VEC YEARBOOK 2014
‐Annual Report on Japanese Startup Businesses 2014‐

April 2015

Venture Enterprise Center, Japan

Table of Contents

I. Analysis: Retrospect and Prospect of Startup Businesses in 2014

II. Data: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends in 2014

§1．Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends§2．Survey on Venture Capital Fund Status

I. Analysis: Retrospect and Prospect of Startup Businesses in 2014

Foreword
It is my pleasure to publish the “VEC YEARBOOK 2014 -Annual Report on Japanese Startup
Businesses 2014-” in cooperation with our collaborators. We are proud to author the only reportthat provides comprehensive coverage of Japan’s venture capital and startup businesses, which
is often quoted in academic literature and by the media.
Total annual amount of venture capital investments and loans reached just short of ¥100 billion
in FY 2009, a year after the financial crisis. After some fluctuations, total annual investments
reached ¥181.8 billion in FY 2013, achieving a year-on-year increase of 77.2%. Looking at the
breakdown of Japanese and overseas investments and loans, which is provided from this year,
investments in Japan showed a year-on-year increase of 45.1% to ¥71.8 billion, while
investments outside Japan doubled to reach ¥109.3 billion, an unexpectedly large amount thatindicates the high growth of overseas investments. We believe an increasing number ofinvestments are being made based on expectations of growth in Asian countries.
Accelerating startup businesses has become one of the policy pillars of the Japan Revitalization
Strategy promoted by the Abe administration. The Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry
announced the establishment of the Venture Business Creation Council in September 2014.
Each ministry is believed to have included a series of new venture-related schemes in the budget
for next fiscal year. In the “VEC YEARBOOK 2014,” we cover the initiatives of individual
ministries to support startup businesses to the extent possible, in addition to providing detailed
information on trends of startup companies in Japan.
There has been a recent trend to involve large companies in the government’s venture policy. I
believe it is a rational approach for Japan to concentrate everything from people, assets, andmoney to technologies in large companies. When establishing VEC in 1975, there werediscussions as to which policy—small and medium enterprise (SME) policy or industrial
policy—venture initiatives should be included in. Because startup companies are SMEs, there is
no problem including the initiatives in the SME policy. However, because startup companies are
not stability-oriented SMEs, but aim to achieve high growth, the decision was made to include
venture initiatives in the industrial policy. Because past venture initiatives by the government
focused on how to accelerate business establishment, they never went beyond the SME policy.
Looking at the recent trend to facilitate collaboration between large companies and startups, it isfinally making sense why venture initiatives were included in the Japanese government's
industrial policies.
I participated in SLUSH 2014, an annual event held in Helsinki, Finland, from November 18 to
19. I experienced first hand the enthusiasm of 14,000 people from 79 countries packed into alarge convention hall. Seeing the challenges of Finland and Europe before my eyes, I felt asense of urgency for my country, Japan.

There is no doubt that Silicon Valley will continue to attract attention globally. At VEC, incooperation with young entrepreneurs who are thriving in the region, we have focused onincorporating the flavor of Silicon Valley into the “VEC YEARBOOK 2014.”
In addition to pharmaceutical and drug discovery, energy and environment, and big data, therobotics industry is attracting growing attention from venture capitalists. The robots we aretalking about here are not conventional industrial robots but collaborative, or co-robots, which
can be used by SMEs or by nursing care and welfare facilities. It will no longer be a dream tosee robots working side-by-side with people in factories.
I offer my deepest gratitude to those who participated in our surveys and interviews. We willcontinue improving our statistics so that we can provide even more useful and relevant
information. Thank you for your continued support.

Venture Enterprise Center, Japan
President Ryuji Ichikawa

Table of Contents§1. Startup Investment Trends in Japan .......................................... I-1
1.1 Venture Capital Investment Trends ........................................ I-1(1) Venture Capital Investment Trends in FY 2013 ............................. I-1
1. Overview of Investment Conditions in FY 2013: ¥181.8 billion, Showing a
Steady Increase ....................................................... I-1
2. Quarterly Trend of VC Investments ..................................... I-2
3. Investment Trends by Industry and Stage ................................. I-3(2) New Venture Capital Funds Launched .................................... I-5
1. New VC Funds Launched in FY 2013 ................................... I-5(3) Status of Investment Exits ............................................. I-6
1. Status of Exits for FY 2013 ........................................... I-6
2. IPO Trends ........................................................ I-8
3. M&A Trends ...................................................... I-12
1.2 Funds to Spur Growth of Startups ........................................ I-14
(1) Funds to Spur Growth of Startups in Japan: Private Sector ................... I-14
1. Business Corporations (Private Non-financial Corporation Sector) ............ I-14
2. Individual/Household Sector ......................................... I-14
(2) Funds to Spur Growth of Startups in Japan: Public Sector .................... I-23
1. Innovation Network Corporation of Japan (INCJ) ......................... I-23
2. Organization for Small & Medium Enterprises and Regional Innovation,
JAPAN ............................................................ I-25
3. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Fund Corporation for Innovation,
Value-chain and Expansion Japan........................................ I-28
4. Regional Economy Vitalization Corporation of Japan ...................... I-28
5. Cool Japan Fund ................................................... I-28
6. Japan Finance Corporation (JFC) ...................................... I-29
7. Local Governments ................................................. I-29
8. Pension Funds ..................................................... I-30
1.3 Industry Trends ....................................................... I-33
(1) IT Industry ........................................................ I-33

(2) Manufacturing Industry .............................................. I-35
(3) Energy Industry ..................................................... I-37
(4) Biotech/Healthcare Industry ........................................... I-39
1.4 Government Support for Startup Businesses ................................ I-44
(1) Venture Support by the Government and Government-affiliated Institutions ..... I-44
(2) Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry ................................ I-48
(3) Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology .............. I-59
(4) Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications .......................... I-62
(5) Ministry of Justice................................................... I-64
(6) Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare .................................. I-65
(7) Cabinet Office, Government Of Japan ................................... I-66
(8) Government Affiliated Financial Institutions .............................. I-72
1.5 Support for Startup Businesses in the Private Sector .......................... I-74
(1) Matching Services (matching large companies and startups) (item b) ........... I-75
(2) Startup Discovery Events (item c) ...................................... I-78
(3) Facilities for Startup Companies (item f) ................................. I-79
(4) Consulting (items e, g, i, j, and k) ....................................... I-80
1.6. Education ........................................................... I-81
(1) University Startup Education .......................................... I-81
(2) Startup Education for High School Students .............................. I-82
(3) Startup Education for Junior High and High School Students ................. I-82
(4) Startup Education for Elementary School Students ......................... I-83
§2. Japanese Startup Business Survey .......................................... I-84
2.1 Profiles of Responding Startup Companies ................................. I-85
(1) Industries .......................................................... I-85
(2) Stage ............................................................. I-90
2.2 Status of Business Development ......................................... I-91

(1) Overseas Business Development ....................................... I-91
(2) Overseas Business Expansion by Region ................................. I-92
(3) Future Business Plans ................................................ I-95
2.3 Status of Fundraising .................................................. I-97
(1) Status of Fundraising since Incorporation ................................ I-97
(2) Status of Fundraising during the Most Recent One-year Period............... I-104(3) Forecasted Sources of Future Funds .................................... I-109
2.4 Needs of Startup Companies ........................................... I-112(1) Present Management Needs .......................................... I-112(2) Staffing Needs ..................................................... I-113(3) Challenges for Securing Staffing ...................................... I-115
2.5 Requests to the Government and Other Institutions on Policies for Creatingand Growing Startup Companies ........................................... I-116(1) Subsidies, Loan Facilities, etc. ........................................ I-116(2) Fundraising ....................................................... I-116(3) Taxes ............................................................ I-116§3. Aiming for Sustainable Growth of Investments in Startups ...................... I-121

List of Columns
Column 1:
Column 2:
Column 3:
Column 4:
Column 5:
Column 6:
Column 7:
Column 8:
Column 9:
Column 10:
Column 11:
Column 12:
Column 13:
Column 14:
Column 15:
Column 16:

Column 17:
Column 18:
Column 19:
Column 20:

Reemergence of buy-back clause amid a bubble ..........................................
“Venture stock price are a bubble”, Venture capitalists comment at
a conference ..................................................................................................
Listed venture companies are accelerating acquisitions of startups .............
Increasing presence of angel investors such as Mr. Kamada, former
President of ACCESS, and Mr. Kawada, former director of DeNA.............
Crowdfunding is becoming an increasingly popular way to raise capital,
but issues are also becoming apparent ..........................................................
Current status of crowdfunding in the United States ....................................
Advertising technology has been one of the most active sectors in thisyear’s IPO rush .............................................................................................
IoT startups are becoming an increasingly popular theme for businessestablishments and investments ....................................................................
Social entrepreneurs are providing a wide range of support in various
areas ..............................................................................................................
Fukuoka City declares itself to be Startup City: National Strategic Special
Zone for Startups..........................................................................................
Activities involving large companies and startups are becoming
widespread — Sony, Ricoh, and more —....................................................
Major IT companies are launching/expanding programs to support
startups..........................................................................................................
Real estate companies are accelerating startup support...............................
Entrepreneurship education is regaining popularity;
There are an increasing number of courses involving startups....................
News curation services show rapid growth. Will they follow the path of
the game development business?..................................................................
Korean startup companies present their business plans in Japan, procure
funds from Japanese investors, and tie up with large Japanese
corporations ..................................................................................................
Large fundraisings are no longer unusual. gumi raised nearly¥10 billion in total. .......................................................................................
Enthusiasm for fundraising in excess of one billion yen ..............................
Overseas governments are rushing to attract Japanese startup businesses
Challenge of Finland (SLUSH 2014) ...........................................................

I-7
I-11
I-13
I-15
I-20
I-21
I-34
I-36
I-43
I-71
I-76
I-77
I-79
I-83
I-87

I-96

I-103
I-117
I-118
I-119

§1. Startup Investment Trends in Japan
1.1 Venture Capital Investment Trends(1) Venture Capital Investment Trends in FY 2013
1. Overview of Investment Conditions in FY 2013: ¥181.8 billion, Showing a Steady
Increase
The total amount of investments by Japanese venture capital (VC) firms in FY 2013 (April 2013 to March2014) was ¥181.8 billion, with investments in a total of 1,000 startup companies (See Figure 1-1-1).
Compared to FY 2012, the investment amount rose 77.2%, with a 21.4% increase in the number of startup
companies receiving investments. Investment per company was ¥182 million (See Figure 1-1-2), a 45.6%
increase compared to the previous year (¥125 million).
Since bottoming out in FY 2009, a year after the financial crisis, investments in startups have been on therise, with the exception of FY 2012. However, it has not reached the peak level (around ¥280 billion)
achieved from FY 2000 to FY 2007.
The amount of investments saw a remarkable increase in FY 2013. Looking at the breakdown by
investment destination, investments in domestic companies totaled ¥71.8 billion, a 45.1% increase
compared to FY 2012, while ¥109.3 billion was invested in overseas companies, a 114.3% increase
compared to FY 2012, which is a considerably large amount.

Figure 1-1-1 Trend of Investments and Loans by Japanese Venture Capital（¥ Billions）
300(282.5)（Number of companies）
4,200(279.0)

3,578
250

200

(232.3)

3,736

3,500

(234.5)2,788(181.3)(196.8)

2,672
2,245

(165.0)2,759(193.3)
2,834

2,774

2,100

(113.2)
100

1,294

2,800

0.7

(136.6)(150.3)150(181.8)2,579(87.5)
991

50(124.0)43.1

109.3(102.6)

2.1
51
915
1,017
30.4
824
50.5

49.5

1,400
1,000

71.8

0

700

0

FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013
VC investments in companies

国内外不明投資金額（10億円）
whose locations are unknown

VC investments in overseas
海外向け投資金額（10億円）
companies

Value in ( ) is the total amount invested.

VC investments in domestic
国内向け投資金額（10億円）
companies

Numberof invested
投融資先社数（社）
companies(Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC)

Note: Applicable period for each year is as follows:
FY 1999: July 1999 to June 2000; FY 2000 to 2002: October to September of the following year
FY 2003 and later: April to March of the following year
Only the total amount is listed until FY 2010.

Ⅰ-1

Figure 1-1-2 Investments and Loans per Company (Average)(¥ Millions)

575

600
500

500

400

400

307

300

300

223

200
100

65

76

65

62

67

71

101

83

106

75

88

182

200

125

124 122

100

78
0

600

96

84

0

FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013

Total

Japan

Overseas

2. Quarterly Trend of VC Investments
Since 2013, VEC has analyzed the quarterly trend of VC investments, which is published in “VEC
Venture News.” Figure 1-1-3 shows the quarterly trend of VC investments up to Q3 2014 released in“VEC Venture News.”
Looking at the results for FY 2013, the annual investments (¥176.0 billion, preliminary data) calculated
by adding investment for four quarters in the quarterly analysis, are significantly smaller than the annual
investments (¥181.8 billion) in the annual survey. This is mainly due to additional VCs that responded tothe annual survey.

Figure 1-1-3 Trend of Investments by Japanese Venture Capital(¥ Billions)（58.8）

60
50

197（19.4）
91 （15.0）
6.3
3.7

28.7

13.1

2012-Q1

2012-Q2（N=92）

（89）

35

11.3

250

234

224
（35.5）

137

43

10

224

（46.0）
197

170

17.0

20

0

300

（50.3）（46.8）（45.7）

40
30(Number of companies)

40（20.5）

169

136（20.9）

29.7

9.5

17.1

2012-Q3

2012-Q4

（90）

（86）

119

29.7

26.1

43.0

10.8 51
9.7（26.6）

49

51

13.7

53

150

10.9

100

59

56

38

34

11.4

19.9

20.6

15.8

12.9

24.6

2013-Q1

2013-Q2

2013-Q3

2013-Q4

2014-Q1

2014-Q2

（93）

（89）

（90）

（87）

（89）

（90）

2014-Q3（88）

VC investment amount (domestic)
Number of invested companies (domestic)
N=Number of companies that responded to the survey* VC investment amount in ( ) represents the total of domestic + overseas

Ⅰ-2

VC investment amount (overseas)
Number of invested companies (overseas)

200

50
0

3. Investment Trends by Industry and Stage
A: Industry Analysis
When examining the breakdown of investments by industry in FY 2013 (See Figure 1-1-4), investment in
IT-related industries (mainly computers, mobile, and communications) decreased from 59.5% in FY 2012
to 49.5% in FY 2013, while investment in Biotech/Medical Services/Healthcare saw a significant increase
from 11.9% to 20.5%.
Looking at the FY 2013 results by the number of companies invested (See Figure 1-1-5), the percentageof IT-related is almost the same as that of the JPY value invested. However, the percentage ofIndustrial/Energy/Other Industries exceeded 20%, while that of Biotech/Medical Services/Healthcare
decreased to around 10%.

Figure 1-1-4 Investment Distribution by Industry(Percentage of JPY value invested)
100%
80%
60%

10.3%

14.8%

18.3%

15.2%

Products/Services

20.5%

Industrial/Energy/
Other Industries

11.9%

Biotech/Medical
Services/Healthcare

40%

59.5%
20%

49.5%

IT-Related

0%

FY 2012FY 2013(Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC)

Figure 1-1-5 Investment Distribution by Industry(Percentage of number of companies invested)
100%
16.0%
80%
60%

16.0%
12.0%

16.6%
23.1%
10.4%

40%
56.0%
20%

49.9%

Products/Services
Industrial/Energy/
Other Industries
Biotech/Medical
Services/Healthcare
IT-Related

0%

FY 2012FY 2013(Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC)

Ⅰ-3

B: Stage Analysis
When examining investment distribution by stage (See Figure 1-1-6), FY 2013 saw a slight decrease in
Seed stage businesses, down from 22.5% in FY 2012 to 19.4% in FY 2013. Together with Early stage
businesses, these first two stages reached a combined total of 64.5%, up from 57.8% in FY 2012. This
indicates that mainstream VC investments are shifting further towards Seed/Early stage businesses.
Looking at the FY 2013 results by the percentage of the number of companies invested (see Figure
1-1-7), Later stage businesses exceeded 30% and accounted for almost the same percentage as Early
stage businesses. However, the percentage of Seed/Early stage businesses continues to exceed the
majority at 51.6%.

Figure 1-1-6 Investment Distribution by Stage(Percentage of JPY value invested)
100%

15.8%
80%

26.4%

14.7%
20.8%
Later Stage

60%
40%

Expansion Stage

35.3%

45.1%

Early Stage
Seed Stage

20%

22.5%

19.4%

FY 2012FY 20130%(Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC)

Figure 1-1-7 Investment Distribution by Stage(Percentage of number of companies invested)
100%
80%

11.8%
30.8%
28.8%
17.6%

60%

Later Stage
Expansion Stage

40%

42.0%

33.2%

20%

17.4%

18.4%

FY 2012FY 2013

Early Stage
Seed Stage

0%(Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC)

Ⅰ-4

(2) New Venture Capital Funds Launched
1. New VC Funds Launched in FY 2013
In FY 2013, 35 VC funds were launched with a total fund value of ¥92.1 billion. Although the number of
new VC funds launched decreased from FY 2008 to FY 2010, it has been on the rise since FY 2011.
However, the total fund value of new funds decreased slightly in FY 2012 and FY 2013.

Figure 1-1-8 Number of New Funds and Total Fund Value(¥ Billions)(Number of funds)

300.0

120

281.6

274.0

245.4
250.0

200.0

150.0

100.0

100
204.4
64

198.0

87
165.5
63

137.6
61

150.9
109.5

80

70
50

60
119.7

44

46

39 84.8
23

50.0

47.4
15

52.5
13

103.6

31

92.1
35

26

0.0

40

20

0
FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013

Total Fund Value (Yen billions)

Number of Funds Launched (in units)(Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC)

Ⅰ-5

(3) Status of Investment Exits
1. Status of Exits for FY 2013
The number of trade sales (including M&A) increased sharply in FY 2013. This increase is believed tohave been caused mainly by strategic trade sales.

Figure 1-1-9 Number of Exits by Type
(Cases)
1,200（1,043）
1,000

71

（823）
800

（737）

54

600

（699）
621

304

67

45

53

260

288
314

400

162
278

154
127

175

200

197

73

106

56

99

138

117

FY2009FY2010FY2011FY2012FY2013

0
IPO

112

106

120

Write-off/Settlements

Trade Sales

Buybacks by Company Management

Other

Note: Value within ( ) represents the total number of cases(Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC)

Figure 1-1-10 Percentage of Number of Exits by TypeFY201315%FY201219%

FY2011FY201014%
5%FY2009

13%
0%

IPO

12%

9%

35%
15%

15%

21%
18%

39%

6%
8%

59%

24%

Write-off/Settlements

8%

45%

17%

20%

33%

20%
40%
Trade Sales

7%
37%

60%

80%

Buybacks by Company Management

6%
100%
Other

(Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC)

Ⅰ-6

Column 1: Reemergence of buy-back clause amid a bubble
Startup companies have been raising large amounts of funds in recent years. Meanwhile, venture capital (VC)
continues to include clauses in investment agreements requiring startup companies to redeem or buy backstocks if they fail to get listed within a designated period after a capital increase.
Buy-back clauses has existed since investing in Later stage businesses was mainstream. As the investment
behavior of VCs in Japan become more aligned with global practices, VC started to exclude buy-back clauses
from their agreements, considering that the clause would be disadvantageous to entrepreneurs. Despite atemporary decrease in the inclusion of buy-back clauses, there is an emergence of even stricter clauses that
require startup companies with relatively short histories to be listed within a period of six months to one year.
Among the reasons why clauses that look disadvantageous to startup executives were accepted was the
successful match between startup companies wanting to raise large amounts of funds and VC eager todemonstrate prompt investment execution for its investors (LP). Because the stock market is doing relatively
well, the path to an IPO seems to be clearly in sight. This is the reason why startup companies are believed tobe accepting these investment agreements.

Ⅰ-7

2. IPO Trends
About 80 IPOs are expected in 2014. Reviewing the past decade, following the financial crisis in the Fallof 2008, the number of IPOs decreased sharply in 2009 (19 IPOs). However, the number of IPOs started
to increase gradually in 2010 and exceeded 50 in 2013 for the first time in six years.

Figure 1-1-11 Number of IPOs
(Number of companies)

200

150

（188）

115

100

50

33

（158）
19

（121）
14

92
139

（77）

77
155

107

（49）
7
42

0

2005

2006

2007

2008

36

（19）
6 7
13
2009

（22）
10
6
16
2010

Number of IPOs on Emerging Stock Exchanges
Other Stock Exchanges（36） 1
9
27 22
2011

（46）
2
7

（54）
4
13

39 29

41

2012

2013

3

22
34

51

55
2014*

Number of IPOs on Existing Stock Exchanges
Number of Venture-backed Companies

・Value in ( ) is the total number of IPO companies on both emerging and existing stock exchanges
・2011 value excludes Seven Bank・Other stock exchanges: Tokyo AIM Exchange (established in June 2009) and Tokyo PRO Market (established in July 2012)
・Number of Venture-backed companies identified from listed companies on emerging stock exchanges* Figures for 2014 include the scheduled number until the end of December 2014
(Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends 2013, TRADER’S WEB, TOKYO PRO MARKET, Prepared by VEC)

Based on the Nikkei Stock Average, the stock market began rising from about October 2012, hovered ataround ¥14,000, and then reached ¥16,000 about a year later.
In the first half of 2014, the stock market fell to the ¥14,000 level, started to recover again around June,
and then reached ¥17,000 in November for the first time in seven years.

Figure 1-1-12 Trend of Nikkei Stock Average (Jan 2009 - Nov 2014)（¥）
17,00016,00015,00014,00013,00012,00011,00010,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
09/1

10/1

11/1

12/1

13/1

14/1

(Source: Nikkei Inc. Prepared by VEC)

Ⅰ-8

Figure 1-1-13 Initial Price Appreciation and Depreciation, Stocks Traded Below POP, andInitial Price Up-down Ratio Average
200(Number of companies)

150%

134.4%

Number of stocks with initial price appreciation
Number of stocks with initial price depreciation

160

159

120.7%
120%

Initial price up-down ratio (average)
Ratio of stocks trade below POP

91.0%

120

151
80

49.6%
40

1.9%
0

90%

77.1%89

10.6%

3

20

2005

2006

29

24.0%

2007

20
26

60%

53.1%
35.4%
21.1%

49.0%

40.5%

13
4

24.7% 19
10
15
9

2009

2010

18.3%

2008

40.9%

2011

37
22.2% 19.6%
9
2012

53

37
1.9%
1

2013

30%

20.4%

10

0%

2014*

Number of stocks with initial price appreciation: Number of stocks whose initial price exceeded public offering price (POP)
Number of stocks with initial price depreciation: Number of stocks whose initial price fell below POP
Initial price up-down ratio: Up-down ratio of initial price vs. POP
Ratio of stocks trade below POP: Percentage of stocks whose initial price fell below POP* Figures for 2014 are as of the end of November 2014

* Excludes Tokyo AIM in 2011 and Tokyo PRO MARKET from 2012 to 2014
(Source: TRADER’S WEB, Prepared by VEC)

Ⅰ-9

Figure 1-1-14 Summary of IPOs in 2014 (as of end-November 2014, plans for December)
Listing
Date

Market

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77

2/13
3/6
3/12
3/12
3/13
3/18
3/19
3/20
3/25
3/26
3/26
3/28
4/8
4/8
4/18
4/23
4/23
4/23
5/22
6/16
6/18
6/24
6/25
6/25
6/27
6/27
7/2
7/10
7/15
7/23
9/11
9/17
9/18
9/19
9/24
9/25
9/30
9/30
10/8
10/9
10/16
10/21
10/22
10/22
10/30
11/7
11/13
11/26
11/27
12/11
12/11
12/11
12/11
12/12
12/15
12/16
12/16
12/16
12/16
12/16
12/17
12/17
12/17
12/18
12/18
12/18
12/19
12/19
12/22
12/22
12/24
12/24
12/24
12/25
12/25
12/25
12/26

Mothers
JASDAQ
TSE 2
Mothers
TSE 1
TSE 1
TSE 1
JASDAQ
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
JASDAQ
JASDAQ
TSE 2
TSE 1
Mothers
JASDAQ
TSE 1
JASDAQ
JASDAQ
Mothers
Mothers
NSE 2
TSE 2
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
JASDAQ
Mothers
TSE 2
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
TSE 2
TSE 1
TSE 1
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
NSE 1
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
TSE 1
Mothers
TSE 2
Mothers
JASDAQ
Mothers
JASDAQ
TSE 2
Mothers
TSE 2
Mothers
TSE 1
TSE 1
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
TSE 2
JASDAQ
Mothers
TSE 2
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers

78
79
80

7/14
7/15
10/20

Stock Name

Industry

AcucelaCYBERLINKS
Nippon BS Broadcasting
EnBio Holdings
DaikyoNishikawa
Hitachi Maxell
Japan Display
HOTMAN
Minnano Wedding
DLE

CYBERDYNE
Escrow Agent JapanTOREX SEMICONDUCTORMARUWA UNYU KIKANJOYFUL HONDA
Fixstars
Shirohato
SEIBU HOLDINGS
Toubujyuhan
NEWTON FINANCIAL CONSULTINGMUGEN ESTATE
FreakOut
Poval Kogyo
OAT Agrio
MedPeer
RareJob

VOYAGE GROUP
Torikizoku
IGNIS
NIPPON VIEW HOTEL
Japan Investment Adviser
LOCKONREALWORLDAMBITION
GENERATION PASSRIBOMICHOTLANDFFRIYAMASHIN-FILTERSKYLARK
Recruit Holdings
GMO Research
OPTiM
CERES
AlphaPolis
ELAN

SHIFT
Japan PC Service
CRI Middleware
B-Lot
Bengo4.com

GMO TECH
Snow Peak
CrowdWorks
TechnoPro Holdings
artra
SFP Dining

U-NEXTMarkLines
Medical Data Vision
The Imamura Securities
Takemoto Yohki
FRUTA FRUTADAIREI
Adventuregumi
METAWATER
Scigineer
eREX
Interworks
Watahan & Co
Yossix

Datasection
TOKYO BOARD INDUSTRIESKAYACEXTREME

MRTTOKYO PRO M ARKET CHUOU INTERNATIONAL GROUPTOKYO PRO M ARKET HAKATA TAKUMI KOUGEITOKYO PRO M ARKET E-ComeTrue

Pharmaceutical
Information/Telecommunications
Information/Telecommunications
Service
ChemicalElectric Equipment
Electric Equipment
RetailInformation/Telecommunications
Information/Telecommunications
Precision Equipment
ServiceElectric Equipment
Ground Transport
RetailInformation/Telecommunications
RetailGround Transport
Real Estate
Insurance
Real Estate
Service
ChemicalChemicalService
Service
Information/Telecommunications
RetailInformation/Telecommunications
ServiceSecurities/Commodity Futures
Information/Telecommunications
Information/Telecommunications
Real Estate
RetailPharmaceutical
RetailInformation/Telecommunications
Machinery
RetailService
Information/Telecommunications
Information/Telecommunications
Information/Telecommunications
Information/Telecommunications
Service
Information/Telecommunications
Service
Information/Telecommunications
Real Estate
Service
Service
Other Product
Information/Telecommunications
Service
Service
RetailInformation/Telecommunications
Information/Telecommunications
Information/Telecommunications
Securities/Commodity Futures
Chemical
Food
Food
Service
Information/Telecommunications
Electricity/Gas
ServiceElectricity/Gas
Service
RetailRetailInformation/Telecommunications
Other Product
Information/Telecommunications
Service
Service2014 Nov-End UpInitial Price
Down Ratio vs.
Up-Down Ratio
Initial Price

28%
173%
7%
126%
12%
-5%
-15%
68%
27%
101%
130%
200%
-10%
-9%
-2%
162%
46%
0%
12%
-8%
10%
250%
7%
-6%
131%
170%
40%
121%
342%
-2%
126%
287%
78%
62%
119%
-20%
177%
-2%
20%
0%
2%
133%
260%
55%
93%
70%
362%
68%
463%
-

-65%
-78%
-55%
-47%
97%
-8%
-49%
-45%
-69%
-67%
-61%
36%
90%
-39%
57%
-63%
3%
40%
-30%
-3%
6%
-49%
31%
-39%
-83%
2%
-25%
24%
-38%
-27%
99%
-16%
-40%
38%
-45%
-13%
18%
321%
2%
2%
23%
39%
86%
-17%
-37%
7%
23%
11%
-

Service
RetailInformation/Telecommunications(Source: TRADER’S WEB, TOKYO PRO MARKET, Prepared by VEC)

Ⅰ-10

Column 2: “Venture stock prices are a bubble,” Venture capitalists comment at a conference
Venture capitalists have started to point out that stock prices at third-party allotments of startup companies are
creating a bubble. Venture capitalists who provide funds commented negatively:“It’s a bubble.” “Prices are too high.” “There is no foundation for stock prices.” Capitalists expressed theiropinions at an international conference on startups held in early September 2014.
A large number of conferences and events for venture capitalists have been held in recent years, making iteasier to keep abreast of comments made by specific venture capitalists. Venture capitalists who commented“It’s a bubble” did not make such comments in early spring.
A partner of a Japanese VC based in Singapore pointed out that the number of entrepreneurs is low comparedto the funds available. Financial institutions and corporations are providing VCs with a certain level of funds.
However, the number of entrepreneurs to invest in is small. According to an analysis by the partner, theconcentration of funds on particular entrepreneurs has resulted in the creation of a bubble. Southeast Asia has
not seen such a situation due to the large number of entrepreneurs.
However, the current situation looks different from the period 1999 and 2000, when there was a bubble. A
partner of another VC interprets the current situation as “a mixture of wheat and chaff, where both valuable
and not so valuable startup companies are financed at high prices.” Venture capitalists have also said that
there are startup companies whose growth can be expected to match stock prices.

Ⅰ-11

3. M&A Trends
According to research by RECOF Corporation, 14 startup companies were acquired by Japanesecompanies in one year from November 2013 to October 2014, showing that the number of M&As itself is
not so high. Looking at the breakdown, the Software/Information industry had the most M&A activity
with four, followed by three in the Electrical industry, and two in the Service industry.

Figure 1-1-15 Major M&A by Japanese Companies
Industry

Date

Acquiring company

Acquired company

Software/Information

April
2014

Universal Solution
Systems Inc

Software/Information

M arch2014

Hearts United Group Co.,
Premium Agency Inc.
Ltd.

ASKA T3 Co., Ltd.

Business ofacquired company

AmountDevelopment and sale ofself-order systems for therestaurant industry\378 million

CG image production including
development of social
network games\377 million

Software/Information

September Canon Marketing Japan2014
Inc. (Canon MJ)

AZE

IT venture

Software/Information

October2014

iemo, peroli, inc.

A startup company operating
curation platforms

Electrical

DecemberTransphorm, Inc.
2013

Transphorm Japan Inc.

Integration of GaN powerdevice businessElectrical

October
2014

Yanmar Co., Ltd.

estir Co., Ltd.
(Panasonic subsidiary)Handling Stirling engines

Electrical

October
2014

Current management of
SMACH Co., Ltd.

SMACH Co., Ltd.
(Panasonic subsidiary)

Production of industrial motor
control components

Services

M arch2014

GaiaX Co. Ltd.

Venture PR Co., Ltd.

