This study examines more than 2’700 companies founded by alumni of Stanford University or
having licensed a technology from this university. Stanford University is with MIT one of the
most entrepreneurial university in the world, and surprisingly not much data is available on its
spin-offs and start-ups. Some important features are described such as the use of venture capital,
the dynamics of growth and exits through acquisition or initial public offering. Some
characteristics of the founders are also considered such as the time lag between their academic
activity and the start-up creation as well as the characteristics of serial entrepreneurs.
Examining the stories of successful startup businesses finds each co-founder often brings something special to the table that allowed the company both to get off the ground and then thrive.
Innovación incipiente en economías emergentes: ¿puede traspasar Rusia sus bar...Fundación Ramón Areces
Innovación incipiente en economías emergentes: ¿puede traspasar Rusia sus barreras históricas?
Sheila Puffer, Northeastern University, Boston, EE.UU.
Madrid, 16 de enero de 2012.
Ciclo de conferencias 'Actividad empresarial y crecimiento: una perspectiva internacional' En colaboración con el IE Business School
Value co creation in entrepreneurship education - case aalto universityOlli-Pekka Mutanen
Experiences from teaching: Presenting a value co-creation model comprising students, firms and university in education.
Case: Growth Entrepreneurship Education in Aalto University.
Here is an article based on literature review format that contains criticism on scientific management given by different scholars and authors; with comprehensive analysis. I have tried my best to link each criticism with each other smoothly and to present them in depth with details.
Examining the stories of successful startup businesses finds each co-founder often brings something special to the table that allowed the company both to get off the ground and then thrive.
Innovación incipiente en economías emergentes: ¿puede traspasar Rusia sus bar...Fundación Ramón Areces
Innovación incipiente en economías emergentes: ¿puede traspasar Rusia sus barreras históricas?
Sheila Puffer, Northeastern University, Boston, EE.UU.
Madrid, 16 de enero de 2012.
Ciclo de conferencias 'Actividad empresarial y crecimiento: una perspectiva internacional' En colaboración con el IE Business School
Value co creation in entrepreneurship education - case aalto universityOlli-Pekka Mutanen
Experiences from teaching: Presenting a value co-creation model comprising students, firms and university in education.
Case: Growth Entrepreneurship Education in Aalto University.
Here is an article based on literature review format that contains criticism on scientific management given by different scholars and authors; with comprehensive analysis. I have tried my best to link each criticism with each other smoothly and to present them in depth with details.
Russian business incubator program _ prospect development and strategic plan ...Vasily Ryzhonkov
It is the purpose of this report to examine ‘best practices’ of setting up and operating
business incubators. Hence the strategic plan is a form of blueprint for the proposed pilot
project, identifying the parameters, goals, and processes of business incubator
development. The investigation of these components is referred to as PHASE ONE. The
purpose of PHASE ONE is to investigate the prospect development, thus setting the
direction for initiating PHASE TWO – the establishment of a Business Incubator Pilot
Project in Russia.
Finally, long-term and short-term objectives as well as potential stakeholders and funding sources are identified within the proposed three-phased 8-month strategic action plan
2011.11.21 Market Opportunities - Made or Found?NUI Galway
Dr Natasha Evers, Marketing Discipline, NUI Galway presented this seminar "Market Opportunities - Made or Found? Some Perspectives on Opportunity Recognition and Exploitation in University Spin-Outs" as part of the Break the Barrier Seminar Series at the Whitaker Institute on 21st November 2011.
Financing in the start-up phase in Switzerland
»venture» 2014, Founder's Knowledge Seminar – Financing covers financing in the start-up phase, including financial planning, due diligence and selection criteria usually applied by investors. We also included a tutorial on some of the financial valuation approaches.
»venture» 2014 is a Swiss business plan competition to supports young entrepreneurs. It is an initiative of the ETH Zurich, Knecht Holding, the Swiss innovation promotion agency CTI and McKinsey & Company. A3 Angels is a mentoring and seed investment club founded in 2008 by Alumni of the Federal Institute of Technology EPFL to help support startups in Switzerland. Over 30 companies have benefited from this support.
Top 5 Deep Learning and AI Stories - October 6, 2017NVIDIA
Read this week's top 5 news updates in deep learning and AI: Gartner predicts top 10 strategic technology trends for 2018; Oracle adds GPU Accelerated Computing to Oracle Cloud Infrastructure; chemistry and physics Nobel Prizes are awarded to teams supported by GPUs; MIT uses deep learning to help guide decisions in ICU; and portfolio management firms are using AI to seek alpha.
Attributed to:
Lebret, Hervé, Serial Entrepreneurs: Are They Better? - A View from Stanford University Alumni (August 21, 2012). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2133127 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2133127
Posted on Chaganomics.com
Corporate venturing is on the rise. The growing intensity of corporate venturing activities presents extraordinary opportunities for corporations to redefine their innovation and investment practices. While corporate venturing has received considerable research attention, previous studies have often insufficiently captured the evolution of corporate venturing activities. This article presents the key insights of a global study of leading corporate venture units and offers a benchmark against which to compare current and future corporate venturing initiatives. We discuss the state of corporate venturing activities and practices at leading global corporations and outline the distinctive features of today’s venture landscape.
Russian business incubator program _ prospect development and strategic plan ...Vasily Ryzhonkov
It is the purpose of this report to examine ‘best practices’ of setting up and operating
business incubators. Hence the strategic plan is a form of blueprint for the proposed pilot
project, identifying the parameters, goals, and processes of business incubator
development. The investigation of these components is referred to as PHASE ONE. The
purpose of PHASE ONE is to investigate the prospect development, thus setting the
direction for initiating PHASE TWO – the establishment of a Business Incubator Pilot
Project in Russia.
Finally, long-term and short-term objectives as well as potential stakeholders and funding sources are identified within the proposed three-phased 8-month strategic action plan
2011.11.21 Market Opportunities - Made or Found?NUI Galway
Dr Natasha Evers, Marketing Discipline, NUI Galway presented this seminar "Market Opportunities - Made or Found? Some Perspectives on Opportunity Recognition and Exploitation in University Spin-Outs" as part of the Break the Barrier Seminar Series at the Whitaker Institute on 21st November 2011.
Financing in the start-up phase in Switzerland
»venture» 2014, Founder's Knowledge Seminar – Financing covers financing in the start-up phase, including financial planning, due diligence and selection criteria usually applied by investors. We also included a tutorial on some of the financial valuation approaches.
