International Conference
“Economic System of European Union and Adjustment of Bosnia and Herzegovina”
University of Mostar – Faculty of Economics
Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
SLOVENIAN EXPERIENCES WITH THE SME FINANCING
Miroslav Glas
Mateja Drnovšek
Damjan Mirtič
University of Ljubljana – Faculty of Economics
Centre for Entrepreneurship Development
Tel.: +386 1 589 2400
Fax: +386 1 589 2698
E-mail: miroslav.glas@uni-lj.si
Viljem Pšeničny
GEA College of Entrepreneurship
Tel.: +386 1 5687 002
E-mail: viljem.psenicny@gea-college.si
Ljubljana, July 2002
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
SLOVENIAN EXPERIENCES WITH THE SME FINANCING
Key words: Small and Medium-Sized Business, Debt Financing, Microcredits, Guarantee
schemes, Equity Financing, Venture Capital, Business Angels
ABSTRACT
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have some specific needs for financing in their
early stages of development, when commercial banks are reluctant to enter due to high risk.
To foster the process of new venture creation, the government has to provide some alternative
forms of financing that would lower the risk for banks e.g. the micro-credit scheme, guarantee
scheme and grants for some specific types of SMEs, in particular for innovation and high-tech
firms.
While venture capital and business angels were quite an important source of capital for high
growth firms in the USA, Europe is still more conservative and banking sector is the major
source of enterprise financing. This experience is also valid in Slovenia although some cases
of venture capital are already well documented.
The paper analyses the responses of a sample of SMEs to their problems with the access to
capital, experience with different forms of debt financing, the government schemes of
financial support as well as SMEs attitudes towards equity investments.
POVZETEK
Mala in srednja podjetja (MSP) imajo posebne potrebe po financiranju v svoji zgodnji
razvojni fazi, ko so poslovne banke zelo previdne pri kreditiranju zaradi velikega tveganja.
Da bi pospešili proces ustanavljanja novih poslov, mora vlada zagotoviti alternativne oblike
financiranja, ki bodo prinesle manjša tveganja za banke, npr. mikrokreditne sheme,
garancijske sheme in nepovratne pomoči za posebne skupine MSP, zlasti za inovativna in
visoko tehnološka podjetja.
Medtem ko je tvegani kapital in so poslovni angeli sorazmerno pomemben vir kapitala za
hitro rastoča podjetja v ZDA, je Evropa še vedno dokaj konservativna in bančni sektor ostaja
glavni vir financiranja podjetij. Ta izkušnja velja tudi v primeru Slovenije, čeprav so že znani
in dokumentirani nekateri primeri naložb tveganega kapitala.
Prispevek preučuje odgovore iz vzorca MSP o njihovih problemih z dostopom do kapitala,
izkušnjami z različnimi oblikami dolžniškega financiranja, vladne oblike finančne podpore in
odnos MSP do naložb trajnih lastniških sredstev.
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
2
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
1. INTRODUCTION
Entrepreneurship, and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) has become
the focus of national and even international institutions. To develop a virtuous cycle of
growth, jobs, and innovation leading to social welfare and greater social cohesion, the
entrepreneurial culture of economic dynamism has to be added to the culture of economic
stability as nurtured by welfare states. This is the conclusion of the EU countries whereas
countries in transition need this force of the »creative destruction« (Schumpeter, 1943) even
to a greater extent in order to change radically their economic structure.
There is, however, the finance gap as an obstacle to SMEs creation and growth. A competitive
financing environment and an easy access to capital is essential for SMEs besides other
factors of an enabling business environment to foster their growth. SMEs should get the
access to financial instruments that match their needs at each stage of development, but are
also consistent with the tradition and culture of each country, what means that SME financial
support would largely differ between countries.
As the most developed transition country Slovenia early in 1990's (Law on Small Business
Development, 1991) established a legal foundation for the Small Business Development
Fund, and experimented widely with local funds, micro credit and guarantee schemes, and
lately started the processof venture capital and business angels. However, it has still to
develop a comprehensive scheme according to its finance culture and behaviour of
entrepreneurs, potential investors and financial institutions. The paper will present a critical
overview of past practices of SME financing and describe some findings of a recent survey of
entrepreneurs on their experience with different sources of finance.
2. SME FINANCE
The exact information on how small firms are financed in their early stages is limited because
the majority of SMEs is financed outside the public domain, through informal sources. It is
clear, however, that small businesses use different types of finance compared to large firms,
mainly because small businesses do not have access to capital markets and owner-managers
themselves are the single most important providers of start-up finance. The sources SMEs
really use depend upon different factors:
-
-
-
the stage of business development (see Shulman, 1994) where initial start-up capital is
sought from internal sources, from the entrepreneur's own pocket, and later on sources of
external funding become more important;
the extent and source of funds depend upon the size of business, with larger ventures
seeking external sources (Jarvis, 2000);
the industrial sector in which a SME operates (some production firms are based on
tangible assets – land, buildings, equipment – that can be offered as collateral; Jarvis,
2000); and
some SMEs, like female-owned (Carter, 2000) or minority / ethnic businesses (Ram,
Barrett, 2000) face larger barriers in the access to capital, at least in some countries.
Jarvis (2000) traces the discussions of the »finance gap« of SMEs back to the Macmillan
Committee (1931), echoed by Bolton Report (1971) etc. Governments in developed countries
have introduced since a number of initiatives, with varying success. Also, financial
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
3
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
institutions have developed new products to fund easier SMEs that should narrow the finance
gap (Deakins, 1996).However, SMEs are far from large firms since banks have problems in
measuring/assessing risks of new ventures, so they rather rely on secured lending. Loan
officers are not really SME advisers, well versed in working with SMEs.
More or less, the traditional relationship between levels of (outside) funding and firm maturity
as presented by Shulman (1994) exists.
Se
lf-
fu
nd
Cr
in
g
ed
it
ca
rd
s
Fa
m
ily
Fr
ie
nd
s
Co
Su
m
pp
m
lie
er
As
rs
cia
se
lb
t-b
an
as
ks
ed
le
nd
In
er
I
su
ns
s
t it
ra
ut
nc
io
e
ns
co
Ve
m
nt
pa
ur
ni
e
es
ca
pi
ta
Pr
lis
iva
ts
te
eq
Pu
ui
ty
b
Co
lic
m
eq
m
ui
er
cia ty
lp
ap
er
Picture 1. Sources of outside funding for SMEs according to their maturity
Source: Shulman, Debt and Other Forms of Financing (1994), p. 196
This picture, however, does not show the share each source takes in financing SMEs.
