.

Role of venture capitalists on the BOD and enterprise success

Several studies have documented that the VCs’ involvement on the BOD is fundamental for the success and growth of the VC-financed companies (Bertoni & Tykvová, 2015 ; Gompers et al., 2020 ; Hellmann & Puri, 2002 ).

Gompers & Lerner, ( 1999 ) and Hellmann and Puri ( 2002 ) disclosed that VCs enter into VC contracts with entrepreneurs as a way to deal with the moral hazards and information asymmetries. In addition, VCs bring with them technological transfers, coupled with superior skills in terms of human capital that would otherwise be inaccessible without their buoyant presence on the BOD. Similarly, Lerner ( 2010 ) and Gompers et al., ( 2020 ) reported VCs do not only provide VC funds, but also secure minority seats on the BOD to oversee their investments, detect financial risks to the companies at an early stage, undoubtedly close the knowledge gaps, and manage volatile markets. These findings conflict with the earlier conclusions of Gompers and Lerner ( 1998 ), where they submitted that the VC-backed industries are characterised by a potential conflict of interests that may compel the VCs to grandstand portfolio companies for IPOs or trade sale. This study was extended by Tykvova ( 2018 ) who alluded that the VCs aim to reap high returns on their VC investments.

Surprisingly, while several authors praise the VCs for their growing involvement in portfolio companies, Aldrich ( 2008 ) and Lee and Wahal ( 2004 ) disclosed that VC financing is not aimed at mediocre companies, nor is it designated for all commercial sectors. VC is not a one-size-fits-all framework because it only benefits a small number of the early-stage enterprises whereby, on average, two out 100 potential SME applicants qualify for VC funding (Deloitte & NVCA, 2009 ). The worst scenario is that VC investors target specific industries, for instance, high-tech industries, and concentrate in a few regions globally. Therefore, VC performance in emerging economies, such as in Uganda, has remained unclear.

In conclusion, prior literature confirms that VC financing stimulates the growth of start-up firms and is a sustainable solution for averting the problem of lack of access to external financing. However, there is little evidence to document VC performance in Uganda.

The literature review offered a firm foundation for crafting the research questions to assist in data collection and analysis. The next section discusses the research design approach.

Research design

Background to venture capital in uganda.

While the VC gauge has been exceptionally skewed to the US which by far is the leader in the VC industry, in the last decade, numerous countries including Uganda, have begun to tap into the possibilities that venture-backed companies can offer. In contrast, Uganda government has remained unclear about suitable policy frameworks to undertake (Kato & Tsoka, 2020 ), and considerable misapprehensions about this financial intermediary remain a big problem. Uganda’s VC market is under-explored, with little evidence to explain how VC financing has influenced SMEs’ performance (Kato & Tsoka, 2020 ; UIA, 2016 ). Against the backdrop of this discourse, we reviewed the existing literature and theoretical concepts to answer the research questions with a focus on Uganda.

Research methods

To obtain a better insight of the nexus between VC financing and profitability of the portfolio companies, we conducted a case study using a mixed method because it provided the author with the opportunity to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the research problem. The quantitative method was more predominant in this study. Previous researchers have also used the mixed-method research approach (Kato & Tsoka, 2020 ; Kwame, 2017 ) and commended it for yielding reliable and valid datasets.

Population, sample size, and data collection

The primary data were collected from the Uganda Investment Authority’s (UIA) database comprising SMEs classified as the top-performing SMEs in 2018 and 2019. Since UIA did not maintain a segregated catalogue for VC-backed firms, we also used the profiles of active VC firms in Uganda to track their portfolio companies. Stratified random sampling was applied to obtain a sample size of 90 respondents from a total population of 300 SMEs. Our sample respondents were selected from the central business districts (CBD) with the highest concentration of SMEs situated in the Kampala, Wakiso, and Mukono and Jinja districts. The manufacturing agribusiness sectors were preferred because they contributed 21.6% and 67% to the total national revenue collections than the fast-moving consumer goods sector (URA, 2018 ). The key respondents included VC firms responsible for financing SMEs; government agencies in charge of regulating the business environment; business entrepreneurs/managers as the recipients of VC finance; and non-VC-backed firms. This choice aimed to match the performance of the VC-backed firms against the non VC-backed firms.

As it can be seen in Table 1 , the VC-funded and non-VC-funded enterprises contributed a higher percentage of 89% combined, because the major aim was to measure the SMEs’ growth in terms of profitability, ROE, ROA, and how government regulations impact the portfolio companies. In addition, VC firms and government agencies were included in the study because they do provide risk capital and determine the direction of the funded companies. This helped to gather reliable data in terms of SMEs’ performance.

Primary data were collected using 5-point Likert scale semi-structured questionnaires that were administered to 90 key respondents. This data collection instrument offered the respondents an opportunity to complete the questions at their convenience, since they comprised a customarily busy class.

The survey questionnaire involved multiple questions ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) and an average score for agreeing ≥ 3.5. Out of the 90 questionnaires administered, 70 were returned and 2 were found not suitable for data analysis. Consequently, 68 responses from the questionnaires were used for data analysis.

Furthermore, we purposely selected 30 participants ( S  = 10% of 300) for face-to-face semi-structured interviews.

Table 2 shows a higher composition of SME management staff of 66.7%, followed by a 20% share of VCs/Business Angels. These groups were chosen because they compose the highest decision-making body of SMEs, and possess a wealth of knowledge and are the custodians of the data required for the study.

Measurement of independent and dependent variables

To measure the interdependence between independent variables and the dependent variables, we used a multiple regression model, wherein VC finance and profitability are designated as independent and dependent variables, respectively. We extracted data from the 68 survey questionnaires, this was organised into an Excel worksheet, thereafter exported to the SPSS computer-aided program to run the results. We also computed the sales turnover, ROE, and net income using the ratio analysis with the assistance of the audited and unaudited reports provided by the respondents.

