La concesión minera

Sub-RQ 2.5 was as follows: Is there a statistically significant relationship between SMEs’ reliance on crowdfunding and SMEs’ reliance on Round 3 funding?

4.3.5.1 Round 3 funding, all years

The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding was statistically significant, F(1, 998) = 46.140, p < .0001. The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding had an effect size of 0.044, indicating that roughly 4.4% of the variation in crowdfunding could be explained by variation in Round 3 funding. The regression equation for the relationship between crowdfunding and Round 3 funding was as follows:

Crowdfunding % = (Round 3 funding %)(-0.159) + 4.829

Thus, every additional percentage a company’s total finding from Round 3 funding reduced crowdfunding by roughly the amount indicated above. The results of adding technology company status to the regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding are presented in Table 63 below, which also includes the results of the original regression.

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 t statistics in parentheses N 100 100 (11.03) (14.43) _cons 3.952*** 2.954*** (15.38) 1.techtype 3.472*** (.) 0.techtype 0 (-0.62) (0.62) rii -0.0230 0.0126 cfund cfund (1) (2)

Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 177 Table 63: Regression of Crowdfunding in Round 3 Funding, No Covariate & Tech Covariate Models (Source: Author)

Thus, technology companies received 3.162% more of their funding as crowdfunding, and the effect of being a technology company on outsourcing was strong enough to displace Round 3 funding as a statistically significant predictor of crowdfunding as a % of total funding. The adjusted coefficient of determination of the regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding was 0.044, but this regression did not meet the assumption of heteroskedasticity of errors through the Breusch-Pagan / Cook- Weisberg test, χ2 _{= 271.300, p < .001. However, the same results were obtained}

through a RSE regression, so the findings reported above are statistically reliable.

4.3.5.2 Round 3 funding, 2008

The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2008 was statistically significant, F(1, 98) = 7.520, p = .0073. The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2008 had an effect size of 0.071, indicating that roughly 7.1% of the variation in crowdfunding in 2008 could be explained by variation in Round 3 funding in 2008. The regression equation for the relationship between crowdfunding and Round 3 funding in 2008 was as follows:

Crowdfunding %, 2008 = (Round 3 funding %, 2008)(-0.111) + 4.464

Thus, every additional percentage a company’s total finding from Round 3 funding in 2008 reduced crowdfunding received in 2008 by roughly the amount indicated above. The results of adding technology company status to the regression of crowdfunding in 2008 on Round 3 funding in 2008 are presented in Table 64, which also includes the results of the original regression.

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 t statistics in parentheses N 1000 1000 (30.87) (19.17) _cons 4.830*** 3.276*** (15.85) 1.techtype 3.162*** (.) 0.techtype 0 (-6.79) (-0.49) riii -0.160*** -0.0112 cfund cfund (1) (2)

Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 178 Table 64: Regression of Crowdfunding in 2008 on Round 3 Funding in 2008, Tech Covariate (Source: Author)

Thus, technology companies received 3.107% more of their funding as crowdfunding in 2008, and the effect of being a technology company on outsourcing was strong enough to displace Round 3 funding in 2008 as a statistically significant predictor of crowdfunding as a % of total funding in 2008.

4.3.5.3 Round 3 funding, 2009

The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2009 was statistically insignificant, F(1, 98) = 1.040, p = .3093. The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2009 had an effect size of 0.010, indicating that roughly 1% of the variation in crowdfunding in 2009 could be explained by variation in Round 3 funding in 2009. The regression equation for the relationship between crowdfunding and Round 3 funding in 2009 was as follows:

Crowdfunding %, 2009 = (Round 3 funding %, 2009)(-0.079) + 4.690

Thus, every additional percentage a company’s total finding from Round 3 funding in 2009 reduced crowdfunding received in 2009 by roughly the amount indicated above. The results of adding technology company status to the regression of crowdfunding in 2009 on Round 3 funding in 2009 are presented in Table 65, which also includes the results of the original regression.