Development of PR strategies,
business process outsourcing,etc.

Services

April
2014

ITALL INC.

Meister Factory Co., Ltd. Incubation office business

Precision

February
2014

Fujifilm Corporation

Japan Tissue Engineering
Regenerative medicine startup
Co., Ltd. (J-TEC)\7.38 billion

Restaurant

October
2014

Starbucks Corporation

Starbucks Coffee Japan,
Coffee chain
Ltd.

\99.506 billion

Other Financial

April
2014

Current management ofCybozu Startups, Inc.
(Cstap)Cybozu Startups, Inc.
(Cybozu subsidiary)Startup and investment
businesses of Cybozu

Tokyo Syoji

Light freight transportation,transportation intermediary

two-five

M anagement of music schools
and music instrument shops
equipped with practice studios

DeNA Co., Ltd.

Transportation/ September
PLUS Corporation
Warehouse
2014

Other Retail

October
2014

CS Loginet Inc.

\5 billion\35 million\119 million(Source: RECOF Corporation M&A information (searched with the following keywords: venture M&A))

Ⅰ-12

Column 3: Listed venture companies are accelerating acquisitions of startups
There has been a growing trend among listed venture companies to acquire relatively new startup companies
with the aim of achieving further growth. That trend has started to extend to new startups that have no recordof sales.
DeNA Co., Ltd. announced a plan to acquire two curation platform operators for ¥5.0 billion in October
2014. In November, Hottolink, Inc. announced a plan to acquire Effyis, Inc. (Michigan State), a company
operating in the social media data industry in the United States, for $22.0 million. The company aims to
expand quickly into the global market through M&As. CyberAgent, Inc. acquired the “koebu” business, avoice-specific community website, from Kayac Inc. (Kamakura-shi, Kanagawa Prefecture) in September.
Listed venture companies are attracting growing expectations from the stock market for their high growthpotential. Meanwhile, startups and VCs are making investments with the aim of exiting early at high stock
prices. Given that the intentions of those acquiring and those being acquired are matched, this trend is
expected to accelerate in the future.
DeNA Co., Ltd. acquired “iemo”, a curation platform for housing information, operated by iemo and MERY,
a curation platform for ladies fashion information, operated by “peroli”. The details of the acquisitions havenot been disclosed.
“iemo” was established in December 2013. Serial entrepreneur Mari Murata secured funding from VC, B
Dash Ventures Inc., and achieved an exit nine months after it was established. She is repeating, at high speed,
the business model of setting up a new business and achieving an exit. She has sold startup companies she
managed to gumi Inc. and to other companies.
“peroli” shareholders consist of VCs such as East Ventures and ANRI. Both companies are forming funds
using capital provided by founders and managers of IT and Internet startups. Listed venture companies,
which are potential buyers, are obtaining information on investment targets through investors’ meetings andother events at an early stage. They can get investment returns in a shorter time than by pursuing an initialpublic offering (IPO) after achieving a certain level of growth.
Brokerage firms have not actively engaged in M&As involving startup companies, due mainly to the small
sizes of their businesses.

Ⅰ-13

1.2 Funds to Spur Growth of Startups(1) Funds to Spur Growth of Startups in Japan: Private Sector
1. Business Corporations (Private Non-financial Corporation Sector)
According to the “Flow of Funds” of the Bank of Japan, as of the end of June 2014, cash and bankdeposits held by private non-financial corporations totaled approximately ¥229 trillion. These surplus
financial assets are expected to become sources of funds that spur the growth of startups.
Non-financial corporations have been accelerating investment and M&A activities involving startup
companies since 2013. See below for specific examples.

Figure 1-2-1
Summary of Investments in Startups and VC Funds by Business Corporations
Year
2013

Investor/support company
Mobile phone company,
TV company
Large company (Note 1)

Details
Made strategic investments in startup companies todiscover new business areas and prominent M&A targets
Invested $300 million in WiL (U.S. VC)

2014

Large company (Note 2)

Thirteen companies participated in KDDI’s platform

Large company (Note 3)

Announced investments in startup companies(Source: Websites, Prepared by VEC)

Note 1: More than 10 major Japanese companies, including All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd., Sony Corporation,
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation, three Hakuhodo DY Group
companies, Isetan Mitsukoshi Holdings Ltd., JVC KENWOOD Corporation, Daiwa Securities Group Inc.,
and Benesse Holdings, Inc., are making joint investments.
Note 2: Partnership ProgramKDDI CORPORATION provides startup companies with a wide range of support including assistancewith service development and management support. In addition, 13 companies participate in thePartnership Program (excluding KDDI) to provide mentoring and support for companies to start up abusiness within three months.
Mentor companies
KOKUYO Co., Ltd., Seven & i Holdings Co., Ltd., TV Asahi Corporation, PLUS CORPORATION, andMITSUI & CO., LTD.
Support companies
Kinki Nippon Tourist Co., Ltd., Softfront, Dai Nippon Printing Co., Ltd., TOKYU CORPORATION,TOPPAN PRINTING CO., LTD., PARCO CO., LTD, BANDAI NAMCO Games Inc., and Mitsui
Fudosan Co., Ltd.
A total of 13 companies provide personnel and management resources.
Note 3: OPT Inc., Nikon Corporation, NTT DATA Corporation, Omron Corporation, Rakuten, Inc., etc.

2. Individual/Household Sector
Financial assets of the household sector at the end of June 2014 totaled approximately ¥1,644 trillion. Of
which, cash and bank deposits accounted for ¥873 trillion. About 70% of household assets were owned bythose aged 60 years or older, and many of them hold the assets in cash and deposits because of theirpreference for safety and stability.
According to the “Survey of household finances 2013” conducted by the Central Council for Financial
Services Information, the percentage of equities and investment trusts in household financial assets has
returned to the pre-Lehman level (September 2008) of 13.8%, supported by an increase in share prices
after the end of 2012.
Ⅰ-14

Column 4: Increasing presence of angel investors such as Mr. Kamada, former President of
ACCESS, and Mr. Kawada, former director of DeNA
The presence of angel investors has been increasing rapidly in recent years. Angel investors use their personal
funds to invest in startup companies and provide them with support including management advice. Owners
and directors of startup companies who sell their company’s shares through M&A or leave the company after
listing are typical angel investors.
Mr. Tomihisa Kamada, former President of ACCESS, is attracting increasing attention as a super angel. Hispresence increased sharply after it became clear that he was making investments in Schaft, a robotics startup
founded at the University of Tokyo, which was later acquired by Google.
His investment themes are University of Tokyo and hardware. AgIC (Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo), one of the startups
that dominated 2014 pitch competitions, satisfies both themes.
In addition, he is investing in other manufacturing startups including Whill (California, USA), which isdeveloping next-generation wheelchairs, and Moff, Inc. (Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo), which is developing the Moff
Band, a wearable smart device.
One of the startup executives receiving investments said: “Angel investors make decisions quickly and tend
to offer more freedom to company management. On the other hand, VCs often say they have to go back andconsult with their firms.”
Mr. Shogo Kawada, co-founder and former director of DeNA Co., Ltd., also has an extensive track record.
Mr. Kawada had the goal of becoming an investor even before he founded the company. With strong financial
backing from DeNA shares, he sometimes provides funds in venture rounds, in addition to seed rounds.
Besides the 2014 listing of FreakOut, inc., in which Mr. Kawada was the 10th largest shareholder, he has also
invested in SmartNews Inc. (Shibuya-ku, Tokyo), which provides news curation services.

Ⅰ-15

● Angel
For information on the angel tax system, refer to “Angel Tax System (P. I-51).”● Crowdfunding
Crowdfunding, in which small amounts of funds are collected from an unspecified number of investors
through the Internet, is expected to be a new route for supplying risk money mainly in the household
sector.
Crowdfunding is categorized into the following six types:
Non-equity crowdfunding
1. Donation-based
2. Reward-based
Equity crowdfunding
3. Lending-based
4. Business fund-based
5. Securities investment fund-based
6. Equity-based
The main characteristics of the six types listed above are described below.

Non-equity crowdfunding
1.

Donation-based model
Individuals or companies, who want to support the activities of specific charitable organizations orsocial contribution activities conducted by private sector companies or individuals, donate money,
etc. to applicable organizations etc. with no returns expected.

2.

Reward-based model
Backers who are interested in specific products or services that are being planned or developed byparticular business operators invest in the business operators in the form of an advance payment.
The backers receive the resulting products, etc. as rewards when product development iscompleted.

Equity crowdfunding
Equity crowdfunding (3. to 6. above) is regulated by the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. In linewith enactment of the Amended Financial Instruments and Exchange Act on May 23, 2014, regulatory
requirements are likely to be eased in the future.

Ⅰ-16

3. Lending-based・A crowdfunding platform operator or a group company of a platform operator forms ananonymous association. Investors participate in the anonymous association and makeinvestments. An association operator selects a business operator as a lender and lends thefunds collected. An association operator receives principal/interest repaid from loanees
and distributes them to investors.
・ A platform operator who collects funds from investors through a platform must register
as a Type II Financial Instruments Business Operator or a Special Case Type II Financial
Instruments Business Operator. At the same time, it must register the lending business as abusiness operator who lends money to a business operator.

Investor

Business
operator

Anonymous association

○
○
○
○

Investment
Di s tribution ofpri ncipal/interest

Platform operator= operator of ananonymous association

Type II Financial Instruments
Business OperatororSpecial Case Type II Financial
Instruments Business Operator

Loan
Principal/interest

Money lending
business
Registration

Registration
4. Businessfund-based・ Generally, a business operator forms an anonymous association and outsourcesintermediary functions to transfer funds between investors and a business operator toplatform operators. Investors who are interested in specific products and/or services of thebusiness operator make investments based on an anonymous association agreement. The
business operator conducts business using funds collected and distributes operating
revenue to investors through the anonymous association.
・A platform operator (intermediary), who collects funds from investors, must register as a
Type II Financial Instruments Business Operator or a Special Case Type II Financial
Instruments Business Operator.

Investor○○○○○

Anonymous association

Investment

Platform operator (commissioned)

Business
operator

Operating revenue

Association
operator

Anonymous
association dividend

Type II Financial Instruments
Business OperatororSpecial Case Type II Financial
Instruments Business Operator

Registration

Ⅰ-17

5.
Securities
investment
fund-based

・Investors make investments by participating in an anonymous association formed by acrowdfunding platform operator as the operator of anonymous association, voluntary
association GP, or investment limited partnership GP. The anonymous association operator
or GP selects a promising business operator and invests funds collected from investors in
the applicable business operator in the form of equities. However, the securities that canbe investment targets of funds are non-listed stocks. Subsequently, the operator of theanonymous association or GP distributes dividends received or the amount of investment
associated with a stock sale and a capital gain to investors who are participants of theanonymous association.
・A platform operator who collects funds from investors through platforms must register asa Type II Financial Instruments Business Operator. Special Case Type II Financial
Instruments Business Operators are not allowed to solicit securities investment funds. In
addition, the platform operator is required to register the investment management businessas an operator of a fund investing in securities (except when registration is made as a
special business provider such as a qualified institutional investor).
Anonymous association,
voluntary association, orinvestment limited
partnership

Investor
Investment

○
○
○
○

6. Equity-basedAssociation
dividend

Platform operator= operator of an anonymous
association, voluntary
association GP, investment
limited partnership GP

Stockpurchase

Business
operator

Dividend or
saleType II Financial Instruments
Business Operator

Investment
management business

Registration

Registration

・A platform operator solicits investments in stocks of a business operator, which is a
non-listed company, from investors through the Internet as a Financial Instruments
Business Operator. Investors who have purchased stocks of the business operator receive
dividends or capital gains according to the amount of the investment.
・A Financial Instruments Business Operator who solicits investments in stocks throughthe platform must register as a Type I Financial Instruments Business Operator or aSpecial Case Type I Financial Instruments Business Operator.
Investor○○○○

Business
operator(Solicitation)
Stock purchase

Platform operator

Dividend or sale ＝ Financial Instruments
Business Operator

Type I Financial Instruments
Business OperatororSpecial Case Type I Financial
Instruments Business Operator

Registration

Ⅰ-18

Stock price
Dividend
Unlisted
company

Amended Financial Instruments and Exchange Act
No Cabinet Office Ordinance or order for the Amended Financial Instruments and Exchange Act has been
issued for crowdfunding. Therefore, while details remain unclear as of November 15, 2014, the following
deregulations and new rules are expected to be introduced.
○

To lower barriers to entry for crowdfunding business operators, a new business operator category
will be created for those handling only small amounts (total amount issued is less than ¥100 million
and amount of investment per investor is ¥500,000 or less) and the minimum capital requirements
will be lowered as follows:
・Special Case Type I Financial Instruments Business Operators¥10 million (lowered from ¥50 million (Type I Financial Instruments Business Operators))
・Special Case Type II Financial Instruments Business Operators¥5 million (lowered from ¥10 million (Type II Financial Instruments Business Operators))○

The following deregulation is expected to be applied to equity-based crowdfunding:・ Regarding Special Case Type I Financial Instruments Business Operators, restrictions on
conducting other businesses imposed on Type I Financial Instruments Business Operators
will be removed.
・ Soliciting investments in non-listed shares is, in principle, prohibited under the current
self-regulatory rules of the Japan Securities Dealers Association. Solicitation throughcrowdfunding of small amounts will be permitted as an exception.

Companies engaging in crowdfunding
As mentioned above, donation and reward-based crowdfunding business operators are not subject to the
Financial Instruments and Exchange Act. Therefore, a series of new funding websites has been created.
Because lending, fund, and equity-based crowdfunding are subject to the Financial Instruments andExchange Act, the number of business operators remains low.

Ⅰ-19

Column 5: Crowdfunding is becoming an increasingly popular way to raise capital, butissues are also becoming apparent
The use of crowdfunding to raise capital from an unspecified number of people online is spreading quickly
as a means for startup companies, business owners, and NPOs to raise funds. There are different types of
crowdfunding such as reward-based, donation-based, lending-based, and equity-based crowdfunding. The
mainstream model in Japan is reward-based crowdfunding, through which donors make reservations for
products and services designed for general consumers. This type of crowdfunding is popular among
manufacturing startup companies. Besides raising capital, they can also create loyal followers.
The number of companies supporting crowdfunding is increasing exponentially. One study shows that there
are already over 100 of these companies. They are structured to collect about 20% of project costs.
Therefore, they can earn net income of about 10%, even if they pay credit card-related expenses forpayments. If they can expand their scale, they can secure high levels of profitability.
kibidango operated by Kibidango, Inc. (Meguro-ku, Tokyo) and Makuake operated by CyberAgent Crowd
Funding, Inc. (Shibuya-ku, Tokyo) are said to have been focusing on startup companies as a business
operator.
However, crowdfunding in Japan only has a short track record. The largest amount is said to have been
about ¥30 million raised through Makuake for a male beauty business project. The entire market is estimatedto be worth around ¥1 billion, which is small compared to the ¥500 billion global market.
Therefore, some startups with large funding needs and with products capable of global expansion opt to use
overseas crowdfunding platforms that maintain a large number of website users and have an extensive trackrecord of fundraising. ReadyFor Inc., one of the leading crowdfunding platforms in Japan, is trying to boost
its crowdfunding. As part of the effort, ReadyFor Inc. revealed its plan to invite the public to submit projects
worth ¥100 million including recommendations from others.
Meanwhile, companies raising funds are also facing issues. There have been cases of product delivery being
delayed, even though they raised funds. To increase the use of crowdfunding, it will be necessary toestablish a framework to ensure appropriate project management.

Ⅰ-20

Global Crowdfunding Market
As described in the Figure below, the global crowdfunding market is experiencing rapid growth. Market
size reached about $2.7 billion in 2012. Lending-based crowdfunding was the largest category in terms ofvolume at 44% followed by donation-based at 37% and reward-based at 14%. Equity-based
crowdfunding accounts for just 4%.

Figure 1-2-2 Crowdfunding Volumes by Category ($M)

Source: Bruegel on the basis of Crowdfunding Industry Report 2013 (Massolution)

Column 6: Current status of crowdfunding in the United States
Current status
Donation-based and reward-based crowdfunding have been the mainstream approaches in the United States.
However, enactment of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (the JOBS Act) in April 2012 is expected tosignificantly expand equity-based crowdfunding. Consequently, future developments are attracting attention.
The JOBS Act, consisting of seven Titles, is designed to promote startup companies. Deregulation related to
crowdfunding is included in Title III. Due to a significant delay in the process of putting the Act into force, it
had not taken effect as of November 2014.
Title III includes the following details* Note 1.
1.

Able to solicit investments up to $1 million a year without registering with the Securities andExchange Commission (SEC) (generally referred to as the Crowdfunding Exemption)

2.

Previously, individual investors had to have net assets of at least $1 million to be a qualified investor.
However, the crowdfunding exemption allows investors who do not satisfy the requirements toparticipate in investments under the following conditions:i) If the investor’s annual income or net worth is less than $100,000, the cap is the greater of$2,000 or 5% of annual income or net worth (during a 12-month period)ii) If the investor’s annual income or net worth is greater than $100,000, the cap is 10% of annual
income or net worth, up to a maximum of $100,000 (during a 12-month period)

Ⅰ-21

3.

In addition to securities companies that have registered with the SEC and self-regulatoryorganizations, registered Internet websites funding portals will be added as business operators who
can raise funds under the conditions listed above. Various conditions are imposed on these securities
companies and funding portals to protect investors.

Impact of equity-based crowdfunding on VC firms
Many articles discuss the impact of equity-based crowdfunding. An overwhelmingly large number of articles
argue that equity-based crowdfunding has almost no impact on VCs. Rather, VCs can benefit from thegrowth of crowdfunding.
The Ivey Business Journal*Note 2 describes why the impact of crowdfunding is limited as follows:1.

Considering that crowdfunding is limited to $1 million a year, it does not compete directly withtypical VC funds.

2.

Traditional VCs tend to access or assess investment deals through trusted personal networks, whereas
crowdfunding is exposed to a wide audience and presents high agency risks.

3.

As part of the crowdfunding process, a large volume of information must be disclosed to anunspecified number of investors to attract capital from the crowd. This may prevent startups fromdifferentiating themselves from competitors or result in the loss of core technologies. Therefore, it isbetter for many high-potential ventures to keep confidential information undisclosed until theirtechnologies or business ideas are established. Doing so will make them more attractive to top tier
VCs. Therefore, there are no incentives for high-potential ventures to disclose information throughcrowdfunding.

4.

Crowdfunding increases the number of shareholders, complicating the capitalization table andbalance sheet. This may drive away VCs.

5.

Because crowdfunders are often amateur investors, they do not know fair valuations of ventures andmay pay more than they are worth. In such a case, when the company tries to raise funds from VCs
later, there may be a down round (the value is below the valuation at the previous round).

6.

Ventures that opt for crowdfunding tend to target the B2C market, which is relatively easy tounderstand. Therefore, VCs are expected to be major players in the B2B market.

While there are many articles besides that in the Ivey Business Journal that feature crowdfunding, almost allof the articles conclude that crowdfunding is not a threat to small and midsize VCs. There has beenrecognition within the industry for a few years that (super) angel investors are becoming a threat to small
and midsize VCs. However, many articles argue that crowdfunding facilitates the development of startups
and will have a positive impact on the entire VC industry in the long-term.

* Note 1: Capital Markets Monthly, “The Dawn of Crowdfunding: Purpose and Details of JOBS Act,”
July 2012* Note 2: Ivey Business Journal, “Crowdfunding’s impact on the entrepreneurial equity food chain,”July/August 2013

Ⅰ-22

(2) Funds to Spur Growth of Startups in Japan: Public Sector
1. Innovation Network Corporation of Japan (INCJ)
Innovation Network Corporation of Japan (INCJ) is an investment fund that was established based on the
Act on Special Measures for Industrial Revitalization and Other Laws to Foster Innovation in Industrial
Activities in Japan (the “Industrial Revitalization Law”).
Investors:

Currently, ¥266 billion from the Japanese government and ¥14.01 billion fromprivate corporations and individual investors

Government
guarantee:

When funds are raised from financial institutions, a maximum of¥1.8 trillion government guarantee is applied to the fundOperational period:

Started operation on July 27, 2009; operational period is 15 years

INCJ celebrated its 5th anniversary in July 2014. Assuming the final five years are the collection period,
five years from July 2014 to July 2019 are considered to be the period for investment activities.
INCJ has been accelerating its startup investments since 2013. In the Fall of 2013, INCJ started to invest
in VC funds as a major LP. Considering the large amount of capital invested, INCJ is expected to play asubstantial role in supplying risk money to startup businesses.

Figure 1-2-3 Summary of Startup Investments by INCJ in Fiscal Year 2013
Date(Day ofAnnouncement)

Investment
Amount (JPY 100
million)(See Note 1)
4.5

Name of Portfolio Company

2013/4/1 AQUA Therapeutics Co., Ltd.

DomesticorForeignIndustry

Stage

Investment
Type
New investment

Domestic

Pharmaceuticals

Early

2013/4/3 M ido Holdings Ltd.

12.0

DomesticIT

Seed

New investment

2013/5/27 PRISM Pharma Co., Ltd.

10.0

Domestic

Pharmaceuticals

Early

New investment

2013/7/8 Exvision Inc.

1.8

Domestic

SoftwareSeed

New investment

2013/7/25 IP Bridge, Inc.

28.4

Domestic

Corporate services

Early

New investment
New investment

2013/8/7 Apparel- Web, Inc.

3.0

Domestic

IT services

Early

2013/8/12 JTOWER Inc.

9.0

Domestic

Communications

Early

New investment

2013/8/26 M egakaryon Corporation

10.0

Domestic

BiotechSeed

New investment
New investment

2013/9/2 UniZeo Co., Ltd.

6.0

Domestic

Other industry

Seed2013/9/13 Zeptor Corporation （See Note 2）

7.1

Foreign

General electricity

Seed

New investment

2013/10/7 SM ART INSIGHT CORPORATION

10.0

Domestic

SoftwareExpansion

New investment

2013/10/15 ROYAL GATE INC.

10.0

Domestic

IT services

Early

New investment

2013/10/28 Coiney, Inc.

8.0

Domestic

IT services

Expansion

New investment

44.0

Domestic

Early

New investment

2014/1/14 Refinverse, Inc.

5.0

Domestic

Other industry

Early

New investment

2014/2/3 NapaJen Pharma, Inc （See Note3）

9.2

Foreign

Pharmaceuticals

Seed

New investment

2014/2/12 SQUSE Inc.

5.0

Domestic

Industrial products

Early

New investment

2014/2/20 Shift-One Inc. (formerly, New)

9.0

Domestic

IT services

Seed

New investment

2014/2/27 Trigence Semiconductor Inc.

4.8

Domestic

Semiconductor

Early

New investment

2014/3/6 M aterial Concept Co., Ltd.

6.0

Domestic

Other industry

Seed

New investment

2014/3/7 Sphelar Power Corporation

6.5

Domestic

General electricity

Early

Follow-On investment

2013/11/8

M edVenture Partners Ltd.
(M PI-1
Investment
Partnership)

Limited

Total

209.3

Note 1: Investment amount based on public data (excluding investment deals without a disclosed amount)Note 2: Investment amount calculated based on Q3 2013 average exchange rate of $1=¥98.9
Note 3: Investment amount calculated based on Q1 2014 average exchange rate of $1=¥102.8

Ⅰ-23

Figure 1-2-4 Summary of LP Investments by INCJ in Fiscal Year 2013
Date(Day ofAnnouncement)

Investment
Amount (JPY 100
million)(See Note 1)

Name of Portfolio Company

DomesticorForeign

2013/10/16 UTEC 3 Limited Partnership

100.0

Domestic

2013/11/22 Global Brain No. 5 Investment Limited Partnership

100.0

Domestic

102.8

Foreign

2014/1/8 WiL Fund I, L.P. （See Note 4）
Total

302.8

Note 4: Investment amount calculated based on Q1 2014 average exchange rate of $1=¥102.8

Figure 1-2-5 Summary of Startup Investments by INCJ in Fiscal Year 2014(as of the end of October 2014)
Date(Day ofAnnouncement)

Investment
Amount (JPY 100
million)(See Note 1)

Name of Portfolio Company

DomesticorForeignIndustry

Stage

InvestmentType2014/4/24 Wisdoms Corporation

15.0

ForeignIndustry

Expansion

Follow-On investment

2014/5/16 Customer Communications, Ltd.

4.0

Domestic

IT services

Early

New investment

2014/5/19 Sansan, Inc.

7.5

Domestic

IT services

Early

New investment

2014/5/22 Create Vaccine Company, Ltd.

2.8

Domestic

Pharmaceuticals

Seed

New investment

2014/6/2 Microwave Chemical Co., Ltd.

8.0

Domestic

Industry

Early

New investment

2014/7/8 Cloudian Holdings Inc. （See Note 5）

15.6

Foreign

SoftwareExpansion

New investment

2014/7/14 QUADRAC Co., Ltd.

7.0

Domestic

IT services

Early

New investment

2014/7/25 NejiLaw inc.

7.0

Domestic

Industrial products

Early

New investment

2014/8/4 Oh My Glasses Inc.

9.0

Domestic

IT services

Expansion

New investment

Expansion

New investment

2014/8/7 Agra Corporation

6.0

Domestic

IT services

2014/9/3 WHILL Inc. （See Note 6）

9.4

Foreign

Other industry

Early

New investment

2014/9/8 K-engine Corp.

20.0

Domestic

IT services

Early

New investment

2014/9/22 SCIVAX Corporation

6.6

Domestic

Industry

Early

New investment

2014/10/7 BiC Co., Ltd.

10.0

Domestic

Communications/network

Seed

New investment

Total

127.9

Note 5: Investment amount calculated based on Q3 2014 average exchange rate of $1=¥103.9
Note 6: Investment amount calculated based on Q3 2014 average exchange rate of $1=¥103.9

Ⅰ-24

2. Organization for Small & Medium Enterprises and Regional Innovation, JAPANIn July 2010, Organization for Small & Medium Enterprises and Regional Innovation, JAPAN (SME
Support, JAPAN) realigned its fund investment business into Venture Fund, SME Growth Capital &Buyout Fund, and SME Turnaround Fund.
Among these three businesses, Venture Fund and SME Growth Capital & Buyout Fund invest in startup
companies. SME Support, JAPAN invests a maximum of 50% (no more than ¥6 billion) of individual
funds as an LP.
With private investments in VC funds remaining slow since the recent financial crisis, SME Support,
JAPAN continues to invest in VC funds and is playing a substantial role as an LP.

Figure 1-2-6 Venture Fund and SME Growth Capital & Buyout Fund
Operated by SME Support, JAPAN1. Fund formation: SME Support,
JAPAN invests a maximum of 50%
General Partner

Limited Partners

Financial
institutions
Companies

Investment

OthersSME Support,JAPAN

midsized enterprises that are at thedevelopment or early growth stage

Venture Fund/SME Growth Capital& Buyout Fundand aim to achieve new growth or

Growth,Development(Limited Partnership)

Distributionof profits

2. Investment targets: Small andHands-on support

Distribution of profits Investment,(management fees & Operation
incentive fees)

Local Gov.

of total funds as an LP.

SME Support,JAPAN

Venture Capital
Firm

Investment

expansion

Startups/SMEs

3. Support mechanism: Providing(Equity, Stock Option,
Corporate bond etc.)

funds through such measures suchas acquisition of equity and bonds
with warrants

Figure 1-2-7 Trend of SME Support, JAPAN’s Fund Investments(Unit: JPY 100 million)
FY2008FY200920.0

SME
Support, Regional Support FundJAPAN total Venture Fund (Since FY 2011)
investment

Total value of new funds (B)Investment ratio(Percentage of SME Support, JAPAN commitment = A/B)

FY2013End ofOctober 2014

5.2

25.0

50.0

14.0

15.0

4.5

20.0

13.0

210.0

184.0

309.8

80.5

18.2

224.0

199.0

314.3

100.5

118.4

Venture Fund (Before FY 2011)
Total value of Ganbare! SME Fundfunds
invested in Regional Support Fund
by SME Venture Fund (Since FY 2011)
Support,SME Growth Capital & Buyout FundJAPAN

FY20125.0

SME Growth Capital & Buyout FundSME Support, JAPAN total investment (A)FY201150.0

Venture Fund (Before FY 2011)Ganbare! SME Fund

FY2010

40.4

11.2

10.0

54.0
50.4
50%

118.4
42%

65.2
28%

30.0

36.3

9.5

49.0

601.8

683.1

862.79352.68

631.8
35%

719.4
28%

872.29401.6836%

25%(Source: SME Support, JAPAN, Prepared by VEC)

(Note 1) Values in Figure 1-2-7 exclude those of the SME Turnaround Fund, Industrial Reconstruction Corporation Fund and Business Continuity Fund
(Note 2) Value of SME Growth Capital & Buyout Fund includes investments into buyout funds

Ⅰ-25

Figure 1-2-8 Trend of SME Support, JAPAN’s Fund Investments（¥ Billions）
35（31.5）

30（22.4）

25

1.4

20

（19.9）

1.5
31.0

15

（10.1）

21.0

10
5

0.5

18.4

2.0
8.1

（1.3）

1.3

0

FY2010FY2011FY2012FY2013

SME Growth Capital & Buyout Fund

End of October
2014

Venture Fund

(Source: SME Support, JAPAN, Prepared by VEC)

Figure 1-2-9 Total Value of Funds Invested by SME Support, JAPAN, andTotal Value of its Investments（¥ Billions）
100
90

50%
87.2

42%

80
63.2

70

35%

45%
40%

36%

71.9

35%

28%

60

25%

50

30%
25%

28%
40.2

40

20%
31.4

30
20
10

15%

22.4

19.9
10%

11.8
5.0

10.1

6.5
1.8

0

5%
0%

FY2009FY2010FY2011FY2012FY2013

Total value of funds invested in by SME Support, JAPANSME Support, JAPAN total investment
Investment ratio (Percentage of SME Support, JAPAN Commitment)

End ofOctober
2014(Source: SME Support, JAPAN, Prepared by VEC)
(Note 1) Values in Figure 1-2-8 and 1-2-9 exclude those of the SME Turnaround Fund, Industrial Reconstruction
Corporation Fund and Business Continuity Fund
(Note 2) Value of SME Growth Capital & Buyout Fund includes investments into buyout funds

Ⅰ-26

Figure 1-2-10 Summary of Funds Invested by SME Support, JAPAN (FY 2012 ~)Fiscal Year

Fund Name

Fund TypeNEC Capital Solutions Limited
SM BC Venture Capital Co., Ltd.

B Dash Fund
Partnership

Venture fund¥1.5 billion

M ay 2012

B Dash Ventures Inc.

SM E Growth Capital &Buyout Fund¥35.7 billion

July 2012

Polaris Capital Group Co., Ltd.

IDI Infrastructure #2 Limited Liability SM E Growth Capital &Partnership
Buyout Fund¥13.1 billion

July 2012

IDI infrastructures, Inc.

Kyushu Entrepreneur
Limited Partnership¥1.1 billion September 2012 DOGAN, Inc.