Table 3 shows that out of the 90 questionnaires administered, 68 completed and returned questionnaires were appropriate for data analysis. This produced a response rate of 76%, higher than the comparative study of Memba et al. ( 2012 ) which had a response rate of 65%. These results are supported by Mundy ( 2002 ), who maintained that the higher the response rate, the better: 60% would be marginal, 70% would be reasonable, 80% would be good, and 90% would be excellent. As such, there is no justification not to accept a response rate of 76%, because it conveys reliable and valid results, and is representative of the entire population under study.

In the regression model yi denotes VC finance and VCs role in POs as the independent variables, then the dependent variables are denoted as \({X}_{1}\) … \({X}_{n}\) . To measure profitability, we used the following performance metrics: sales turnover, EBIT and ROE. Government regulations come as an intervening variable.

The multiple linear regression model is illustrated as:

where Y : is % of profitability that is measured as (sales, ROE, ROA, and EBIT); β 0: is the y -intercept wherein the value of y when \({X}_{j1}\) , \({X}_{j2}\dots {X}_{jk}\) are equal to 0; β 1 and β 2 are the regression coefficients that represent the change in y relative to a one-unit change in \({X}_{j1}\) , \({X}_{j2}\dots {X}_{jk}\) , respectively; Βk : is the slope coefficient for each independent variable; \({X}_{1}\) : venture capital finance as one of the independent variable; \({X}_{2}\) : VCs involvement on the BOD as the second independent variable; ϵj : is the model’s random error (residual) term.

The predictor variables are specified as a j and k matrix.

where J : is the number of observations, and K : is the number of predictor variables.

Each column of X denotes one independent variable, and each row represents one observation, while y is the response for the corresponding row of X .

The null hypothesis is that all of the population regression coefficients are zero. The alternate hypothesis is that at least one of the coefficients is not zero. This test is written in symbolic form for three independent variables as:

H0: β 1 =  β 2 =  β 3 = 0,

H1: Not all the β s = 0.

The VC-backed companies and non-VC-backed companies are binary variables that were allocated 1 to indicate they received VC financing, and 0 if they did not receive VC financing.

To confirm the research questionnaire for validity and reliability, Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient was applied to test the results, with a 95% significant confidence level and a 5% margin of error. The results showed a 98.4% confidence level of the survey questionnaire and a margin of error of 1.6% which was much lower than the estimated 5%. The statistical tests relied on the two-sided tests represented as 0.05 level of significance.

The interview data were collected from 16 respondents. This paper is unique in that it conveys the thoughts of the different players in the VC market, something that has not been reported in earlier studies. The recorded interview data, videos, audited accounts, financial reports, narrative reports, and researcher’s observations were transcribed, reviewed, and later exported to Atlas.ti version 25. We generated memos, groups, and networking linkages which facilitated a coherent content analysis of the data. Thereafter, the data were validated and triangulation was performed until a point of saturation was attained after 16 interviews. Saunders et al. ( 2009 ) argued that when the point of saturation is attained, the results are adequate as a true representation of the sample.

Ethical considerations

The study received approval from the Research Ethical clearance committee of the University of South Africa (UNISA) in August 2019. We also received prior approval from UIA and USSIA to access their databases. We further obtained prior consent from all the respondents before commencing the study, and they signed informed consent as confirmation for their involvement in the study. We signed Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA) not to share any information to any third parties without prior management approval. The respondents had the liberty to decline to respond to some of the questions they found disturbing or which they perceived as uncomfortable.

Empirical results and discussion

The capacity of an enterprise to generate sufficient profits defines its financial stability to primarily enlarge the value of invested capital to meet its financial obligation as a going concern. The profitability approach has been extensively used as a popular and dependable approach, if compared to other methods (Myskova & Hajek, 2017 ; Du & Cai, 2020 ), since fund managers frequently search for firms that have previously demonstrated growth potential.

Profit analysis of VC-financed and non-VC-financed enterprises

We specifically evaluated the firms’ profitability fluctuations considering the variability in the taxes charged to the varied sectors, and the different accounting principles used. The paper used EBIT for a rational comparison, because the outcomes may be relatively diverse when earning after tax (EAT) is used.

Figure  1 uncovers that the VC-financed companies realised much higher profits of between 30 and 50%, compared to 15% to 24% for the non-VC-financed enterprises. The highest profits were reported in year 3, whereby the VC-backed firms realised 50%, compared to 24% for the non VC-backed firms. In view of these results, the VC-recipient companies doubled the companies financed by other sources. A company that earns higher profits suggests better performance and efficiency compared to the rivals in a similar business sector.

However, the study of Memba et al. ( 2012 ) revealed much higher profits of above 60% for the recipient companies. We observe that her study was done over 10 years ago when the presence of the VC firms was still insignificant, suggesting less competition in the VC industry at the time. This potency contributed to reaping high returns in a virgin VC industry. In addition, current research discloses that while there might be other objectives for setting up a company, the major objective is to make reasonable profits. Accordingly, we can confirm that increasing the VC supply to start-ups firms contributes to profitability growth. These results are consistent with prior literature, for instance, Biney ( 2018 ), Kato and Tsoka ( 2020 ) and Du and Cai ( 2020 ).

Considering that the financial statements used for this study from 2016–2018, were prepared based on book value, they do not reflect the current reality in the business and direction of the firm. Consequently, we further ran an ANOVA F -test to assess if the differences in mean values between the VC-backed and non-VC-backed firms are due to chance, or if they are indeed significantly different.

Based on the results from the ANOVA test presented in Table 4 , the F -value (3, 2.145) = 5.536 and a significant value of 0.02, which is much less than the 5% level of significance for the regression. This offers irresistible evidence that our model is well fit and valid. The outcomes from the ANOVA test confirm that there is a positive significant relationship between profitability as a dependent variable, and VC finance as a predictor variable. As can be seen, the results confirm that VC financing escalates profitability for the funded companies because the regression coefficient is not equal to zero. In contrast, our findings conflict with the study of Rosenbusch et al. ( 2013 ), who found that VC finance does not enhance the profitability of the funded firms.