Financing is a problem at the start-up phase since other investors rarely share the
entrepreneur's vision and growing firms again face more acute financing problems because of
their need for development finance (Wilson Committee, 1979; Buckland, Davis, 1992) that
extends beyond the capital of owner(s) and retained profits. SMEs can only increase loan
capital in proportion to assets held and owner-managers are mostly reluctant to seek equity
finance from external sources (Jarvis, 2000) due to their desire to maintain independence and
control over the business (Keasey, Watson, 1993).
The insufficient start-up capital (of the owner-manager(s)) is the reason why subsequently,
SMEs have low ability to raise loan capital (ACOST, 1990). It is also claimed that SME
problems in raising finance are related to their insufficient information about financing
opportunities with regard to both loan and equity capital, the quality and cost of information
(Bovaird et al, 1995; Binks, Ennew, 1995). This »information gap« is important also for the
informal risk capital, where matching potential investors with the firms that need the funds
and have good projects is particularly difficult. The information flows and the advisory
schemes with government agencies have improved substantially and the dissemination of
information on the range of sources of finance available to SMEs over internet is
considerable.
SMEs target a different capital structure than large firms and Norton (1990) concludes that
they are less likely to have target debt ratios and there is a preference for using internal
finance rather than external finance, in particular family businesses and life-style ventures.
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
4
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
Michaels, Chittenden and Poutziouris (1996) have found that the life-cycles of small firms
influence their capital structure, industrial sectors have an impact on capital structure,
preferences and economic conditions also influence financial decisions. Shulman (1994) also
stressed the differences between short-term cash sources and long-term financing.
While banks as sources are traditional, what is becoming very important are some government
related sources and equity capital from informal and institutional risk capital. However, these
agencies, venture capitalists and business angels have specific guidelines they follow in
providing money to new business operations which sometimes are not liked by entrepreneurs.
Shulman (1994), Gatewood and Hylton (1994) give the picture of external assistance for startups and SMEs in the USA, while there is an amazing body of literature about venture capital
funds and business angels (see also the latest GEM study, 2001). An overview of enterprises'
access to finance in the EU countries is provided by EC papers (Enterprises' Access to
Finance, 2001; Risk Capital Action Plan, 1998) that reveal differences in the access and use of
different sources between the Member States. The findings confirm that the supply of
enterprise finance will continue to be dominated by bank lending supported by loan and
equity guarantees and micro-credit schemes. However, the use of equity and alternative forms
of financing will gradually increase and for dynamic and innovative businesses this form will
become a vital part (see Enterprises' Access to Finance, 2001). Also, there is an increasing
amount of literature about SME financing in the transition countries, both from national
surveys and international projects (OECD, EBRD).
3. DEVELOPMENT OF SME FINANCE IN SLOVENIA
While on the average one in five SMEs in the EU countries considers access to finance as a
barrier to growth (Enterprises' Access to Finance, 2001, p. 6), the lack of capital is invariably
the most commonly cited problem by SMEs in countries in transition (OECD, 1996, p. 47).
Due to the absence of large private wealth in former socialist countries and limited private
savings, potential entrepreneurs have difficulties to gather start-up capital and they mostly
have problems to develop a long-term stable financial basis. Although Slovenia ranks as the
most developed and wealthy country in transition, SMEs still face the same type of financial
difficulties as listed by SMEs in Poland, Hungary, Czech and Slovak Republic:
-
high interest rates on (bank) loans;
overly high securities demanded by banks as collateral;
overly bureaucratic application procedure;
lack of information in banks about assistance or assistance refused (OECD, 1996, p. 49).
Slovenian SMEs ranked financial problems and high taxes and social contributions as their
most important problems, although lately the dynamic firms stated the bureaucracy and the
lack of skilled staff as their key barriers to growth - however, dynamic firms are already far
beyond their start-up phase and they had mostly developed a good »track record« and
working relationship with banks. They are also quite capable of providing some collateral
(Pšeničny, Blejec, Glas, 2001).
We do not have good statistics about loan finance for SMEs (alike the EU countries;
Enterprises' Access to Finance, 2001, p. 8), although some research revealed partial
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
5
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
information about banking practices (Kopač, 1997). Banks by themselves do boast to offer a
wide variety of various banking services to SMEs, considering:
-
financing of working capital needs (overdraft, short-term loans, even long-term
investment loans and project financing);
financial advisory services (preparation of different analyses demanded, reports and
project assessments, real estate valuation);
short-term investment of excess finance through different types of securities, etc. (Cuznar
et al, 2000).
However, entrepreneurs and in particular »would-be« entrepreneurs face quite a different
reality and their complaints mostly resemble those from other countries.
The finance gap has been largely recognised in early 1990's as already in 2000 the
government established the Small Business Development Fund of the Republic of Slovenia
(SBDF), that offered following forms of financial assistance to SMEs:
-
soft loans for SMEs;
subsidies of interest rate for commercial bank loans;
guarantees for loans of commercial banks;
loans with specified objectives (exports, tourism, start-ups);
short-term liquidity loans.
SBDF used to determine the eligibility of SMEs to this assistance using the criteria given by
the Small Business Development Law (1991), that are different from those in the Company
Law (1993) and from the EU definitions. SBDF never really assisted start-ups but rather
focused on established firms undergoing some development project. It started in 1991 with
approximately 6,5 billion SIT, but due to some failed firms assisted it almost went bankrupt
and the government had to bail it out with new capital infusions (1995-96). The key source of
funding were the proceeds from the privatisation which are now running out. Generally,
SBDF considers the results of its financial assistance in terms of new jobs as very satisfactory,
particularly during the last 5 years. The demand for loans however exceeded the available
resource for each subsequent year while guarantees did not attract the expected interest from
businesses during the last period.
While the SBDF should assist SMEs along the strategic development goals, a number of local
funds were created at the municipal level or the municipalities allocated a part of budget to
subsidise interest rates to SME loans. There were some good practices, e.g. Development
Fund Lendava, but the loans were prevalently in the range of micro loans to support larger
number of applicants and local funds have mixed experiences with the efficiency of the
disbursement process and actual performance of businesses. Some local funds entered the
joint scheme of micro credits with the Employment Services in disbursing financial assistance
to new businesses established under the Self-Employment Programme.
Since the reliance on bank loans implies a need for collateral that can act as a considerable
barrier for start-ups, the initiative to establish Regional Guarantee Schemes based on a vast
experience of Italian schemes has been launched in 1996. Some Regional Schemes have since
provided good support to SMEs, but the lack of subsequent allocation of government money
to these funds raised some questions about the future of these schemes.
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
6
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
Slovenia has not been targeted by Western donor countries or financial institutions as a
country, that would attract lots of donor activities, although some EIB resources and JOPP
ventures have brought external resources to Slovenian SMEs. Foreign capital also entered
through the venture capital funds, but only lately their activity provided visible results.
Following the changes in the EU approach to SME financing, the issues of venture capital and
»business angels« attracted more attention recently. However, there are scarce success stories
(Bofex with the Horizonte Venture Fund) and this type of external finances is still quite
limited both because of scarce resources but even more due to problems and reservations on
the demand side. SMEs are not eager in taking venture capital because of the lack of
information, misunderstandings about the nature of this capital and the strong desire to keep
the control over the business.
We know the least about some forms of »grey market« lending activities and other informal
investments, apart from anecdotal evidence of illegal pressures on debtors to repay debts after
encountering adverse market situation. Within this type of SME finance there might be some
attempts to wash illegal money through informal investments in SMEs, but hard evidence is
lacking.
4. EMPIRICAL RESULTS FROM A SURVEY OF SMEs
4.1. Methodology
We conducted a survey among Slovenian SMEs to get their opinion upon the SME financial
environment. SMEs have been chosen randomly from the register of incorporated businesses
and sole proprietors. We collected and analysed the first batch of 116 questionnaires with the
following characteristics:
Legal status
Gender
Education
Family business status
53,4 % incorporated businesses (51,7 % l.l.c.), 33,6 % sole
proprietors, the rest mixed and 3,5 % unknown
80,2 % men-managed businesses
21,6 % vocational school, 34,5 % high school, 17,2 % college, 17,2
% university education, 6,0 % graduate studies, 3,4 % unknown
57,8 % family businesses
The structure of survey covers a larger share of incorporated businesses (they usually have
much higher response rate), while the share of female businesses and the educational structure
is close to other surveys of Slovenian SMEs in the past.
4.2. SMEs Financial Problems
Worldwide, SMEs complain about the problem of collecting receivables from customers. In
the past it was always a strong problem of Slovenian SMEs, too, and the main demand of the
Chamber of Crafts towards the government focused on the regulation that should ease the
debt collection. However, in our survey, this issue only ranked ninth and other financial
problems were considered as more important. Table 1 presents the ranking of problems with
SME finance, using a five-point Likert scale (1 – not problem at all, 2 – a small problem, 3 –
quite a problem, 4 – a big problem, 5 – a huge problem) in the survey but for the paper we
merged answers 1-2 (less important) and 4-5 (more important). SMEs were asked to rank two
issues: (a) problems with some financial aspects of the access to finance and (b) the level of
difficulties with financing different types of expenses.
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
7
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
Table 1. Ranking of problems with finance in Slovenian SMEs (survey 2002)
Rank Financial problem
A. Problems with financial aspects of finance
1 Access to (public) funds
2 High costs of insurance and other related costs of loans
3 Lack of good expert advisors on financial affairs
4 High interest rates (bank loans)
5 Short period of loan repayment
6 Demand for extensive documentation
9 Difficulties to collect receivables
12 Time consuming, complicated loan disbursement
13 Providing for loan collateral
14 Access to credit resources in general
16 Absence of private investors
17 Banks are more focused on larger credits
18 Possibility to get/extend the grace period for loans
19 Too low amounts of loans
21 Long procedures on loan applications in banks
B. Difficulties with financing different types of expenses
7 Difficulty to invest in equipment
8 Difficulty to finance R&D for new products/services
10 Difficulty to finance new premises
11 Difficult to finance marketing activities
15 Difficulty to finance (credit) customers
20 Difficult to finance wages and related expenses
22 Difficulty in financing stocks
Level of importance (in %)
less
it is a
more
impor- problem important
tant
Grade
9,0
17,5
18,9
22,7
23,0
30,8
34,8
30,3
36,9
34,6
32,1
30,6
37,1
39,1
44,7
17,0
21,1
29,7
28,7
29,2
16,8
27,0
32,7
21,9
23,6
37,6
36,0
31,9
28,2
26,3
74,1
61,5
51,3
48,7
47,8
53,1
38,3
37,1
41,2
41,9
30,2
33,3
31,0
32,7
29,0
4,16
3,62
3,48
3,38
3,31
3,30
3,23
3,09
3,05
3,05
2,99
2,98
2,91
2,91
2,75
22,3
26,1
33,1
27,0
34,9
41,4
46,4
38,4
30,6
26,8
36,0
33,0
27,9
20,0
39,3
43,2
40,2
36,9
32,2
30,6
33,7
3,29
3,27
3,13
3,09
2,99
2,87
2,75
The single most important problem is the access to public funds since the amount of available
money has always been fairly limited and only few SMEs would get some public money.
Problems with commercial banks were ranked as follows (numbers in brackets through the
paper give the rank calculated from the answers of respondents):
-
-
-
Costs of loans: high costs of insurance and other related costs bother SMEs the most (2),
followed by interest rates (4) and the fact that banks are inclined to allow mostly short
repayment period due to their problems with risk assessment (5); loan collateral were less
exposed (13);
According to owner-managers, banks are demanding extensive paperwork (6), their
disbursement procedures are far too complicated (12) and decisions take too much time
(21); banks seem to be highly “unfriendly” to SMEs;
Banks are still eager to do deals with larger firms (17) where less effort is needed per
money unit of the loan and firms have an established »track record« with the bank.