»venture» 2014 is a Swiss business plan competition to supports young entrepreneurs. It is an initiative of the ETH Zurich, Knecht Holding, the Swiss innovation promotion agency CTI and McKinsey & Company. A3 Angels is a mentoring and seed investment club founded in 2008 by Alumni of the Federal Institute of Technology EPFL to help support startups in Switzerland. Over 30 companies have benefited from this support.
Top 5 Deep Learning and AI Stories - October 6, 2017NVIDIA
Read this week's top 5 news updates in deep learning and AI: Gartner predicts top 10 strategic technology trends for 2018; Oracle adds GPU Accelerated Computing to Oracle Cloud Infrastructure; chemistry and physics Nobel Prizes are awarded to teams supported by GPUs; MIT uses deep learning to help guide decisions in ICU; and portfolio management firms are using AI to seek alpha.
Attributed to:
Lebret, Hervé, Serial Entrepreneurs: Are They Better? - A View from Stanford University Alumni (August 21, 2012). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2133127 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2133127
Posted on Chaganomics.com
Corporate venturing is on the rise. The growing intensity of corporate venturing activities presents extraordinary opportunities for corporations to redefine their innovation and investment practices. While corporate venturing has received considerable research attention, previous studies have often insufficiently captured the evolution of corporate venturing activities. This article presents the key insights of a global study of leading corporate venture units and offers a benchmark against which to compare current and future corporate venturing initiatives. We discuss the state of corporate venturing activities and practices at leading global corporations and outline the distinctive features of today’s venture landscape.
Re|Imagine: Improving the Productivity of Federally Funded University ResearchEd Morrison
Federally funded university research provides a backbone to the US economy. But how can we improve the productivity of this research? The first step: move away from the simplistic linear model of commercialization. Second step: Embrace the new disciplines of agile strategy and ecosystems.
Impact Of Venture Capital and Research Institute on Entrepreneurialecosystemâ...inventionjournals
International Journal of Engineering and Science Invention (IJESI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of computer science and electronics. IJESI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Engineering Science and Technology, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online.
A Study on Impact of Startup Ecosystem on Student Innovationsijtsrd
Indian economy is moving from developing to fastest developing economy. Start ups in India are the new contributing factor in the growth of development. India is a developing south Asian country. It is a most populous and 7th largest country by area. Large population implies a large prospective market in India and puts more pressure for employment in the country. In the present decade, India is undertaking an essential shift towards start up welcoming policies and a business friendly environment. India is a populated country having increasing demand which is putting a competitive environment forcing to create innovative systems. One of these systems is a start up ecosystem. This paper is aimed at about the growth and prospects of start up systems in India. Dr. Krupa Mehta "A Study on Impact of Startup Ecosystem on Student Innovations" Published in International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456-6470, Volume-6 | Issue-2 , February 2022, URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd49266.pdf Paper URL: https://www.ijtsrd.com/management/innovation-and-product-dev/49266/a-study-on-impact-of-startup-ecosystem-on-student-innovations/dr-krupa-mehta
Essay on My Favourite Teacher for Students and Children in English - A .... Essay on Teacher | Teachers | Classroom. Short essay about a teacher. Critical essay: Essay on my teacher. ️ Becoming a teacher essay. Becoming A Teacher Essay. 2019-01-31. ️ Becoming a teacher essay. Why I Want to Become a Teacher :: Free .... Teachers Essay. My Teacher Essay | Essay on My Teacher for Students and Children - A .... A Good Teacher Essay | Learning | Teachers. Essay on my teacher is the best in 2021 | Essay, College application .... Essay describe my teacher - articleentitled.x.fc2.com. Essay about my school teacher.
Britannia to give seed funding, training, more to aspiring women entrepreneurs, homemakers for starting up.
Britannia has also teamed up with Google to offer all participants access to a digital business training programme that includes many classes to assist them gain the skills they need to run and grow their enterprises.
The third season of their start-up competition for prospective women entrepreneurs, particularly homemakers, was launched on Wednesday. Britannia would provide up to 10,000 top participants with online mentorship lectures from industry leaders on how to start and scale businesses. Candidates' ideas will be reviewed based on predetermined criteria, and a shortlisted candidate list will be published within 60 days after the contest's conclusion. One of the most significant aspects of our relationship with Google was ensuring that all participants have access to the digital skilling materials.
In addition to the initial funding, we're looking into how we can make relevant knowledge and know-how more accessible to women who want to pursue their entrepreneurial dreams, » Subramanyam stated. «There are an increasing number of women who desire to start their own business. At the contest's inauguration, Vinay Subramanyam, Vice-President, Britannia Industries, remarked, "77 percent of the women we went out to spoke about technology being a critical facilitator in terms of breaking barriers of how to be an entrepreneur." According to the survey, 62% of women want to start their own business, but a lack of time owing to household duties is a barrier for 73% of respondents. Lack of guidance was a problem for 53% of respondents, while insufficient funding was a problem for 50%.
« I had no choice but to sell all of my belongings in order to start the business. There are far more instances of women entrepreneurs today than there were previously, and as a result, there is a cultural receptivity to women in business that did not exist previously. However, there is still a long way to go, and I'm not sure if the next decade will be enough for women to be big enough, » remarked Shubhra Chadha, Co-founder of Chumbak Designs, during a Britannia webinar held before to the contest's introduction.
A crash course about startup valuation. Why is DCF difficult not to say useless for startups and better metrcis are comparables on profits, and even better sales (PE and PS°
University Equity in Start ups for IP Licensing - Lebret - nov 2013Hervé Lebret
How much equity universities take in start-ups for a license of intellectual property? It is sometimes not to say often a hot topic and information is not easy to obtain. Howeever there are some standards or common practice.
Discover the innovative and creative projects that highlight my journey throu...dylandmeas
Discover the innovative and creative projects that highlight my journey through Full Sail University. Below, you’ll find a collection of my work showcasing my skills and expertise in digital marketing, event planning, and media production.
3.0 Project 2_ Developing My Brand Identity Kit.pptxtanyjahb
A personal brand exploration presentation summarizes an individual's unique qualities and goals, covering strengths, values, passions, and target audience. It helps individuals understand what makes them stand out, their desired image, and how they aim to achieve it.
