Venture Capital and the Impact on Start-up’s Success –

i

Master’s Thesis 30 credits

Department of Business Studies

Uppsala University

Spring Semester of 2017

Date of Submission: 2018-02-26

Venture Capital and the Impact on

Start-up’s Success –

Time to IPO

Hugo Svärd

ii

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the differences between the success of a start-up depending on support from venture capital or not. This kind of research has not been done in a Swedish context in which time to IPO was used as a measure of success for the start-up. The secondary data was collected from two stock markets representing start-ups/entrepreneurial firms, First north and Aktietorget. The sample includes 211 different start-ups with their founding years no earlier than 1999 and their IPO ranging between 2011 and 2016. A regression analysis, one-way ANOVA and t-test have been conducted for the collected data. Findings were not statistically significant and could not show any mean differences. The contributions of this study are theoretical and relate to the individual objectives of this study; 1) critically, identifying and evaluating different success factors for start-ups; 2) defining the terms venture capital and start-up; and 3) evaluating the literature on venture capital and the success of start-ups.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to take this opportunity to thank James Sallis for valuable support and feedback to this thesis. I also would like to thank my girlfriend Ariela Sroloff for all the ad hoc-help she has unconditionally supported me with; late nights and early mornings full of motivation and inspiration. Further, a special thanks to my family for all the support throughout my life, especially the last ten years, and particularly to my mother Sofia Svärd who never stopped believing in me and never ever quit fighting for me. My brother Stefan Svärd for being such an inspiration both academically and in career. My sisters Celina Beveridge, Evelina and Elin Svärd for inspiring me in life and relationships. Last but not least my father Stig Svärd, you would have been proud of me, in the end, it all turned out well.

Without your help, the progress of this thesis as well as my self-development and accomplishments would not be what it is.

Hugo Svärd

iv

ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS

AKTIETORGET Swedish stock market for small and medium enterprises

ANOVA Analysis of variances

CEO Chief executive officer

FIRST NORTH Swedish stock market for small and medium enterprises

H1, H2, H3 Hypotheses one, two, and three

IPO Initial public offering

NONPARAMETRIC Measure of central tendency is the median

PARAMETRIC Measure of central tendency is the mean

START-UP A business venture either completely new or very young

TIME TO IPO Time of months from start-up’s founding year to IPO

v

TABLE OF CONTENT

1 Introduction ... 6

1.1 Background ... 6

1.2 Purpose and Research Aim ... 9

2 Theory and Literature Review ... 11

2.1 Venture Capital ... 11

2.1.1 The Construction of a Venture Capital-firm ... 11

2.1.2 The Money Aspect ... 12

2.1.3 The Management Aspect ... 13

2.1.4 Defining Venture Capital ... 14

2.2 Start-ups ... 14

2.2.1 Entrepreneurial Firms ... 15

2.2.2 Entrepreneurs ... 16

2.2.3 Entrepreneurial activity ... 17

2.2.4 Defining a start-up ... 18

2.3 Venture Capital and the Success of Start-ups ... 19

2.3.1 Different Success Factors ... 19

2.3.2 IPO as a Success Factor ... 20

2.4 Success in a Business Context ... 23

2.4.1 Business Settings and Different Dimensions ... 23

2.4.2 Geographical Location ... 23

2.4.3 Type of Industry ... 24

3 Methodology ... 26

3.1 Market Selection ... 26

3.2 Sample and Data Collection ... 26

3.3 Testing for Time to IPO ... 27

3.4 Operationalization ... 33

3.4.1 Time to IPO ... 33

3.4.2 Model ... 33

4 Empirical findings and Analysis ... 35

4.1 Testing for Time to IPO ... 35

5 Discussion and Concluding Remarks ... 38

6

Introduction

This section presents both theoretical and practical perspectives, leading to the purpose of this study, highlighting the importance and contribution for entrepreneurs, their start-ups, and society. Theoretical implications are also addressed.

1.1 Background

“The creation of firms with innovative products and services has been identified as a key driver for wealth creation and economic growth” (Schwienbacher, 2007, p. 754). Initiating a new business venture, for example by creating a new firm, might be an easy task. However, maintaining the business and moreover leading the business to grow and scale is not as easy, nevertheless, highly essential for an economic society. However, Song et al ., (2007) have shown that the survival rates for a start-up that has five or more full-time employees during their first five years is only 21.9%. This means that 78.1% of those start-ups do not survive.

“Start-ups should be getting more attention for their contributions to employment” (Cohan, 2011). A statement supported by Dana Stangler, a research manager at the Kauffman Foundation, argues that start-ups are one of the most important factors for creation of new jobs. Accordingly, there are about 500,000 new businesses created annually by start-ups in the US whereas these start-ups creating new businesses lead to new jobs. Stangler argues firstly, there are more of start-up companies than companies that are more matured and established, and secondly, larger and more well-established businesses tend to employ people during economic upturns and terminate the employees during periods of economic contraction. Therefore, since merely 21.9% start-ups survive the first five years, start-ups do need more attention.

Start-ups hold an important role in society, for example, in the U.S, small firms such as start-ups created 63% of the net new jobs from mid-2009 until the end of 2012, (“Small Business Administration,” n.d.). Moreover, start-ups can contribute to economic growth not only through creation of jobs, but also by serving as a mechanism that infuses the knowledge filter.

7

of knowledge that would otherwise be overlooked and thereby providing a missing link to economic growth. This is a unique contribution to economic growth, as well as commercializing ideas that would otherwise not be commercialized. “It is a virtual consensus that entrepreneurship revolves around the recognition of opportunities along with the decisions to commercialize those opportunities by starting a new firm” (Acs and Szerb, 2007, p. 112). However, despite this, entrepreneurs and their start-ups do need more attention; theoretically to gain more knowledge and understanding regarding growth of new start-ups with high market potential and furthermore practically for the society to foster entrepreneurship and stimulate economic growth.

Nonetheless, since start-ups are an important aspect of society and economic growth, and merely 21.9% survive the first 5 years, potentially it could depend on different factors impacting start-ups towards their survival and success. Nevertheless, for those 21.9% of the start-ups that do survive or even become successful by growing and scaling its businesses, and for those who try but fail, capital is needed in one way or another. Two alternative financing strategies that capital-constrained start-ups can pursue are; waiting until they have raised enough money through their business to finance their project or using a riskier and often quicker strategy by contacting large outside investors (Schwienbacher, 2007). However, “innovative start-up companies often face difficulties in obtaining finance from traditional sources as banks or public stock markets. This ‘equity-gap’ has been filled by private investors, such as venture capitalists (VCs) or angels” (Fairchild, 2011 p. 360). Private equity-firms are also an alternative. As for these investors, according to Jeng and Wells (2000), venture capitalists are characterized by three types of investments – seed, start-up, and expansion investment –excluding buyouts. Private equity-firms also occasionally invest in start-ups, but they usually focus on buyouts. Business angels are also an alternative source of funding for start-ups. Business angels are essentially wealthy individuals who finance start-ups using their own personal funds, their scope is thus limited by the wealth of these individuals.