1

Investment

LimitedClub Investment SM E Growth Capital &Buyout Fund
SM E Growth Capital &Buyout Fund

NH-2
DCI High-Tech M anufacturer
Support Investment, LLP

Growth SM E Growth Capital &Buyout Fund
Venture fund

Asian Gateway No. 1 Investment Limited SM E Growth Capital &Partnership
Buyout Fund
Shimane SM E Growth Support Investment
Limited Partnership

SM E Growth Capital &Buyout Fund

FY 2012 Total value of funds¥10.0 billion November 2012 New Horizon Capital Co., Ltd.
¥3.0 billion December 2012 Daiwa Corporate Investment Co., Ltd.
¥2.1 billion February 2013

Tohru Akaura, M asahikoKeisuke Wada, Yusuke M urata

Honma,¥1.2 billion

M arch 2013

Sumitomo M itsui Trust Investment Co.,Ltd.

¥0.7 billion

M arch 2013

The Gogin Capital Co.,Ltd.

¥71.94 billion
SM E Growth Capital &Buyout Fund¥7.19 billion

April 2013

GLOBIS CAPITAL PARTNERS & Co.

Femto Growth Capital Investment Business SM E Growth Capital &Limited Liability Partnership
Buyout Fund

¥1.616 billion

April 2013

Femto Growth Capital LLP

SM E Growth Capital &Buyout Fund¥29.5 billion

April 2013

Integral Partners

Globis Fund IV, L.P.

Integral 2 Limited Partnership

OiDE Fund Investment Limited Partnership Venture fund¥0.95 billion September 2013 M itsubishi UFJ Capital Co., Ltd.

Whiz Asia Evolution Fund Investment SM E Growth Capital &Limited Partnership
Buyout Fund¥10.7 billion September 2013 Whiz Partners Inc.

TNP Small/M edium Size & Venture
SM E Growth Capital &Enterprises Growth Promotion Investment
Buyout Fund
Limited Partnership¥4.86 billion September 2013 TNP On The Road Corporation

Next Capital Partners II Limited Partnership

SM E Growth Capital &Buyout Fund¥3.7 billion October 2013

Next Capital Partners Co., Ltd.

ACA Synergy No. 2 Fund

SM E Growth Capital &Buyout Fund¥2.8 billion October 2013

ACA Inc.

GM O VP Fund III

SM E Growth Capital &Buyout Fund

¥1.25 billion November 2013 GM O VenturePartners

JSPF3

SM E Growth Capital &Buyout Fund¥5.253 billion December 2013 WM PARTNERS Co., Ltd.

DAC Venture United Fund I Investment SM E Growth Capital &Business Limited Partnership
Buyout Fund

¥1.26 billion

January 2014

VENTURE UNITED, inc.

M inori No. 2 Fund

SM E Growth Capital &Buyout Fund

¥10.09 billion

M arch 2014

M inori Corporation

PNB-INSPiRE Ethical Fund 1

SM E Growth Capital &Buyout Fund

¥4.85 billion

M arch 2014

PNB Inspire Partners Corporation¥4.9 billion

M ay 2014

GREE Ventures, Inc., Yusuke Amano,
Tatsuo Tsutsumi

FY 2013 Total value of funds

FY 2014
April 2014 –October 2014

Fund Operator

April 2012

Incubate Fund No. 2 Limited Partnership

FY 2013
April 2013
– March2014Month/Year¥3.5 billion

Polaris Private Equity Fund III, L. P.

FY 2012April 2012
– March2013

Total AmountInnovative Venture Fund Investment Limited SM E Growth Capital &Partnership
Buyout Fund

¥84.019 billion

AT-I Investment Limited Partnership

Venture fundGlobal Catalyst Partners Japan Fund

SM E Growth Capital &Buyout Fund¥1.213 billion

August 2014

Global Catalyst Asia Ltd.

iSigma Business Advance Fund 2 Investment SM E Growth Capital &LP
Buyout Fund¥17.485 billion

August 2014

iSigma Partners Corporation

SM E Growth Capital &Buyout Fund¥6.1 billion

August 2014

Ant Capital Partners Co., Ltd.

Ant Bridge No. 4 A Private Equity
Investment Limited Partnership
FY 2014 Total value of funds¥29.698 billion(Note 1) Data as of the end of each fiscal year (as of the end of October for FY 2014)(Note 2) Values in Figure 1-2-10 exclude those of the SME Turnaround Fund, Industrial Reconstruction Corporation
Fund and Business Continuity Fund.

Ⅰ-27

3. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Fund Corporation for Innovation, Value-chain andExpansion JapanFor details, access the following website: http://www.a-five-j.co.jp/
Company namePurposeDescription ofbusiness
Establishment
Major
shareholders

Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries Fund Corporation for Innovation, Value-chain,
and Expansion Japan (A-FIVE)
Providing support to those engaged in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries to promotelocal production of agricultural, forestry, and fishery products for local consumption
and the so-called sixth industrialization
Public-private fundJanuary 2013
Japanese Government
Private companies
Total

:
:
:

¥30.0 billion¥1.802 billion¥31.802 billion

4. Regional Economy Vitalization Corporation of JapanFor details, access the following website: http://www.revic.co.jp/
Company namePurposeDescription ofbusiness
History/
Establishment
CapitalMajor
shareholders

Regional Economy Vitalization Corporation of Japan (REVIC)
Providing support to revitalize the businesses of companies suffering fromdeteriorating performance and to vitalize local economies
Public-private fundEstablished as the Enterprise Turnaround Initiative Corporation of Japan in October
2009; Reorganized as the Regional Economy Vitalization Corporation of Japan(REVIC) in March 2013
¥23,084.8 million
Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan: ¥22,584.8 million,
Private financial institutions: ¥500 million

5. Cool Japan FundFor details, access the following website: http://www.cj-fund.co.jp/
Company namePurposeDescription ofbusiness
Establishment
CapitalMajor
shareholders

Cool Japan Fund Inc.
・Developing overseas demand for excellent Japanese products and services
・Exporting Japan’s appeal worldwide (nation branding)・Converting overseas growth into economic growth in Japan, including local
economies
Public-private fundNovember 2013¥39.0 billion (as of October 2014)
Japanese Government and 18 private companies (as of October 2014)
Japanese Government: ¥30.0 billion, private companies: ¥9.0 billion

Ⅰ-28

6. Japan Finance Corporation (JFC)
JFC has been providing a series of loans to new business operators including startup companies.
In April 2008, JFC launched the “Provision Scheme for Challenge Support and Capital Enhancement”(capital loans). The scheme provides entrepreneurs with loans of ¥300 million over 7, 10, or 15 years(with lump-sum repayment at maturity). In FY 2013, capital loans were provided to 664 companies(¥51.4 billion) in total including 101 small businesses (¥1.7 billion) and 563 SMEs (¥49.7 billion). Boththe number of companies and amounts are increasing sharply.

Figure 1-2-11 Provision Scheme for Challenge Support and Capital Enhancement(capital loans)Startup/
New
Business
Loans

Number ofCompanies
Total Loan
Amount(¥ billions)

FY 2009

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

40

119

154

249

664

2.9

5.4

5.0

13.6

51.4

(Source: JFC News Release, May 30, 2014)

7. Local Governments
This startup loan scheme is also being carried out through local governments, with each prefecture
providing loans that are backed by each region’s credit guarantee corporation.

Ⅰ-29

8. Pension Funds
Figure 1-2-12 displays the breakdown of investors for VC funds throughout U.S. and in Japan bypercentage of amount invested. Pension funds are the major U.S. investors in VC funds.

Figure 1-2-12 Breakdown of Investors in VC funds in Japan and U.S. (percentages of amountinvested)
Wealthy investors/
Feeder funds 2%

Discretionary
advisers 2%

Other 3%

Corporations
directly 3%

Pension funds 27%

GP contributions
4%
Banks/
Financial services
4%
Sovereign wealthfunds 4%
Insurancecompanies 7%

2013
U.S.

Endowments/
Foundations 17%

Fund of funds 13%

Family offices 14%
Pension funds = Public pension funds 20% + Corporate pension funds 7% + Union pension funds 0%(Source: Dow Jones, Prepared by VEC)

Insurance
Companies 0.9%

Individuals,
Relatives 0.3%

Other VC/
Fund of funds 0.3%
Brokerage Firms
0.0%

Other Domestic
2.9%

Banks/
Shinkin Banks/Credit Unions
30.7%

GP andManaging Partner
14.7%

FY2013Japan
Government,
Local Public Bodies
21.2%
Corporations 29.0%(Source: VEC Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends in 2014)Ⅰ-30

● Japanese Pension Funds
The outstanding balances of Japanese pension funds are listed below.

Figure 1-2-13 Outstanding Balances of Japanese Pension Funds

PublicPensionCorporatePension(Note 1)

Organizations managing

Assets underinvestors

management

Government Pension
Investment Fund (GPIF)
Individual corporate pension
funds, Pension Fund
Association’s funds, Others(Note 2)¥127.2627 trillion(End of March 2014)

Investments in VC funds
No investments in VC funds
Have an investment track¥92.293 trillion(End of March 2014)

record in VC funds (details
unclear)

Note 1: Assets under management of corporate pensions = total assets under management of defined contribution
corporate pensions, Pension Fund Associations, and defined benefit corporate pensions.
Note 2: Employees’ pension fund associations formed by companies in the same industry.
(Source: Government Pension Investment Fund, Trust Companies Association of Japan)● Public Pensions
The Government Pension Investment Fund (the GPIF) is entrusted by the Minister of Health, Labor andWelfare with the tasks of operating and administering public pension funds. Considering that public
pension funds invest in VC funds that are in the United States, there are some recommendations toallocate a part of Japan’s public pensions to growth-oriented investments including startups.

Figure 1-2-14 GPIF Basic Asset Allocation Portfolio (June 2013 to October 2014)

Target allocation
Permissible range
of deviation

Domestic
bonds
60%
±8%

Domestic
stocks12%±6%International
bonds
11%
±5%

International
stocks12%±5%

Short-term
assets
5%
－

PE/VC
None
None

(Source: GPIF, Mid-term Goals, June 7, 2013)

Figure 1-2-15 Trends GPIF Basic Asset Allocation Portfolio (from October 2014)

Target allocation
Permissible range
of deviation(Note)

Domestic
bonds
35%
±10%

Domestic
stocks25%±9%International
bonds
15%
±4%

International
stocks25%±8%

Alternative investments will be made within a maximum of 5% of the total portfolio, in accordance with thedevelopment of a dedicated team. Infrastructure, private equities, real estate, or other assets determined by theInvestment Advisory Committee, are classified as domestic bonds, domestic stocks, international bonds, orinternational stocks, depending on their risk and return profiles. GPIF adopts a tactical asset allocation within
permissible ranges of deviations for each asset class, and this allocation is solely based upon a detailed analysis of
the economic and market environment, and prudent judgment.

(Source: GPIF “Adoption of New Policy Asset Mix” announced on October 31, 2014)

Ⅰ-31

At the World Economic Forum (Davos meeting) in January 2014, Prime Minister Abe stated that Japan’s
public fund management will undergo major reforms including a portfolio review, and the GPIF will
make growth-oriented investments.
The “Japan Revitalization Strategy Revised in 2014” announced in June 2014 comments on the GPIF as
follows:
・To respond to long-term trends in the economic and investment environments and secure soundpension finances over an extended period, the Government Pension Investment Fund (GPIF) willappropriately revise its policy asset mix as quickly as possible.
・Along with the above-mentioned revision, initiatives for strengthening the governance structure of the
GPIF will be promoted immediately, including improvements to the investment committee structureand securing investment professionals. In addition, other necessary measures including proceedingwith discussions on possible future law amendments will be accelerated.
After the Cabinet reshuffle in September 2014, the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare commented on
GPIF’s portfolio, saying: “Investments may be made in startups and private equities.” However,considering the GPIF’s philosophy of ensuring safe and efficient management and investment throughappropriate risk management, the GPIF is said to leave the specific asset ratio to professionals. On
November 20, 2014, the GPIF announced its plan to appoint Mr. Hiromichi Mizuno, who is from theprivate sector, as the Chief Investment Officer (CIO) (appointment is scheduled to be effective fromJanuary 5, 2015).
On October 31, 2014, the GPIF announced changes to its mid-term goals and adopted the new basic asset
allocation portfolio above.

● Corporate Pensions
Assets under management of corporate pensions as of the end of March 2014 totaled ¥92.293 trillion. Dueto the lack of disclosed data, it is difficult to accurately grasp information on investments of corporate
pensions in VC funds.

Ⅰ-32

1.3 Industry Trends(1) IT Industry

IT Startups
From 2013 to 2014, IT startups have focused particularly on the following four segments: (1) news
applications, (2) advertising, (3) education, and (4) healthcare.
The news application segment consists of companies targeting general news and those focusing on
specific areas. Among companies targeting general news, three companies, namely, SmartNews Inc.,
Gunosy Inc., and Antenna, are the main players. The cumulative number of downloads exceeded 5
million, 6.5 million, and 4 million respectively.
These news application companies distribute news from over 50 – 100 newspaper companies, TV stations,and online media. Given the rapid expansion of the market, many VCs are now making investments.
Startup companies operating in the area of advertising include those providing services related toreal-time bidding (RTB) and tools to measure the effectiveness of Internet advertising.
Startup companies operating in the area of education include those providing services related to online
lessons for adults, online English lessons, smartphone tutoring, learning management services, andeducational and intellectual training apps for children.
Startup companies operating in the area of healthcare include those providing services related to
employees’ health management, health management websites, which refer to 1 million pieces of data, andmeasurements and advice on mental and physical balance.

Figure 1-3-1 Example of IT Startup Companies
Segment

Startup Companies

News
Advertising
SNS
Game
Cloud-based
applications
EC siteSmartNews Inc., Gunosy Inc., Gloder Associates Inc., UZABASE, Inc., etc.
FreakOut, inc., Lockon Co., Ltd., VOYAGE GROUP, Inc., Fringe81 Co., Ltd., Dennoo Inc., etc.
REVENTIVE Inc., trippiece INC., Talknote, Inc., Retty, Inc., Timers Inc., etc.
Akatsuki Inc, gumi Inc., (The) ONE of THEM, Inc., Aiming Inc., etc.
Sansan, Inc., StandFirm Inc., ITANDI, Inc., Accounting SaaS Japan Co., Ltd., freee K.K., etc.

Education
Settlement
Translation
Interior
Healthcare
Development

Mercari, Inc., Tokyo Otaku Mode Inc., IID, Inc., MUSE & Co., Ltd., Peatix inc.,
Stardust Communications Inc., MONOCO Inc., Aratana inc., raksul, Inc., LOCONDO, Inc., etc.
SMARTEDUCATION, LTD., mana.bo Inc., Studyplus, Inc., RareJob, Inc., schoo Inc.,TOKYO STORM Inc., Lang-8, Inc., SuRaLa Net Co., Ltd., etc.
ROYAL GATE INC., Coiney, Inc., WebPay, Inc., Metaps Inc., etc.
Gengo, Inc., Yaraku, Inc., anydooR Inc., etc.
SUVACO Co., Ltd., iemo, etc.
Healthcare Style laboratory Co., Ltd., WINFrontier Co., Ltd., MinaCare Co. Ltd.,
WellnessData Inc., etc.
sekaie Inc., Toreta, Inc., TriFort, Inc., Wonderplanet Inc., BASE CO., LTD.
KAIZEN platform Inc., repica, inc., Piece of Cake, Inc., pLucky Inc., papelook Inc.,
Smart Insight Corporation, Borders, Inc., etc.
(Source: Websites, Prepared by VEC)

Ⅰ-33

Column 7: Advertising technology has been one of the most active sectors in this year’s IPO
rush
The number of IPOs increased from 2013 to 2014. The Internet advertising technology sector is seeing aparticularly high increase. FreakOut, inc., VOYAGE GROUP, Inc., and Lockon Co., Ltd. are among thosecompanies. In addition to the growth of the industry itself, there are plans among securities companies to sell
those that are attractive to investors.
“We will change the framework of Internet advertising with technologies,” Mr. Yuzuru Honda, CEO of
FreakOut, inc. said at an IPO conference in June 2014. The company is handling real-time bidding (RTB)
advertising technology, which has been gaining popularity in recent years. RTB is an automated process thatenables the buying and selling of advertisements in real-time as users browse a website. This service canmeet a client’s needs to always display the most appropriate advertisement.
Lockon Co., Ltd. has strengths in providing a tool to measure the effectiveness of Internet advertising. The
company is also providing services that cover everything from automated advertising optimization toautomated ad posting. While the company has engaged in e-commerce and other businesses since it wasestablished in 2000, it finally made an IPO after shifting its focus to advertising technology.
VOYAGE GROUP, Inc. had an IPO 15 years after it was established. The company’s main business is tooperate the point-based Internet media “EC Navi,” which is the former name of the company. However, thecompany explained to its investors that it is providing advertising technology services. Similar to the case of
FreakOut, inc., the company benefitted from the growth of an advertising market driven by RTB.
In reality, securities companies make the final judgment on whether or not to allow companies to make an
IPO. In this sense, securities companies competed on advertising technology in 2014.
Buyers of IPO shares are mainly individual investors. In addition to actual business performance, whether or
not themes are suitable for shares is often used as a criterion for making decisions.
A large number of biotechnology startups went public from 2013 to early 2014 after receiving unexpectedattention when Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, a Kyoto University Professor, won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or
Medicine in 2012.

Ⅰ-34

(2) Manufacturing Industry
While the manufacturing industry covers a wide range of products, startup companies are thriving insectors that can be handled by small teams without large investments.
Sectors that have attracted the attention of startups over the past year are robotics, consumer electronics,
and Internet of Things (IoT).
The most significant event in the robot sector in 2014 was Google’s acquisition of the robotics startup
SCHAFT Inc., which was founded at the University of Tokyo. The well-funded Google is acquiring alarge number of startups to seek next-generation business opportunities. SCHAFT Inc. was the second
Japanese startup company to be acquired by Google.
As indicated by the acquisition of SCHAFT Inc., Japan’s robotics sector is highly advanced. Other
prominent startups include CYBERDYNE Inc., established at the University of Tsukuba, Skeletonics
Inc., established at the University of Tokyo, Mujin Inc., established at the University of Tokyo, and
INNOPHYS Co., Ltd., established at the Tokyo University of Science.
In addition to areas related to disaster prevention, nursing care, and factory automation, robots havemilitary applications in the United States. The founder of CYBERDYNE Inc., which was listed on TSE
Mothers in March, owns class shares with ten times the voting rights of listed shares. He continues tohave substantial control over the company even after the listing. In the prospectus for the issuance of newshares and the secondary offering of shares, the company stated that the reason for adopting such aframework is to avoid military applications of the company’s technologies.
In the area of consumer electronics, persons with a background in major consumer electronics
manufacturers and self-taught designers have been working on consumer electronics. Although Japan’s
consumer electronics industry is falling behind in the white goods market in emerging countries in terms
of price, examples of consumer electronics startups indicate that unique designs can be accepted and canmake good business sense.
In 2014, the term Internet of Things (IoT) attracted attention in the manufacturing industry. IoT is atechnology that connects things other than computers to the Internet, in order to exchange information.
Using this technology allows users to monitor or control things with sensors on the Internet or through a
cloud. The number of startup companies in this area is still limited in Japan.

Figure 1-3-2 Example of Manufacturing Startups in Japan
Sector
Robotics

Startup Companies
Skeletonics Inc., CYBERDYNE Inc., Mujin Inc., INNOPHYS Co., Ltd., ZMP Inc.,
WHILL (US Headquarters), SCHAFT Inc. (acquired by Google), etc.

Consumer

Bsize Inc., BALMUDA Inc., amadana corp., Glamo Inc., Pluto Inc., etc.

electronics
Internet of

Cerevo Inc., Moff, Inc., Kiluck Corporation, etc.

Things(Source: Websites, Prepared by VEC)

Ⅰ-35

Column 8: IoT startups are becoming an increasingly popular theme for businessestablishments and investments
The development of the Internet of Things (IoT), hardware connected to the Internet, has been attracting
increasing attention as a key theme for business establishments and startup investments. Connecting a wide
range of things to the Internet is expected to increase usability and enable entirely new applications. Someobservers believe that establishing businesses aiming to facilitate the use of the Internet in the service
industry has run its course.
In April 2014, Recruit Holdings Co., Ltd. established a new ¥5.0 billion fund that invests in startup
companies in the area of IoT. The fund plans to invest in wearable devices and devices for smartphones. In
FY 2014, the fund aimed to make investments in 30 companies both at home and abroad. Recruit has
designated startup investments as one of its key business strategies. Since the establishment of its first fund in
2006, Recruit had invested ¥9.0 billion in 54 companies by March 2014.
CyberAgent Startups, Inc. held the IoT Summit in July 2014, inviting startup executives and persons aiming
to launch businesses in the area of IoT. The event was intended to explore potential investment targets.
Successful examples of IoT startups include Moff, a wearable wristband toy, and RAPIRO, a robot kit used
for research. Some even categorize electric cars in the IoT industry. Terra Motors Corporation (Shibuya-ku,
Tokyo) has released electric motorcycles with a smartphone connection to enable riders to share roadinformation.
Mr. Osamu Ogasawara, who is an angel investor, acquired a majority of shares of a long-established IoTstartup, Cerevo Inc. (Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo), from existing shareholders including a VC. Under a new
management structure, Cerevo has launched a business to support IoT and manufacturing startup companies.
According to IDC Japan, the size of the global IoT market is expected to grow from $4.8 trillion in 2012 to$8.9 trillion in 2020.

Ⅰ-36

(3) Energy Industry
Areas in the energy industry not requiring large facilities and where startup companies can thrive include
development of next-generation solar cells, small solar installations, small hydroelectric generation,
biomass power generation, and secondary batteries.

● Development of next-generation solar cells by startups
The solar power generation market benefited most from the introduction of the Feed-in Tariff* Note 1
scheme. The solar power generation device market, regardless of whether devices are imported or
produced domestically, is expanding rapidly. University and corporate laboratories are engaging in thedevelopment of next-generation solar power generation devices.
Note 1: Feed-in Tariff (FIT)
・Under the FIT scheme, a fixed price (tariff) with electric power companies is guaranteed for a certain period (e.g. 10 to 20 years
from the installation). Electric power companies maintain a fixed purchase price for 10 years or 20 years once facilities are
installed.
・The government plans to lower the level of overall subsidies by lowering energy purchase prices for new facilities in line with the
reduction of costs for facilities.
・Electric power companies in Hokkaido, Tohoku, Shikoku, Kyushu, and Okinawa announced around August 2014 suspension of
new agreements under the FIT scheme because a recent increase in applications may disrupt the supply and demand balance if nomeasures are taken.

However, low-price and general-purpose silicon solar cells made in China are dominating the solar power
generation industry. Groundbreaking innovations in efficiency are essential to succeed in thenext-generation solar cell industry. For example, Smart Solar International, a well-known startup
company, filed for bankruptcy in February 2014.

● Installation of small solar by startups
Looking at the breakdown of solar power-generation device installations, the number of small solar*
installations is much larger than that of mega solar installations (See Figure 1-3-3). While many large
companies have been entering the mega solar market, the majority of owners of small solar are small andmidsized corporations and sole proprietors. SMEs including startup companies have been making forays
into the small solar installation business.
While highly efficient panels including those produced by Sharp Corporation are popular in the area ofsolar panels, an increasing number of startup companies engaging in the installation of small solar are
offering low-cost solar panels by outsourcing solar battery manufacturing to solar battery manufacturers
in China and importing solar batteries from manufacturers.

Ⅰ-37

* Small Solar and Low-voltage Connection
Solar power generation devices can be generally categorized into residential devices with a power-generation
capacity of less than 10 kW and non-residential (public/industrial) devices with a power-generation capacity of 10
kW or more. Among those devices, midsize solar devices with a power-generation capacity of 10 kW or more, butless than 1 MW, are called small solar, and those with a power-generation capacity of 1 MW or more are called mega
solar.
Devices with a power-generation capacity of less than 50 kW can connect to electric power companies’ powersystems (power grids) through a low-voltage connection method. In the case of a low-voltage connection,
applications to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and electric power companies can be simplified andinstallation of a Cubicle voltage inverter can be omitted. Low-voltage connection allows the introduction of solar
devices with less labor and at lower cost than a high-voltage connection.
Looking at the number of device installations (See Figure 1-3-3), most small solar installations use the low-voltage
connection method with a power-generation capacity of less than 50 kW. This indicates that the size of the small solar
market with a power-generation capacity of less than 50 kW, which allows low-voltage connection is larger in thearea of non-residential solar devices.

Figure 1-3-3 Number of Solar Power-generation Devices Installed
10 kW or more
50 kW or more
1 MW or more
- Less than 50 kW - Less than 1 MW
Residential
Non-residential (public/industrial)
Mega solar
Small solar
Low-voltage connection
High-voltage connection
589,180
8,141
1,606
177,977
75.8%
1.0%
0.2%
23.0%

Power generation capacity Less than 10 kW
PurposeSize
Grid connection method
Number of installations
Ratio

Total

776,904100%* Number of purchases started under the FIT scheme* Data as of the end of August 2014

(Source: Feed-in Tariff information disclosure website(Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry/Agency for Natural Resources and Energy), Prepared by VEC)

● Subdivision-type solar power-generation and solar installation startups
A new business—subdivision type solar power generation—has emerged; operators subdivide land of anarea that allows installation of mega solar, install small solar with a power-generation capacity of lessthan 50 kW, which allows low-voltage connection to power grids (see the previous page), and sell them toinvestors such as individuals and small and midsized companies. Most companies operating
subdivision-type solar power generation are small and midsized companies, including startup companies.
The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry is expected to halt approvals of new subdivision-type solar
power generation facilities in the future. Close attention should be paid to trends of local energy
production for local consumption in each region.

● “Act on the Promotion of Renewable Energy in Rural Areas” and conversion of farmlandDue to strict rules restricting the conversion of farmland, building solar and wind power-generation
facilities on farmland was not permitted.
However, enactment of the “Act on the Promotion of Renewable Energy in Rural Areas” in November
2013 enabled the construction of solar and wind power-generation facilities on farmland. This has
facilitated the creation of startup companies engaging in the installation of solar power generation
facilities in rural areas. Some of these startup companies produce crops on land, while generating solar
power using space above the land.
The business has grown rapidly since the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries approved theconversion of farmland through solar sharing * Note 2 in March 2013.
* Note 2:

A method of producing crops and electricity at the same time by installing power generation facilities
such as solar panels using poles on farmland.

Ⅰ-38

Figure 1-3-4 Examples of Energy Startups
Establishment

Head
OfficeCapitalMega solar Smart Energy Co., Ltd.

April 2007

Tokyo\260 million

30

M aintenance, weeding, and inspections of mega
solar

ALBA-TECH. Co., Ltd.

April 2012

Osaka

\15 million

36

Installation of unique solar sharing powergeneration equipment in rural areas

Loop, Inc.

April 2011

Tokyo

\499 million

75

Provision of M y Power Plant Kit Sky Type, solar
sharing equipment for farmers

SHIZEN ENERGY Inc.

June 2011Tokyo\60 million

20

Promotion of model case that balances introductionof renewable energy and agricultural promotion

Hokkaido Biomass Research &Development Company

June 2007

Obihiro\2 million

8

A startup company launched by Obihiro
University of Agriculture and Veterinary M edicine

Waseda Environmental Institute
August 2003
Co., Ltd.

Tokyo\66 million

6

Entry into the woody biomass generation market —2000 kW in Chichibu, Saitama

ZE Energy Inc.

August 2008

Tokyo

\57.75 million

20

Effective power generation using biomass, sales ofequipment

May 2007

Kobe\77.50 million

8 A startup company in Kobe

May 2010

SumotoAugust 2011

Kyoto

Category

Solar

BiogasCompanies

Tidal power
NOVA Energy Co., Ltd.
generation
Amaz Techno-consultant, LLC
Secondarybatteries
CONNEXX SYSTEMS
Corporation

Number of
employees

Remarks

12

Business started by a SANYO Electric lithium-ion
battery engineer in his hometown, Awaji Island
Using unique technologies to develop a new device\76.18 million

6 combining different types of battery, Aiming to be
SI in energy generation and storage(Source: Websites, Prepared by VEC)

(4) Biotech/Healthcare Industry

Biotechnology startups in Japan
In Japan’s biotech industry, the establishment of biotech startups started around the 1990s. Since peaking
in 2003 and 2004, the number of startup establishments has been on the decline (See Figure 1-3-5).
None of these startup companies have had the great success experienced by US biotech startups; only a
few companies have commercialized products. During the period from 2006 to 2009, the number ofbiotech startups dissolving per year reached around 15, while the number of new startups established fell
sharply, partly due to the impact of the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Figure 1-3-5
Number of Bio Startups Established and Number of Dissolved/Dormant Companies
120
99

100

90

105

Number of companies established
Number of dissolved/dormant/liquidated companies

90

80

74

67

74

58

60

42
26

26
11 1310 913

13

9

12

15

11

28

10

08

04

14

07

03

11

06

5

05

3

02

01

2000

3

17

19

09

31

28

99

96

17

23

97

27

95

10

94

0

10

93

20

1992

22

98

40

(Source: “Report on Statistics and Survey of Bio Startups for 2014” Japan Bioindustry Association)

Ⅰ-39

Figure 1-3-6 describes the total market cap of 32 listed startup companies in the biotech sector. Total
market cap for the sector remained flat for a period until October 2012, but it rised after Professor Shinya
Yamanaka won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

Figure 1-3-6 Total Market Cap of 32 Companies in Japan’s Biotech Sector(Source: Nomura Research and Advisory Co., Ltd.)

Figure 1-3-7 Listing of Biotechnology Startups in the Past One Year(from June 2013 to November 2014)
Date

Company NameIPO
TSEMothers

June 2013

PeptiDream Inc.

June 2013

ReproCELL, Inc.

JASDAQ

December
2013

Oncolys BioPharma
Inc.

TSE
Mothers

December2013

Human Metabolome
Technologies Inc.

TSE
Mothers

February 2014

Acucela Inc.

TSE
Mothers

September
2014

RIBOMIC Inc.

TSE
Mothers

Business Description
Drug discovery R&D using non-standard peptide
Provided Professor Yamanaka with culture
medium for iPS cells
Developing Anti-HIV drug, newchemotherapeutic agent Telomelysin
Providing the world’s only analysis service
offering metabolism profiling using capillaryelectrophoresis mass spectrometry (CE-MS)
Developing oral age-related maculardegeneration drugs
A drug development bio startup dealing inmolecular target drugs using ribonucleic acid(RNA) aptamer(Source: Websites, Prepared by VEC)

In early 2013, Prime Minister Abe announced a plan to allocate a large portion of the budget to iPS(induced pluripotent stem) cells, saying: “In the next 10 years, we will allocate about ¥110 billion,
including this year’s supplementary budget, to regenerative medicine and drug development researchusing iPS cells.” This resulted in a sharp increase in the share prices of bio startups.

Ⅰ-40

The government also took steps to develop laws for promoting regenerative medicine. The “Amended
Pharmaceutical Affairs Act,” which was enacted in November 2013, introduced an approval system withconditions and for a limited term, enables Japan to put new drugs on the market with the fastest lead-timein the world.

Figure 1-3-8
Progress in Developing Laws for Promoting Regenerative Medicine
Date
Progress in Development of Laws
April 26, 2013

The “Regenerative Medicine Law” was passed

November 20, 2013

The “Amended Pharmaceutical Affairs Act” and the “Act on the
Safety of Regenerative Medicine” were passed

Note: Regenerative Medicine Law: The fundamental law to promote regenerative medicine
Act on the Safety of Regenerative Medicine: The law to regulate treatment using cells including
induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells)
Amended Pharmaceutical Affairs Act: The law to simplify approval procedures for regenerative
medicine products including cell sheet and medical devices（＊）EN
In line with amendment of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, SanBio Inc., a regenerative medicine startup,transferred its headquarters function from the US to Japan and reversed the parent subsidiary relationshipin January 2014.