RMD24 | Retail media: hoe zet je dit in als je geen AH of Unilever bent? Heid...BBPMedia1
Grote partijen zijn al een tijdje onderweg met retail media. Ondertussen worden in dit domein ook de kansen zichtbaar voor andere spelers in de markt. Maar met die kansen ontstaan ook vragen: Zelf retail media worden of erop adverteren? In welke fase van de funnel past het en hoe integreer je het in een mediaplan? Wat is nu precies het verschil met marketplaces en Programmatic ads? In dit half uur beslechten we de dilemma's en krijg je antwoorden op wanneer het voor jou tijd is om de volgende stap te zetten.
Cracking the Workplace Discipline Code Main.pptxWorkforce Group
Cultivating and maintaining discipline within teams is a critical differentiator for successful organisations.
Forward-thinking leaders and business managers understand the impact that discipline has on organisational success. A disciplined workforce operates with clarity, focus, and a shared understanding of expectations, ultimately driving better results, optimising productivity, and facilitating seamless collaboration.
Although discipline is not a one-size-fits-all approach, it can help create a work environment that encourages personal growth and accountability rather than solely relying on punitive measures.
In this deck, you will learn the significance of workplace discipline for organisational success. You’ll also learn
• Four (4) workplace discipline methods you should consider
• The best and most practical approach to implementing workplace discipline.
• Three (3) key tips to maintain a disciplined workplace.
Falcon stands out as a top-tier P2P Invoice Discounting platform in India, bridging esteemed blue-chip companies and eager investors. Our goal is to transform the investment landscape in India by establishing a comprehensive destination for borrowers and investors with diverse profiles and needs, all while minimizing risk. What sets Falcon apart is the elimination of intermediaries such as commercial banks and depository institutions, allowing investors to enjoy higher yields.
What are the main advantages of using HR recruiter services.pdfHumanResourceDimensi1
HR recruiter services offer top talents to companies according to their specific needs. They handle all recruitment tasks from job posting to onboarding and help companies concentrate on their business growth. With their expertise and years of experience, they streamline the hiring process and save time and resources for the company.
Memorandum Of Association Constitution of Company.pptseri bangash
www.seribangash.com
A Memorandum of Association (MOA) is a legal document that outlines the fundamental principles and objectives upon which a company operates. It serves as the company's charter or constitution and defines the scope of its activities. Here's a detailed note on the MOA:
Contents of Memorandum of Association:
Name Clause: This clause states the name of the company, which should end with words like "Limited" or "Ltd." for a public limited company and "Private Limited" or "Pvt. Ltd." for a private limited company.
https://seribangash.com/article-of-association-is-legal-doc-of-company/
Registered Office Clause: It specifies the location where the company's registered office is situated. This office is where all official communications and notices are sent.
Objective Clause: This clause delineates the main objectives for which the company is formed. It's important to define these objectives clearly, as the company cannot undertake activities beyond those mentioned in this clause.
www.seribangash.com
Liability Clause: It outlines the extent of liability of the company's members. In the case of companies limited by shares, the liability of members is limited to the amount unpaid on their shares. For companies limited by guarantee, members' liability is limited to the amount they undertake to contribute if the company is wound up.
https://seribangash.com/promotors-is-person-conceived-formation-company/
Capital Clause: This clause specifies the authorized capital of the company, i.e., the maximum amount of share capital the company is authorized to issue. It also mentions the division of this capital into shares and their respective nominal value.
Association Clause: It simply states that the subscribers wish to form a company and agree to become members of it, in accordance with the terms of the MOA.
Importance of Memorandum of Association:
Legal Requirement: The MOA is a legal requirement for the formation of a company. It must be filed with the Registrar of Companies during the incorporation process.
Constitutional Document: It serves as the company's constitutional document, defining its scope, powers, and limitations.
Protection of Members: It protects the interests of the company's members by clearly defining the objectives and limiting their liability.
External Communication: It provides clarity to external parties, such as investors, creditors, and regulatory authorities, regarding the company's objectives and powers.
https://seribangash.com/difference-public-and-private-company-law/
Binding Authority: The company and its members are bound by the provisions of the MOA. Any action taken beyond its scope may be considered ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the company and therefore void.
Amendment of MOA:
While the MOA lays down the company's fundamental principles, it is not entirely immutable. It can be amended, but only under specific circumstances and in compliance with legal procedures. Amendments typically require shareholder
Attending a job Interview for B1 and B2 Englsih learnersErika906060
It is a sample of an interview for a business english class for pre-intermediate and intermediate english students with emphasis on the speking ability.
The world of search engine optimization (SEO) is buzzing with discussions after Google confirmed that around 2,500 leaked internal documents related to its Search feature are indeed authentic. The revelation has sparked significant concerns within the SEO community. The leaked documents were initially reported by SEO experts Rand Fishkin and Mike King, igniting widespread analysis and discourse. For More Info:- https://news.arihantwebtech.com/search-disrupted-googles-leaked-documents-rock-the-seo-world/
Unveiling the Secrets How Does Generative AI Work.pdfSam H
At its core, generative artificial intelligence relies on the concept of generative models, which serve as engines that churn out entirely new data resembling their training data. It is like a sculptor who has studied so many forms found in nature and then uses this knowledge to create sculptures from his imagination that have never been seen before anywhere else. If taken to cyberspace, gans work almost the same way.
India Orthopedic Devices Market: Unlocking Growth Secrets, Trends and Develop...Kumar Satyam
According to TechSci Research report, “India Orthopedic Devices Market -Industry Size, Share, Trends, Competition Forecast & Opportunities, 2030”, the India Orthopedic Devices Market stood at USD 1,280.54 Million in 2024 and is anticipated to grow with a CAGR of 7.84% in the forecast period, 2026-2030F. The India Orthopedic Devices Market is being driven by several factors. The most prominent ones include an increase in the elderly population, who are more prone to orthopedic conditions such as osteoporosis and arthritis. Moreover, the rise in sports injuries and road accidents are also contributing to the demand for orthopedic devices. Advances in technology and the introduction of innovative implants and prosthetics have further propelled the market growth. Additionally, government initiatives aimed at improving healthcare infrastructure and the increasing prevalence of lifestyle diseases have led to an upward trend in orthopedic surgeries, thereby fueling the market demand for these devices.