8

Chang (2004), being backed by a venture capital firm is the one most important factor for a start-up’s survival and success.

According to Schwienbacher (2007), start-ups that are highly profitable or have the potential to be, contacting venture capitalists is a better option than merely growing organically. However, when a venture capitalist-firm chooses to invest in a start-up it assumes great risks since creating a new business organization – start-up – involves considerable uncertainty, (Franklin and Taylor, 2015). Moreover, Franklin and Taylor (2015) claim that researchers (Stinchcombe, 1965; Hannan and Freeman, 1984) have long noted that start-ups have higher failure rates than established firms do. There are many reasons that start-ups have higher failure rates, but they mostly relate to their immaturity. For example, many start-ups struggle to establish effective work roles, relationships with outside suppliers and buyers, and bases of influence, endorsement, and legitimacy.

Therefore, when a venture capital firms selects between fund-raising start-ups, they evaluate the potential to earn a reward that is higher than the implicated risk involved when investing. According to Franklin and Taylor (2015), one important factor venture capital-firms consider when investing is the ability to take the start-up public as soon as possible. Other studies (Chang, 2004; Jeng & Wells, 2000) support this argument saying the IPO is important for venture capital firms. Jeng and Wells (2000) even show that IPO is the strongest driver for a VC to invest in a start-up. In other words, VCs use potential IPOs as an indicator to determine whether or not the start-up is worth investing. This allows the VC to have an exit strategy to cash out the invested money (Bascha & Walz, 2001), simply by converting held equity into cash on the public market.

9

impact on start-ups’ success. One way to determine success for a start-up can be going public with an initial public offering (IPO).

Since merely 21.9% start-ups survive, and companies going IPO necessarily do not have VC-funding, it is vital to find out if VC supported start-ups have a higher rate of survival/success. However, these types of studies have been conducted, mostly, on the U.S market. There are no studies regarding this matter in Sweden. Therefore, this study will focus on IPO as a success factor in a Swedish context comparing VC-backed start-ups with start-ups going public without venture capital.

1.2 Purpose and Research Aim

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether venture capital backed start-ups have a faster time to IPO than those without in a Swedish context.

Thus, the aim is to advance entrepreneurs’ views on their choice when deciding whether to seek capital from outside investors; venture capital. The main focus is to measure the time to IPO from the start-ups founding year and the time of IPO, by months. Moreover, individual objectives are to be obtained.

The objectives of this research are to:

1. Critically review the literature of venture capital and the connection to the success of start-ups; the objective of this is to gain better understanding of what research has already established concerning what venture capital does for start-ups and their success, pros and cons of VC, and thus find out what is still lacking in this subject research wise to fulfil the theoretical implication of this study.

10

understanding of what this study wants to show as well as definition for future research. Moreover, venture capital constitutes the dependent variable of this study hence defining it will contribute to focusing the data collection and increase the knowledge to exclude inadequate samples. Regarding the definition of the term start-up, it is more complex than what is found in the literature regarding VC. Therefore, it is highly imperative to define this term since it holds a central factor for this study’s purpose and theoretical contribution as well as for practical reason when collecting data.

11

2 Theory and Literature Review

This section starts with defining key concepts, organized in two major sections addressing Venture capital and Start-ups. In sections three and four, theories regarding the performance of venture capital backed firms and the contrary are critically reviewed, and factors for success (entrepreneurial performance) are addressed. Hypotheses are offered.

2.1 Venture Capital

“Venture capital is financing that investors provide to start-up companies and small businesses that are believed to have long-term growth potential. For start-ups without access to capital markets, venture capital is an essential source of money. The risk is typically high for investors, but the downside for the start-up is that these venture capitalists usually get a say in company decisions ” (Investopedia, 2003). Although the description above somewhat describes venture capital, this study requires a more in-depth description of the term to define it and to fulfill the purpose of this study.

Three general perspectives are undertaken; hence this section’s disposition is as follows:

1. The construction of a VC-firm: describes the legal structure of a VC-firm between the managers of the firm and the outside investors: the partnership

2. The money aspect: describes the flow of money between the VC-firm, outside investors and the start-up

3. The management aspect: describes how the managers of the VC-firm impact the start-up through their legal control and active engagement

2.1.1 The Construction of a Venture Capital-firm

12

sources. The so-called limited partners are the investors who invest in the VC’s funds and the general partners are the people who manage the funds (Barringer and Ireland, 2015). As figure 1 shows, there is an explicit contract between venture capitalists and their investors, but also an implicit contract. (Black and Gilson, 1998)

Fig 1

The explicit contract between the investors and the venture capitalists requires a liquidation of each limited partnership. The implicit contract complements the explicit contract such that the capital providers are expected to reinvest in future limited partnerships (Black & Gilson, 1998). This means that the VCs’ managers have a high requirement of performance on themselves to deliver at least the minimum of what the investors expect as the return of their invested capital. This furthermore implies that when the managers of a VC-firm look for potential entrepreneurs to invest in, they must have a future projection of success for the start-up and the entrepreneur.

2.1.2 The Money Aspect

Franklin and Taylor (2015) argue that venture capitalists, the ones controlling the venture capital, are professional firms or institutional managers that control risk capital which gets invested in different companies. Mostly, it is the innovative and promising companies that receive these funds. Thus, the money which comes from venture capital funds new ideas and ventures for entrepreneurs that could not be financed through traditional banks. Moreover, in exchange for the funds that the entrepreneurs receive from the venture capitalist, the VCs obtain equity from the company they

13

invest in thus making them shareholders of the company. For this reason, Franklin and Taylor (2015) declare that venture capital is a long-term investment, since the company they invest in has little actual value unless it is acquired or goes public and the shares are sold.

2.1.3 The Management Aspect

However, “venture capital is more than money” (Franklin & Taylor, 2015) and “venture capitalists provide more than just money to their portfolio companies” (Black and Gilson, 1998). Venture capital partners that invest in companies become involved and actively participate in the business, mostly by taking a board seat (Franklin & Taylor, 2015). In such case, venture capitalists take an active control of the company and for a start-up, this means engagement in the company from the VC as well as active communication with the management. Franklin and Taylor (2015) advocate that most entrepreneurs who approach VCs for money do not realize that they are also asking for supplementary people to their company. In other words, this means that initially when entrepreneurs ask for money they need to understand that VCs will add more people to the company to scale up the business. In general, it is difficult for a start-up with only two or three people to manage growth to the scale where VCs are capable.

“The venture capital fund’s industry knowledge and experience with prior start-up firms help it locate managers for new start-ups” (Carvalho, 1996). The partners in a VC firm are experienced and have the knowledge to take a company from the start-up stage and make it grow. This is often done by recruiting skilled key-persons for specific management positions that are needed. Moreover, Black and Gilson (1998) claim that besides recruited managers, the VC partners also assist with moving the company through the problems they may face through their growth such as prototype development, marketing, and distribution.

14

the VC voting rights to often take a majority of the board, meaning the VC firm can replace the entrepreneur as chief executive officer if their performance is not adequate.

2.1.4 Defining Venture Capital

This study will define venture capital and a VC-firm based on the three perspectives above; the construction of a VC-firm, the money aspect, and the management aspect.

Thus, venture capital and a VC-firm are defined as; a firm (the VC-firm) that invests money (venture capital) from external investors into start-ups on a long-term basis implying a money-equity exchange between the VC-firm and the start-up where the VC’s managers take an active role in ensuring the success of the start-up with the intent of making a profit.

2.2 Start-ups

A start-up can first be defined as the creation of a new business venture. However, a start-up can also include businesses that have been in operation for some years. Furthermore, a start-up and creation of a new business venture can, depending on a business context, be referred to as an entrepreneurial firm. Hence, defining the term “start-up” is vital for the understanding of this study and its purpose.

A start-up is a new venture in a business setting, and “new venture creation is a complex phenomenon: entrepreneurs and their firms vary widely” (Gartner, 1985). Although each entrepreneur and their respective firm is unique, there must be a general conclusion of variables that can classify these firms as start-ups. For instance, Gautam and Verma (1997) claim that the characteristics of entrepreneurship, which can be related to start-ups and new venture creation, will vary with the type of firm. Other studies (Gartner, 1985; Ahmad and Seymour, 2008; Barringer and Ireland, 2015) support this argument by concluding that different variables define a start-up, for instance, the entrepreneur. What they say is the characteristics of an entrepreneur reflect what determines the type of a start-up.

15

• Salary-Substitute Firms. These firms essentially provide their owner with an income similar to the level they would with a conventional job

• Lifestyle Firms. Firms that provide their owner or owners to pursue income from a lifestyle of their own thus making a living from their lifestyle

• Entrepreneurial Firms. This type of firm brings new products and services to the market. Opportunities are seized and operationalized regardless of the resources that are currently held

2.2.1 Entrepreneurial Firms

Aforementioned, there is no standard definition of the term “start-up”. However, this study will refer to the entrepreneurial firm as a start-up. Thus, this study will further define an entrepreneurial firm by the term “start-up”.

Barringer and Ireland (2015b) argue that the core of entrepreneurship is creating value and then distributing that value to the customers. According to Barringer and Ireland (2015b), value within this context refers to worth, importance, or utility. Nevertheless, what distinguishes an entrepreneurial firm (start-up) is its purpose and ability to bring new products and services to the market, solely by seizing opportunities (Barringer and Ireland, 2015). Although there is no standard definition, the current study will try to define a start-up as far as possible through analysis of literature regarding start-ups, new venture creations, and entrepreneurship.

16

multidimensional and complex. Contemporary start-ups most likely are more complex to define compared to Gartner’s idealized start-ups (1985) because of how the technique has developed since his construction of the framework and because of the way markets and industries have changed. Nevertheless, although Gartner’s study is quite old, his paper introduces perspectives still unconsidered by existing research.

Furthermore, a more contemporary study of start-ups/ entrepreneurial firms/ new venture creation is done by OECD (Ahmad and Seymour, 2008). The OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) considers three components and is focused upon for the objective of this study because of its relevance in targeting business related entrepreneurship, defined as the following:

• Entrepreneurs are those persons or business owners who pursue ventures for the purpose of generating value through the creation or expansion of economic activity by identifying and exploiting new products, processes or markets.

• Entrepreneurial activity is defined as the enterprising human activity that is in pursuit of the generation of value through the creation or expansion of economic activity by identifying and exploiting new product, processes or markets.

• Entrepreneurship is described as the phenomenon associated with entrepreneurial activity.

2.2.2 Entrepreneurs

The definition of an entrepreneur had its first interpretation by Joseph Schumpeter in 1934. Schumpeter (1934) defined entrepreneurs as innovators in a business sense by identifying market opportunities and then exploiting them with innovative methods. This includes (1) the introduction of a new or improved goods, (2) the introduction of a new method or production, (3) the opening of a new market, (4) the exploitation of a new source of supply, and (5) organization of business management process.

17

other studies, for instance, Drucker (1985, 1999) have debated that entrepreneurship reflects merely the creation of a new organization. This means, according to Drucker (1985, 1999), that anyone who starts a new business venture is an entrepreneur. In addition, Schumpeter argues there are other dimensions as well, particularly innovation, that defines an entrepreneur, while Drucker (1985, 1999) mostly defines entrepreneurs as new organization creators and Shane (2003 p. 247) simply defines it as; “entrepreneurs create new organizations through a dynamic process that involves such activities as obtaining equipment, establishing production processes, attracting employees and setting up legal entities”.

Thus, an entrepreneur in a business context can be defined as; a person who is a risk-taking business owner and pursues the generation of value through the creation or expansion of economic activity by identifying market opportunities and then exploiting them with innovative methods by creating a new organization through a dynamic process.

2.2.3 Entrepreneurial activity

The entrepreneur’s activities occur within a business context including industry structures, competition, and national economic structures. Subsequently, this business context is impacted by economic, political, legal, social, cultural, and natural settings (Ahmad and Seymour, 2008b). As shown, the business context in which the entrepreneur is surrounded by is complex, and so is the start-up which is thereby reflected by the opportunities the entrepreneur seizes and by the methods of their approach to these opportunities. The creation of value resulting from entrepreneurial activity within these business settings can be identified by the creation of new ventures, rapid-growth ventures, employment levels and a myriad of other alternatives existing along with new macroeconomic data sets (Ahmad and Seymor, 2008). All of which are impacted by the business setting the start-up is operating in.

18

capabilities through innovation, but the opportunities themselves always relate to the identification of either new products, processes or markets” (Ahmad and Seymour, p 14 2008).

The distinction between entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial activity is that individuals within a company can demonstrate entrepreneurship without having a stake in the company. Thus, companies without an entrepreneur as CEO or another controlling position can be entrepreneurial. Moreover, companies owned by stakeholders or by trust funds for instance that are managed by paid directors can still be entrepreneurial. It is all a matter of the way they operate their business in identifying and exploiting new products or/and markets (Ahmad and Hoffmann, 2008). In other words, where there are entrepreneurs there will always be entrepreneurial activity, but the entrepreneurial activity is not dependent on the existence of entrepreneurs. Since an entrepreneur in a business context needs to be a business owner, incorporated or otherwise (Ahmad and Seymour, 2008).

Regardless of entrepreneurs and entrepreneurial activity, Ahmad and Seymour (2008) argue that the “entrepreneurship” is something very different from other business types. Namely, those kinds of businesses are in the pursuit of doing something new; creating/ identifying new processes, products or markets. As well, on the contrary, not all businesses are entrepreneurial and not all new businesses necessarily have to be entrepreneurial.

2.2.4 Defining a start-up

Entrepreneurs and their entrepreneurial activity generate entrepreneurship and lay the foundation for the definition of a start-up in an entrepreneurial context. Furthermore, since this study merely takes the start-up into account as a legal entity, including the entrepreneur/individual while defining the term start-up will be misleading. For that reason, the entrepreneurship, the entrepreneurial activities within a company, is what will define a start-up in this context.

19

Throughout the literature review the term innovation was frequently discovered, however, the aspect of innovation is not a part of the definition in this study; innovation is a broad term in need of a more comprehensive and in-depth work to define which is beyond the scope of this study.

2.3 Venture Capital and the Success of Start-ups

There are several factors measuring the success of a start-up. However, this paper will review what various literature has said about various of success factors and most of all the relation between venture capital and the success of start-ups.

2.3.1 Different Success Factors

Song, Podoynitsyna, van der Bij, and Halman (2008) found twenty-four different success factors that can determine a start-up’s success. These twenty-four factors were divided into three sections: 1) market and opportunity, 2) entrepreneurial team and, 3) resources. However, merely eight universal and significant factors out of these twenty-four were found to correlate to venture performance. One represented market and opportunity, five factors represented resources, and two success factors were part of the entrepreneurial category. The interesting thing with this study is that the entrepreneurial team-category showed the weakest significant result compared to the two other categories. Only experience within marketing and industry was significant. While both prior start-up and research and development experience were insignificant at the 0.05 level. On the contrary, Baum and Silverman (2004) state that previous start-up experience is one of the most profound factors of entrepreneurial success. Although, it must be considered that the study of Song et al. (2008) was conducted in the field of New Technology Ventures and the findings might be problematic due to lack of variance in the sample. Nevertheless, this shows the complexity of findings and the challenge of using different success factors for researches conducted in diverse contexts.

20

one factor to measure growth it could be too scarce but at the same time simpler and more focused. However, most start-ups have insufficient resources and to employ more people is costly and information about employees is not always easy to obtain. Therefore, using growth of employees as a success factor might not be the most efficient way when it comes to start-ups, especially since many start-ups are quite young compared to more established companies.

Besides growth of employee as a factor, Chang (2004) and Stuart, Hoang and Hybels (1999) explain that using conventional success factors for performance, such as profitability, sales, growth, and market share are not readily available for start-ups as they are pretty young companies. Also, different accounting systems could intervene with measurements if for instance profitability is used as a factor of success since the measurements might not be accordingly with actual figures. Instead, Stuart, Hoang and Hybels (1999) advocate that IPO is the most used success factor due to the transparent and easily available information, as well as consistency for measurements regardless of the industry.

2.3.2 IPO as a Success Factor

Jeng & Wells (2000) use IPO as a factor to measure success of a start-up. Moreover, this study also shows that IPO is the strongest driver for a VC firm to invest in a start-up. In other words, they imply that VCs use potential IPOs as an indicator for whether the start-up is worth investing in. The reason for this is for the VC to have an exit strategy to cash out the invested money (Bascha & Walz, 2001), simply by converting held equity into cash on the public market.

However, in contrast of Jeng and Wells (2000), Chang (2004) used IPO as a measurement of the VC’s performance and not how well the start-up has performed and progressed, measuring the time from the start-up’s date of founding to the date of IPO. The study suggests that the earlier the IPO the greater the success of the start-up. Positive factors as the reputation of the VC and the more money a start-up raised was found to impact the time to IPO.

21

to an earlier IPO. Although, Chang (2004) does not explain how the VC-firm affects the start-up towards success.

An explanation about how a VC-firm impacts a start-up’s success by an IPO as a factor is presented by Hellman and Puri (2002). The researchers advocate that one important factor for a start-up’s success is the management team and the CEO. Furthermore, Hellman & Puri (2002) show that in order to attract a suitable CEO, especially in an early stage when signs of success are not extremely clear, VC involvement is particularly important as a way to attract a CEO. Similarly, Chang (2004) states that the reputation of the VC has an impact on a start-up’s ability to attract a promising CEO to drive them towards success. For instance, the greater reputation of the VC, then more skilled and experienced CEOs are attracted towards it. This is supported by Davila et al., (2003) who identify the positive relationship between employee growth of a start-up and the presence of a VC-firm where the credibility of the VC is the impact factor.

Most of the literature discuss the positive influence of VC in a start-up’s success; however, Gifford (1997) argues that the VC does not maximize the expected value of the venture or start-up itself nor the venture fund. This is based on the principal-agent theory where the VC acts as agent and the limited partner is the principal. According to Gifford (1997), “the VC allocates attention among ventures and venture funds less frequently than required to maximize the entrepreneurs’ and limited partners’ profits”. This is because the VC regards the opportunity cost of attention, thus meaning that their allocation of attention is inefficient.

Gifford’s (1997) study is older than the other studies used in this review, but it is important to show the negative aspects to be found in the literature. Moreover, as Gifford’s (1997) study shows that VC’s allocation of attention is inefficient, and speculatively it could be that they allocate more attention to start-ups with higher potential of success and thus higher reward. A later study (Baum and Silverman, 2004) explores if VC firms pick start-up winners or if they build them to become winners.

22

ability of VCs to pick winners and conversely, the less the convergence the more likely that VCs will build winners. Moreover, their findings suggest that VCs do identify start-ups with certain characteristics and that, surprisingly, VCs do not identify start-ups with superior top management teams.

On the contrary, Hellman and Puri (2002) argue that one critical factor for a start-up’s success is the management team. Baum and Silverman (2004) did not find this in their study since results showed that VCs did not identify start-ups with superior management. This can be explained by Bernile et al. (2007) who claim that VCs are characterized by actively managing their portfolio companies and providing assistance but also management recruitment. Thus, the literature proposes that VCs are known for management recruitment themselves when entering a start-up and do not look for start-ups with great top management team.

Most of the research (Gompers, 1995; Sahlman, 1990; Chang, 2004; Davila et al., 2013; Franklin & Taylor, 2015) presents positive impact of VCs on start-ups’ success. VC firms are experienced and possess the skillset and knowledge required to take a start-up from its start-up-phase to growth. The partners in a VC firm, unlike traditional investors, take an active role in a start-up and are involved in the business by taking a board seat which for instance implies the VC replacing the founder of a start-up as CEO if performance does not sufficiently address the strategic plan of growth. Which, according to Chang (2004) as an example of studies, pronounce the strive for an IPO as a driver for success for both the VC and the start-up. On the whole, VCs have specific incitements to motivate a start-up’s success through an IPO and as many studies show, IPO is the strongest factor for a start-up’s success; thus, I argue: start-ups with support from venture capital firm will reach an IPO faster than those without. Moreover, based on the discussion above and the literature exhibited and evaluated, the greater the number of VCs participating in a start-up the faster the time to IPO. With other words, start-ups connecting more than one VC firm will reach an IPO faster than those with merely support from one VC. Thus, I hypothesize:

H1: Start-ups with support from venture capital-firms will reach an IPO faster than those without.

