Equity investment decisions for technology based ventures
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
One major challenge facing early stage technology based companies is obtaining timely capital to aid their growth. This study sought to advance understanding of the decision making criteria currently used by Canadian equity investors to evaluate technology based companies which are seeking early stages of financing (seed, start–up or first stages). Sixty individuals belonging to one of three equity investor types participated: business angels (BAS, n=20), private venture capitalists (PVCs, n=20) and public venture capital funds (PVCFs, n=20). Data were collected using questionnaires administered through on–site personal interviews. Analyses reported here focus on group differences among decision making criteria as investors evaluated the business worthiness of one of their recent specific technology based business ventures. A total of 95 criteria were derived from previous investment literature and these subsequently received a priori assignment to one of these five categories: (1) characteristics of the entrepreneur(s), (2) characteristics of the market targeted by the venture, (3) characteristics of the venture offering, (4) investor(s) requirements and (5) characteristics of the investment proposal from the venture to the investor(s). Stability of ranked importance ordering for these five categories was tested using Friedman two–way ANOVA by ranks. Results revealed significant stability among the five categories within groups of each investor type: for BAS, the order of importance was (1,3,2,4,5); for PVCs, it was (1,2,3,4,5) and for PVCFs, it was (1,2,3,5,4). Next, specific key criteria as applied by these types of investors were located. For example, key criteria for BAS included: the entrepreneurs' familiarity with product and market; their familiarity with customer requirements; their ability to anticipate need for change; and evidence of truthfulness in their proposal. For PVCs, key criteria included: the entrepreneurs' ability to bring about change; attractive growth potential of market; cash out potential expected by the investors; and expected rate of return on investment to the investors. For PVCFs, key criteria included: evidence of truthfulness in the proposal; the entrepreneurs' familiarity with customer requirements; and their management commitment to success.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 découle