The Changing Latitude: Labor‐Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations in <scp>C</scp>anada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Manuscript Type Empirical Research Question/Issue This paper seeks to understand the role corporate governance and government policy plays in the portfolio choices of the labor‐sponsored venture capital corporations (LSVCCs) in Canada. We investigate whether or not the change in tax policy announced in Ontario (2005) had an impact on the investment behavior of Ontario LSVCCs and whether the unique corporate governance structure of LSVCCs enables them to focus on their investment mandate subsequent to this announcement. Research Findings/Insights Our findings suggest that LSVCCs in Ontario are more likely to include public companies in their fund portfolios after the announcement of the change in tax policy. We find that after 2005, LSVCCs have increased their number of investments in public companies by 59.13 percent and in turn decreased their number of investments in private companies by 13.17 percent. On the other hand, we find no significant changes in investment behavior for LSVCCs in other provinces. In terms of the percentage of total investment in public companies, we find that the LSVCCs in Ontario are more likely to increase their total investment in public companies by 50 percent and to decrease their investment in the short term by 46.43 percent. LSVCCs in other provinces, however, are reducing their percentage of investment in public companies by 58.33 percent and increasing their total investment in private entrepreneurial firms by 38.33 percent in the same period. Theoretical/Academic Implications With a hand‐collected proprietary dataset, we are able to augment existing studies on the unique structure of LSVCCs in Canada with empirical evidence on the style drift due to the changes in government tax policy. We compare and contrast the investment behavior of LSVCCs before and after the tax policy change in Ontario as well as the investment behavior of LSVCCs in other provinces. We hypothesize that as a result of the elimination of the tax credits, the removal of certain investment restrictions, and weaker corporate governance, LSVCCs have drifted from their original mandate to invest in high‐risk venture companies to investing in less risky public companies. Such style drift may be a result of LSVCCs preparing for potential wealth transfer or liquidation by retail investors. More importantly, we find the unique corporate governance structure of LSVCCs may facilitate this drift from their original purpose of providing venture capital to small and medium‐sized entrepreneurial (SME) firms. Practitioner/Policy Implications We highlight that the style drift of LSVCCs in Ontario may result in such funds behaving more like other types of mutual funds and the deviation from their original mandate to provide venture capital may not only prove detrimental to entrepreneurial investee firms seeking such capital, but also negate any diversification benefits sought by fund investors. Also, such deviation may not necessarily justify the higher management expense ratio charged by LSVCCs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».