H2: Start-ups with larger size of alliance network (number of VCs) will reach an IPO faster than

23

2.4 Success in a Business Context

Success is a complex term to define. Success can carry different meaning depending on the context in which it is used as well as hold different standards between different people. However, in this study, success will relate to the setting of a start-up in a business context and thus by screening and critically evaluating the literature trying to define and point out adequate success factors for start-ups within the context of business.

2.4.1 Business Settings and Different Dimensions

In a business context, there are different factors that can be used in different categories for a company such as product, market/sales, finance, people etc. when measuring a start-up’s success. Either they are being fixed to a set of factors in one category or they are describing complete characteristics of a successful venture by using factors in several categories (Chorev and Anderson, 2006). It is quite clear that success factors are depended and related to their business surroundings. However, to create a theoretical viewpoint and critically evaluate different success factors, different settings for a start-up must be viewed.

2.4.2 Geographical Location

The European Union has many regulations that apply to all countries within the Union: the different geographical locations foster different business environments. This means that there are also different types of success factors that are related to this matter. For instance, Kessler (2007) found differences between neighboring countries as Austria and the Czech Republic. Even though these two countries are located next to each other, their cultural background differs. Not only does the cultural background differ, but also the fact that Austria may be regarded as an established economy while on the other side the Czech Republic is regarded as an emerging economy. For these reasons, Kessler (2007) argues that the strategic orientation of successful start-ups is not the same between the neighboring countries. To reflect upon Kessler (2007), this means that regardless of the location, the setting of the business must be adapted to the geographical location, hence it is the entrepreneur's task to do so in order for their venture to be successful.

24

this study is to provide with guidelines for future studies - for instance to compare the Scandinavian market. There might be differences between the countries within a Scandinavian market, even though none of the countries are classified as an emerging country. Meaning all countries are established economies but still might show significant differences on the success of start-ups. Since this study is conducted in Sweden its research could be used to compare the success of start-ups in other Scandinavian countries.

2.4.3 Type of Industry

Different industries have different success factors for start-ups. For instance, in high-tech industries, it is important to have the superior know-how and to protect this knowledge (Chorev and Anderson, 2006).

Chorev and Anderson (2006) and Song, Podoynitsyna, Halman (2008) have pursued extensive studies in the high-tech industry. The findings in these two studies provide universal success factors for an industry that is quite complex and competitive. The survival rate in this industry is low and according to Song et al. (2008) as early as after five years, the survival rate of the companies they studied was under 22 percent. However, the findings were based on companies from different geographical locations, since the studies were made in different countries, which is shown to be a vital factor in another study (Kessler, 2007). Nevertheless, Chorev and Anderson (2006) and Song, Podoynitsyna, Halman (2008) did not consider the geographical location as an aspect to control for when studying success factors for start-ups.

25

advocate that industry do matters: industry directly accounts for a great aggregate variation in business-specific profits and influences the company’s profitability. Hence, their study shows that the industry can greatly impact on a company’s success. Therefore, industry affiliation seems to have varying impact on the survival rate and/or success for a start-up. Thus, this study proposes:

26

3 Methodology

This section describes the research methodology for how the hypotheses were tested, applying the same approach as Chang (2004).

3.1 Market Selection

The choice to focus on the Swedish market is related to three major conditions. First, there are no studies considering this topic in a Swedish context. Most of the previous research have mostly been conducted on the US market or internationally, for instance studies conducted by Jeng & Wells (2000); Davila et al., (2003); Chang (2004). Secondly, the Swedish market is transparent meaning relevant information may be more easily accessible than that from other countries. As for the purpose of this study, measuring time to IPO, the Swedish market is very suitable, and data is accessible. Last, due to the time constraint of this study, researching a greater market than the Swedish one, for instance Scandinavia or Europe, demands much more time and is beyond the scope of this study.

3.2 Sample and Data Collection

This study examines start-ups that have been listed on both First North and Aktietorget between 2011 and 2016. First North is a stock market subordinated to Nasdaq altered for smaller companies and those that are growing or have the intent to grow. Many of the now larger and more established companies that are listed on Nasdaq’s small-, mid,- or large cap listings have started their journey with an IPO at First North as a start-up going public (“First North - Nasdaq,” n.d.).

Aktietorget is adapted for the needs of small and middle sized companies with entrepreneurial characteristics and great potential (“AktieTorget,” n.d.). All of which along with the definition (2.2.4) of a start-up makes both markets suitable for the purpose of this study. Nevertheless, as mentioned above other stock markets (Nasdaq; small-, mid-, and larger cap) do exist, however, they all are suited for larger companies that are more established and not considered to be start-ups.

27

collect a sufficient amount of data. Sine the financial crisis in 2008 hit the stock market quite hard in Sweden but recovered within 2-3 years (Riksbanken, n.d.). Therefore, it is appropriate to collect data from 2011 until 2016.

Secondary data was thus collected from both stock markets whereas information about the start-ups founding year came from the website Allabolag.se, all of which was gathered in and organized using Microsoft Excel. Data from a total of 235 start-ups was collected, 117 companies from First North and 118 from Aktietorget. Merely data from start-ups founded from 1999 until today’s date were considered for the reason to not influence the analysis with data from companies so old that other factors might interfere on the result. However, 24 start-ups were removed due to their maturity, while some start-ups were subsidiaries and thus removed for convenience and consistency reasons as their time to IPO was abnormally short compared to other start-ups. Those subsidiaries were not of an entrepreneurial nature and hence not appropriate for this study. However, this study did not focus on a specific industry. All industries were taken into account to collect sufficient amount of data and to fulfil the purpose of this study. Thus, randomized sample would not be adequate for this study to fulfil the sufficient amount of data collected due to the requirement of an entrepreneurial start-up as defined in this study.

Table 1

3.3 Testing for Time to IPO

28

All seven stages above have been operationalized with IBM SPSS Statistics version 26 and will be further explained below:

Stage 1

At first, for H1, a dichotomous variable was constructed for the independent variable since it is a nominal variable with two categories to separate start-ups with support from VCs and those without to create two groups to further compare their means regarding the time to IPO (dependent variable). VCs were coded into 0 and others (representing founders and other) into 1.