These results were augmented with 16 face-to-face interviews conducted with the key players in the VC market who generally revealed attractive results. More compelling results were obtained from the VC fund managers. ‘T o maximise profits it is mostly about structuring not having a routine or monthly payments, this is the real framework that enhances profitability , DRS05’. The profitability growth of the funded companies shows that about 50% of the projects are doing very well, 30% are struggling, and 30% of the projects are completely failing to grow. They endorsed VC financing for its contribution to the growth of the funded firms.

Although previous studies have painted an intriguing picture of the success of all the VC-backed firms, The Kauffman Foundation (2017) uncovered that 62% of portfolio companies failed to exceed returns from the stock markets. That explains why the number of VC funds has shrunk by 30% in the past decade, according to NVCA ( 2020 ). Above and beyond, the current research of Seth ( 2020 ) reported that 65% of investment rounds fail to return 1× capital and only 4% return greater than 10× capital. Ultimately, the difference between the best performing and average performing firms are incredibly wide. Comparatively limited investments in the portfolios of VC funds harvest huge gains.

However, we discovered that principal–agent relationship was more predominant in the VC-industry setting and everyday life due to the potential problems of adverse selection and moral hazard. The VCs enter into VC contracts to defend their interests wherein entrepreneurial work as their agents. Our findings revealed that 100% of the respondents confirmed signing VC contracts and allowing at least one VC fund manager on their board structures. Certainly such arrangement brings in play the agency theory to mitigate the moral hazards and information asymmetry related to early-stage enterprises.

All in all, early-stage firms that can demonstrate the capacity to generate worthy profits have higher chances of attracting VC financing because this is the area of interest for any prospective investors. Fund managers primarily depend on profitability ratios to determine the financial health of a firm (Myskova & Hajek, 2017 ).

Pearson correlation coefficient test

The paper employed the Pearson correlation coefficient tests to determine if there is any relationship between ROA and VC financing. The higher the ROA number, the better, because the company is earning more money on less investment.

As shown in Table 5 , the test results display a correlation coefficient of ( r  = 0.336, P  ≤ 0.05) designating that there is a positive relationship, as P  ≤ 0.05. It can therefore be concluded that 33.6% (0.336) of changes in ROA can be explained by the use of VC finance. Particularly, firms that received VC financing recognised higher ROA than their non-VC-financed enterprises. Kwame ( 2017 ) concurs with these results. A higher percentage of ROA depicts sound financial health of an enterprise represented by its asset base’s capacity to produce profits with each dollar invested. Similarly, a dwindling ROA might indicate over-investment in the assets, or evidence of some of the assets not being productive in supporting revenue growth, which is an indicator of a failing business (Bloomsbury, 2009 ). ROA is not a flawless metric for measuring a company’s performance, nonetheless it has been observed to be the most effective, since it captures the fundamentals of business performance in a holistic way. ROA captures how well a company uses its assets to create value, and this is a fundamental area of interest to the VC investors.

Hα2: The venture capitalists’ involvement in the portfolio companies influences their success

To satisfactorily identify the impact of VC on the portfolio companies, we also ran descriptive statistics involving mean scores, standard deviation and skewness scores, to illustrate statistically the role of the VC fund managers on the BOD of the portfolio companies.

As seen in Table 6 , the descriptive statistics show a mean score of 4.0, and with a standard deviation of 0.7754, suggesting that changes in ROE for the portfolio companies was influenced by VC funding. Precisely 80% (54 of 68) of the respondents confirmed that the growth of ROE was escalated by VC financing. Similar results were reported from the structured face-to-face interviews, wherein all the interviewees (100%) admitted to recognising growth of their firms due to the consulted efforts from the VC fund managers. We can therefore conclude that it is not enough to issue VC finance but the VC’s presence on the board of portfolio companies is fundamental for their success. In addition, we also discovered that 87% (59 of 68) of the respondents lacked adequate knowledge about VC financing. This partly explains why the VC industry in Uganda has remained small. Our findings are consistent with contemporary literature, supporting VC for yielding higher returns.

Moreover, 69% of the interviewees confirmed enhanced growth of their companies arising from the superior skills of the VCs. This was manifested in access to new markets, financial management skills, innovations, and expanding their networks to other potential investors. Consistent with above results, ‘the rigorous due diligence alone is enough to encourage the growth of the business even if VCs do not provide patient capital , respondent DRS05 reported’ ; whereas, respondent DRS09 observed that the VCs involvement on the BOD assisted to quickly discover the financial hurdles at an early-stage hence mitigating against financial risks. Our findings conforms to earlier scholars who contended that value addition to the portfolio companies is essential for VC investment because it differentiates it from other sources of funds (Hellmann & Puri, 2002 ; Lerner, 2010 ).

We also surveyed the interviewees to determine whether there was evolution in ROE of the VC-backed firms after VC financing. The outcomes exposed 25–35% average increase in returns. ‘We are not only there to bring the cash on the table, but we also bring bigger networks to talents to help these companies grow, we bring experience from other markets in terms of how we scale businesses, One of the fund managers DRS06 emphasised’. The results were similar to the findings of Lerner ( 2010 ).

Regardless of the appealing results, VCs encounter problems which may undermine the success and growth of the early stage firms. ‘ One channel of exiting is when we come out of the business and we are ready to sell our stake, either to the business owners or to the equity market where there is an opportunity to list on the stock market, for which there has not been a great channel , respondent DRS06 stated ’. The point to make here is that VCs find it difficult to exit due to the undeveloped financial market in Uganda. In addition, we discovered the presence of VC myopia as the entrepreneurs fear losing control of their companies, arising from the temporal sharing of ownership. This partially explains the gradual uptake of VC investment in Uganda. Therefore, some business entrepreneurs remain sceptical of entering into VC deals because they do not know their destiny. Similar conclusions were presented by Tykvova ( 2018 ).