Absence of private (equity) investors (16) does not rank high on the list, since mot many
SMEs are eager to enter external equity market, yet. It is important that SMEs recognise the
need for good financial experts (3), since entrepreneurs have quite a low educational level and
only 20,2 % have economic/business education and 53,5 % have technical schools.
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
8
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
In accord with these problems SMEs have also quite consistently ranked business areas that
need to be financed:
-
It is most difficult to finance investment in equipment (7) as well as in new premises (10)
due to the lack of long-term loans and equity finances;
SMEs also find it difficult to fund R&D activity (8) and marketing activities (11), where it
is fairly difficult to forecast the actual costs and outcomes that might vary;
SMEs are not in a good shape to extend credits for customers, while they are already used
to managing the current expenses for labour (wages and taxes) and stocks.
In general, financing is not an easy task for Slovenian SMEs and they mostly depend on own
resources and bank assistance. Since own resources are outside the public domain and ownermanagers use them as far as possible, it is more interesting what they consider as an issue for
banks if thinking of providing better services to SMEs (Table 2). Entrepreneurs recommend to
the banks almost straightforward measures related to their ranking of problems:
-
Lower costs of loans (1) and interest rate (2), as well as demands for collateral (10);
Providing more long-term investment loans (3), but allowing for grace period (7);
Improving procedures through lessening demands for documentation (4), making shorter
decision-making periods (6) and providing better information (8),
Improving loan-officer staff to give advisory support (5), to develop their capabilities in
properly assessing the situation in SMEs (9) and being kind to entrepreneurs (11).
Table 2. Recommendations to commercial banks to provide better services to SMEs
Rank Improvement in bank services
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Lower insurance and other related costs of loans
Lower interest rate for loans
Providing more long-term investment loans
Simplify documentation, rely on personal
knowledge of enterprises/entrepreneurs
Improving advisory support to SMEs
Shorten the loan decision-making process
Providing 1-2-year grace period for repayment
Improving the information on loans available
Developing staff know-how to assess better the
»soundness« of SMEs
Lower the demand for collateral
Ensure kinder staff behaviour
Opinions (in %)
disagree neutral
agree
0,0
6,3
93,7
0,0
8,8
91,2
0,9
12,4
86,7
2,7
12,3
85,1
Grade
4,54
4,53
4,39
4,32
0,0
0,9
0,9
0,0
0,9
17,4
18,8
18,6
20,2
24,1
82,6
80,4
80,6
79,8
75,0
4,24
4,23
4,22
4,13
4,13
5,3
12,4
17,7
44,3
77,0
43,4
4,10
3,52
Some of these recommendations are difficult to introduce unless banks develop their financial
capabilities (1, 2 and 3) and adapt better to deal with the needs of SMEs – staff capabilities,
know-how and experience (4, 5 and 6, respectively). It is interesting, however, that 60 % of
entrepreneurs in the survey have the best experience with the (formerly social) banks that
were in business already before the year 1990, while only 11 % prefer new (private) banks
and 13 % have better experience with foreign banks already better suited to deal with SMEs.
Still, 16 % of owner-managers do not have good experience with banks in general. Very high
percentages of respondents agreeing with at least first 10 possible changes in bank policies
clearly prove the importance of bank loans to SME owner-managers in Slovenia.
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
9
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
4.3. Government support
Slovenian government recognised rather early the need for financial support to SMEs.
However, the financial instruments have changed quickly making it difficult even for SME
support institutions, not alone for entrepreneurs, to have an overview over available financial
and related assistance. Available funds were always too short to cover the needs and SMEs
complained about extensive paperwork and slow procedures. We checked two aspects of the
financial assistance: (a) how much do SME owner-managers know about available assistance
programmes and (b) to what extent did they try to get this assistance and whether they were
successful in their applications (Table 3).
We can conclude that familiarity with the financial assistance schemes goes well along with
the intention to make use of these sources. If we first look at the level of knowledge about the
schemes, we can state:
-
-
owner-managers generally do not know a lot about most of assistance;
the schemes applied only in some regions (micro-credits and guarantees) are not known
well, while Small Business Development Fund is better known and local funds have done
quite a good promotion effort;
grants and European programmes look to be quite familiar to SMEs.
Nevertheless, government has to do better in the future about the promotion of assistance, if
the SMEs have to be convinced that these forms are equally open to everybody and the real
information is not withdrawn in order to open better chance to some SMEs being acquainted
with the public invitations for application. The second part of the Table 3 gives a picture of
how SMEs responded to the (known?) available forms of public financial support. We can
infer from the results that a great number of SMEs have never been interested in this support
(in case we assume that they really got the proper information about the possibilities). Also,
there is a substantial number of SMEs that were interested but never actually applied for the
support. We should in the future do some more research into reasons, while some advisors
and entrepreneurs provided the explanation as too much effort (documentation) needed in the
relation to the benefits, uncertainty about the timing of invitations, low expectations to get the
support demanded etc. Different support schemes have quite different ratios between the
applications and supports approved according to the results: local SME funds should deny the
support to twice as many applicants than SMEs being successful in application process while
the support for unemployed was readily available as well as the interest rates subsidies.
The fairly small number of SMEs, that really succeeded to attract public money besides the
self-employment scheme helps to understand why so few SMEs list public sources among the
source of start-up, working or investment capital (see Pšeničny, Blejec, Glas, 2001, for a
small share of public sources even among the dynamic (growing) Slovenian SMEs that have
always been considered as the prime target group for public support: for the years 1993, 19992001 the share for start-up sources varies between 1 % (1993) and 7 % (2000), for working
and investment capital after three years in business between 1 % (1993) and 7,1 % (2000) and
for last two years between 0,5 % (2001) and 5,2 % (2000). If we assume that the public
support would really be provided for the most promising firms, this data would not provide
the reason for deep disappointments. However, the fact that the SBDF almost failed on some
unsound guarantees issued proves that the public sources have not done a good job on the
financial assistance to SMEs during 1990’s.
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
10
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
Table 3. Familiarity with the public financial assistance to SMEs and the extent of applications for local and national assistance (in %)
Forms of local / national SME financial
assistance
Financial support for unemployed for selfemployment
SBDF – soft loans
Local SME funds loans
Grants from programmes of various
government departments
Loan interest rate subsidies
European projects / programmes
SBDF – Liquidity loans
Micro-credit scheme
SBDF - guarantees
Regional guarantee schemes
Project »Business angels club«
To what extent are SMEs familiar with different forms
of local and national financial assistance?