Ⅰ-41

● Approval System with Conditions and for a Limited Term
In the “Promotion of Medical Innovation” in “Emergency Economic Measures for the Revitalization of
the Japanese Economy” (Cabinet decision on January 11, 2013), the government stated its plans to:・ Introduce a new conditional approval system based on the characteristics of regenerative medicine
products, and・ Establish a framework enabling the outsourcing of cell processing to non-medical institutions, while
ensuring the safety of regenerative medicine.
The Working Group on Healthcare and Medical Care under the government’s Regulatory Reform
Council designed a new approval system under conditions and for a limited term with the aim ofenabling Japan to take actions to become a global leader in the regenerative medicine field using iPS
cells.
The “Amended Pharmaceutical Affairs Act for Regenerative Medicine”
1. Handling regenerative medicine products separately from drugs and medical devices
2. Approval system to enable early practical use of regenerative medicine products
Regenerative medicine products use human cells which leads to inconsistencies in quality due todifferences among individuals. Therefore, collecting and assessing data to confirm efficacy takes a longtime. As a result, a framework will be introduced to give approval under conditions and for a limited
term if efficacy can be assumed and safety can be confirmed. In such cases, reassessments of efficacy
and safety will be carried out after approval.

Figure 1-3-9 Approval System for the Practical Use of Regenerative Medicine Products(under conditions and for a limited term)(Source: “Possibility of Regenerative Medicine: Implications of the Amended Pharmaceutical Affairs Act” Ryuichi
Morishita, Member of Regulatory Reform Council, Special Adviser for Cabinet, Cabinet Secretariat, Office of
Healthcare Policy, Graduate School of Medicine/Faculty of Medicine, Osaka University)

Ⅰ-42

Column 9: Social entrepreneurs are providing a wide range of support in various areas
An increasing number of people, mainly young adults, are aspiring to become social entrepreneurs who
engage in businesses that solve social issues in various areas such as education, social welfare, and ruraldevelopment. The main factors contributing to the increase are the exposure of social issues due to a
prolonged economic stagnation and the Great East Japan Earthquake, in addition to an increase in businessstartup activities. The social entrepreneur ecosystem is being put into place using knowhow of supporting
startups. There are people who become social entrepreneurs based on their experience in for-profit startups.
NPO After School (Minato-ku, Tokyo) is a non-profit organization aimed at facilitating the healthy growth ofchildren through after-school activities. Social Investment Partners (SIP, CEO Tomoya Shiraishi) has been
providing financial and management support to the NPO since 2013. SIP brings together business expertiseand knowhow of venture capitalists and former corporate executives to support the management team of the
NPO who are social entrepreneurs.
ETIC (Shibuya-ku, Tokyo) is believed to have the largest social business ecosystem in Japan for providing
support to social entrepreneurs. ETIC originally supported both students and startups by providing college
students with internship opportunities at startups. ETIC was also a key player in boom of starting IT
businesses called Bit Valley at the end of the 1990s. Since then, ETIC has been leveraging experience gained
from supporting startups to support social entrepreneurs by organizing business plan competitions for social
entrepreneurs and running business schools.
There are social entrepreneurs who have turned away from for-profit startups. The President of NPO Florence(Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo),which provides sick child care services, used to be an IT startup business manager.
GRA Inc. (Sendai-shi, Miyagi), an agricultural production corporation with the mission to produce
strawberries in areas affected by the Great East Japan Earthquake, is run by a startup business manager who
is from the local community and wearing two hats. There are an increasing number of cases where startup
company managers, who have sold their companies through M&A, support businesses of social entrepreneurs
from positions such as independent directors, executive board members, and corporate advisors.

Ⅰ-43

1.4 Government Support for Startup Businesses(1) Venture Support by the Government and Government-affiliated Institutions
One of the focuses of the government’s “Growth Strategy” announced in late June 2013 was the provisionof support to startups.
The “Industry Revitalization Plan” was among three action plans set out in the “Growth Strategy” and thefollowing venture support initiatives were listed under the promotion of startup investments andre-challenge investments by making the most of resources inside and outside Japan.

● Speeding up the restructuring of industries and accelerating startup businesses
Bold moves should be taken to discard old facilities, equipment, and assets so that outdated facilities andequipment can be replaced with the state-of-the-art assets. R&D aimed at retaking a global lead should beaccelerated. Funds, human resources, and capital should be actively mobilized in growth sectors. Bold
business restructuring should be pushed through by companies and industries to promote such a turnoverof equipment.

KPI
Ensure that the firm entry rate exceeds the exit rate, and raise the entry and exit rates to the 10% range,
which is on a par with rates in the USA and the UK (from the current rate of around 5%)

Figure 1-4-1 Venture Support Initiatives under the Industry Revitalization Plan○

Cultivating personnel who are responsible for creating startup businesses and other new businesses,
personnel who have mature judgment and supporting ability○

Encouraging individuals to invest in startups (improving tax conditions for angels)○

Encouraging the private sector to invest in startups (facilitating investment in startup companies
using funds from the private sector and promoting the effective supply of risk money by the
Innovation Network Corporation of Japan)○

Revising the personal guarantee system○

Using operating resources of existing companies (supporting spin-offs and carve-outs and promoting
open innovation)

In June 2014, the government announced the “Japan Revitalization Strategy: Revised in 2014” , revealing
its plans to strengthen support for startup businesses.

● Accelerating industrial restructuring and startup businesses
Urging existing companies to reform alone would be insufficient for promoting business restructuring toshift investment and employment to more profitable and productive areas. It is very important to develop
an environment where startup businesses are launched successively to drive growth areas.
Comprehensive measures will be taken to eliminate institutional, human, and financial obstacles tobusiness launches, spin-offs, and carve-outs from large companies, and mergers and acquisitions so thatstartup businesses can become active.

Figure 1-4-2
Ⅰ-44

Venture Support Initiatives under the “Japan Revitalization Strategy: Revised in 2014”○ Appropriate revision of the policy asset mix of the Government Pension Investment Fund(GPIF), as well as improvements to the GPIF structure and securing investment professionals.
○ Involve large companies through the Venture Business Creation Council (created in September
2014)○ Promote startup companies’ participation in government procurement○ Change attitudes among citizens and providing entrepreneurship education• Create an award program (Prime Minister’s Awards) to publicly commend startup businessactivities.
• Promote an entrepreneurship education format at elementary and secondary education level○ Clarify the handling of (or paying) employment insurance benefits for people preparing for orconsidering business startup, while engaged in job-seeking.
○ Promote the provision of funds for growth including equity and mezzanine finance and medium
to long-term loans.
○ Aim to reduce the percentage of the effective corporate tax rate to the twenties within several
years.
○ Introduce and use the cross-appointment system○ Launch a council for achieving a robotics revolution
Over the past year, the government, particularly the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI),
has announced a variety of venture support initiatives. In addition to announcing the comprehensive
initiatives listed on the following page, METI has been providing venture support through theOrganization for Small & Medium Enterprises and Regional Innovation, JAPAN, the Japan External
Trade Organization, the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, and the
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology.
Government agencies other than METI have also promoted a wide range of venture support initiatives.
See below for the activities of each government agency as of November 15, 2014.

Ⅰ-45

Figure 1-4-3 List of Government Venture Support Activities
Operator
Implementation Details
Ministry of
Economy,
Trade

and

Industry

Ministry of Economy, Trade andIndustry
Economic and Industrial Policy
BureauNew Business Policy Office
Small and Medium
Enterprise Agency
Japan External Trade
Organization (JETRO)New Energy and Industrial
Technology Development
Organization (NEDO)

Ministry of
Education,
Culture,Sports,Organization for Small &Medium Enterprises andRegional Innovation,JAPAN
National Institute ofAdvanced Industrial
Science and Technology
Information-technology
Promotion Agency, Japan(IPA)
Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology
Science and Technology Policy
BureauScience andTechnology

Higher Education Bureau
Japan Science andTechnology Agency (JST)Ministry ofInternal
Affairs andCommunica

Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications
Global ICT Strategy Bureau
Technology Policy Division

tions

Ministry ofJusticeNational Institute ofInformation andCommunications
Technology (NICT)
Ministry of Justice
Immigration Bureau of Japan

Conference for Supporting New Business Creation
The Expert Meeting on Venture Business
Establishment of the Venture Business Creation Council
Business Creation School, Entrepreneur Education
Business

Silicon Valley Innovation Program (SVIP)

Year

2013
2013
2014
2014

2013

New Energy Venture Business Technology Innovation
ProgramInnovation Commercialization Venture Support Project
R&D Venture Support Program
Platform for Supporting the Creation of New R&D-based
Business
Japan Venture Awards

2007

Venture creation/support business2002

Holding the MITOH Symposium2013 ~
2014

Project for Creating STart-ups from Advanced Research
and Technology (START)
Enhancing Development of Global Entrepreneur Program(EDGE Program)
The public-private innovation program

2012 ~
2014
2014

Adaptable & Seamless Technology Transfer Program
through Target-driven R&D (A-STEP)
SUpport program of Capital Contribution to Early-Stage
companies (SUCCESS)

2014

Special Framework for Creative People: (inno) vation
Program
I-Challenge! (ICT Innovation Creation Challenge
Program)

2014

Kigyouka Koshien
Kigyouka Expo (held under the name of ICT Venture
Business Plan Contest until 2012)

2011
2000

Revision of resident’s status of highly skilled foreign
professionals and other resident’s status

Ⅰ-46

2014
2014
2014
2001

2014

2014

2015

Ministry of
Health,Labour andMinistry of Health, Labour andWelfareEmployment Security Bureau

WelfareCabinetOffice,Government
Of Japan
Government

Cabinet Office, Government Of
Japan
Office for Promotion of Regional
Revitalization, Cabinet Office,
Government Of Japan
Japan Finance Corporation

affiliatedfinancial
institutions

Development Bank of Japan Inc.

Clarifying the provision of the basic allowance for
employment insurance to people who prepare for orconsider starting up new businesses during theirjob-seeking periods after retiring from their companies

2014

Establishment of special zones (Kansai, Fukuoka City,
Yabu City) and deregulation

2014

Provision of funds to startup companies through capitalloans
High School Student Business Plan Grand Prix
Women Entrepreneurs New Business Plan Competition

2008
2013
2011

(Source: Prepared by VEC)

In this section, venture support measures that have been developed from FY 2013 to FY 2014 are listed
below (however, pioneering support measures, including those that have been implemented continuously
are also listed below.).

Ⅰ-47

(2) Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry■ Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
The New Business Policy Office, Economic and Industrial Policy Bureau, Ministry of Economy, Tradeand Industry (METI) has engaged in a wide range of activities to support startups including theestablishment of the Expert Meeting on Venture Business, development of venture policies for the Japan
Revitalization Strategy, establishment of the Venture Business Creation Council, creation of support
personnel networks, and enhancement of tax systems to support startups.

1. The Expert Meeting on Venture Business
From December 2013 to March 2014, METI held meetings with private expert panels on threeoccasions aimed at promoting the creation of venture businesses, and discussed issues related to current
support measures for venture businesses and possible measures for overcoming challenges. The resultsof the discussions were compiled into a final report and released in April 2014.

Schedule

1st: December 4, 2013

3rd: March 31, 2014

2nd: January 27, 2014

Report: April 14, 2014

Figure 1-4-4 “Report on Expert Meeting on Venture Business”(Source: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, “Report on the Expert Meeting on Venture Business”)

Ⅰ-48

Members of the Panel
Mr. Gen Isayama, President, WiL (former DCM
partner)Mr. Kazuhiko Toyama, Representative Director andCEO, Industrial Growth Platform, Inc.
Mr. Taizo Son, CEO, Movida Japan Inc.
Ms. Tomoko Namba, member of the board and founder,
DeNA Co., Ltd.

Mr. Hirokazu Hasegawa, Professor, Waseda Business
School, Waseda University
Mr. Yoshito Hori, President, Graduate School ofManagement, GLOBIS University
Mr. Takashi Mitachi, Co-chairman, Japan branch,
Boston Consulting GroupMs. Rika Yajima, president, aeru

2. Proposals for Venture Policies at the Council for Industrial Competitiveness (FY 2013 –2014)
Based on the report by the Expert Meeting on Venture Business, Mr. Toshimitsu Motegi, Minister of
Economy, Trade and Industry introduced “Creating a Virtuous Cycle of Venture Creation” at the third
joint meeting of the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy and the Industrial Competitiveness Councilof 2014 held by the Headquarters for Japan’s Economic Revitalization, a control center responsible forplanning and overall arrangement of growth strategies. At the meeting, a decision was made regarding
venture policies to discuss a revision of the “Growth Policy” under METI.

Figure 1-4-5 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
Items Presented in the “Creating a Virtuous Cycle of Venture Creation”
Item
1. Creation of venturesby the entire
Japanese economy

Details(1) Creating Venture Business Creation Council(2) Promoting M&As as an exit strategy(3) Promoting spin-offs and carve-outs through enhanced governance, etc.
(4) Accelerating venture investments by public-private funds andcrowdfunding

2. Implementation ofbold structuralreforms(1) Promoting the use of ventures in government procurement(2) Implementing bold tax measures for ventures, etc.
(3) Reconsidering portfolio of public and quasi-public funds

3. Human resources:
Mindset reforms andentrepreneur support
to back up venturesthat take onchallenges(4) Providing support to ventures through national projects(1) Entrepreneurship education from primary education(2) Practical entrepreneurship education at universities and graduate
schools(3) Increasing venture support personnel tenfold(4) Changing mindset through venture award programs(5) Entrepreneur support by leveraging diversity(Source: “Creating a Virtuous Cycle of Venture Creation” (April 16, 2014, Report to Minister of Economy, Trade andIndustry Toshimitsu Motegi) explained at the third joint meeting of the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy andthe Industrial Competitiveness Council, the Headquarters for Japan’s Economic Revitalization)

3. Establishment of Venture Business Creation Council
A report was compiled by the Expert Meeting on Venture Business (mentioned in 1. Above) in April 2014,
and the Venture Business Creation Council was established at the Conference for Commemorating theEstablishment of the Venture Business Creation Council in September 2014 to take up the challenge
that—“the environment for facilitating many startups and their growth has not yet been developed inJapan”. The Venture Business Creation Council aims to create a virtuous cycle of venture creation in
Japan by facilitating collaboration between large/middle market companies and ventures under the broad

Ⅰ-49

vision of society as a whole taking on new challenges.
The council aims to create a major social movement for venture creation by inviting participation fromventure support institutions such as major companies, startup companies, VC, attorneys, accountants, andtax accountants, financial institutions, universities, government affiliated institutions, etc. to provide aforum for holding business matching events and exchanging information on human resource development
programs.

4. Startup/Large Company Collaboration Events
METI hosted or sponsored the following events from FY 2013 to FY 2014 as part of its activities tosupport venture businesses.

Figure 1-4-6 Venture Support Events by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
Name of Event

Date

Venue

Symposium for Supporting New

March 2013

Marunouchi Hall

Hosted by METI;
Co-hosted by the JNB and NBC

June 2013

Hotel New Otani

Hosted by METI;
Co-hosted by the JNB and NBC

January 2014

Bellesalle

Hosted by METI

Business Creation with Connect!
Symposium for Supporting New
Business Creation & Connect! —Remarks

Jump Start NIPPON
Conference for Supporting New
Business Creation

Shinjuku GroundTokyo Innovation Leaders
SummitConference for Commemorating

September 2014

Toranomon Hills

the Establishment of the Venture
Business Creation Council

Hosted by the Tokyo Innovation
Leaders Summit Committee,
supported by METI;
a business matching event where
100 large companies and 500
next-generation ventures gathered

The Second Tokyo Innovation
Leaders Summit

5.

Hosted by the Tokyo Innovation
Leaders Summit Committee;
supported by METI;
a business matching event where 82
large companies and 440
next-generation ventures gathered
Hosted by METI;
Declared the establishment of the
Venture Business Creation Council

Cultivating Personnel Who Have Mature Judgment to Create Venture Businesses andSupporting Personnel (FY 2013 supplementary budget)

METI invited applications for a team to support entrepreneurs from FY 2013 to FY 2014. The selectedsupporters have implemented a model business to support Seed stage startups and have created support
networks, while sharing expertise on providing support within the working group.

Ⅰ-50

Figure 1-4-7 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
Invitation of Applications for Venture Supporter Team
Item

Details

Project description

・ Creating a supporting personnel working group as a platform forpersonnel who are experts in providing Seed stage support
・ WG supporters implement a model business to support Seed stage
startups
・ Disseminating achievements and issues of model businesses andtraining skilled support personnel
・ Dispatching venture executives, support personnel, etc. to college
courses

Supporting personnel

・ Consists of supporters such as VC, consultants, and incubators

working group

・ Implementation of a model business to support Seed stage startups;
sharing the progress of model businesses at the working group meeting
held roughly on a monthly basis; Reporting results and issues of
support activities to the supporter meeting

Application periodst

1 application: February 7, 2014 to March 7, 2014
2nd application: April 25, 2014 to May 23, 2014

Responsible office

New Business Policy Office, Economic and Industrial Policy Bureau,
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry(Source: Invitation of Applications for Venture Supporter Team regarding Cultivating Personnel Who Have Mature
Judgment to Create Venture Businesses and Supporting Personnel)

6. Angel Tax System
The angel tax system provides tax incentives to investors who make angel investments in startup
companies.
Benefit A (for investments into companies less than three years old): Amount of investment inventure is deducted from taxable income of the year
* The limit on the amount of investment is up to 40% of taxable income or ¥10 million.
Benefit B (for investment into companies less than 10 years old): Amount of investment in venture
is deducted from capital gain on stock sales of the year
* There is limit on the amount of investment.
In the event of a loss from sale of stock, investors may offset losses from selling stock in theenterprise against other capital gains (losses can be carried over for up to three years)* Applicable when acquiring new shares issued by companies meeting certain requirements
Considering that the use of the angel tax system is not increasing as expected, METI is promoting thesystem by implementing a series of initiatives including renewal of the Angel tax system website anddevelopment of Angel tax system assessment sheet.

Ⅰ-51

7. Startup Company Investment Promotion System
The system gives preferential tax treatment to companies that provide funds to startup companies throughqualified VC funds with hands-on support skills. More specifically, 80% of investments made in startups
are deductible as a loss reserve.
On November 28, 2014, METI approved a specified new business investment plan based on the Industrial
Competitiveness Enhancement Act for venture funds. (For more details, see the Ministry of Economy,
Trade and Industry website.)

8. Network for Promoting Entrepreneurship Education at Universities and Graduate Schools
With the aim of increasing the quality of entrepreneurship education in Japan, METI, together with
university/graduate school lecturers and business persons, organized the Network for Promoting
Entrepreneurship Education at Universities and Graduate Schools. The network shares information onteaching techniques and materials, as well as promotes collaboration between universities/graduate
schools and the industrial world. As part of this effort, the network is holding the University Venture
Grand Prix, a nationwide business plan competition for schools providing entrepreneurship education.

Ⅰ-52

■ Small and Medium Enterprise Agency
1. Business Creation School
To increase the firm entry rate from the current rate of 4.6% to the 10% range, which is on a par with
rates in the USA and the UK, the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency opened the Business Creation
School nationwide in August 2014. The Business Creation School aims to help tomorrow’s entrepreneurs
acquire basic knowledge and to develop business plans.

2. Entrepreneur Education Business
Through the effective use of private organizations that are cooperating with elementary and junior highschools, as well as with municipalities, the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency is providing a wide
range of support including interactions with entrepreneurs who are close to elementary and junior highschool students, office visits, and other advanced activities.

Figure 1-4-8 Overview of Business Creation School【Business Creation School】
Re-entrustment

Privateorganization, etc.

Entrustment

Support

Entrepreneur,etc.

Supportorganization【Entrepreneur Education Business】
Government

Private organization, etc.
Collaboration

Entrustment

Universities, elementary/juniorhigh schools, local entrepreneurs,
local support organizations, etc.

SupportCollege andelementary/junior highschool students(Source: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry FY 2015 Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry budgetary
request document, the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency)

Item
Summary

Schoollocation/Numberof courses
Participation fees
Operation

Responsible officeDetails
Providing support for business startups by preparing curriculums such as business
management, marketing, accounting, tax, and others for people who are planningto start businesses in the region or those who try to launch again a new business,and providing them with support to acquire the knowledge and knowhow
necessary when starting a business and developing business plans
Number of schools to be opened: 227 schools nationwide
Number of courses to be offered: 291 courses in total
Basic course/Female entrepreneur course: ¥10,800 (tax included)
Course for those making a second attempt: ¥5,400 (tax included)
Outsourcing management to regional educational institutions, chambers ofcommerce, and other institutions
FY 2014 Regional Business Startup Promotion Support Business Management
Office (located within Pasona Inc.)
Startup/New Business Promotion Division, Business Support Department, Smalland Medium Enterprise Agency(Source: Prepared by VEC based on website information)

Ⅰ-53

■ Organization for Small & Medium Enterprises and Regional Innovation, JAPAN (SME
Support, JAPAN)
Besides investing in funds mentioned in “Funds to Spur Growth” (P. I-25), the SME Support, JAPAN has
been providing a wide range of support since FY 2001, including presentation of awards to outstanding
startups, provision of incubator facilities, and delivery of VC/VB information. Startups support
activities include the following:

Figure 1-4-9 Startup Support Activities of SME Support, JAPANItem

Details
Holding the Japan Venture Awards
An annual award program established to praise startup company
executives (14th in 2014) (http://j-venture.smrj.go.jp/outline/)Award
Provision of
incubator
facilities
Delivery of
VC/VB
information

A list of business incubators(http://www.smrj.go.jp/incubation/054808.html#kanto)
Operation of “Venture Investment Navi” website(https://vdb.smrj.go.jp/viis/REF_BP001_SCR002.action)

Responsible
officeBusiness&
Venture Support
Division,
Business
SupportDepartment
FundManagement
Department■ Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO)The Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) launched the Silicon Valley Innovation Program (SVIP)
in FY 2013 with the aim of providing support to SMEs and startup companies to expand into Silicon
Valley. The 2nd SVIP was launched in FY 2014.

Figure 1-4-10 Overview of Silicon Valley Innovation Program (SVIP)
Item
Applicableindustry/company

Details
SMEs and startup companies having innovative technologies, products, andbusiness models

Service details

・ Provision of Silicon Valley information (pre-departure information gathering,
visit, and counseling)
・ Provision of pre-departure support to increase US style business skills (e.g.
presentation, marketing instructions)・ Post-departure services in cooperation with business startup support
organizations (accelerator)
1. Consulting (mentoring) and marketing related to business startup
2. Support for network building in the United States (e.g. introduction of
investors and business partners, participation in networking events,
holding of pitch events)
・ Support for establishing a company
1. Provision of legal, labor (including work visas), and tax advice
2. Selection of office locations, recruitment

Support period

1 to 6 months

Costs

Program participation fees: ¥18,500 (tax included)

Application period

For FY 2014, from March 31 to May 16 (undecided for the next fiscal year)

Responsible office

JETRO Manufacturing and Environment Industry Department(Source: Silicon Valley Innovation Program website; http://www.jetro.go.jp/services/innovation/)Ⅰ-54

■ National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)The National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST) has been engaged increating and supporting startup companies (high-tech startups) with the aim of publishing leading-edge
research findings in a timely manner. The AIST has been developing frameworks for startup development
and support since FY 2002. The Division for Start-ups is responsible for promoting the Business
Development Task Force (Task Force) and operating the support system for AIST start-ups andinvestment in kind.

[Overview of Division for Start-ups]
・The Business Development Task Force (a project to build startup businesses based mainly ontechnology seeds created at AIST through cooperation between researchers and business personnel)
・ The Carve-out Project (a project for the Task Force to build startup businesses by accepting
companies’ technology seeds and human resources)
・Support system for AIST start-ups (e.g. partial granting of intellectual property rights to AIST
start-ups, setting exercise rights for exclusive use, reduction of use charge of facilities andapparatus, consultations with experts)
・Investment in kind including equipment, patent rights, etc. in AIST start-ups
・Featuring AIST start-ups on the “TECH Meets BUSINESS” website
The Division for Start-ups has held the Venture Development Report Meeting (formerly: Taskforce
Report Meeting) since FY 2005 to report the results. The 10th Venture Development Report Meeting washeld in September 2014.

■ New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO)The New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) provides the following
startup support services:
1. Innovation Commercialization Venture Support Project
2. New Energy Venture Business Technology Innovation Program
3. R&D Venture Support Program
4. Platform for Supporting the Creation of New R&D-based Businesses

Ⅰ-55

1. Innovation Commercialization Venture Support Project
The project invited applications under the theme of commercial development.

Figure 1-4-11 Innovation Commercialization Venture Support Project
Item

Details

Project purpose

As part of the “Platform for Supporting the Creation of New R&D-based
Business,” providing support for commercializing excellent technical seeds andpromising unused technologies owned by R&D-based startup companies

Requirements ofAn application must satisfy the following conditions:project[1] It must be a new and highly innovative commercial development that cancontribute to the creation of innovation, enhance competitiveness, andachieve sustainable economic growth; and[2] There must be a concrete plan based on which commercialization will beachieved within approximately three to five years after the project period.

Subsidy rate

Two thirds or lessSubsidy amount

15 million yen to 500 million yen

Project period

From the date (late April 2014) of decision of grant until February 28, 2015

Application period

From January 15, 2014 to March 3, 2014

Responsible office

Platform Group, Innovation Promotion Department(Source: NEDO website)

2. New Energy Venture Business Technology Innovation Program
The program invited applications for technology development.

Figure 1-4-12 New Energy Venture Business Technology Innovation Program
Item

Details

Project

Invite applications for technology development based on potential technology seeds

purposeowned by SMEs, etc. (including startup companies) focusing on the importance of therenewable energy sector

Phase

Phase A:

Phase B:

Phase C:

Feasibility study

Basic research

Application research anddevelopment

Project

Up to 1 year

Up to 1 year

Approx. 1 year

Contract

Up to ¥10 million/theme

Up to ¥50 million/theme

Up to ¥50 million/theme

type

Commission:Commission:

Subsidy:

NEDO burden ratio 100%

NEDO burden ratio 100%

NEDO burden ratio 2/3

periodst

Application

From March 14, 2014 to April 15, 2014 (1 application)

periodFrom September 1, 2014 to October 1, 2014 (2nd application)

Responsible

Platform Group, Innovation Promotion Department

office(Source: NEDO website)Ⅰ-56

3. R&D Venture Support Program
NEDO launched the R&D Venture Support Program in FY 2014. As part of the program, NEDO invited
applications for entrepreneur candidates with business plans to use specific technical seeds who willconduct activities aimed at creating a mega venture company in the future by receiving hands-on
instruction from business Catalyzers (people who support commercialization).
Candidates are called Startup Innovators (SUI) and teams selected from open applications (teams thatpassed the first screening were announced on September 1, 2014) will carry out activities for up to two
years with the aim of becoming a mega venture in the future.

Figure 1-4-13 Overview of R&D Venture Support Program
Item

Details

Overview of・ Inviting applications for entrepreneur candidates who have business plans to use

supportspecific technical seeds
・ Conducting activities aimed at launching an R&D venture company and turning it
into a mega venture company in the future

Details of
support1. Provision of hands-on support for business startup activities by a business
Catalyzer (people who support commercialization) who is commissioned by the
NEDO
2. Annual payment of up to ¥15 million/team in principle as costs for SUI to conductbusiness feasibility studies
3. Monthly payment of up to ¥542,000/person (equivalent to the payment of ¥6.5
million/year) in principle for SUI’s labor costs for business feasibility studies
4. Matching with outside technology seeds
5. Matching investors and partners
6. Co-working space at NEDO Headquarters (Kawasaki) (plan)

Financial

Payment of up to ¥15 million/year for SUI’s activity costs; up to ¥6.5 million/year forsupport

SUI’s labor costs

Business

In principle, up to two years from the date designated by NEDO

periodApplication

From July 18, 2014 to August 18, 2014

periodResponsible

Platform Group, Innovation Promotion Department

office(Source: Invitation for applications from entrepreneur candidates (startup innovators), briefing documents 2)

Ⅰ-57

4. Program for Giving Advice on Promoting Business Creation to R&D Startup Companies(Platform for Supporting the Creation of New R&D-based Business)
A program to give instruction and advice to existing R&D startup companies from business Catalyzers(people who support commercialization) who are commissioned by NEDO

Figure 1-4-14 Platform for Supporting the Creation of New R&D-based Business
Item

Details

Project

Providing consistent, intensive, and comprehensive instructions by selecting businesspurposeCatalyzers with extensive business experience in business planning, marketing,channel expansion, and more as well as experience starting a business or providing
business startup support; the goal is to accelerate business activities based ontechnologies owned by R&D startup companies, etc.

Number of

Up to five times per company

times advice
is provided
Application

Applications are accepted anytime via the NEDO website

periodResponsible

Platform Group, Innovation Promotion Department

office(Source: NEDO website)■ Information-technology Promotion Agency, Japan (IPA)
Since FY 2013, the Information-technology Promotion Agency, Japan (IPA) has held the MITOH
Symposium, a symposium designed to introduce outstanding IT human resources, who thrive in the world,
and who have been discovered and trained under the Exploratory IT Human Resources Project (MITOH
program) and technologies and services. The IPA held the 2nd MITOH Symposium in March 2014.

Figure 1-4-15 Overview of the 2nd MITOH Symposium
Item

Details

PurposeIntroduction of outstanding IT human resources, who thrive in the world, whohave been discovered and trained under the MITOH program, andtechnologies and services

Number of150

participants
Venue

Bellesalle Akihabara B1 hall

Date

March 14, 2014

Responsible office

The MITOH Group, Center for Innovative Human Resources, IT Human
Resources Development Headquarters(Source: Information-technology Promotion Agency, Japan Program for the 2nd MITOH Symposium)

Ⅰ-58

(3) Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology■ Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
As part of its venture support business, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology has been carrying out the Project for Creating STart-ups from Advanced Research andTechnology (START), the Enhancing Development of Global Entrepreneur Program (EDGE Program),and the Public-Private Innovation Program.

● Project for Creating STart-ups from Advanced Research and Technology (START)The Science and Technology Policy Bureau, University-industry Collaboration and Regional R&D
Division has been carrying out the Project for Creating STart-ups from Advanced Research andTechnology (START) with the aim of providing support to startups launched by universities.

● Enhancing Development of Global Entrepreneur Program (EDGE Program)Accelerating innovation requires: (1) development of human resources who facilitate the creation ofstartups based on the R&D of universities, etc. and the creation of new businesses by existing companiesand (2) creation of an innovation ecosystem by related institutions.
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology has conducted the Enhancing
Development of Global Entrepreneur Program (EDGE Program), in order to support activities fordeveloping human resources by leveraging participants’ active learning with the aim of helping
participants mainly consisting of graduate school students and young researchers with expertise to acquire
an entrepreneurial mindset, business expertise, skills to identify and solve issues, and broader
perspectives.

