I have been hearing lately, several entrepreneurial events with winning prices as sending entrepreneurs to Silicon Valley for pitching their projects/start ups or events where several North American Venture Capitalist / Angel Investors meet up with Turkish entrepreneurs.
“How effective are these” is another question, but lets assume it worked. At least the investors have the luxury of seeing pre-screened best of the best Turkish projects. At the very early stage, the company will be easily migrated to US either through acquisition or by offering a job to the entrepreneur. If that is the case, the mere result will be the loss of an SME who might have a substantial contribution to the national economy or in the least form loss of an intellectual talented entrepreneur.
Today I learned Sweden, has far more number of hi-tech acquisitions from US when compared to all EU countries. When I asked the reason why, the answer was: almost all these Swedish companies had US based investors at early stages who than introduced these companies to the acquirers. The same officer was also complaining that the acquisition of an hi-tech company was usually causing the loss of export generating company.
All these examples brings newer questions for Science and Technology Policy researchers, “what’s best for the country at the macro level?”.
From our perspective as being local VCs, we may nurture the local entrepreneurs before they go to US prematurely, perhaps bring in foreign investors who might contribute to the global business plan of the company. With that, contribution to the local economy will be higher until we make exits.