Journal of International Business Studies

, Volume 50, Issue 5, pp 692–719 | Cite as

Angel investors around the world

  • Douglas CummingEmail author
  • Minjie Zhang


We document that the choice between disintermediated individual angel investments and intermediated private equity and venture capital investments depends on legal, economic, and cultural differences. We find evidence of this using PitchBook’s comprehensive data on more than 5000 angel and 80,000 private equity and venture capital investments in 96 countries from 1977 to 2012. The data further indicate that investee firms funded by angels are less likely to successfully exit through either an IPO or an acquisition. These findings are robust to propensity score-matching methods, as well as to clustering standard errors, and excluding U.S. observations, among other approaches.


private equity angel investor venture capital entrepreneurship law and finance culture 


Nous démontrons que le choix entre des investissements providentiels individuels désintermédiés et des investissements intermédiés en capital-investissement et en capital-risque dépend de différences juridiques, économiques et culturelles. Nous en trouvons des preuves en utilisant les données complètes de PitchBook sur plus de 5 000 investissements providentiels et 80 000 investissements en capitaux propres et en capital-risque dans 96 pays de 1977 à 2012. Les données indiquent également que les entreprises bénéficiaires financées par des investisseurs providentiels sont moins susceptibles de sortir avec succès via une introduction en bourse ou une acquisition. Ces résultats sont robustes aux méthodes d’appariement des scores de propension, ainsi qu’à la classification des erreurs standard et à l’exclusion des observations américaines, entre autres approches.


Documentamos la elección entre inversiones ángel sin intermediación y fondos privados con intermediarios e inversiones de capital de riesgo dependen de las diferencias legales, económicas y culturales. Encontramos evidencia de esto usando los datos completos de PitchBook en más de 5.000 ángeles y 80.000 inversiones privadas e inversiones de capital de riesgo en 96 países entre 1977 hasta el 2012. Los datos indican además que las empresas con inversión financiada por ángeles tienen menos probabilidades de salir exitosamente mediante ya sea una oferta pública inicial o una adquisición. Estos hallazgos son sólidos para los métodos de concordancia de puntaje de propensión, así como también para agrupar errores estándar y excluir las observaciones de los Estados Unidos, entre otros enfoques.


Documentamos que a escolha entre investimentos individuais sem intermediários de investidores anjo e investimentos intermediados de private equity e capital de risco depende de diferenças legais, econômicas e culturais. Encontramos evidências nesse sentido usando dados abrangentes do PitchBook sobre mais de 5.000 investimentos de anjo e 80.000 investimentos de private equity e de capital de risco em 96 países, de 1977 a 2012. Os dados indicam ainda que as empresas investidas financiadas por anjos têm menor probabilidade de sair com sucesso por meio de um IPO ou de uma aquisição. Esses achados são robustos aos métodos de propensity score matching, bem como aos erros padrão de agrupamento e exclusão de observações dos EUA, entre outras abordagens.


我们记录了非中介个人天使投资与中介私募股权和风险资本投资之间的选择取决于法律、经济和文化差异。我们使用PitchBook的在1977年至2012年期间在96个国家的5000多个天使和80,000个私募股权和风险投资的综合数据, 发现了这方面的证据。数据进一步显示, 由天使投资的被投资公司不太可能通过首次公开募股或收购成功退出。这些发现对于倾向得分匹配法并且对于集群标准误差和排除美国观察以及其它方法是稳健的。



We owe thanks to the Editors, Lemma Senbet and Alain Verbeke, two anonymous reviewers, Sofia Johan, Ming Dong, Moshe Milevsky, Yisong Tian, Josh Lerner, Nancy Ursel, Yelin Zhang, and the seminar participants at the Academy of International Business, the Canadian Law and Economics Association, the International Corporate Governance Society, the Financial Management Association, Catholic University of Milan, Kobe University, Macquarie University, University of Windsor and York University for helpful comments and suggestions. Douglas Cumming owes thanks to the Ontario Research Chairs Program of the Government of Ontario and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for financial support. Finally, we have benefitted from the excellent editorial work of

Supplementary material

41267_2018_178_MOESM1_ESM.docx (29 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 28 kb)


