National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 1 Background of the Workshop
Suggested Citation:"2 What Are The Facts? Do They Merit Analysis?." National Research Council. 2009. Investor Exits, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Firm Growth: Questions for Research: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12811.
×

2
What Are The Facts? Do They Merit Analysis?

At the outset of the workshop three presenters were asked to describe what had happened to venture capital investment and investor exits over the previous decade. Josh Lerner of the Harvard Business School cited data from Venture Economics showing the bubble in venture capital fundraising between 1999 and 2002 (Figure 1), corresponding to the soaring return on venture investments in 1998-1999 (peaking at >175 percent), followed by a strikingly negative rate of return (in the neighborhood of -25 percent) in 2001. (Figure 2)

FIGURE 1 U.S. Venture Capital Fundraising (1969-2006). SOURCE: Venture Economics and Asset Alternatives.

FIGURE 1 U.S. Venture Capital Fundraising (1969-2006). SOURCE: Venture Economics and Asset Alternatives.

Suggested Citation:"2 What Are The Facts? Do They Merit Analysis?." National Research Council. 2009. Investor Exits, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Firm Growth: Questions for Research: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12811.
×
FIGURE 2 U.S. Private Equity Returns (1974-2006). SOURCE: Venture Economics.

FIGURE 2 U.S. Private Equity Returns (1974-2006). SOURCE: Venture Economics.

Susan Woodward, owner of Sandhill Econometrics, presented results from a proprietary set of data on approximately 20,000 venture backed firms extending back to the late 1980s—virtually the universe of such companies from the point at which they received their first round of venture funding, including those that failed and exited the market by shutting down altogether—nearly one-third of the total number of firms. Woodward’s quarterly data through early 2007 (Figure 3) show fluctuating but increasing IPO activity throughout the 1990s followed by a steep drop after the 3rd quarter of 2000, failing to recover even to the level of early 1991. Meanwhile, the number of acquisitions also grew steadily through the 1990s, peaked in 2000 and 2001 but remained quite robust through 2007. (Figure 4)

William Janeway, a partner in Warburg Pincus, presented similar data from another source showing the rise and fall in the annual number of venture backed IPOs between 1980 and 2007, and also suggesting that the median firm age at the time of going public has crept up since 2001 relative to the 1990s. (Table 1)

Suggested Citation:"2 What Are The Facts? Do They Merit Analysis?." National Research Council. 2009. Investor Exits, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Firm Growth: Questions for Research: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12811.
×
FIGURE 3 Number of Venture-Backed Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) per Quarter. SOURCE: Sand Hill Econometrics.

FIGURE 3 Number of Venture-Backed Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) per Quarter. SOURCE: Sand Hill Econometrics.

FIGURE 4 Number of Venture-Backed Acquisitions per Quarter. SOURCE: Sand Hill Econometrics.

FIGURE 4 Number of Venture-Backed Acquisitions per Quarter. SOURCE: Sand Hill Econometrics.

Suggested Citation:"2 What Are The Facts? Do They Merit Analysis?." National Research Council. 2009. Investor Exits, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Firm Growth: Questions for Research: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12811.
×

TABLE 1 Number of Venture-Backed IPOs and Median Age of Company at the time of IPO

Year

Number of IPOs

Med Age at IPO (yrs)

1980

59

9.43

1981

97

6.05

1982

39

3.95

1983

196

4

1984

84

4.63

1985

76

3.8

1986

366

5.57

1987

127

5.35

1988

54

5.29

1989

65

6.39

1990

70

5.96

1991

157

6.66

1992

196

5.88

1993

221

6.73

1994

167

7.53

1995

205

7.47

1996

272

5.66

1997

138

6.37

1998

78

5.24

1999

270

4.31

2000

264

4.93

2001

41

6.05

2002

22

7.47

2003

29

7.83

2004

93

6.75

2005

56

6.13

2006

57

8.1

SOURCE: Venture Expert; Thomson Financial

Following these presentations, there was a lively discussion of the nature of the observed changes in exit strategies. Some participants saw them as a reaction to the lowered level of investment overall in technology-based startup companies after the dot-com crash and thus as part of a regular investment cycle. Other participants emphasized the persistence of the IPO slump after the 2001 market disruption and their inability in light of other market conditions to foresee any future upturn in IPOs for technology-based entrepreneurial firms. Distinguishing cycle from trend is not the only issue. There is also the question of how volatility affects investment decisions. A deep, protracted trough can deter investments despite their having positive expected value.