What is the TDS Return Filing Due Date for FY 2024-25.pdfseoforlegalpillers
It is crucial for the taxpayers to understand about the TDS Return Filing Due Date, so that they can fulfill your TDS obligations efficiently. Taxpayers can avoid penalties by sticking to the deadlines and by accurate filing of TDS. Timely filing of TDS will make sure about the availability of tax credits. You can also seek the professional guidance of experts like Legal Pillers for timely filing of the TDS Return.
Putting the SPARK into Virtual Training.pptxCynthia Clay
This 60-minute webinar, sponsored by Adobe, was delivered for the Training Mag Network. It explored the five elements of SPARK: Storytelling, Purpose, Action, Relationships, and Kudos. Knowing how to tell a well-structured story is key to building long-term memory. Stating a clear purpose that doesn't take away from the discovery learning process is critical. Ensuring that people move from theory to practical application is imperative. Creating strong social learning is the key to commitment and engagement. Validating and affirming participants' comments is the way to create a positive learning environment.
Skye Residences | Extended Stay Residences Near Toronto Airportmarketingjdass
Experience unparalleled EXTENDED STAY and comfort at Skye Residences located just minutes from Toronto Airport. Discover sophisticated accommodations tailored for discerning travelers.
Website Link :
https://skyeresidences.com/
https://skyeresidences.com/about-us/
https://skyeresidences.com/gallery/
https://skyeresidences.com/rooms/
https://skyeresidences.com/near-by-attractions/
https://skyeresidences.com/commute/
https://skyeresidences.com/contact/
https://skyeresidences.com/queen-suite-with-sofa-bed/
https://skyeresidences.com/queen-suite-with-sofa-bed-and-balcony/
https://skyeresidences.com/queen-suite-with-sofa-bed-accessible/
https://skyeresidences.com/2-bedroom-deluxe-queen-suite-with-sofa-bed/
https://skyeresidences.com/2-bedroom-deluxe-king-queen-suite-with-sofa-bed/
https://skyeresidences.com/2-bedroom-deluxe-queen-suite-with-sofa-bed-accessible/
#Skye Residences Etobicoke, #Skye Residences Near Toronto Airport, #Skye Residences Toronto, #Skye Hotel Toronto, #Skye Hotel Near Toronto Airport, #Hotel Near Toronto Airport, #Near Toronto Airport Accommodation, #Suites Near Toronto Airport, #Etobicoke Suites Near Airport, #Hotel Near Toronto Pearson International Airport, #Toronto Airport Suite Rentals, #Pearson Airport Hotel Suites
Skye Residences | Extended Stay Residences Near Toronto Airport
Lebret stanford and hte - report
1. STANFORD UNIVERSITY AND HIGH-TECH
ENTREPRENEURSHIP: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY
Hervé Lebret, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Switzerland
ABSTRACT
This study examines more than 2’700 companies founded by alumni of Stanford University or
having licensed a technology from this university. Stanford University is with MIT one of the
most entrepreneurial university in the world, and surprisingly not much data is available on its
spin-offs and start-ups. Some important features are described such as the use of venture capital,
the dynamics of growth and exits through acquisition or initial public offering. Some
characteristics of the founders are also considered such as the time lag between their academic
activity and the start-up creation as well as the characteristics of serial entrepreneurs.
INTRODUCTION
Academic entrepreneurship as well as the role of universities in high-tech entrepreneurship
through their alumni has been a much-studied topic in the recent past. Two extensive studies
(Shane, 2004 and Djokovic & Souitaris, 2008) illustrate the amount of work done recently. Many
of these analyses (Shane, 2004; Roberts, 1991; Hsu et al. 2007; Roberts & Eesley, 2009) were
focused on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Other authors (Saxenian, 1994;
Zhang, 2003, 2009) have compared the Boston Area and Silicon Valley in particular through the
angle of venture capital funding and have shown the critical role of both MIT and Stanford
University in academic entrepreneurship. It would be impossible to make here a list of all papers
published on the topic and Djokovic has done a very interesting compilation of papers studying
spinouts from academic institutions. Another synthesis summarizing lessons learnt on universities
and start-ups (Lerner, 2005) was also published after many articles on the topics related to spin-
offs and venture capital.
Whereas Silicon Valley has been extensively studied (Saxenian 1994, 1999; Kenney, 2000;
Lee et al., 2000), it appears that Stanford University has not been studied as much as MIT or many
other universities, which have been much less entrepreneurial than Stanford. Here can be
mentioned the cases of UT-Austin (Smilor, 1990), the University of Cambridge in the UK
(Garnsey & Heffernan, 2005), Oxford University (Lawton Smith & Ho, 2006), ETH Zurich
(Oskarsson & Schläpfer, 2008) or the broader subject of universities and venture capital (Zhang,
2. 2009). Stanford has been studied through the limited cases of departments or laboratories (Kenney
& Goe, 2004; Jong, 2006, Lebret, 2007) including some unpublished work (Lenoir, 2002). A
broader view of Stanford University and its connection with the military-industrial complex is the
book by Lowen (1997). Stanford remains however some lesser-known territory that deserves more
attention.
Start-up and Spin-off
The definition of a spin-off has also been the subject of many studies and the debate may not
be totally closed. Djokovic and Zhang among others have shown the variety of definitions used.
They usually include the transfer of technology and/or people but the definition of transfer of
technology may be formal (through a contract or license process) or informal. A good example of
the difficulty is the famous example of Google vs. Yahoo at Stanford University (Ku, 2002).
Yahoo was not considered as a Stanford spin-off because the two founders built the web site as a
hobby on their spare time so that no license was needed from Stanford when Yahoo was moved
out of the laboratory to a stand-alone company. Stanford had filed a patent on the PageRank
technology, which was licensed to Google when the company was incorporated. Fundamentally,
however there was the same transfer of people and there was a similar transfer of technology even
if it was not formalized through a patent application in the Yahoo case. If the definition of a spin-
off looks quite clear and simple, it does not mean that Yahoo was not created thanks to the
university facilities and (cultural) ecosystem. This is another motivation for studying not only
Stanford spin-offs but also the related start-ups founded by alumni without a license from
Stanford.
Venture Capital and Founders of Start-Ups
Why are start-ups scrutinized so much? One important reason is certainly the value creation of
these companies in the last fifty years. From Intel to Google, and in between companies such as
Genentech, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, Cisco, the American economy has positively benefited from
these fast growing companies. Billions of dollars of sales and hundreds of thousands of jobs have
been created by a relatively modest number of companies in a very short period of time. Silicon
Valley and its informal ecosystem have both been at the origin and the beneficiaries of this value
creation that very few other regions on the planet have experienced.
