Venture Capital Investors, Capital Markets, Valuation and Information: US, Europe and Asia

Abstract

This paper uses a large multi-country sample of venture capital firms to compare the approaches to investee valuation and sources of information used by venture capital investors in English, French and German legal systems as well as geographical regions. Different legal systems are significantly associated with the valuation mechanism used. In particular, compared to English-based Common Law systems, VC firms operating in a Germanic legal system are significantly more likely to use DCF based measures and significantly less likely to use PE comparators. This latter result is also the case for VC firms operating in a French legal system who are also significantly more likely to adopt historic cost valuation methods. VC firms in Europe and Asia are significantly less likely than US VC firms to make use of liquidation value methods but significantly more likely to use PE comparators. European firms are significantly less likely to adopt DCF methods compared to US VC firms. VC firms operating under a Germanic legal system are less likely to utilise information from the financial press but significantly more likely to use interviews with entrepreneurs. VC firms operating under a French legal system are more likely to utilise interviews with company personnel as well as sales and marketing information. VC firms in Europe and Asia are significantly more likely than US VC firms to use financial press. VC firms in Asia are significantly less likely to make use of interviews with entrepreneurs or business plan data. VC firms in Europe are significantly more likely to utilise sales and marketing information. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2004venture capital, valuation, information, Europe, emerging markets,

How law, politics and transnational networks affect technology entrepreneurship: Explaining divergent venture capital investing strategies in China

“…This article amends this assumption by uncovering two distinct types of foreign VC firms that behave quite differently in selecting investment targets. The differences between the ECF and foreign VCs suggests that the foreign VCs are actually rather limited in their ability to adapt to local environments in contrast to the claims of prior works (Bruton et al, 2004;Lockett et al, 2002;Wright et al, 2002Wright et al, , 2004. The difference in behavior is located at the level of the organization rather than the level of the individual venture capitalist because the venture capitalists across the two types of foreign VC firms are quite similar: ethnic Chinese returnees from abroad utilizing the same social networks in China.…”

International venture capital research: From cross‐country comparisons to crossing borders

“…Financial theory has been used in conjunction with institutional theory to examine the methods of valuation adopted by venture capitalists in different markets Manigart et al 2000;Wright et al 2004b). Since VC executives in developed markets have greater expertise and skills to evaluate proposals, valuation practices are more sophisticated.…”

Venture capital in China: Past, present, and future

“…China, and most emerging economies, also lack active markets for corporate control (Peng, Luo, & Sun, 1999) and established public equity markets by which investors can exit their investments . This lack of property rights and (an enforceable) rule of law add to the complexity of the venture capital process Wright et al, 2004). These unique characteristics however have not prevented China from creating a rapidly growing market for venture capital.…”