Suggested Citation:"2 What Are The Facts? Do They Merit Analysis?." National Research Council. 2009. Investor Exits, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Firm Growth: Questions for Research: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12811.
×

In fact, there was a range of divergent views expressed at the meeting on the U.S. economy of the late 1990s and turn of the century and the role of the stock market bubble. One view considered the latter an aberration, masking the economy’s ability to continue to form new growth-oriented firms at a gradually increasing rate over time. Another view was that there was a genuine boom beneath the bubble, whose bursting halted a long term move toward entrepreneurship and initiated a new trend away from entrepreneurial founding of growth firms in the 21st century. Although few discussants embraced the latter hypothesis that the lower rate of IPOs reflected a long-term decline in the ability of the innovation system of the United States to generate growth from entrepreneurial startups, that hypothesis was not ruled out unequivocally.

Workshop chair Timothy Bresnahan, Stanford University economics professor, summarized this discussion by saying that the role of entrepreneurial growth companies and their association with expanded demand for labor in high-skill, high-wage occupations was substantial enough and the uncertainty about their future contribution was great enough to justify continuing discussion and further research, since such a secular decline would indeed be a troubling change. “Entrepreneurial firms that become established businesses have long sustained the United States’ level of aggregate economic growth and well-being,” he said. “If changes in public policy were even partly responsible for lowering the effectiveness of entrepreneurial effort and thus the incentive to undertake it, this would be a grave call for policy consideration. Nevertheless, to resolve these questions is a research task of major scope.”

Further, Bresnahan inferred from the comments of many participants that the focus of research be should be on the form of investor exit activity rather than on the annual rate of activity as the key study variable. This would help insulate the research from the large changes over this recent time period in U.S. high technology investment climate and especially from the 1999-2001 information technology boom and bust cycle.

Suggested Citation:"2 What Are The Facts? Do They Merit Analysis?." National Research Council. 2009. Investor Exits, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Firm Growth: Questions for Research: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12811.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"2 What Are The Facts? Do They Merit Analysis?." National Research Council. 2009. Investor Exits, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Firm Growth: Questions for Research: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12811.
×
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"2 What Are The Facts? Do They Merit Analysis?." National Research Council. 2009. Investor Exits, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Firm Growth: Questions for Research: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12811.
×
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"2 What Are The Facts? Do They Merit Analysis?." National Research Council. 2009. Investor Exits, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Firm Growth: Questions for Research: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12811.
×
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"2 What Are The Facts? Do They Merit Analysis?." National Research Council. 2009. Investor Exits, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Firm Growth: Questions for Research: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12811.
×
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"2 What Are The Facts? Do They Merit Analysis?." National Research Council. 2009. Investor Exits, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Firm Growth: Questions for Research: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12811.
×
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"2 What Are The Facts? Do They Merit Analysis?." National Research Council. 2009. Investor Exits, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Firm Growth: Questions for Research: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/12811.
×
Page 12
Next: 3 What Are the Challenges and Hurdles to Research? »
Investor Exits, Innovation, and Entrepreneurial Firm Growth: Questions for Research: Summary of a Workshop Get This Book
×
Buy Ebook | $9.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2001 coincided with an abrupt and lasting change in the development of entrepreneurial venture-backed firms in the United States. Previously, entrepreneurs and investors commonly took viable young firms public through initial public offerings. Since 2001, however, venture investors have more frequently exited by selling their companies to established corporations, usually for lower returns. There are concerns among some entrepreneurs, investors, and academics that this change has reduced the potential of young, entrepreneurial firms to contribute to innovation, job creation, international competitiveness, and economic growth. There are also claims that public policies, including securities regulation, have contributed to this result and should be modified or compensated for.

In 2007 investors, entrepreneurs, and academic experts in economics, corporate finance, and law came together to consider the merits and feasibility of additional research addressing the change in investor exit strategies, its causes and consequences. During the 2007 workshop, summarized in this volume, participants identified several factors complicating systematic inquiry and suggested a number of research avenues that could be productive.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!