Some interesting and rather unique characteristics of these companies have also explained this
attention. Venture capital has been a critical tool for the growth of these companies and it has
become a structured activity in parallel to the development of the Silicon Valley and Boston
technology clusters and in particular their start-ups. However, even if venture capital has been
extensively studied, the author is not aware of studies that link start-ups and venture capital in a
systematic manner. What about start-ups which do not use venture capital? Do venture-backed
companies succeed better than others?
The founders of start-ups are also critical. The names of the founders of the companies
mentioned above are all famous. Why is this? There are certainly elements of leadership and
charisma with start-up founders which may be much more important when companies are small
and fast-growing. More importantly, these founders have become role models for the new
entrepreneurs. Steve Jobs had Robert Noyce as a mentor, Brin and Page met Andy Grove.
Founders are important outside their own companies.
3. This article does not have the ambition to consider hypotheses that could be validated or not
but has the objective of illustrating some features of start-ups (that the author believes are
important and even if somehow quite well-known, not always described with facts and figures). It
also has the ambition of showing that some of these features might be used as success or growth
measures of start-ups: these are venture capital resources, value creation, time-to-exit for example.
DATA AND RESULTS
This paper studies three different groups of start-ups linked to Stanford University. The first
one is the group of start-ups which obtained a license from the Office of Technology Licensing
(OTL) of Stanford University (called the “spin-offs”). The second one is based on a study
commissioned by OTL (Leone et al. 1992). The third group known as the Wellspring of
Innovation (http://www.stanford.edu/group/wellspring) is a list of companies founded by Stanford
Alumni and was retrieved on February 6, 2009 (this web site is an ongoing project). This makes a
total of more than 2’700 start-ups. Essentially the names of the companies and Stanford founders
were available in these lists. We have empirically built consistent data over the three groups: the
fields of activities, the resources provided by venture capital and other investors, the year of
foundation, the year of a liquidity event if any (Initial Public Offering – IPO, Trade Sale – M&A
or Cessation of Activity). The value creation is also studied in three ways: the sales, the
employment and the value creation (market capitalization) when the company is public or the
value of the M&A if the company was acquired. The time span between activity at Stanford and
creation of the start-up, and between creation and liquidity of the start-up has been studied. The
last but related features are linked to the founders: are these serial entrepreneurs? What about their
past experience before becoming founders. What about the role of professors as founders?
Value creation
For the sake of efficiency and space available in this article, we will compare in this first part
of our results the spin-offs and a subset of the Wellspring of Innovation (“WI”). Stanford
University generated 204 spin-offs (see Table 1). The number of start-ups in WI which did not
belong to the two other groups is 2’140. Out of these, 1’467 can be considered as high-tech
companies as the creators of the WI list also included entrepreneurs in non technical activities such
as consulting, finance. Table 1 indicates the fields of activities of the companies and the number of
VC-backed companies. Biotechnologies and medical devices (“life sciences or LS”) represent
about 50% of the spin-offs and information technologies (“IT”) about 45%; however for the WI
group, once the non high-tech companies are excluded, LS account for 15% and IT for 85%. A
second important comment is that in high-tech, and in both groups, about 50% of the companies
are venture-backed. More precisely, since 1985, 4 out of the spin-offs founded each year raised on
average $30 million during their lifetime. In the WI group, 26 start-ups founded per year raised
$41 million each. Table 2 summarizes the value creation of these start-ups. It also includes the
third group not mentioned until now. The group of spin-offs raised a total of $2.9 billion of
venture-capital. The acquisitions represent a cumulative value of $8.2 billion and the value of
public companies as of October, 3, 2009 was $22.4 billion, excluding Cisco ($131 billion) and
Google ($153 billion). The WI group in its high-tech part had respectively $27 billion of venture-
capital, $173 billion of M&A and $183 billion of public value.
Dynamics of growth
The numbers shown in Tables 1 and 2 are not fundamentally new. The value creation of high-
tech start-ups is well-known, even if it may have not been linked to Stanford in such a systematic
4. manner. A related feature of this value creation is the speed at which the value is created. The
author tried to systematically look for the year of incorporation of the companies as well as the
time of exit, if any, i.e. the year of an acquisition, of an initial public offering or of a liquidation.
Many studies focus on the survival rate of start-ups (e.g. Oskarsson & Schläpfer, 2008) but
Table 3 shows that the dynamics of exits may be much more relevant. Only about a third of the
companies remain privately-held and much less (16%) in the VC-backed companies of the WI
group. Another third has been acquired (55% of the VC-backed in WI). A smaller group (5 to
15%) is public and the difference is made of liquidated companies. Figures 1 and 2 show the time
to liquidity in years of the companies which are not privately held anymore. For the spin-off case
(Figure 1), the number of companies is 61 for the VC-backed ones and 31 for the others. The
average number of years to liquidity is 5.97 for start-ups with VC money and 6.55 for the others,
the overall average being 6.17 years. The WI group (Figure 2) has 630 VC-backed companies and
574 start-ups in the second group. The average time to liquidity is 5.3 years for the first subgroup
and 8 years for the other one, with an overall average of 6.6 years. One clear difference between
spin-offs and start-ups is the impact of non-tech companies. First, as Figure 4 shows, 55% of the
WI non-tech companies are still private (vs. 21% of the WI high-tech ones). Secondly, the average
time to liquidity for non-tech companies is 10 years.
Founders
Founders are a critical component of companies. However, no formal definition exists.
Founders should not be confused with entrepreneurs who usually work in the companies they start
nor with managers who may not be part of the founding team, even if some were early employees.
The only simple definition of the group of founders is the group of people who recognize
themselves as such. The author could identify 2’711 unique names of individuals for the 2’727
companies (Table 4). However, for 62 companies, no founder could be identified as a member of
the Stanford community (i.e. professor, staff or alumnus). 2’203 companies had one Stanford
founder and 462 had more than one. Professors are active founders: 167 unique professors were
founders in 243 companies. In 140 of these companies, they were the only Stanford founder. Only
82 of these companies had a license and therefore belong to the spin-off group.