• Start-ups with support from venture capital-firms will reach an IPO faster than those without • Independet variables, start-ups with support from VCs and start-ups without; dependent

variable, time to IPO

H1

• Start-ups with larger size of alliance network (number of VCs) will reach an IPO faster than those with fewer

• Independet variables, start-ups with support from one VC and start-ups with suppport from more than one; dependent variable, time to IPO

H2

• There are differences between industries regarding the time to IPO for start-ups • Independet variables, each single industry (6); dependent variable, time to IPO

H3

1

• Dummy variables conducted for; VC and others; number of VCs;

and the industries

2

• Exploring data for outliers/extreme values and descriptives for 5%

trimmed mean values

3

• Removing values and exploring data for the 5% trimmed mean

value

4

29

Table 2

VC (0) and Founder & Other (1)

Variable (coded) Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent VC (1) 96 45.5 45.5 45.5

F&O (0) 115 54.5 54.5 100.0

Total 211 100.0 100.0

Note. Adjusted descriptives imported from SPSS showing dichotomous variable for VC or Other

Secondly, for H2, the number of VCs were constructed into a dichotomous variable (independent) whereas start-ups with support from one VC-firm were coded into 1 and those with more than one equals everything else which is two to four VCs supporting the start-ups coded to 0, thus having two categories of value. Since the number of start-ups having support from merely one VC were in the majority compared to those with more regardless of whether it was two, three, or four. Hence, further on I compared the difference of means between two groups.

Table 3

Nr of VCs; one VC (1) = 1 and two-four VCs (0) > 1 Values are nr of VCs,

coded in parentheses Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent 0 1 .5 1.0 1.0 1 (1) 65 30.8 67.7 68.8 2 (0) 23 10.9 24.0 92.7 3 (0) 5 2.4 5.2 97.9 4 (0) 2 .9 2.1 100.0 Total 96 45.5 100.0 Missing (F&O) 115 54.5 Total 211 100.0

Note. Adjusted descriptives imported from SPSS showing dichotomous variable for nr of VCs

30

between different industries and the time to IPO for a start-up. Table 4

Industry

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 (IT) 44 20.9 20.9 20.9 2 (Real estate) 21 10.0 10.0 30.8 3 (Retail) 21 10.0 10.0 40.8 4 (Services) 12 5.7 5.7 46.4 5 (Industry) 38 18.0 18.0 64.5 6 (Pharmaceutical) 75 35.5 35.5 100.0 Total 211 100.0 100.0

Note. Adjusted descriptives imported from SPSS showing dichotomous variables for industries

Stage 2

31

Table 5

Descriptives Cases

Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Time to IPO (months) 211 100.0% 0 0.0% 211 100.0%

Statistic Std. Error Time to IPO (months) Mean 69.13 3.541

95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound 62.15 Upper Bound 76.11 5% Trimmed Mean 66.54 Median 58.00 Variance 2645.639 Std. Deviation 51.436 Minimum 2 Maximum 207 Range 205 Interquartile Range 81 Skewness .583 .167 Kurtosis -.568 .333

Note. Descriptives imported from SPSS

Stage 3

32

Stage 4 Preliminary Analyses

This study merely looks at the impact on one dependent variable by exploring differences between groups, independent variables. Therefore, parametric and nonparametric statistical tests approaches will further be presented to test the hypotheses of this study.

Parametric; multiple linear regression, ANOVA with Sheffe poshoc and independensamples

t-test.

A regression analysis and independent sample t-test as well as a one-way ANOVA analysis (analysis of variances) are conducted. The multiple linear regression analysis is a useful technique to determine if there is a relationship/correlation between independent and dependent variables as well as if the dependent variables can have significant impact on the dependent. In this case, the regression will show if we can decide that VC-supported start-ups have a significant prediction on the success of start-ups based on time to IPO. The multiple regression model is utilized because of several independent variables included. The t-test analysis basically tests the same concept as the ANOVA, namely to compare the mean score on some continuous variable (time to IPO) for two different groups (VC backed start-ups and without). This analysis will tell whether there is a statistically difference in the mean scores for the groups (Pallant, 2016) i.e. whether VC backed ups differ significantly in terms of their time to IPO levels as compared non-VC backed start-ups. A one-way ANOVA is conducted since the aim is to compare the groups’ mean scores on a continuous variable (time to IPO), as with the t-test. Nevertheless, one-way ANOVA will only show if there is a difference between groups and not where the significant difference is, same as the t-test does. Hence, an ANOVA Scheffe post-hoc comparison is conducted, which is a parametric approach, to compare all possible simple and complex pairs of means., adequate for all three hypotheses, in case of significant results.

Nonparametric; Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test.

The Kruskal-Wallis test is the alternative to a one-way between-groups analysis of variance and it allows to compare the score on a continuous variable for more than just two groups (Pallant, 2016) and thus it is suitable for H2, as independent variable consists of 4 groups (number of VCs). The

33

between two independent groups on a continuous measure and instead of comparing means as the t-test does, it compares the medians (Pallant, 2016), suitable for H1. This nonparametric test is better when the area of study is better represented by the median – not necessary the case here.

3.4 Operationalization

A deductive research approach was implemented since I sought to test existing literature and theories on the Swedish market. Hence, the measurement of variables as suggested by Chang (2005) was used in this paper.

3.4.1 Time to IPO

This study uses time to IPO as a measurement for start-up performance - or as called in current study, a start-up’s success - accordingly to Chang (2004). It was measured by months from the date of founding to the date of IPO. Moreover, I argue for the fact that different accounting approaches do impact the computation of traditional performance measures and are optional for companies to choose. Therefore, measuring time to IPO is the most suitable since other factors as sales and profitability will not affect, and start-ups can be equally treated.

3.4.2 Model

In this study, I estimate a model with a dichotomous variable working as independent variable on a continuous variable measuring the mean scores compared. Hence, this model takes on three assumptions: 1) the group of venture capital supported start-ups will show a significant difference in the mean score compared to those without whereas the VC group will show faster time to IPO; 2) the group with more than one VC firm will show a significant difference in mean score compared to those with merely one implying a faster time to IPO; 3) the model will show that there are significant differences between different industries regarding the time to IPO for start-ups regardless of VC support or not.

34

Y = 𝛽𝜊 + 𝛽₁𝑥₁+ 𝛽₂𝑥₂+ ⋯ + 𝛽𝑥₅+ 𝜖 Y = dependent variable time to IPO 𝛽𝜊 = the intercept

𝛽1𝑥1 = the regression, independent variable (dichotomous)

𝛽𝑥2+ ⋯ + 𝛽𝑥5 = the regression, independent variables for Industries

𝜖 = error

All industries are included in H1 and H2 regressions as control variables.

H1: 𝑥1 = VC supported start-ups and not

H2: 𝑥₁ = start-ups with support from one or more than on VC

35

4 Empirical findings and Analysis

In this section the empirical findings from the statistical analyses are presented in chronological order of the hypotheses.

4.1 Testing for Time to IPO

First, a multiple linear regression analysis was done to investigate if there are correlations between the independent variables (VC backed start-ups and not, the numbers of VCs, and the industries) and the dependent variable (time to IPO).

Regression for H1: Start-ups with support from venture capital-firms will reach an IPO faster than

those without.

All requested variables were entered to the model with 211 values and multicollinearity shows

tolerance values > 0.1 and VIF < 10. Therefore, multicollinearity is not violated in this test and

indicates the independent variables in the model are not intercorrelated. Thus, variability explained by one independent variable is not explained by the other independent variable in the model. The model summary box exhibits R Square value of 0.052 meaning the model explains a percentage of 5.2% of the variance in time to IPO, which is highly unsatisfactory. The adjusted R Square

value is even lower, 2.4 per cent. Although, this value is more suitable for small samples.

Therefore, inspecting the ANOVA box in the regression is vital, to assess the statistical significance of the result, in this case it shows a value 0.087, clearly greater than 0.05 thus not a significant result. When checking for Beta standardized coefficients merely one variable is significant and thus, having a contribution on the prediction of the dependent variable, i.e. one of the control variables: Real estate, p-value = 0.012 < 0.05.

36

Regression for H2: Start-ups with larger size of alliance network (number of VCs) will reach an

IPO faster than those with fewer.

All requested variables were entered to the model with 191 values and multicollinearity shows

tolerance values > 0.1 and VIF < 10. Therefore, multicollinearity is not violating this test and

indicates the independent variables in the model are not intercorrelated. Thus, variability explained by one independent variable is not explained by the other independent variable in the model. The model summary box exhibits R Square value of 0.054 meaning the model explains a percentage of 5.4% of the variance in time to IPO, which is highly unsatisfied, equal H1. Adjusted R Square

value shows even lower value, 2.6 per cent. Although, this value is more suitable for small samples.

Therefore, inspecting the ANOVA box in the regression is vital, to assess the statistical significance of the result, in this case it shows a value of 0.078, clearly greater than 0.05 thus not a significant result. When checking for Beta standardized coefficients merely one variable is significant having a contribution on the prediction of the dependent variable, i.e. one of the control variables: Real estate, p-value = 0.012 < 0.05.

When analyzing the 5% trimmed mean value for 191 values in the data set, all requested variables were entered to the model. Values in this model exhibited the same result as above (211). There were no statistical differences.

ANOVA for H2: Start-ups with larger size of alliance network (number of VCs) will reach an

IPO faster than those with fewer.

37

t-test for H1: Start-ups with support from venture capital-firms will reach an IPO faster than those

without.

38

5 Discussion and Concluding Remarks

This study examines whether venture capital can have a greater impact on start-ups’ success compared to start-ups without support from venture capital firms, in a Swedish market. I assumed that the case in the Swedish market would be like the American market according to Chang (2004). However, the result for this study showed no statistical significance for H1 and thus will retain the null hypothesis. Nor the regression or the t-test shows any significant results when testing for hypothesis one. This this could be because of several reasons, such as cultural, ethical, and legal which can make a difference between how American VC firms work compared to the Swedish ones.

Furthermore, I hypothesized that the number of venture capital firms supporting a start-up would show significant differences on the time to IPO for a start-up. Results disclose no significant differences when comparing mean scores. The null hypothesis is retained and cannot be rejected. An assumption could be that when more VCs involved with one start-up, the more complications and rivalry present among the VCs. Although, in this study, there are no significant results indicating either. The same goes for the industries impact on time to IPO, set as control variable, but also to test if different industries could have a significant impact on time to IPO, and thus explain differences between VC and no VC supported start-ups. Aforementioned, no significant results can show either. One of the industries, however, did show significance but no other did, and nothing can therefore be claimed regarding differences.

39

40

Reference list

Acs, Z.J., Szerb, L., 2007. Entrepreneurship, Economic Growth and Public Policy. Small Bus. Econ. 28, 109–122.

Ahmad, N., Hoffmann, A., 2008. A Framework for Addressing and Measuring Entrepreneurship (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1090374). Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.

Ahmad, N., Seymour, R.G., 2008a. Defining Entrepreneurial Activity: Definitions Supporting Frameworks for Data Collection (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1090372). Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.

Ahmad, N., Seymour, R.G., 2008b. Defining Entrepreneurial Activity: Definitions Supporting Frameworks for Data Collection (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1090372). Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY.

AktieTorget [WWW Document], n.d. URL http://aktietorget.se/AboutGeneral.aspx (accessed 8.7.17).

Barringer, B.R., Ireland, R.D., 2015a. Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures, 5 edition. ed. Pearson, Boston.

Barringer, B.R., Ireland, R.D., 2015b. Entrepreneurship: Successfully Launching New Ventures, 5 edition. ed. Pearson, Boston.

Baum, J.A.C., Silverman, B.S., 2004. Picking winners or building them? Alliance, intellectual, and human capital as selection criteria in venture financing and performance of

biotechnology start-ups. J. Bus. Ventur., Evolutionary approaches to entrepreneurship: Honoring Howard Aldrich 19, 411–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(03)00038-7 Bernile, G., Cumming, D., Lyandres, E., 2007. The size of venture capital and private equity

fund portfolios. J. Corp. Finance, Private Equity, Leveraged Buyouts and Corporate Governance 13, 564–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2007.04.004

Black, B.S., Gilson, R.J., 1998. . J. Financ. Econ. 47, 243–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(97)00045-7

Chang, S.J., 2004. Venture capital financing, strategic alliances, and the initial public offerings of Internet start-ups. J. Bus. Ventur. 19, 721–741.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2003.03.002

41

Cohan, P., 2011. Why Start-ups Matter [WWW Document]. Forbes. URL

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2011/06/27/why-start-ups-matter/ First North - Nasdaq [WWW Document], n.d. URL

http://www.nasdaqomxnordic.com/omoss/firstnorth (accessed 8.7.17).

Gao, J., Li, J., Cheng, Y., Shi, S., 2010. Impact of initial conditions on new venture success: a longitudinal study of new technology-based firms. Int. J. Innov. Manag. 14, 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919610002544

Gartner, W.B., 1985. A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation. Acad. Manage. Rev. 10, 696–706. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1985.4279094 Gautam, V., Verma, V., 1997. Corporate Entrepreneurship: Changing Perspectives. J. Entrep. 6,

233–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/097135579700600207

Kessler, A., 2007. Success factors for new businesses in Austria and the Czech Republic. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 19, 381–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620701439959

McGahan, A.M., Porter, M.E., 1997. How Much Does Industry Matter, Really? Strateg. Manag. J. 18, 15–30.

Pallant, J., 2016. SPSS survival manual, 6th ed. McGraw-Hill Education, New York. Riksbanken, n.d. Ekonomisk kommentar: Hedgefonderna och finanskrisen 2008 [WWW

Document]. URL

http://www.riksbank.se/sv/Press-och-publicerat/Nyheter/2009/Ekonomisk-kommentar-Hedgefonderna-och-finanskrisen-2008/ Rumelt, R.P., 1991. How Much Does Industry Matter? Strateg. Manag. J. 12, 167–185.

Small Business Administration [WWW Document], n.d. . Small Bus. Adm. URL https://www.sba.gov/ (accessed 1.5.18).

Song, M., Podoynitsyna, K., Van Der Bij, H., Halman, J.I.M., 2007. Success Factors in New Ventures: A Meta-analysis*: SUCCESS FACTORS IN NEW VENTURES. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 25, 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00280.x

Stuart, T.E., Hoang, H., Hybels, R.C., 1999. Interorganizational Endorsements and the Performance of Entrepreneurial Ventures. Adm. Sci. Q. 44, 315.

42

6 Appendix

Raw data

Name of Company Location Industry Founding

Year

IPO Date Time to

IPO (mos)

Amt VC

Tourn International AB Stockholm Computer/ IT February 12, 2010

December 18, 2013

46 1

AppSpotr AB Gothenburg Computer/ IT December

11, 2006

December 19, 2016

120 1

Provide IT Sweden AB Gothenburg Computer/ IT April 26,

2012

June 27, 2016

50 2

GoldX International AB Stockholm Computer/ IT May, 2,

2009

December 8, 2014

70 1

ZetaDisplay Malmö Computer/ IT January 12,

2000

April 4, 2011

124 2

AVTECH Åkersberga Computer/ IT March 1,

1999

February 20, 2012

155 1

Mindmacer AB Gothenburg Computer/ IT June 1, 2006 October 23,

2013

88 3

Verisec AB Nacka Computer/ IT April1, 2000 December

18, 2014

176 1

GWS Production AB Lund Computer/ IT January 1,

2009

October 15, 2014

69 1

Clavister Holding AB Stockholm Computer/ IT January 1,

2013

May 21, 2014

16 1

Stillfront Group AB Linköping Computer/ IT January 1,

2007

December 8, 2015

107 2

Spiffx AB Stockholm Computer/ IT June 15,

2011

April 27, 2015

47 1

Intuitive Aerial AB Linköping Computer/ IT September

17, 2010

January 13, 2015

52 2

ÅAC Microtec AB Uppsala Computer/ IT March 2,

2005

December 21, 2016

141 1

Crunchfish AB Malmö Computer/ IT April 12,

2010

November 11, 2016

79 2

Paradox Interactive AB Stockholm Computer/ IT October 4, 2004

May 31, 2016

43 Robert Friman International AB Gnosjö Computer/ IT September

11, 2007

May 2, 2016 104 1

VideoBur Sthlm Int AB Stockholm Computer/ IT January 12,

2016

May 27, 2016

4 2

Shortcut Media AB Stockholm Computer/ IT April 8,

2011

June 20, 2016

62 2

FASTOUT INT AB Stockholm Computer/ IT July 2, 2015 October 12,

2015

3 1

IMINT IMAGE INTELLIGENCE AB

Uppsala Computer/ IT May 31,

2007

November 20, 2015

102 1

Crowdsoft Technology AB Stockholm Computer/ IT March 7,

2007

August 2, 2016

113 2

PLEJD AB Gothenburg Computer/ IT October 12,

2009

February 23, 2016

76 2

Transtema Group AB Mölndal Computer/ IT October 28,

2014

November 21, 2016

25 1

C Security Systems AB Stockholm Computer/ IT April 8,

2011

August 1, 2014

40 1

MyFC Holding AB Stockholm Energy September

9, 2013

May 27, 2014

104 4

Delta Environmental Projects AB

Stockholm Energy June 28,

2013

July 28, 2014

13 1

FX International AB Helsingborg Financial December

14, 2009

April 15, 2011

16 1

TrustBuddy AB Stockholm Financial November 1,

2009

April 11, 2011

17 1

Mangold AB Stockholm Financial May 1, 2002 July 12,

2012

122 1

Sdiptech AB Stockholm Financial December

15, 2012

March 4, 2015

27 1

Matse Holding AB Stockholm Food September

1, 2013

April 25, 2014

7 1

Sjöstrand Coffee Int AB Ingarö Food September

1, 2015

January 11, 2015

4 1

Gullberg & Jansson AB Höganäs Industry September

16, 2005

June 19, 2012

81 1

Rehact AB Stockholm Industry September

20, 2005

April 23, 2013

91 2

Finepart Sweden AB Bollebygd Industry March 19,

2012

October 14, 2016

55 1

44 3, 2007 27, 2011

Serstech AB Lund Industry October 27,

2006

August 28, 2013

82 2

Hybricon Bus Systems AB Holmsund Industry July 1, 2013 July 6, 2015 24 1

North Chemical AB Kristianstad Industry November 1,

2009

December 19, 2013

49 2

Powercell Sweden AB Gothenburg Industry June 1, 2008 December

19, 2014

78 1

Absolent Lidköping Industry May 1, 2000 October 16,

2014

173 1

Scandinavian Enviro Systems AB

Gothenburg Industry January 1,

2001

June 18, 2014

161 1

Hövding Sverige AB Malmö Industry November 1,

2006

June 16, 2015

103 2

Hancap AB Gothenburg Industry September

25, 2009

April 9, 2015

67 1

SeaTwirl AB Gothenburg Industry April 10,

2012

December 22, 2016

56 3

Svenska Aerogel Holding AB Stockholm Industry September

17, 2015

December 20, 2016

15 3

Clean Motion AB Lerum Industry September

1, 2009

May 26, 2016

56 3

Polygiene AB Malmö Industry December 1,

2005

March 14, 2016

123 1

Cereno Scientific AB Gothenburg Pharmaceuticals/ Medicine April 12, 2012 June 21, 2016 50 1

SynAct Pharma AB Lund Pharmaceuticals/

Medicine April 12, 2016 July 11, 2016 3 1

TOLERANZIA AB Gothenburg Pharmaceuticals/

Medicine December 20, 2011 October 21, 2015 44 1

AroCell AB Uppsala Pharmaceuticals/

Medicine August 29, 2000 May 20, 2011 129 2

ProstaLund AB Lund Pharmaceuticals/

Medicine December 4, 2007 October 25, 2013 70 1

A1M Pharma AB Lund Pharmaceuticals/

Medicine April 4, 2008 April 3, 2013 60 1

Nanologica AB Stockholm Pharmaceuticals/

Medicine July 30, 2004 October 30, 2015 135 1

Double Bond Pharmaceutical International AB Uppsala Pharmaceuticals/ Medicine November 21, 2014 July 10, 2015 8 1