Spin Off Firms and Gazelles

- High Growth Firms

from Universities and NRCPresentation to FPTT,

Toronto, 2005 May 31st

Denys G.T. Cooper,

Senior Advisor, Technology & International, IRAP

denys.cooper@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

2

Purpose

To assess the presence of Gazelles -

High Growth Firms as Spin Off Firms from:

• Universities,

• including a sub group –> N.C.E.s

• Networks Centres of Excellence

• N.R.C.

3

Definition of a UniversitySpin OFF and Spin OUT Firm

1. SPIN OFF Firm: created to COMMERCIALIZE

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY that is:

UNIVERSITY OWNED * & / OR

UNIVERSITY RESEARCHER OWNED2. SPIN OUT Firm: created by a GRADUATE that has some

links to the university – services, equipment etc, but NO University linked I.P. [Not part of this study]

3. IRAP Assisted University Spin Off FIRMReceived >$15,000 of IRAP Funding

within First 5 Years after Start Up

* Includes some Hospitals

4

Definition of Gazelles in Spin Off Firms - in Canada

1. Employment: • Double employment within 5 years during the 1990s+

and • Have at lest 20 employees within a 5 year period• Adopted in Statistics Canada / IRAP study

2. Sales: • Double sales with 5 years during the the 1990s and• Have at least $10 M sales within a 5 year period

5

Definition of Gazelles – High Growth Firm – Other studies mostly based on new firm formation and spin outs

Sweden considered:

* 3 sources of growth and

* grouped them into 7 types of growth.

Sweden dropped sales definition.

As also with Stats Canada 2003/4 study

Finland 50% growth in sales in each of 3 years.

Holland Looked at growth in urban versus rural areas

6

Why Gazelles - 2005

University Spin Offs

I.R.A.P.

GAZELLES.

N. R. C. .

N. C. E..

Jerome Doutriaux, Ottawa U. Denys Cooper, IRAP 1995 +

O.E.C.D.

16,000

7

University Spin Offs – International Comparison

Country Sample Size Period Covered Reference

US 4081 1980-2003 AUTM 2003

Canada 1100 1962-2003 Cooper / Niosi

France 320 1984-1991 Mustar

Holland 300 1980- 90s U. Twente

Australia 97 1984-1999 Thornburn

Finland 66 1980 –90s Min of Trade & Ind

U.K. 1499 1981-2002 Wright /Sainsbury

8

Spin Off Firms from Universities and SBDAs - Surveys

Stats Can Bordt and Read – 20032003 Survey = 880

NSERC Laciak ‘ Research Means Business’ 134 Case profiles

SBDAs 1998-2003 = 120 **

AUTM Universities 2002 = 667 65 newSlowing down? Peaked at 68 in 2001

** NRC has created 103 Spin Offs and Spin Outs as from 1970+?

9

Socio - Economic Contribution from Universities / Federal LabsOrders of Magnitude:

1. Training of Students Graduates higher salaries better Jobs for the economy and Taxes - Univs

2. Licence of technology to established firms products & services

Jobs, Sales and Taxes3. Staff as Consultants to industry products and services

Jobs, Sales and Taxes

4. University / SBDA Spin Off firms products and services

Jobs, Sales and Taxes

• The one most studied for its socio-economic contribution

10

803 University Spin Off Firms

* NRC / DC 2001 Nov.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1921

1964

1966

1969

1971

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

NonIRAP

IRAP

No.

of

Co.

11

Long Term Studies of Firms Gazelles - High Growth Firms

Country Researchers Period Sample # Gazelles

1. U. S. A. D. Birch, M.I.T. 1969+

2. Sweden P. Davidsson et al 1987 – 96

3. Canada Statistics Canada 1995 - 2000and D. Cooper, D. Guillemette NRC- IRAP

4. Holland Erik Stam 1999-2004

5. Finland Erkko Autio 1994 – 97 Stats. Canada Innovation Analysis Bulletin – # 88-003-XPE, 2004

Nov

12

Long Term Studies of Firms Gazelles - High Growth Firms

Country Researchers Period Sample # Gazelles

1. U. S. A. D. Birch, M.I.T. 1969+ 12 Million 2 -4%

2. Sweden P. Davidsson et al 1987 –96 11,748 1,66214%

3. Canada Statistics Canada 1995 - 2000 1 Million 16,005and D. Cooper, D. Guillemette NRC- IRAP 1 -4%

4. Holland Erik Stam 1999-2004 785,000 3,688 0.46%

5. Finland Erkko Autio 1994 – 97 127 K firms 410 0.3%

Stats. Canada Innovation Analysis Bulletin – # 88-003-XPE, 2004 Nov

13

Statistics Canada - 2004

1995 data 1,104,602 firms

1995 Deaths552,531

Matched records 552,071 firms

2000 data 1,159,528 records

2000 Births

607,457

Longitudinal Employment Analysis Program – Small Area File

16,005 Gazelles

14

Rank for 50 largest Canadian Cities by Size vs # of Gazelles

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Rank City 1 = large --> Small

# G

aze

lle

s

15

Average % Gazelles v. Size of City Rank 1--> 200

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 50 100 150 200 250

Rank Largest City --> Smaller City

% G

azel

les

16

High Growth in Technology Sectors (SIC)

Ref: Statistics Canada / NRC-IRAP

% Gazelles - High Growth by Technology Sectors

4.1%

0.2%

1.1%1.3%1.5%1.3%1.4%

0.9%

3.7%

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

P

rimar

y

In

dust

ries

Bas

eM

anuf

actu

ring

Sec

onda

ryM

anuf

actu

ring

Con

stru

ctio

n,

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Who

lesa

le &

Ret

ail T

rade

Ser

vice

s

Gov

ernm

ent

Ser

vice

s

Acc

omm

odat

ion,

& F

ood

Unk

now

n S

IC

0.0%

1.0%

2.0%

3.0%

4.0%

n (1995)

% High Growth

17

Gazelles for Spin Off FirmsUniversities, by Sector

Sector # Univ S/O # Gazelles %

Life Sciences 366 77 21%

Electr / Software 238 50 21%

Manuf / Engineering 79 11 14%

Other 119 15 13%

Total 803 153 ** 19%

** Excludes 8 para gazelles

18

Gazelles for Spin Off FirmsUniversities, IRAP vs Non-IRAP Assisted

Type Gazelles Gazelles with IRAP % IRAP

Gazelle 91 70 77%

Grow & Drop 62 * 41 66%

Para Gazelle - doubled in 5+ yrs 8 4 50%

Closed 1 0 0%

Total 161 103 64%

* Increased in 2004

19

Gazelles for Spin Off FirmsUniversities, By # Firms by Decades, for Gazelles for

Employment and Sales

#

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

Gaz E

Gaz Sales

20

Gazelles for Spin Off FirmsUniversities, # Gazelles by Company Size

Staff SizeFirm Size

#

Gaz Empl

65

40

31

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

< 50 50-99 100 - 499 500 +

Gaz Empl

21

University Spin Off Firms,

By Stage – 803 Spin Offs , 353 funded by IRAP

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Ongoing Taken Over OnExchange

Closed Inactive

Univ Spin Offs

IRAP

22

University Spin Off Firms vs GazellesBy Region – 803 Spin Offs , 344 funded by

IRAP - Gazelles GE and GS

23

NRC and Canadian Universities – Spin Off Firms (from 1996-2001*)

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

NRC

Toront

oUBC

Alber

ta

Mon

treal

Simon

Fra

ser

McG

ill

Que

en's

Weste

rn O

ntario

Calgar

y

Man

itoba

Conco

rdia

Sherb

rooke

Wate

rloo

McM

aste

r

VALUE FOR CANADAVALUE FOR CANADA

Benchmarked against Canadian universities, NRC is first with 49 spin-off companies formed over a period of six years.

(Source: Association of University Technology Managers)

* FY 2001 is the most recent Association of University Technology Managers Licensing Survey available.

24

103 NRC Spin Offs / Spin Outs

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1947-69

1970s 1980s 1990s 2000+.

Cummul

Total

Non IRAP

IRAP

25

91 NRC Spin Off Firms – by Socio-economic Impact

Jobs identified in 84 firms = 1447 *

Sales identified in 35 firms = $68 M

New Capital Raised in 37 firms = $360 M

IPO / RTO on Stock Exchanges 4 firms

* Latest year, excludes 5 spin in firms.

• One Closed NRC spin off peaked at 1,400 jobs O

26

GROWTH in SALES & JOBS from Canadian Univ Spin Offs

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1990 1995 1999 2002 2004

SALES $M

JOBS (x 10)

