Determinants of Start-up Firm External Financing Worldwide

John R. Nofsinger

and

Weicheng Wang

Washington State University College of Business Pullman, WA 99164-4746 Contact: john_nofsinger@wsu.edu

August 2008 Abstract The typical new start-up firm acquires external financing in stages through its development. The later stages of financing (venture capital and initial public offerings) have been frequently examined. The early stages of financing (initial capitalization and angel investing) have rarely been analyzed. This study examines the determinants of the initial start-up financing of entrepreneurial firms in 27 countries. There are information asymmetries and moral hazard problems inherent in the funding of a start-up firm. Institutional investors seem to rely on their abilities to reduce the information asymmetry and the quality of investor protection to reduce the moral hazard. On the other hand, informal investors are also common in initial start-up funding. They tend to use the type of products and entrepreneurial experience in the new firm as a signal of quality to reduce information asymmetries. They also seem to rely more on their connectedness to the entrepreneur through a personal relationship to reduce the moral hazard problem. We thank Kee Chung, Thomas Hellmann, Ken Kim, and Ed Vos for helpful comments as well as seminar participants at the State University of New York at Buffalo and Washington State University.

1. Introduction Access to external financing is important for entrepreneurship. Throughout the world, there are

extensive financing and capital structure studies1 on large corporations and small and medium-

sized enterprises (SME).2 In comparison, we know less about the external financing of start-up

firms. Further review shows that we know almost nothing about pre-angel firms3 and their

financing. For example, in Denis’s (2004) overview of entrepreneurial finance, the initial start-

up capital structure is not even mentioned.

Because of severe information asymmetry between initial start-ups and investors, it’s

critical for the entrepreneurs to credibly signal their project value. However, we examine the

other side of the coin—how different classes of investors respond to the given signals. For the

initial start-up firms, external investors can be loosely divided into institutional investors and

individual investors. Institutional investors mainly consist of venture capital funds, banks, and

government agencies. Traditionally, individual investors only include angel investors, the

professional investors with large individual wealth. We argue that individual investors should

include another category—‘informal investors’ who are different from angel investors in terms

of their personal relations with entrepreneurs and the extent of professionalism in providing

financing. They are typically affiliated with entrepreneurs through various social networks such

as friends, colleagues, etc., but they are different from other related investors who have family or

blood ties with the entrepreneurs. Vos et al. (2007) describe them as being connected to the

1 See Demirgüç-Kunt and Maksimovic (1999) and Jong et al. (2008), or for East Asia see Claessens et al. (2000), for Europe see Bancel and Mittoo (2004) and Kim et al. (2007), and for developing countries see Booth et al. (2001). 2 See Avery et al. (1998), Berger and Udell (1998), and Gregory et al. (2005), and Vos et al. (2007). 3 According to Wong (2002), angel investors start providing financing after at least 10.5 months since the start up of the business. We define the start-up firms less than 6 months old as the initial start-up firms or pre-angel firms. We use these terms interchangeably in this paper.

2

entrepreneur in the opposite way as public shareholders are separated from the firm. In the next

step in financing, angel investors are professional investors who have large individual wealth and

specialize in investing profitable startups. There is no need to attract angels with personal

relations.

We specifically focus on the response of institutional investors and informal investors.

The latter investor type is often ignored in entrepreneurial finance due to the data scarcity. In

comparison, extant literature extensively examines the behavior of venture capitalists (VCs),

banks, and angel investors. Our data provides a unique opportunity to study these informal

investors in the context of initial startups.

We investigate how institutional investors and informal investors respond to product type

(new vs. existing product), production technology (new vs. existing technology), and

entrepreneur experience signals. These firm characteristics arguably contain valuable

information for assessing the true value of initial startups. However, we hypothesize that

different types of external investors may interpret this information in different ways. For

example, alternative interpretations of these signals may be:

Signal 1a: A new product signals innovation and therefore is associated with better access to external financing;

Signal 1b: A new product signals risk and more uncertainty, which leads to worse access to external financing;

Signal 2a: Using new technology signals efficiency and therefore better access to external financing; Signal 2b: Using new technology signals difficulty of evaluating the project leading to worse access

to external financing; Signal 3a: Entrepreneurial experience signals managing skill and experience and therefore better

access to external financing; Signal 3b: Prior experience teaches entrepreneurs how to benefit themselves at the expense of

shareholders and therefore worse access to external financing;

We argue that due to the different levels of expertise and ability to overcome information

asymmetry, informal investors and institutional investors may have different reactions to these

3

signals based on different interpretations. Note that this hypothesis has some similarities to the

predictions of the Winton and Yerramilli (2008) model of entrepreneurial firm financing. Their

model shows that an entrepreneur’s decision to finance with either banks or venture capital

depends on their level of monitoring, and the expected risk of the firm. They assume that venture

capitalists are better monitors than banks and are therefore better suited to assessing the firm’

situation. If the firm’s uncertainty is low, then the lower cost and lower monitoring of bank

financing is optimal. Alternatively, when the uncertainty is high, the entrepreneur chooses

venture capital as they are better suited to assessing the risks and providing monitoring. But there

are also differences between our story and their model. First, they model entrepreneurial firms at

a later financing stage than our sample of firms. Second, while they are modeling the

entrepreneur’s financing decision, we are examining financing from the viewpoint of the

financiers, not the entrepreneur. Thus, we focus on firm signals that may provide information

about the firm’s uncertainty.

In addition to signaling, access to external financing also depends on investor protection

against opportunistic behaviors of entrepreneurs. Better investor protection will increase the

willingness of external investors to provide capital (La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer and

Vishny 1997, hereafter LLSV). In this paper, we argue that investor protection is not only

provided by formal laws regarding contract enforcement and property protection, but also by the

connectedness of personal relations with entrepreneurs that may provide extra protection. This is

especially relevant when informal investors provide startup capital because the entrepreneurs

have strong incentives to protect their reputation as a good entrepreneur within their social

networks. They can not afford negative rumors about their ethics or managing skills spread

throughout their potential population of investors. Such concern will give entrepreneurs

4

incentives to perform well against irresponsible behavior. If we assume investors have the same

formal protection within the same country, then the extra protection for informal investors due to

their connectedness make them more willing to provide financing to start-up firms, ceteri

paribus.

We use the survey data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) implemented

in 2003 to explore the response of informal and institutional investors worldwide to

informational characteristics. Our sample consists of 1,869 entrepreneurs from 27 countries who

have just started up their new business within the past 6 months.

