Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Agency and similarity effects and the VC’s attitude towards academic spin-out investing

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Our research seeks to develop understanding of the factors explaining venture capital investment managers’ attitudes towards investment in the unique context of academic spin-outs. We provide a novel integration of both VC fund characteristics and investment managers’ human capital characteristics with a unique hand-collected dataset of 68 early stage VC investment managers in Europe. Attitudes toward academic spin-out investing are positively affected by the presence of public sector capital and by investment managers who are more intensively involved with the entrepreneur. Specific human capital in investment managers who had worked in an academic environment is more likely associated with investment in academic spin-outs. In terms of general human capital, financial experience is positively related while entrepreneurial experience is negatively associated with investment attitude towards academic spin-outs. There may be a need to facilitate the attraction of people from industry and investment banking into public VC funds in particular.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Venture funds having a fund size between 100 million Euro and 250 million Euro are considered to be large funds for venture investments. Mega funds are those funds having a size of more than 250 million Euro, small funds have less than 100 million Euro under management (EVCA definition).

  2. Communications, computer related, other electronics related, biotech, medical/health related, energy, chemicals and materials, industrial automation.

References

  • 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 

  • Anderson, N., & Shackleton, V. (1990). Decision making in the graduate selection interview: A field study. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 67, 63–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R., & Warshaw, P. (1992). An examination of the etiology of the attitude-behavior relation for goal-directed behaviors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 27(4), 601–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, G. (1975). Human capital. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergemann, D., & Hege, U. (1998). Venture capital financing, moral hazard, and learning. Journal of Banking & Finance, 22, 703–735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, A. N., & Udell, G. F. (1998). The economics of small business finance: The roles of private equity and debt markets in the financial growth cycle. Journal of Banking & Finance, 22, 613–673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottazzi, L., Da Rin, M., & Hellmann, T. (2008). Who are the active investors? Evidence from venture capital. Journal of Financial Economics, 89, 488–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York.

  • Christensen, C. (2003). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Knockaert, M., & Lockett, A. (2007a). Outside board members in high tech start-ups. Small Business Economics, 29(3), 243–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Mustar, P., & Knockaert, M. (2007b). Academic spin-offs, formal technology transfer and capital raising. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16(4), 609–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M., & Grilli, L. (2005). Founders’ human capital and the growth of new technology-based firms: A competence-based view. Research Policy, 34, 795–816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conover W. J. (1980). Practical nonparametric statistics. Wiley.

  • Cumming D. (2006). Adverse selection and capital structure: Evidence from venture capital. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(2), 155–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2004). Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(4), 246–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Bettignies, J.-E., & Brander, J. (2007). Financing entrepreneurship: Bank finance versus venture capital. Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 808–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Giacomo M. (2004). Public support to entrepreneurial firms: An assessment of the role of venture capital in the European experience. The Journal of Private Equity, 8(1), 22–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimov, P. D., & Shepherd, D. A. (2005). Human capital theory and venture capital firms: Exploring “home runs” and “strike outs”. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimov, D., Shepherd, D., & Sutcliffe, K. (2007). Requisite expertise, firm reputation, and status in venture capital investment allocation decisions. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(4), 481–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC. (1994). European report on S&T indicators.

  • Elango, B., Fried, V., Hisrich, R., & Poloncek, A. (1995). How venture capital firms differ. Journal of Business Venturing, 10(2), 157–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ensley, M., & Hmieleski, K. (2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups. Research Policy, 34, 1091–1105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2003). Raising EU R&D intensity: Risk capital measures. Brussels and Luxembourg: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franke, N., Gruber, M., Harhoff, D., & Henkel, J. (2006). What you are is what you like—similarity biases in venture capitalists’ evaluations of start-up teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6), 802–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke N., Gruber M., Harhoff D., & Henkel J. (2008). Venture capitalists’ evaluations of start-up teams: Trade-offs, knock-out criteria, and the impact of VC experience. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(2), 459–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S., Wright, M., & Lockett, A. (2001). Academic and surrogate entrepreneurs in university spin-out companies. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26(1–2), 127–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fried, V., & Hisrich, R. (1994). Toward a model of venture capital investment decision making. Financial Management, 23(3), 28–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, D., Martin, C., Minshall, T., & Rigby, M. (2000). Funding technology: Lessons from America. London: Wardour Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gimeno, J., Folta, T. B., Cooper, A. C., & Woo, C. Y. (1997). Survival of the fittest? Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 750–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 183–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gompers, P. (1995). Optimal investment, monitoring, and the staging of venture capital. Journal of Finance, 50(5), 1461–1489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gompers, P., & Lerner, J. (2001). The venture capital revolution. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(2), 145–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene W. (2003). Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall.

