Crowding Out Private Equity: Canadian Evidence
By Douglas J. Cumming, Jeffrey G. Macintosh. 2002
335 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Accounting, Management of Technology and Innovation
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bab0190103eae482746f6c359872024cdf4f247b
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Accounting
- Mike Wright
- F. Bertoni
- Douglas J. Cumming
- Massimo G. Colombo
- A. Quas
- David B. Audretsch
- Tereza Tykvová
- Luca Grilli
In Management of Technology and Innovation
- David B. Audretsch
- Mike Wright
- Massimo G. Colombo
- Shaker A. Zahra
- Ross Brown
- David Urbano
- Zoltan J. Acs
- Douglas J. Cumming
Citations in the corpus
- The multiple roles of state investment banks in low-carbon energy finance: An analysis of Australia, the UK and Germany (2018, background): “…context of SIBs ‘crowding out’ refers to public institutions investing in the place of private financiers, displacing and/or reducing private investment participation, and thus inhibiting the development of an effective and robust private sector market for financing (Cumming and MacIntosh, 2006).”
- Assessing the impact of public venture capital programmes in the United Kingdom: : Do regional characteristics matter? (2015, positive): “At the regional level, for instance, the study by Cumming and Macintosh (2006) analyzes the effects of a Canadian tax-driven venture capital vehicle (LSVCC) on the supply of private venture capital funds in different Candian geographic regions.”
- Governmental venture capital in Europe: Screening and certification (2016, result): “The findings in Armour and Cumming (2006) and Cumming and Macintosh (2006) are consistent with a negative effect in Europe and Canada, respectively.”
- How does governmental versus private venture capital backing affect a firm's efficiency? Evidence from Belgium (2015, background): “In this paper, we focus on this third vector of public influence in the VC world.1 Various studies have investigated country-specific settings of different forms of government-sponsored VC, such as in the USA (Cumming and Li, 2013; Lerner, 1999), Canada (Cumming and MacIntosh, 2003, 2006, 2007), UK ”
- Does governmental venture capital spur invention and innovation? Evidence from young European biotech companies (2015, background): “…GVCs are generally not organized as limited partnerships, their management company is not independent from the ultimate investor (the government), their objectives are not limited to financial returns and their remuneration is usually fixed (Cumming and MacIntosh, 2006; Jääskeläinen et al., 2007).”
- Public policy to promote entrepreneurship: a call to arms (2016, positive): “Their ultimate conclusion is that the tax subsidies to individuals that underpin the creation of LSVCCs actually crowded out private capital to Canadian start-ups (Cumming and MacIntosh 2006).”
- A Review and Road Map of Entrepreneurial Equity Financing Research: Venture Capital, Corporate Venture Capital, Angel Investment, Crowdfunding, and Accelerators (2017, background): “For example, Cumming and MacIntosh (2006) find evidence that a Canadian government venture vehicle crowds out private venture money.”
- Formal institutions, culture, and venture capital activity: A cross-country analysis (2012, positive): “…studies have also examined the demand-side vs. supply-side factors affecting VC activity for a particular country, such as the “Labour Sponsored Venture Capital Corporation” program in Canada (Cumming and MacIntosh, 2006) and the Innovation Investment Fund program in Australia (Cumming, 2007).”
- Government, Venture Capital and the Growth of European High-Tech Entrepreneurial Firms (2014, background): “Alternatively, previous studies have adopted a macro perspective that highlighted country-specific policy (Cumming and MacIntosh, 2007b) and 3 This study adopts the prevailing criterion followed by the most known commercial datasets in the field (e.g., Thomson One) that classify the different types…”
- Governmental venture capital for innovative young firms (2014, neutral): “Third, and most importantly, public investment may displace private investment, leading to crowding-out effects (Armour and Cumming 2006; Cumming and MacIntosh 2006).”
- Dynamics of Science-based entrepreneurship (2010, background): “Although IPOs tend to be most high profile, several studies have also pointed to the importance of trade sales as an exit route ( Cumming and MacIntosh 2003, 2006; Murray 1994).”
- Information asymmetries, agency costs and venture capital exit outcomes (2008, positive): “Government VCs are often structured with inefficient statutory covenants that diminish the value-added that funds provide to their investees, and thereby limit the success potential of the investee entrepreneurial firms (Halpern 1997; Cressy 2002; Cumming and MacIntosh 2006, 2007).”