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 t statistics in parentheses N 100 100 (17.17) (15.49) _cons 4.464*** 2.944*** (13.56) 1.techtype 3.107*** (.) 0.techtype 0 (-2.74) (1.07) riii -0.112** 0.0279 cfund cfund (1) (2)

Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 179 Table 65: Regression of Crowdfunding in 2009 on Round 3 Funding in 2009, Tech Covariate (Source: Author)

Thus, technology companies received 2.227% more of their funding as crowdfunding in 2009, but the effect of being a technology company on outsourcing did not change Round 3 funding in 2009 as a statistically insignificant predictor of crowdfunding as a % of total funding in 2009.

4.3.5.4 Round 3 funding, 2010

The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2010 was statistically significant, F(1, 98) = 8.850, p = .0037. The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2010 had an effect size of 0.082, indicating that roughly 8%.2 of the variation in crowdfunding in 2010 could be explained by variation in Round 3 funding in 2010. The regression equation for the relationship between crowdfunding and Round 3 funding in 2010 was as follows:

Crowdfunding %, 2010 = (Round 3 funding %, 2010)(-0.101) + 4.182

Thus, every additional percentage a company’s total finding from Round 3 funding in 2010 reduced crowdfunding received in 2010 by roughly the amount indicated above. The results of adding technology company status to the regression of crowdfunding in 2010 on Round 3 funding in 2010 are presented in Table 66, which also includes the results of the original regression.

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 t statistics in parentheses N 100 100 (9.33) (6.27) _cons 4.690*** 3.600*** (3.42) 1.techtype 2.227*** (.) 0.techtype 0 (-1.02) (0.33) riii -0.0793 0.0260 cfund cfund (1) (2)

Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 180 Table 66: Regression of Crowdfunding in 2010 on Round 3 Funding in 2010, Tech Covariate (Source: Author)

Thus, technology companies received 3.000% more of their funding as crowdfunding in 2010, and the effect of being a technology company on outsourcing was strong enough to displace Round 3 funding in 2010 as a statistically significant predictor of crowdfunding as a % of total funding in 2010.

4.3.5.5 Round 3 funding, 2011

The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2011 was statistically significant, F(1, 98) = 6.100, p = .015. The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2011 had an effect size of 0.058, indicating that roughly 5.8% of the variation in crowdfunding in 2011 could be explained by variation in Round 3 funding in 2011. The regression equation for the relationship between crowdfunding and Round 3 funding in 2011 was as follows:

Crowdfunding %, 2011 = (Round 3 funding %, 2011)(-0.378) + 6.421

Thus, every additional percentage a company’s total finding from Round 3 funding in 2011 reduced crowdfunding received in 2011 by roughly the amount indicated above. The results of adding technology company status to the regression of crowdfunding in 2011 on Round 3 funding in 2011 are presented in Table 67, which also includes the results of the original regression.

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 t statistics in parentheses N 100 100 (16.80) (15.49) _cons 4.183*** 2.857*** (12.80) 1.techtype 3.000*** (.) 0.techtype 0 (-2.97) (0.97) riii -0.101** 0.0222 cfund cfund (1) (2)

Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 181 Table 67: Regression of Crowdfunding in 2011 on Round 3 Funding in 2011, Tech Covariate (Source: Author)

Thus, technology companies received 5.034% more of their funding as crowdfunding in 2011, and the effect of being a technology company on outsourcing was strong enough to displace Round 3 funding in 2011 as a statistically significant predictor of crowdfunding as a % of total funding in 2011.

4.3.5.6 Round 3 funding, 2012

The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2012 was statistically significant, F(1, 98) = 9.960, p = .0021. The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2012 had an effect size of 0.092, indicating that roughly 9.2% of the variation in crowdfunding in 2012 could be explained by variation in Round 3 funding in 2012. The regression equation for the relationship between crowdfunding and Round 3 funding in 2012 was as follows:

Crowdfunding %, 2012 = (Round 3 funding %, 2012)(-0.157) + 4.722

Thus, every additional percentage a company’s total finding from Round 3 funding in 2012 reduced crowdfunding received in 2012 by roughly the amount indicated above. The results of adding technology company status to the regression of crowdfunding in 2012 on Round 3 funding in 2012 are presented in Table 68, which also includes the results of the original regression.

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 t statistics in parentheses N 100 100 (6.29) (3.14) _cons 6.421*** 3.801** (3.58) 1.techtype 5.034*** (.) 0.techtype 0 (-2.47) (-0.63) riii -0.379* -0.103 cfund cfund (1) (2)

Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 182 Table 68: Regression of Crowdfunding in 2012 on Round 3 Funding in 2012, Tech Covariate (Source: Author)

Thus, technology companies received 3.471% more of their funding as crowdfunding in 2012, and the effect of being a technology company on outsourcing was strong enough to displace Round 3 funding in 2012 as a statistically significant predictor of crowdfunding as a % of total funding in 2012.

4.3.5.7 Round 3 funding, 2013

The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2013 was statistically significant, F(1, 98) = 14.410, p = .0003. The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2013 had an effect size of 0.128, indicating that roughly 13% of the variation in crowdfunding in 2013 could be explained by variation in Round 3 funding in 2013. The regression equation for the relationship between crowdfunding and Round 3 funding in 2013 was as follows:

Crowdfunding %, 2013 = (Round 3 funding %, 2013)(-0.133) + 4.407

Thus, every additional percentage a company’s total finding from Round 3 funding in 2013 reduced crowdfunding received in 2013 by roughly the amount indicated above. The results of adding technology company status to the regression of crowdfunding in 2013 on Round 3 funding in 2013 are presented in Table 69, which also includes the results of the original regression.

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 t statistics in parentheses N 100 100 (15.26) (11.91) _cons 4.722*** 2.846*** (12.86) 1.techtype 3.471*** (.) 0.techtype 0 (-3.16) (0.81) riii -0.157** 0.0271 cfund cfund (1) (2)

Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 183 Table 69: Regression of Crowdfunding in 2013 on Round 3 Funding in 2013, Tech Covariate (Source: Author)

Thus, technology companies received 2.174% more of their funding as crowdfunding in 2013, and the effect of being a technology company on outsourcing was strong enough to displace Round 3 funding in 2013 as a statistically significant predictor of crowdfunding as a % of total funding in 2013.

4.3.5.8 Round 3 funding, 2014

The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2014 was statistically insignificant, F(1, 98) = 1.800, p = .1832. The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2014 had an effect size of 0.079, indicating that roughly 8% of the variation in crowdfunding in 2014 could be explained by variation in Round 3 funding in 2014. The regression equation for the relationship between crowdfunding and Round 3 funding in 2014 was as follows:

Crowdfunding %, 2014 = (Round 3 funding %, 2014)(-0.134) + 4.806

Thus, every additional percentage a company’s total finding from Round 3 funding in 2014 reduced crowdfunding received in 2014 by roughly the amount indicated above. The results of adding technology company status to the regression of crowdfunding in 2014 on Round 3 funding in 2014 are presented in Table 70, which also includes the results of the original regression.

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 t statistics in parentheses N 100 100 (18.62) (15.36) _cons 4.408*** 3.292*** (9.04) 1.techtype 2.174*** (.) 0.techtype 0 (-3.80) (-0.91) riii -0.134*** -0.0261 cfund cfund (1) (2)

Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 184 Table 70: Regression of Crowdfunding in 2014 on Round 3 Funding in 2014, Tech Covariate (Source: Author)

Thus, technology companies received 4.274% more of their funding as crowdfunding in 2014, but the effect of being a technology company on outsourcing did not change Round 3 funding in 2014 as a statistically insignificant predictor of crowdfunding as a % of total funding in 2014.