We find that investor protection has a significantly positive impact on the access to

external financing regardless of the investor type. For informational characteristics, our evidence

shows informal investors strongly prefer the startups producing new products. In sharp contrast,

institutional investors prefer existing products. Both types of investors are more willing to

provide capital if the startups are managed by an experienced entrepreneur. Production

technology seems less important in their financing decision. When interacting the quality of

investor protection and startup firm characteristics, we find that firm characteristics significantly

change the marginal effect of investor protection on the likelihood of obtaining external

financing. This effect is different for accessing informal financing relative to institutional

financing.

This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the literature in entrepreneurial

finance. Section 3 summarizes our sample. Section 4 provides initial evidence for the importance

of firm characteristics and investor protection in accessing external financing. Section 5

examines the effects of firm characteristics and investor protection on the likelihood of accessing

5

informal and institutional financing. Their interaction effects are also presented. Section 6

concludes the paper.

2. Literature Review

One of the most important factors for entrepreneurial success is the ability to access capital.

Entrepreneurs need capital for initial start-up. Over time, new firms need additional capital

infusions while the business is developed and expanded. Early stages of capital acquisition

typically include angel investors and then venture capital, often leading to corporate investment

(Denis, 2004). Some of these firms survive and succeed long enough to conduct an initial public

offering (IPO).

There is a voluminous literature on many aspects of IPOs. There is a small, but growing

literature applying corporate finance theory (primarily agency problems and information

asymmetry) to the pre-IPO external financing. Most of this literature investigates the role and

impact of venture capitalists on entrepreneurial firms. For example, VC investors appear to be

active investors by providing monitoring via frequently visiting the firm (Gorman and Sahlman,

1989), being on the firm’s board of directors (Lerner, 1995), shaping the management team and

organizational structure (Kaplan and Strombert, 2001 and Hellman and Puri, 2002), and infusing

capital over time through stages (Gompers, 1995).

In contrast to the VC literature, Denis (2004) reports that “comparatively little work has

been done on angel investors.” Wong (2002) reports that angel financing comes earlier than VC

financing and the funds infused are smaller. On average, the entrepreneurial firm is 10.5 months

old when they receive angel financing and most have not achieved any revenues. We are not

aware of any studies examining the pre-angel, or initial, start-up financing.

6

Denis (2004) describes how obtaining external financing is made difficult for

entrepreneurs because of two fundamental problems; information asymmetry and the moral

hazard problem. While the entrepreneur understands the quality of the proposed business, it may

be difficult for investors to do so. Alternatively, outside investors and the entrepreneur may

disagree about the value. The moral hazard problem recognizes that once substantial external

funding is achieved, the entrepreneur may have the incentive to misuse or misallocate those

firms to benefit them self. These problems are overcome through investor monitoring (as

described above) and contracting. Kaplan and Stromberg (2001) describe how venture capital

contracts allocate cash flow rights, voting control, and decision rights.

To reduce the information asymmetry and moral hazard problems, investors may evaluate

the quality of the business proposal and the ability of the entrepreneur. In other words, the

characteristics of the business being created may also impact the external financing opportunity

set. Hellman and Puri (2000) find that entrepreneurial firms with innovative products or

processes are more likely to get funded by VC investors than imitator firms. Our data allows us

to relate the sources of initial start-up financing to whether the firm’s products will be new or not,

how experienced is the entrepreneur, and what type of technology is to be utilized. The

entrepreneur’s personal characteristics like wealth (Hurst and Lusardi, 2004) and experience

(Nanda, 2008) may also impact the external financing opportunity set. For example, Avery et al.

(1998) show that the commitment of a small business owner’s personal wealth is important for

the firm obtaining external credit and loans. Kaplan et al. (2008) also examine the role and

dynamic evolution of alienable assets, business line, and human capital for start-up firms. They

find alienable assets and business lines are critical and stable for the success of start-up firms as

long as 36 months after an IPO. In comparison, management turnover is substantial, which

7

implies that at the margin, investors in start-ups should place more weight on the business than

on the management team. However, at least for the initial period of start-up, the quality of the

entrepreneur is also important.

Venture capital investors have an advantage over angel investors in overcoming the

information asymmetry and moral hazard problems because they have more information about

the entrepreneur and firm. By the time VCs gets involved, the newly created firm has

demonstrated the viability of the business and the use of previously obtained funds (possibly

from angel investors). Angel investors have much less information about either the potential of

the business innovation and/or the quality of the entrepreneur. These fundamental problems are

even greater at the initial start-up phase. Indeed, these problems may be so great at start-up that

much of the institutional financing may not be in the opportunity set. Entrepreneurs may have to

turn to informal financing sources at initial start-up. Indeed, Vos et al. (2007) suggests that the

entrepreneurs may prefer financing from these connected investors.

These informal financing sources are people who are not normally seeking business

investments or lending. They probably include an entrepreneur’s relatives, friends, neighbors,

and work colleagues. The personal relationships that these people have with the entrepreneur

may resolve some of the moral hazard problem. While they may not be able to reduce the

information asymmetry, their connectedness to the entrepreneur may allow them to experience

less risk as a financier.

3. Data summary We use the survey data from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), which was developed

to provide firm creation comparisons among countries, and for some regions within countries.

The initial data was assembled as a pretest of five countries in 1998. By 2003, over 40 countries

8

and 3 sub-national regions had been involved in the program. In total, data from 358,274

individuals had been gathered in 138 separate surveys of various adult populations. Due to the

annual update of the survey questionnaire, necessary variables related to entrepreneurial

financing are only available in the 2003 survey. Therefore, we focus on this survey. There are

potential problems of selection bias in using this annual survey because of the limited sample

size and incomplete country coverage. We should interpret the results with caution. To verify the

consistency of the GEM survey between countries, we summarize the number of respondents

choosing positive and negative responses in each country when being asked about their capital

sources. The results (Appendix A3) show that GEM has very good consistency in its financing

questions across different countries, which rules out the possibility that following empirical

results might arise from the systematically different questionnaires.

Only persons that, alone or with others, are currently starting (or have started in the past 6

months) a new business were asked about the total investment and personal investment in the

firm. In addition, they are also encouraged to indicate whether financing from certain investors4

was available. Appendix Table A1 explains the key variables and corresponding survey

questions. The 2003 GEM database contains 8,277 observations for new businesses. After

limiting the sample to observations with financing data, the final sample consists of 1,869

startups in 27 countries. The filter criteria can be found in Appendix ‘Filter Criteria to Enter

Sample.’

As shown in Table 1, two-thirds of our sample entrepreneurs are male and more than half

of them are within the age range of 25 to 44. In addition, 44% of entrepreneurs have at least

some college education. The percentage of start-ups providing new products is slightly lower

4 (1) Self saving & income, (2) close family member, (3) work colleague, (4) employer, (5) friends & neighbors, (6) banks & financial institutions, and (7) government program

9

than that of those producing traditional products, which suggests our sample is not dominated by

one type of startup. With respect to production technology, most sample startups (84.86%) are

using new technology. It is possible that such a pattern arises due to the bias of survey

respondents to exaggerate their innovation ability. The High-tech Miracle over the world seems

to make entrepreneurship equivalent to new technology. Our sample reflects this point to some

extent. The power of production technology in explaining access to external financing might be

substantially reduced because of this highly skewed pattern. Slightly less than 90% of them have

prior start-up experience.

[Insert Table 1 about here]

The financing of our sample firms comes from varied sources according to Panel C.

Among the seven financing sources asked in the questionnaire, 57% of startups have external

financing from friends & neighbors while 40% of startups are self-financed at least partially. The

summary provides us initial evidence for the importance of informal financing. Throughout the

paper, we define the first two sources (“self saving & income” and “close family member”) as

self-financing, the next three (“work colleague,” “employer,” and “friends & neighbors”) as

informal financing, the last two (“banks & financial institutions” and “government program”) as

institutional financing. We focus on the latter two categories: informal financing and institutional

financing.

4. Start-up financing: what matters? A. Product, Technology and Entrepreneurial experience

To characterize the access to external financing, we create two variables from the GEM dataset.

The external financing ratio (finratio) is calculated as the total investment less self-investment

divided by total investment. We characterize this variable as the fraction of start-up capital

10

obtained externally. Next, external financing diversity (extfindiv) is equal to the total number of

different external financing sources through which the startup obtained capital. The external

financing sources include: (1) work colleague, (2) employer, (3) friends & neighbors, (4) banks

& other financial institutions, and (5) government programs. Approximately 40 percent of start

up capital comes from external financing through multiple financing sources, as reported in

Panel A of Table 2.

[Insert Table 2 about here]

Panel B of Table 2 provides pairwise comparisons of the external financing ratio and

financing diversity for the groups categorized by product type, production technology, and

entrepreneur experience. The initial evidence shows that the external financing diversity is

significantly higher for those producing a new product or using new technology, while prior

start-up experience seems irrelevant. With respect to the external financing ratio, startups using

new technology managed by experienced entrepreneurs are financed by a higher percentage of

external financing. In general, product type, production technology, and entrepreneurial

experience seem important in explaining the difference in external financing. It seems more

reasonable to assume that the aggregation of information revealed by these characteristics, rather

than individual characteristics, may have more power in explaining the access to external

financing. To capture this idea, we create three dummy variables equal to one if the start-up

produces a new product, uses a new technology, or is managed by experienced entrepreneurs.

They are equal to zero otherwise. We add up these three dummies and call the sum the index of

‘information aggregation,’ which ranges from 0 to 3. We sort the whole sample according to the

information aggregation index and evaluate external financing for each index subgroup. For each

11

index subgroup, simple averages of external financing ratio and external financing diversity are

calculated.5

[Insert Table 3 about here]

Table 3 presents very interesting results. Both variables proxying for the access to

external financing are showing a nearly monotonic trend from the lowest information

aggregation to the highest aggregation. Due to the construction of aggregation index, we only

focus on the lowest and highest subgroups. For the startups producing new product with new

technology and managed by experienced entrepreneurs, the firms have access to a much higher

percentage of external financing than those producing existing products with existing technology

and managed by inexperienced entrepreneurs. The financing diversity also shows a similar

monotonic trend. Note that the estimates are significantly different among the four groups. This

initial evidence seems to suggest that external investors prefer startups having certain

characteristics.

As a more formal test, we report Tobit regression results in Table 4. We use Tobit

regression because some start-ups do not have external financing at all which implies censoring

from the left at zero.6 To control for the different degrees of economic development between

these countries, we include GNP per capita in 2003. We also include the ratio of stock market

capitalization over GDP to control the different development of each financial system because

financial development impacts a firm’s access to external capital (Beck et al., 2004, Harper and

McNulty, 2008, and LLSV 1997). Lastly, we include the size (capitalization) of the start-ups to

control for the possibility that larger start-ups may need more external financing.

5 We also calculate the size-weighted average of external financing variables, simple and size-weighted average when ownership dummy is excluded. No qualitative changes occur. 6 We only use external financing ratio as the dependent in Tobit regression because the external financing diversity has a narrow discrete range (0-5) which is difficult to model.

12

[Insert Table 4 about here]

The results related to new technology and prior start-up experiences are not surprising,

both of which are positively correlated with the external financing ratio. The coefficient on the

new product dummy is somewhat surprising, not only because of its insignificance, but also

because of its negative sign. It seems that innovative products are not necessarily helpful to

obtain external financing when other variables are controlled for. Our subsequent analysis will

show that this result is due to the different responses of informal versus institutional financiers.

To this point we have not distinguish between the identities of external investors in this

analysis. A more interesting question is how the different classes of investors respond to the

start-up characteristics. Do different investors have the same preference? We will study this

question in the next section.

B. Investor protection

In addition to the information asymmetry, another important aspect that determines the access to

external financing is investor protection. Given the extent of information asymmetry, if investors

believe that their interests will be protected better, they will be more willing to provide capital

(LLSV 1997). We argue that strong investor protection laws can offset the information

asymmetry problem (especially for institutional investors), thereby encouraging external

financing for start-up firms. We will specifically examine this offsetting relation between

investor protection and information asymmetry in the following section.

Because investor protection is country specific, we first summarize the related country-

level variables in Table 5. Based on the legal origin classification from LLSV (1998,1999), our

27 countries are classified into five different origins: common law English origin (10 countries),

civil law French origin (8 countries), civil law Germany origin (3 countries), civil law

13

Scandinavian origin (4 countries) and Socialist origin (2 countries). In terms of the number of

entrepreneurs, there are 873 of them belonging to countries with English legal origin, 553 to

French origin, 208 to Germany origin, 110 to Scandinavian origin and 169 to Socialist origin.

[Insert table 5 about here]

We characterize the quality of investor protection with three proxy variables: protection

of private property, the quality of contract enforcement, and freedom from corruption.7 All of

these measures show a very systematic pattern across the five legal origins. The Germany legal

origin has the highest ranking in all three aspects. The English legal origin ranks the second in

property protection and contract enforcement but falls behind the Scandinavian legal origin in

corruption freedom. The French legal origin ranks fourth in contract enforcement and freedom

from corruption, but has a slightly higher score in property protection than the Scandinavian

legal origin. The Socialist origin has the lowest quality in all aspects. All rankings are generally

consistent with the pattern reported by LLSV (1998, 1999).

To provide further evidence for the importance of investor protection on entrepreneurial

financing, we sort the entire sample into quartiles according to property protection, quality of

contract enforcement, and corruption freedom respectively. The bottom quartile includes the

countries with the worst protection while the top quartile includes the countries with the best

investor protection. For each quartile, we calculate the equal-weighted8 averages for the two

variables measuring access to external financing.

[Insert table 6 about here]

7 Property protection : Range: 1-7 where financial assets and wealth are : (1= poorly delineated and not protected by law, 7= clearly delineated and protected by law) Source: The Global Competitive Report 2001-2002; Contract enforcement : range: 1-7 where 7= Judiciary is completely independent from government and/or parties to disputed; government completely neutral among bidders when deciding upon public contracts; 1= opposite. Source: The Global Competitive Report 2001-2002; Corruption freedom: Range: 0-100 where 100 indicates completely free from corruption. Source: Index of Economic Freedom 2003 by The Heritage Foundation. 8 Size-weighted results are qualitatively similar to the equal-weighted average and are therefore not reported.

14

Table 6 shows an almost monotonic trend for the financing variables from the countries

with the worse investor protection to those with the best, with very few exceptions. The sorting

analysis provides further evidence for the importance of investor protection in determining the

ability of entrepreneurs to obtain external financing. We generally find that the start-ups in

countries with better protection of private rights, the higher quality of contract enforcement, and

less corruption are financed with a higher percentage of external financing and financed through

more sources.

5. Institutional financing versus informal financing

In previous sections, we have separately examined the impact of firm-level informational

characteristics and investor protection on entrepreneurial access to external financing. However,

we did not distinguish the investor type when measuring external financing. With our data, we

can examine how different investors (institutional versus informal) respond to the same

informational characteristics. In addition, we can also examine how the interaction between these

characteristics and investor protection affects the likelihood of obtaining financing from different

sources. The evidence will shed light on the investing preference of different investor types in

financing initial start-ups and how investor protection impacts such preferences.

In the context of financing initial start-ups, institutional investors are different from

informal investors in their project-picking expertise and needs for protection against entrepreneur

expropriation or start-up failure. We argue that institutions have better knowledge about project

prospects (or project-picking ability) and can better overcome the information asymmetry

problem through this knowledge, but they must rely on formal protection against entrepreneur

expropriation, which relies on the quality of the institutional environment. In contrast, informal

investors lack the systematic ability to pick promising projects, but their connectedness to the

15

entrepreneurs gives them extra person-specific knowledge and protection, which is especially

useful in a weak institutional environment. Thus, we expect to see a different impact of formal

investor protection quality on the relations between informational characteristics and access to

external financing.

To implement the analysis, a logit regression is used for informal financing and

institutional financing respectively. The same set of explanatory variables is included for the

regressions which include informational characteristics (product type, production technology and

entrepreneurial experience), investor protection measurement9 and their interactions. Necessary

control variables are also included.10

[Insert table 7 about here]

[Insert table 8 about here]

The regression results show both similarity and difference. Generally, better investor

protections lead to a higher likelihood of obtaining both informal and institutional financing.

The coefficients on informational characteristics, however, are showing a quite different pattern.

Specificly, informal investors strongly prefer the start-ups producing new products while

institutional investors are not only insensitive to the product type, the negative sign on the new

product dummy seems to suggest, though insignificantly, that the new products detract from

obtaining institutional financing. This reflects how differently institutional investors and

informal investors interpret the information signaled by product type. The highly positive

response of informal investors is consistent with our common sense about the ‘attractiveness’ of

9 We create a proxy ‘investor protection’ by summing up the scores of property protection, contract enforcement, and freedom from corruption to proxy the quality of investor protection. 10 The firm size, GNP per capita and GDP growth are strongly correlated with the quality of investor protection. To reduce the resulting multicollinearity, we regress firm size, GNP per capita, and GDP growth on the ‘protection of private property’ respectively and use the regression residuals to control the effect of firm size, GNP per capita and GDP growth rate. We also use the residuals from regressing size, GNP per capita, and GDP growth on the created ‘Investor protection’ measurement. The results are all similar and therefore untabulated to save space.

16

a new product. New products, however, may also imply the higher probability of failure and

higher uncertainty. Institutional investors seem to have such an interpretation. This difference

may also reflect the different expertise of evaluating start-ups.

The ‘new technology’ dummy is insignificant in either regression. But opposite signs of

its coefficients in the two regressions seem to suggest that informal investors do not like the new

technology, possibly because it is harder for individuals to evaluate the real potential of new

technology. In contrast, the expertise and more technical knowledge of institutional investors

may explain the positive coefficient. Because of the insignificance, such interpretations are not

conclusive. Both investor types are more willing to lend money if the start-up is managed by a

veteran entrepreneur.

The results on the interactive terms are telling us a more interesting story. The coefficient

on the interactive term “new product × investor protection” further illustrates the connectedness

of the informal investors when facing start-ups producing new products. In Table 7, when the

start-ups signal their value by producing a new product, the importance of investor protection is

significantly reduced in all specifications, which literally means that informal investors have a

greater ability to handle traditional risk because of their connectedness to the entrepreneur. The

informational characteristics are significantly offsetting the effect of investor protection on

external financing. It also provides indirect evidence for our hypothesis that informal investors

may enjoy extra protection due to their personal relations with the entrepreneurs because our

investor protection measurement only captures the quality of formal protection. In Table 8, the

same interactive terms are associated with totally opposite results. When the start-ups signal their

potential by producing a new product, investor protection becomes more important for obtaining

institutional financing. This again provides evidence for the ‘dislike’ of institutional investors

17

towards a new product because it may imply higher uncertainty and higher probability of failure.

Institutional investors seem to interpret the entrepreneur’s information signals within the context

of the legal environment in a much different way than the informal investors.

Informal investors and institutional investors are showing similar attitudes towards

entrepreneurial experience. The interacting terms between investor protection and

entrepreneurial experience show that when an experienced entrepreneur manages the start-up,

investor protection becomes less important for both informal and institutional investors. Such

results provide some evidence that the experience and ability of entrepreneurs serve as very

important signals to reduce the extent of information asymmetry and its consequence on access

to external financing. The interactive terms related to new technology are again insignificant.

In sum, the above analysis suggests that institutional investors do not prefer to finance the

startups producing a new product while informal investors strongly prefer new products. Such

different preferences become more evident when investor protection is included. Investor

protection becomes less important for the informal investors when a new product will be

produced, while institutional investors are more concerned with protection facing the same signal.

Both institutional and informal investors prefer to provide capital to the startups managed by the

experienced entrepreneurs. Production technology seems irrelevant for access to external

financing regardless of investor type. But the opposite signs of the coefficients on new

technology are suggesting the different preference of informal investors and institutional

investors towards production technology.

6. Conclusions We study the determinants of external financing in firm start-ups in 27 countries. Access to start-

up capital is complicated by information asymmetry and moral hazard problems. We conclude

18

that product type and entrepreneur experience are very important for overcoming these problems.

Such informational characteristics, however, receive different response from different investors.

For example, informal investors strongly prefer new products and they become less concerned

with investor protection when startups signal that they will produce a ‘new product.’ This may be

because their connectedness to the entrepreneur reduces the risk of the investment. In sharp

contrast, institutional investors seem to be interpreting the same signal (new product) as having

higher uncertainty and higher probability of failure, which leads to less willingness to provide

capital. Investor protection becomes more important for the institutional investors when a new

product is involved because they need better protection to offset the negative effect imposed by

higher uncertainty from the new product. We also find that entrepreneurial experience is helpful

to obtain financing from both informal and institutional investors. It will effectively offset the

importance of investor protection. Evidence for production technology is quite weak, but the

results seem to suggest that informal investors do not like to finance startups using new

technology while institutional investors have the opposite attitude. We believe the difference is

due to the different levels of expertise in evaluating projects between the two investor types.

We also conclude that the institutional environment is very important for access to

external financing. High amounts and diversity of external financing are associated with high

levels of property rights, contract enforcement, and corruption protection, which all proxy for

investor protection.

19

References Avery, R.B., R.W. Bostic, and K.A. Samolyk, 1998, “The role of personal wealth in small business finance,” Journal of Banking & Finance, 22, 1019-1061. Ayyagari, Meghana, Asli Demirgüç and Vojislav Maksimovic, 2008, “How well do institutional theories explain firms perceptions of property rights?” Review of Financial Studies, forthcoming. Bancel, R., U. Mittoo, 2004, “Cross-country determinants of capital structure choice: A survey of European firms,” Financial Management, 33, 103-132. Beck, Thorsten, Asli Demirgüç and Vojislav Maksimovic, 2004, “Bank competition and access to finance: International evidence,” Journal of Money Credit and Banking, 36, 627-648. Berger, A.N., and G.F. Udell, 1998, “The economics of small business finance: The roles of private equity and debt markets in the financial growth cycle.” Journal of Banking & Finance, 22, 613-673. Black, Sandra E., and Philip E. Strahan, 2002, “Entrepreneurship and bank credit availability,” Journal of Finance, 57, 2807-2833. Booth, L., V. Aivazian, Asli Demirgüç, and Vojislav Maksimovic, 2001, “Capital structure in developing countries,” Journal of Finance, 56, 87-130. Claessens, S., S. Djankov, and L. Lang, 2000, “The separation of ownership and control in East Asian corporations,” Journal of Financial Economics, 58, 81-112. Demirgüç, Asli, and Vojislav Maksimovic, 1999, “Institutions, financial markets and firm debt maturity,” Journal of Financial Economics, 54, 295-336. Denis, David J., 2004, “Entrepreneurial finance: An overview of the issues and evidence,” Journal of Corporate Finance, 10, 301-326. Gompers, P., 1995, “Optimal investment, monitoring, and the staging of venture capital,” Journal of Finance, 50, 1461-1489. Gorman, M., and W. Sahlman, 1989, “What do venture capitalists do?” Journal of Business Venturing, 4, 231-248. Gregory, B.T., M.W. Rutherford, S. Oswald, and L. Gardiner, 2005, “An empirical investigation of the growth cycle of small firm financing,” Journal of Small Business Management, 43, 382-393. Harper, Joel T., and James E. McNulty, 2008, “Financial system size in transition economies: The effect of legal origin,” Journal of Money Credit and Banking, forthcoming.

20

Hellmann, Thomas and Manju Puri, 2000, “The interaction between product market and financing strategy: the role of venture capital,” Review of Financial Studies, 13, 959-984. Hellmann, Thomas and Manju Puri, 2002, “Venture capital and the professionalization of start-up firms,” Journal of Finance, 57, 169-197. Holtz-Eakin, Douglas, and Harvey S. Rosen, 2005, “Cash constraints and business start-ups: Deutschmarks versus dollars,” Contributions to Economic Analysis & Policy, 4, 1-26. Hurst, Erik, and Annamaria Lusardi, 2004, “Liquidity constraints, household wealth, and entrepreneurship,” Journal of Political Economy, 112, 319-347. Jeng, Leslie A., and Philippe C. Wells, 2000, “The determinants of venture capital funding: Evidence across countries,” Journal of Corporate Finance, 6, 241-289. Jong, Abe de, Rezaul Kabir, and Thuy Thu Nguyen, 2008, “Capital structure around the world: The roles of firm- and country-specific determinants,” Journal of Banking & Finance, forthcoming. Kaplan, Steven and Per Strömberg, 2001, “Venture capitalists as principals: Contracting, screening, and monitoring,” American Economic Review, 91, 426-430. Kaplan, Steven and Per Strömberg, 2004, “Characteristics, Contracts, and Actions: Evidence from Venture Capitalist Analyses,” Journal of Finance, 59, 2177-2210. Kaplan, Steven, Berk A. Sensoy, and Per Strömberg, 2008, “Should Investors Bet on the Jockey or the Horse? Evidence from the Evolution of Firms from Early Business Plans to Public Companies,” Journal of Finance, forthcoming Kim, Kenneth A., P. Kitsabunnarat-Chatjuthamard, and John R. Nofsinger, 2007, “Large shareholders, board independence, and minority shareholder rights: Evidence from Europe,” Journal of Corporate Finance, 13, 859-880. La Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, and Andrei Shleifer and Robert W. Vishny, 1997, “Legal determinants of external financing,” Journal of Finance, LII, no.3, 1131-1150. La Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, and Andrei Shleifer and Robert W. Vishny, 1998, “Law and finance,” Journal of Political Economy, 106, 1113-1155. La Porta, Rafael, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes, and Andrei Shleifer and Robert W. Vishny, 1999, “The quality of government,” Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, 15, 222-279. Lerner, J., 1995, “Venture capitalists and the oversight of private firms,” Journal of Finance, 50, 301-318.

21

Nanda, Ramana, 2008, “Cost of external finance and selection into entrepreneurship,” Harvard Business School working paper #08-047. Vos, Ed, Andy Jia-Yuh Yeh, Sara Carter, and Stephen Tagg, 2007, “The happy story of small business financing,” Journal of Banking & Finance, 31, 2648-2672. Winton, Andrew, and Vijay Yerramilli, 2008, “Entrepreneurial finance: Banks versus venture capital,” Journal of Financial Economics, 88, 51- 79. Wong, Andrew, 2002, “Angel finance: The other venture capital,” Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, working paper, January.

22

Table 1 Summary statistics

We use the survey data of year 2003 from Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM). Only persons that, alone or with others, are currently starting or have started in the past 6 months a new business were asked about the total investment and personal investment. In addition, they are also encouraged to indicate whether financing from certain investorsa was provided. Appendix Table A1 explains the key variables and corresponding survey questions. The 2003 GEM database contains 8,277 observations for new businesses. After limiting the sample to observations with financing data (see the appendix), the final sample consists of 1,869 startups in 27 countries (or regions). The filter criteria can be found in Appendix ‘Filter Criteria to Enter Sample’.

Panel A Entrepreneur characteristics Panel B Firm level characteristics Panel C Financing characteristics N Percent N Percent N Percent

Total 1869 Total 1869 100 Total 1869 100 Age New product Financing from

10-17yrs 17 0.91 No 962 51.47 self saving &income 747 39.97 18-24yrs 281 15.03 Yes 907 48.53 close family member 239 12.79 25-34yrs 560 29.96 Ownershipc work colleague 144 7.7 35-44yrs 501 26.81 Single owner 818 44.82 employer 265 14.18 45-54yrs 345 18.46 Multiple owner 1007 55.18 friends & neighbors 1075 57.52 55-64yrs 143 7.65 New technology banks & financial institutions 634 33.92 65-98yrs 22 1.18 No 1586 84.86 government program 206 11.02

Sex Yes 283 15.14 Male 1250 66.88 Start -up experienced

Female 619 33.12 No 195 10.65 N USD

Educationb Yes 1636 89.35 Total Investment 1869 173,542 None 13 0.8 Self Investment 1869 51,400

some secondary( 1-11 yrs) 304 18.79 secondary degree (12 yrs) 485 29.98 post secondary (13-16 yrs) 716 44.25

graduate (17-20 yrs) 100 6.18 a (1) Self saving & income, (2) close family member, (3) work colleague, (4) employer, (5) friends & neighbors, (6) banks & financial institutions, and (7) government program. b1618 c1825 d1831

23

Table 2 External Financing Ratio and Financing Diversity—firm characteristics External Financing Ratio is calculated as the total investment minus the self-investment divided by the total investment. External Financing Diversity equals the sum of the number of external financing channels including: (1) work colleague (2) employer (3) friends & neighbors (4) banks & other financial institutions (5) government program. T-statistics are provided for group mean comparison.

Panel A N Mean Std Min Max External financing ratio 1783 0.41 0.34 0 0.99

External financing diversity 1783 1.24 0.88 0 5 Panel B

Group Mean

External financing diversity External financing ratio New product yes 1.35 0.41 no 1.15 0.40 yes vs no t-stat 4.65*** 0.32 New technology yes 1.40 0.45 no 1.22 0.40 yes vs. no t-stat 3.06*** 2.32** Prior starting-up Experience Yes 1.24 0.41

No 1.23 0.36 yes vs. no t-stat 0.16 2.00**

***1% significant **5% significant *10% significant

24

Table 3 Sorting by Information Aggregation Three dummy variables are created and equal to one if the start-up produces a new product, uses a new technology, or is managed by experienced entrepreneurs. They are equal to zero otherwise. We add up these three dummies and call their sum the index of ‘information aggregation,’ which ranges from 0 to 3. We sort the whole sample according information aggregation index and evaluate external financing for each index subgroup. For each index subgroup, simple averages calculated. The F-statistic tests whether the four mean financing variables are equal, while the t-statistic tests whether the two extreme group means are equal.

Information Aggregation Existing product New product Existing technology New technology No experience Experienced F-stat t-stat 0 1 2 3 Joint Equality µ0 = µ3 Financing ratio 0.33 0.41 0.42 0.46 16.97*** -4.17*** External financing diversity 0.99 1.17 1.32 1.40 7.52*** -3.08*** ***1% significant **5% significant *10% significant

25

Table 4 External Financing and Information In a Tobit regression framework, external financing ratio is regressed on the informational characteristics including a new product, new technology and entrepreneurial experience. In addition, size (log of total investment), log GNP per capita in 2003, and the stock market capitalization to GDP ratio in 2003 are included as control variables. The regressions are censored from the left at zero. (Standard error is below the estimate.)

External Financing Ratio 1 2 3 4 Informational Characteristics New product -0.0028 -0.0038 (0.0121) (0.0117) New technology 0.0342** 0.0276* (0.0165) (0.0161) prior starting-up experience 0.0486** 0.0471** (0.0199) (0.0191) Control Variables size 0.0209*** (0.0029) log GNP per capita 0.017** (0.0067) Stkmktcap/GDP 0.0089 (0.0119) Intercept 0.6231* 0.6163* 0.5781* 0.1962*** (0.0084) (0.0066) (0.0189) (0.0586) number of observations 1783 1783 1783 1783 Noncensored value 1177 1177 1177 1177 Log likelihood 173.5 175.6 176.4 226.8 ***1% significant **5% significant *10% significant

26

Table 5 Country summary Institutional environment is characterized in three aspects: protection of private property, quality of contract enforcement, and freedom from corruption. Property rights: 7= financial asset and wealth are clearly delineated and protected by law, 1= poorly delineated and not protected by law. Contract enforcement: 7= Judiciary is completely independent from government and/or parties to disputed; government completely neutral among bidders when deciding upon public contracts, 1= opposite. Corruption Freedom: 0-100 where 100 indicates completely free from corruption. Legal origin classification follows LLSV (1998, 1999).