  1. Aernoudt, R. 1999. Business angels: Should they fly on their own wings? Venture Capital, 1(2): 187–195.Google Scholar
  2. ARI Halo Report. 2015. The Angel Resource Institute (ARI) at Willamette University 2015 Annual ARI Halo Report, a national survey of angel group investment activity sponsored by PitchBook. Accessed 12 June 2015.
  3. Avdeitchikova, S., Landstorom, H., & Mansson, N. 2008. What do we mean when we talk about business angels? Some reflections on definitions and sampling. Venture Capital, 10(4): 371–394.Google Scholar
  4. Barber, B. M., & Odean, T. 2000. Trading is hazardous to your wealth: The common stock investment performance of individual investors. Journal of Finance, 55(2): 773–806.Google Scholar
  5. Batjargal, B. 2007. Network triads: Transitivity, referral and venture capital decisions in China and Russia. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(6): 998–1012.Google Scholar
  6. Berry, H., Guillen, M., & Zhou, N. 2010. An institutional approach to cross-national distance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(9): 1460–1480.Google Scholar
  7. Beugelsdijk, S., Kostova, T., & Roth, K. 2017. An overview of Hofstede-inspired country-level culture research in international business since 2006. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(1): 30–47.Google Scholar
  8. Bonini, S., Capizzi, V., Valletta, M., & Zocchi, P., 2018. Groups, networks and the business angels’ investment practices. Journal of Corporate Finance.Google Scholar
  9. Boubakri, N., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C., & Saffar, W. 2016. National culture and privatization: the relationship between collectivism and residual state ownership. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(2): 170–190.Google Scholar
  10. Brouthers, K. 2002. Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(2): 203–221.Google Scholar
  11. Cantwell, J., Dunning, J., & Lundan, S. 2010. An evolutionary approach to understanding international business activity: The co-evolution of MNEs and the institutional environment. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4): 567–586.Google Scholar
  12. Chemmanur, T., & Chen, Z. 2014. VCs versus angels: The dynamics of private firm financing contracts. Review of Corporate Finance Studies, 3(1–2): 39–86.Google Scholar
  13. Choi, J., & Contractor, F. 2016. Choosing an appropriate alliance governance mode: The role of institutional, cultural and geographical distance in international research & development (R&D) collaborations. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(2): 210–232.Google Scholar
  14. Collewaert, V. 2012. Angel investors’ and entrepreneurs’ intentions to exit their ventures: A conflict perspective. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4): 753–779.Google Scholar
  15. Cumming, D., Filatotchev, I., Knill, A., Reeb, D., & Senbet, L. 2017. Law, finance, and the international mobility of corporate governance. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(2): 123–147.Google Scholar
  16. Cumming, D., Fleming, G., & Schwienbacher, A. 2006. Legality and venture capital exits. Journal of Corporate Finance, 12: 214–245.Google Scholar
  17. Cumming, D., & Johan, S. 2013. Venture capital and private equity contracting: An international perspective. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  18. Cumming, D., Johan, S., & Zhang, M. 2014. The economic impact of entrepreneurship: comparing international datasets. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 22(2): 162–178.Google Scholar
  19. Cumming, D., & Knill, A. 2012. Disclosure, venture capital, and entrepreneurial spawning. Journal of International Business Studies, 43: 563–590.Google Scholar
  20. Cumming, D., Knill, A., & Syvrud, K. 2016. Do international investors enhance private firm value? Evidence from venture capital. Journal of International Business Studies, 47: 347–373.Google Scholar
  21. Cumming, D., Schmidt, D., & Walz, U. 2010. Legality and venture capital governance around the world. Journal of Business Venturing, 25: 54–72.Google Scholar
  22. Cumming, D., & Walz, U. 2010. Private equity returns and disclosure around the world. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(4): 727–754.Google Scholar
  23. Dai, N., & Nahata, R. 2016. Cultural differences and cross-border venture capital syndication. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(2): 140–169.Google Scholar
  24. DeGennaro, R., & Dwyer, G. 2014. Expected returns to stock investments by angel investors in groups. European Financial Management, 20: 739–755.Google Scholar
  25. Devinney, T., & Hohberger, J. 2017. The past is prologue: Moving on from culture’s consequences. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(1): 48–62.Google Scholar
  26. Ding, Z., Sun, L., & Au, K. 2014. Angel investors’ selection criteria: A comparative institutional perspective. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 31(3): 705–731.Google Scholar