Figure 1-4-16
Enhancing Development of Global Entrepreneur Program (EDGE Program)
Item
PurposeApplicableparticipants
Details of activities

Program examples

Responsible office

PeriodDetails
Development of human resources with entrepreneurial mindsets,commercialization expertise, problem identification and solution skills, broader
perspectives, etc.
Graduate school students, young researchers, postdoctoral researchers, etc.
Provision of support to universities, etc. that, in cooperation with overseas
institutions, private companies, etc., develop/implement programs fordeveloping human resources who will take on the challenge of starting abusiness or innovate in the industrial world.
・A program involving venture capitalists, manufacturers, financial institutions,and universities to enable young researchers to acquire commercialization
methods and an entrepreneurial mindset
・ A program focusing on project-based learning (PBL), which uses
design-oriented and business-oriented approaches, or arts and sciences to
identify issues to be solved
Section in charge of Enhancing Development of Global Entrepreneur Program(in charge of EDGE), University-industry Collaboration and Regional R&D
Division, Science and Technology Policy Bureau, Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
From FY 2014 to FY 2016

(Source: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology website EDGE Program website)

Ⅰ-59

● Public-private Innovation Program(promotion of public-private research and development for commercialization)
A cabinet decision on “Emergency Economic Measures for the Revitalization of the Japanese Economy”
was made in January 2013 and the FY 2012 supplementary budget was submitted and passed by the Diet
on January 28, 2013.
The Industrial Competitiveness Enhancement Act, which became effective in April 2014, has enabled
national universities, etc. to invest in VC funds that satisfy certain requirements.

Figure 1-4-17 Investment of ¥100 Billion in National Universities
under the Public-private Innovation Program
Making ¥100 billion investments in four national universities with high research capabilities andexperience in joint research as part of the FY 2012 supplementary budget

・Investments by university (total of ¥100.0 billion)
1. University of Tokyo: ¥41.7 billion, 2. Kyoto University: ¥29.2 billion, 3. Osaka University: ¥16.6
billion, 4. Tohoku University: ¥12.5 billion

University

Amount1.

¥41.7

University

billionStatus of Applications for Approval○ No applications for approval to invest in VCs had been made as of theend of November 2014of Tokyo2.

¥29.2○ An application for approval to invest in Kyoto University Innovation

Kyoto

billionCapital Co., Ltd. was made; the Public-Private Innovation Program,

University

National University Corporation Evaluation Committee exchanged
opinions on September 3, 2014
○ The final decision on approval will be made after consultations with
the Finance Minister (as of the end of November 2014)

3.

¥16.6

○ An application for approval to invest in OSAKA University VentureOsakabillionCapital Co., Ltd. was made; the Public-Private Innovation Program,

University

National University Corporation Evaluation Committee exchanged
opinions on September 3, 2014
○ The final decision on approval will be made after consultations with
the Finance Minister (as of the end of November 2014)

4.

¥12.5

○ An application for approval to invest in Tohoku University Venture

TohokubillionPartners was made; the Public-Private Innovation Program, National

University

University Corporation Evaluation Committee exchanged opinions on
November 4, 2014
○ The final decision on approval will be made after consultations with
the Finance Minister (as of the end of November 2014)(Source: The National University Corporation Evaluation Committee General Meeting (49th) materials,
Prepared by VEC)Ⅰ-60

■ Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)As part of its venture support activities, the Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) has engaged in
the Support Program of Capital Contribution to Early-Stage Companies (SUCCESS) and Award for
Academic Startups.

● Support Program of Capital Contribution to Early-Stage Companies (SUCCESS)The JST Support for Entrepreneurship Office launched the Support Program of Capital Contribution to
Early-Stage Companies (SUCCESS) in April 2014. The program invests in and/or provides
human/technical support to start-up companies that are finding practical applications for the outputs ofJST-funded R&D. The project aims to attract private sector funds by making JST a shareholder of startup
companies.

Figure 1-4-18
Support Program of Capital Contribution to Early-Stage Companies (SUCCESS)
Item
Investment
targetInvestment
details

Responsible
officeDetails
Those satisfying both of the following conditions are applicable:
1. Startup companies that are finding practical applications for the outputs ofJST-funded R&D
2. Companies at an early stage of development
1. Investable assets:
Money and intellectual property/research facilities owned by the JST
2. Number of investments: Approx. two to five per year
3. Investment limits:
Investment ratio: In principle, 1/2 of total voting rights
Investment amount: ¥500 million/company in cumulative investments
Support for Entrepreneurship Office, Department of Business Innovation
Development, Japan Science and Technology Agency(Source: JST website (http://www.jst.go.jp/entre/outline.html))●Award for Academic Startups
The Award for Academic Startups is a new award program started in FY 2014.
JST held the Award for Academic Startups ceremony at Tokyo Big Sight in September 2014.
The award program recognizes startups launched by universities using the results of their R&D that are
expected to thrive in the future, in addition to giving awards to universities and companies that havecontributed to their growth.

Figure 1-4-19 Award for Academic Startups
Item
PurposeApplicable parties

Application period
Date/venue ofaward ceremony
Responsible officeDetails
Facilitating business startups using the results of R&D at universities, etc.,
engaging in activities after business launch, and supporting universities andcompanies with university-operated startups
National, public and private universities, colleges of technology, national
research institutes, independent administrative agencies, public interest
corporations, etc. (limited to non-taxable corporations)
From June 6 to July 16, 2014
September 11, 2014/Tokyo Big Sight
Support for Entrepreneurship Office, Department of Business Innovation
Development, Japan Science and Technology Agency(Source: JST website (http://www.jst.go.jp/aas/))Ⅰ-61

(4) Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications■Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications
The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications has provided support to human resources who
undertake unique, ambitious, and high-potential ICT research and development, in order to create
disruptive and global-scale value in the area of ICT. In addition, the Ministry of Internal Affairs andCommunications is providing support to startup companies, etc. with the goal of commercializing
innovative technical ideas, and VCs, etc. supporting companies in the ICT sector.

Figure 1-4-20 Special Framework for Creative People: (inno) vation Program
Item

Details

Purpose

Providing support to human resources who undertake unique, ambitious, andhigh-potential ICT research and development, in order to create disruptive andglobal-scale value in the area of ICT

Applicable persons

Individuals who take up the challenge of unique, ambitious, and high-potential
technical issues, in order to create disruptive and global scale value in the globally
unpredictable ICT segment where new technologies and ideas are generated everyday. Those who are not afraid of the failures that will create a path to achieving
goals. Applicants are limited to those who satisfy the following conditions:(1) Persons who have completed compulsory education(2) Persons who have Japanese nationality or foreign nationals who have resident
status in Japan

Number of cases tobe approved
Support period
Research expenses tobe covered
Responsible office

About 10 cases
1 year¥3 million (upper limit) + indirect costs (30%)
SCOPE Office, Technology Policy Division, Global ICT Strategy Bureau(Source: (inno) vation website (http://www.inno.go.jp/))

Figure 1-4-21 I-Challenge! (ICT Innovation Creation Challenge Program)
Item
Purpose

Details
Contribute to creating new business by facilitating the achievement of R&D results
through the integrated promotion of business development support using private sector
expertise of commercialization and R&D support in the ICT segment

Applicable
persons

Startup companies, etc. with the goal of commercializing innovative technical ideas (R&D
institutions)・ Small and medium-sized companies specified under the Small and Medium-sizedEnterprise Basic Act
・ Public interest institutions including universities specified under the School Education
Act, etc.

Ⅰ-62

VC, etc. providing support to R&D institutions (commercialization support institutions)・ Small and medium-sized enterprise investment business corporations specified under
the Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Investment Business Corporation Act
・ Investment LPs specified under the Limited Partnership Act for Investment, etc.
Number ofcases to beapproved
Support period
Research
expenses to becoveredAbout 6 to 8 cases

1 year
R&D institutions: Up to ¥100 million (including indirect costs (30% or less))
Subsidy rate

SMEs 66%

Universities, etc. 100%Commercialization support institutions: Up to ¥10 million (including administrative costs)
Subsidy rate
Responsible
office66%

Research Team, Technology Policy Division, Global ICT Strategy Bureau(Source: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications website(http://www.soumu.go.jp/menu_seisaku/ictseisaku/ictR-D/ichallenge/))■ National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT)The National Institute of Information and Communications Technology has established the ICT Venture
Support Center and held Kigyouka Koshien for students to support ICT startups and the Kigyouka Expofor general participants.

Figure 1-4-22 Overview of Kigyouka Koshien and Kigyouka Expo
Item

Details

Kigyouka

The Kigyouka Koshien is a business competition in which young people, including

Koshienstudents of colleges of technology (kosen), universities, and graduate schools selectedfrom around the country, compete by making presentations on ICT products/services thatthey have developed and have improved with the help of ICT Mentor Platform* mentors
Date:

March 3, 2015

Organizer: National Institute of Information and Communications Technology
KigyoukaExpo

The Kigyouka Expo is an event in which ICT startups nationwide engage in activities tobuild an affluent and vibrant society using ICT.

Startups

present unique new

businesses (products/services) and seek matches for business alliances, funding, sales
channel expansion, and securing human resources.
Date:

March 4, 2015

Organizer: National Institute of Information and Communications Technology(Source: National Institute of Information and Communications Technology website)* ICT Mentor Platform
To close the three gaps that are believed to prevent commercialization in the area of ICT, the National Institute ofInformation and Communications Technology ICT Mentor Platform connects people involved in ICT and otherindustries serving as mentors with regions and young human resources.

Ⅰ-63

(5) Ministry of Justice■ Immigration Bureau of Japan, Ministry of Justice
The “Act for Partial Amendment of the Immigration Control” and “Refugee Recognition Act” werepassed and enacted on June 11, 2014. The amendment aims to implement measures incorporated in the“Japan Revitalization Strategy” developed in June 2013 and to promote the acceptance of foreign
nationals who will contribute to developing the Japanese economy.

Figure 1-4-23 Outline of “Act for Partial Amendment of the Immigration Control” and“Refugee Recognition Act” (Excerpt)
Major amendments

Summary

Promote the acceptance of

On May 7, 2012, a points-based system of preferential immigration

foreign nationals withtreatment for highly skilled foreign professionals was introduced, providing

advanced abilities andhighly skilled foreign professionals with 70 points or higher withqualities (highly-skilled

preferential treatment in immigration procedures including the granting of aprofessionals)

five-year period of stay.
Specifically, a new status of residence - “Highly Skilled Professional (i)”,was established for those highly killed professionals (70 points or higher).
Moreover, a new status of residence - “Highly Skilled Professional (ii)” wasestablished for those foreign nationals who have been residing in Japan fora certain period (currently envisaged to be about three years) with theaforementioned status of residence of “Highly Skilled Professional (i),” andwho want to continue working in Japan.
(Those who have the status of “Highly Skilled Professional (ii)” will havean indefinite period of stay with a substantial easing of restrictions on
activities provided they continue to engage in “Designated Activities.”)

Amendment related to theresidency

statusof

To enable foreign nationals to engage in business management andoperation of companies in Japan, the requirement of being connected to“Investor/Businessforeign investment, which is currently imposed on the status of residence ofManager”“Investor/Business Manager,” will be removed. This change will enable
foreign nationals to engage in the management and operation ofJapanese-owned companies with the same residency status.

Consolidation of the

To respond flexibly to the needs of companies related to the acceptance ofresidency statuses offoreign nationals in professional and technical fields, the division between“Engineer” and “Specialist“Engineer” and “Specialist in Humanities/ International Services,” which

in Humanities/

was based on a division of knowledge (sciences/humanities) necessary forInternational Services”

the work, was removed, and consolidated into one comprehensive status.

(Source: Excerpt from the Ministry of Justice “Outline of the Act for Partial Amendment of the Immigration
Control and Refugee Recognition Act”)

Ⅰ-64

(6) Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare■ Employment Security Bureau, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
On July 22, 2014, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare issued a memo to clarify that the basic
allowance for employment insurance may be paid when preparing for or considering starting up new
businesses during job-seeking periods.
In the “Japan Revitalization Strategy” revised in 2014 and approved by the Cabinet on June 24, 2014, thegovernment committed that it will, as part of its activities to accelerate ventures and business startups,
provide employment insurance benefits to people who are preparing for or are considering starting up
new businesses during their job-seeking periods after retiring from their companies. The intent was toeliminate concerns that entreprenuers may have about the destabilization of their lives related to abusiness startup.
Japan Revitalization Strategy Revised in 2014” (P. 21)
IV. Major Policy Measures in the Revised Strategy
1. (1) 3) Accelerating industrial restructuring, ventures, and promoting the provision of funds for growth
The government will also implement fine-tuned measures including the promotion of startup companies’
participation in government procurement and the provision of employment insurance benefits to people
who are in the process of starting new businesses during their job-seeking periods.
[Establishing relevant systems within this fiscal year]

Ⅰ-65

(7) Cabinet Office, Government Of Japan■Cabinet Office, Government Of JapanThe Cabinet Office, Government Of Japan, established the Regional Revitalization Bureau with the aimof centrally developing regional revitalization strategies, creating a framework for strategy
implementation, and executing policies in an organic and comprehensive manner.
The Regional Revitalization Bureau has mainly engaged in (1) regional revitalization initiatives (urban
renaissance, city center revitalization) by improving urban functions, (2) regional revitalization initiatives
focusing on regulatory reforms (National Strategic Special Zones, Comprehensive Special Zones, Special
Zones for Structural Reform), and (3) other specific policy issues (regional regeneration, Eco-Future City,
Eco-Model City, promotion of world heritage registration of industrial heritage).
The “Japan Revitalization Strategy - JAPAN is BACK -” (Cabinet Decision on June 14, 2013) stipulates
the creation of National Strategic Special Zones. Serving as a gateway for implementing bold regulatory
and institutional reforms that can change the Japanese economy and society, the National StrategicSpecial Zones aim to create the best environment for business activities by combining and taking special
measures that address such issues as forming international cities whose environments such as residential
space, etc. are among the most attractive in the world and to establish an international base for medical
services and innovations.
Japan Revitalization Strategy (Cabinet Decision on June 14, 2013) (excerpt)－ National Strategic Special Zones －I. Overview

3. How to achieve the Growth Strategy(2) Accelerating reforms with National Strategic Special Zones serving as gateways
To position Japan’s economy on a mid- to long-term growth trajectory, patient activities to steadily implement a
mainstream Growth Strategy are essential. At the same time, for Japan to demonstrate a real commitment totransformation and make real advances, it must move quickly to carry out regulatory and institutional reforms, aswell as to develop and to improve infrastructure.
For this reason, while this Growth Strategy is premised on the prompt and effective implementation of the measurescontained in it, National Strategic Special Zones will be created to serve as gateways for executing bold regulatory
reforms and other measures as a new approach for achieving Japan’s growth strategy under the leadership of thePrime Minister.
II. Three Action Plans
1. Industry Revitalization Plan –revitalizing human talent, assets, and funds
5. Further strengthening Japan’s international competitiveness as a business hub(1) Achieving National Strategic Special Zones… considering initiatives in regional communities, from the viewpoint of national strategies, under the leadership of
the Prime Minister, the government will establish the National Strategic Special Zones, a powerful system to proceedwith major regulatory reforms, etc.

Ⅰ-66

● National Strategic Special Zones and National Strategic Special Zone Plans
The National Strategic Special Zone Conference has been established for each special zone with the aimof carrying out the necessary consultations regarding development of National Strategic Special Zone
Plans, arrangements for approving National Strategic Special Zone Plans and their implementation,
improving the international competitiveness of industries, and creating bases for international economic
activities.
Conference of Tokyo Area National StrategicSpecial Zone
Conference of Kansai Area National StrategicSpecial Zone
Conference of Niigata City National StrategicSpecial Zone

Conference of Yabu City National Strategic Special
Zone
Conference of Fukuoka City National StrategicSpecial Zone
Conference of Okinawa Prefecture National
Strategic Special Zone

A Cabinet decision was made on the National Strategic Special Zones and National Strategic Special
Zone Plans on May 1, 2014. The following policy issues were identified (items highlighted are thoserelated to startup businesses).

Figure 1-4-24
National Strategic Special Zones and National Strategic Special Zone Plans
Area

Policy Issues

I. Tokyo area

(1) Promoting acceptance of global companies, foreign nationals, funds, etc.
(2) Ensuring diverse work styles including promotion of social participation by women(3) Promoting innovations including business launches, and making hubs for drug
discoveries(4) Improving living environments to support businesses including those of foreign residents(5) Providing urban/transportation functions that are suitable for an international city with aneye to the Olympics/Paralympics
II. Kansai area (1) Accumulating and enhancing collaboration of healthcare facilities, research institutions,manufacturers, etc. contribute to providing advanced medical care(2) Removing factors that prevent R&D on advanced medicines, medical equipment, etc.,
smooth commercialization, and overseas expansion of seeds(3) Creating urban environment, employment environment, etc. to attract human resources(1) Accumulating/aggregating farmland, improving business bases through the expansion ofIII. Niigata
corporate participation, etc.
City, Niigata(2) The so-called sixth industry and development of high value-added food products
Prefecture(3) Implementing innovative agriculture using new technologies(4) Promoting exports of farm and food products(5) Supporting the creation of agricultural startups
IV. Yabu City, (1) Converting abandoned farmland, etc. into cultivated land
Hyogo(2) Developing high value-added new agricultural and food products through the so-called
Prefecture
sixth industry(3) Regional development through the unified promotion of agriculture and tourism/history
and culture
V. Fukuoka(1) Improving firm entry rate through the provision of support for startups including business
City, Fukuoka
launches, etc.
Prefecture(2) Promoting innovation by attracting MICE, etc. and creating new businesses, etc.
VI. Okinawa(1) Creating an environment in which overseas tourists, etc. can easily travel
Prefecture(2) Promoting a tourism business model by leveraging regional strengths(3) Creating global-standard innovation bases(Source: Prime Minister of Japan and his Cabinet Website, National Strategic Special Zones,
related laws and regulations, National Strategic Special Zone Plans)

Ⅰ-67

● Current Status of Approval of National Strategic Special Zone Plans
Of the six regions listed above, the National Strategic Special Zone Plans of the following three regions
have been approved.

Figure 1-4-25 Three Regions in National Strategic Special Zones
Area
Kansaiarea
FukuokaCity
Yabu City

Types of Special Zones
National Strategic Special Zone
・Special provisions for special or specified medical care coverage
・Special provisions for the “Medical Care Act” related to bed-space restrictions
Special Zone for Global Startups & Job Creation
・Establishment of Employment Consultation Center for clarifying employment conditions
・Approval of exceptions to the “Road Act” related to area management
Center for agricultural reform in upland and mountainous areas

Taking the example of Fukuoka City, the city is working to achieve the goal of improving the firm entry
rate by providing support to startups and attracting people involved in venture business activities fromaround the world.

● Fukuoka City Special Economic Zone
1. Policy Issues and Policy Package
Based on the following policy issues presented in the “National Strategic Special Zone Basic Policy:”(1) Improving the firm entry rate by providing support to startups including business launches, and(2) Promoting innovation by attracting MICE *1, etc. and creating new business, etc.,
Fukuoka City aims to be “Fukuoka City: City for Global Startups” by adding the city’s initiatives and tax
reforms to initial requirements presented by the government for regulatory reforms.

Figure 1-4-26 Fukuoka City National Strategic Special Zone Activities* 1: MICE is the acronym for Meeting (corporate meetings/training), Incentive (reward/all expenses paid trips), Convention(international conferences), and Event/Exhibition (events/exhibitions). It is a collective term for business events and othergatherings where a large number of participants can be expected.
(Source: National Strategic Special Zones “Fukuoka City: Special Zone for Global Startups & Job Creation”)

Ⅰ-68

2. Policy Package
Discussions on goals and action plans for “Fukuoka City: City for Global Startups” are currently
underway in the “Fukuoka City: City for Global Startups” vision, which is now under development by thecity. The following policy package is in the “Vision (preliminary draft).” Items highlighted are those
discussed at the National Strategic Special Zone Conference.

Fukuoka City Policy Package(1) City with a framework to facilitate business startups and support rechallenge○ Increase momentum of challenge/rechallenge to broaden bases
・ Challenge education for children and students
・ Support for women’s challenges
・ Promotion of college students’ internships
・ Startup scholarships
・ Holding business contests, etc.

○ Solid support for communities to help entrepreneurs and encourage innovation
・ Incubation facilities
・ Financing at business launch・ Creation of bases for interactions among startup communities(Startup Cafe, Employment Consultation Center, one-stop place for business startups)
・ Streamlining of startup preparations (employment insurance benefits)
・ Creation of a framework to generate innovations (Innovation Studio Fukuoka)
・ Expansion of sales channels and creation of new business opportunities (relaxing of requirementsfor optional contracts, support for establishing businesses in the restaurant and retail industries)
・ Corporate tax reduction for startups
・ Provision of support for securing human resources when starting a business (use of internships)
・ Improving support framework for business startups in the region, etc.

○ Growing growth companies
・ International business plan competitions
・ Promoting priority areas (creative, healthcare, food, environment/energy)
・ New industrial development (organic EL, robots), etc.

Ⅰ-69

(2) Free city where businesses connect easily with the world○ Creating an attractive place for MICE
・ Developing unique venues (road occupancy standards*, use of historic buildings, etc.)
・ Global MICE Strategic City・ Improving convention zones
・ Accelerating/streamlining immigration procedures, etc.

○ Developing human resources and organizations responsible for active businessexchanges and increasing MICE opportunities
・ Enhancing MICE activities and business coordination (Meeting Place Fukuoka)
・ Promoting international conferences by universities, companies, etc.

○ Creating a global business environment in Fukuoka City by attracting companies
and human resources
・ Support for foreign companies
・ Increasing name recognition overseas
・ Improving coordination with foreign economic associations and cities, etc.

○ Accelerating globalization of local companies
・ Supporting companies expanding into overseas markets
・ Supporting expansion of sales channels including business matching meetings and exhibitions
・ Supporting through overseas offices, etc.
・ Promoting creative industries (support for overseas expansion), etc.
* Road occupancy business
Relaxing road occupancy standards for roads stipulated under the National Strategic Special Zone Plans to hold events to create afestive atmosphere. Creating innovations and new businesses by increasing the attractiveness of MICE, promoting MICE activities,
and enhancing interactions between people and companies(3) Building a high-performance city that attracts global businesses○ Creating city functions to make it easier for global human resources and theirfamilies to live
・ Improving international educational environment
・ Improving convenience of foreign nationals in their daily lives
・ Accepting foreign entrepreneurs (revision of resident’s status)
・ Providing advanced medical care (e.g. increase in registered beds), etc.

○ Creating a business environment to attract global companies and global humanresources
・ Improving communication environment of the city
・ Improving airport and port functions
・ Approving exceptions to height limits under the Civil Aeronautics Act
・ Promoting construction of high-quality housing, etc., achieving close proximity between home andworkplace

Ⅰ-70

Column 10: Fukuoka City declares itself to be Startup City: National Strategic Special Zone
for Startups
Fukuoka City is rapidly increasing its presence as a provider of startup support. The city was selected as the
National Strategic Special Zone for supporting startups in July 2014. A series of initiatives is alreadyunderway including the provision of financial support to foreign students and holding a business plancompetition in English. “We will grow Fukuoka City with the strength of startups” says Mr. Soichiro
Takashima, Mayor of Fukuoka City.
In October 2014, Fukuoka City opened the Startup Cafe, a startup support base for facilitating interactions
and co-working among startup executives, in the Tenjin area at the city center. In addition to providing startup
information, professionals such as judicial scriveners to prepare legal documents, tax accountants, and laborand social security attorneys to respond to inquiries. Efforts have been made to create a friendly atmosphere
where entrepreneurs can exchange opinions freely while drinking coffee. Located inside the TSUTAYA bookstore, the café is run by Culture Convenience Club, which also operates TSUTAYA. The company has areputation for developing new businesses.
“We will grow our economy by making it easier for startups to start their businesses and continue to locate
their headquarters here,” Mayor Takashima declared at the opening ceremony for the Startup Cafe. Hemodels Fukuoka City after Seattle, USA, which he visited. Although Seattle’s population is about half that of
Fukuoka City, Microsoft is headquartered there and Starbucks started its business in the city. The naturalenvironments of the two cities is extremely similar as both cities are located by the sea and close tomountains. He thought that once startups can be set up, Fukuoka City can also be a desirable place to live
where people can be satisfied with their incomes.
Among government-designated cities, Fukuoka City is No. 1 for firm entry rate and No. 2 for the number ofcollege students after Kyoto. Fukuoka City has the potential to create a city focusing on startups.

Ⅰ-71

(8) Government Affiliated Financial Institutions■ Japan Finance Corporation
Japan Finance Corporation has provided funds to new business operators including startup companies
through capital loans and startup education to high school students by holding the High School Student
Business Plan Grand Prix.

● Provision of funds to startups through capital loans (from FY 2008)
See Page I-29.

● High School Student Business Plan Grand Prix (from FY 2013)
Since FY 2013, the Japan Finance Corporation has held “Creativity Unlimited: a High School Student
Business Plan Grand Prix” that invites business plans from high school students nationwide. The Japan
Finance Corporation aims to plant the seeds of entrepreneurship among young people by applying
experience and knowhow gained in providing startup loans to entrepreneurial education.
During the application period, staff members in charge of startup support from the Japan FinanceCorporation visit high schools upon request to help students draft business plans. In FY 2013, they visited
82 schools (161 times) with a total of 2,406 students participating (from June to October).

Figure 1-4-27 1st High School Student Business Plan Grand Prix
Item

Details

Applicable

Individuals or groups consisting of high school students nationwide

persons
SupportVisiting high schools on request to help students to create business plans

Schedule

July – mid-October 2013: Acceptance of applications
December 2013: Announcement of finalists
January 2014: Final review

School visits

82 schools (161 times), participation by a total of 2,406 students (June - October
2013)

Follow-up on

Providing feedback for all business plans such as evaluation points and futureapplicantsissuesAwardsGrand prize, semi-grand prize, special jury award, excellence award, school
award, high school students business plan best 100(Source: Japan Finance Corporation website (https://www.jfc.go.jp/n/grandprix_awards/))

Figure 1-4-28 2nd Event Poster
Creativity Unlimited: High School Student Business Plan Grand Prix

Ⅰ-72

■ Development Bank of Japan Inc.
Since 2011, the Development Bank of Japan Inc. has held the annual DBJ Women Entrepreneurs New
Business Plan Competition for female entrepreneurs, providing winners with prize money of up to ¥10
million.

Figure 1-4-29
Overview of the DBJ 4th Women Entrepreneurs New Business Plan Competition
Item

Details

Applicable persons

Female proprietors of start-up businesses

Application period

December 15, 2014 to March 2, 2015

Announcement of

Late June 2015

winners
Subsidy

Responsible office

DBJ Women Entrepreneurs Grand Prize

Up to¥10 million

DBJ Women Entrepreneurs PrizeUp to¥5 million

Prize for Innovative Regional Growth

Up to¥5 million

Women’s Business Startup Support Center, Corporate Financial Division No.
6(Source: Development Bank of Japan Inc. (http://www.dbj.jp/service/advisory/wec/))

Ⅰ-73

1.5 Support for Startup Businesses in the Private Sector
Startup support in the private sector can be largely categorized into a) to k) shown in the figure below,
according to the stage of the venture ecosystem. In the private sector, VC firms, tax accountants,
accountants, audit firms, banks, law firms, former startup members, real estate companies, and others
provide support.

Figure 1-5-1 Types of Startup Support in the Private Sector
Types of Support

Remarksa) Education

Entrepreneur training coursesb) Matching services

Matching VCs and large companies (websites, events)c) Startup discovery

Pitch (events)d) Financial support

Funds from relatives, angel, VCs, corporations, etc.

e) Establishing a company

Tax accountants, accountants, audit firms, etc.

f) Facilities

Incubation facilities, universities, real estate companies, etc.

g) Seminars/Consulting

Audit firms, attorneys, etc.

h) Legal support

Law firms specializing in startupsi) Customer referral

Referrals from securities companies, banks, audit firms, former
startup members, etc.

j) Exit/IPO

Securities companies, audit firms, etc.

k) Overseas expansion support

Audit firms, etc.

Ⅰ-74

(1) Matching Services (matching large companies and startups) (item b)
In Japan, where collaboration between large companies and startups is still rare, most successful startup
companies have achieved exits through an IPO. Therefore, when the securities markets are falling, exits
by startup companies also slow down due to a deterioration of IPOs.
Against this backdrop, there has been an increasing trend to facilitate cooperation and collaboration
between large companies and startups with the aim of accelerating M&As by large companies,
diversifying exit routes for startup companies, carving out entities from large companies, and otheractivities.
A.

At the Japan New Business Conferences, the Connect! Special Committee has been up-and-runningsince July 2011, and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) sponsored Connect! 2012
in November 2012. In March 2013, METI, in cooperation with the Connect! Special Committee,
held the Symposium for Supporting New Business Creation with Connect! at Marunouchi Hall.
Besides, Nomura Securities Co., Ltd. and Tohmatsu Venture Support Co., Ltd. launched the Morning
Pitch in January 2013.

B.

The Tokyo Innovation Leaders Summit Committee held matching events in January and September
2014 with support from METI.

Examples of business matching between large companies and startups include the following:

Figure 1-5-2 Examples of Business Matching between Large Companies and Startups
Organizers

Activities

Japan New

Holding Connect!, a networking event between startups and large companies, sinceBusiness

2011 (held large-scale matching events in October 2011 and November 2012,

Conferences/which attracted about 300 participants)

Connect! Special
Committee
NomuraHolding the Morning Pitch (from 7:00 A.M. every Thursday) since January 2013,

Securities Co.,

aimed at creating business alliances between startup companies and largeLtd., Tohmatsu

companies (33 other major companies are providing support)

Venture Support
Co., Ltd.

Tokyo
Innovation
Leaders Summit
Committee

Holding the Tokyo Innovation Leaders Summit, an event organized to create

Creww

Offering a community site that matches startup companies and investors/large

business opportunities such as business alliances, capital alliances, and M&As
for large companies and startup companies. The 1st and 2nd summits were held inJanuary and September 2014, respectively.
companies

QuantumStarted providing QUANTUM Accelerator services for the managements of(TBWA/

corporate venturing accelerator programs to create new businesses by matching

HAKUHODO)

innovative technologies and ideas of startup ventures and the strengths of large
companies

Ⅰ-75

Similar Programs
KDDI

Offering a program aimed at significantly expanding the scope of support

CORPORATION

offered to startups participating in the program in cooperation with 13

Partnership Program

companies that have supported the concept of KDDI ∞ Labo, and creating newservices by integrating the startups and the 13 companies

Column 11: Activities involving large companies and startups are becoming widespread— Sony, Ricoh, and more —There are increasing opportunities to match large companies and startups. As the open innovation businessmodel becomes increasingly popular, the intentions of large companies to create new businesses have started
to coincide with the intentions of startup companies to expand their businesses in cooperation with major
companies.
In late October 2014, around 130 officers in charge of new businesses at large companies and startup
executives gathered for Shin Biji no Tsudoi (gathering for new businesses) at an upper floor of a high-risebuilding in Nishi-Shinjuku, Tokyo. This is a venue launched by volunteer employees of the NTT Group to
facilitate interactions between officers in charge of new businesses at large companies and startup executives.
The event is attracting a large number of participants across industries including real estate companies. Theirslogan is “We will accelerate business by matching everyone from large companies with up-and-coming
startups!”
SONY held a similar event — New Biz Tokyo MeetUp — about a week before that of the NTT Group.
Although the event was said to have been organized by volunteer employees, it was held on the 1st floor of
the Sony Headquarters Building in Shinagawa, Tokyo. Called the SAP Creative Lounge, it was established inAugust 2014 by the Sony Seed Acceleration Program (SAP), Sony’s new business creation project set up
under the direct control of the President this year. Equipped with 3D printers, laser cutters, oscilloscopes, andother equipment, the lounge supports activities of Sony employees to engage in new activities besides theirregular work.
Ricoh has been using Samurai Incubate Inc., which provides support for startups. This year, Ricoh has
secured five seats at Samurai Startup Island (SSI), assigning full-time staff in charge of new businesses andinteracting with startups who visit SSI.