The experience of founders is one of their key features. It is usually illustrated by their prior
professional activity or their age. The author did not have access to such information. However,
thanks to data available through the Stanford Alumni association, it was possible to find when a
founder graduated from Stanford University and therefore obtain the number of years between the
activity at Stanford (graduation year if an alumnus or latest date of activity if a professor or staff)
and the year of incorporation of a company. In the case of the spin-offs however no information
could be obtained for 42 out of 204 companies (some of these companies do not have Stanford
founders) and 163 companies had missing information out of the 2’523 other start-ups. When a
company had several founders, the time difference was taken as the year of foundation minus the
average of the activity years of all founders. Figure 4 is the histogram of these time differences for
the spin-offs. Even if the average value is 2 years, it appears clearly that a majority of spin-offs is
created by individuals active at Stanford at the time of incorporation. Figure 5 gives the
information for the start-ups, i.e. the WI and the 1992 study. The average is 9.2 years. Figure 5
shows two interesting features: first, nearly 250 companies (a little under 10% of the group) were
created at year 0; the numbers decrease immediately around 100 for years 1-3 but increase again
for years 4-6, then decrease smoothly thereafter. Figure 6 shows the three groups (spin-offs and
start-ups) by field of activities. High-tech companies are created in the range of 6-8 years (e.g. 5.7
for biotech, around 7 for medical technologies or “medtech”, semiconductor, IT, software and
5. Internet) where as non-technical are above 10 years (about 12 for finance and non-technical
services).
Serial entrepreneurship (founders in our study) is an interesting topic as it is regularly
mentioned in the general press. Many investors claim they favor entrepreneurs with experience,
even if they have failed in their prior venture. The literature is surprisingly not very rich and two
recent works (Bengtsson, 2008 and Gompers et al., 2009) focus on venture-backed companies but
seem to reach slightly different conclusions. This article does not focus on serial entrepreneurship
only and a dedicated article is under preparation. However, it is of interest to show some results.
Among the 2’711 founders, 445 individuals (including 44 professors) created more than one
company. The total number of companies launched by these serial founders is 988 (some
companies have several serial entrepreneurs). Table 5 compares the resources and value creation
of companies which did not have serial entrepreneurs, as well as the first, second, third and fourth
companies created by the serial founders. The results tend to show that serial entrepreneurs have
more resources with their new ventures in terms of venture capital money but do not create on
average more value with their new companies than with the prior ones or compared to one-time
entrepreneurs. The only exception is the M&A value of the second ones compared to that of one-
time entrepreneurs.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The results of the analysis of Stanford high-tech entrepreneurship are manifold. The value
creation is exceptionally high thanks, in part, to a very high level of venture-capital money.
Venture capital does not explain alone this success. Hewlett-Packard belongs to the 1992 study, it
is the largest of the companies considered in the three groups and was not financed by venture
capital. However the levels of money raised (on average more than $30 million for the companies
accessing VC money) are high and should be an indicator for many academic spin-offs of the
levels of resources used to succeed. The value creation is also extremely high. Table 2 shows the
amounts of sales and employment generated by the existing public companies. In high-tech, the
sales were close to $350 billion in 2008 and the employment was close to 1 million jobs.
Nevertheless the top 5 tech companies generated about 2/3 of the value creation and the top 10,
about 3/4. Many smaller companies contribute to this creation but are not small companies even if
they are called start-ups. The resources used by these top 5 and top 10 companies in terms of
venture-capital are relatively much smaller. Finally, a total of 1’050 companies could be identified
as VC-backed out of the 2’727. The value creation of this subset is $186 billion in M&A and $543
billion in public value (against $82 billion of M&A and $286 billion for those which were not
associated with venture capital).
Table 1 also shows which fields are most developed by the spin-offs and financed by venture-
capital: they are the same. Indeed life sciences and information technologies represent 99% of the
spin-offs as well as the companies backed by venture capital both in the spin-off and WI groups.
An interesting feature of spin-offs is the very high share of life sciences, more than 50% of the
spin-offs and the VC-backed companies whereas they represent less than 15% of the WI group!
There is no doubt that intellectual property licensed from universities play a role in this difference.
Many studies (e.g. Oskarsson & Schläpfer, 2008; Roberts and Eesley, 2009) do not show the same
field repartitions. This feature may explain why some universities do not experience the same
ratios of fast growing companies.
Growth is not measured only by the available resources. Time to exit is another such measure.
Whereas some studies emphasize the survival rates of start-ups as a measure of success, this article
6. shows that fast growth is a general feature of Stanford high-tech companies. More surprisingly
maybe, biotech companies do not show longer time to exits. This apparent mystery may be easily
explained by the fact that many biotech companies go public without any sale at an early stage of
their development. However even if some non VC-backed companies are slower to exit (medtech
or electronics), others are as fast with or without VC Money (software and biotech) as Figures 1
and 2 show it. As interesting to illustrate the fast growth is the number of privately held
companies. A note of caution is necessary: the spin-off and WI groups are different in nature;
spin-offs include companies founded until 2008 whereas the WI group includes companies
founded before 2005, therefore the dynamics of exits are obviously different for the most recent
companies. Furthermore, the WI group includes non-tech companies which may survive more
easily and longer with revenues generated from their customers in sectors such as finance or non-
tech services (Figure 4). Therefore even if the explanations for the number of private companies
may be diverse, the numbers are very low in both cases. High value creation and fast growth
thanks to adequate resources appear clearly.
These results should not be surprising. The contribution of Silicon Valley to the American
economy is well documented but what may have been often neglected is how much a university
may directly (licenses) or indirectly (alumni) contribute to a dynamic ecosystem. Similarly to MIT
for the Boston Area, Stanford is a major contributor to Silicon Valley, but it less clear that other
universities or clusters have been as successful. The correlations between lesser entrepreneurial
regions and their university spin-off success might be similar. In a much smaller-scale study, it
was described how some US start-ups went public five years on average after their incorporation,
whereas it took ten years for European start-ups to become public (Lebret, 2007). The “classical 5
to 7 years” that venture capitalists look for as a holding horizon when they invest in start-ups
could also explain the results. In terms of recommendations for metrics and benchmarks of
academic innovation, the dynamics of growth and value creation should therefore be used and not
only quantitative measures such as company creation or patenting and licensing activities. The
level of resources used by start-ups may be an indication that many non-US start-ups are
undercapitalized to succeed.