As we continue filling in the gaps in literature, this paper makes a vital contribution to novel knowledge by offering a diversified framework for enterprise success (Fig.  2 ). This framework will benefit the key players in the VC market to manipulate VC financing to enhance enterprise success. Although VC has been extensively studied, no study has developed a diversified framework for enterprise success that integrates exclusive performance variables like VC finance, government involvement, human capital and credible business plans to assess enterprise success. Our findings reveal that these variables significantly impact enterprise success, and this motivated the authors to develop a framework of this nature to account for these variables which have not been yet used in prior literature.

Diversified framework for enterprise success. Source: Authors’ own compilation

Accordingly, the interaction of these variables proved indispensable in enhancing enterprise success. Firstly, government involvement in the VC market is essential for making supportive regulations and enhancing co-investment funds into private equity firms. Secondly, VC finance was identified as a significant variable for stimulating enterprise success matched to conventional bank lending. Thirdly, credible business plans for potential entrepreneurs is a turning point for SME success. These performance variables are supported by evidence from semi-structured interviews that disclosed that only 2% of business plans pass the due diligence process to qualify for VC financing. Finally, human capital, encompassing VCs on the BOD and senior management, were identified as instrumental variables in encouraging the enterprises’ success.

This framework is reinforced with our empirical evidence from the quantitative results and interview results (Sects. 5.1 and 5.2). Therefore, the interaction of all these variables as illustrated in Fig.  2 , translates into enterprise success manifested in improved profitability, ROE, ROA and sales turnover. To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has ever applied this set of integrated variables to examine the performance of SMEs. On this basis, this framework was necessary to contribute to the body of knowledge and also pave a way for future investigation.

To improve the framework, the study suggests future research to investigate:

‘To what extent does government’s involvement in VC financing, the entrepreneurs’ credible business plans and the presence of the venture capitalists on the BOD enhance early-stage enterprise success in Uganda?’

The study examined the nexus between venture capital finance and profitability of the portfolio companies. The results confirm the superior performance of VC-financed enterprises when compared to non-VC-financed enterprises. Moreover, 63% of the respondents reported a positive impact of government regulations on the development of early-stage firms. We also discovered that only 50% of the VC-backed companies were exceedingly operating as expected, while 30% were struggling and 20% completely failed. Our findings were consistent with results of NVCA ( 2020 ). On this basis, increasing VC investment in Uganda and similar emerging economies would assist to close the financing gap which inhibits the success and growth of SMEs.

Furthermore, this paper makes four major contribution; Firstly, the paper highlights the demand for government to enhance VC supply to early-stage firms, as well as to create a favourable investment environment which will inspire foreign VC firms to invest in the country. This may involve government support to reduce the taxes levied on capital gains on the disposal of business assets during initial public offerings (IPOs) or trade sales. Secondly, the results from this study will benefit the VCs in their efforts to make ideal investment decisions to enhance VC market development. Thirdly, the study makes a vital contribution to knowledge by offering a diversified framework for enterprise success in emerging economies. The framework is expected to benefit the key players in the VC market in their efforts to evaluate and customise sufficient funding programmes that can propel the success of early-stage firms. Finally, this paper also extends our knowledge about recent developments in the VC industry and how it influences the profitability trends of SMEs in emerging economies, such as in Uganda.

However, this study encountered some drawback which may not be overlooked. The study was confined to agribusiness and manufacturing SMEs largely in the four major cities of Uganda. Therefore, the results ought to be used with caution as they may yield subjective results in the different sectors, like Fintech industries and generally, the service sector. Although VC financing appears exciting and is widely accepted to spur enterprise success and growth, only a handful of studies have examined the impact of VC financing on enterprise success. Therefore, future investigations in this area would complement this study and improve the diversified framework for enterprise success.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to the Non-Disclosure agreements we signed with the respondents, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Aldrich, H. E. (2008). Research Communications . Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.

Google Scholar  

Amit, R., Brander, J., & Zott, C. (1998). Why do venture capital firms exist? Theory and Canadian evidence. Journal of Business Venturing, 13 , 441–466.

Article   Google Scholar  

Amornsiripanitch, N., Gompers, P., & Xuan, Y. (2019). More than money: Venture capitalists on boards. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 35 (3), 513–543.

Audretsch, D. B., & Lehmann, E. (2004). Financing high-tech growth: The role of banks and venture capitalists. Schmalenbach Business Review, 56 (4), 340–357.

AVCA. (2020). Venture capital in Africa: Mapping Africa’s start-up investment landscape. Retrieved from https://www.avca-africa.org/media/2603/01746-avca-venture-capital-report_4.pdf .

Bertoni, F., Colombo, M. G., & Quas, A. (2019). The patterns of venture capital investment in Europe. Small Business Economics, 45 (3), 543–560.

Bertoni, F., & Tykvová, T. (2015). Does governmental venture capital spur invention and innovation? Evidence from young European biotech companies. Research Policy, 44 (4), 925–935.

Biney, C. (2018). The impact of venture capital financing on SMEs’ growth and development in Ghana. Business Economics Journal, 9 , 370.

Bloomsbury. (2009). Finance - The ultimate resource. https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/qfinance-9781849300025/ . Accessed 25 April 2020.

Bruton, G., Khavul, S., Siegel, D., & Wright, M. (2015). New financial alternatives in seeding; Microfinance, crowdfunding, and peer-to-peer innovations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 131 (1), 9–26.

Chahine, S., Arthurs, D., Filatotchev, I., & Hoskisson, R. (2012). The effects of venture capital syndicate diversity on earnings management and performance of IPOs in the US and UK. An institutional perspective. Journal of Corporate Finance, 18 (1), 179–192.