  27. Dutta, S., & Folta, T. 2016. A comparison of the effect of angels and venture capitalists on innovation and value creation. Journal of Business Venturing, 31(2016): 39–54.Google Scholar
  28. Edelman, L., Manolova, T., & Brush, C. 2017. Angel investing: A literature review. Foundations and Trends in Entrepreneurship, 13(4–5): 265–439.Google Scholar
  29. El Ghoul, S., Guedhami, O., & Kim, Y. 2017. Country-level institutions, firm value, and the role of corporate social responsibility initiatives. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(3): 360–385.Google Scholar
  30. Elitzur, R., & Gavious, A. 2003. Contracting, signaling, and moral hazard: A model of entrepreneurs, ‘angels’, and venture capitalists. Journal of Business Venturing, 18(6): 709–725.Google Scholar
  31. Forrester, R. C. 2014. Behavioral finance: Factors influencing angel investor decisions, Ph.D. Dissertation, Keenesaw State University.Google Scholar
  32. Franke, N., Gruber, M., Harhoff, D., & Henkel, J. 2006. What you are is what you like–similarity biases in venture capitalists’ evaluations of start-up teams. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(6): 802–826.Google Scholar
  33. Franke, N., Gruber, M., Harhoff, D., & Henkel, J. 2008. Venture capitalists’ evaluations of start-up teams: Trade-offs, knock-out criteria, and the impact of VC experience. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(3): 459–483.Google Scholar
  34. Freear, J., & Sohl, J. 2001. The characteristics and value-added contributions of private investors to entrepreneurial software ventures. Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 6: 84–103.Google Scholar
  35. Freear, J., Sohl, J., & Wetzel, W. 1992. The Investment attitudes, behavior and characteristics of high net worth individuals. Frontiers of entrepreneurships research: 374–387. Babson Park: Babson College.Google Scholar
  36. Freear, J., Sohl, J., & Wetzel, W. 1994. Angels and non-angels: Are there differences? Journal of Business Venturing, 9: 109–123.Google Scholar
  37. Freear, J., Sohl, J., & Wetzel, W. 1995. Angels: Personal investors in the venture capital market. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 7: 85–94.Google Scholar
  38. Goldfarb, B., Hoberg, G., Kirsch, D. & Triantis, A. 2007. Are angels preferred series a investors? Unpublished working paper, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  39. Gompers, P., & Lerner, J. 1999. An analysis of compensation in the US venture capital partnership. Journal of Financial Economics, 51(1): 3–44.Google Scholar
  40. Griffin, D., Guedhami, O., Kwok, C., Li, K., & Shao, L. 2017. National culture: The missing country-level determinant of corporate governance. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(6): 740–762.Google Scholar
  41. Grossman, G., & Helpman, E. 1991. Innovation and growth in the global economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Gu, Q., & Lu, J. W. 2010. Effects of inward investment on outward investment: The venture capital industry worldwide 1985–2007. Journal of International Business Studies, 42(2): 263–284.Google Scholar
  43. Guillén, M., & Capron, L. 2015. State capacity, minority shareholder protections, and stock market development. Administrative Science Quarterly, XX: 1–36.Google Scholar
  44. Guler, I., & Guillén, M. 2010. Institutions and the internationalization of US venture capital firms. Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2): 185–205.Google Scholar
  45. Guler, I., & McGahan, A. 2007. The more the merrier? Institutions and syndication size in international venture capital investments. Working paper. Boston University.Google Scholar
  46. Hayton, J., George, G., & Zahra, S. 2002. National culture and entrepreneurship: A review of behavioral research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(4): 33–52.Google Scholar
  47. Hellmann, T., Schure, P. & Vo, D. 2015. Angels and venture capitalists: substitutes or complements? Saïd Business School WP 2015-2. SSRN: Accessed 12 June 2015.
  48. Hellmann, T., & Thiele, V. 2015. Friends or foes? The interrelationship between angel and venture capital markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 115(3): 639–653.Google Scholar
  49. Henisz, W., & Swaminathan, A. 2008. Institutions and international business: Introduction. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(4): 537–539.Google Scholar
  50. Heukamp, F., Liechtenstein, H., & Wakeling, N. 2007. Do business angels alter the risk-return equation in early stage investments? Business angels as seen by venture capitalists in the German-speaking countries. Journal of Private Equity, 10(3): 67–86.Google Scholar
  51. Hochberg, Y., Ljungqvist, A., & Lu, Y. 2007. Whom you know matters: Venture capital networks and investment performance. Journal of Finance, 62(1): 251–301.Google Scholar
  52. Hofstede, G. 2010. The GLOBE debate: Back to relevance. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 1339–1346.Google Scholar
  53. Hsu, D. 2004. What do entrepreneurs pay for venture capital affiliation? Journal of Finance, 59(4): 1805–1844.Google Scholar