Ⅰ-76

Column 12: Major IT companies are launching/expanding programs to support startups
Major IT companies are launching and expanding programs to support startup companies. There has been an
increasing trend to achieve open innovation, a business model that uses outside resources to develop new
businesses. By providing support from the startup stage, companies also aim to develop them as future
customers.
In September 2014, IBM Japan announced the launch of BlueHub, an incubation program that promotes
support for startup companies. Targeting IT and Internet-related startup companies before or immediately
after starting business, the company plans to support the commercialization of innovative ideas.
IBM Japan is cooperating with Samurai Incubate Inc. (Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo), a startup investment
development company, and tsukuruba inc (Shibuya-ku, Tokyo), which operates the membership-only shared
work place ‘co-ba shibuya’ for creators, engineers, and others. IBM Japan is teaming up with Samurai
Incubate to select and incubate startups. Together with tsukuruba, IBM Japan is hosting events to facilitate
interactions with startups.
KDDI CORPORATION, which has a solid track record in startup support, has created the startup support
framework Partnership Program consisting of 13 companies including Seven & i Holdings Co., Ltd., MITSUI& CO., LTD., and TV Asahi Corporation for “KDDI ∞ Labo.” It aims to provide multilateral support for thebusinesses of startup companies by bringing together the strengths of each company.
Microsoft Corporation started Microsoft Ventures in 2014 in Japan, which is a startup support program that is
active globally. As the first project, the company implemented a program to support startups in the area of
education.
NTT DATA Corporation has started to engage in activities to create new businesses through collaboration
with startups for open innovation. The company created 12 new businesses in FY 2014 and is planning toturn them into businesses worth over ¥10 billion within the next five years.

Ⅰ-77

(2) Startup Discovery Events (item c)
While pitch events, the gateway for startup companies, have been held mainly in Tokyo, the events have
now expanded to other major cities in Japan and overseas. In addition, due to the participation of many
corporations, pitch events have become valuable opportunities for major companies and startups to findeach other.
Organizers:

VC firms, securities companies, audit firms, wireless companies, etc.

Participants: VC firms, securities companies, audit firms, corporations, attorneys, investors, and otherstartup-related parties

Tokyo

Figure 1-5-3 Pitch Events
Samurai Venture Summit
Morning Pitch
KDDI∞Labo Pitch Event
Engineer Startup Meeting
DOCOMO Innovation Village
Infinity Ventures Summit
Global Brain Alliance Forum
Incubate Fund Fellow Program
MOVIDA JAPAN DemoDay
SoftBank InnoVenture (a program to propose new businesses)
Rising Expo2014
Microsoft Innovation Award 2014

Nationwide
While the pitch events above are held mainly in Tokyo, Samurai Incubate Inc. and Tohmatsu Venture
Support Co., Ltd. hold Zenkoku Startup Day nationwide. Tohmatsu Venture Support Co., Ltd., incooperation with Samurai Incubate Inc., held the Zenkoku 47 Prefectures Venture Summit, an event tosupport entrepreneurs and startup companies, from December 2012 to April 2014. In addition, B Dash
Ventures is holding events in cities such as Osaka and Fukuoka.
Name of Pitch Events

Organizers

Zenkoku Startup Day

Samurai Incubate Inc., Tohmatsu Venture Support Co., Ltd.

B Dash Camp (e.g. Osaka, Fukuoka)

B Dash Ventures

Worldwide
SunBridge Global Ventures Inc. has been holding the Innovation Weekend pitch event since 2014 in
Singapore, Tokyo, London, Boston, and Osaka.
Name of Pitch Event
Innovation Weekend

Organizers
SunBridge Global Ventures Inc., Venture Now

Ⅰ-78

(3) Facilities for Startup Companies (item f)
Besides local governments, private real estate companies are offering startup companies incubation
facilities under preferential conditions.
・ Private incubation facilities
・ Private co-working spaces
・ Startup support facilities offered by major real estate companies(e.g. Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. “EGG JAPAN”, Mitsui Fudosan Co., Ltd. “KOIL(Kashiwa-no-ha Open Innovation Lab)”)Column 13: Real estate companies are accelerating startup support
Major real estate companies are accelerating their activities to support startup companies. If relationships canbe established with startups as tenants while their businesses are still small, they can become major prime
customers after their businesses grow in the future. Attracting companies with high growth potential canincrease the brand values of office buildings and entire cities.
Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. opened The Premium Floor Marunouchi on the top floor of the Marunouchi
Building (Marunouchi, Tokyo) in October 2014. By dividing one floor into more than a dozen sections, thecompany made it easier for growing startup companies to use the facilities. Two of the companies that have
moved in were previously located in the startup support community, EGG JAPAN (Shin-Marunouchi
Building), which is also operated by Mitsubishi Estate Co., Ltd. As business expanded, their offices became
too small and they began looking for new locations.
Mitsui Fudosan Co., Ltd. created the Venture Co-creation Department in April, a new organization tofacilitate startup support. In addition, the company opened Kashiwa-no-ha Open Innovation Lab (KOIL), a
creative innovation platform where companies and individuals can get together to create new industries
through interactions, in the redevelopment area of Kashiwa, Chiba. The Lab is collaborating with the adjacent
University of Tokyo and is attracting manufacturing startups equipped with 3D printers and other equipment.
The company has also opened a base to support entrepreneurs in Nihonbashi, Tokyo.
Sumitomo Realty & Development Co., Ltd. is promoting to use a part of the lower floors of a rental
condominium in Shinjuku, Tokyo as a SOHO (small office / home office) for new startups. Startups include
Kaizen Platform, Inc. (Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo), a provider of website development support services, moved intoanother Sumitomo office building after increasing its staff from just a few to over 100 in one year. The
building is known as the Success Building in the startup industry. The company is exploring new customers
by actively serving sponsoring startup-related events.

Ⅰ-79

(4) Consulting (items e, g, i, j, and k)
While law firms provide consulting support to startups in Silicon Valley, audit firms play a major role inJapan.
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu LLC and Ernst & Young ShinNihon LLC have installed teams specializing inproviding support to startups: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu LLC has expanded Tohmatsu Venture Support
Co., Ltd. while Ernst & Young ShinNihon LLC has established EY ShinNihon Creation Co., Ltd.

● Tohmatsu Venture Support Co., Ltd.
Established in December 1997, Tohmatsu Venture Support Co., Ltd. launched the Zenkoku 47 Prefectures
Venture Summit in December 2012 in cooperation with Samurai Incubate Inc. In addition, the company
held the 1st Morning Pitch in January 2013, enhancing its activities to support startups. As part of its
startup support, the company provides an all-round support program including business plan development,
financing, overseas expansion, and exploration of sales channels.

Figure 1-5-4 Tohmatsu Venture Support Co., Ltd. Scheme

Source:Tohmatsu
Venture Support
Co., Ltd. website● EY ShinNihon Creation Co., Ltd.
Established in July 2013, EY ShinNihon Creation Co., Ltd. is competing with Tohmatsu Venture Support
Co., Ltd. in the area of startup support. Besides those listed below, the company provides e-learning
courses and online consultation services as part of its startup support.
・Support for growth through such measures as business consulting, information provision,
financing, and sales expansion support・

Matching services to provide a forum to meet with VC firms and large companies

Figure 1-5-5 Startup Support by EY ShinNihon Creation Co., Ltd.

Source: EY ShinNihon
Creation Co., Ltd. website

Ⅰ-80

1.6. Education(1) University Startup Education
VEC described startup education at universities in the “Annual Report on Japanese Startup Businesses
2013.” This section focuses on the current situation of entrepreneurship education at universities andstartup education for high school students and younger.

● Entrepreneur Development Programs at Japanese Universities
Approximately 250 universities in Japan are currently offering entrepreneurship education courses. Listed
below are examples of entrepreneurship education courses offered at major universities in Japan.

Figure 1-6-1
Examples of Entrepreneurship Education Courses at Leading Universities in Japan
University

Name of Courses

Division of University Corporate

University of Tokyo Entrepreneur Dojo

Relations, University of Tokyo
OfficeSociety-Academia

Business startup and business creation I (basic), Business

Collaboration for Innovation, Kyoto

startup and business creation II (advanced), Entrepreneurship

University(English lecture)

Schoolofof

Commerce,

WasedaEntrepreneur training course I, Entrepreneur training course II

University
Global Education Center, Waseda

Startup entrepreneur leader development program

University
Keio Business School (Graduate

Entrepreneur strategy, Entrepreneurship, Business startup

School of Business Administration)

process, Venture capitalist training program

University of Tsukuba

Entrepreneurship education course, Tsukuba Creative Camp
(TCC)
(Source: Websites, Prepared by VEC)

Entrepreneurship education courses are quickly gaining popularity. In addition to growing interest among
students in starting businesses, support from universities and university graduates is a major contributor
to the increase. For example, Waseda University has been providing an entrepreneur development
program, offering lectures by outside experts.
University of Tsukuba is holding the Tsukuba Creative Camp, a three-day entrepreneur development
event, where would-be entrepreneur students present business plans in front of entrepreneurs who are
University of Tsukuba graduates, including the Chief Executive Officer of Line, Akira Morikawa.

Ⅰ-81

● Business Plan Competitions for College Students
The following business plan competitions are being offered to college and other students.

Figure 1-6-2 Examples of Business Plan Competitions for College Students
Name of Competitions

Organizers

Remarks

Campus Venture Grand Prix

Nikkan Kogyo

Business competition aimed at developing

Shimbun, Ltd.

next-generation human resources and creating new
industries by proposing new businesses

Business Contest KING

Student Think

Business competition characterized by teams

Tank WAAV

consisting of people meeting for the first time,camp-style training, and case method presentations.
(Source: Websites, Prepared by VEC)

(2) Startup Education for High School Students

Figure 1-6-3 Examples of Startup Education for High School Students(other than Japan Finance Corporation)
SupportName of Support
IT

Remarks

Organizations

education/competitions

zenjouken

Holding the Programming Competition for Highfor high school students

School Students(Source: zenjouken website (http://www.zenjouken.com/))(3) Startup Education for Junior High and High School Students

Figure 1-6-4
Examples of Startup Education for Junior High and High School Students
Name of Support

SupportRemarks

Organizations

Entrepreneur

Tohmatsu

Ventureworkshop for junior

Support Co., Ltd.

high school students

Held entrepreneur workshops for junior high school
students in February 2014 at Kidzania Tokyo, atheme park for children to experience work throughrole-playing

Life is Tech! STARSLife is Tech, Inc.

★
Mashup Award
Bridge Camp

Providing information technology (IT) education tojunior high and high school students

Recruit Co., Ltd./High school and elementary school students were

TechCrunch Japanamong the award winners

GNEX

Offering a website to support junior high, highschool, and college students

Teens Apps Awards

D2C Inc.

An application competition for junior high and highschool students(Source: Websites, Prepared by VEC)

Ⅰ-82

(4) Startup Education for Elementary School Students

Figure 1-6-5 Examples of Startup Education for Elementary School Students
Name of Support
Kids Venture School

Kids Venture School(Entrepreneur
workshop for children)
Junior Economy
College

Venture school sun kids

SupportRemarks

Organizations
Aomori Prefecture,
Regional Industry
Division
Yamanashi City
Center Vitalization
Consortium
Non-profit
Organization Junior
Economy College

Youji Mirai Kyoiku

Outsourcing business to Sunroad Aomori and targeting
5th and 6th graders
Held events on February 9, 16, and 23, 2014 forelementary school students
A program designed for 5th and 6th graders toexperience business startups; Teams of five students
establish a mock company and experiences the entire
cycle of starting business from planning, purchase,manufacturing, sales, settlement, to tax payments.
Offering early childhood education classes to provide
children, from infants to elementary school students,
with entrepreneurship education by arranging theEnterprising Infants program which was offered in
Scotland as part of school education.
(Source: Websites, Prepared by VEC)

Column 14: Entrepreneurship education is regaining popularity;
There are an increasing number of courses involving startups
Entrepreneurship education is regaining popularity. There have been an increasing number of endowed
courses funded by successful startups and their executives and affiliated courses to which they send lecturers.
In addition to would-be entrepreneurs, students planning to find employment at listed startup companies areactively participating in these courses. There is a virtuous circle with entrepreneurship education generating
entrepreneurs.
One prime example is the Venture Entrepreneur Leader Development Program launched by DeNA Co., Ltd. at
Waseda University in the fall of 2014. Installed within the Global Education Center, Waseda University, thecourse is open to students from all departments irrespective of arts or sciences. In addition to Waseda
University lecturers, Ms. Tomoko Namba, founder of DeNA and other young corporate executives who
graduated from Waseda University, participate in the lectures. A competition is held on the last day of thelecture where students develop and present their business models. The lecture aims to build student
entrepreneurs’ success cases and to develop leaders who can promote the creation of new businesses at large
companies.
University of Tokyo Entrepreneur Dojo celebrated its 10th anniversary in 2014, while Keio University lecturesoffered by venture capitalist Kazutaka Muraguchi have been active for a long time. These lectures haveproduced entrepreneurs.

Ⅰ-83§2. Japanese Startup Business Survey
Following on from the September 2013 survey, in August 2014, VEC conducted the “Survey on theStartup Business Environment (2014),” covering startup companies established within the previous five
years to identify the status of startup businesses in Japan.

StartupTarget companies

companies

establishedwithin the previous five years
Number of companies surveyed

1,569

Number of companies that responded

166 (Response rate 10.6%）

Survey collection period

From Aug. 6 to Sept. 11 2014

While the response rate was slightly higher than that in 2013 (8.4%), responding companies on average had
positive earnings forecasts for the current and following fiscal year. It is fair to assume, as in the previous
year, that the respondents are a group of particularly high-performing companies among all startup
companies, and we have written this chapter based on that assumption.

Figure 2-1-1 Earnings Forecasts for the Current and Following Fiscal Year
(All responding companies)
Forecasted Performance for the Current Fiscal Year2014 Survey(Current survey)

71.0%

17.3%

4.3% 7.4%
1.7%

2013 Survey(Previous survey)

83.8%
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

6.8%
50%

Forecasted revenue/profit increase
Forecasted revenue decrease and profit increase

60%

70%

80%

7.7%

90%

100%

Forecasted revenue increase and profit decrease
Forecasted revenue/profit decrease

Forecasted Performance for the Following Fiscal Year2014 Survey(Current survey)

0.6%
7.8% 4.8%

86.8%

1.7%
2013 Survey(Previous survey)

0.9%

97.4%
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Forecasted revenue/profit increase
Forecasted revenue decrease and profit increase*2014 Survey: Current fiscal period: Year ending March 31, 2015*2013 Survey: Current fiscal period: Year ending March 31, 2014

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Forecasted revenue increase and profit decrease
Forecasted revenue/profit decrease
Next fiscal period: Year ending March 31, 2016 (Number of valid responses:166)
Next fiscal period: Year ending March 31, 2015 (Number of valid responses:117)(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Starting from the 2014 Survey, in addition to the results for all respondents, we classified responding
Ⅰ-84

companies into two groups: those companies receiving funds from venture capital (VC) firms (orcompanies receiving VC investments) and those companies not receiving funds from VC firms (orcompanies without VC investments), and compared the results.

Figure 2-1-2 Number of Responding Companies receiving/without VC investments

Number of Responding Companies

2012
Receiving VC Investments
Without VC Investments
Total

28
80
108

2013
30
89
119

2014
49
117
166

Also note that for survey items that did not show large differences between companies receiving VC
investments and those without VC investments, or for which the number of responses did not reach asufficient sample size due to classification, the survey results are presented only for all responding
companies.

In this chapter, any reference to 2013 or 2014 in the text or in figures refers to “as of
September of 2013” and “as of August of 2014,” respectively.

2.1 Profiles of Responding Startup Companies(1) Industries
In terms of the industries of all responding companies, the Computer Software industry accounted for thelargest proportion of total responses both in 2013 and 2014, with 38.2% and 28.9% respectively, followed
by Computer Hardware and IT services with 12.7% and 15.1% in 2013 and 2014, respectively. Consumer
Services and Marketing accounted for 9.7%, showing an increase from 5.9% in the previous year andranking third. No significant changes were observed in other industries (see Figure 2-1-3).

Ⅰ-85

Figure 2-1-3 Industry Distribution of Responding Companies (All responding companies)

2014
Envi ronment
Rel ated 3.0%
Industry/Energy
5.4%

Fi nance/Ins urance/
Rea l Estate 1.8%

Bi otechnology 6.0%
Computer Software
28.9%

Semi conductor/
Other El ectrical
Components a nd
Products 6.0%
Communications/
Network 6.6%
Medi cal/Hea lthcare Related
8.4%

ComputerHa rdware/
IT s ervi ces 15.1%

Bus iness Servi ces
9.1%

Cons umer Services
a nd Ma rketing 9.7%

Number of valid responses: 166
Industry/Energy
4.2%

2013

Envi ronment
Rel ated 1.7%
Fi nance/Ins urance/
Rea l Estate 0.9%

Semi conductor/
Other El ectrical
Components a nd
Products 4.2%
Bi otechnology 5.1%
Cons umer Services
a nd Ma rketing
5.9%

Computer Software
38.2%

Communications/
Network 6.8%
Medi cal/Hea lthcare Related
7.6%

ComputerHa rdware/
IT s ervi ces 12.7%

Bus iness Servi ces
12.7%

Number of valid responses: 118(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-86

On the other hand, when comparing groups of companies receiving/without VC investments, theComputer Software industry accounted for the largest percentage of both groups, followed by Computer
Hardware and IT services. The third-ranked industry in the group of companies receiving VC investments(see Figure 2-1-4) was Biotechnology, accounting for 10.0% and 14.3% in 2013 and 2014, respectively,
while the third rank in the group of companies without VC investments (see Figure 2-1-5) was businessservices with 17.0% and 12.8% in 2013 and 2014, respectively.
In particular, in Biotechnology, the percentage for the group of companies receiving VC investments was
14.3%, which is considerably higher than 2.6% for the group of companies without VC investments.
From this result, we interpret that VC firms were involved in investments in startup companies since theirfoundation, because the Biotechnology industry requires huge amounts of capital on a long-term basis.

Column 15: News curation services show rapid growth. Will they follow the path of
the game development business?
Following the social game development business, the news curation service has been attracting
attention as a potential growth business in the smartphone era. With large-scale fundraising,companies engaged in news curation services are on track for rapid expansion by establishingpresences through heavy TV advertising and by securing talented employees.
News curation is services that display news and topics gathered from newspapers, journals, andblogs on websites with expectations of drawing people’s interest. Given that winners and losers are
becoming clear in the social game industry, entrepreneurs and VC firms are now keen on the news
curation business with a prospect that it would grow into one of the next major investment areas.
SmartNews, Gunosy, and NewsPicks operated by UZABASE Inc. are the three largest news curation
services in Japan. Gunosy and SmartNews had topped 5 million downloads for their applications by
the end of August 2014 and September 2014, respectively. NewsPicks, which offers news curation
services specializing in economic news, reached 200,000 downloads.
Their fundraising is gaining momentum. In August 2014, SmartNews announced a capital increaseof ¥3.6 billion. Atomico, a venture capital firm led by the founder of Skype, acted as lead investor
for the fundraising, and major VC firms, including Globis Capital Partners, and businesscorporations, such as Gree and mixi, also invested. Gunosy had already secured funds worth ¥2.4
billion from investors including VC funds of KDDI, JAFCO, and B Dash Ventures during the period
from March through June 2014.
In August 2014, UZABASE raised funds totaling ¥470 million from ITOCHU Technology Ventures,
YJ Capital, Globis Capital Partners, SMBC Venture Capital, Mitsubishi UFJ Capital, Shinsei Bank,GMO VenturePartners, and Monex Ventures. The funding was unique in that Kodansha, a company
that provides news sources, also invested.
On the back of the large funds secured and expectations for potential business growth, competition
to secure staff is also intensifying. NewsPicks hired the former editor-in-chief of Toyo Keizai
Online, while SmartNews secured the former chief financial officer of Lifenet Insurance and theformer editor-in-chief of Huffington Post Japan.
Ⅰ-87

Figure 2-1-4 Industry Distribution of Responding Companies(Companies receiving VC investments)

Fi nance/Ins urance/
Rea l Estate 2.0%

2014
Medi cal/Hea lthcare Related
4.1%

Envi ronment
Rel ated 2.0%

Bus iness Servi ces
0.0%

Industry/Energy
8.2%

Computer Software
26.5%

Semi conductor/
Other El ectrical
Components a nd
Products 8.2%

Cons umer Services
a nd Ma rketing 8.2%
ComputerHa rdware/
IT s ervi ces 16.3%

Communications/
Network 10.2%
Bi otechnology
14.3%

Number of valid responses: 49

2013

Semi conductor/
Other El ectrical
Components a nd
Communications/ Products 3.3%
Network 3.3%
Medi cal/Hea lthcare Related
6.7%

Envi ronment
Rel ated 0.0%

Fi nance/Ins urance/
Rea l Estate 0.0%
Bus iness Servi ces
0.0%

Industry/Energy
6.7%
Cons umer Services
a nd Ma rketing
6.7%

Computer Software
46.7%

Bi otechnology
10.0%ComputerHa rdware/
IT s ervi ces 16.6%

Number of valid responses: 30(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-88

Figure 2-1-5 Industry Distribution of Responding Companies(Companies without VC investments)

2014
Envi ronment
Rel ated 3.4%

Semi conductor/
Other El ectrical
Components a nd
Products 5.1%

Bi otechnology 2.6%

Fi nance/Ins urance/
Rea l Estate 1.7%

Industry/Energy
4.3%
Computer Software
29.9%

Communications/
Network 5.1%
Medi cal/Hea lthcare Related
10.3%
ComputerHa rdware/
IT s ervi ces 14.5%

Cons umer Services
a nd Ma rketing
10.3%
Bus iness Servi ces
12.8%

Number of valid responses: 117

2013

Industry/Energy
3.4%

Envi ronment
Rel ated 2.3%
Fi nance/Ins urance/
Rea l Estate 1.1%

Semi conductor/
Other El ectrical Bi otechnology 3.4%
Components a nd
Products 4.5%
Cons umer Services
a nd Ma rketing
5.7%

Computer Software
35.2%

Communications/
Network 8.0%
Medi cal/Hea lthcare Related
8.0%

Bus iness Servi ces
17.0%

ComputerHa rdware/
IT s ervi ces 11.4%

Number of valid responses: 88(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-89

(2) Stage
The analytical results for stages of all responding companies reveal that more than 50% of all respondents
belonged to the Early stage, with 53.8% and 54.8% in 2013 and 2014, respectively. This is followed by
the Expansion stage, with 29.4% and 26.5% of respondents in 2013 and 2014, respectively. The reason
why the Early stage occupied the vast majority is due to the scope of the survey, which was limited tocompanies established within the previous five years, and the possibility that responses were mainly fromstartups that are growing and feel able to respond to the survey.
The distribution by stage in 2014 showed almost no change from the results in 2013, and no significant
difference is also seen between groups of companies with or without VC investments.

Figure 2-1-6 Stage Distribution of Responding Companies(All responding companies)
2013
Later 4.2%

2014

Seed
12.6%

Later 4.8%

Seed
13.9%

Expansion
26.5%

Expansion
29.4%

Early
54.8%

Early
53.8%
Number of valid responses: 119

Number of valid responses: 166(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-90

2.2 Status of Business Development(1) Overseas Business Development
Among all responding companies, the percentage of companies that had already expanded into overseas
markets was 25.3% in 2014, or a small increase of 2.6% from 22.7% in 2013. On the other hand, thepercentage of companies that plan to develop their businesses overseas was 33.7% in 2014, or a 10.0%
decline from 43.7% in 2013, and was also lower than the 41.0% of companies that neither had overseas
business operations in the past nor plan to develop businesses overseas.

Figure 2-2-1 Status of Overseas Business Development(All responding companies)
2013

2014

22.7%

33.6%

25.3%

41.0%

Plan to expand into overseas markets

33.7%

43.7%

Number of valid responses: 119

Already expanded into overseas
markets

No history or plan to expand into
overseas markets

Number of valid responses: 166(Ja pa nes e Sta rtup Bus i nes s Survey on the Bus i nes s Envi ronment, VEC)

In the group of companies receiving VC investments, the combined percentages of companies that havealready expanded into overseas markets and those that plan to develop business overseas accounted forabout 75% of total responses, while in the group of companies without VC investments (see Figure
2-2-3), nearly 50% of responding companies answered that they neither had engaged in overseas businessin the past nor had plans to develop business overseas. These results suggest that fundraising from VC
firms and overseas business development by startup companies are closely correlated, and many startup
companies receiving investments from VC firms are considering overseas business expansion.

Figure 2-2-2 Status of Overseas Business Development(Companies receiving VC investments)
2013

2014

20.0%

23.3%

26.5%

24.5%

Already expanded into overseas
markets
Plan to expand into overseas markets

56.7%

49.0%

Number of valid responses: 30

Number of valid responses: 49

No history or plan to expand into
overseas markets(Ja pa nes e Sta rtup Bus i nes s Survey on the Bus i nes s Envi ronment, VEC)

Ⅰ-91

Figure 2-2-3 Status of Overseas Business Development(Companies without VC Investments)
2013

2014

22.5%

25.6%

38.2%

Already expanded into overseas
markets

47.0%

Plan to expand into overseas
markets

27.4%

39.3%

No history or plan to expand into
overseas markets

Number of valid responses: 117

Number of valid responses: 89(Ja pa nes e Sta rtup Bus i nes s Survey on the Bus i nes s Envi ronment, VEC)

(2) Overseas Business Expansion by Region
In the analysis of overseas business expansion by region, for all responding companies, the 2013 survey
revealed that China accounted for 24.4%, while Asia excluding China but including India accounted for
43.9%, with Asia as a whole accounting for nearly 70%. In 2014, however, the combined percentages for
the Asian region dropped to 50.0%. The 2014 results also indicate that business expansion to Europe andother regions increased (See Figure 2-2-6 for details).

Figure 2-2-4 Existing Overseas Business by Region(All responding companies, multiple responses included)

2014

18.5%

2013

24.4%

0%
China

10%

21.7%

31.5%

43.9%

20%

30%

40%

Asia excluding China(including India)

50%

60%

United States

70%

15.2%

13.1%

24.4%

7.3%

80%

90% 100%

EuropeOther Regions

Number of valid responses: 2013 (41) 2014 (92)
(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-92

When looking at future plans for overseas expansion by region, the United States increased from 21.7% in2013 to 32.1% in 2014, while Asia as a whole and Europe saw little change.

Figure 2-2-5 Planned Overseas Business Expansion by Region(All responding companies, multiple responses included)

2014

12.2%

2013

14.4%

0%
China

34.9%

10%

37.1%

20%

30%

18.9% 1.9%

32.1%

40%

Asia excluding China(including India)

50%

21.7%

19.6%

60%

80%

United States

70%

Europe7.2%

90% 100%

Other Regions

Number of valid responses: 2013 (97) 2014 (106)(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-93

When looking at the details regarding existing or planned overseas business expansion in 2014, thesurvey results reveal that companies have expanded their business into more than 10 countries in Asia.
Countries in other regions include Russia and Mexico, indicating that Japanese startup companies are
expanding or plan to expand their businesses into countries other than Europe and North America.

Figure 2-2-6
Countries in Asia Other Than China and Other Regions
Regarding Existing or Planned Overseas Business Expansion[Regions where business expansion is already[Regions where business expansion isunderway]planned]Asia other than China

Number of

Asia other than China

companies

Number ofcompanies

Indonesia

5South Korea

5

Taiwan5

Taiwan4Vietnam

5Singapore

3

South Korea

4

India

2

Singapore3

Indonesia

1

Thailand

3

China

1

Cambodia

2

The Philippines

1

The Philippines

2

Thailand1

Sri Lanka

1

Hong Kong

1

Hong Kong

1

Malaysia

1

Malaysia

1

Undecided1

Myanmar1

Mongolia

1

Other regions

Number of

Other regions

companies

Number ofcompanies
One for each

One for each
Russia, Algeria, Brazil, Mexico

CIS, Latvia, Russia, Mexico

country

country
Trial Web services released globally1with no specific countries targeted.
More than 200 countries and regions

1

Countries where Google Play and App
1
Store operate(Note) The above countries are only those provided in the free response to the question on “Asia other than China”
and “Other Regions.”

Ⅰ-94

(3) Future Business Plans
Among all responding companies, the percentage preparing for an IPO declined about 10% from 37.4%
in 2013 to 27.7% in 2014, while the ratio of other companies included not considering an IPO increased
8% from 16.5% in 2013 to 24.5% in 2014.

Figure 2-2-7 Outlook of Startups for IPO (All responding companies)

2013

2014
Currently preparing for IPO

16.5%

24.5%
37.4%

27.7%

Considered IPO, but looking at other options

17.4%
16.8%
12.2%

Considering IPO, but plan currently on hold

16.5%

20.0%

11.0%

Considering global expansion of sales channels
and procuring funds
Others (Including not considering IPO)

Number of valid responses : 157

Number of valid responses : 115(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

The group of companies receiving VC investments, the percentage of those preparing for an IPO
increased substantially to 51.0% in 2014 from 37.9% in 2013, while in the group of companies without
VC investments (see Figure 2-2-9), the percentage declined from 37.2% in 2013 to 16.8% in 2014. These
results suggest that startup companies receiving investments from VC firms proactively prepare for IPOs.