Chemmanur, T. J., Krishnan, K., & Nandi, D. K. (2011). How does venture capital financing improve efficiency in private firms? A look beneath the surface. Review of Financial Studies, 24 (12), 4037–4090.

Cumming, D., & Johan, S. (2016). Venture’s economic impact in Australia. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41 (1), 25–59.

Cumming, D. J., Grilli, L., & Murtinu, S. (2017). Governmental and independent venture capital investments in Europe. A firm-level performance analysis. Journal of Corporate Finance, 42 (1), 439–459.

Deloitte., & SAVCA. (2009). The calm after the storm? The South African private equity confidence survey. Retrieved from http://www.savca.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/PECSstorm.pdf .

Du, J., & Cai, Z. (2020). The impact of venture capital on the growth of small- and medium-sized enterprises in agriculture. Journal of Chemistry . https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2328171

Ekanem, I., Owen, R., & Cardoso, A. (2019). The influence of institutional environment on venture capital development in emerging economies: The example of Nigeria. Strategic Change, 28 (1), 95–107.

Emerah, A., & Abomeh, S. (2020). Venture capital and performance of small and medium scale enterprises in Nigeria. Journal of Management Sciences, 4 (2), 77–87.

Ernst., & Young. (2016). Back to reality, EY global venture capital trends 2015 . Retrieved from www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-global-venture-capital-trends2015/EY-globalventure-capital-trends-2015.pdf

Gompers, P., Gornall, W., Kaplan, S., & Strebulaev, A. (2020). How do venture capitalists make decisions? Journal of Financial Economics, 135 , 169–190.

Gompers, P., Lerner, J. (1998). What drives venture capital fundraising? Brookings papers on economic activity , Microeconomics. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution

Gompers, P., & Lerner, J. (1999). The venture capital cycle . MIT Press.

Harris, R. S., Jenkinson, T., & Kaplan, S. N. (2014). Private equity performance: What do we know? The Journal of Finance , 69 (5), 1851–1882.

Hellmann, T., & Puri, M. (2002). Venture capital and the professionalization of startup firms: Empirical evidence. The Journal of Finance, 57 (1), 169–197.

Hirukawa, M., Ueda, M. (2008). Venture capital and industrial innovation. CEPR Discussion Paper 7089.

Jaki, E., Molnar, E. M., & György, W. (2017). Government sponsored venture capital: Blessing or curse? Management, 12 (4), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.26493/1854-4231.12.317-331

Kato, A. I., & Tsoka, G. E. (2020). Impact of venture capital financing on small- and medium-sized enterprises’ performance in Uganda. The Southern African Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business Management, 12 (1), a320.

Kelly, R., Hankook, K. (2013). Venture capital as a catalyst for high growth. Ottawa: Industry Canada. Retrieved from http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/eas-aes.nsf/eng/h_ra02218.html .

Kenawy, E. M., & Abd-el Ghany, M. F. (2012). The economic importance of venture capital as a new funding alternative with reference to the Egyptian experience. Journal of Basic Applied Scientific Research, 2 (4), 3598–3606.

KPMG., & EAVCA. (2019). Private equity sector survey of East Africa for the period 2017 to 2018, Nairobi Kenya .

KPMG., & SAVCA. (2014). Venture capital and private equity industry performance survey of South Africa covering the 2013 calendar year. Retrieved from https://savca.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/KPMG-SAVCA-Private-equity-survey-2014.pdf .

Kwame, E. B. (2017). Assessing the Impact of Venture Capital Financing on Growth of SMEs. Texila International Journal of Management 3 (2).

Lee, P. M., & Wahal, S. (2004). Grandstanding, certification and the under-pricing of venture capital backed IPOs. Journal of Financial Economics , 73 , 375–407.

Lerner, J. (2010). The future of public efforts to boost entrepreneurship and venture capital. Small Business Economics, 35 (3), 255–264.

Li, Y., & Zahra, S. (2012). Formal institutions, culture, and venture capital activity: A cross-country analysis. Journal of Business Venture, 27 , 95–111.

Mason, C. M. (2009). Public policy support for the informal venture capital market in Europe. A critical review. International Small Business Journal, 27 , 536–556.

Memba, S. F., Gakure, W. R., & Karanja, K. (2012). Venture capital (VC): It’s impact on growth of small and medium enterprises in Kenya. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3 (6), 32–38.

Mundy, D. (2002). A question of response rate. Science Editor, 25 (1), 25–26.

Myers, S. T., & Majluf, T. (1984). Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have. Journal of Financial Economics, 13 (2), 187–221.

Myskova, R., & Hajek, P. (2017). Comprehensive assessment of firm financial performance using financial ratios and linguistic analysis of annual reports. Journal of International Studies, 10 (4), 96–108. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2017/10-4/7

NVCA (National Venture Capital Association). (2020). NVCA 2020 yearbook. Retrieved from https://nvca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/NVCA-2020-Yearbook.pdf .

NVCA. (2021). yearbook. https://nvca.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/NVCA-2021-Yearbook.pdf

Paglia, J. K., & Harjoto, M. A. (2014). The effects of private equity and venture capital on sales andemployment growth in small and medium-sized businesses. Journal of Banking Finance , 47 , 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2014.06.023 .

Puri, M., & Zarutskie, R. (2012). On the lifecycle dynamics of venture capital and non-venture capital financed firms. Journal of Finance, 67 (6), 2247–2293.

Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J., & Müller, V. (2013). Does acquiring venture capital pay off for the funded firms? A meta-analysis on the relationship between venture capital investment and funded firm financial performance. Journal of Business Venturing , 28 (3), 335–353.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students (5th ed.). Pearson Hall Limited.