  54. Ibrahim, D. 2008. The (not so) puzzling behavior of angel investors. Vanderbilt Law Review, 61: 1405–1452.Google Scholar
  55. Iriyama, A., Li, Y., & Madhaven, R. 2010. Spikey globalization of venture capital investments: The influence of prior human networks. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4(2): 128–145.Google Scholar
  56. Johan, S. A., & Najar, D. 2010. The role of corruption, culture, and law in investment fund manager fees. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2): 147–172.Google Scholar
  57. Kerr, W., Lerner, J., & Schoar, A. 2014. The consequences of entrepreneurial finance: A regression discontinuity analysis. Review of Financial Studies, 27(1): 20–55.Google Scholar
  58. Kirkman, B., Lowe, K., & Gibson, C. 2017. A retrospective on culture’s consequences: The 35-year journey. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(1): 12–29.Google Scholar
  59. Lamoreaux, N., Levenstein, M. & Sokoloff, K. 2004. Financing invention during the second industrial revolution: Cleveland, Ohio, 1870–1920. Working paper series no. 10923, National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  60. Lee, P., & Wahal, S. 2004. Grandstanding, certification and the underpricing of venture capital backed IPOs. Journal of Financial Economics, 73: 375–407.Google Scholar
  61. Lele, P., & Siems, M. 2007. Shareholder protection: A leximetric approach. Journal of Corporate Law Studies, 7(1): 17–50.Google Scholar
  62. Lerner, J., & Schoar, A. 2005. Does legal enforcement affect financial transactions? The contractual channel in private equity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120: 223–246.Google Scholar
  63. Lerner, J., Schoar, A., Sokolinski, S. & Wilson, K. 2015. The globalization of angel investments: Evidence across countries. Harvard Business School working paper 16-072.Google Scholar
  64. Li, C., Shi, Y., Wu, C., Wu, Z., & Zheng, L. 2016. Policies of promoting entrepreneurship and Angel investment: Evidence from China. Emerging Markets Review, 29: 154–167.Google Scholar
  65. Li, Y., & Zahra, S. 2012. Formal institutions, culture, and venture capital activity: A cross-country analysis. Journal of Business Venturing, 27: 95–111.Google Scholar
  66. Madhavan, R., & Iriyama, A. 2009. Understanding global flows of venture capital: Human networks as the “carrier wave” of globalization. Journal of International Business Studies, 40: 1241–1259.Google Scholar
  67. Makhene, M. 2009. Alternative growth: The impact of emerging market private equity on economic development. Neumann Business Review Spring: 17–47.Google Scholar
  68. Mason, C., & Harrison, R. 1995. Closing the regional equity capita gap: The role of informal venture capital. Small Business Economics, 7: 153–172.Google Scholar
  69. Mason, C., & Harrison, R. 2002a. Is it worth it? The rates of return from informal venture capital investments. Journal of Business Venturing, 17: 211–236.Google Scholar
  70. Mason, C., & Harrison, R. 2002b. Barriers to investment in the informal VC sector. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 14: 271–287.Google Scholar
  71. Maxwell, A., Jeffrey, S., & Lévesque, M. 2011. Business angel early stage decision making. Journal of Business Venturing, 26: 212–225.Google Scholar
  72. Megginson, W., & Weiss, K. 1991. Venture capital certification in initial public offerings. Journal of Finance, 46: 879–903.Google Scholar
  73. Miletkov, M., Poulsen, A., & Wintoki, B. 2017. Foreign independent directors and the quality of legal institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(2): 267–292.Google Scholar
  74. Mingo, S., Morales, F., & Dau, L. 2018. The interplay of national distances and regional networks: Private equity investments in emerging markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 49(3): 371–386.Google Scholar
  75. Morrissette, S. 2007. A profile of angel investors. Journal of Private Equity Summer, 1: 52–67.Google Scholar
  76. Nahata, R. 2008. Venture capital reputation and investment performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 90(2): 127–151.Google Scholar
  77. Nahata, R., Hazaruka, S., & Tandon, K. 2014. Success in global venture capital investing: Do institutional and cultural differences matter? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 49(4): 1039–1070.Google Scholar
  78. OECD. 2011. Financing high-growth firms: The role of angel investors. Paris: OECD. Scholar
  79. Peng, M., Wang, D., & Jiang, Y. 2008. An institution-based view of international business strategy: A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(5): 920–936.Google Scholar
  80. Regner, P., & Edman, J. 2014. MNE institutional advantage: How subunits shape, transpose and evade host country institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 45(3): 275–302.Google Scholar
  81. Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. 2013. Mapping world cultures: Cluster formation, sources and implications. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(9): 867–897.Google Scholar
