Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Empirical Results

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Investors’ Preferences in Financing New Ventures

  • 116 Accesses

Abstract

This section provides the main empirical results obtained from the analysis. It contains both a descriptive overview of the samples, together with an exploratory analysis (univariate statistics, t-tests), and an inferential analysis on the observations, namely multivariate regressions. Lastly, the last subsections also provide analysis from both country-level and platform-level perspectives.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Remember that 4 of these variables may be used also as dependent variables, depending on the model estimated. So, for this descripted evidence they are counted double, both in the Y and K4 group of potential variables.

  2. 2.

    Tables 6.3, 6.9, and 6.12 show uniquely variables that appear statistically different from T-Student tests.

  3. 3.

    Note that estimations by platform are carried out on the complete dataset of variables available. The inclusion of a variable with very few observations for that platform, would have endangered the whole estimation. For the sake of significance of multivariate analysis, we omit this kind of items in estimations.

  4. 4.

    We followed a common rule of thumb and excluded variables that exceeded the correlation threshold of 0.8 from the models, in line with Belinda and Peat (2014), Young (2017), and Shrestha (2020).

  5. 5.

    This explains why eventually some variables with enough data to be reported in summary statistics of previous section, do not appear here as regressor in estimations.

  6. 6.

    The reason might lie in the model specification: in some cases it might correspond to the dependent variable or to a different transformation of it, whether in some other cases it might correspond to a different transformation of an independent variable.

  7. 7.

    For Crowdfunder, Crowdcube, Seedrs, Fundedbyme and Opstart, the ‘Social media presence’ has been excluded for collinearity with ‘Social media count’. The opposite happens in Invesdor and Fundedbyme. Exclusion for multicollinearity has been applied for Capital raised§ in Fundedbyme and Opstart; Firm location in Seedrs, Sowefund and Mamacrowd; ‘Max. funding target’ in Sowefund and 200Crowd, ‘Percentage raised’ in Opstart.

References

  • Barbi, M., & Mattioli, S. (2019). Human capital, investor trust, and equity crowdfunding. Research in International Business and Finance, 49, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belinda, B., & Peat, J. (2014). Medical statistics: A guide to SPSS, data analysis, and critical appraisal (2nd ed.). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coakley, J., Lazos, A., & Liñares-Zegarra, J. M. (2022). Equity crowdfunding founder teams: Campaign success and venture failure. British Journal of Management, 33(1), 286–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, D., Meoli, M., & Vismara, S. (2019). Investors’ choices between cash and voting rights: Evidence from dual-class equity crowdfunding. Research Policy, 48(8), 103740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleinert, S., Bafera, J., Urbig, D., & Volkmann, C. K. (2022). Access denied: How equity crowdfunding platforms use quality signals to select new ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(6), 1626–1657. https://doi.org/10.1177/10422587211011945

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löher, J. (2017). The interaction of equity crowdfunding platforms and ventures: An analysis of the preselection process. Venture Capital, 19(1–2), 51–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löher, J., Schneck, S., & Werner, A. (2018). A research note on entrepreneurs’ financial commitment and crowdfunding success. Venture Capital, 20(3), 309–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukkarinen, A., Teich, J. E., Wallenius, H., & Wallenius, J. (2016). Success drivers of online equity crowdfunding campaigns. Decision Support Systems, 87, 26–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nitani, M., Riding, A., & He, B. (2019). On equity crowdfunding: Investor rationality and success factors. Venture Capital, 21(2–3), 243–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piva, E., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2018). Human capital signals and entrepreneurs’ success in equity crowdfunding. Small Business Economics, 51(3), 667–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ralcheva, A., & Roosenboom, P. (2020). Forecasting success in equity crowdfunding. Small Business Economics, 55(1), 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shafi, K. (2021). Investors’ evaluation criteria in equity crowdfunding. Small Business Economics, 56(1), 3–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrestha, N. (2020). Detecting multicollinearity in regression analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 8, 39–42. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajams-8-2-1

  • Singh, R. P. (2020). Overconfidence: A common psychological attribute of entrepreneurs which leads to firm failure. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 23(1), 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vismara, S. (2016). Equity retention and social network theory in equity crowdfunding. Small Business Economics, 46(4), 579–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vismara, S. (2019). Sustainability in equity crowdfunding. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 98–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, D. S. (2017). Handbook of regression methods (pp. 109–136). CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy

    Francesco James Mazzocchini

  2. Department of Management, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy

    Caterina Lucarelli

Authors
  1. Francesco James Mazzocchini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caterina Lucarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco James Mazzocchini .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mazzocchini, F.J., Lucarelli, C. (2023). Empirical Results. In: Investors’ Preferences in Financing New Ventures. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30058-5_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30058-5_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-30057-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-30058-5

  • eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation