跨国创业投资在中国的发展研究
|
摘要
创业投资(Venture Capital)是近二十年来全球增长最快的行业之一。美国等地区的实践证明,创业投资促进了一国技术创新,扶持了一批有潜力的中小企业,并带动了新兴产业成长。随着全球一体化的加速,创业投资已经跨出国界,日益呈现出国际化运动的态势。在本文中,跨国创业投资被认为是国际直接投资的特殊形态,同时具备了间接投资的部分特征。具体而言,跨国创业投资指创业投资机构在全球范围内进行资产配置,主要以股权形式投资于东道国的新兴中小企业,目的是通过股权增值后退出来获得高额回报。
本文首先从全球视野的角度剖析创业投资的发展特征。在全球范围内,创业投资行业规模呈周期性变化,波动幅度高于实体经济；从地区分布来看,主要集中于北美和欧洲；从投资阶段的分布来看,投入扩张期和成熟期的创投资本比重增加,投入早期的比重下降；全球创业投资的退出与资本市场密切相关,长期回报率高于短期。从国别的角度看,我们发现各国创业投资的资金来源差异较大；投资行业大多集中于软件,同时也结合了各国的创新热点；美英等国的退出渠道以首次公开发行(IPO)和并购(M&A)为主；投资区域在一国的分布普遍呈高度集中的特征。
同时,随着经济全球化和一体化的深入,在资本的逐利特性和对利润最大化的追求下,创投资本开始跨国界流动,从而形成了国际化的创投资本市场,内在因素的驱使和外部条件的激励,使得跨国创业投资业逐步兴起。其发展特征主要表现为：(1)跨国创业投资壁垒逐步降低,国际创投资本供求日益旺盛；(2)跨国创业投资经历了从补缺性到内生性的功能转变,日益成为一国中小企业金融支持体系的重要组成部分；(3)跨国创业投资的模式基本上选择了“复制美国”之路,但发展结局有着明显区别；(4)跨国创业投资多从发达国家流向发展中国家；(5)跨国创业投资成为培养东道国创业投资家的重要渠道。
在对跨国创业投资的发展进行现象描述的基础上,本文随之探讨了跨国创业投资产生并发展的理论根源。首先,我们用国际直接投资理论中的折衷理论框架来分析跨国创业投资,发现跨国创业投资机构所具备的企业优势、区位优势和内部化优势可以用来解释其产生的动因,同时学习期权理论也能在一定程度上解释了跨国公司附属的创业投资机构对外投资的原因。其次,用投资学中的期望效用与风险偏好理论来探讨跨国创业投资的行为决策和投资策略,结果发现,与通常的国内创业投资类似,联合投资和分阶段投资是其控制风险的重要策略。
在理论分析的基础上,本文以跨国创业投资在我国的主要载体——外资创业投资机构为研究对象,就投资特征及其投资行为的内外部影响因素进行了深入分析。本文重点研究的外资创投机构是指在境外筹资成立外币基金(以美元为主),通过在BVI、开曼等地设立壳公司,投资于中国内地企业,以海外上市为主要退出渠道,其所得税、组织形式等均不受国内法律法规管辖,属于典型的“两头在外”的创投机构。为此,笔者于2008年下半年至2009年上半年参与了对国内12家知名内外资创业投资机构的实地调研,并通过国内权威的创业投资数据提供商——清科集团,收集了2002年—2008年内外资创业投资的相关数据。通过对我国内外资创投机构的投资特征进行比较,我们发现：(1)从规模来看,外资创投资本的规模远高于内资创投,投资总金额和投资强度远高于内资创投,但2007年以来,这一差距明显缩小；(2)从行业分布来看,外资创投的投资行业更集中于广义IT,内资创投则相对均匀,但目前外资创投逐步开始呈行业多元化趋势,投向服务业中的教育和传统行业中的农业等投资日渐增多；(3)从投资阶段来看,外资更加集中于初创期阶段的投资,内资则偏好扩张期企业；(4)从投资地域来看,外资创投的投资地域集中于北京和上海,内资创投集中于深圳、江苏等地,但随着对项目资源竞争的加剧,内外资创投的投资半径都呈不断扩大之势；(5)从投资顺序来看,前两轮投资是内外资创投最主要的投资轮次选择,但外资的投资强度明显随轮次而递增,充分体现其采取分阶段投资来控制风险的策略；(6)从退出方式来看,外资创投的退出包括上市、交易出售等多种渠道,内资创投则以上市为主要退出渠道：(7)从在上市退出的地点选择上,外资创投多选择海外资本市场,而内资创投以境内资本市场,尤其是以中小企业板为主。
接着,本文分析了导致上述投资特征出现差异的内部因素。我们发现：(1)就治理结构而言,内资创投更为复杂；(2)在投资决策方面,内外资创投均会考虑管理团队和市场需求,但外资创投看重盈利模式创新,而内资创投更看重技术创新；(3)在风险控制方面,尽管内外资创投机构均建立了较为完整的风险控制体系,但在执行方面外资创投更重视所投企业的法律风险,倾向使用优先股,并利用投资组合的方式来分散风险,对游戏规则的熟悉程度远超过内资创投：(4)在增值服务方面,外资创投在协助创业企业进行产业整合、开拓海外市场等方面明显强于内资创投。
除了上述从宏观角度分析内外资创投的投资特征差异外,本文还对内外资创投所投项目数量差异最多的三个行业,即互联网、半导体和教育培训行业,对外资创投的投资行为特征进行了深入分析,结果发现：(1)在外资创投在对互联网行业企业投资时,多数互联网企业运行时间不足三年,尚未实现盈利,但拥有核心技术和创新的商业模式。2004-2008年,在海外上市的15家具有外资创投背景的国内互联网企业中,有12家达到我国创业板上市标准,表现出较高的毛利率和成长性,轻资产特征明显。(2)在半导体行业,外资创投的投资和在海外上市的企业均集中于IC设计领域。外资创投投资时,多数半导体企业尚未盈利,但表现出收入的持续增长。与互联网企业类似,外资创投投资的国内半导体企业表现出较高的毛利率、高成长性以及轻资产特征。(3)在教育培训行业中,外资创投所投资的企业往往具有运行时间较长、对核心资源的控制力强、主营业务突出、创始人或核心团队持股比例普遍较高的特征。
本文认为,内外资创投面临着宏观政策法规、行业自律及行为指引、资金来源等外部因素的差异,而这些外部差异正是导致其投资特征差异的重要原因。这些外部差异主要表现在：(1)外资创投所面临的法规政策更加规范全面,尤其是享受了明显税收优惠政策；(2)外资创投在其本土开展的投资活动中,大多接受了行业自律组织的统一监管,并遵循了相对详细的行业行为指引,而这些都是内资创投所缺乏的；(3)从资金来源上看,由于外资创投资本大多来源于养老基金等机构投资者,因此可以更多地投向早期项目,而内资创投资本大多来源于企业的闲置资本和个人资金,因此面临较大的短期回报压力而不得不更多投向中后期的短平快项目。
此外,在百年一遇的全球性金融海啸背景下,全球性经济衰退对各国创投行业都产生了较大的负面影响。在我国,2008年下半年外资创投受到的影响较内资创投更为显著,这表现在外资创投的筹资和投资规模同比下滑幅度更大,投资案例数也急剧萎缩,我国创业投资面临着较大的行业系统性风险。但随着2009年国内外经济的快速回暖,以及我国创业板的推出,跨国创业投资增加了在我国的人民币基金的数量和规模。
总体而言,跨国创业投资在我国的实践表明,由于我国高速发展的经济具有明显的区位优势,以及海外创业投资机构在经过数十年的发展后所具备的所有权优势和竞争优势,使得跨国创业投资得以在我国出现并迅猛发展,目前已经占据国内创业投资行业的主导地位；同时,跨国创业投资机构在我国所采取的投资工具、投资策略都基本延续了其在本国的投资风格,这反映出同一创业投资机构投资行为在全球的趋同性。
在上述分析的基础上,针对跨国创业投资机构在我国的主要载体——外资创业投资机构与我国本土创业投资发展过程中的不均衡性及其所处的内外部因素的差异性,为了更好地构建中国式创业投资的发展路径,以充分发挥创业投资在促进企业创新、推动产业转型方面的积极作用,我们提出了以下建议：(1)完善和落实创业投资的发展政策,为内外资创投机构提供公平的政策环境；(2)成立统一的行业自律组织,出台行业指引；(3)扩大创投资本来源,鼓励长线资金进入,增强抵御危机能力；(4)加快多层次资本市场建设,引导创业投资投向更多早期企业和创新型企业。
Over the past two decades, venture capital is considered to be one of the world's fastest growing industries. The United States and some other countries, like United Kingdom, Israel, have shown that venture capital can promote the technological innovation and have the potential to support a number of small and medium enterprises. With the acceleration of global integration, venture capital activity has shown a growing trend of internationalization. In this article, cross-border venture capital is considered to be a special form of foreign direct investment, at the same time, it has shown some of the characteristics of indirect investment. In particular, cross-border venture capital refers to a global asset allocation of venture capitalists, mainly in the form of equity investment in the host country's emerging small and medium enterprises, aiming to get relatively high returns by selling the equities to other investors.
First of all, we try to analyze the origin and development of cross-border venture capital from a global perspective. As we know, the scale of global venture capital industry changes cyclically. And the fluctuation range is higher than the real economy. Moreover, venture capital industry mainly concentrated in North America and Europe. As for the phase, the proportion of investment to expansion and start-up stage is more than that of early stages. And the exit is closely related to long-term rate of return higher than the short-term. From the country's point of view, we find that the source of venture capital in different in different countries; investments are mostly concentrated in the software industry. The exit channels of venture capital in United States and Britain are always initial public offering (IPO) and mergers and acquisitions (M & A).
Meanwhile, with the tide of economic globalization and the deepening of integration, venture capital started flow from one country to another,which is called cross-border capital and soon has become an increasingly trends. In this part, we analyze the intrinsic factors which make cross-border venture capital industry to gradually rise. The main characteristics includes:(1) cross-border venture capital has gradually reduced barriers to international venture capital flow; (2) cross-border venture capital has experienced the transformation from an endogenous factor of an economy to an important component of the system; (3) the development of cross-border venture capital is always a copy of United States, but there was a clear distinction between the outcome of the developmental routes; (4) cross-border venture capital often flows from developed countries to developing countries; (5) cross-border venture capital has played a pivotal role in cultivating entrepreneurial culture.
In the second part of this paper, we discuss the motives and characteristics of cross-border investment from a theoretical perspective. First, we use Compromise Theory in FDI to analyze why cross-border venture capital occurs. In my opinion, localization advantages and internalization advantages can be used to explain their motives to invest in other countries, and options theory can be explained why some qualitative venture capitalists invest globally to some extent. Secondly, we explain the behavior of cross-border venture capital, especially decision-making and investment strategies by using expected utility and risk preference theory. We find that, like the usual behavior in domestic investments, cross-border venture capital also tends to diversify the investments, prefer to converted bonds or convertible shares, use phase investment in order to control risk.
At the basis of theoretical analysis, this article chooses cross-border venture capital in China to study the investment characteristics and investment behavior of the cross-border venture capital, and then elaborates both internal and external factors affecting the empirical analysis. In this part, we focus on the foreign venture capital institutions (which refer to the offshore funds in foreign currency (mainly U.S. dollar), investing mainly in Chinese mainland and always listing overseas. The author participates in a large-scale field research in the 12 well-known domestic and foreign capital investment agencies in the second half of 2008, and through the famous venture capital data provider-Qingke Groups, collected data from 2002 to 2008. We find that:(1) foreign venture capital investment scale is much higher than domestic-funded venture capital, and individual investment and the total amounts are also much higher in foreign venture capital funds; (2) foreign venture capital investments focus on broad IT industry, but have shown an increasingly interests in agriculture and other traditional industries; (3) foreign investors emphasize on start-up phase of the invested company, while domestic-funded enterprises preferences expansion stage; (4) foreign venture capital is geographically concentrated, especially in Beijing and Shanghai, but under more and more competition, the regions of foreign venture capital investment in expanding gradually; (5) the intensity of foreign investment significantly increases with the rounds, which fully reflects its ability to control risk; (6) the exits of foreign capital are more flexible, which include selling to the third party, IPO, buy-out, M&A, writing-off; (7) foreign venture capital investments prefer to choosing overseas markets to exit, such as NASDAQ, AIM and Hongkong GEM, while domestic venture capital investments tend to exit in small and medium-sized main board.
In the fourth part, we analyze some internal characteristics which lead to a discrepancy between foreign venture capital and their domestic counterparts. We find that:(1) as for the governance structure, domestic venture capital funds are more complex and confusing; (2) in the investment decision-making, both parties will consider the management team and market demand, but the foreign venture capital funds pay more attention to the innovation profitability, while domestic funds take technological innovation into the fist place; (3) both parties have set up perfect risk control systems, but foreign venture capitalists pay more attention to the vote of the legal risks, tend to use preference shares and to use the portfolio approach to minimize risks; (4) as for the value-added services, foreign venture capitalists are more skillful and systematic than the domestic counterparts.
After that, we discuss the macroeconomic policies and regulations, industry self-regulation and behavior guidelines, funding sources and other external factors which lead to the differences between foreign venture capital funds and domestic ones. These external differences mainly reflected in:(1) regulations and policies on foreign venture capital funds are more comprehensive, in particular, are obviously enjoying preferential tax policy; (2) foreign venture capitalists are more self-regulatory and can follow a relatively detailed industry behavior guidelines; (3) as for the source of funds, because most of foreign venture capital comes from pension funds and other institutional investors and therefore can be put into the earlier stages, while domestic venture capital funds are mostly come from personal funds and are facing greater pressure from short-term returns.
In addition, under the unprecedented great pressure of this global financial tsunami, the global economic recession has become more and more uncontrollable, and finally has had a great negative impact on venture capital industry. In China, the fundraising and investment of foreign venture capital drops sharply in the third quarter last year, and situation has become more serious since the beginning of this year. Frankly speaking, China's venture capital industry is confronted with a larger systematic risk than past five years.
At the basis of the above analysis, in order to build a proper Chinese-style venture capital development path, we have made the following recommendations: (1) improve and implement laws and regulations of venture capital, make both foreign and local venture capital institutions are regulated in the same provisions; (2) establish a unified self-regulatory organizations and promulgate industry guidelines as soon as possible; (3) expand the sources of venture capital and encourage long-term funds to enter this field; (4) Speed up the construction of multi-level capital market.
本文首先从全球视野的角度剖析创业投资的发展特征。在全球范围内,创业投资行业规模呈周期性变化,波动幅度高于实体经济；从地区分布来看,主要集中于北美和欧洲；从投资阶段的分布来看,投入扩张期和成熟期的创投资本比重增加,投入早期的比重下降；全球创业投资的退出与资本市场密切相关,长期回报率高于短期。从国别的角度看,我们发现各国创业投资的资金来源差异较大；投资行业大多集中于软件,同时也结合了各国的创新热点；美英等国的退出渠道以首次公开发行(IPO)和并购(M&A)为主；投资区域在一国的分布普遍呈高度集中的特征。
同时,随着经济全球化和一体化的深入,在资本的逐利特性和对利润最大化的追求下,创投资本开始跨国界流动,从而形成了国际化的创投资本市场,内在因素的驱使和外部条件的激励,使得跨国创业投资业逐步兴起。其发展特征主要表现为：(1)跨国创业投资壁垒逐步降低,国际创投资本供求日益旺盛；(2)跨国创业投资经历了从补缺性到内生性的功能转变,日益成为一国中小企业金融支持体系的重要组成部分；(3)跨国创业投资的模式基本上选择了“复制美国”之路,但发展结局有着明显区别；(4)跨国创业投资多从发达国家流向发展中国家；(5)跨国创业投资成为培养东道国创业投资家的重要渠道。
在对跨国创业投资的发展进行现象描述的基础上,本文随之探讨了跨国创业投资产生并发展的理论根源。首先,我们用国际直接投资理论中的折衷理论框架来分析跨国创业投资,发现跨国创业投资机构所具备的企业优势、区位优势和内部化优势可以用来解释其产生的动因,同时学习期权理论也能在一定程度上解释了跨国公司附属的创业投资机构对外投资的原因。其次,用投资学中的期望效用与风险偏好理论来探讨跨国创业投资的行为决策和投资策略,结果发现,与通常的国内创业投资类似,联合投资和分阶段投资是其控制风险的重要策略。
在理论分析的基础上,本文以跨国创业投资在我国的主要载体——外资创业投资机构为研究对象,就投资特征及其投资行为的内外部影响因素进行了深入分析。本文重点研究的外资创投机构是指在境外筹资成立外币基金(以美元为主),通过在BVI、开曼等地设立壳公司,投资于中国内地企业,以海外上市为主要退出渠道,其所得税、组织形式等均不受国内法律法规管辖,属于典型的“两头在外”的创投机构。为此,笔者于2008年下半年至2009年上半年参与了对国内12家知名内外资创业投资机构的实地调研,并通过国内权威的创业投资数据提供商——清科集团,收集了2002年—2008年内外资创业投资的相关数据。通过对我国内外资创投机构的投资特征进行比较,我们发现：(1)从规模来看,外资创投资本的规模远高于内资创投,投资总金额和投资强度远高于内资创投,但2007年以来,这一差距明显缩小；(2)从行业分布来看,外资创投的投资行业更集中于广义IT,内资创投则相对均匀,但目前外资创投逐步开始呈行业多元化趋势,投向服务业中的教育和传统行业中的农业等投资日渐增多；(3)从投资阶段来看,外资更加集中于初创期阶段的投资,内资则偏好扩张期企业；(4)从投资地域来看,外资创投的投资地域集中于北京和上海,内资创投集中于深圳、江苏等地,但随着对项目资源竞争的加剧,内外资创投的投资半径都呈不断扩大之势；(5)从投资顺序来看,前两轮投资是内外资创投最主要的投资轮次选择,但外资的投资强度明显随轮次而递增,充分体现其采取分阶段投资来控制风险的策略；(6)从退出方式来看,外资创投的退出包括上市、交易出售等多种渠道,内资创投则以上市为主要退出渠道：(7)从在上市退出的地点选择上,外资创投多选择海外资本市场,而内资创投以境内资本市场,尤其是以中小企业板为主。
接着,本文分析了导致上述投资特征出现差异的内部因素。我们发现：(1)就治理结构而言,内资创投更为复杂；(2)在投资决策方面,内外资创投均会考虑管理团队和市场需求,但外资创投看重盈利模式创新,而内资创投更看重技术创新；(3)在风险控制方面,尽管内外资创投机构均建立了较为完整的风险控制体系,但在执行方面外资创投更重视所投企业的法律风险,倾向使用优先股,并利用投资组合的方式来分散风险,对游戏规则的熟悉程度远超过内资创投：(4)在增值服务方面,外资创投在协助创业企业进行产业整合、开拓海外市场等方面明显强于内资创投。
除了上述从宏观角度分析内外资创投的投资特征差异外,本文还对内外资创投所投项目数量差异最多的三个行业,即互联网、半导体和教育培训行业,对外资创投的投资行为特征进行了深入分析,结果发现：(1)在外资创投在对互联网行业企业投资时,多数互联网企业运行时间不足三年,尚未实现盈利,但拥有核心技术和创新的商业模式。2004-2008年,在海外上市的15家具有外资创投背景的国内互联网企业中,有12家达到我国创业板上市标准,表现出较高的毛利率和成长性,轻资产特征明显。(2)在半导体行业,外资创投的投资和在海外上市的企业均集中于IC设计领域。外资创投投资时,多数半导体企业尚未盈利,但表现出收入的持续增长。与互联网企业类似,外资创投投资的国内半导体企业表现出较高的毛利率、高成长性以及轻资产特征。(3)在教育培训行业中,外资创投所投资的企业往往具有运行时间较长、对核心资源的控制力强、主营业务突出、创始人或核心团队持股比例普遍较高的特征。
本文认为,内外资创投面临着宏观政策法规、行业自律及行为指引、资金来源等外部因素的差异,而这些外部差异正是导致其投资特征差异的重要原因。这些外部差异主要表现在：(1)外资创投所面临的法规政策更加规范全面,尤其是享受了明显税收优惠政策；(2)外资创投在其本土开展的投资活动中,大多接受了行业自律组织的统一监管,并遵循了相对详细的行业行为指引,而这些都是内资创投所缺乏的；(3)从资金来源上看,由于外资创投资本大多来源于养老基金等机构投资者,因此可以更多地投向早期项目,而内资创投资本大多来源于企业的闲置资本和个人资金,因此面临较大的短期回报压力而不得不更多投向中后期的短平快项目。
此外,在百年一遇的全球性金融海啸背景下,全球性经济衰退对各国创投行业都产生了较大的负面影响。在我国,2008年下半年外资创投受到的影响较内资创投更为显著,这表现在外资创投的筹资和投资规模同比下滑幅度更大,投资案例数也急剧萎缩,我国创业投资面临着较大的行业系统性风险。但随着2009年国内外经济的快速回暖,以及我国创业板的推出,跨国创业投资增加了在我国的人民币基金的数量和规模。
总体而言,跨国创业投资在我国的实践表明,由于我国高速发展的经济具有明显的区位优势,以及海外创业投资机构在经过数十年的发展后所具备的所有权优势和竞争优势,使得跨国创业投资得以在我国出现并迅猛发展,目前已经占据国内创业投资行业的主导地位；同时,跨国创业投资机构在我国所采取的投资工具、投资策略都基本延续了其在本国的投资风格,这反映出同一创业投资机构投资行为在全球的趋同性。
在上述分析的基础上,针对跨国创业投资机构在我国的主要载体——外资创业投资机构与我国本土创业投资发展过程中的不均衡性及其所处的内外部因素的差异性,为了更好地构建中国式创业投资的发展路径,以充分发挥创业投资在促进企业创新、推动产业转型方面的积极作用,我们提出了以下建议：(1)完善和落实创业投资的发展政策,为内外资创投机构提供公平的政策环境；(2)成立统一的行业自律组织,出台行业指引；(3)扩大创投资本来源,鼓励长线资金进入,增强抵御危机能力；(4)加快多层次资本市场建设,引导创业投资投向更多早期企业和创新型企业。
Over the past two decades, venture capital is considered to be one of the world's fastest growing industries. The United States and some other countries, like United Kingdom, Israel, have shown that venture capital can promote the technological innovation and have the potential to support a number of small and medium enterprises. With the acceleration of global integration, venture capital activity has shown a growing trend of internationalization. In this article, cross-border venture capital is considered to be a special form of foreign direct investment, at the same time, it has shown some of the characteristics of indirect investment. In particular, cross-border venture capital refers to a global asset allocation of venture capitalists, mainly in the form of equity investment in the host country's emerging small and medium enterprises, aiming to get relatively high returns by selling the equities to other investors.
First of all, we try to analyze the origin and development of cross-border venture capital from a global perspective. As we know, the scale of global venture capital industry changes cyclically. And the fluctuation range is higher than the real economy. Moreover, venture capital industry mainly concentrated in North America and Europe. As for the phase, the proportion of investment to expansion and start-up stage is more than that of early stages. And the exit is closely related to long-term rate of return higher than the short-term. From the country's point of view, we find that the source of venture capital in different in different countries; investments are mostly concentrated in the software industry. The exit channels of venture capital in United States and Britain are always initial public offering (IPO) and mergers and acquisitions (M & A).
Meanwhile, with the tide of economic globalization and the deepening of integration, venture capital started flow from one country to another,which is called cross-border capital and soon has become an increasingly trends. In this part, we analyze the intrinsic factors which make cross-border venture capital industry to gradually rise. The main characteristics includes:(1) cross-border venture capital has gradually reduced barriers to international venture capital flow; (2) cross-border venture capital has experienced the transformation from an endogenous factor of an economy to an important component of the system; (3) the development of cross-border venture capital is always a copy of United States, but there was a clear distinction between the outcome of the developmental routes; (4) cross-border venture capital often flows from developed countries to developing countries; (5) cross-border venture capital has played a pivotal role in cultivating entrepreneurial culture.
In the second part of this paper, we discuss the motives and characteristics of cross-border investment from a theoretical perspective. First, we use Compromise Theory in FDI to analyze why cross-border venture capital occurs. In my opinion, localization advantages and internalization advantages can be used to explain their motives to invest in other countries, and options theory can be explained why some qualitative venture capitalists invest globally to some extent. Secondly, we explain the behavior of cross-border venture capital, especially decision-making and investment strategies by using expected utility and risk preference theory. We find that, like the usual behavior in domestic investments, cross-border venture capital also tends to diversify the investments, prefer to converted bonds or convertible shares, use phase investment in order to control risk.
At the basis of theoretical analysis, this article chooses cross-border venture capital in China to study the investment characteristics and investment behavior of the cross-border venture capital, and then elaborates both internal and external factors affecting the empirical analysis. In this part, we focus on the foreign venture capital institutions (which refer to the offshore funds in foreign currency (mainly U.S. dollar), investing mainly in Chinese mainland and always listing overseas. The author participates in a large-scale field research in the 12 well-known domestic and foreign capital investment agencies in the second half of 2008, and through the famous venture capital data provider-Qingke Groups, collected data from 2002 to 2008. We find that:(1) foreign venture capital investment scale is much higher than domestic-funded venture capital, and individual investment and the total amounts are also much higher in foreign venture capital funds; (2) foreign venture capital investments focus on broad IT industry, but have shown an increasingly interests in agriculture and other traditional industries; (3) foreign investors emphasize on start-up phase of the invested company, while domestic-funded enterprises preferences expansion stage; (4) foreign venture capital is geographically concentrated, especially in Beijing and Shanghai, but under more and more competition, the regions of foreign venture capital investment in expanding gradually; (5) the intensity of foreign investment significantly increases with the rounds, which fully reflects its ability to control risk; (6) the exits of foreign capital are more flexible, which include selling to the third party, IPO, buy-out, M&A, writing-off; (7) foreign venture capital investments prefer to choosing overseas markets to exit, such as NASDAQ, AIM and Hongkong GEM, while domestic venture capital investments tend to exit in small and medium-sized main board.
In the fourth part, we analyze some internal characteristics which lead to a discrepancy between foreign venture capital and their domestic counterparts. We find that:(1) as for the governance structure, domestic venture capital funds are more complex and confusing; (2) in the investment decision-making, both parties will consider the management team and market demand, but the foreign venture capital funds pay more attention to the innovation profitability, while domestic funds take technological innovation into the fist place; (3) both parties have set up perfect risk control systems, but foreign venture capitalists pay more attention to the vote of the legal risks, tend to use preference shares and to use the portfolio approach to minimize risks; (4) as for the value-added services, foreign venture capitalists are more skillful and systematic than the domestic counterparts.
After that, we discuss the macroeconomic policies and regulations, industry self-regulation and behavior guidelines, funding sources and other external factors which lead to the differences between foreign venture capital funds and domestic ones. These external differences mainly reflected in:(1) regulations and policies on foreign venture capital funds are more comprehensive, in particular, are obviously enjoying preferential tax policy; (2) foreign venture capitalists are more self-regulatory and can follow a relatively detailed industry behavior guidelines; (3) as for the source of funds, because most of foreign venture capital comes from pension funds and other institutional investors and therefore can be put into the earlier stages, while domestic venture capital funds are mostly come from personal funds and are facing greater pressure from short-term returns.
In addition, under the unprecedented great pressure of this global financial tsunami, the global economic recession has become more and more uncontrollable, and finally has had a great negative impact on venture capital industry. In China, the fundraising and investment of foreign venture capital drops sharply in the third quarter last year, and situation has become more serious since the beginning of this year. Frankly speaking, China's venture capital industry is confronted with a larger systematic risk than past five years.
At the basis of the above analysis, in order to build a proper Chinese-style venture capital development path, we have made the following recommendations: (1) improve and implement laws and regulations of venture capital, make both foreign and local venture capital institutions are regulated in the same provisions; (2) establish a unified self-regulatory organizations and promulgate industry guidelines as soon as possible; (3) expand the sources of venture capital and encourage long-term funds to enter this field; (4) Speed up the construction of multi-level capital market.
引文
1. Amit, Raphael, James Brander, and Christoph Zott. Why do Venture Capital Firms Exist? Theory and Canadian Evidence. Journal of Business Venturing,13.6 (1998):441-66.
2. Barney J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17,99-120
3. Baygan, G. and Freudenberg, M., "The Internationalisation of Venture Capital Activity in OECD Countries:Implications for Measurement and Policy", (2000) OECD STI Working Paper 2000/7
4. Ber H. Yafeh Y.2003. Venture Capital Funds and Post-IPO Performance in Booms and Busts: Evidence from Israeli IPOs in the US in the 1990s (Bank of Israel Research-Discussion Papers)
5. Birley, S.1986. The role of new firms: Births, deaths and job generation. Strategic Management Journal,7:361-376
6. Brown S.L. & Eisenhardt K.M. 1997. The art of continuous change:Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,42:1-34
7. Bruton, G.D., Dattani, M., Fung, M., Chow, C., Ahlstrom, D.,1999. Private equity in China: differences and similarities with the Western Model. J. Private Equity 1,7-13 (Winter).
8. Bruton,G. D. and Ahlstrom,D.2003. An institutional view of China's venture capital industry: Explaining the differences between China and the West. Journal of Business Venturing,18(2):233-259.
9. Burgelman R.A.1983. A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly,28:223-244
10. Busenitz,L. W.,Fiet,J. O.,et al.2004. Reconsidering the venture capitalists'"value added" proposition: An interorganizational learning perspective.Journal of Business Venturing, 19(6):787-807.
11. Busenitz.L. W., G6mez,C., et al.2000. Country Institutional Profiles:Unlocking Entrepreneurial Phenomena. Academy of Management Journal 43(5):994-1003.
12. Christensen J.L. 2006. Value added from venture capital to small businesses. Research paper for ISBE Conference "International entrepreneurship—from local to global enterprise creation and development" Cardiff, Wales.
13. Covin, J.G. & Miles, M.P.1999. Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,23(3):47-63
14. De Clercq,D. and Fried,V. H. 2005. Executive forum:How entrepreneurial company performance can be improved through venture capitalists' communication and commitment. Venture Capital 7(3):285-294.
15. De Clercq,D. and Sapienza,H.J.2005. When Do Venture Capital Firms Learn from Their Portfolio Companies? Entrepreneurship:Theory & Practice 29(4):517-535.
16. Dushnitsky G.,Lenox M.J.2005.When do firms undertake R&D by investing in new ventures? Strategic Management Journal 26:947-965
17. Fernhaber S.A., Mcdougall-Covin P.P.2009. Venture capitalists as catalysts to new venture internationalization:The impact of their knowledge and reputation resources. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
18. Floyd, S.W. and P. J.Lane (2000),'Strategizing throughout the organization:Managing role conflict in strategic renewal'.Academy of Management Review 25
19. Fredriksen, Klofsten,2001.Venture Capitalists' Governance of their Portfolio Companies. Journal of Enterprising Culture.9:pp.201-219
20. Fried, Vance H, Hisrich,1995.The Venture Capitalist: A Relationship Investor. California Management Review,37, pp.101-113
21. Gudeman, S.1992.Remodeling the house of economics:Culture and innovation. American Ethnologist,19:141-154
22. Guth W.D. Ginsberg A.1990. Guest editors'introduction:Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal,11:5-15
23. Gompers, Paul A, and Josh Lerner,"The venture capital revolution"Journal of Economic Perspectives,15(2), pp.145-168,2001.
24. Hamao Y. Packer F. Ritter J.2000. Institutional affiliation and the role of venture capital: Evidence from initial public offerings in Japan. Pacific Basin Finance Journal 8,529-558
25. Hellman T., Puri M.,2000. The interaction between product market and financing strategy: The role of venture capital. Review of Financial Studies 13(4) 959-984
26. Hellman T., Puri M.2002. Venture capital and the professionalization of start-ups: Empirical evidence. Journal of Finance 57(1) 169-197
27. Hitt, M.A. Hoskisson R.E. & Ireland R.D.1990. Mergers and acquisitions and managerial commitment to innovation in m-form firms. Strategic management Journal,11:29-47
28. Jain, Bharat A., and Omesh Kini. "The Post-Issue Operating Performance of IPO Firms." Journal of Finance 49.5(1994):1699-726.
29. Jensen M. and Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the Firm:Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics Vol.3, No.4,
30. Keil T. Maula M. Wilson C. Zahra S.A.2008. The effect of governance modes and relatedness of external business development activities on innovation performance. Strategic Management Journal 29(8)
31. Kirzner, I.M. (1973) Competition and Entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
32. Lindsey Laura,2007. Blurring firm boundaries:The role of venture capital in strategic alliances, Working Paper
33. Maula, Markku V.J, Makela, Cross-border Venture Capital. In:Hyytinen, Ari, Pajarinne, Mika. (ed.). Financial Systems and Firm Performance:Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Helsinki, Taloustieto Ltd.,ETLA, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy,2003(B 200 Series), pp.269-290
34. Megginson, William L., and Kathleen A. Weiss. "Venture Capitalist Certification in Initial Public Offerings." Journal of Finance 46.3(1991):879-903.
35. Milhaupt C. J., The Market for Innovation in the United States and Japan:Venture Capital and the Comparative Corporate Governance Debate",(1997) 91 Northwest University Law Review 865
36. Oviatt B.M. and McDougall P.P. 2005, Defining International Entrepreneurship and Modeling the Speed of Internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
37. Peng.M.W,"Foreign Direct Investment in the Innovation-Driven Stage:Toward a Learning Option Perspective",in M.Green and R.McNaughton(eds.),The Location of Foreign Direct Investment,29-42,London:Avebury,1995.
38. Peng.M.W,and D.Wang,"Innovation Capability and Foreign Direct Investment:Toward a Learning Option Perspective",Management International Review,40(1):79-93,2000.
39. Powell W.W., Koput K.W., Smith-Doerr, L.1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation:Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly,41:116-145
40. Rin M.D. Penas M.F.2007, The effect of venture capital on innovation strategies. NBER Working Papers No.13636 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
41. Samuel Kortum & Josh Lerner,1998. "Does Venture Capital Spur Innovation?," NBER Working Papers 6846, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
42. Sapienza Harry J, Manigart, Sophie, Vermeir,1996. Venture Capitalist Governance and Value Added in Four Countries, Journal of Business Venturing,11:pp.439-469
43. Schumpeter, J. A. 1934 The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
44. Scott R.W.1995.Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks. Ca:Sage
45. Shleifer,A.,Robert W.Vishny,1992,"Liquidation Values and Debt Capacity:A Market Equilibrium Approach",The Journal of Finance,47(4),1343-1366
46. Tykvova, Tereza, and Uwe Walz. "How Important is Participation of Different Venture Capitalists in German IPOs?" Global Finance Journal,17.3 (2007):350-78.
47. Venture Capital and Innovation, OECD/GD(96)
48. Wang, Clement K., Kangmao Wang, and Qing Lu. "Effects of Venture Capitalists' Participation in Listed Companies."Journal of Banking & Finance,27.10(2003):2015-34.
49. Witkowski T. (2004) More VC-backed startups use growth by acquisition Boston Business Journal
50. Wright, M.; Lockett, A.; Pruthi, S.; Manigart, M.; Sapienza, H.; Desbrieres, P.; Hommel, U.(2005)., "Venture Capital Investors, Capital Markets, Valuation and Information:US, Europe and Asia", Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol.2, pp.305-326.
51. William L.Megginson,"Toward a global model of venture capital."Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 16,2004.
52.Zahra, S.A. 2005. Entrepreneurship and disciplinary scholarship: Return to the fountainhead. In S.A. Alvarez. R. Agarwal & O Sorenson (Eds.) Handbook of entrepreneurship research:Disciplinary perspectives:253-268. New York:Springer.
53.刘曼红：《风险投资：创新和金融》,中国人民大学出版社,1998年
54.蔡莉,杨如冰著,《风险资本市场的生成与演进研究》,中国社会科学出版社,2003年5月
55.蔡莉,李雪灵,卫国红著,《我国风险投资公司宏观支撑环境与运作机制》,中国人民大学出版社,2006年10月
56.陈德棉、蔡莉,《风险投资：国际比较与经验借鉴》,经济科学出版社,2003年1月
57.陈德棉等：《风险投资运行机制与管理》,经济科学出版社2003年。
58.范柏乃：《现代风险投资运行与管理》,同济大学出版社2002年。
59.范柏乃,《创业投资法律制度研究》,机械工业出版社,2005年1月
60.王永海编著,《资产定价理论》,经济科学出版社2001年版
61.冈波斯,勒纳著,宋晓东等译,《风险投资周期》,经济科学出版社,2002年
62.[美]戴维.格拉斯通,劳拉.格拉斯通著,《风险投资操作手册》,北京大学出版社,2008年5月
63.张陆洋,[美]Christoper Lane Davis著,《美国风险(创业)投资有限合伙制》,复旦大学出版社,2005年6月
64.张陆洋,《风险投资导论——科技企业创业与风险投资》,复旦大学出版社,2007年12月
65.Martin Haemming[瑞士],《风险投资国际化》,复旦大学中国投资研究中心译,复 旦大学出版社.2005年
66.吕炜：《风险投资的经济学考察》,经济科学出版社2001年
67.刘健钧,《创业投资原理与方略》,中国经济出版社,2003年4月
68.刘健钧,《创业投资制度创新论》,经济科学出版社,2004年6月
69.刘志阳,《创业资本的金融政治经济学》,经济管理出版社,2005年4月
70.陈工孟主编,《2008中国创业投资年鉴》,民族与建设出版社,2008年
71.房汉廷等著,《创业投资产业发展的国际比较及其启示》,经济管理出版社,2004年
72. [美]威廉·F·夏普、戈登·J·亚历山大、杰弗里·V·贝利,《投资学》,中译本,中国人民大学出版社1998年版。
73.[美]约瑟·W·巴特利特,《创业投资基础》,中译本,东北财经大学出版社2001年版。
74. Bygrave&Timmons:《处于十字路口的风险投资》,山西人民出版社2001年。
75. Bygrave&Timmons:《创业企业融资》(第5版),华夏出版社2002年。
76.曾一军,《跨国创业投资研究》,中国经济出版社,2007年9月
77.王益、许小松,《风险资本市场理论与实践》,中国经济出版社2000年版。
78.张树中,《美国创业资本市场的制度分析》,中国社会科学出版社2001年版
79.俞自由、李松涛、赵荣信, 《风险投资理论与实践》,上海财经大学出版社2001年版。
80.周炜, 《解读私募股权基金》,机械工业出版社,2008年6月
81.肖金泉, 《国际私募》,中信出版社,2008年6月
82.胡海峰, 《美国创业资本制度与市场研究》,人民出版社,2008年1月
83.姜凌, 《当代国际货币体系与南北货币金融关系》,西南财经大学出版社2003年
84.姜凌等, 《当代资本主义经济论》,人民出版社,2006年4月
85.2005、2007台湾创业投资年鉴
86.胡海峰：“对创业资本契约理论及其未来研究方向的探讨”,载于《经济学动态》2001年(8)
87.刘曼红等,“风险投资理论：投资过程研究的理论发展和前沿”,载于《国际金融研究》2004年(3)
88.蔡莉、于晓宇、杨隽萍,“科技环境对风险投资支撑作用的实证研究”,载于《管理科学学报》,2007年8月
89.张凤岗等,“创业投资税收扶持政策述评”, 《中国创业投资》2007年9月
90.龙勇、常青华,“创新类型、融资方式与市场战略关系——基于中国高技术企业的实证研究”,载于《科学学研究》2008年8月
91.罗国锋、黄卫来、谈毅,“基于风险投资视角的技术创新企业评价和激励研究”,载于《商业研究》2008年第5期
92.倪正东、孙力强,“中国创业投资退出回报及其影响因素研究”,载于《中国软科学》2008年第4期
93.欧阳红兵、胡瑞丽,“企业金融与企业创新机制”,载于《金融理论与实践》2007年第8期
94.单玉青、买忆媛,“我国风险资本市场的波动性对企业创新活动的影响”,载于《科学管理研究》2007年第3期
95.王佳、廖理,“风险投资持股对我国上市企业承销费用的影响研究”,载于《技术经济》,2008年7月
96.闻岳春、梁悦敏,“支持技术创新发展的政府主导型风险投资机制设计”,载于《上海金融》2008年第10期
97.姚佐文,“社会资本的治理机制——以硅谷风险投资为例”,载于《经济管理》,2008年第4期
98.刘二丽,“创业投资增值服务对创业企业成长绩效的影响研究”,载于《工业技术经济》2008年8月
99.李小敏、陈德棉,“风险投资制度创新分析——基于“种子期”投资的研究”,载于《科学管理研究》2007年10月
100.马运来,“基于国际比较分析的我国风险投资本土化运作模式研究”,载于《科技进步与对策》2008年第3期
101.王琳、郑顺杰、汪泉,“‘J曲线效应’视角下我国风险投资研究”,载于《资本市场》2007年10月
102.尹航,“中国风险投资业发展现状分析与本上风险资本投资策略研究”,载于《科技管理研究》2008年第4期
103.郭明杉、姜振寰，“信息不对称条件下风险投资退出方式选择研究”,载于《哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版)》2008年5月
104.金永红、乐可登,“风险投资供需模型及其经济学分析”,载于《统计与决策(理论版)》2007年9月
105.金永红、奚玉芹,“风险投资退出机制的国际比较与我国的现实选择”,载于《科技管理研究》2007年第11期
106.洪运、王燕,“对我国不同背景的风险投资机构运作差异的分析”,载于《科技与管理》2007年第5期
107.杨继波、凤卫卫,“国际风险投资在我国的投资运作研究”,载于《上海金融》2008年第10期
108.钱苹、张帏,“我国创业投资的回报率及其影响因素”,载于《经济研究》2007年第5期
109.胡海峰,“美国创业投资行业区域集聚特征与集聚效应”,载于《中国社会科学院研究生院学报》2008年9月第5期
110.殷林森、李湛、李珏,“基于最优停时理论的创业投资退出决策模型研究”,载于《南开管理评论》2008年11卷第4期
111.谢非、胡林春、王栎,“基于进化博弈的风险投资退出方式选择研究”,载于《科技进步与对策》2007年第11期
112.金雪军、谢碧琼、卢佳,“风险投资与区域经济增长”,载于《上海金融》2007年第09期
113.梁晓艳、糜仲春、叶跃祥、王宏宇,“国外公司创业投资理论研究及其启示”,载于《外国经济与管理》2007年第5期
114.乔弘,“结构调整的推手,新兴产业的摇篮”,载于《证券时报》,2009年8月14日
115.王晓津、李波,“美国风险投资波动的影响因素分析”,载于《证券市场导报》2005年第3期
116.姜凌,“经济全球化趋势下当代国际贷币体系的矛盾”,载于《西南金融》2004年第8期
117.姜凌,“止确认识人民币汇率稳定的若干问题”,载于《金融研究》2005年第8期
118.姜凌,“中国经济增长进程中的外资利用问题研究”, 载于《学术论坛》2005年12期
119.姜凌,“G-3国家汇率波动与发展中国家的汇率制度选择——兼论人民币汇率制度的.完善”,载于《财贸经济》,2007年第7期
120.姜凌,“金融危机中的衍生工具——基于20世纪80年代以来金融危机视角的思考,载于《经济学家》2009年第5期”
2. Barney J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management 17,99-120
3. Baygan, G. and Freudenberg, M., "The Internationalisation of Venture Capital Activity in OECD Countries:Implications for Measurement and Policy", (2000) OECD STI Working Paper 2000/7
4. Ber H. Yafeh Y.2003. Venture Capital Funds and Post-IPO Performance in Booms and Busts: Evidence from Israeli IPOs in the US in the 1990s (Bank of Israel Research-Discussion Papers)
5. Birley, S.1986. The role of new firms: Births, deaths and job generation. Strategic Management Journal,7:361-376
6. Brown S.L. & Eisenhardt K.M. 1997. The art of continuous change:Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,42:1-34
7. Bruton, G.D., Dattani, M., Fung, M., Chow, C., Ahlstrom, D.,1999. Private equity in China: differences and similarities with the Western Model. J. Private Equity 1,7-13 (Winter).
8. Bruton,G. D. and Ahlstrom,D.2003. An institutional view of China's venture capital industry: Explaining the differences between China and the West. Journal of Business Venturing,18(2):233-259.
9. Burgelman R.A.1983. A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly,28:223-244
10. Busenitz,L. W.,Fiet,J. O.,et al.2004. Reconsidering the venture capitalists'"value added" proposition: An interorganizational learning perspective.Journal of Business Venturing, 19(6):787-807.
11. Busenitz.L. W., G6mez,C., et al.2000. Country Institutional Profiles:Unlocking Entrepreneurial Phenomena. Academy of Management Journal 43(5):994-1003.
12. Christensen J.L. 2006. Value added from venture capital to small businesses. Research paper for ISBE Conference "International entrepreneurship—from local to global enterprise creation and development" Cardiff, Wales.
13. Covin, J.G. & Miles, M.P.1999. Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of competitive advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,23(3):47-63
14. De Clercq,D. and Fried,V. H. 2005. Executive forum:How entrepreneurial company performance can be improved through venture capitalists' communication and commitment. Venture Capital 7(3):285-294.
15. De Clercq,D. and Sapienza,H.J.2005. When Do Venture Capital Firms Learn from Their Portfolio Companies? Entrepreneurship:Theory & Practice 29(4):517-535.
16. Dushnitsky G.,Lenox M.J.2005.When do firms undertake R&D by investing in new ventures? Strategic Management Journal 26:947-965
17. Fernhaber S.A., Mcdougall-Covin P.P.2009. Venture capitalists as catalysts to new venture internationalization:The impact of their knowledge and reputation resources. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
18. Floyd, S.W. and P. J.Lane (2000),'Strategizing throughout the organization:Managing role conflict in strategic renewal'.Academy of Management Review 25
19. Fredriksen, Klofsten,2001.Venture Capitalists' Governance of their Portfolio Companies. Journal of Enterprising Culture.9:pp.201-219
20. Fried, Vance H, Hisrich,1995.The Venture Capitalist: A Relationship Investor. California Management Review,37, pp.101-113
21. Gudeman, S.1992.Remodeling the house of economics:Culture and innovation. American Ethnologist,19:141-154
22. Guth W.D. Ginsberg A.1990. Guest editors'introduction:Corporate entrepreneurship. Strategic Management Journal,11:5-15
23. Gompers, Paul A, and Josh Lerner,"The venture capital revolution"Journal of Economic Perspectives,15(2), pp.145-168,2001.
24. Hamao Y. Packer F. Ritter J.2000. Institutional affiliation and the role of venture capital: Evidence from initial public offerings in Japan. Pacific Basin Finance Journal 8,529-558
25. Hellman T., Puri M.,2000. The interaction between product market and financing strategy: The role of venture capital. Review of Financial Studies 13(4) 959-984
26. Hellman T., Puri M.2002. Venture capital and the professionalization of start-ups: Empirical evidence. Journal of Finance 57(1) 169-197
27. Hitt, M.A. Hoskisson R.E. & Ireland R.D.1990. Mergers and acquisitions and managerial commitment to innovation in m-form firms. Strategic management Journal,11:29-47
28. Jain, Bharat A., and Omesh Kini. "The Post-Issue Operating Performance of IPO Firms." Journal of Finance 49.5(1994):1699-726.
29. Jensen M. and Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the Firm:Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure. Journal of Financial Economics Vol.3, No.4,
30. Keil T. Maula M. Wilson C. Zahra S.A.2008. The effect of governance modes and relatedness of external business development activities on innovation performance. Strategic Management Journal 29(8)
31. Kirzner, I.M. (1973) Competition and Entrepreneurship. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL
32. Lindsey Laura,2007. Blurring firm boundaries:The role of venture capital in strategic alliances, Working Paper
33. Maula, Markku V.J, Makela, Cross-border Venture Capital. In:Hyytinen, Ari, Pajarinne, Mika. (ed.). Financial Systems and Firm Performance:Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. Helsinki, Taloustieto Ltd.,ETLA, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy,2003(B 200 Series), pp.269-290
34. Megginson, William L., and Kathleen A. Weiss. "Venture Capitalist Certification in Initial Public Offerings." Journal of Finance 46.3(1991):879-903.
35. Milhaupt C. J., The Market for Innovation in the United States and Japan:Venture Capital and the Comparative Corporate Governance Debate",(1997) 91 Northwest University Law Review 865
36. Oviatt B.M. and McDougall P.P. 2005, Defining International Entrepreneurship and Modeling the Speed of Internationalization. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice
37. Peng.M.W,"Foreign Direct Investment in the Innovation-Driven Stage:Toward a Learning Option Perspective",in M.Green and R.McNaughton(eds.),The Location of Foreign Direct Investment,29-42,London:Avebury,1995.
38. Peng.M.W,and D.Wang,"Innovation Capability and Foreign Direct Investment:Toward a Learning Option Perspective",Management International Review,40(1):79-93,2000.
39. Powell W.W., Koput K.W., Smith-Doerr, L.1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation:Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly,41:116-145
40. Rin M.D. Penas M.F.2007, The effect of venture capital on innovation strategies. NBER Working Papers No.13636 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
41. Samuel Kortum & Josh Lerner,1998. "Does Venture Capital Spur Innovation?," NBER Working Papers 6846, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
42. Sapienza Harry J, Manigart, Sophie, Vermeir,1996. Venture Capitalist Governance and Value Added in Four Countries, Journal of Business Venturing,11:pp.439-469
43. Schumpeter, J. A. 1934 The Theory of Economic Development. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
44. Scott R.W.1995.Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks. Ca:Sage
45. Shleifer,A.,Robert W.Vishny,1992,"Liquidation Values and Debt Capacity:A Market Equilibrium Approach",The Journal of Finance,47(4),1343-1366
46. Tykvova, Tereza, and Uwe Walz. "How Important is Participation of Different Venture Capitalists in German IPOs?" Global Finance Journal,17.3 (2007):350-78.
47. Venture Capital and Innovation, OECD/GD(96)
48. Wang, Clement K., Kangmao Wang, and Qing Lu. "Effects of Venture Capitalists' Participation in Listed Companies."Journal of Banking & Finance,27.10(2003):2015-34.
49. Witkowski T. (2004) More VC-backed startups use growth by acquisition Boston Business Journal
50. Wright, M.; Lockett, A.; Pruthi, S.; Manigart, M.; Sapienza, H.; Desbrieres, P.; Hommel, U.(2005)., "Venture Capital Investors, Capital Markets, Valuation and Information:US, Europe and Asia", Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Vol.2, pp.305-326.
51. William L.Megginson,"Toward a global model of venture capital."Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 16,2004.
52.Zahra, S.A. 2005. Entrepreneurship and disciplinary scholarship: Return to the fountainhead. In S.A. Alvarez. R. Agarwal & O Sorenson (Eds.) Handbook of entrepreneurship research:Disciplinary perspectives:253-268. New York:Springer.
53.刘曼红：《风险投资：创新和金融》,中国人民大学出版社,1998年
54.蔡莉,杨如冰著,《风险资本市场的生成与演进研究》,中国社会科学出版社,2003年5月
55.蔡莉,李雪灵,卫国红著,《我国风险投资公司宏观支撑环境与运作机制》,中国人民大学出版社,2006年10月
56.陈德棉、蔡莉,《风险投资：国际比较与经验借鉴》,经济科学出版社,2003年1月
57.陈德棉等：《风险投资运行机制与管理》,经济科学出版社2003年。
58.范柏乃：《现代风险投资运行与管理》,同济大学出版社2002年。
59.范柏乃,《创业投资法律制度研究》,机械工业出版社,2005年1月
60.王永海编著,《资产定价理论》,经济科学出版社2001年版
61.冈波斯,勒纳著,宋晓东等译,《风险投资周期》,经济科学出版社,2002年
62.[美]戴维.格拉斯通,劳拉.格拉斯通著,《风险投资操作手册》,北京大学出版社,2008年5月
63.张陆洋,[美]Christoper Lane Davis著,《美国风险(创业)投资有限合伙制》,复旦大学出版社,2005年6月
64.张陆洋,《风险投资导论——科技企业创业与风险投资》,复旦大学出版社,2007年12月
65.Martin Haemming[瑞士],《风险投资国际化》,复旦大学中国投资研究中心译,复 旦大学出版社.2005年
66.吕炜：《风险投资的经济学考察》,经济科学出版社2001年
67.刘健钧,《创业投资原理与方略》,中国经济出版社,2003年4月
68.刘健钧,《创业投资制度创新论》,经济科学出版社,2004年6月
69.刘志阳,《创业资本的金融政治经济学》,经济管理出版社,2005年4月
70.陈工孟主编,《2008中国创业投资年鉴》,民族与建设出版社,2008年
71.房汉廷等著,《创业投资产业发展的国际比较及其启示》,经济管理出版社,2004年
72. [美]威廉·F·夏普、戈登·J·亚历山大、杰弗里·V·贝利,《投资学》,中译本,中国人民大学出版社1998年版。
73.[美]约瑟·W·巴特利特,《创业投资基础》,中译本,东北财经大学出版社2001年版。
74. Bygrave&Timmons:《处于十字路口的风险投资》,山西人民出版社2001年。
75. Bygrave&Timmons:《创业企业融资》(第5版),华夏出版社2002年。
76.曾一军,《跨国创业投资研究》,中国经济出版社,2007年9月
77.王益、许小松,《风险资本市场理论与实践》,中国经济出版社2000年版。
78.张树中,《美国创业资本市场的制度分析》,中国社会科学出版社2001年版
79.俞自由、李松涛、赵荣信, 《风险投资理论与实践》,上海财经大学出版社2001年版。
80.周炜, 《解读私募股权基金》,机械工业出版社,2008年6月
81.肖金泉, 《国际私募》,中信出版社,2008年6月
82.胡海峰, 《美国创业资本制度与市场研究》,人民出版社,2008年1月
83.姜凌, 《当代国际货币体系与南北货币金融关系》,西南财经大学出版社2003年
84.姜凌等, 《当代资本主义经济论》,人民出版社,2006年4月
85.2005、2007台湾创业投资年鉴
86.胡海峰：“对创业资本契约理论及其未来研究方向的探讨”,载于《经济学动态》2001年(8)
87.刘曼红等,“风险投资理论：投资过程研究的理论发展和前沿”,载于《国际金融研究》2004年(3)
88.蔡莉、于晓宇、杨隽萍,“科技环境对风险投资支撑作用的实证研究”,载于《管理科学学报》,2007年8月
89.张凤岗等,“创业投资税收扶持政策述评”, 《中国创业投资》2007年9月
90.龙勇、常青华,“创新类型、融资方式与市场战略关系——基于中国高技术企业的实证研究”,载于《科学学研究》2008年8月
91.罗国锋、黄卫来、谈毅,“基于风险投资视角的技术创新企业评价和激励研究”,载于《商业研究》2008年第5期
92.倪正东、孙力强,“中国创业投资退出回报及其影响因素研究”,载于《中国软科学》2008年第4期
93.欧阳红兵、胡瑞丽,“企业金融与企业创新机制”,载于《金融理论与实践》2007年第8期
94.单玉青、买忆媛,“我国风险资本市场的波动性对企业创新活动的影响”,载于《科学管理研究》2007年第3期
95.王佳、廖理,“风险投资持股对我国上市企业承销费用的影响研究”,载于《技术经济》,2008年7月
96.闻岳春、梁悦敏,“支持技术创新发展的政府主导型风险投资机制设计”,载于《上海金融》2008年第10期
97.姚佐文,“社会资本的治理机制——以硅谷风险投资为例”,载于《经济管理》,2008年第4期
98.刘二丽,“创业投资增值服务对创业企业成长绩效的影响研究”,载于《工业技术经济》2008年8月
99.李小敏、陈德棉,“风险投资制度创新分析——基于“种子期”投资的研究”,载于《科学管理研究》2007年10月
100.马运来,“基于国际比较分析的我国风险投资本土化运作模式研究”,载于《科技进步与对策》2008年第3期
101.王琳、郑顺杰、汪泉,“‘J曲线效应’视角下我国风险投资研究”,载于《资本市场》2007年10月
102.尹航,“中国风险投资业发展现状分析与本上风险资本投资策略研究”,载于《科技管理研究》2008年第4期
103.郭明杉、姜振寰，“信息不对称条件下风险投资退出方式选择研究”,载于《哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版)》2008年5月
104.金永红、乐可登,“风险投资供需模型及其经济学分析”,载于《统计与决策(理论版)》2007年9月
105.金永红、奚玉芹,“风险投资退出机制的国际比较与我国的现实选择”,载于《科技管理研究》2007年第11期
106.洪运、王燕,“对我国不同背景的风险投资机构运作差异的分析”,载于《科技与管理》2007年第5期
107.杨继波、凤卫卫,“国际风险投资在我国的投资运作研究”,载于《上海金融》2008年第10期
108.钱苹、张帏,“我国创业投资的回报率及其影响因素”,载于《经济研究》2007年第5期
109.胡海峰,“美国创业投资行业区域集聚特征与集聚效应”,载于《中国社会科学院研究生院学报》2008年9月第5期
110.殷林森、李湛、李珏,“基于最优停时理论的创业投资退出决策模型研究”,载于《南开管理评论》2008年11卷第4期
111.谢非、胡林春、王栎,“基于进化博弈的风险投资退出方式选择研究”,载于《科技进步与对策》2007年第11期
112.金雪军、谢碧琼、卢佳,“风险投资与区域经济增长”,载于《上海金融》2007年第09期
113.梁晓艳、糜仲春、叶跃祥、王宏宇,“国外公司创业投资理论研究及其启示”,载于《外国经济与管理》2007年第5期
114.乔弘,“结构调整的推手,新兴产业的摇篮”,载于《证券时报》,2009年8月14日
115.王晓津、李波,“美国风险投资波动的影响因素分析”,载于《证券市场导报》2005年第3期
116.姜凌,“经济全球化趋势下当代国际贷币体系的矛盾”,载于《西南金融》2004年第8期
117.姜凌,“止确认识人民币汇率稳定的若干问题”,载于《金融研究》2005年第8期
118.姜凌,“中国经济增长进程中的外资利用问题研究”, 载于《学术论坛》2005年12期
119.姜凌,“G-3国家汇率波动与发展中国家的汇率制度选择——兼论人民币汇率制度的.完善”,载于《财贸经济》,2007年第7期
120.姜凌,“金融危机中的衍生工具——基于20世纪80年代以来金融危机视角的思考,载于《经济学家》2009年第5期”