The characteristics of the founders represent the second part of this study. One key feature is
the founders’ experience after leaving or not Stanford University. A little less than 340 companies
were created at year 0, another 360 companies were created between year 1 and year 3 of the
average activities at Stanford (average on all founders) and 390 between years 4 and 6. Companies
created at year 0 (12% of total) represent about 50% of the value of public companies, 25% of the
M&A value and 28% of the VC money. The second group (years 1-3) and third group (years 4-6)
represent respectively 13% and 14% of the number of start-ups, 6% and 20% of the public value,
13% and 20% of the M&A value, and 12% and 15% of the VC money. Though these comments
would require a deeper analysis, companies created at year 0 seem to create much more value than
others. Experience may not matter so much as possibly the quality of the technologies. This could
be correlated to the young age of many extremely successful entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley.
Experience of founders may not be a fundamental requirement. In terms of research on technology
transfer, the comparison of Figures 4 and 5 indicates that formalizing the spin-off creation through
licensing may be a necessary process but probably insufficient in describing the value creation of
universities. Though difficult to quantify, it is likely that many start-ups created at year 0 in
Figure 5 include companies which could have been considered as spin-off similarly to the Yahoo-
Google analogy considered in our introduction.
A final and interesting feature is the serial entrepreneurship factor. Whereas the general
agreement seems to claim that serial founders would be important because of the experience they
7. bring on board of start-ups, the results of this study does not seem to confirm this general belief.
What is also interesting is that serial entrepreneurs are more successful with their first companies
than one-time entrepreneurs and on average they raise less VC money. However the situation is
inverted with the following ones with two exceptions: the average M&A value of the 2nd one is
still higher than that of one-time entrepreneurs and the VC money raised by the 4th ones is smaller!
It is also worth noticing as described in the previous paragraph that most of the value creation
seems to be linked to the time proximity to Stanford. Some explanations have been given that
serial entrepreneurs could be over-optimistic and less motivated. One other explanation might be
that more disruptive (and therefore promising) technologies belong to companies close to
Stanford. One cannot avoid thinking that the luck factor may have an important role in high-tech
entrepreneurship. The value creation would therefore be explained by the statistical effect of the
large number of ventures.
As a conclusion, we would like to propose some areas for future research and also mention
some limitations and difficulties linked to the data. With the exception of public companies which
disclose an enormous and rich amount of information in their SEC documents and in particular in
their IPO prospectus, high-tech start-ups do not disclose much information. It is the author’s
experience that information is not only difficult to find for private companies but it is also
sometimes doubtful. Money raised through venture capital, value of M&A transaction should be
treated with some caution. A company may announce numbers which are not always accurate
(because of milestones-based financing as an example). The revenue and employment figures were
provided on the basis on public companies only and the author considered that private companies
have lower numbers, therefore the numbers give values lower than the real ones. Similar
difficulties arise with founders as we mentioned earlier in our introduction. Who knows that Apple
Computer did not have two founders (Wozniak and Jobs) but three (with the addition of Ronald
Wayne)? Building a database of founders and start-ups was not an easy task and the author will
not claim that it is void of mistakes or inaccuracies. Stanford founders are not the only founders of
these companies, which is another limitation of the study. There might also be a bias in favor of
successful companies and founders who may be easier to identify so that this may explain a rather
high level of success rate. When it was possible, all data were double checked but the author
recognizes that there are strong limitations. It is an intuition he had when observing the start-up
world and its studies. The examples of experiences of founders and serial entrepreneurship are
illustrations that general beliefs may have to be reconsidered.
In terms of recommendations and future research, the author believes that the present work
may help in reassessing what could be benchmarks and good metrics for (academic) start-ups in
terms of value creation and growth. Stanford University and MIT are obviously exceptional
universities, but because innovation is a global phenomenon, it is not clear why other universities
should not measure their results according to the performance of these two institutions. One
interesting work might be to compare MIT and Stanford and analyze how similar or different they
are and if so why. Another possible study that the author did not have data to analyze would be the
age of the founders and not their experience. The topic of high-tech entrepreneurship is fascinating
and even if decently well-known, opened to many new directions of research. What is the impact
of venture capital in the value creation? What is the real impact of professors (vs. their students) in
academic start-ups? What is the role of luck vs. experience? Are there areas of activities which are
more favorable to start-ups than others? The author believes that he has contributed in a modest
but valuable manner to a better understanding of the dynamics of high-tech entrepreneurship.
CONTACT: Hervé Lebret, herve.lebret@epfl.ch; (T): +41 21 693 7054; (F): +41 21 693 14 89;
EPFL, 1015, Lausanne, Switzerland
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Katarine Ku, head of the Office of Technology Licensing at
Stanford University for providing data on the spin-offs and the links to the 1992 study. He would
also like to thank the organizers of the 2009 Society for Entrepreneurship Scholars Meeting
sponsored by the Marion Ewing Kaufman Foundation, where data used in this study were first
shown and discussed.
REFERENCES
Bengtsson, O. (2008). Relational Venture Capital Financing of Serial Founders. Under Review.
Carey, P. (2001, December 1). A Start-Up's True Tale: Often-told story of Cisco's launch leaves
out the drama, intrigue. San Jose Mercury News.
Di Gregorio, D. & Shane, S. (2003). Why Do Some Universities Generate More Start-ups than
Others. Research Policy 32, 209-227.
Djokovic, D. & Souitaris, V. (2008). Spinouts from academic institutions: a literature review with
suggestions for further research. Journal of Technology Transfer 33, 225–247.
Garnsey, E. & Heffernan, P. (2005). High-technology Clustering through Spin-out and Attraction:
The Cambridge Case. Regional Studies 39 (8), 1127–1144.
Gibbons, J. F. (2000). The Role of Stanford University: A Dean's View. In: Lee, C., Miller, W.,
Hancock, M., Rowen, H. (Eds.) The Silicon Valley Edge (pp. 200-217). Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Gompers, P., Kovner, A., Lerner, J., & Scharfstein, D. (2009). Performance Persistence in
Entrepreneurship. Harvard Business School. Working Paper 09-028
Hsu, D. H. Roberts, E. B. & Eesley, C. E. (2007). Entrepreneurs from Technology-Based
Universities: Evidence from MIT. Research Policy 36, 768–788.
Jong, S. (2006). How organizational structures in science shape spin-off firms: the biochemistry
departments of Berkeley, Stanford, and UCSF and the birth of the biotech industry.
Industrial and Corporate Change 15 ( 2), 251–283
Kenney, M. (2000). Understanding Silicon Valley. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Kenney, M. & Goe, W.R. (2004). The role of social embeddedness in professorial
entrepreneurship: A comparison of electrical engineering and computer science at UC
Berkeley and Stanford. Research Policy, 33, 691 - 707.