Seth. L. (2020). Venture capital returns are more skewed than people realize. Retrieved from https://timesofe.com/vc-fund-returns-are-more-skewed-than-you-think

Shanthi, D., McGinnis, P., Schneider, S. (2018). Survey of the Kenyan private equity and venture capital landscape . Policy Research Working Paper 8598. New York: World Bank Group.

SVCA. (2011). Private equity in the shadow of giants. Innovative approaches along the investment value chain in Sub Saharan Africa . SAVCA.

Tykvova, T. (2018). Venture capital and private equity financing: An overview of recent literature and an agenda for future research. Journal of Business Economics, 88 (9), 325–362.

UIA-Uganda Investment Authority. (2016). Second private equity and venture capital conference 2016, Kampala Serena 24th–25th June 2015. Retrieved from https://www.ugandainvest.go.ug/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/PEVC .

URA-Uganda Revenue Authority. (2018). Revenue Performance report FY 2017/18/16th July 2018. URA’ ‘Kampala. https://www.ura.go.ug/resources/webuploads/GNRART/Annual%20Revenue%20Report_2017_18.pdf .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to the college of Economic and Managements for the financial support. We further extend our sincere gratitude to the handling editors and two anonymous reviewers whose intuitive remarks made this article superior.

This study did not receive any funding.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Applied Management, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa

Ahmed I. Kato & Chiloane-Phetla E. Germinah

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

AIK is the focal author of this article and CPEG is a co-author, who contributed technically as an advisor toward improving the article.

Authors’ information

Ahmed I. Kato is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Department of Applied Management, University of South Africa, Pretoria. Ahmed has published several articles in accredited journals with special focus on venture capital, entrepreneurship and SME development. Moreover, he holds over 14 year’s vast experience in financial management and strengthening research capacity in the NGO sector.

Prof Chiloane-Phetla GE is a Professor of Entrepreneurship in Department of Applied Management, University of South Africa-Pretoria. Prof Chiloane has served in different academic position through her entire career and she has published several articles in accredited journals, written books and presented several papers in international conferences.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed I. Kato .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kato, A.I., Germinah, CP.E. Empirical examination of relationship between venture capital financing and profitability of portfolio companies in Uganda. J Innov Entrep 11 , 30 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00216-5

Download citation

Received : 17 March 2021

Accepted : 12 January 2022

Published : 05 March 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00216-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Venture capital
• Profitability and small and medium enterprises
• Diversified-framework for enterprise success

JEL Classification

• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East & Africa
• North America
• Australia & New Zealand

Mainland China

• Hong Kong SAR, China
• Philippines
• Taiwan, China
• Channel Islands
• Netherlands
• Switzerland
• United Kingdom
• Saudi Arabia
• South Africa
• United Arab Emirates
• United States

From startups to legacy brands, you're making your mark. We're here to help.

• Innovation Economy Fueling the success of early-stage startups, venture-backed and high-growth companies.
• Midsize Businesses Keep your company growing with custom banking solutions for middle market businesses and specialized industries.
• Large Corporations Innovative banking solutions tailored to corporations and specialized industries.
• Commercial Real Estate Capitalize on opportunities and prepare for challenges throughout the real estate cycle.
• Community Impact Banking When our communities succeed, we all succeed. Local businesses, organizations and community institutions need capital, expertise and connections to thrive.
• International Banking Power your business' global growth and operations at every stage.
• Client Stories

Prepare for future growth with customized loan services, succession planning and capital for business equipment.

• Asset Based Lending Enhance your liquidity and gain the flexibility to capitalize on growth opportunities.
• Equipment Financing Maximize working capital with flexible equipment and technology financing.
• Trade & Working Capital Experience our market-leading supply chain finance solutions that help buyers and suppliers meet their working capital, risk mitigation and cash flow objectives.
• Syndicated Financing Leverage customized loan syndication services from a dedicated resource.
• Employee Stock Ownership Plans Plan for your business’s future—and your employees’ futures too—with objective advice and financing.

Institutional Investing

Serving the world's largest corporate clients and institutional investors, we support the entire investment cycle with market-leading research, analytics, execution and investor services.

• Institutional Investors We put our long-tenured investment teams on the line to earn the trust of institutional investors.
• Markets Direct access to market leading liquidity harnessed through world-class research, tools, data and analytics.
• Prime Services Helping hedge funds, asset managers and institutional investors meet the demands of a rapidly evolving market.
• Global Research Leveraging cutting-edge technology and innovative tools to bring clients industry-leading analysis and investment advice.
• Securities Services Helping institutional investors, traditional and alternative asset and fund managers, broker dealers and equity issuers meet the demands of changing markets.
• Financial Professionals
• Liquidity Investors

Providing investment banking solutions, including mergers and acquisitions, capital raising and risk management, for a broad range of corporations, institutions and governments.

• Center for Carbon Transition J.P. Morgan’s center of excellence that provides clients the data and firmwide expertise needed to navigate the challenges of transitioning to a low-carbon future.
• Corporate Finance Advisory Corporate Finance Advisory (“CFA”) is a global, multi-disciplinary solutions team specializing in structured M&A and capital markets. Learn more.
• Development Finance Institution Financing opportunities with anticipated development impact in emerging economies.
• Sustainable Solutions Offering ESG-related advisory and coordinating the firm's EMEA coverage of clients in emerging green economy sectors.
• Mergers and Acquisitions Bespoke M&A solutions on a global scale.
• Capital Markets Holistic coverage across capital markets.
• Capital Connect
• In Context Newsletter from J.P. Morgan
• Director Advisory Services

Accept Payments

Explore blockchain, client service, process payments, manage funds, safeguard information, banking-as-a-service, send payments.

• Partner Network

A uniquely elevated private banking experience shaped around you.

• Banking We have extensive personal and business banking resources that are fine-tuned to your specific needs.
• Investing We deliver tailored investing guidance and access to unique investment opportunities from world-class specialists.
• Lending We take a strategic approach to lending, working with you to craft the fight financing solutions matched to your goals.
• Planning No matter where you are in your life, or how complex your needs might be, we’re ready to provide a tailored approach to helping your reach your goals.

Whether you want to invest on your own or work with an advisor to design a personalized investment strategy, we have opportunities for every investor.

• Invest on your own Unlimited $0 commission-free online stock, ETF and options trades with access to powerful tools to research, trade and manage your investments.
• Work with our advisors When you work with our advisors, you'll get a personalized financial strategy and investment portfolio built around your unique goals-backed by our industry-leading expertise.
• Expertise for Substantial Wealth Our Wealth Advisors & Wealth Partners leverage their experience and robust firm resources to deliver highly-personalized, comprehensive solutions across Banking, Lending, Investing, and Wealth Planning.
• Why Wealth Management?
• Retirement Calculators
• Market Commentary

Who We Serve

INDUSTRIES WE SERVE

Explore a variety of insights.

• Global Research
• Newsletters

Insights by Topic

Explore a variety of insights organized by different topics.

Insights by Type

Explore a variety of insights organized by different types of content and media.  

• All Insights

We aim to be the most respected financial services firm in the world, serving corporations and individuals in more than 100 countries.

Investment Strategy

What is venture capital?

Browse by topic

Innovation is a key economic driver and persistent differentiator in the United States. Many pioneering technologies, such as semiconductors, computers, the smartphone and artificial intelligence, would not exist without the risk-taking, entrepreneurship and venture capital that made them possible. Here’s an overview of venture capital, including how it works, the role it plays and how to raise it. 

How does venture capital work?

Venture capital provides financing to startups working on novel technologies and innovations with a high potential to create value—but also with a high risk of failure. Venture capital usually takes the form of equity shares or a future claim on equity, such as convertible debt, which in return allows the venture capital firm to receive a share of ownership in the business. 

Venture capital investors come in all shapes and sizes, but they generally have a long-term perspective. The time it takes for a company to grow and achieve success can be years, if not decades. From an investor perspective, success looks like an M&A or IPO transaction big enough to provide liquidity for all shareholders. However, the likelihood of any one investment resulting in a successful transaction where the return is much higher than the amount of investment, is very low. As a result, venture capitalists usually take a portfolio approach, spreading their investments across tens, if not hundreds, of companies.

The role of venture capital when building your startup

Venture capital’s main purpose is to help new, innovative startups grow. Before raising capital from a professional investor, a founder will tap their network of friends and family or participate in an incubator or accelerator to validate their idea and develop a minimum viable product. Some venture capital goes toward funding exploratory research and development and prototyping, but most is used to scale and commercialize a startup’s product or service. This includes investing in fixed assets for manufacturing, building out marketing and sales functions, or bolstering working capital.

The role of the venture capitalist or investor is to help the founders of a startup succeed. This can take many forms, but it usually boils down to advising on things like the state of the industry, achieving commercialization and benchmarking to peers. With a founder’s time often stretched, venture capitalists who advocate for and market a startup to their networks can be a big help. In addition, venture capitalists can leverage their networks to provide connections to the founder, such as other investors, potential customers and talent. 

Get in touch

Our dedicated startup banking team can help you find solutions for your business. 

How to raise venture capital

For a typical venture capital firm, capital is committed by a group of limited partners—institutions such as pensions, university endowments and insurance companies—who expect a higher rate of return given the inherent riskiness of their investment bets. To generate these returns, investors need to identify startups with the potential to create significant value. 

Here are some considerations when raising venture capital:

• Venture capitalists tend to be highly selective. Venture capitalists typically invest in only one or two companies out of potentially hundreds. Venture capital is a “power law,” which assumes only a small number of investments will be successful.
• Consider the current environment. The ease of negotiations depends on competition between investors. When a lot of capital is chasing fewer opportunities, as seen during the 2021-22 period, negotiations are easier for founders.
• It’s a numbers game. Typically, through a combination of networking and cold calling, a founder will line up many investor meetings. Additionally, a banker can have a network of connections to investors and capital that founders can explore. 
• The bar is generally high. Certain founder characteristics are often favored more than others—including the founder’s degree, university and previous experience as an entrepreneur. 
• Position yourself for success. Each investor will have their own list of preferred characteristics. You should conduct research before meeting with an investor to tailor your pitch.
• Prepare, prepare, prepare. The founder should prepare a pitch deck and be ready to answer any questions the investors may have. Questions are typically related to the problem trying to be solved, the size of the opportunity, development of the product or service, traction to date, the state of competition or the founding team’s experience. 
• Don’t rush into a deal. If a venture capitalist agrees to invest, their team will start the due diligence process culminating in a term sheet. The term sheet has terms and conditions that may be unfamiliar to founders. Founders should take the time to understand and evaluate the terms as they can have a significant impact on the allocation of value in the future. The term sheet will list the deal amount and the valuation, which translates into the amount of ownership the founder is offering in return for the capital received. In addition, things like liquidation preference, participation rights, cumulative dividends and conversion rights are often evaluated.

Evolution of venture capital

The origins of venture capital dates back to the 1940s. In the 1960s, venture capital was still a cottage industry, but by the 1970s that started to change. In the 1990s, the advent of the internet galvanized the industry, helped by notable venture-backed companies including Google, PayPal, eBay, Amazon, Netflix and Salesforce. The venture capital industry hit a setback toward the end of the decade as the dot-com bubble burst. This didn’t put off investors for too long. Since then, the venture capital industry has matured into an established asset class, hitting peak investment of $350 billion in the U.S. in 2021, $750 billion globally, per PitchBook. 

US Venture Capital Deployed by Era

This graph shows the upward trend of U.S. venture capital funding from 1980 to 2023, marked by several distinct periods.

• Cottage industry (1980-84): Funding started modestly, with capital invested ranging from $14.56 million in 1980 to $33.13 million in 1984
• Foundation for venture laid (1985-91): Capital invested increased, reaching $237.82 million in 1991
• Internet boom (1994-2000): A dramatic rise in funding, peaking at $51.31 billion in 2000
• Dot-com bust (2001-04): Funding decreased but remained substantial, with $21.97 billion invested in 2004
• Innovation and expansion (2005-13): Steady growth, with capital invested reaching $49.75 billion in 2013
• Institutionalization of venture capital (2014-20): Significant increases, peaking at $172.99 billion in 2020
• Peak venture (2021-22): Funding peaked at $350.50 billion in 2021 before dropping to $242.46 billion in 2022
• 2023: Venture capital funding dramatically decreased to $162.49 billion, about half of the 2021 peak

Stages of venture capital

Venture capital covers a broad range of companies, from seed through IPO. However, many investors prefer to focus on a particular stage of company, and founders should consider this when evaluating new and existing investors. The needs and priorities of a company varies at each stage, as reflected in the types of services J.P. Morgan offers.

Startup Needs Through Funding Stages

The bar graph illustrates the stages of venture capital from seed round to IPO or acquisition, showing how startup valuations increase as they progress through several stages.

Early stage: Seed and Series A; lower valutions. Needs at this stage include:

• Operating accounts
• Liquidity management
• Card and merchant processing
• Partnerships
• Cap table management
• Digital capital raising platform

Growth stage: Series B and C & D; more valuation than in the early stage. Needs at this stage include:

• Private capital raising
• Private placement advisory
• Debt financing alternatives
• Complex payments
• Reporting and reconciliation tools
• International expansion

Later stage: Series E & Crossover and IPO or Acquisition; highest valuations. Needs at this stage include:

• Capital raising and strategic advisory
• Investment management
• Global accounts
• Capital markets advisory
• Director advisory services
• International payments and FX

Benefits of venture capital

Venture capital fills a pivotal gap in the funding ecosystem and benefits portfolio companies in various ways, including: 

• Access to capital. Venture capital provides significant funding that startups often can't obtain through traditional methods, allowing for rapid scaling and development.
• Expertise and mentorship. Venture capital firms often bring industry expertise, business acumen and mentorship, helping startups navigate challenges and make strategic decisions.
• Networking opportunities. Venture capitalists have extensive networks, including potential customers, partners and future investors, which can be invaluable for a startup's growth.
• Credibility and validation. Securing venture capital can enhance a startup's credibility and market perception, making it easier to attract additional investors, customers and top talent.
• Support for risky ventures. Venture capital firms are more willing to invest in high-risk, high-reward ventures compared to traditional financing sources, fostering innovation and development in cutting-edge sectors.
• Long-term focus. Venture capitalists often have a long-term investment horizon, allowing startups to focus on growth and development rather than short-term profitability.

Without venture capital, many innovation companies would not succeed. However, it’s important for a founder to assess if venture capital is right for their company. 

Build your future with J.P. Morgan. We are committed to being the leading bank of the innovation economy—bringing together founders, investors, startups and high-growth companies. Learn more about J.P. Morgan Innovation Economy Startup Banking solutions . 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Member FDIC. Visit jpmorgan.com/cb-disclaimer for disclosures and disclaimers related to this content. 

By checking the box below I consent to JPMorgan Chase using the personal data I have provided to send me:

Learn more about our data practices in our privacy policy .

Related insights

How to use life insurance as a financial asset

Aug 19, 2024

Yes, life insurance can offer a benefit to loved ones when you pass, but it can also be a financial asset during your life. Learn how it works.

Understand the ins and outs of venture capital, from how it works to tips on raising it.

What is the electric vehicle (EV) boom?

Aug 14, 2024

Electric vehicles are taking to the road in record numbers, and the entire industry is heating up in 2024. Learn about what’s happening in the EV market.

Growth fears have sparked market volatility

Aug 06, 2024

Markets are trading with a risk-off sentiment following the release of the July 2024 Jobs Report. Here’s what our strategists have to say.

How to assess the potential impact of AI on your portfolio

Aug 02, 2024

Companies and fund managers are moving quickly to tap into AI’s potential, but are they also properly weighing the risks? Here’s how we’re making our assessments.

How AI can boost productivity and jump start growth

Jul 25, 2024

Our analytic framework quantifies the potential economic impact of AI. We believe it could be transformative.

China: Navigating a real estate rescue and renewed trade tensions

Jul 11, 2024

These two policy developments, though seemingly unrelated, are in many ways interconnected. Read on to learn more.

Nothing is as good (or bad) as they say it is

Jun 28, 2024

It’s going to take the Federal Reserve longer to achieve the confidence to ease. It’s all about confidence. It always is.

You're now leaving J.P. Morgan

J.P. Morgan’s website and/or mobile terms, privacy and security policies don’t apply to the site or app you're about to visit. Please review its terms, privacy and security policies to see how they apply to you. J.P. Morgan isn’t responsible for (and doesn’t provide) any products, services or content at this third-party site or app, except for products and services that explicitly carry the J.P. Morgan name.

• Today's Paper
• Markets Data
• Venture capital

How this research institute turned cancer success into a $66m VC fund

Subscribe to gift this article

Gift 5 articles to anyone you choose each month when you subscribe.

Already a subscriber? Login

Australia’s oldest medical research institute – the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research (WEHI) – has begun making venture capital investments from a new $66 million fund aimed at turning scientific breakthroughs into blockbuster drugs and medical devices.

The institute has created its first strategic investment fund in its 109-year history, called 66ten. It will back new ventures at their riskiest stage to try to replicate a windfall it had from the successful sale of royalty rights to a cancer treatment it helped develop in 2017.

Introducing your Newsfeed

Follow the topics, people and companies that matter to you.

• Pharmaceuticals

Latest In Technology

Fetching latest articles

Most Viewed In Technology