* NRC / DC 2005 Apr

For public firms S = $4.7 B of $6.1 B J= 18000 of 29400

27

Gazelles for Spin Off FirmsUniversities, NCEs and NRC

Gazelles Univ NCEs NRCSample base 803 95 91

Gazelles [ Jobs] 153 = 19 % 8 = 8 % 18 = 19 %

Jobs - 1995+ * 29,400 476 1400 **

# G E 91 8 11# G EDrop / GE Close 62 - 7

Sales - 1995+ $6.1 B $6 M $68 M

# G S 26 2 1# G SDrop 19 - -

• Latest year known,

28

Gazelles for Spin Off FirmsUniversities, NCEs and NRC

Lag Time by Sector 50 Employees

# Firms

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1-5. 6-10. 11-20. >20

Life Sci

Elect / Soft

Manuf

Other

Years

29

Gazelles for Spin Off FirmsUniversities

Lag Time by Sector $10 M / Yr Sales

# Firms

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1-5. 6-10. 11-20. >20

Life Sci

Elect / Soft

Manuf / Other

Years

30

II

84 Public University Spin Off Firms: With and Without IRAP

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Incorporation Year

Ye

ars

to

IPO

/ RT

O

Series1

Series2

Linear (Series2)

Linear (Series1)

31

Gazelles for Spin Off FirmsUniversities, NCEs and NRC

What do we now know about the creation and growth of Spin Off Firms?

We know where they are, in which cities, and in what sectors.

We know some data on certain inputs i.e. VC funds and Stock Exchange status of NCE and NRC spin offs.

We know Little about the ingredients or characteristics for their creation or growth growth.

32

Inputs to Gazelle Formation / Growth ? – Stats Can bases Universities 1 of 2Item Sample R 2 Gazelles Size # % .

1. Gazelles and # Universities per City 38 0.89 0.13

2. Gazelles and Research funding /City a.   Total R&D [$100s Million] 30 0.85 0.06 b.   Total University R&D $ 38 0.60 0.015 c.   Univ NSERC $ Av 96 & 97 31 0.15 0.030 d. Medical R&D $ to univ. & hospitals 14

0.023

33

Inputs to Gazelle Formation / Growth – Stats Can bases ?

2 of 2Item Sample Size R 2 Gazelles

# % 1. Gazelles per Fulltime

university students / City 82 0.93 0.020

2. Gazelles related to Univ. Spin Off Firms by City 441* 0.35

0.0001

3. Gazelles related to VC 1996 / City 23 0.90 0.096

4. “ “ “ “ 1999 & 2000 / City 24 0.1275. H.Q.P. by City 21 No Link

* University Spin Offs with info on jobs and still surviving

34

Gazelles for Spin Off FirmsUniversities, NCEs and NRC - Examples

Firm Sector G Empl 100+ G Sales $100 M+

Cytovax Bio YDalsa Elect Y YQLT Pharma Y YSciex Elect Y YSiGe [NRC] Elect YStem Cell Bio YVirtek Bio/ Manuf YZenon Enviro Y Y

35

IRAP SCOREBOARD803 University Spin Off Firms

• Closures Neutral

• Sectors Neutral

• Slow Growth Firms + Fewer

• Gazelles +

• 2004 Sales / Firm + [Few Bio so far]

• 2004 Jobs / Firm - Av 61 vs 71 jobs / Firm]

• Taken Over Firms + +

91 Public Companies + +

• Market Cap +• Sales ++ For Sales over $10M or $100 M• Jobs ++ For Jobs over 100 or 1000• R&D +• Investments – 2 Yr + Bio

36

Analysis of Gazelles in University Spin Off Firms 1 of 2

1. University Spin Off firms have a higher % of Gazelles • 18% versus 1 - 4% for Canadian industry as a whole • Davidsson in Sweden found 14% for all sectors

2. High Tech sector shows higher growth rates, in Canada• with little difference within key sectors. • US, Holland and Finland show higher levels in Non-

Tech areas

3. Manufacturing sector shows lower levels of Gazelles

4. Still got some Gazelles for larger firms

5. Average Time to takeover unrelated to:

• Gazelle or if firm received IRAP support,

37

Analysis of Gazelles in University Spin Off Firms 2 of 2

6. Low closure rates – only 1 Gazelle [ <1%] vs 20% for spin offs

- i.e. firms do not ever-extend themselves – as confirmed in Finland study

- Normally 50% of all firms close in 5 years

7. So far 58 university spin offs taken over [7% vs 20% for Gazelles]. - Most were IRAP funded.

8. There is considerable turbulence in employment levels • especially in 2003/4 - where Gazelles grew then dropped back but NOT

to original levels. • Similar results in Europe for spin outs

9. Sizeable lag time to get Sales, but R&D jobs grow e.g. in Bio.

10. Few GS Sales Gazelles in NCE and NRC spin offs• Still too early

38

Conclusion

1 This is the first study of its kind covering both Gazelles and University Spin Offs, as well as NRC Spin Offs.

2 Gazelles account for 75% of Sales and 70% of Jobs from University Spin Offs.

3 Based on available metrics from Statistics Canada data, most of the university parameters had little link to % of Gazelles.