Country Frequency Property Rights Contract Corruption Stock market GNP GDP growth Enforcement Freedom cap/GDP per capita (1990-2001)

Belgium 30 5.9 5.41 66 0.8918 19900 3.9 Canada 42 6.2 5.50 89 0.8643 21930 3.1 Hong Kong, China 13 6.4 5.64 79 3.7362 25330 3.8 Ireland 57 6.1 5.71 75 0.4660 22850 7.7 New Zealand 81 5.9 6.05 94 0.3408 13250 3.1 Singapore 29 6.5 5.97 92 1.3496 21500 7.4 South Africa 44 5.3 4.17 48 1.3651 2820 2.1 United Kingdom 239 6.3 5.86 83 1.2049 25120 2.7 United States 271 6.5 5.64 76 1.1689 34280 3.4 Australia 38 6.2 5.86 85 0.5557 6940 3.6 English-origin average 844 6.13 5.58 71.55 1.09 17629.09 3.71 Brazil 54 5 3.97 40 0.4888 23850 2.2 Chile 127 5.6 5.03 75 0.9091 4590 6.3 France 14 6.4 5.69 67 0.6490 22730 1.9 Greece 22 5 4.44 42 0.5028 11430 2.4 Italy 11 6.2 4.55 55 0.3657 19390 1.6 Netherlands 22 6.5 6.09 88 0.8333 24330 2.9 Spain 76 5.9 5.23 70 0.6798 14300 2.7 Venezuela 223 3.8 2.76 28 0.0469 4760 1.5 French-origin average 549 5.55 4.72 58.13 0.56 15672.50 2.69 Germany 154 6.5 5.89 74 0.3645 23560 1.5 Japan 6 6.1 5.23 71 0.6141 35610 1.3 Switzerland 47 6.5 5.97 84 1.9949 38330 1.0 German-origin average 207 6.37 5.70 76.33 0.99 32500.00 1.27 Denmark 27 6.4 6.21 95 0.4663 30600 2.4 Finland 17 6.5 6.35 99 0.9585 23780 2.9 Norway 34 5.9 5.62 86 0.3658 35630 3.5 Sweden 22 5.9 5.87 90 0.7755 25400 2.1 Scandinavian-origin average 100 4.94 4.81 74 0.51 15257.5 2.73 Slovenia 33 4.8 4.50 52 0.2103 9760 2.9 China 136 4.1 3.74 35 0.3507 890 10.0 Socialist-origin average 169 4.45 4.12 29 0.19 3550.00 4.30

27

Table 6 Sorting by Property Rights External Financing Ratio is calculated as the total investment minus the self-investment divided by the total investment. External Financing Diversity = sum of the number of external financing channels including: (1) work colleague (2) employer (3) friends & neighbors (4) banks & other financial institutions (5) government program. Countries are sorted into quartiles of property rights, contract enforcement, and corruption freedom. Equal-weighted averages are reported for each quartile. The F-statistic tests whether the four mean financing variables are equal, while the t-statistic tests whether the two extreme group means are equal. Property right protection 1 (Worst) 2 3 4 (Best) Joint equality F-stat ‘Worst’ vs. ‘Best’ t-stat Financing ratio 0.385 0.397 0.429 0.441 2.98** -2.67*** External financing diversity 0.963 1.314 1.358 1.367 24.84*** -7.54*** Contract enforcement 1 (Worst) 2 3 4 (Best) Joint equality F-stat ‘Worst’ vs. ‘Best’ t-stat Financing ratio 0.386 0.42 0.424 0.434 1.72 -1.78* External financing diversity 0.96 1.34 1.372 1.354 26.02*** -5.68*** Corruption freedom 1 (Worst) 2 3 4 (Best) Joint equality F-stat ‘Worst’ vs. ‘Best’ t-stat Financing ratio 0.384 0.4 0.44 0.444 3.18** -2.17** External financing diversity 0.947 1.32 1.35 1.431 28.05*** -6.91*** ***1% significant **5% significant *10% significant

28

Table 7 Informal Financing These are Logit regressions of the presence of informal financing on informational characteristics (product type, production technology and entrepreneur experience), investor protection and their interactive terms. New product=1 if product is new to all or some consumers, 0 otherwise; New technology =1 if the production technology was not available 1 year ago, zero otherwise; Prior startup experience=1 if entrepreneurs have prior startup experience, 0 otherwise. Investor protection is equal to the sum of protection of private property, quality of contract enforcement and freedom from corruption. The higher the score, the better investors are protected. (Standard error is provided in the parentheses.)

1 2 3 4 New product 0.7663** 0.8876** (0.3823) (0.3961) New technology -0.4195 -0.6083 (0.5495) (0.5669) Prior startup experience 1.1073* 1.0343 (0.6706) (0.6772) Investor protection 0.0178*** 0.0137*** 0.0276*** 0.0297*** (0.0030) (0.0025) (0.0079) (0.0082) New product × Investor protection -0.0087* -0.0105** (0.0047) (0.0049) New technology × Investor protection 0.0064 0.0083 (0.0067) (0.0070) Prior startup experience × investor protection -0.0152* -0.0143* (0.0083) (0.0083) Size 0.3372*** 0.3449*** 0.3553*** 0.3504*** (0.0310) (-0.3457) (0.0314) (0.0317) Log of GNP per capita -0.3218*** 0.0309 -0.3831*** -0.3574*** (0.0940) (0.0928) (0.0968) (0.0983) Stock market cap. /GDP 0.1548 0.1633 0.0899 0.0817 (0.1335) (0.1338) (0.1352) (0.1351) Self-investment -1.1223*** -1.1213*** -1.1211*** -1.1138*** (0.1093) (0.1093) (0.1112) (0.1114) Intercept -0.1236 0.2171 -0.7718 -0.9614 (0.2445) (0.2082) (0.6432) (0.6623) Number of observation 1869 1869 1831 1831 AIC 2053.985 2056.898 2006.041 2008.254 -2 Log L 2037.985 2040.898 1990.041 1984.254

***1% significant **5% significant *10% significant

29

Table 8 Institutional Financing These are Logit regressions of the presence of institutional financing on informational characteristics (product type, production technology and entrepreneur experience), investor protection and their interactive terms. New product=1 if product is new to all or some consumers, 0 otherwise; New technology =1 if the production technology was not available 1 year ago, zero otherwise; Prior startup experience=1 if entrepreneurs have prior startup experience, 0 otherwise. Investor protection is equal to the sum of protection of private property, quality of contract enforcement and freedom from corruption. The higher the score, the better investors are protected. (Standard error is provided in the parentheses.)

1 2 3 4 New product -0.3318 -0.3899 (0.3789) (0.3911) New technology 0.1933 0.2492 (0.5207) (0.5393) Prior startup experience 1.5123* 1.4269* (0.7753) (0.7749) Investor protection 0.0047 0.0084*** 0.0251*** 0.0198** (0.0029) (0.0024) (0.0087) (0.0089) New product * Investor protection 0.0085* 0.0085* (0.0045) (0.0047) New technology * Investor protection 0.0020 0.0002 (0.0062) (0.0064) Prior startup experience * investor protection -0.0176** -0.0165* (0.0090) (0.0090) Size -0.0506* -0.0590** -0.0561** -0.0518* (0.0264) (0.0262) (0.0264) (0.0268) Log of GNP per capita 0.1432 0.1186 0.0828 0.1053 (0.0926) (0.0912) (0.0935) (0.0953) Stock market cap. /GDP -0.3861*** -0.3785*** -0.3447*** -0.3522** (0.1258) (0.1256) (0.1271) (0.1284) Self-investment -1.0426*** -1.0268*** -1.0280*** -1.0349*** (0.1039) (0.1036) (0.1049) (0.1056) Intercept -0.5119** -0.6910*** -2.0746*** -1.8425** (0.2424) (0.2048) (0.7524) (0.7666) Number of observation 1869 1869 1831 1831 AIC 2368.538 2377.824 2332.807 2323.246 -2 Log L 2352.538 2361.824 2316.807 2299.246

***1% significant **5% significant *10% significant

30

Appendix

Filter Criteria to Enter Sample We only use observations of those who are starting up or have started up in the past 6 months a new business. Sample is cleaned further by applying following filters: (1) If sumoney1 – sumoney 7 are all missing, then drop; (2) If sumoney1 – sumoney 7 are all ‘don’t know’, then drop; (3) If any of sumoney1 – sumoney 7 is equal to "yes", then missing value and ‘don’t know’ are reset equal to ‘No’; (4) if none of sumoney1 – sumoney 7 is "yes" and "don't know", but some are missing values, then drop; (5) if some of sumoney1 – sumoney 7 are "no" and "don't know" while some missing values, then drop; (6) If total investment in USD less than 50, then drop; (7) Observation from Crotia, Uganda and Iceland are dropped due to the lack of country level data After applying all filters, the final sample consists of 1869 startups. Table A1 Survey questions and corresponding variables Only those who are starting up or have started up in the past 6 months a new business are asked following questions regarding startup financing. Dummy variables (sumoney1-sumoney7) are multiple choices. Respondents can indicate any number of them as long as the corresponding source provided part/all starting-up capital.

Variable Survey Questions SUMONTUS (USD) Start-up Money: Total Money required -US$ conversion? SUMONOUS (USD) Start-up Money: Personal money invested -US$ conversion?

Yes No Don’t know SUMONEY1 1 0 8 Start-up money: from self, savings & income? SUMONEY2 1 0 8 Start-up Money: From close family member sibling? SUMONEY3 1 0 8 Start-up Money: From work colleague? SUMONEY4 1 0 8 Start-up Money: from employer? SUMONEY5 1 0 8 Start-up Money: from friends, neighbors? SUMONEY6 1 0 8 Start-up Money: from Banks, financial institutions? SUMONEY7 1 0 8 Start-up Money: from Government programs?

31

Table A2 Definition of Variables

Variable Description External Financing Ratio External Financing Diversity New product New technology Prior startup experience Property Rights Contract Enforcement Corruption Freedom Investor Protection Stock market capitalization/GDP Log GNP per capita Size

Total investment minus self-investment divided by total investment Source : Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)Adult Population Survey 2003 Sum of the number of external financing channels including:

(1) work colleague (2) employer (3) friends & neighbors (4) banks & other financial institutions (5) government program Source: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)Adult Population Survey 2003

Dummy variable: 1= start-ups producing new product, 0 otherwise. Source : Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)Adult Population Survey 2003

Dummy variable: 1= start-up using new technology unavailable one year ago, 0 otherwise. Source : Global Entrepreneurship Monitor

Dummy variable: 1= entrepreneur with prior starting-up experience, 0 otherwise. Source : Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)Adult Population Survey 2003 Range: 1-7 where financial assets and wealth are : (1= poorly

delineated and not protected by law, 7= clearly delineated and protected by law) Source: The Global Competitive Report 2001-2002

Range: 1-7 where 7= Judiciary is completely independent from government and/or parties to disputed; government completely neutral among bidders when deciding upon public contracts ; 1= opposite. Source: The Global Competitive Report 2001-2002

Range: 0-100 where 100 indicates completely free from corruption. Source: Index of Economic Freedom 2003 by The Heritage Foundation

The sum of property rights, contract enforcement and corruption freedom.

Domestic stock market capitalization/GDP , Source: World Bank 2003

Log of GNP per capita in 2003, Source: World Development Indicator 2003

Log of total investment, Source: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)Adult Population Survey 2003

32

Table A3 Country Breakdown of Financing Sources

Country Size from self, savings &

income From close family

member sibling From work colleague from employer from friends, neighborsfrom Banks, financial

institutions from Government

programs

Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Australia 38 10 28 3 35 1 37 5 33 28 10 6 32 5 33

Belgium 30 5 25 2 28 3 27 1 29 22 8 10 20 4 26

Brazil 54 18 36 9 45 5 49 8 46 25 29 20 34 9 45

Canada 42 13 29 7 35 5 37 8 34 31 11 15 27 11 31

Chile 127 46 81 22 105 11 116 8 119 75 52 45 82 14 113

China 136 89 47 47 89 20 116 53 83 59 77 21 115 1 135

Denmark 27 11 16 2 25 2 25 3 24 15 12 3 24 6 21

Finland 17 4 13 2 15 2 15 2 15 14 3 14 3 6 11

France 14 6 8 2 12 0 14 1 13 9 5 7 7 4 10

Germany 154 60 94 19 135 9 145 14 140 98 56 84 70 11 143

Greece 22 8 14 5 17 0 22 3 19 13 9 6 16 0 22

Hong Kong 13 7 6 2 11 2 11 6 7 4 9 3 10 0 13

Ireland 57 21 36 4 53 5 52 7 50 39 18 24 33 8 49

Italy 11 6 5 3 8 0 11 0 11 3 8 5 6 1 10

Japan 6 1 5 0 6 0 6 2 4 2 4 5 1 1 5

Netherland 22 9 13 1 21 3 19 3 19 13 9 7 15 2 20

New Zealand 81 25 56 9 72 9 72 8 3 55 26 16 65 17 64

Norway 34 13 21 4 30 6 28 4 30 24 10 18 16 13 21

Singapore 29 9 20 6 23 5 24 5 24 15 14 10 19 6 23

Slovenia 33 15 18 1 32 3 30 6 27 8 25 9 24 5 28

South Africa 44 22 22 12 32 0 44 4 40 25 19 13 31 2 42

Spain 76 22 54 9 67 5 71 13 63 55 21 21 55 0 76

Sweden 22 5 17 2 20 1 21 0 22 16 6 9 13 3 19

Switzerland 41 29 18 6 41 8 39 8 39 26 21 9 38 10 37

U.K. 239 70 169 24 215 10 229 18 221 157 82 85 154 55 184

U.S. 271 98 173 4 267 18 253 47 224 177 94 102 169 10 261

Venezuela 223 125 98 32 191 11 212 28 195 50 173 67 156 2 221