  82. Rosenbaum, P., & Rubin, D. 1983. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1): 41–55.Google Scholar
  83. Salter, S., & Niswander, F. 1995. Cultural influence on the development of accounting systems internationally: A test of Gray’s 1988 theory. Journal of International Business Studies, 26(2): 379–397.Google Scholar
  84. Scheela, W., & Jittrapanun, T. 2012. Do institutions matter for business angel investors in emerging asian markets. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 14(4): 289–308.Google Scholar
  85. Schwartz, S. 1999. A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1): 23–47.Google Scholar
  86. Schwartz, S. 2014. Rethinking the concept and measurement of societal culture in light of empirical findings. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(1): 5–13.Google Scholar
  87. Schwienbacher, A. 2007. A theoretical analysis of optimal financing strategies for different types of capital-constrained entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 22(6): 753–781.Google Scholar
  88. Schwienbacher, A. 2009. Financing commitments and investors incentives in entrepreneurial firms. Unpublished working paper.Google Scholar
  89. Shane, S. 1993. Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1): 59–73.Google Scholar
  90. Shane, S. 2005. Angel investing: A report prepared for the Federal Reserve Banks of Atlanta, Cleveland, Kansas City, Philadelphia and Richmond. SSRN: Accessed 12 June 2015.
  91. Shane, S. 2009. Fool’s gold? The truth behind angel investing in America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Shane, S. 2012. The importance of angel investing in financing the growth of entrepreneurial ventures. Quarterly Journal of Finance, 2(2): 1–42.Google Scholar
  93. Siems, M. 2008. Shareholder protection around the world. Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, 33: 111–148.Google Scholar
  94. Smit, H., Pennings, E., & van Bekkum, S. 2017. Real options and institutions. Journal of International Business Studies, 48(5): 620–644.Google Scholar
  95. Sohl, J. 2003. The U.S. angel and VC market: Recent trends and developments. The Journal of Private Equity, 6(2): 7–18.Google Scholar
  96. Stuart, T., Hoang, H., & Hybels, R. 1999. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 315–349.Google Scholar
  97. Sudek, R. 2006. Angel investment criteria. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 17: 89–103.Google Scholar
  98. Sudek, R., Mitteness C. & Baucus M. 2008. Betting on the horse or the jockey: The impact of expertise on angel investing. In Academy of management best paper proceedings.Google Scholar
  99. Timmons, J., & Bygrave, W. 1986. Venture capital’s role in financing innovation for economic growth. Journal of Business Venturing, 1(2): 161–176.Google Scholar
  100. Tung, R. L., & Verbeke, A. 2010. Beyond Hofstede and GLOBE: Improving the quality of cross-cultural research. Journal of International Business Studies, 41: 1259–1274.Google Scholar
  101. van Hoorn, A., & Maseland, R. 2016. How institutions matter for international business: Institutional distance effects vs institutional profile effects. Journal of International Business Studies, 47(3): 374–381.Google Scholar
  102. van Osnabrugge, M. 2000. A comparison of business angel and venture capitalist investment procedures: An agency theory-based analysis. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 2(2): 91–109.Google Scholar
  103. Wetzel, W. 1983. Angels and informal risk capital. Sloan Management Review, 24(4): 23–34.Google Scholar
  104. Wetzel, W. 1987. The informal venture capital market: Aspects of scale and market efficiency. Journal of Business Venturing, 2: 299–313.Google Scholar
  105. Wiltbank, R. 2005. Investment practices and outcomes of informal venture investors. Venture Capital: An International Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, 7(4): 343–357.Google Scholar
  106. Wiltbank, R. & Boeker, W. 2007. Returns to angel investors in groups. Ewing Marion Kauffman foundation and angel capital education foundation: 16.Google Scholar
  107. Wong, A. 2010. Angel capital: The other venture capital. In Venture capital: investment strategies, structures, and policies, Wiley, 2010: 71–110.Google Scholar
  108. Wong, A., Bhatia, M., & Freeman, Z. 2009. Angel finance: the other venture capital. Strategic Change, 18: 221–230.Google Scholar
  109. Zacharakis, A. L., McMullen, J. S., & Shepherd, D. A. 2007. Venture capitalists’ decision policies across three countries: An institutional theory perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(5): 691–708.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Academy of International Business 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of BusinessFlorida Atlantic UniversityBoca RatonUSA
  2. 2.Visiting Professor, Birmingham Business SchoolUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  3. 3.Odette School of Business - University of WindsorWindsorCanada

Personalised recommendations