Extent of familiarity
Rank
Grade
Never Heard Knows Knows
heard by the
the
it very
about
way
form
well
How far did owner-managers during last five years try
to collect local or national SME financial assistance
Attitude of SMEs to public funds
Rank
Grade
Not at
all interested
Interested,
never
applied
Applied, was
refused
Got the
assistance
8,0
22,1
55,8
14,2
1
2,76
63,2
17,5
5,3
14,0
1
1,70
18,2
20,4
31,8
48,2
46,0
39,1
27,3
31,0
23,6
6,4
8,7
5,5
2
3
4
2,22
2¸16
2,03
60,7
66,4
64,9
25,0
23,0
18,0
7,1
7,1
9,9
7,1
3,5
7,2
2
4
3
1,61
1,48
1,59
46,9
35,1
42,9
55,4
48,7
64,0
75,9
20,7
45,1
37,5
24,1
38,9
26,1
17,9
26,1
18,0
16,1
17,0
10,6
9,0
6,3
6,3
1,8
3,6
3,6
1,8
0,9
0,0
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1,92
1,86
1,80
1,69
1,65
1,47
1,30
75,9
82,1
75,9
85,8
84,7
89,3
15,2
13,4
20,5
11,5
13,5
9,8
3,6
3,6
0,9
0,9
0,9
0,0
5¸3
0,9
2,7
1,8
0,9
0,9
5
7
6
8
9
10
1,38
1,23
1,30
1,19
1,18
1,13
Source: SME survey 2002
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
11
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
Table 4. Forms of government financial assistance and related support services government
should provide for SMEs
Rank Form of assistance
1-2
1-2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Tax relieves for new job creation
Free advisory services
Tax relieves for investors
Soft loans for new job creation
Assistance with enforcement of
collection of receivables
Free training programmes
Tax deductions for innovation
Use of European projects /
programmes resources
(Soft) loans of SBDF
(Soft) loans of local SME funds
SBDF guarantees
(Regional) guarantees for bank loans
Micro-credit (small loans for start-ups)
Grants
Government's equity investments
How to apply the measure (in %)
Not to
Only to
To all
To all
be
SME
SMEs – SMEs –
applied
target
limited
no
groups
extent
limits
1,8
5,4
14,3
78,6
0,0
7,1
16,1
76,8
3,6
8,2
18,2
70,0
0,9
10,9
21,8
66,4
4,4
11,5
15,0
69,0
Grade
3,70
3,70
3,55
3,54
3,49
2,7
0,9
0,0
10,8
13,4
22,5
21,6
24,1
29,7
64,9
61,6
47,8
3,49
3,46
3,25
1,8
1,8
2,7
6,3
4,6
11,0
15,3
20,9
21,6
23,6
17,9
23,2
28,4
31,5
37,3
40,5
41,8
42,9
47,2
21,1
26,1
39,1
36,0
31,8
33,0
25,0
39,5
27,0
3,13
3,11
3,03
3,03
2,93
2,89
2,65
Table 4 should be considered a kind of bible for the providers of public support to SMEs. The
very important message is that SMEs support governments efforts to provide some financial
assistance but some other forms of assistance are considered as more important and public
equity investment is the least preferred form. Tax incentives for new job creation (1),
investments (3) and innovation (7) are ranked higher than most financial schemes, and free
advisory services (2) and training programmes (6) have attracted strong recognition. Even soft
loans are preferred if tight to new job creation (4) and SBDF soft loans (9) and soft loans of
local SME funds (10) are not so much recognised. The guarantee schemes are ranked even
lower, either as SBDF (11) or regional funds (12). Micro-credits are again not appreciated, but
we could speculate on the fact, that existing SMEs are not really their target group and the
time of being eligible for these credits is already the past for our respondents. SMEs prefer to
have financial assistance tight to some objective (jobs, innovation) since it is easier for them
to envisage the criteria for this support. Grants are also not very much in favour among SMEs
as they look like money not really earned by SMEs.
We do not consider Table 4 as the only possible answer for the government about how to
structure the financial assistance, but some lessons have to be learned and some existing
schemes really need further discussion. It is a proof of maturity for SMEs to stress advising
and training as important measures and to opt for some forms of debt financing that could
provide larger amounts of support but enable public funds to finance new businesses through
the instalments paid on early disbursed loans.
There is a specific aspect of government support to SMEs. The world recession and domestic
markets becoming highly competitive have also brought quite a number of SMEs into
financial distress. Should government, used to support large troubled companies, also
consider assistance to SMEs as its inherent task? Should it discriminate in this aspect of
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
13
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
support against SMEs? While the current regulation is limiting these forms of support to
SMEs, the survey respondents have proposed the strategy to get quite a strong support to
troubled SMEs. However, they were quite selective with the choice of forms of assistance and
they did not consider the support without fulfilling certain criteria.
Table 5. The proposed forms of government’s assistance to troubled SMEs
Rank Form of government’s assistance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8-9
10
11
12
Free counselling / advisory services
Free training programmes
Assistance on collecting receivables
Tax deductions for investors
Soft loans (SBDF, local funds)
Deferred tax payments
Grants
Deferred social contributions
Exempt payments of interests for
deferred taxes / contributions
Transformation of deferred taxes into
gov’t equity share
Lower/exempt taxes and contributions
Government equity investment
Conditions for assistance (in %)
Gov’t
SME
SME has Always
should
has to
to prove
not help provide potential
guarantee
1,8
3,6
13,5
81,1
2,7
5,3
19,5
72,6
2,7
10,0
17,3
70,0
4,4
9,7
29,2
56,6
1,8
20,7
51,4
26,1
8,9
20,5
42,9
27,7
10,8
15,3
52,3
21,6
7,1
32,1
34,8
25,9
17,9
18,8
29,5
33,9
Grade
3,74
3,62
3,55
3,38
3,02
2,89
2,85
2,79
2,79
20,4
16,7
45,4
17,6
2,60
21,8
25,2
19,1
19,8
38,2
41,4
20,9
13,5
2,58
2,07
SMEs propose to the government:
-
to provide free counselling (1) and training (2) for troubled SMEs, indicating the lack of
know-how and mistakes by entrepreneurs as the cause for troubles encountered;
instead of providing money, SMEs suggest to encourage investors to enter these SMEs
through tax deductions (4) or temporary freeze of tax (6) and contribution payments (8-9);
the financial assistance, if any, is ranked as following: soft loans (5) as the most
acceptable form, followed by grants (7) and government’s equity investment as least
desirable (12).
However, looking at Table 5, we can see that mostly free advising and training, assistance in
receivables collection (3) and tax deductions for (outside) investors are considered as
measures to be used indiscriminately, while other measures should be tried mostly to SMEs
with a real potential to recover and not as a general solution. Its is still fair to ask, if there is a
mechanism in place to provide a reliable assessment of “the potential”, but it is a question of
the design and capability of the enterprise support network that should develop the expertise
to work on troubled businesses.
4.4. SMEs and Investment
SMEs in the survey have ranked the factors that influence their choice among financial
instruments to be used in financing investment (Table 6). According to our previous findings,
interest rate (now by far the most important factor) and other related costs were considered as
ranking first and second. Other financial aspects are still quite important: collateral to provide
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
14
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
(5), repayment period (7), grace period (9). However, the information gap is clearly identified
(3) and owner-managers have exposed as well human relationship aspects of financial deals:
honest bank staff behaviour (4), trust and personal contacts (6), while professional record is
less pronounced: understanding the problems of SMEs (8). Some formal aspects of SME
finance, like documentation (13) and slow procedures in the bank (12) are not placed high on
the list and they seem to be taken as a kind of necessity and habitual behaviour of finance
providers. Even the autonomy of decision-making (10) and the need to provide current
financial reports (15) is not ranked high. The direct financial aspects are clearly the most
important factors and this finding should be considered when structuring the SME financial
support scheme.
Table 6. Important factors that influence the choice of specific financial instruments for
investments in Slovenian SMEs
Rank Factors influencing the choice
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The price of resources (interest rate)
Low related costs (insurance, manipulation fee)
Transparent information about conditions
Professional, honest attitude of the staff working
with SMEs
Limited demands for collateral
Good personal contacts and trust in investor
Long repayment period
Investor’s understanding for the problems of the
company
Possibility to negotiate the grace period
Maintaining autonomy in decision-making
Additional assistance of the investor (advising)
Tome to work on application procedure
Limited demands on documentation
Opportunity to re-negotiate the repayment
schedule
Extent of investor’s demands to provide on-going
business information
The prestige (image) of the bank / investor
Level of importance (%)
Very
ImporLess
important
important
tant
89,1
10,0
0,9
77,3
22,7
0,0
77,5
21,6
0,9
74,7
25,2
0,0
Grade
1,36
1,70
1,75
1,84
72,0
72,0
72,0
74,7
23,4
22,5
25,2
21,6
4,5
5,4
2,7
3,6
1,89
1,90
1,92
1,98
65,7
62,7
63,9
55,8
56,4
49,5
29,7
34,6
27,0
26,0
39,1
46,0
4,5
2,7
9,0
8,1
4,5
4,5
2,09
2,09
2,11
2,19
2,32
2,21
51,3
36,0
12,6
2,41
45,0
38,7
16,2
2,53
Entrepreneurs clearly recognise the need for themselves to provide a fair share of investment.
Their share should be according to the respondents in the range of 31-50 % of financial needs
(for 45,5 % of respondents), even above 50 % for 25,9 % of respondents, with 25,0 % putting
it at 11-30 % and only 3,4 % considering the share below 10 % of investment as appropriate.
We also asked entrepreneurs to rank alternative forms of government financial assistance for
investment. Among four possible scenarios, their ranking was established as presented in
Table 7. Entrepreneurs expressed the preference for soft loans in the case the loans would
provide for a large share of investment. Grants are quite a temptation, but only up to 10 % of
investment seems to fail to cover the finance gap in long-term investment. State equity
investment is not an attractive choice, even if the state already declared the intention to exit in
5-7 years in the manner of the normal venture capital.
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
15
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
Table 7. Ranking of alternatives of government support for investment (in %)
Rank
1
2
3
4
Alternative government support
SBDF soft loan (lower interest rate) up to 50 % of investment
State grant for up to 10 % of investment
State guarantee for bank loans up to 80 % of the loan
State equity investment for 20 % of investment, with state exit in
5-7 years
Rank 1
40,2
40,9
17,8
7,0
Rank 2
38,0
24,7
24,4
10,5
4.5. Private equity investment
The most important discourse about financial assistance to SMEs is currently focused around
private equity in vestment either as formal venture capital or informal “business angel”
solution. Slovenia is still far from having a considerable amount of these types of investment
coming to SMEs and it will really become an important issue in the future. However, we tried
to establish a better understanding of attitudes to these questions among SME ownermanagers. So we first asked respondents whether they ever considered or even initiated the
option of private equity investor entering their business or becoming themselves such
investors in another SME.
Table 8. Searching for private equity investor (in %)
Have you searched
Have you
for a private equity
considered own
investor for your
equity investment
company
in another SME
Never considered this alternative
45,4
49,4
Considered it only once
8,3
12,9
Considered it many times, never realised it
39,2
29¸5
Realised it, once
4,1
4¸7
Realised it, more than once
3,1
3,5
Comment: quite a number of entrepreneurs did not respond to this questions, 19 on the first and 31 on
the second question.
It is impossible to check for the validity of answers, in particular about the seemingly realised
equity investments, but these alternatives are still quite an “unknown territory” for almost a
half of respondents and others have mostly considered it as a “mental exercise”. Why such an
attitude? We asked the entrepreneurs to reveal their feelings about outside equity owners
entering their businesses.
Table 8. Would an outside owner, either a state venture capital fund or a private equity
investor in your company bother you (in %)?
It would not bother me
It would bother me a little
That would be quite a serious issue
It would bother me very much
For me, it is unacceptable
State venture
capital fund
23
27
12
8
31
Private equity
investor (co-owner)
30
26
14
6
24
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
16
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
We see from Table 8 the following pattern:
1. The majority of owner-managers are worried about introducing outside equity capital in
their firms, ranking from “unacceptable” to the “small discomfort”; the half would take
that as a serious issue in managing their business.
2. The state venture capital would be more a problem, but private investors would not be an
easy partner either.
The cultural norms among our entrepreneurs need to change considerably if venture capital is
to become a source of capital, considered seriously by a number of businesspeople. However,
the concept of venture capital is not an issue for average entrepreneurs. Already the share of
owner-managers that would not consider the outside equity capital a nuisance exceeds any
venture capital involvement elsewhere. Venture capital is really interested only for a small
target group of SMEs and we should focus the research on such a group.
We tried to clarify further what factors could influence equity investment as an incentive or
disincentive. Table 9 presents an extensive list of possible influences but it is only the aspect
of entrepreneurs as targets for venture capital investment. However, some of them might
become a kind of “business angels” in the future, as well. We should also survey potential
investors to get the other side of the story.
Results in Table 9 do not give a really good picture about these factors, but it is an early
attempt to get a better insight. The majority of answers are focusing on the neutral attitude
that does not really point to the direction of impact. Also, there are only few factors that are
considered as “encouraging” factors with over 6-7 % of respondents. Least encouraging
factors involve:
-
-
the lack of real opportunities for investors to make the exit (economic aspect),
complicated legal formalities for ownership transfer (legal aspect),
fears of entrepreneurs to give too high a share of ownership and control in exchange for
“small money”, to get greedy investors focusing more on quick returns (psychological and
economic aspect),
the tax system discouraging equity investment (economic aspect of investors),
the possible leakage of information through outside investors.
These factors could be really considered as true barriers to accept equity investment and they
are legitimate and fairly serious concerns. On the other side, not the same factor rank as the
most important deterrents to equity investment:
-
high income tax and the lack of tax incentives are considered as having important negative
impact on equity investment;
fear from the loss of control over distribution of profits generated and control over the
firm is quite important to owner- managers;
entrepreneurs also fear from not being able to negotiate on equal foot with (experienced)
investors due to their lack of know-how;
also the management style in SMEs, with entrepreneurs being of the “lone-wolf” type, not
aspiring for real growth, is a negative element for investors;
entrepreneurs considering their businesses as sources of luxuries (cars, mobitels), covering
up for actual profits are not the type, preferred by investors .
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
17
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
Table 9. Impact of different factors on the attitude of entrepreneurs towards private equity
investment and on investors to consider investing into SMEs
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Factor influencing equity
investments
High income tax rates on capital
gains
Entrepreneur’s feeling that
investor demand too high
dividends limiting growth
Lack of tax incentives for
investors
Investors are not ready to wait a
reasonable period for a return
Complicated, expensive legal
formalities for ownership
transfer
Entrepreneurs cover expensive
cars, GSM etc. on the costs of
enterprise
Uncertain entrepreneurs due to
the lack of legal, financial
know-how
Entrepreneurs think that
investors demand too much
control for small money
Entrepreneurs fear from leaking
important information
Entrepreneurs don’t want
growth
Management style, wanting to
do everything themselves
Investors do not have real exit
opportunities
SMEs try to cover up for profit
with “innovative” accounting
Higher returns on other
financial investments
Entrepreneurs want to maintain
their life-style
Entrepreneurs tend to maintain
full control over the company
SMEs attitude towards the
concept of equity investment
Level of mutual trust between
entrepreneurs and investors
The character / direction of influence (in %)
Most
Encoura Neutral
DeterMost
encoura-ging
ring
deterging
ring
1,0
4,0
27,7
36,6
30,7
Grade
3,92
2,0
4,0
21,8
51,5
20,8
3,85
0,0
6,9
27,7
39,6
25,7
3,84
1,0
5,0
21,2
57,6
15,2
3,81
1,0
2,0
33,0
46,0
18,0
3,78
2,0
4,0
38,0
27,0
29,0
3,77
2,0
5,1
26,5
48,0
18,4
3,76
1,0
4,0
34,0
48,0
13,0
3,68
3,0
2,0
34,3
47,5
13,1
3,66
1,0
9,0
34,0
38,0
18,0
3,63
2,0
14,9
30,7
32,7
19,8
3,53
1,0
4,0
48,0
38,0
9,0
3,50
5,0
4,0
45,5
29,7
15,8
3,48
2,1
16,0
38,3
37,2
6,4
3,30
5,9
14,9
32,7
37,6
8,9
3,29
9,1
22,2
23,2
33,3
12,1
3,17
12,0
36,0
41,0
9,0
2,0
2,53
17,7
46,1
18,6
9,8
7,8
2,44
It looks like there is no problem to find barriers for equity investment, but the incentives are
really missed and there is room for improvements in the behaviour of government (taxes,
legal aspects), entrepreneurs (going to do business in a modern, transparent way, to state the
results in the most correct way in relation to investors (and state)) as well as investors (they
should become more long-term oriented, loyal or even dedicated to SMEs they invest in and
entering the whole relationship with more trust and empathy for entrepreneurs.
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
18
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
Since there is not a lot of information among owner-managers about the benefits that outside
equity investors could bring to the company besides providing financial resources alone, we
checked what non-financial benefits entrepreneurs expect from investors (Table 10).
Table 10. The non-financial benefits entrepreneurs expect from equity investors
Rank Form of non-financial assistance
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Assistance in entering new markets
Access to key market information
Ideas for new products/services
Management know-how
Business links
Search for highly skilled professional staff
A role of protector with experience and
enabling rational decision-making
Support in psychological terms in case of
business troubles
Advisory assistance to substitute for
commercial advisors
Assistance on internationalisation of business
operations
Negotiations with suppliers
Informal promotion of the enterprise
Assistance with the access to bank loans
Assistance with the access to other private
investors
Level of importance (in %)
Less
Important
Very
important
important
1,8
17,6
80,6
5,6
23,9
67,0
7,4
21,1
71,6
4,6
29,4
66,1
5,6
26,9
67,6
11,9
31,2
56,9
19,6
24,3
56,1
Grade
4,13
3,95
3,92
3,89
3,88
3,57
3,53
17,0
33,0
50,0
3,52
14,9
35,2
50,0
3,51
17,6
36,1
46,3
3,41
20,0
14,0
27,5
42,1
34,6
43,9
34,9
36,5
45,5
42,0
37,6
21,5
3,39
3,38
3,15
2,74
The results indicate that entrepreneurs expected really a lot from equity investors. The
structure of answers could be characterised as interesting, since entrepreneurs ranked the
benefits from the assistance in somewhat unexpected range of importance:
-
-
they expect mostly the assistance in the access to new markets (1 and 2), establishing links
/ networks with other business-people (5) or support for the process of internationalisation
(10);
investors should also provide ideas for new products / services (3) through their
experience;
management know-how (4) is expected, also in the role of the protector / peace-maker in
the process of decision-making (7);
investors should also care about skilled staff (6), knowing “the scene”;
and they are expected to behave as “free” consultants (9) or mentors / supports through
difficult times (8).
However, we were surprised with the finding that these investors are not really expected to
add the assistance through supporting the SMEs when negotiating with banks (13) and even
less in bringing other private investors in (14). The second finding might suggest that ownermanagers could consider an alliance between other equity investors as a threat of collusion
between them against themselves, while the first one could mean giving up an additional
strength when facing banks with the backup from private investors. It seems that
entrepreneurs fear from becoming too depending from investors in financial aspects, while
they do not fear from stronger market support.
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
19
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
During 1990s, Slovenia experimented with a number of forms of government’s financial
assistance to SMEs. However, due to limited available resources, the lack of financial knowhow, inadequate management of public funds and some political abuses of resources, the
results were not really satisfactory and a comprehensive scheme has not been developed, yet.
Entrepreneurs were rather disappointed with this assistance and quite a few really acquired
any substantial financial support apart from the Self-Employment Programme.
Slovene SMEs are financed the same way as it is the tradition throughout in the world: mostly
financed out of entrepreneurs own resources, with a minor support from friends or other
individual outside investors. Later on, commercial banks enter the SME financing, but relying
heavily on some local and national assistance for subsidised interest rate or guarantees. While
new private banks were the first to provide loans to SMEs, former socially-owned banks
developed their expertise and they are becoming increasingly involved in the SME financial
support. Entrepreneurs still complain about high interest rates and related costs of loans
(insurance, manipulation fee) as well as about the bureaucratic procedures. They also lack the
professional, honest attitude among bank loan officers and trust-based relationship instead of
paperwork.
While the European Union is focused on the issue of venture capital and “business angels”,
these sources have only recently started to attract some attention among Slovene SMEs. They
would in the average consider the state or private equity in their companies as quite a hostile
type of investment, having fears about the greed, inclination towards control from investors as
strong barriers to allow more freely the outside equity investments in thriving SMEs.
The survey among Slovenian SMEs in the beginning of the year 2002 is indicating following
paths of SME finance:
-
Let own savings present the major source of start-up capital, with some local or national
support for targeted groups of entrepreneurs (micro-credits, other subsidised resources);
Support commercial banks in their deals with SMEs by lowering their risks through “soft”
information, advisory and training support to SMEs, providing the guarantee scheme;
Work on the promotion of equity capital, with some tax and other incentives and creating
an environment of mutual trust among entrepreneurs and investors.
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
20
University of Mostar – Faculty of Mostar: International Conference, Mostar, April 26-27, 2002
REFERENCES
ACOST (1990): The Enterprise Challenge: Overcoming Barriers to Growth in Small Firms.
Advisory Council on Science and Technology, Cabinet Office. London: HMSO.
Binks M., C.T. Ennew (1995): Bank Finance and the Growing Firm. Buckland R., E.W.
Davis, eds., Finance for Growing Enterprise. Routledge, London.
Bovaird T. et a (1995): Market Failures in the Provision of Finance and Business Services for
SMEs. Buckland R., E.W. Davis, eds., Finance for Growing Enterprise. Routledge,
London.
Buckland R., E.W. Davis (1995): Financing for Growing Enterprises. Routledge, London.
Carter S. (2000): Gender and Enterprise. S. Carter, D. Jones-Evans, eds., Enterprise and
Small Business. Prentice Hall, Harlow, pp. 166-181.
Cuznar G. et al (2000): Finančne organizacije za razvoj MSP. Ekonomska fakulteta,
Ljubljana.
Deakins D. (1996): Entrepreneurs and Small Firms. McGraw-Hill, London.
Enterprises’ Access to Finance (2001). Commission Staff Working Paper, Brussels.
Gatewood E.J. , K.E. Hylton (1994): External Assistance for Startups and Small Businesses.
W. Bygrave, ed., The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship.John Wiley & Sons, New York,
pp. 236-277.
GEM – Global Entrepreneurship Monitor: Executive Report (2001).
Jarvis R. (2000): Finance and the Small Firm. S. Carter, D. Jones-Evans, eds., Enterprise and
Small Business. Prentice Hall, Harlow, pp. 337-353.
Keasey K., R. Watson (1993): Small Firm Management: Ownership, Finance, and
Performance. Blackwell, Oxford.
Kopač M. (1997): Banke v financiranju enot malega gospodarstva. Magistrsko delo. Univerza
v Ljubljani, Ljubljana.
Michaels N., F. Chittenden, P. Poutziouris (1996): Determinants of Capital Structure in Small
Privately Held Firms. The Institute of Small Business Affairs Research Series, Monograph
2.
Norton E. (1990): Similarities and Differences in Small and Large Corporation Beliefs about
Capital Structure Policy. Small Business Economics.
OECD (1996): Small Business in Transition Economies. LEED, Paris.
Pšeničny V., M. Blejec, M. Glas (2001): Vpliv okolja na rast dinamičnih podjetij v Sloveniji.
Visoka strokovna šola za podjetništvo, Portorož.
Ram M., G. Barrett (2000): Ethnicity and Enterprise. S. Carter, D. Jones-Evans, eds.,
Enterprise and Small Business. Prentice Hall, Harlow, pp. 182-197.
Shulman J. (1994): Debt and Other Forms of Financing. W. Bygrave, ed., The Portable MBA
in Entrepreneurship.John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. 195-235.
Žugelj D. et al (2001): Tvegani kapital: Si upate tvegati? Lisac & Lisac, Ljubljana.
© Miroslav Glas, Mateja Drnovšek, Damjan Mirtič, Viljem Pšeničny, Ljubljana 2002
21