  • Gupta, A., & Sapienza, H. (1992). Determinants of venture capital firms’ preference regarding the industry diversity and geographic scope of their investments. Journal of Business Venturing, 7(5), 347–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tathum, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, J., & Hofer, C. W. (1993). Venture capitalists’ decision criteria in new venture evaluation. Journal of Business Venturing, 8, 25–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 82(5), 929–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann, T., & Puri, M. (2000). The interaction between product market and financing strategy: The role of venture capital. The Review of Financial Studies, 13(4), 959–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hellmann, T., & Puri, M. (2002). Venture capital and the professionalization of start-up firms: Empirical evidence. The Journal of Finance, 57(1), 169–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, S. F., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotion and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 675–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, M., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economic, 3(4), 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic B. & Szentes B. (2007). On the return to venture capital. NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper 12874.

  • Kale, S., & Arditi, D. (1998). Business failures: Liabilities of newness, adolescence and smallness. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 124(6), 458–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, S. N., & Strömberg, P. (2001). Venture capitalists as principals: Contracting, screening and monitoring. American Economic Review Proceedings, 91(2), 426–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeley R. H., & Roure J. B. (1989). Determinants of new venture success before 1982 and after a preliminary look at two eras. Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 274–287.

  • Kim, M., & Hunter, J. (1993). ‘Attitude-behavior’ relations: A meta-analysis of attitudinal relevance and topic. Journal of Communication, 43(1), 101–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirzner, I. (1973). Competition and entrepreneurship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knockaert, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Wright, M. (2006). Do human capital and fund characteristics drive follow-up behaviour of early stage high tech VCs? International Journal of Technology Management, 34(1–2), 7–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kortum, S., & Lerner, J. (2000). Assessing the contribution of venture capital to innovation. The Rand Journal of Economics, 31(4), 674–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, S. (1991). Venture capital financing: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 18(2), 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lefkowitz, J. (2000). The role of interpersonal affective regard in supervisory performance ratings: A literature review and proposed causal model. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 73, 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J. (1999). The government as venture capitalist: The long-run impact of the SBIR program. Journal of Business, 72(3), 285–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthal, J. D., & Tellefsen, T. (2001). Toward a theory of business buyer–seller similarity. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 1, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Murray, G., & Wright, M. (2002). Do UK venture capitalists still have a bias against investment in new technology firms. Research Policy, 31, 1009–1030.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Siegel, D., Wright, M., & Ensley, M. (2005). The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy, 34, 981–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, I. C., Kulow, D. M., & Khoylian, R. (1989). Venture capitalists involvement in their investments: Extent and performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 27–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, I. C., Siegel, R., & Subbanarashima, P. N. (1985). Criteria used by venture capitalists to evaluate new venture proposals. Journal of Business Venturing, 1, 119–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacMillan, I. C., Zemann, L., & Subbanarashima, P. N. (1987). Criteria distinguishing successful from unsuccessful ventures in the venture screening process. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 123–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manigart, S., Waele, K., Wright, M., Robbie, K., Desbrieres, P., Sapienza, H., et al. (2002). Determinants of required return in venture capital investments: A five-country study. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(4), 291–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R., Sunley, P., & Turner, D. (2002). Taking risks in regions: The geographical anatomy of Europe’s emerging venture capital market. Journal of Economic Geography, 2(2), 121–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C., & Harrison, R. (2004). Does investing in technology-based firms involve higher risk? An exploratory study of the performance of technology and non-technology investments by business angels. Venture Capital, 6(4), 313–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moray, N., & Clarysse, B. (2005). Institutional change and resource endowments to science-based entrepreneurial firms. Research Policy, 34(7), 1010–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, G. (1999). Early-stage venture capital funds, scale economies and public support. Venture capital, 1(4), 351–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murray, G., & Lott, J. (1995). Have venture capitalists a bias against investment in new technology firms? Research Policy, 24, 283–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muzyka, D., Birley, S., & Leleux, B. (1996). Trade-offs in the investment decisions of European venture capitalists. Journal of Business Venturing, 11, 273–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. (2001). Observations on the post Bayh-Dole rise in patenting at American universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 26, 13–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oakey, R. (1984). Finance and innovation in British small independent firms. International Journal of Management Science, 12, 113–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2002). Benchmarking industry science relations. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavitt, K. (2000). Why European union funding of academic research should be increased: A radical proposal. Science and Public Policy, 27(6), 455–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahlman, W. (1990). The structure and governance of venture-capital organizations. Journal of Financial Economics, 27(2), 473–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schefczyk, M., & Gerpott, T. J. (2001). Management support for portfolio companies of venture capital firms: An empirical study of German venture capital investments. British Journal of Management, 12, 201–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shane, S., & Stuart, T. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of University Start-ups. Management Science, 48(1), 154–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd, D., Zacharakis, A., & Baron, R. (2003). VCs’ decision processes. Evidence suggesting more experience may not always be better. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(3), 381–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeting, R., & Wong, C. (1997). A UK hands-off venture capital firm and the handling of post-investment investor-investee relationships. Journal of Management Studies, 34(1), 125–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. New York.

