Advertisement

Does equity crowdfunding democratize entrepreneurial finance?

  • Douglas Cumming
  • Michele Meoli
  • Silvio VismaraEmail author
Article

Abstract

This paper investigates whether gender, age, ethnicity, and geography affect the choice of equity crowdfunding offerings vs initial public offerings (IPO) on traditional stock markets and whether these characteristics increase the likelihood of a successful offering. Using 167 equity offerings in Crowdcube and 99 equity offerings on London’s Alternative Investment Market raising between £300,000 and £5 m, we find that companies with younger top management team (TMT) members are both more likely to launch equity crowdfunding offerings than IPOs and have higher chances to successfully complete an equity crowdfunding offering. Remotely located companies are more likely to launch equity crowdfunding offerings than IPOs and have higher chances to successfully complete an equity crowdfunding offering. On the contrary, female entrepreneurs do not have higher chances to raise funds in equity crowdfunding. Minority entrepreneurs do not have higher chances of successfully raising capital but do attract a higher number of investors. Overall, our evidence provides empirical guidance for the first time to the oft-repeated policy claim that equity crowdfunding democratizes entrepreneurial finance by providing access to funding to underrepresented groups of potential entrepreneurs.

Keywords

Crowdfunding Finance democratization Non-bank financial institutions Entrepreneurship 

JEL classifictions

L25 L26 G23 G24 G28 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We owe thanks to Maksim Belitski, two anonymous reviewers, and the conference participants in Berlin at the Indiana University European Gateway in Berlin and at the University of Reading.

