Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (3)
Language
- English (3) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Governance (3) (remove)
Institute
- Center for Financial Studies (CFS) (3) (remove)
This study examines the recent literature on the expectations, beliefs and perceptions of investors who incorporate Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) considerations in investment decisions with the aim to generate superior performance and also make a societal impact. Through the lens of equilibrium models of agents with heterogeneous tastes for ESG investments, green assets are expected to generate lower returns in the long run than their non- ESG counterparts. However, at the short run, ESG investment can outperform non-ESG investment through various channels. Empirically, results of ESG outperformance are mixed. We find consensus in the literature that some investors have ESG preference and that their actions can generate positive social impact. The shift towards more sustainable policies in firms is motivated by the increased market values and the lower cost of capital of green firms driven by investors’ choices.
We propose three governance mechanisms pertinent to equity crowdfunding and campaign success through mitigating pronounced information asymmetries and agency problems. First, unlike IPOs for which the effect of Delaware incorporation has declined or disappeared over time, we propose Delaware incorporation matters a great deal for success in the new setting of equity crowdfunding. Second, we propose that security design is a critical tool for equity crowdfunding success and even more important than the limited 2-year financial statement disclosure. Third, we propose that platforms as intermediaries between entrepreneurs and investors play an important role in mitigating and sometimes exacerbating information asymmetries and agency problems. The population of equity crowdfunding campaigns from market inception in May 2016 to Q2, 2021 in the United States provides strong support for these propositions.
We argue two alternative routes that lead entrepreneurial start-ups to acquisition outcomes instead of liquidation. On one hand, acquisitions can come about through the control route with external financers such as venture capitalists (VCs). VCs take control through their board seats along with other contractual rights that can bring about changes in a start-up necessary to successfully attract a strategic acquirer. Consistent with this view, we show that VCs often replace the founding entrepreneur as CEO long before an acquisition exit. On the other hand, acquisitions can come about through advice and support provided to the start-up, such as that provided by an incubator or technology park. Based on a sample of 251 Crunchbase companies in the U.S. over the years 2007 to 2014, we present evidence that is strongly consistent with these propositions. Further, we show that the data indicate a tension between VC-backing of start-ups resident in technology parks insofar as such start-ups are slower to become, and less likely to be, acquired.