  • Tyebjee, T. T., & Bruno, A. V. (1984). A model of VC investment activity. Management Science, 30, 1051–1066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Velde, E., Clarysse, B., & Wright, M. (2008). Entrepreneurial origin, technology endowments and the growth of spin-off companies, Working Paper: Imperial College.

  • Vanaelst, I., Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Lockett, A., Moray, N., & S’Jegers, R. (2006). Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: An examination of heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(2), 249–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westhead, P., & Storey, D. (1995). Financial constraints on the growth of high technology small firms in the United Kingdom. Applied Financial Economics, 7, 197–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund J., Davidsson P., & Delmar F. (2003). What do they think and feel about growth? An expectancy-value approach to small business managers’ attitudes toward growth. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 27(3), 247–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review, 14(3), 361–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Clarysse, B., Lockett, A., & Knockaert, M. (2008). Mid-range universities’ linkages with industry: Knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Research Policy, 37(8), 1205–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Lockett, A., Clarysse, B., & Binks, M. (2006). University spin-out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35(4), 481–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., & Robbie, K. (1998). Venture capital and private equity: A review and synthesis. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 25(5/6), 521–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, M., Vohora, A., & Lockett, A. (2004). The formation of high tech university spinout companies: The role of joint ventures and venture capital investors. Journal of Technology Transfer, 29, 287–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Ghent, Tweekerkenstraat 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Mirjam Knockaert, Mike Wright & Bart Clarysse

  2. Centre for Entrepreneurship, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1169, Blindern, Oslo, 0318, Norway

    Mirjam Knockaert

  3. Centre for Management Buy-out Research, Nottingham University Business School, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG81BB, UK

    Mike Wright

  4. Imperial College London Business School, South Kensington Campus, London, SW7 2AZ, UK

    Bart Clarysse

  5. University of Nottingham, Nottingham University Business School, Jubilee Campus, Wollaton Road, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK

    Andy Lockett

Authors
  1. Mirjam Knockaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mike Wright
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bart Clarysse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andy Lockett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mirjam Knockaert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Knockaert, M., Wright, M., Clarysse, B. et al. Agency and similarity effects and the VC’s attitude towards academic spin-out investing. J Technol Transf 35, 567–584 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9138-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-009-9138-y

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation