They spend all of their money and cannot recover it, so there is a cautious mentality when the concept of WEB 2.0 is born. Many investors flatly refuse to invest in WEB 2.0, some investors ask the question "how to get money from WEB 2.0 services?". In the past few years, many WEB 2.0 companies have had certain successes, such as You-tube, E-bay or Alibaba.com ... forcing investors to consider the WEB 2.0 model from a different perspective. In addition, WEB 2.0 is a market worth more than 20 billion USD in 2010 and it is gradually taking away the "pie" from the press and media.
Currently, VCs tend to focus more capital on companies in the start-up phase, funding for businesses in the seed/incubation phase has increased significantly. Investment funds in start-up businesses are increasing because these companies are the ones that are really "thirsty for capital" and need the most funding. Although, when investing in new businesses, the risks are very high, requiring a lot of management support and consulting from the investment fund, but when the business is successful, issuing shares to the public IPO, the profit that the VC fund receives is not small, as well as the reputation that the fund will have for that successful project. In fact, this trend is sometimes not only affected by profits but it is also the philosophy of VCs.
Large countries are increasingly expanding their venture capital activities to other countries. Venture capital in countries such as the US, UK, Germany, Japan, etc. is increasingly investing abroad. It can be seen that venture capital investors in these countries have seen the investment potential from foreign markets.
Developing countries with stable political institutions and economic environments are increasingly attracting domestic and foreign FDI capital. Countries such as China, India, and Singapore are countries with stable economies and high economic growth rates that have attracted a large amount of capital from investors in recent years. At the same time, governments of these countries have also built legal corridors for FDI activities to be carried out, as well as preferential tax measures to encourage investment.
II. DTMH ACTIVITIES IN SOME COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD
1. FDI activities in the US
1.1. The formation and development of FDI activities in the US
1.1.1 Formation and development
The United States is the leading country in the field of venture capital, the formation of the US venture capital industry is also the formation of this activity in the world. The development of venture capital activities has gone through ups and downs along with the US and world economies. Through research and study, it is possible to divide that development into two main stages:
Phase 1: From formation to 1990
Slow growth in the 1960s to 1980s, strong growth in 1983 : Until the 1970s, there was very little venture capital invested in the US industry. During that period, VCs' portfolios were mainly focused on start-up and expansion stage companies. These were companies operating in the fields of electronics, medicine, and data transmission technology. Because this was the early period of VC activity, the legal documents issued were not yet complete and specific enough to create a legal corridor for VC activities to develop. In 1974, when the stock market fell into recession, it directly affected transactions in the market, which was a reduction in investment transactions in company stocks, derivatives, etc. In that general situation, venture capital funds had to limit their investment activities, because the stock market was the main capital exit channel for venture capitalists. 1978 was the most successful year of the venture capital industry up to that time, the industry grew to about 750,000 dollars. Until the following years, the annual venture capital capital increased 10 times.
Also in 1978, investment provisions of the Employee Retirement Security Act (ERISA) allowed pension funds to invest a portion of their assets in private equity, including in M&A companies, while applying a lower tax rate on capital gains than before. 1983 saw the US stock market grow strongly, for the first time.
In history, there have been more than 100 companies that issued their first IPO shares on the stock market. This is also the year that many of today's large venture capital companies were established. The period from 1980 to 1983 witnessed the success of venture capital companies that are currently doing very well, such as Apple Computer, Compaq, Lotus Development, Microsoft, Oracle System, and 3Com. However, in the years 1987 to 1991, the flow of venture capital continuously decreased, mainly due to the influence of the saturation of many IPO plans, the lack of experience of fund managers... which caused venture capital activities to stagnate, and it was very difficult for venture capital companies to succeed with their investment projects.
Phase 2: The Dotcom Boom from 1990 to Today.
The late 90s marked a change in both the scale and number of M&A companies in the US : It can be seen that the development of M&A activities is directly affected by the fluctuations of the stock market. Whenever the stock market is performing well, this is the best opportunity for M&A companies to withdraw capital from the companies they invested in through large IPOs. The late 90s were typical years that proved this statement. When trading sessions on the stock market continuously increased to the ceiling, there were a series of companies receiving M&A capital registered and listed on the market, bringing M&A companies large profits. Therefore, it can be said that the second half of the 90s witnessed a dramatic change in the market. Statistics show that capital flow for FDI increased 25 times compared to before. From 1995 to 1998, more than 600 companies receiving FDI capital conducted initial public offerings (IPOs).
However, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the impact of the recession in Asian countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, etc. affected the world economy, including the US. In 2000, the NASDAQ index (NASDAQ secondary stock market) declined, forcing FDI companies to cut investment capital. According to statistics, in 2000, there was 105.035 billion USD (invested in 7905 companies), but by 2001, this number had decreased by more than half to only 40.617 billion USD (invested in 4478 companies). Then there was an 80% decline in capital flow in 2002, along with the adverse impacts of the
In fact, by 2003 many companies and funds had to abandon investments in companies they had invested in a few years earlier, and furthermore, venture capitalists were trying to reduce their commitments to VCs in terms of the capital they provided to the funds.
1.1.2 FDI activities in the US in recent years
Venture capital activities play a very important role in the development of the US economy, especially in high-tech sectors. According to statistics from the US Venture Capital Association (NVCA), while venture capital only accounts for about 0.2% of GDP, from 1970 to 2005, companies receiving venture capital attracted more than 10 million jobs, and profits reached 2,100 billion USD in 2005. The number of employees in these companies accounts for about 9% of the total workforce working in the private sector, and accounted for 16.6% of the US GDP in 2005 .
According to the Money Tree Report released by the international auditing group PriceWaterHouseCoopers, and the US Venture Capital Association NVCA, based on data from Thomson Financial Group, in 2007, venture capitalists invested $29.4 billion in 3,813 companies, the highest level of investment since 2001. Compared to 2006, the investment value increased by 10.8%, and the number of companies receiving investment capital increased by 5.04%.
Chart 3: Total capital & number of FDI projects from 2001 - Quarter 1, 2008
16 Source: Global trends in venture capital 2007 survey – Deloitte&Touche USA LLP.
Total investment capital (USD million)
50,000
5000
4478
40,000
30,000
20,000
3630
3813
3092
2932
3082
3138
4000
3000
2000
21,982 19,735 22,462 22,998 26,549 29,406
10,000
40,617
922
7,142
1000
0.000
0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Quarter
1/2008
Source: Full – year 2007 US report – www.pwcmoneytree.com According to statistics, FDI activities increased sharply in 2007, contributed by
The increase was mainly due to a surge in investment in “Internet-specific” companies, especially record investment in clean technology and life sciences. The report also found that seed and early stage companies received more funding than in previous years, but the biggest increase was in later stage companies. Also in 2007, first-time financing for companies reached its highest level since 2001 as VCs bet on companies across a wide range of industries. Specifically: The breakdown of the sectors and industries that received VC funding in 2007 is as follows:
a. Investment activities in economic sectors and fields:
The life sciences sector, which includes biotechnology and pharmaceuticals, held the record for venture capital in 2007, with 862 deals worth a total of $9.1 billion, compared to 768 deals worth $7.6 billion in 2006. While both industries saw double-digit growth, the most impressive growth was in pharmaceuticals, which grew 40% in 2007, with 385 deals worth $3.9 billion. In 2007, the life sciences sector maintained its number one position, attracting 31% of all venture capital in the market.
FDI into companies in the software industry in 2007 also increased with 5.3 billion USD invested in 905 deals, compared to 5.1 billion USD invested in 920 deals in 2006. Although the growth rate is not high, this is an industry that maintains stability in investment level and number of transactions. If we consider the individual industries receiving FDI capital, this is the leading industry in attracting investment in both value and number of deals, surpassing the biotechnology industry.
The cleantech sector, which represented two of the five largest deals of the year, grew significantly in 2007 with $2.2 billion invested in 201 companies. This represents a 46% increase in total investment capital and 57% increase in the number of deals compared to 2006, when only 128 companies received VC funding, and a total value of just $1.5 billion. The cleantech sector has surpassed traditional industries including energy, waste and recycling, conservation and energy supply.
“Internet-specific” companies received $4.6 billion in investment in 748 companies in 2007, an increase of 12% and 8% respectively over 2006 when they received $4.1 billion in investment in 691 companies. “Internet-specific” companies are those whose business models rely primarily on the Internet. They accounted for 16% of venture capital in 2007, the same level as in 2006.
FDI in the media and entertainment industry also attracted a significant amount of capital in 2007, with $1.9 billion invested in 340 companies compared to $1.7 billion invested in 318 companies in 2006. Other industries that also saw growth in investment attraction included business services and products, financial services, IT services, and distribution/retail.
However, FDI into industries such as healthcare, electronics/instrumentation, and semiconductors declined in 2007. In particular, telecommunications companies received only $2.1 billion in 290 deals in 2007, down from $2.6 billion invested in 301 deals in 2006.
Table 5: FDI activities in sectors of the US economy in 2006-2007
Branch
Number of deals | Investment value (million USD) | |||
2006 | 2007 | 2006 | 2007 | |
Software | 920 | 905 | 5133 | 5273 |
Biotechnology | 453 | 477 | 4763 | 5215 |
Medical equipment and instruments | 333 | 385 | 2793 | 3898 |
Energy/industrial equipment | 198 | 286 | 1870 | 2696 |
Post and telecommunications | 301 | 290 | 2594 | 2143 |
Entertainment and media | 318 | 340 | 1702 | 1877 |
Semiconductor devices | 250 | 210 | 2143 | 1848 |
IT Services | 171 | 202 | 1087 | 1298 |
Systems and equipment | 135 | 124 | 1066 | 1252 |
Business services and products | 113 | 129 | 626 | 840 |
Electronic tools/equipment | 95 | 91 | 689 | 656 |
Computers and peripherals | 73 | 66 | 497 | 580 |
Financial Services | 79 | 88 | 438 | 566 |
Consumer products and services | 86 | 102 | 500 | 468 |
Distribution/Retail | 44 | 58 | 217 | 415 |
Health care services | 59 | 49 | 425 | 368 |
Other types | 2 | 11 | 8 | 12 |
Total | 3630 | 3813 | 26551 | 29405 |
Maybe you are interested!
-
Experience in Limiting Risks in Banking Credit Activities of Some Countries in the World -
Identify Rating Levels and Rating Scales
zt2i3t4l5ee
zt2a3gstourism,quan lan,quang ninh,ecology,ecotourism,minh chau,van don,geography,geographical basis,tourism development,science
zt2a3ge
zc2o3n4t5e6n7ts
of the islanders. Therefore, this indicator will be divided into two sub-indicators:
a1. Natural tourism attractiveness a2. Cultural tourism attractiveness
b. Tourist capacity
The two island communes in Quan Lan have different capacities to receive tourists. Minh Chau Commune is home to many standard hotels and resorts, attracting high-income domestic and international tourists. Meanwhile, Quan Lan Commune has many motels mainly built and operated by local people, so the scale and quality are not high, and will be suitable for ordinary tourists such as students.
c. Time of exploitation of Quan Lan Island Commune:
Quan Lan tourism is seasonal due to weather and climate conditions and festivals only take place on certain days of the year, specifically in spring. In Quan Lan commune, the period from April to June and from September to November is considered the best time to visit Quan Lan because the cultural tourism activities are mainly associated with festivals taking place during this time.
Minh Chau island commune:
Tourism exploitation time is all year round, because this is a place with a number of tourist attractions with diverse ecosystems such as Bai Tu Long National Park Research Center, Tram forest, Turtle Laying Beach, so besides coming to the beach for tourism and vacation in the summer, Minh Chau will attract research groups to come for tourism combined with research at other times of the year.
d. Sustainability
The sustainability of ecotourism sites in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes depends on the sensitivity of the ecosystems to climate changes.
landscape. In general, these tourist destinations have a fairly high level of sustainability, because they are natural ecosystems, planned and protected. However, if a large number of tourists gather at certain times, it can exceed the carrying capacity and affect the sustainability of the environment (polluted beaches, damaged trees, animals moving away from their habitats, etc.), then the sustainability of the above ecosystems (natural ecosystems, human ecosystems) will also be affected and become less sustainable.
e. Location and accessibility
Both island communes have ports to take tourists to visit from Van Don wharf:
- Quan Lan – Van Don traffic route:
Phuc Thinh – Viet Anh high-speed boat and Quang Minh high-speed boat, depart at 8am and 2pm from Van Don to Quan Lan, and at 7am and 1pm from Quan Lan to Van Don. There are also wooden boats departing at 7am and 1pm.
- Van Don - Minh Chau traffic route:
Chung Huong high-speed train, Minh Chau train, morning 7:30 and afternoon 13:30 from Van Don to Minh Chau, morning 6:30 and afternoon 13:00 from Minh Chau to Van Don.
f. Infrastructure
Despite receiving investment attention, the issue of infrastructure and technical facilities for tourism on Quan Lan Island is still an issue that needs to be resolved because it has a direct impact on the implementation of ecotourism activities. The minimum conditions for serving tourists such as accommodation, electricity, water, communication, especially medical services, and security work need to be given top priority. Ecotourism spots in Minh Chau commune are assessed to have better infrastructure and technical facilities for tourism because there are quite complete and synchronous conditions for serving tourists, meeting many needs of domestic and foreign tourists.
3.2.1.4. Determine assessment levels and assessment scales
Corresponding to the levels of each criterion, the index is the score of those levels in the order of 4, 3, 2, 1 decreasing according to the standard of each level: very attractive (4), attractive (3), average (2), less attractive (1).
3.2.1.5. Determining the coefficients of the criteria
For the assessment of DLST in the two communes of Quan Lan and Minh Chau islands, the students added evaluation coefficients to show the importance of the criteria and indicators as follows:
Coefficient 3 with criteria: Attractiveness, Exploitation time. These are the 2 most important criteria for attracting tourists to tourism in general and eco-tourism in particular, so they have the highest coefficient.
Coefficient 2 with criteria: Capacity, Infrastructure, Location and accessibility . Because the assessment area is an island commune of Van Don district, the above criteria are selected by the author with appropriate coefficients at the average level.
Coefficient 1 with criteria: Sustainability. Quan Lan has natural and human-made ecotourism sites, with high biodiversity and little impact from local human factors. Most of the ecotourism sites are still wild, so they are highly sustainable.
3.2.1.6. Results of DLST assessment on Quan Lan island
a. Assessment of the potential for natural tourism development
For Minh Chau commune:
+ Natural tourism attractiveness is determined to be very attractive (4 points) and the most important coefficient (coefficient 3), so the score of the Attractiveness criterion is 4 x 3 = 12.
+ Capacity is determined as average (2 points) and the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of Capacity criterion is 2 x 2 = 4.
+ Exploitation time is long (4 points), the most important coefficient (coefficient 3) so the score of the Exploitation time criterion is 4 x 3 = 12.
+ Sustainability is determined as sustainable (4 points), the important coefficient is the average coefficient (coefficient 1), so the score of the Sustainability criterion is 4 x 1 = 4 points
+ Location and accessibility are determined to be quite favorable (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), the criterion score is 2 x 2 = 4 points.
+ Infrastructure is assessed as good (3 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Infrastructure criterion is 3 x 2 = 6 points.
The total score for evaluating DLST in Minh Chau commune according to 6 evaluation criteria is determined as: 12 + 4 + 12 + 4 + 4 + 6 = 42 points
Similar assessment for Quan Lan commune, we have the following table:
Table 3.3: Assessment of the potential for natural ecotourism development in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes
Attractiveness of self-tourismof course
Capacity
Mining time
Sustainability
Location and accessibility
Infrastructure
Result
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
CommuneMinh Chau
12
12
4
8
12
12
4
4
4
8
6
8
42/52
Quan CommuneLan
6
12
6
8
9
12
4
4
4
8
4
8
33/52
b. Assessment of the potential for humanistic tourism development
For Quan Lan commune:
+ The attractiveness of human tourism is determined to be very attractive (4 points) and the most important coefficient (coefficient 3), so the score of the Attractiveness criterion is 4 x 3 = 12.
+ Capacity is determined to be large (3 points) and the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Capacity criterion is 3 x 2 = 6.
+ Mining time is average (3 points), the most important coefficient (coefficient 3) so the score of the Mining time criterion is 3 x 3 = 9.
+ Sustainability is determined as sustainable (4 points), the important coefficient is the average coefficient (coefficient 1), so the score of the Sustainability criterion is 4 x 1 = 4 points.
+ Location and accessibility are determined to be quite favorable (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), the criterion score is 2 x 2 = 4 points.
+ Infrastructure is rated as average (2 points), the coefficient is quite important (coefficient 2), then the score of the Infrastructure criterion is 2 x 2 = 4 points.
The total score for evaluating DLST in Quan Lan commune according to 6 evaluation criteria is determined as: 12 + 6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 4 = 36 points.
Similar assessment with Minh Chau commune we have the following table:
Table 3.4: Assessment of the potential for developing humanistic eco-tourism in Quan Lan and Minh Chau communes
Attractiveness of human tourismliterature
Capacity
Mining time
Sustainability
Location and accessibility
Infrastructure
Result
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Point
DarkMulti
Quan CommuneLan
12
12
6
8
9
12
4
4
4
8
4
8
39/52
Minh CommuneChau
6
12
4
8
12
12
4
4
4
8
6
8
36/52
Basically, both Minh Chau and Quan Lan localities have quite favorable conditions for developing ecotourism. However, Quan Lan commune has more advantages to develop ecotourism in a humanistic direction, because this is an area with many famous historical relics such as Quan Lan Communal House, Quan Lan Pagoda, Temple worshiping the hero Tran Khanh Du, ... along with local festivals held annually such as the wind praying ceremony (March 15), Quan Lan festival (June 10-19); due to its location near the port and long exploitation time, the beaches in Quan Lan commune (especially Quan Lan beach) are no longer hygienic and clean to ensure the needs of tourists coming to relax and swim; this is also an area with many beautiful landscapes such as Got Beo wind pass, Ong Phong head, Voi Voi cave, but the ability to access these places is still very limited (dirt hill road, lots of gravel and rocks), especially during rainy and windy times; In addition, other natural resources such as mangrove forests and sea worms have not been really exploited for tourism purposes and ecotourism development. On the contrary, Minh Chau commune has more advantages in developing ecotourism in the direction of natural tourism, this is an area with diverse ecosystems such as at Rua De Beach, Bai Tu Long National Park Conservation Center...; Minh Chau beach is highly appreciated for its natural beauty and cleanliness, ranked in the top ten most beautiful beaches in Vietnam; Minh Chau commune is also home to Tram forest with a large area and a purity of up to 90%, suitable for building bridges through the forest (a very effective type of natural ecotourism currently applied by many countries) for tourists to sightsee, as well as for the purpose of studying and researching.
Figure 3.1: Thenmala Forest Bridge (India) Source: https://www.thenmalaecotourism.com/(August 21, 2019)
3.2.2. Using SWOT matrix to evaluate Quan Lan island tourism
General assessment of current tourism activities of Quan Lan island is shown through the following SWOT matrix:
Table 3.5: SWOT matrix evaluating tourism activities on Quan Lan island
Internal agent
Strengths- There is a lot of potential for tourism development, especially natural ecotourism and humanistic ecotourism.- The unskilled labor force is relatively abundant.- resource environmentunpolluted, still
Weaknesses- Poorly developed infrastructure, especially traffic routes to tourist destinations on the island.- The team of professional staff is still weak.- Tourism products in general
quite wild, originalintact
general and DLST in particularalone is monotonous.
External agents
Opportunity- Tourism is a key industry in the socio-economic development strategy of the province and Van Don economic zone.- Quan Lan was selected as a pilot area for eco-tourism development within the framework of the green growth project between Quang Ninh province and the Japanese organization JICA.- The flow of tourists and especially ecotourism in the world tends toincreasing
Challenge- Weather and climate change abnormally.- Competition in tourism products is increasingly fierce, especially with other localities in the province such as Ha Long, Mong Cai...- Awareness of tourists, especially domestic tourists, about ecotourism and nature conservation is not high.
Through summary analysis using SWOT matrix we see that:
To exploit strengths and take advantage of opportunities, it is necessary to:
- Diversify products and service types (build more tourism routes aimed at specific needs of tourists: experiential tourism immersed in nature, spiritual cultural tourism...)
- Effective exploitation of resources and differentiated products (natural resources and human resources)
div.maincontent .p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; } div.maincontent p { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; margin:0pt; } div.maincontent .s1 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 13pt; } div.maincontent .s2 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 13pt; } div.maincontent .s3 { color: #0D0D0D; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s4 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s5 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s6 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -3pt; } div.maincontent .s7 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -2pt; } div.maincontent .s8 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; vertical-align: -1pt; } div.maincontent .s9 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s10 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s11 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s12 { color: black; font-family:Symbol, serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s13 { color: black; font-family:Wingdings; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s14 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9pt; vertical-align: 5pt; } div.maincontent .s15 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 9pt; vertical-align: 5pt; } div.maincontent .s16 { color: black; font-family:Cambria, serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s17 { color: #080808; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s18 { color: #080808; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s19 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s20 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 10pt; } div.maincontent .s21 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s22 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 11pt; } div.maincontent .s23 { color: black; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; font-size: 14pt; } div.maincontent .s24 { color: #212121; font-family:"Times New Roman", serif; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; tex -
![Experience in Bank Marketing Activities in Some Countries [4] & [24]](https://tailieuthamkhao.com/en/uploads/2024/08/22/experience-in-bank-marketing-activities-in-some-countries-4-24-120x90.jpg)
Experience in Bank Marketing Activities in Some Countries [4] & [24] -
Land Clearance and Resettlement Policies of Some Countries in the World -
Assessment of the World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Mechanism for Developing Countries
Figure 4: FDI capital ratio by industry in the US in 2007
Software | |
1.33% 1.10% 0.97% | Biotechnology Medical equipment and instruments |
1.36% 0.86% 1.54% 0.03% 1.97% 2.94% 12.37% | Industrial energy/power Telecommunications Entertainment and Media Semiconductor Equipment IT Services |
3.05% | Systems and equipment Business services and products |
4.34%12.24% | Electronic equipment/devices |
Computers and peripherals | |
4.40% | Financial services |
9.15% | Consumer goods and services |
5.03% | Distribution/Sales |
6.33% | Health care service |
Remaining |
b. Investment activities in companies during development and investment stages.
Investment in later stage companies has increased both in terms of the number of companies receiving investment as well as the total investment. In 2007, VCs invested $12.2 billion in 1,168 companies, compared to $9.8 billion invested in 1,006 companies in 2006. Investment in seed/incubation stage companies has remained stable, but the number of companies receiving investment has increased dramatically. According to statistics, $1.2 billion was invested in 455 companies, compared to $1.2 billion invested in 342 companies in 2006.
Startup-stage investment also increased sharply, with $5.2 billion invested in 995 companies, compared to $4.1 billion invested in 923 companies in 2006. If the number of companies receiving investment in both the incubation and restart stages is added together, they account for 37% of the total number of companies receiving investment, up from 35% in 2006.
In 2007, investment in companies in the expansion phase decreased slightly, with $10.8 billion invested in 1,234 companies, compared with $11.5 billion invested in 1,359 companies in 2006. This shows that the number of investment deals in this phase accounted for 32% of the total market transactions in 2007, down 5% compared with 37% in 2006.
Table 6: FDI capital invested in companies in investment stages (Unit: Billion USD)
Stage
2006 | 2007 | |||
Venture Capital | Number of deals | Venture Capital | Number of deals | |
Later | 9,797 | 1006 | 12,215 | 1168 |
Expansion | 11,495 | 1359 | 10,845 | 1235 |
Early Funding | 4,102 | 923 | 5,192 | 995 |
Seed & Start up | 1,157 | 342 | 1,153 | 415 |
Total | 26,550 | 3630 | 29,406 | 3813 |