4 More studies are needed to ascertain the reasons for gazelle

formation and growth, in both university spin offs and industry

overall. We now know where they are, but not how they get

there.

5 Need some social science studies?

• People issues, Networks for suppliers, Angel funding?

39

Dr. Denys Cooper, Senior Advisor, Technology & InternationalIndustrial Research Assistance ProgramNational Research Council Canada(613) 993-7620 fax (613) 952-1079 denys.cooper@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

40

Previous Studies on Benefits from Government Assistance Programs

Some studies show that their assisted firms perform better than non-assisted firms

e.g. US SBIR program: firms raise more VC funding

But many studies suffer from:• Sample size not being large enough• Inability to get well matched firm profiles with / without

funding• Insufficient ability to assess attribution to program

activity• Inability to discount the “filtering in” process

• i.e. select better firms that are more likely to succeed

41

Does this study of 803 University Spin Offs address the prior concerns?

• Are the Closure Rates the Same ? YES• Are IRAP funded Firms the Pick of the Crop ? NO

• IRAP funded 44% of 803 firms in this study

• Do we have Similar Sectors ? YES

• Do we have a Large enough Sample Size? YES

Note: University Spin Off Firms now tend to be in Higher Tech areas.

42

52 University Spin-Off Firms (Bio / Non-Bio) Incorporation Year to Initial Public Offering (IPO)

0

5

10

15

20

25

1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000

Bio Non-Bio

Years

to

IPO / RTO

Incorporation Year 6 firms were Reverse Take Overs (RTO)

and 1 firm closedNRC - DC/JCP

43

95 Network Centres of Excellence [NCE] Firms – 35 Firms with Jobs and IRAP

IRAP Firms withSupport Known Jobs # Jobs Ave /Firm

Yes 14 of 20 274 20

No 21 of 75 202 10--------- ---- ---

Total 35 of 95 476 14

13 other firms were known to have NO jobs25 Firms have received IRAP support

44

Industrial Research Assistance Program - IRAP

Established in 1961 by the National Research Council of Canada

Mission: To stimulate innovation in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)

Technology Assistance• 12,000 Clients per year• 2,900 Funded projects• 260 Industrial Technology Advisors in 90 Technical

Organizations

Budget $160 M / year - $106 M budgeted for projects in Firms

• Advice - 50% time of Advisors • Projects - $15 K, for decision in 2 weeks,

with larger projects $500 K –> $1.5 M

45

Canadian University IP Base

1. Canada does not have a Bayh-Dole Act

2. 50% of centres, universities own the IP• Balance mostly researcher owned, a few have joint

ownership

3. There is no major difference in outputs / impacts whether the IP is university or researcher owned except for the numbers of patents filed is higher if university owns the IP *

* Bruce Clayman, 2004, using AUTM data

46

Gazelles for Spin Off FirmsUniversities,

Effect of IRAP on Sales and Employment Growth – above ave of 44%

% Growth Leaps

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

100

200

300

400

500

700

>100

0

% IRAP SALES

% IRAP EMPL

47

95 Network Centres of Excellence [NCE] Firms

95 NCEs of all 1100 Spin Offs = 8.6% or created in the same time period of 1994-2004

= 14%

Job creation / firm for NCEs = 14vs

Similar sample from 803 Spin Offs = 14

48

95 Network Centres of Excellence [NCE] Firms – by Socio-economic Impact

Jobs identified in 35 firms = 476

Sales identified in 7 firms = $5.9 M

New VC Capital Raised in 22 firms = $445 M

IPO in Aspreva - Bio in BC 1 firm = $200 M

Strategic Alliances in 1 firm = $200 M

NCEs spin off technology also to other established firms

49

Gazelles - High Growth Firms in Canada

Ref: Statistics Canada / NRC-IRAP 2004

16005 Gazelles - High Growth Firms and % for 1995-2000

11464

2961952 556 72

1537716005

2.9

1.41.4

3.9

1.1

4.75.1

0

2000

6000

10000

14000

18000

1-19 ILU 20-49 50-99 100-499 500+ All Small (1-99)

Firm Size Categories – Labour Units

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

50

Credit and Thanks to

NRC - IRAP - Denise Guillemette- Corporate - K. Torkko - NRC data- Records Services for pulling hundreds of files- CISTI - K. Cook, A-P. Bruneau

Stats Can – S&T: - F. Anderson, M. Bordt, L. Earle, C. Read + +

NSERC - NCE - J-C Gavrel

51

Gazelles for Spin Off FirmsUniversities, NCEs and NRC

1. .