Figure 2-2-8 Outlook of Startups for IPO (Companies receiving VC investments)

2013
3.4%

2014
Currently preparing for IPO

13.8%

16.3%
37.9%

12.3%

20.7%

Considering IPO, but plan currently on hold

51.0%

Considering global expansion of sales channels
and procuring funds

4.1%
24.2%
Number of valid responses : 29

Considered IPO, but looking at other options

16.3%

Others (Including not considering IPO)

Number of valid responses : 49
(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-95

Figure 2-2-9 Outlook of Startups for IPO (Companies without VC investments)

2013

2014
16.8%

17.4%
37.2%

28.1%

Considering IPO, but plan currently on hold

21.5%

22.1%
14.0%

Number of valid responses : 86

Considered IPO, but looking at other options
Considering global expansion of sales channels
and procuring funds

19.6%
9.3%

Currently preparing for IPO

14.0%

Others (Including not considering IPO)

Number of valid responses : 107(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Column 16: Korean startup companies present their business plans in Japan, procure funds
from Japanese investors, and tie up with large Japanese corporations
Korea has stepped up support for startup businesses at a national level. Among its measures, the Korean
government is sending Korean startup companies to events held in Japan to present their business plans. The
country aims to help businesses to obtain funds and to gain access to markets in Japan. Given that theJapanese market is double the size of the Korean market, the government considers that Japan offers a good
opportunity as an entry point for startup companies to develop and grow as global players, as was the casefor Korean TV dramas, movies, and music.
In mid-October, more than 10 Korean startup companies made business presentations to Japanese businesspeople and entrepreneurs at Samurai Startup Island, a startup support facility of Samurai Incubate Inc.
(Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo). In subsequent presentations, they arranged interpreters for each participant andsmoothly transitioned to business discussions and negotiations with Japanese counterparts.
From the following day, these startup companies made presentations to about five Japanese VC firms
including CyberAgent, Inc., as well as held exchange meetings with engineers of Japanese companies, during
a four-day visit with a packed schedule.
Korea’s Ministry of Science, Ict. & Future Planning was a major sponsor of the visit. The ministry wasestablished with the aim of supporting the development and growth of new industries, in particular,
promoting science technologies and information technology. The ministry is also said to provide support for
chaebol companies, depending on the theme.
Similar programs have been operated on a large scale for around three years. A startup company developing
preschool education products stated it would participate in a promotional visit to the U.S. Another startup
company also attended government-sponsored programs in Southeast Asia and Europe, prior to Japan. It issaid that

there were four visits to Japan in 2014 alone. The person responsible at the Korean

government-related institution who accompanied the mission to Japan remarked: “The government’s policy
is to select excellent startup companies and provide them with opportunities to promote their development
and growth.”
Ⅰ-96

2.3 Status of Fundraising(1) Status of Fundraising since Incorporation
In the analysis of fundraising since incorporation, funds provided by Founder, Family, and Friends, or the
3Fs, represented the largest source, accounting for 80.1% of the total, followed by Banks at 39.8%,
Venture Capital at 28.9%, and Private Corporations at 23.5%. This trend remains unchanged.

Figure 2-3-1 Sources of Total Funds Raised since Incorporation(By percentage of number of fundraisings for all responding companies,
multiple responses included)

80.1%
81.9%

Founder, Family, Friends
39.8%
50.0%

Banks (including loans)
28.9%

Venture Capital

25.9%
23.5%
24.1%

Private Corporations

17.5%
19.0%

Individual Investors (Angel)

14.5%

Public Organizations
Overseas Investors

21.6%
2014 (Number of valid responses: 166)

2.4%
0.9%

2013 (Number of valid responses: 116)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-97

The group of companies receiving VC investments cited the 3Fs as the largest fundraising source, which
was the same as the result for all responding companies, followed by Individual Investors, Private
Corporations, and Banks. These three sources account for about 30%, respectively, of all sources.
On the other hand, considering the fund-raising sources of companies without VC investments, the 3Fs
contributed to funding for an overwhelming 80% of companies, followed by Banks, which contributed toaround 50%. Given that the majority of funding was from the 3Fs and Banks, we interpret thatfundraising from external capital, such as the issuance of shares, is not so well developed.

Figure 2-3-2 Sources of Total Funds Raised since Incorporation(By percentage of number of fundraisings for companies receiving VC investments,
multiple responses included)
69.4%

Founder, Family, Friends

66.7%
36.7%

Individual Investors (Angel)

33.3%
24.5%

Private Corporations

36.7%
22.4%

Banks (including loans)

43.3%
16.3%

Public Organizations
Overseas Investors

23.3%
2014 (Number of valid responses: 49)

4.1%

2013 (Number of valid responses: 30)

0.0%

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)
*Fundraising by VC firms are excluded in the above report because it accounts for 100%.

Ⅰ-98

Figure 2-3-3 Sources of Total Funds Raised since Incorporation(By percentage of number of fundraisings, companies without VC investments,
multiple responses included)

84.6%

Founder, Family, Friends

87.2%
47.0%

Banks (including loans)

52.3%
23.1%

Private Corporations

19.8%
13.7%

Public Organizations

20.9%
9.4%

Individual Investors (Angel)
Overseas Investors

14.0%
1.7%

2014 (Number of valid responses: 117)

1.2%

2013 (Number of valid responses: 86)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-99

Among all responding companies, the percentage of the amount of funds raised since incorporation
showed significant growth for Venture Capital, increasing to 41.9% in 2014 from 27.5% in 2013,indicating proactive investments by VC firms. On the other hand, the percentage for Individual Investors
fell to 4.3% in 2014 from 11.1% in 2013.

Figure 2-3-4 Sources of Total Funds Raised since Incorporation(By percentage of amount of funds raised for all responding companies,
multiple responses included)

2014(Number of va lid responses: 166)

Individual
Investors (Angel)
4.3%

Overseas
Investors 3.0%

PublicOrganizations
7.6%

Venture Capital
41.9%

Founder, Family,
Friends 7.8%

Banks (includingloans) 15.7%
PrivateCorporations
19.7%

2013
(Number of va lid responses: 116)

Individual
Investors (Angel)
11.1%

Overseas
Investors 0.0%
Venture Capital
27.5%

PublicOrganizations
11.6%

Founder, Family,
Friends 7.7%

Banks (includingloans) 21.3%

PrivateCorporations
20.8%(Ja pa nes e Sta rtup Bus i nes s Survey on the Bus i nes s Envi ronment, VEC)

Ⅰ-100

In the group of companies receiving VC investments, investments by Venture Capital increased, which isthe same result as for all responding companies, showing an 18.5% year-on-year increase in 2014. On theother hand, fundraising from Private Corporations, public organizations, Banks, and Individual Investors
dropped by approximately 40 to 50%, respectively.
In the group of companies without VC investments (see Figure 2-3-6), fundraising from Banks accounted
for nearly 40%, which is the same as the previous year, followed by fundraising from Private
Corporations, which increased 160% from 22.7% in 2013 to 36.4% in 2014, while funding from
Individual Investors dropped sharply from 12.4% in 2013 to 1.3% in 2014.

Figure 2-3-5 Sources of Total Funds Raised since Incorporation (By percentage of amountof funds raised for companies receiving VC investments, multiple responses included)

2014

Overseas
Investors 4.0%

(Number of valid responses: 49)

Founder, Family,
Friends 3.6%

Individual
Investors (Angel)
5.6%
Banks (includingloans) 6.7%
PublicOrganizations
7.9%
Venture Capital
59.6%

PrivateCorporations
12.6%

2013

Founder, Family,
Friends 2.3%

(Number of valid responses: 30)

Overseas
Investors 0.0%

Individual
Investors (Angel)
10.5%
Banks (includingloans) 12.1%

Venture Capital
41.1%

PublicOrganizations
14.2%
PrivateCorporations
19.8%(Ja pa nes e Sta rtup Bus i nes s Survey on the Bus i nes s Envi ronment, VEC)

Ⅰ-101

Figure 2-3-6 Sources of Total Funds Raised since Incorporation (By percentage of amountof funds raised for companies without VC investments, multiple responses included)

2014(Number of valid responses: 117)

Individual
Investors (Angel)
1.3%

Overseas
Investors 0.9%

PublicOrganizations
6.8%

Banks (includingloans) 37.1%

Founder, Family,
Friends 17.5%

PrivateCorporations
36.4%

2013

PublicOrganizations
6.3%(Number of valid responses: 86)

Overseas
Investors 0.1%

Individual
Investors (Angel)
12.4%
Banks (includingloans) 39.9%

Founder, Family,
Friends 18.6%

PrivateCorporations
22.7%(Ja pa nes e Sta rtup Bus i nes s Survey on the Bus i nes s Envi ronment, VEC)

Ⅰ-102

Regarding the group of companies receiving VC investments, when examining the number of investmentsfrom VC firms, on the basis of amount, the percentage of the number of investments of ¥100 million ormore topped 50% in 2014, with 10% of investments over ¥1 billion. This reflects aggressive investments
by VC firms in startup businesses in 2014.

Figure 2-3-7 Sources of Funds by Amount Raised from VC firms since Incorporation(By percentage of number of investments for companies receiving VC investments,
multiple responses included)

2014 2.0% 8.2%

2013 3.3%

0%

8.2%

13.3%

10%

24.5%

23.3%

13.3%

20%

30%

40%

10.2%

20.0%

50%

Amount of funds raised not submitted\5 million and over but less than \10 million\50 million and over but less than \100 million\1 billion and overNumber of valid responses: 2013 (30) 2014 (49)

40.8%

6.1%

60%

26.8%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Less than \5 million\10 million and over but less than \50 million\100 million and over but less than \1 billion(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Column 17: Large fundraisings Are no longer unusual. gumi raised nearly ¥10 billion in total.
Following on from the previous year, unlisted startup companies continued to raise large amounts of fundingin 2014. gumi (Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo), a game development company for smartphone users, raised ¥5 billion in
only one round from WiL (California), a U.S. investment firm, and other VC firms in July 2014. The
smartphone game developer aims to expand overseas. Total funds raised amounted to ¥9.8billion.
gumi has been showing strong performance with its major game brands such as Brave Frontier, and will
debut on the stock market in December 18, 2014 (as of November 30, 2014). According to a forecast basedon previous listings of rival companies such as Colopl, Inc., gumi’s market cap is expected to reach several
hundred billion yen.
While gumi needed funds, the strong commitment of VC firms appears to underlie the ¥9.8 billion
fundraising. VC firms that have procured large funds are inclined to target an investment destination at thelater business stage so that they can inject a large amount of funds and ensure relatively rapid returns.
In recent years, there have been frequent cases of large fundraisings worth one billion yen in one round.
Startup companies are looking enthusiastically for funds to compete with U.S. mega startup companies foroverseas business development. On the other hand, with huge amounts of capital available due to global
monetary easing, VC firms tend to eye big investment returns by making huge investments in startup
companies with growth potential.
Ⅰ-103

(2) Status of Fundraising during the Most Recent One-year Period
Among all responding companies, the 2014 survey results on fundraising status during the most recent
one-year period show significant growth for the funding source of Founder, Family, and Friends, with anincrease from 5.0% in 2013 to 37.8% in 2014. In 2013, companies responding that they were unable toprocure funds accounted for 32.7%, while the percentage dropped to 17.3% in 2014. This reflects aneasier fundraising environment during the one year leading up to the 2014 survey.

Figure 2-3-8 Sources of Total Funds during the Most Recent One-year Period(By percentage of number of fundraisings for all responding companies,
multiple responses included)
37.8%

Founder, Family, Friends

5.0%
32.1%
39.6%

Banks (including loans)

23.1%

Venture Capital

13.9%
17.3%
14.9%
11.5%
17.8%

Private Corporations
Public Organizations

8.3%
8.9%

Individual Investors (Angel)2014 (Number of valid responses: 156)

1.3%
1.0%

Overseas Investors

2013 (Number of valid responses: 101)
17.3%

No Funds Raised

32.7%

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

The group of companies receiving VC investments (see Figure 2-3-9) showed a sharp increase in funding
from VC firms from 46.7% in 2013 to 78.3% in 2014, while procurement from Banks fell from 26.7% in2013 to 15.2% in 2014.
In the group of companies without VC investments (see Figure 2-3-10), fundraising from Founder,
Family, and Friends surged from 7.0% in 2013 to 44.5% in 2014. Funding from Banks still accounts for alarge proportion at around 40%. The proportion of companies responding that they were unable to procure
funds decreased by nearly half from 36.6% in 2013 to 18.2% in 2014, which suggests that fundraisingfrom the previously mentioned sources has become easier.

Ⅰ-104

Figure 2-3-9 Sources of Total Funds during the Most Recent One-year Period(By percentage of number of fundraisings for companies receiving VC investments,
multiple responses included)
78.3%

Venture Capital

46.7%

Private Corporations

23.9%

Founder, Family, Friends

21.7%

23.3%

0.0%

17.4%

Individual Investors (Angel)

20.0%
15.2%
26.7%

Banks (including loans)

10.9%

Public Organizations
Overseas Investors

10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
15.2%
23.3%

No Funds Raised0%2014 (Number of valid responses: 46)
2013 (Number of valid responses: 30)

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Figure 2-3-10 Sources of Total Funds during the Most Recent One-year Period(By percentage of number of fundraisings for companies without VC investments,
multiple responses included)
44.5%

Founder, Family, Friends
7.0%

39.1%

Banks (including loans)

45.1%
14.5%
11.3%
11.8%

Private Corporations
Public Organizations

21.1%
4.5%
4.2%

Individual Investors (Angel)

1.8%

Overseas Investors

2014 (Number of valid responses: 117)

1.4%
18.2%

No Funds Raised

2013 (Number of valid responses: 71)
36.6%

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-105

Among all responding companies, of the percentage of funds by amount raised during the most recent
one-year period, fundraising from VC firms increased significantly from 18.3% in 2013 to 47.1% in 2014.
In contrast, the percentage of funding from Private Corporations during the most recent one-year period
up until the 2014 survey declined nearly 50% from 30.3% in 2013 to 16.4% in 2014.

Figure 2-3-11 Sources of Total Funds Raised during the Most Recent One-year Period(By percentage of amount of funds raised for all responding companies,
multiple responses included)
Individual
Investors (Angel)
3.3%

2014
(Number of va lid responses: 156)

Founder, Family,
Friends 4.8%

Overseas
Investors 2.7%
Venture Capital
47.1%

PublicOrganizations
10.3%

Banks (includingloans) 15.4%
PrivateCorporations
16.4%

2013

Founder, Family,
Friends 1.2%

(Number of va lid responses: 101)

Individual
Investors (Angel)
16.3%

Overseas
Investors 0.1%
PrivateCorporations
30.3%

Banks (includingloans) 16.4%

PublicOrganizations
17.4%

Venture Capital
18.3%(Ja pa nes e Sta rtup Bus i nes s Survey on the Bus i nes s Envi ronment, VEC)

Ⅰ-106

The group of companies receiving VC investments showed a 240% increase from 27.2% in 2013 to
65.8% in 2014 for fundraising from VC firms, while the percentages of funds procured from Private
Corporations,Public Organizations, and Individual Investors each shrank significantly.

On the other hand, in the group of companies without VC investments (see Figure 2-3-13), fundraisingfrom Banks accounted for the largest portion, followed by Private Corporations. The 2014 survey results
also reveal significant changes in fundraising from Individual Investors and Overseas Investors. The
percentage procured from Individual Investors fell from 21.0% in 2013 to 0.7% in 2014, while thepercentage of funding from overseas investors rose from 0.3% in 2013 to 9.4% in 2014.

Figure 2-3-12 Sources of Total Funds Raised during the Most Recent One-year Period(By percentage of amount of funds raised for companies receiving VC investments,
multiple responses included)

2014

Individual
Founder, Family,
Overseas
Investors (Angel)
Friends 0.6%
Investors 0.0%
4.3%

(Number of valid responses: 46)

Banks (includingloans) 7.4%
PublicOrganizations
10.1%

PrivateCorporations
11.8%
Venture Capital
65.8%

2013

Banks (includingloans) 4.0%

(Number of valid responses: 30)

Individual
Investors (Angel)
13.9%

Overseas
Investors 0.0%
Founder, Family,
Friends 0.0%
PrivateCorporations
33.5%

PublicOrganizations
21.4%

Venture Capital
27.2%(Ja pa nes e Sta rtup Bus i nes s Survey on the Bus i nes s Envi ronment, VEC)

Ⅰ-107

Figure 2-3-13 Sources of Total Funds Raised during the Most Recent One-year Period(By percentage of amount of funds raised for companies without VC investments,
multiple responses included)

2014

Overseas
Investors 9.4%

(Number of va lid responses: 110)

Individual
Investors (Angel)
0.7%
Banks (includingloans) 35.4%

PublicOrganizations
11.0%

Founder, Family,
Friends 15.3%
PrivateCorporations
28.2%

2013
(Number of va lid responses: 71)

PublicOrganizations
9.2%

Founder, Family,
Friends 3.6%

Overseas
Investors 0.3%

Banks (includingloans) 42.0%

Individual
Investors (Angel)
21.0%

PrivateCorporations
23.9%(Ja pa nes e Sta rtup Bus i nes s Survey on the Bus i nes s Envi ronment, VEC)

Ⅰ-108

(3) Forecasted Sources of Future Funds
Among all responding companies, forecasted sources of future funds comprised of Banks, Venture Capital,
Public Organizations, and Private Corporations, each of which accounted for 40-50% of total responses.
These trends have remained unchanged for two consecutive years.

Figure 2-3-14 Forecasted Sources of Future Funds(All responding companies, multiple responses included)

Banks (including loans)

55.0%

Venture Capital

53.8%

55.1%

52.5%
43.8%

Public Organizations

44.9%
43.1%

Private Corporations
Domestic (Japanese) Institutional Investors
Overseas Institutional Investors
Other

36.4%
15.6%
14.4%
15.0%
11.0%
6.3%
8.5%

2014 (Number of valid responses: 160)
2013 (Number of valid responses: 118)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-109

In the group of companies receiving VC investments, the percentage of fundraising forecasted from VC
firms exceeded 70%, followed by Banks and Private Corporations at around 50%. On the other hand, inthe group of companies without VC investments (see Figure 2-3-16), the most likely funding sourceswere Banks, closely followed by Public Organizations,

Venture Capital, and Private Corporations.

These results suggest that companies receiving VC investments have relatively clear preferences forsources of funds, while companies without VC investments are considering various channels offundraising.

Figure 2-3-15 Forecasted Sources of Future Funds(Companies receiving VC investments, multiple responses included)
75.0%

Venture Capital

70.0%
50.0%

Banks (including loans)

43.3%
47.9%

Private Corporations

50.0%
37.5%

Public Organizations
Overseas Institutional Investors
Domestic (Japanese) Institutional Investors
Other

26.7%
27.1%
13.3%
18.8%
13.3%
10.4%
6.7%

2014 (Number of valid responses: 48)
2013 (Number of valid responses: 30)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-110

Figure 2-3-16 Forecasted Sources of Future Funds(Companies without VC investments, multiple responses included)
57.1%

Banks (including loans)

59.1%
46.4%

Public Organizations

51.1%
44.6%
46.6%

Venture Capital

41.1%

Private Corporations

31.8%

Domestic (Japanese) Institutional Investors
Overseas Institutional Investors
Other

13.4%
14.8%
10.7%
10.2%
4.5%
9.1%

2014 (Number of valid responses: 112)
2013 (Number of valid responses: 88)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-111

2.4 Needs of Startup Companies(1) Present Management Needs
When looking at management needs, among all responding companies, staffing ranked first as the mostimportant need, topping 80% for three consecutive years. The next most important needs were expanding
sales channels and fundraising at around 60% each. Compared to these three needs, the need fortechnological development was not so high. These management needs did not show big differences
between the groups of companies receiving/without VC investments.

Figure 2-4-1 Management Needs (All responding companies, multiple responses included)

86.7%
86.6%
81.5%

Staffing
59.6%
52.1%

Sales channel expansion

66.7%
56.6%

Fundraising

61.3%
58.3%
31.9%
33.6%

Technological development

40.7%
2014 (Number of valid responses: 166)2013 (Number of valid responses: 119)2012 (Number of valid responses: 108)

2.4%
3.4%

Others5.6%

0%10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-112

(2) Staffing Needs
When analyzing details of the staffing needs mentioned above, among all responding companies, survey
results for the past three consecutive years show that by far the largest need was for manpower such asengineers and other workers.

Figure 2-4-2 Staffing Needs (All responding companies, multiple responses included)

84.7%

Engineers and other workers

80.6%
84.4%
22.9%
24.3%

Supervisors in specialized divisions,such as finance and administration

30.2%
19.4%
20.4%
21.9%

Experienced executives

Do not have staffing needs

0.7%
2.9%
1.0%
10.4%

Others

10.7%
10.4%

2014 (Number of valid responses: 144)
2013 (Number of valid responses: 103)
2012 (Number of valid responses: 96)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-113

The group of companies without VC investments, showed by far the largest need for staff including
engineers and other workers, which is the same result for all responding companies.

Around 30% of thegroup of companies receiving VC investments indicated the need for staff including supervisors andexecutives, in addition to engineers and other workers, suggesting they are considering strengthening
administration and executive management as a step toward growth.

Figure 2-4-3 Staffing Needs(Companies receiving VC investments, multiple responses included)
81.4%
67.9%

Engineers and other workers
Supervisors in specialized divisions,such as finance and administration

32.6%
39.3%
26.9%

Experienced executives

27.9%
32.1%
38.5%

Do not have staffing needs

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
14.0%
14.3%

Others3.8%

96.2%

2014 (Number of valid responses: 43)
2013 (Number of valid responses: 28)
2012 (Number of valid responses: 26)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Figure 2-4-4 Staffing Needs(Companies without VC investments, multiple responses included)
87.0%

Engineers and other workers

85.3%
80.0%

19.0%
18.7%

Supervisors in specialized divisions,such as finance and administration

31.4%
16.0%
16.0%
15.7%

Experienced executives
1.0%

Do not have staffing needs

その他

4.0%
1.4%
8.0%
9.3%
12.9%

2014 (Number of valid responses: 100)
2013 (Number of valid responses: 75)
2012 (Number of valid responses: 70)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-114

(3) Challenges for Securing Staffing
The most challenging issue for companies facing staffing needs is compensation and other personnel
costs, followed by the lack of recruitment channels to secure staff and concerns over personnel
management. This trend has remained unchanged over the past three years. In addition, the survey results
did not show big differences between the groups of companies receiving/without VC investments.

Figure 2-4-5 Challenges for Securing Staffing(All responding companies, multiple responses included)

73.0%
61.3%
73.1%

Compensation and other personnel costs

39.0%

No recruiting channel to secure staff(Unable to find out)

34.9%
30.1%

Concerns over personnel management(Lack of experience)

14.2%
17.9%
14.0%
9.9%

Others9.4%
11.8%

2014 (Number of valid responses: 141)2013 (Number of valid responses: 106)
2012 (Number of valid responses: 93)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
(Japanese Startup Business Survey on the Business Environment, VEC)

Ⅰ-115

2.5 Requests to the Government and Other Institutions on Policies for Creatingand Growing Startup Companies
The survey asked startup companies to provide, in an open text format, their wishes and requests onpolicies of the government and other institutions. The following is a summary of the results.
(1) Subsidies, Loan Facilities, etc.
Responses show the most common request was for a review of systems including subsidies and loan
facilities, and their improvement. While a number of respondents mentioned the need to improve existing
systems, such as expanding subsidies and raising credit lines, many also called for more streamlined
operational procedures and the more integrated provision of information.
(2) Fundraising
The second biggest requirement was related to fundraising. Survey respondents called for easierfundraising schemes for startup companies at the early stage, including the seed stage, and offers oflong-term funding support, in particular, for manufacturing businesses. Some remarked that because of
the low appraised value of a startup company at the time of its IPO, VC firms hesitate to risk a large
investment considering past cases; therefore, startup companies have very few options for large-scale
fundraising.
(3) Taxes
Survey respondents also called for preferential tax treatment and tax reductions. They referred to, forinstance, improving the tax treatment on social insurance and taxes on individual income, as well as
preferential treatment for corporate tax and tax reductions for a certain period from the establishment of acompany.
Other requests were to improve coordination with large companies and clients, management guidance,and support to secure talented employees, etc.

Ⅰ-116

Column 18: Enthusiasm for fundraising in excess of one billion yen
Fundraising exceeding one billion yen is no longer unusual. While more and more startup companies are
fundraising energetically, VC firms are also boosting their investment capacities as evidenced from theemergence of large funds. Investments are also inclined to concentrate more on attractive startup
companies.
In terms of fundraising by industry, news curation is attracting attention. SmartNews raised ¥3.6 billion,
while Gunosy raised ¥1.2 billion yen. Both companies are engaged in heavy TV advertising and promoting
the downloading of applications.
Social game development companies are also continuing to raise funds at a brisk pace. gumi and Akatsuki
raised ¥5.0 billion and ¥1.4 billion, respectively. The funds are planned to be appropriated for promoting
business overseas.
Innovation Network Corporation of Japan (INCJ) has a major presence supplying a huge amount of funds.
The organization made direct investments in Sansan of ¥1.46 billion, Microwave Chemical of ¥1.2 billion,
and Oh My Glasses of ¥1.08 billion. It also supplied the ¥10.0 billion of capital funding to WiL, whichinvested in gumi.

Ⅰ-117

Column 19: Overseas governments are rushing to attract Japanese startup businesses
Overseas governments are rushing to attract Japanese startup companies. They aim to revitalize regional
economies by attracting Japanese startups that have advanced technologies in mobile communication andother fields.
The British Embassy held an event to launch Japan UK Tech Awards in late October 2014. In the UK, startup
businesses are growing rapidly in areas centered on Tech City, where IT companies are clustered in the East
End district, site of the London Olympics. The event aims to accelerate the growth of startup businesses byselecting promising Japanese startup companies and inviting them to the UK. The Awards select about fivecompanies from among applicants and grant special benefits such as the use of incubation facilities in theUK.
Luxemburg is also expanding its activities. The country’s crown prince and princess visited Japan in Octoberand held an event targeting Japanese startup businesses. The country’s responsible minister accompanied
them and communicated the advantages Luxemburg offers startup companies doing business in Europe. The
Luxemburg government has invited Japanese startup companies to IT startups events held in Luxemburg forthe last several years, and some of them have established European bases in Luxemburg.
The New Zealand government is also trying to attract Japanese startups. It has appointed a new person in
charge and is searching for companies, mainly engaged in IT-related businesses.
The Finnish Embassy has also held orientations and parties, as was the case last year, with the aim of inviting
Japanese startups to SLUSH, Europe’s largest startup event program, which is held in Finland.
The environment surrounding Japanese startups has been gaining momentum at an unprecedented rate, anddeveloping and growing startup businesses is one of the economic growth strategies of the Abeadministration. There are not so many startup companies that can become global players. And, competition
among governments for targeted companies may already be underway.

Ⅰ-118

Column 20: Challenge of Finland (SLUSH 2014)
November 18-19, 2014
Venture Enterprise Center, Japan
President Ryuji Ichikawa

Every year, SLUSH, a large event program targeted at startup businesses, is held in Helsinki, Finland innorthern Europe. I visited the event this year.
At the convention center located a little north of central Helsinki, 14,000 leaders and investors of young
startup companies got together from 79 countries around the world. I was overwhelmed by the enthusiasm of
the Finnish, which was hard to believe, because I had had the impression that the Finnish were rather
reserved from observations during my stay in the neighboring country of Sweden 25 years ago. Some 7,000
people participated in the SLUSH 2013 last year. Twice the number of participants came to this year’s
program. It was also the first time the event was held in the large 17,000 m2 convention center. At a site
occupying a space larger than two big halls of Tokyo Big Sight, five main event stages were set up andexciting presentations were rolled out. Aisles in the event hall were crammed with desks set up by startup
companies, which were busy with business discussions.
At the opening of the event, the Finnish Prime Minister delivered a speech and emphasized the superiority of
Finland saying: “Finland is the front door to the European Union, and is adjacent to the huge Russian market.
The Finnish people emphasize higher education. As a result, we are hosting SLUSH.” In addition, thecountry invited the Estonian Prime Minister as a panelist, who spoke about advantages offered by the Finnish
people. Estonia is a neighboring country and has the same ancestry as the Finnish, as well as a similar
language. The mood of the event changed slightly with the appearance of the Chinese Vice Prime Minister, aguest speaker, who delivered a speech in Chinese with simultaneous translation.
From Japan, Mr. Mikitani, President of Rakuten, Inc. was present and debated with the Finnish and Estonian
Prime Ministers during the panel discussion. Mr. Taizo Son, Chairman of GungHo Online Entertainment, Inc.
and CEO of MOVIDA JAPAN Inc., took to the stage with the leader of Supercell, a Finnish gamedevelopment company that SoftBank acquired last year.
What overwhelmed me was the presentation by Nokia Corporation, the local company that failed to ride thewave of smartphones and suffered from the slump in sales of mobile phone devices. The presentation kicked
off with the message “Nokia is dead? Nokia is no more?” followed by denials and the introduction of the
newly released ⓩLAUNCHER and Nokia N1, 7.9 inch-size tablet, which sells for 249 dollars plus tax. The
impressive presentation reminded me of one by Steve Jobs of Apple Inc., and was met with cheers fromsegments of the patriotic Finnish audience.

Ⅰ-119

I also saw some smart ideas in the event administration: first, a SLUSH reception desk was set up at the
airport for participants from outside Finland, so foreign visitors could finish registration there simply byconfirming their names, and were provided with a participation card and a wristband. In the main hall, pipe
chairs were arranged and chairs at either end of every third row had plug sockets with six plugs for charging
smartphones.
SLUSH impressed participants with its scale and enthusiastic mood. Its superior and sophisticated quality
marked a great difference from similar events organized by Japan. Given that startup businesses are notalways successful, having a broad and solid base is necessary for a successful launch. Strongly sensing thatJapan should not lag behind, I left Northern Europe where it was two degrees centigrade to return to mynormal routine.

I-120

§3. Aiming for Sustainable Growth of Investments in Startups
As presented in Chapter 1, the startup business in FY 2013 and 2014 is summarized as follows:(1) Thanks to Bank of Japan’s drastic monetary easing, there have been vigorous trends such as stock
market revitalization, an increasing number of IPOs, and the growing scale of investments in startup
businesses.
In addition, as mentioned in Chapter 1, initiatives and measures taken by the government and the
public sector, such as SME support, Japan and INCJ, are considered to be contributing toinvestments in startup businesses.
(2) Our task will be, in essence, to ensure the sustainable growth of investments in startup businesses.
An integral part of this challenge lies in the efficient operation of a startup ecosystem including the
manufacturing (or monozukuri) field, so that investments in startup companies can growautonomously in the medium-term trend.
To achieve this task, we consider the following to be key points for investments in startups.
One key point is the moves of large Japanese corporations. We have seen significant improvements ingovernmental measures over the past few years. The government rolled out a number of measures
including promotional measures for corporate and individual taxes, investments in venture funds,
investments in startup companies, and programs to promote collaboration between large corporations andstartups (refer to Chapter 1 : 1-2 and 1-4). With the momentum increased by the government’s initiatives,
critical roles to sustain investments in startups are in the hands of the private sector. In particular, moves
by large corporations, which dominate management resources covering people, equipment, and capital,
and initiatives by executive groups responsible for decision-making.
In 2011, Japan New Business Conferences, a private organization, launched “Connect!”, a promotional
program to bring together large corporations and startup companies, publicizing its activities throughevents and exchange meetings. Since 2013, the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) has
hosted this program with the private organization mentioned above as co-sponsor. Furthermore, in 2014,
the Tokyo Innovation Leaders Summit Executive Committee hosted a program to facilitate direct
meetings between large corporations and startup companies, with support from METI.
VEC stated before, in its “Annual Report on Japanese Startup Businesses 2012,” that investments by large
non-financial business corporations in startups are critical in the light of the macro supply and demandbalance for funds in Japan.
Consequently, the attention given by senior executives of large corporations to startup companies hasgrown rapidly in recent years. It would be best if their interest lead to collaborative activities with startups
that would help large corporations expand into new business areas and develop existing business fields.
For the sustainable growth of Japanese startup businesses, it is critical to establish a system under whichlarge corporations continue investments in startup companies, with clear views on collaborative activities
with startups, M&As, and business spinoffs in their corporate strategies. As a result, startup ecosystems
I-121

would be rolled out smoothly in manufacturing (or monozukuri).
When looking at Google and other large U.S. corporations’ acquisitions of startup companies in Silicon
Valley, big companies appear to make decisions on acquisitions after analyzing the integrity of the
products and services of their respective business divisions, as well as synergies. The rapid expansion ofexisting business fields with growth potential is also said to be a reason for acquisitions.
We are seeing some large Japanese corporations proactively investing in startup companies, as well asentering into business alliances with them. The corporate strategies of leaders would be challenged,
irrespective of the abundant resources that most of big corporations possess, unless those resources areused effectively for developing new businesses through tie-ups with startup companies.