Ku, K. (2002). Software Licensing in the University Environment. Computing Research News 14
(1), 3,8.
Lawton Smith, H. & Ho, K. (2006). Measuring the performance of Oxford University, Oxford
Brookes University and the government laboratories’ spin-off companies. Research Policy
35, 1554–1568.
Lebret, H. (2007). Start-Up, What We May Still Learn From Silicon Valley. Scotts Valley, CA:
CreateSpace.
Lee, C. et al. (editors), (2000). The Silicon Valley Edge. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.
Lenoir, T. (2002). The “Stanford Startup Report” project - Inventing the Entrepreneurial
University: Stanford and the Co-Evolution of Silicon Valley. Retrieved from
<http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/TimLenoir/Startup/QuarterlyRpts>
Leone, A., Vamos, J., Keeley, R., & Miller, W. (1992). Technology-based Companies Founded by
Members of the Stanford Community. A Study Commissioned by the Stanford University
Office of Technology Licensing.
9. Lerner, J. (2005). The University and the Start-Up: Lessons from the Past Two Decades. Journal
of Technology Transfer 30 (1/2) 49–56.
Lowen, R. (1997). Creating the Cold War University. Berkeley, CA: University of California
Press.
Oskarsson, I. & Schläpfer, A. (2008). The performance of Spin-off companies at the Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology Zurich. Zurich, Switzerland: ETH Transfer.
Roberts, E., B. (1991). Entrepreneurs in High Technology: Lessons from MIT and Beyond.
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Roberts E. B. & Eesley, C. E. (2009). Entrepreneurial Impact: The Role of MIT. Kansas City,
MO: the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.
Saxenian, A. (1994). Regional Advantage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,
Saxenian, A. (1999). Silicon Valley New Immigrants Entrepreneur.s San Francisco, CA: Public
Policy Institute of California.
Shane, S. (2004). Academic Entrepreneurship, University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Smilor R., Gibson D., Dietrich G., (1990) University Spin-Out Companies: Technology Start-Ups
from UT-Austin. Journal of Business Venturing 5, 63-76
Zhang, J. (2003). High-Tech Start-Ups and Industry Dynamics in Silicon Valley. San Francisco,
CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
Zhang, J. (2009). Why do some US universities generate more venture-backed academic
entrepreneurs than others? Venture Capital 11 (2), 133–162.
11. Table 3: Status of spin-offs and start-ups
Status Spin-offs Wellspring of Innovation
All VC-backed All VC-backed
Public 8% 14% 5% 10%
Private 39% 37% 33% 16%
M&A 29% 36% 34% 55%
Ceased 16% 13% 21% 19%
Unknown 8% 7%
Total 204 100 2140 754
Figure 1: Number of years from foundation to liquidity event of spin-offs
Unknown
Energy ‐ Env
IT & SW
No VC or
Electronics unknown
Computers All
Medtech VC backed
Biotechnology
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Nb. of companies VC backed No VC or unknown
Unknown 2
Energy – Env. 3
IT & SW 16 5
Electronics 16 6
Computers 2 0
Medtech 2 4
Biotech 25 11
Total 61 31
12. Figure 2: Number of years from foundation to liquidity event of WI companies
Nb. of companies VC backed No VC or unknown
Consumer goods
Consumer Goods 8 45
Finance
Finance 0 52
Non tech services Non Tech Services 2 67
Eng. Services Engineering services 5 37
Others Other tech 0 5
Manufacturing 1 10
Manuf.
Energy – env. 0 7
Energy ‐ Env
Internet 177 102
Without VC
Internet IT & SW 125 93
All
IT & SW Telecom 107 34
VC‐backed
Electronics 35 43
Telecom
Semiconductor 65 26
Electronics
Computers 18 8
Semiconductor Medtech 51 27
Computers Biotech 36 18
Total 630 574
Medtech
Biotech
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
13. Figure 3: Status of WI companies by field of activities (N=2140)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Unknown
40% Public
30% Private
M&A
20%
Ceased
10%
0%
Table 4: Founders by company (including professors)
Stanford founders All Founders including one professor
by company Companies Individuals Companies Individuals
0 62 0
1 2’203 2’203 140 140
2 300 600 49 52
3 113 339 38 43
4 29 116 9 16
5 12 60 5 6
6 5 30 1 1
7 1 7
8 1 8 1 2
9 1 9
Total 2’727 3’372 243 260
Unique names 2’711 167
14. Figure 4: Histogram of time between activity at Stanford and spinoff foundation (N=142).
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
‐7 ‐6 ‐5 ‐4 ‐3 ‐2 ‐1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 36
Years
Figure 5: Histogram of time between activity at Stanford and start-up foundation (N=2523)
250
200
150
100
50
0
‐17 ‐15 ‐13 ‐11 ‐9 ‐7 ‐5 ‐3 ‐1 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47
Years
15. Figure 6: Average time between activity at Stanford and foundation of start-ups (by field)
Total 8.86
Consumer goods 9.81
Finance 13.04
Non tech services 12.63
Eng. Services 9.97
Manuf. 9.59
Energy ‐ Env 11.95
Internet 6.95
IT & SW 7.68
Telecom 9.37
Electronics 8.8
Semiconductor 7.11
Computers 6.43
Medtech 7.05
Biotech 5.71
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Table 5: Value Creation by Serial Founders
Data on non-serial VC-backed M&A Public Ceased
1739 Number Average Number Average Number Average
474 $36'081’020 253 $520'000'000 102 $4'929'000'000 370
Data on serial VC-backed M&A Public Ceased
988 Number Average Number Average Number Average
386 $39'132'000 220 $624000'000 55 $5'955'000'000 232
1st comp VC-backed M&A Public Ceased
445 Number Average Number Average Number Average
147 $28'466'000 120 $900'000'000 30 $11'934'000'000 92
2nd comp VC-backed M&A Public Ceased
445 Number Average Number Average Number Average
202 $42'042'000 93 $617'000'000 20 $3'371'000'000 107
3rd comp VC-backed M&A Public Ceased
128 Number Average Number Average Number Average
57 $54'251'000 18 $277'000'000 6 $2'324'000'000 39
4th comp VC-backed M&A Public Ceased
46 Number Average Number Average Number Average
23 $38'867'000 13 $165'000'000 3 $1'109'000'000 12