References

  1. Afonso, G., Kovner, A., & Schoar, A. (2014). Trading Partners in the Interbank Lending Market. Staff reports, no. 620. New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York.Google Scholar
  2. Aggarwal, R., Prabhala, N. R., & Puri, M. (2002). Institutional allocation in initial public offerings: Empirical evidence. The Journal of Finance, 57(3), 1421–1442.Google Scholar
  3. Agrawal, A. K., Catalini, C., & Goldfarb, A. (2015). Crowdfunding: Geography, social networks, and the timing of investment decisions. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 24(2), 253–274.Google Scholar
  4. Ahlers, G. K., Cumming, D., Guenther, C., & Schweizer, D. (2015). Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 39(4), 955–980.Google Scholar
  5. Aldrich, H., & Waldinger, R. (1990). Ethnicity and entrepreneurship. Annual Review of Sociology, 16(1), 111–135.Google Scholar
  6. Arrow, K. J. (1998). What has economics to say about racial discrimination? Journal of Economic Perspective, 12(2), 91–100.Google Scholar
  7. Baker, H. K., Nofsinger, J. R., & Weaver, D. G. (2002). International cross-listing and visibility. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 37(3), 495–521.Google Scholar
  8. Becker, G. (1957). The economics of discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bengtsson, O., & Hsu, D. H. (2015). Ethnic matching in the U.S. venture capital market. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 338–354.Google Scholar
  10. Block, J. H., Colombo, M. G., Cumming, D. J., & Vismara, S. (2018). New players in entrepreneurial finance and why they are there. Small Business Economics, 50(2), 239–250.Google Scholar
  11. Boeh, K. K., & Dunbar, C. G. (2013). Post IPO Withdrawal Outcomes. SSRN Working Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com|/abstract=2135772.
  12. Brush, C. G., Carter, N. M., Gatwood, E. J., Greene, P. G., & Hart, M. (2004). Gatekeepers of Venture Growth: A Diana Project Report on the Role and Participation of Women in the Venture Capital Industry. Kansas City, MO: The Kauffman Foundation.Google Scholar
  13. Burtch, G., Ghose, A., & Wattal, S. (2014). Cultural differences and geography as determinants of online pro-social lending. MIS Quarterly, 38(3), 773–794.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, A. A., Cherry, C. R., Ryerson, M. S., & Yang, X. (2016). Factors influencing the choice of shared bicycles and shared electric bikes in Beijing. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 67, 399–414.Google Scholar
  15. Carlson, R. (1972). Understanding women: Implications for personality theory and research. The Journal of Social Issues, 28, 17–32.Google Scholar
  16. Carter, S., & Rosa, P. (1998). The financing of male and female-owned businesses. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 10(3), 225–241.Google Scholar
  17. Catalini, C., Fazio, C. & Murray, F., 2016. Can equity crowdfunding democratize access to capital and investment opportunities? SSRN working paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com|/abstract=2780511.
  18. Cavalluzzo, K. S., Cavalluzzo, L. C., & Wolken, J. D. (2002). Competition, small business financing, and discrimination: Evidence from a new survey. Journal of Business, 75(4), 641–679.Google Scholar
  19. Coleman, S. (2000). Access to capital: A comparison of men and women-owned small businesses. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(3), 37–52.Google Scholar
  20. Coval, J., & Moskowitz, T. (2001). The geography of investment: Informed trading and asset prices. Journal of Political Economy, 109, 811–841.Google Scholar
  21. Cumming, D. J., Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2019). Investors’ choice between cash and voting rights: Evidence from dual-class equity crowdfunding. Research Policy, forthcoming. Available at:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.01.014
  22. Cummings, M.E., Rawhouser, H., Vismara, S. & Hamilton, E.L., 2019. An equity crowdfunding research agenda: Evidence from stakeholder participation in the rulemaking process. Small Business Economics, forthcoming. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-018-00134-5.
  23. Duarte, J., Siegel, S., & Young, L. (2012). Trust and credit: The role of appearance in peer-to-peer lending. Review of Financial Studies, 25(8), 2455–2483.Google Scholar
  24. Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.Google Scholar
  25. Estrin, S., Gozman, D., & Khavul, S., 2018. The evolution and adoption of equity crowdfunding: Entrepreneur and investor entry into a new market. Small Business Economics, 51(2), 425–439.Google Scholar
  26. Fabowale, L., Orser, B., & Riding, A. (1995). Gender, structural factors, and credit terms between Canadian small businesses and financial institutions. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19(4), 41–65.Google Scholar
  27. Fagenson, E. (1993). Personal value systems of men and women: Entrepreneurs versus managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(5), 409–430.Google Scholar
  28. Fairlie, R. W., & Robb, A. (2007). Why are black-owned businesses less successful than white-owned businesses? The role of families, inheritances, and business human capital. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(2), 289–323.Google Scholar
  29. Fairlie, R. W., Morelix, A., Reedy, E. J., & Russell, J. (2016). The Kauffman index of startup activity: national trends. Kansas City: The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.Google Scholar
  30. French, K. R., & Poterba, J. M. (1991). Investor diversification and international equity markets. American Economic Review, 81, 222–226.Google Scholar
  31. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In W. W. Powell & P. J. Dimaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Greenberg, J., & Mollick, E. (2017). Activist choice homophily and the crowdfunding of female founders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 62(2), 341–374.Google Scholar
  33. Greene, P., Brush, C., Hart, M., & Saparito, P. (2001). Patterns of venture capital funding: Is gender a factor? Venture Capital, 3, 63–83.Google Scholar
  34. Guenther, C., Johan, S., & Schweizer, D. (2017). Is the crowd sensitive to distance?—How investment decisions differ by investor type. Small Business Economics, 50(2), 289–305.Google Scholar
  35. Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–162.Google Scholar
  36. Herzenstein, M., Andrews, R. L., Dholakia, U. M., & Lyandres, E., 2008. The democratization of personal consumer loans? Determinants of success in online peer-to-peer lending communities. Boston University School of Management Research Paper, 14(6), 1–36. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1147856. Accessed 18 July 2018.
  37. Hornuf, L., & Schwienbacher, A. (2017). Should securities regulation promote equity crowdfunding? Small Business Economics, 49(3), 579–593.Google Scholar
  38. Lee, M. O., & Vouchilas, G. (2016). Preparing to age in place: Attitudes, approaches, and actions. Housing and Society, 43(6), 69–81  https://doi.org/10.1080/08882746.2016.1221039.
  39. Lévesque, M., & Minniti, M. (2006). The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior. Journal of Business Venturing, 21, 177–194.Google Scholar
  40. Lin, M., & Viswanathan, S. (2016). Home bias in online investments: An empirical study of an online crowdfunding market. Management Science, 62, 1393–1414.Google Scholar
  41. Manes, S., & Andrews, P. (1993). Gates: How Microsoft’s mogul reinvented an industry--and made himself the richest man in America. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  42. Marom, D., Robb, A. & O. Sade, O., 2016. Gender dynamics in crowdfunding (Kickstarter): Evidence on entrepreneurs, investors, deals and taste based discrimination. SSRN Working Paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2442954.
  43. Mohammadi, A., & Shafi, K. (2018). Gender differences in the contribution patterns of equity-crowdfunding investors. Small Business Economics, 50(2), 275–287.Google Scholar
  44. Morse, A., 2015. Peer-to-peer crowdfunding: Information and the potential for disruption in consumer lending. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 7, 463–482.Google Scholar
  45. Nambisan, S., Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital innovation management: Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 223–238.Google Scholar
  46. Parker, S. C. (2009). The economics of entrepreneurship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Piva, E., & Rossi-Lamastra, C., 2017. Human capital signals and entrepreneurs’ success in equity crowdfunding. Small Business Economics, 51(3), 667–686.Google Scholar
  48. Polzin, F., Toxopeus, H., & Stam, E. (2018). The wisdom of the crowd in funding: Information heterogeneity and social networks of crowdfunders. Small Business Economics, 50(2), 251–273.Google Scholar
  49. Pope, D.G. and Sydnor, J.R., 2011. What’s in a picture? Evidence of discrimination from Prosper.com. Journal of Human Resources, 46(1), 53–92.
  50. Prokop, J., & Wang, D., (2018). Is there a gender gap in equity crowdfunding? Proceedings of the INFINITI conference on international finance 2018. Poznan, 11-12 June 2018.Google Scholar
  51. Radford, J.S., 2016. The emergence of gender inequality in a crowdfunding market: An experimental test of gender system theory. SSRN working paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstrac=2804265
  52. Ravina, E, (2008). Love & loans: The effect of beauty and personal characteristics in credit markets. SSRN Working Paper.Google Scholar
  53. Riding, A., & Swift, C. (1990). Women business owners and terms of credit: Some empirical findings of the Canadian experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 5(5), 327–340.Google Scholar
  54. Ritter, J. R. (2003). Differences between European and American IPO markets. European Financial Management, 9, 421–434.Google Scholar
  55. Ritter, J. R. (2013). Re-energizing the IPO market. Journal of Applied Finance, 24(1), 37–48.Google Scholar
  56. Ritter, J. R., Signori, A., & Vismara, S. (2013). Economies of scope and IPO activity in Europe. In M. Levis & S. Vismara (Eds.), Handbook of research on IPOs (pp. 11–34). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  57. Rossi, A., & Vismara, S. (2018). What do crowdfunding platforms do? A comparison between investment-based platforms in Europe. Eurasian Business Review, 8(1), 93–118.Google Scholar
  58. Rossi, A., Vismara, S., & Meoli, M. (2018). Voting rights delivery in investment-based crowdfunding: A cross-platform analysis. Economia e Politica Industriale, Forthcoming. Available at:  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40812-018-0109-x
  59. Roxas, M. L., & Stoneback, J. Y. (2004). The importance of gender across cultures in ethical decision-making. Journal of Business Ethics, 50, 149–165.Google Scholar
  60. Schwartz, 2015. Teenage Crowdfunding. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 83, 515.Google Scholar
  61. Schwienbacher, A., 2018. Entrepreneurial risk-taking in crowdfunding campaigns. Small Business Economics, 51(4), 843-859.Google Scholar
  62. Shaheen, S., Guzman, S., & Zhang, H. (2010). Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2143(1), 159–167.Google Scholar
  63. Signori, A., & Vismara, S. (2018). Does success bring success? The post-offering lives of equity-crowdfunded firms. Journal of Corporate Finance, 50, 575–591.Google Scholar
  64. Sorenson, O., & Stuart, T. (2001). Syndication networks and the spatial distribution of venture capital investments. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1546–1588.Google Scholar
  65. Steinhoff, R. H. (2015). The Next British Invasion Is Securities Crowdfunding: How Issuing Non-Registered Securities Through the Crowd Can Succeed in the United States. U. Colo. L. Rev., 86, 661.Google Scholar
  66. Stengel, G., (2015). Women-Owned Businesses: A Tale of Two Types Of Entrepreneurs. Forbes [Online] Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/geristengel/2015/08/26/women-owned-businesses-a-tale-of-two-types-of-entrepreneurs. Accessed 18 July 2018.
  67. Sulaeman, J. (2014). Do local investors know more? Evidence from mutual fund location and investments. Quarterly Journal of Finance, 4, 1450010.Google Scholar
  68. Terza, J. V. (1998). Estimating count models with endogenous switching: Sample selection and endogenous treatment effects. Journal of Econometrics, 84, 129–154.Google Scholar
  69. Van de Ven, W. P. M. M., & Van Pragg, B. M. S. (1981). The demand for deductibles in private health insurance: A probit model with sample selection. Journal of Econometrics, 17(2), 229–252.Google Scholar
  70. Verheul, I., & Thurik, R. (2001). Start-up capital: does gender matter? Small Business Economics, 16(4), 329–346.Google Scholar
  71. Vismara, S. (2016). Equity retention and social network theory in equity crowdfunding. Small Business Economics, 46(4), 579–590.Google Scholar
  72. Vismara, S. (2018). Information cascades among investors in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 42(3), 467–497.Google Scholar
  73. Vismara, S. 2019. Sustainability in equity crowdfunding. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 141, 98–106.Google Scholar
  74. Vismara, S., Paleari, S., & Ritter, J. R. (2012). Europe’s second markets for small companies. European Financial Management, 18(3), 352–388.Google Scholar
  75. Vismara, S., Benaroio, D., & Carne, F. (2017). Gender in entrepreneurial finance: Matching investors and entrepreneurs in equity crowdfunding. In A. Link (Ed.), Gender and entrepreneurial activity (pp. 271–288). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  76. Younkin, P., and Kuppuswamy, V., 2017. The colorblind crowd? Founder race and performance in crowdfunding. Management science, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  77. Younkin, P., and Kuppuswamy, V., 2018. Discounted: The effect of founder race on the price of new products. Journal of Business Venturing, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  78. Zhang, T., and Acs, Z., 2018. Age and entrepreneurship: Nuances from entrepreneur types and generation effects. Small business Economics. 51(4), 773–809.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas Cumming
    • 1
    • 2
  • Michele Meoli
    • 3
  • Silvio Vismara
    • 3
    • 4
    Email author
  1. 1.College of BusinessFlorida Atlantic UniversityBoca RatonUSA
  2. 2.Birmingham Business SchoolUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  3. 3.University of BergamoBergamoItaly
  4. 4.Ghent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations