Reporte gem 2011

Global EntrEprEnEurship Monitor

2006 Financing Report
William D. Bygrave with Mark Quill

Global Entrepreneurship Monitor
2006 Financing Report
William D. Bygrave
with Mark Quill

Founding and Sponsoring Institutions Babson College, Babson Park, MA, USA London Business School, London, UK

The authors thank Marcia Cole for her direction to GEM and her support in the production ofthis report. Although GEM data were used in the preparation of this report, their interpretation and use are the sole responsibility of the author. © 2007 by William D. Bygrave with Mark Quill, Babson College, London Business School 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary Key Findings—Informal Investment Key Findings—Formal Investment Key Implications Financing EntrepreneurialVentures Entrepreneurial Financing for the World’s Poorest Microfinancing Microcredit for the Poorest of the Poor Entrepreneurs and Informal Investors Informal Investors Entrepreneurs Expected Financial Returns Venture Capital Classic Venture Capital Among GEM Nations Concluding Comments References GEM National Teams 006 GEM Sponsors Contacts List of Figures and Tables Figure 1:Percent of Adults Who Are Active Informal Investors Figure 2: Total Informal Investment as Percent of GDP Figure 3: Annual Amount Per Informal Investor vs GDP Figure 4: Amount of Startup Money vs GDP Figure 5: Percent of Nascents Fundable with Available Informal Investment Figure 6: Classic Venture Capital as a Percent of GDP (2005) Figure 7: Amount of Classic Venture Capital in G7 Nations in2005 Figure 8: Number of Companies Receiving Venture Capital in G7 Nations in 2005 Figure 9: Amount of Classic Venture Capital per Company Table 1: Growth in the Implementation of Microcredit, 1997–2003 Table 2: Microfinancing by Region, 2003 Table 3: Enterpreneur’s Expected Sources of Financing Table 4 Relationship of Informal Investor to Entrepreneur

3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 8 8 12 14 14 15 90  6 7 9 9 10 11 13 16 16 16 17 7 7 12 12



Executive Summary

This report reviews and assesses the state of financing for entrepreneurs and their ventures around the world. The empirical data are from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) 2006 study of national level of entrepreneurial activity, microcredit institutions,1 and venture capital associations,2 augmented with someinformation from the previous years of GEM studies. This is the second time that GEM has published a separate report on financing. The first was in 2004. In other years the financing report has been a section in the GEM Global Report. Since GEM was launched in 1997 by scholars at Babson College and London Business School, the project has developed into one of the world’s leading research consortia,concerned with improving knowledge about the relationships between entrepreneurial activity and national economic growth. To this end, the project has, from the start, been designed as a multinational research program providing annual assessments of the entrepreneurial sector for a range of countries.

The nations that participated in the GEM 2006 study were Argentina, Australia, Belgium,Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, and Uruguay. In this report theterm “informal investment” is used in a broad sense to include not only investments, but also loans and even gifts. We think our classification is justified because putting money into a fledgling business is very risky, and the outcome is the same for both lenders and investors if the business fails: They lose money. The term “classic venture capital” includes money invested by professional venture...