4.3.5.9 Round 3 funding, 2015

The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2015 was statistically significant, F(1, 98) = 8.540, p = .0043. The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2015 had an effect size of 0.080, indicating that roughly 8% of the variation in crowdfunding in 2015 could be explained by variation in Round 3 funding in 2015. The regression equation for the relationship between crowdfunding and Round 3 funding in 2015 was as follows:

Crowdfunding %, 2015 = (Round 3 funding %, 2015)(-0.172) + 4.905

Thus, every additional percentage a company’s total finding from Round 3 funding in 2015 reduced crowdfunding received in 2015 by roughly the amount indicated above. The results of adding technology company status to the regression of crowdfunding in 2015 on Round 3 funding in 2015 are presented in Table 71, which also includes the results of the original regression.

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 t statistics in parentheses N 100 100 (6.91) (4.11) _cons 4.806*** 2.998*** (4.85) 1.techtype 4.274*** (.) 0.techtype 0 (-1.34) (0.16) riii -0.134 0.0155 cfund cfund (1) (2)

Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 185 Table 71: Regression of Crowdfunding in 2015 on Round 3 Funding in 2015, Tech Covariate (Source: Author)

Thus, technology companies received 3.279% more of their funding as crowdfunding in 2015, and the effect of being a technology company on outsourcing was strong enough to displace Round 3 funding in 2015 as a statistically significant predictor of crowdfunding as a % of total funding in 2015.

4.3.5.10 Round 3 funding, 2016

The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2016 was statistically significant, F(1, 98) = 6.130, p = .015. The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2016 had an effect size of 0.058, indicating that roughly 6% of the variation in crowdfunding in 2016 could be explained by variation in Round 3 funding in 2016. The regression equation for the relationship between crowdfunding and Round 3 funding in 2016 was as follows:

Crowdfunding %, 2016 = (Round 3 funding %, 2016)(-0.183) + 5.054

Thus, every additional percentage a company’s total finding from Round 3 funding in 2016 reduced crowdfunding received in 2016 by roughly the amount indicated above. The results of adding technology company status to the regression of crowdfunding in 2016 on Round 3 funding in 2016 are presented in Table 72, which also includes the results of the original regression.

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 t statistics in parentheses N 100 100 (13.47) (9.27) _cons 4.905*** 3.199*** (8.38) 1.techtype 3.279*** (.) 0.techtype 0 (-2.92) (-0.11) riii -0.173** -0.00520 cfund cfund (1) (2)

Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 186 Table 72: Regression of Crowdfunding in 2016 on Round 3 Funding in 2016, Tech Covariate (Source: Author)

Thus, technology companies received 1.699% more of their funding as crowdfunding in 2016, and the effect of being a technology company on outsourcing was strong enough to displace Round 3 funding in 2016 as a statistically significant predictor of crowdfunding as a % of total funding in 2016.

4.3.5.11 Round 3 funding, 2017

The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2017 was statistically significant, F(1, 98) = 12.440, p = .0006. The regression of crowdfunding on Round 3 funding in 2017 had an effect size of 0.113, indicating that roughly 11.3% of the variation in crowdfunding in 2017 could be explained by variation in Round 3 funding in 2017. The regression equation for the relationship between crowdfunding and Round 3 funding in 2017 was as follows:

Crowdfunding %, 2017 = (Round 3 funding %, 2017)(-0.164) + 4.750

Thus, every additional percentage a company’s total finding from Round 3 funding in 2017 reduced crowdfunding received in 2017 by roughly the amount indicated above. The results of adding technology company status to the regression of crowdfunding in 2017 on Round 3 funding in 2017 are presented in Table 73, which also includes the results of the original regression.

* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001 t statistics in parentheses N 100 100 (10.27) (7.33) _cons 5.054*** 4.255*** (2.45) 1.techtype 1.699* (.) 0.techtype 0 (-2.48) (-1.39) riii -0.184* -0.110 cfund cfund (1) (2)

Ph.D. Research - Doctoral Research Programme in Business Page 187 Table 73: Regression of Crowdfunding in 2017 on Round 3 Funding in 2017, Tech Covariate (Source: Author)

Thus, technology companies received 3.531% more of their funding as crowdfunding in 2017, and the effect of being a technology company on outsourcing was strong enough to displace Round 3 funding in 2017 as a statistically significant predictor of crowdfunding as a % of total funding in 2017.