METI established the Venture Business Creation Council in September 2014 to promote alliances andother activities between large and medium-sized corporations and startup businesses (Refer to page, I-49).
Another critical point for the sustainable growth of startup businesses lies in the awareness andrecognition among Japanese people of startup businesses.
Education in a broad sense, including that by the government and mass media, is the effective means thatsignificantly impact the interest and awareness of people in the medium and long term.
In education, startup education programs are gradually spreading among universities nationwide. VEC isalso one of the advisory board members of the Network for Promotion of Entrepreneurship Education at
Universities and Graduate Schools sponsored by METI.
Providing university students and adults with concrete and practical startup educational programs helps
them obtain fundamental knowledge and expertise on entrepreneurship, learn how to draft business plans,
and apply lessons in practice where possible. A number of organizations are carrying out various
measures designed for adults such as consultations on details on how to set up a company. We strongly
hope these moves will expand.
Furthermore, as is already known in Japan, Olin College of Engineering, a college founded 12 years ago
in the eastern part of the United States, has a unique educational program. The College took into
consideration the tendency of students to drop out because educational programs were oriented towards
knowledge of basic mathematics and science. To prevent drop outs, the College developed an educational
method in which students start engineering programs directly after entering the school and engage indesign and manufacturing (or monozukuri). As a result, they are motivated to learn by themselves.
Although there may be arguments for and against this educational method, it is imperative to continue tosearch for a diverse range of teaching methods in university education.
Startup education has been taking place in some junior and senior high schools recently (refer to Chapter
1 : 1-4-(2)2, 1-4(8), 1-6-(3)). There are two fundamental points. One is the importance of acquiring
fundamental knowledge, and the other is that it is imperative to learn from history. The former is aself-evident truth, and the Government (i.e. the Cabinet Office and the Council for the Implementation of
I-122

Education Rebuilding) also pointed out its importance.
What about the importance of learning from history?
In Japanese history, it is extremely valuable to study details of human history describing the pioneering
accomplishments of our predecessors in academic and industrial fields, which were driven by theirambition. We should recognize that the rapid economic and industrial development achieved by theJapanese people since the Meiji era is attributable to the superior intellectual capabilities and a strong willto get things done of world-renown individuals such as Takakazu Seki and Tadataka Ino, as well as the
spread of primary education in the Edo era.
Learning from history would give young people confidence as Japanese, and become a source of humanenergy that would inspire them to grow as pioneers with courage and ambition.
Similarly, studying the history of prominent foreign pioneers is extremely important. Like studying
foreign languages, it is an imperative factor for becoming a global player.

I-123

II. Data: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends in 2014

§1．Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends§2．Survey on Venture Capital Fund Status

Preface
We report on our Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends and Survey on Venture CapitalFund Status for fiscal year 2013 (April 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014).
The number of venture capital firms that responded to our survey increased from the previous
90 to 101. In the Fund Status survey, the number of funds responded to the survey increased
from 600 to 625, and the number of funds for which the internal rate of return was calculated
increased from 371 to 374.
We would like to express our deepest gratitude to respondents for providing us with valuable
responses. It would be our utmost pleasure if readers of the reports find our survey useful inunderstanding the status of venture capital investment as well as buyout/turnaroundinvestment in Japan.

Venture Enterprise Center, Japan

List of venture capital firms responded to the survey (101 in total)
List of VC firms
Advanced Science and Technology Enterprise Corporation
Agribusiness Investment & Consultation Co.Ltd.

M izuho Capital Co.,Ltd
M obile Internet Capital Inc.

Ant Capital Partners Co., Ltd.

NAGOYA SM ALL AND M EDIUM BUSINESSINVESTM ENT&CONSULTATION CO., LTD.

Biofrontier Partners, Inc.
Bio-Sight Capital Inc.

NEOSTELLA CAPITAL CO.,LTD.
New Frontier Partners Co.,Ltd.

CHIBAGIN CAPITAL CO.,LTD.
Chushin Venture Capital co,Ltd

Nippon Venture Capital Co.,Ltd.
NISSAY CAPITAL CO., LTD.

CITIC Capital Partners Japan Ltd
CyberAgentventures, Inc.

NOM URA RESEARCH & ADVISORY CO., LTD.
Oita Venture Capital Co.,Ltd.

Daiwa Corporate Investment Co., Ltd.

ORIXDBC Capital Co., Ltd.

OSAKA SM ALL AND M EDIUM BUSINESS INVESTM ENT &CONSULTATION CO., LTD.

DEFTA Capital,Inc.

PE&HR Co., Ltd.

Dentsu Digital Holdings Inc.
Energy & Environment Investment, Inc.
Fast Track Initiative, Inc.

Phoenix Capital CO., Ltd.
Polaris Capital Group Co., Ltd.
RISA Partners, Inc.

Femto Growth Capital LLP
FFG Business Consulting Co., Ltd.

Samurai Incubate Inc.
SANSEI CAPITAL INVESTM ENT CO., LTD.

Future Venture Capital Co., Ltd.
GBI Capital Inc.

Sapporo Hokuyo Leasing Co.,Ltd
SBI Holdings, Inc.

Global Brain Corporation
Global Venture Capital Inc.
Globis Capital Partners & Co.
GREE Ventures, Inc.
GUNGIN LEASING CO.,LTD.

SEIBU Shinkin Capital Corporation
SHIGAGIN LEASE ＆ CAPITAL CO.LTD
Shigin Regional Economic Research Institute Inc.
Shinkin Capital Co.,Ltd.
Shizuoka Capital Company Limited

Hachijuni Capital Co.,Ltd.

SK Ventures Co., Ltd.

Hamashin Lease, Co.,Ltd. (former Hamashin Capital Co., LTD. )Hibishin Capital Co., Ltd.

SM BC Venture Capital Co., Ltd.
Solution Design Co.,Ltd

HIGIN CAPITAL Co.,Ltd.
Hiroshima Innovation Network Inc.

Strategic Investment Partners Inc.
Sumitomo M itsui Trust Investment Co., Ltd.

Hiroshima Venture Capital Co.,Ltd.

SunBridge Global Ventures Inc.

Hokkaido Venture Capital Inc.
Hokuhoku Capital Co.,Ltd.
Incubate Fund
Innovation Engine, Inc.
Innovation Network Corporation of Japan

T・Hands On Investment, Inc.
TechGate Investment Inc.
The Gogin Capital Co.,Ltd.
The Japan Science and Technology Agency
The Kiyo Lease & Capital Co., Ltd.

INSPiRE Corporation
INTEC IT Capital,Inc.
Integral Corporation
ITOCHU Technology Ventures,Inc.
JAFCO Co., Ltd.
Japan Asia Investment Co., Ltd.

The Tottori Capital Co., Ltd.
The University of Tokyo Edge Capital Co.,Ltd.
TNP On The Road Corporation
Tohoku Innovation Capital Corporation
Tokai Tokyo Investment Co., Ltd.
TOKIO M ARINE CAPITAL Co.,Ltd

KLab Ventures,inc.

TOKYO SM ALL AND M EDIUM BUSINESS INVESTM ENT &CONSULTATION CO., LTD.

KSP,inc.
Kyoritsu Capital Co., Ltd.

Venture Labo Co., Ltd. (former Skystar Financial M anagement Co.,Ltd.)VENTURE UNITED Inc.,

Kyushu Venture Partners Co., Ltd.
Lead Capital M anagement Co.,Ltd.
M BL Venture Capital Co., Ltd.
M ezzanine Corporation
M itsubishi UFJ Capital Co.,Ltd
M ITSUI SUM ITOM O INSURANCE Venture Capital Co.,Ltd.
M iyagin Venture Capital Co., Ltd.

Watervein Patners
WERU INVESTM ENT CO.,LTD.
Whiz Partners Inc.
Yasuda Enterprise Development Co., Ltd.
YOKOHAM A CAPITAL CO., LTD.
株式会社東海夢ファンド

CAPITAL CORPORATION

§1．Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends

Table of Contents§1-1．Venture Capital Investment ............................................................ 1
1. Investment/loan Balance ............................................................................................................ 1(1) Status of investment/loan balance ......................................................................................... 1(2) Investment/loan balance per company .................................................................................. 2(3) Distribution of VC firms by investment/loan balance ............................................................ 3(4) Distribution of investment/loan balance by region ................................................................ 4
2. Investment/loan Amount Made During the Year ........................................................................ 6(1) Status of investment/loan amount made during the year....................................................... 6(2) Investment/loan amount per company during the year ......................................................... 7(3) Distribution of VC firms by investment/loan amount during the year ................................... 8(4) New investment and Follow-On investment .......................................................................... 9(5) Distribution of portfolio companies by region ..................................................................... 10(6) Distribution of portfolio companies by stage ........................................................................11(7) Distribution of portfolio companies by industry .................................................................. 12
3. Overview of Investment Partnership ........................................................................................ 14(1) Overall status of funds ........................................................................................................ 14(2) Breakdown of investor type................................................................................................. 15
4. Exit (Cashing out an investment) Status ................................................................................... 16
5. Comparison of venture capital investment trends between US, EU and Japan ......................... 17
6. Results of the Survey ................................................................................................................ 18§1-2．Turnaround / Buyout Investment ................................................. 31
1. Investment/loan Balance .......................................................................................................... 31(1) Status of investment/loan balance ....................................................................................... 31(2) Investment/loan balance per company ................................................................................ 32(3) Distribution of companies by investment/loan balance ........................................................ 32
2. Investment/loan Amount Made During the Year ...................................................................... 33(1) Status of investment/loan amount made during the year ..................................................... 33(2) Investment/loan amount made during the year per company .............................................. 34(3) Distribution of PE firms by investment/loan amount during the year ................................. 34(4) New Investment and Follow-On investment ........................................................................ 35(5) Distribution of portfolio companies by region ..................................................................... 36(6) Distribution of companies by industry ................................................................................ 37

3. Overview of Investment Partnership ........................................................................................ 39(1) Overall status of funds ........................................................................................................ 39(2) Breakdown of investor type................................................................................................. 40
4. Results of the Survey ................................................................................................................ 41

How to read the charts in this report (points to note)
The charts contained in this report were created based on the results of our survey, which was
conducted to find out trends in venture capital and turnaround/buyout investment activities.
The following are some points to note in reading the charts.
“Principal” indicates a principal investing, i.e. investments by a venture capital firm’s own account.
“Partnerships” or “Funds” indicate investments through funds.



For turnaround/buyout investment, the aggregate of investments/loans made by both “Principal” and“Partnerships” are given.

“PE firms” indicate turnaround/buyout investment firms.

Unless otherwise stated, “N” below the tables indicates the number of VC/PE firms whose responses
are incorporated in the charts.

The year-on-year percentage of change is calculated based on answers from VC/PE firms thatprovided data for both the previous and latest business years.

When a denominator is 0 and the value cannot be calculated, “NA” is given.

In the results of the survey, VC/PE firms that did not provide a response were counted as zero.

The “Clean Technology” in the industry classification overlaps with other industry categories.

Classifications for the Analysis
Investment Focus by StageIn stage analysis, portfolio companies are classified into four stages according to the maturity of thecompany, and three investment strategies.
The classifications and its definitions are as follows.
1

Seed

Companies undergoing research and product development but has yet to establish acommercial business operation.

2

Early

Companies with product development, and the early stage of marketing, manufacturing
and sales promotion.

3

ExpansionCompanies that have started production and shipment with its inventory and/or sales
growing in size.

4

Later

Companies that have a continuous cash flow and are nearing the stage for IPO.

5

Balanced

Investment strategy of investing with no particular concentration on either of portfolio
companies including seed stage, early stage, expansion stage and /or later stage.

6

BuyoutInvestment strategy of making leveraged buyout.

7

Recap/
Turnaround

Investment strategy of providing financing at a time of operational or financial
difficulty with the intention of improving the company’s performance.

8

Not Specified

Investment Focus by Industry
In industry analysis, portfolio companies are classified into the following 11 categories according to theindustry sector of the company.

1

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

7

Industrial/Energy/Other

2

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

8

Media/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

3

Software9

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

4Semi-conductors/Electrical Machinery & Equipment

10

Clean Technology

5

Biotechnology/Medicine

11

Not Specified

6

Medical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

Investment Focus by Region
In region analysis, portfolio companies are classified into the following 15 categories according to theregion where the company is located.

1

Hokkaido

9

Kyushu and Okinawa

2

Tohoku10

Asia-Pacific3

Kanto（excl. Tokyo）

11

Europe

4

Tokyo

12

North America

5

Chubu

13

Mainly Domestic

6

Kinki

14

Mainly Overseas

7

Chugoku15

Not Specified

8

Shikoku§1-1．Venture Capital Investment
1. Investment/loan Balance(1) Status of investment/loan balance
Chart 1-1 illustrates the change in the venture capital investment/loan balance over the two most recent fiscal
years. The breakdown of investments/loans for the most recent fiscal year is shown in Chart 1-2, and thebreakdown of investments/loans in terms of the number of portfolio companies is given in Chart 1-3. The amountof investments (investments and/or loans) and the number of portfolio companies are calculated by simply adding
up the figures given in survey answers.

Chart 1-1: Change in VC investment/loan balance（¥ Billions）（1,424.4）

1,600

0.05

（1,238.0）

1,400

0.05
1,200
1,000

956.1
774.0

800
600
400

464.0

468.2

End of March 2013

End of March 2014

200
0
Loans

Investments by partnerships

Principal investing

Note 1: Numbers in parentheses indicate the total amount of investments/loans.
Note 2: Numbers above are based solely on the latest survey, and do not include turnaround/buyout investment.

Chart 1-2: Investment/loan balance (as of the end of March 2014)(Yen millions)
Principal
Investments
Loans
Total
N: Number of VC firms responded

y/y % change

Partnerships

Total

y/y % change

y/y % change

956,13123.5%

468,2370.9%

1,424,368

54

0.0%

-

-

54

15.0%
0.0%

956,18523.5%

468,2370.9%

1,424,422

15.0%

N=61

N=57

N=82

N=82

N=88

N=85

Note 1: Numbers above are calculated by simply adding up the figures in answers.
Note 2: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided investment/loan amount.
Note 3: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided figures for both 2013 and 2014 (as of the end of March).
Note 4: Investment includes purchases of stocks and bonds (including bonds with share option) as well as investment in a fund managed by a third
party.
Note 5: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-1

Chart 1-3: Number of companies for investment/loan balance (as of the end of March 2014)(Number of companies)
Principal
Investments

Partnerships

y/y % change

Total

y/y % change

y/y % change

3,798

-4.1%

3,738

-14.8%

7,536

1

0.0%

-

-

1

0.0%

Total

3,799

-4.1%

3,738

-14.8%

7,537

-9.7%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=60

N=56

N=84

N=84

N=89

N=86

Loans

-9.7%

Note 1: Numbers above are calculated by simply adding up the figures in answers.
Note 2: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of companies.
Note 3: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided figures for both 2013 and 2014 (as of the end of March).
Note 4: Investment includes purchases of stocks and bonds (including bonds with share option) as well as investment in a fund managed by a third
party.
Note 5: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

(2) Investment/loan balance per company
Chart 1-4 “Investment/loan balance per company” refers to VC firms that provided both the amount ofinvestment/loan balance and the number of companies. Per-company figure is calculated by dividing the total
amount of balance by the total number of companies.

Chart 1-4: Investment/loan balance per company (as of the end of March 2014)(Yen millions)
End of March 2013
Principal
Number of portfolio companies

End of March 2014

Partnerships

Principal

y/y % change

Partnerships

3,949

4,382

3,798

3,733

773,185

463,955

955,322468,237

195.8

105.9

251.5

125.4

Number of loan recipients

1

0.0%

1

0.0%

Loan balance

54

0.0%

54

0.0%

Loan balance per company

54

-

54

-

Total number of companies

3,950

4,382

3,799

3,733

Investment balance
Investment balance per company

773,240

463,955

955,376

468,237

Total balance per company

Total balance

195.8

105.9

251.5

125.4

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=64

N=83

N=60

N=82

Principal

Partnerships

28.8%

18.5%

0.0%

-

28.8%

18.5%
N=56

N=82

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided both the number of companies and the amount of investments/loans.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of companies and investment/loan amount for both 2013 and 2014(as of the end of March).
Note 3: Investment includes purchases of stocks and bonds (including bonds with share option) as well as investment in a fund managed by a third
party.
Note 4: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-2

Investment/loan balance per company (Principal and Partnerships, as of the end of March 2014)(Yen millions)
End of March 2013 End of March 2014
Number of portfolio companies
Investment balance

8,333

7,533

1,237,959

1,424,368

149.0

189.1

Number of loan recipients

1

1

Loan balance

54

54

Loan balance per company

54

54

Total number of companies

8,334

7,534

Investment balance per company

Total balancey/y % change

26.9%

0.0%

1,238,013

1,424,422

Total balance per company

148.5

189.1

27.3%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=86

N=82

N=82

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of companies and the amount of investments/loans.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of companies and investment/loan amount for both 2013 and 2014(as of the end of March).
Note 3: Investment includes purchases of stocks and bonds (including bonds with share option) as well as investment in a fund managed by a third
party.
Note 4: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

(3) Distribution of VC firms by investment/loan balance
The following chart shows the distribution of investment/loan balance for “Principal and Partnerships”. Chart 1-5
shows the number of VC firms, the amount of investment/loan balance and the composition ratio for each range ofbalance. Chart 1-6 compares the share of the top ten VC firms and firms ranking 11th to the 20th to the rest of the
VC firms in terms of the investment/loan balance.
Chart 1-5: Distribution of VC firms by investment/loan balance(as of the end of March 2014)
Balance range(Yen billions)

Total balance

Number of
VC firms(Yen billions)

Percentage

1 or less

33

13.0

0.9%

over 1 - 5

35

77.9

5.5%

over 5- 10

4

32.7

2.3%

over 10 - 50

10

178.9

12.6%

over 50 - 100

0

0.0

0.0%

over 100

3

1,122.0

78.8%

85

1,424.4

100.0%

Total

N=79

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 1-6: Share of the top 10 and the rest of VC firms in terms of investment/loan balance
Total balance(Yen billions)
Top 10Percentage

1,262.5

88.6%

Top 11th to 20th

84.3

5.9%

Top 21th and below

77.6

5.4%
N=79

N: Number of VC firms responded

Ⅱ-3

(4) Distribution of investment/loan balance by region
Charts 1-7 to 1-9 illustrate investment/loan balance for “Principal and Partnerships” by region according to thelocation of the portfolio companies.
Chart 1-7: Investment/loan balance by region(Principal and Partnerships, as of the end of March 2014)

Japan total
Hokkaido
TohokuKanto (excl. Tokyo)
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa
Overseas total
Asia-Pacific
EuropeNorth America
Other Regions
Total

Number ofcompanies
6,403
92
162
758
2,193
1,066
1,180
212
78
311
605
371
18
185
24
7,266

N: Number of VC firms responded

Percentage
91.4%
1.3%
2.3%
10.8%
31.3%
15.2%
16.8%
3.0%
1.1%
4.4%
8.6%
5.3%
0.3%
2.6%
0.3%
100.0%
N=80

Amount(Yen millions)406,297
3,886
10,22633,194
149,893
34,002
31,957
3,591
2,255
9,143
291,922
212,854
3,150
70,595
4,666
711,758

Percentage
58.2%
0.6%
1.5%
4.8%
21.5%
4.9%
4.6%
0.5%
0.3%
1.3%
41.8%
30.5%
0.5%
10.1%
0.7%
100.0%
N=80

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment/loan amount.
Note 2: Percentages of the number of companies and the amount are calculated based on the total of each category.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Chart 1-8: Year-on-year % change by region for investment/loan balance(Principal and Partnerships, as of the end of March 2014)

Japan total
Hokkaido
TohokuKanto (excl. Tokyo)
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa
Overseas total
Asia-Pacific
EuropeNorth America
Other Regions
Total

Number ofcompanies
6,403
92
162
758
2,193
1,066
1,180
212
78
311
605
371
18
185
24
7,266

N: Number of VC firms responded

y/y % change-10.8%-29.2%-2.4%-10.6%
-9.4%
-6.0%
-5.6%
0.0%
-3.8%
-5.6%
-13.1%-8.3%-21.7%-20.4%-7.7%-10.2%
N=72

Amount(Yen millions)406,297
3,886
10,22633,194
149,893
34,002
31,957
3,591
2,255
9,143
291,922
212,854
3,150
70,595
4,666
711,758

y/y % change-4.5%-26.9%
32.7%-11.6%-7.0%-2.8%-13.3%-2.2%-18.7%
1.5%
55.8%
79.9%
-3.5%
17.6%
-0.6%
14.1%
N=73

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment/loan amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of companies and/ or investment/loan amount for both 2013 and2014 (as of the end of March).
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-4

Chart 1-9: Investment/loan balance per company by region (as of the end of March 2014)(Yen millions)
Principal
Japan total
Hokkaido
TohokuKanto (excl. Tokyo)
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa
Overseas total
Asia-Pacific
EuropeNorth America
Other Regions
Total
N: Number of VC firms responded

y/y % change
35.6
7.1%
23.8
-2.0%
27.7
-1.0%
33.0
10.8%
39.9
2.9%
28.0
2.4%
34.7
-1.5%
23.3
2.0%
41.7
15.4%
17.0
2.4%
1,231.0
298.9%
1,918.7
338.8%
46.2
100.2%
153.8
24.5%
14.5
0.2%
68.2
58.9%
N=56
N=52

Partnerships

y/y % change
97.1
12.2%
80.3
39.5%
118.8
65.5%
55.3
-4.0%
86.4
4.1%
53.0
15.6%
64.8
0.6%
30.6
12.0%
69.6
-0.2%
57.5
17.1%
332.5
28.7%
303.9
19.0%
191.1
14.4%
432.9
49.7%
220.1
23.1%
128.2
18.6%
N=75
N=69

Total
63.5
42.2
63.1
43.9
68.4
32.7
55.3
27.8
62.6
46.4
482.5
573.7
175.0
381.6
194.4
98.0
N=79

y/y % change
7.1%
3.2%
36.0%
-1.2%
2.6%
3.8%
0.4%
1.6%
-2.0%
13.8%
79.4%
96.0%
23.3%
47.8%
7.7%
27.0%
N=72

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided both the number of companies and investment/loan amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided both the number of companies and investment/loan amount for both 2013 and2014 (as of the end of March).
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-5

2. Investment/loan Amount Made During the Year
(1) Status of investment/loan amount made during the year
Chart 2-1 shows the change in the investment/loan amount made during the two most recent fiscal years. The
breakdown of investment/loan amount made during the most recent fiscal year is shown in Chart 2-2, and thebreakdown of portfolio companies is shown in Chart 2-3. The amount of investments (investments and/or loans)and the numbers of companies in the charts are calculated by simply adding up the figures given in survey
answers.

Chart 2-1: Change in VC investment/loan amount made in FY2013 and FY2014（¥ Billions）
200（181.8）
180
160
140
101.7
120
（104.9）
100
41.1

80
60

80.1

40
63.8
20
0
2012/4～2013/3
Loans

2013/4～2014/3

Principal investing

Investments by partnerships

Note 1: Numbers in parentheses indicate the total amount of investments/loans during the year.
Note 2: Numbers above are based solely on the latest survey, and do not include turnaround/buyout investment.

Chart 2-2: Investment/loan amount made during the year (April 2013 - March 2014)(Yen millions)
Principal

Partnerships

y/y % change

Total

y/y % change

y/y % change

Common stocks

3,565

46.6%

22,279-11.5%

25,844-6.0%

Classified stocks

1,476

55.0%

23,241

77.7%

24,717

76.0%

Bonds

305

133.6%

3,115

-3.2%

3,420

0.3%

Other

482

-29.1%

1,061

41.8%

1,543

9.5%

101,743

146.6%

80,09719.7%

181,840

69.7%

Total Investments
Loans
Total investments and loans
N: Number of VC firms responded

0

-

0

-

0

-

101,743

146.6%

80,09719.7%

181,840

69.7%

N=54

N=47

N=71

N=65

N=80

N=73

Note 1: Numbers above are calculated by simply adding up the figures in answers.
Note 2: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided investment/loan amount.
Note 3: y/y % change refers to VC firms that provided the amounts for both periods, Apr. 2012 – Mar. 2013 and Apr. 2013 – Mar. 2014.
Note 4: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-6

Chart 2-3: Number of portfolio companies during the year (April 2013 – March 2014)(Number of companies)
Principal

Partnerships

y/y % change

Total

y/y % change

y/y % change

Common stocks

92

11.8%

301

-8.9%

393

-4.5%

Classified stocks

44

10.3%

232

81.8%

276

63.5%

Bonds

7

100.0%

52-15.5%

59-11.3%

Other

24

11.1%

15

-38.9%

39-13.9%

Total Investments

280

17.8%

720

8.4%

1,000

11.7%

0

-

-

-

0

-

Total investments and loans

280

18.7%

720

8.4%

1,000

11.7%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=55

N=48

N=71

N=65

N=81

N=74

Loans

Note 1: Numbers above are calculated by simply adding up the figures in answers.
Note 2: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of companies.
Note 3: y/y % change refers to VC firms that provided the number of companies for both periods, Apr. 2012 – Mar. 2013 andApr. 2013 – Mar. 2014.
Note 4: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

(2) Investment/loan amount per company during the year
Chart 2-4 “Investment/loan amount per company” refers to VC firms that provided both the investment/loanamount and the number of companies. Per-company figure is calculated by dividing the total amount ofinvestments/loans by the total number of companies.

Chart 2-4: Investment/loan amount per company during the year (April 2012– March 2014)(Yen millions)
April 2012 - March 2013
Principal

y/y % change

April 2013 - March 2014

Partnerships

Principal

Partnerships

Principal

229

645

279

720

Investment amount

41,08963,831

101,743

80,097

Per company

179.4

99.0

364.7

111.2

Number of loan recipients

0

0

0

0

Loan amount

0

0

0

0

Per company

-

-

-

-

Total number of companies

229

645

279

720

Total investments and loans

41,08963,831

101,743

80,097

Per company

179.4

99.0

364.7

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=56

N=68

N=52

Number of portfolio companies

Partnerships

107.7%

10.4%

-

-

111.2

107.7%

10.4%

N=71

N=46

N=65

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided both the number of companies and investment/loan amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of companies and investment/loan amount for both periods, Apr.
2012 – Mar. 2013 and Apr. 2013 – Mar. 2014.
Note 3: Investment includes purchases of stocks and bonds (including bonds with share option) as well as investment in a fund managed by a third
party.
Note 4: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-7

Investment/loan amount per company during the year
(Principal and Partnerships, April 2012 – March 2014)(Yen millions)
Principal and Partnerships
April 2012 - March 2013

April 2013 - March 2014

873

999

104,920

181,840

120.2

182.0

Number of loan recipients

00

Loan amount

0.0

0.0

Total number of companies

874

999

Total investments and loans

Number of portfolio companies

Investment amount
Per company

y/y % change

51.9%

Per company

104,920

181,840

Per company

120.0

182.0

51.9%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=74

N=80

N=73

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided both the number of companies and investment/loan amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of companies and investment/loan amounts for both periods,
Apr. 2012 – Mar. 2013 and Apr. 2013 – Mar. 2014.
Note 3: Investment includes purchases of stocks and bonds (including bonds with share option) as well as investment in a fund managed by a third
party.
Note 4: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

(3) Distribution of VC firms by investment/loan amount during the year
Shown below is the distribution of VC firms classified by investment/loan amount made by principal andpartnerships. Chart 2-5 shows the number of VC firms, the total amount of investment/loan made during the year
and the composition ratio for each range of the investment amount. Chart 2-6 compares the share of the top ten
VC firms and firms ranking 11th to 20th to that of the rest of the VC firms in terms of investment/loan amount.
Chart 2-5: Distribution of VC firms by investment/loan amount during the year
(April 2013 - March 2014)
Investment/loan amount(Yen billions)

Total amount of investment/loan

Number of
VC firms

0(Yen billions)
15

Percentage

0

0.0%

1 or less

44

9.5

5.2%

over 1 - 5

18

38.3

21.1%

over 5 - 10

0

0.0

0.0%

over 10 - 20

1

16.7

9.2%

over 20

2

117.4

64.6%

80

181.8

100.0%

Total

N=80

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 2-6: Share of the top 10 and the rest of VC firms
in terms of investment/loan amount made during the year
Total amount of investment/loan(Yen billions)

Percentage

Top 10

155.3

85.4%

Top 11th to 20th

16.0

8.8%

Top 21th and below

10.5

5.8%
N=81

N: Number of VC firms responded

Ⅱ-8

(4) New investment and Follow-On investment
Charts 2-7 to 2-9 show the simple totaling of investment amount or the number of companies, year-on-year
percentage change, and the investment amount per company. These figures are based on the answers from VC
firms that provided new and follow-on investment amount or the number of companies.

Chart 2-7: New and Follow-On investment amount (April 2013 – March 2014)(Yen millions)
Principal

y/y % change

Partnerships

y/y % change

Total

y/y % change

New investments

25,88959.3%

38,56114.0%

64,44928.8%

Follow-On investments

2,824

-5.1%

11,13624.8%

13,96019.2%

101,743

146.6%

80,09719.7%

181,840

69.7%

N=51

N=45

N=67

N=63

N=76

N=71

Total
N: Number of VC firms responded

Note 1: New and Follow-On investment amount are calculated by simply adding up the figure in answers.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided the amount for both periods, Apr. 2012 – Mar. 2013 andApr. 2013 – Mar. 2014.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Chart 2-8: Number of companies for New and Follow-On investments (April 2013 – March 2014)(Number of companies)
Principal

y/y % change

Partnerships

y/y % change

Total

y/y % change

New investments

202

27.7%

421

9.7%

622

Follow-On investments

62

3.4%

179

5.3%

241

15.3%
3.3%

Total

280

18.7%

720

8.4%

1,000

11.7%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=51

N=45

N=67

N=63

N=76

N=71

Note 1: Numbers of companies are calculated by simply adding up the figures in answers.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided the amount for both periods, Apr. 2012 – Mar. 2013 andApr. 2013 – Mar. 2014.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Chart 2-9: New and Follow-On investment amount per company(Principal and Partnerships, April 2012 – March 2014)(Yen millions)
April 2012 - March 2013
New

April 2013 - March 2014

Follow-On

New

y/y % change

Follow-On

New

534

217

622

241

49,90010,30864,44913,960

93.4

47.5

103.6

57.9

Number of loan recipients

0

0

0

0

Loan amount

0

0

0

0

Total number of companies

535

217

622

241

Total investments and loans

49,90010,30864,44913,960

93.3

47.5

103.6

Number of portfolio companies

Investment amount
Per company

Per company

Per company
N: Number of VC firms responded

N=73

57.9
N=76

Follow-On

11.7%

16.3%

-

-

11.7%

16.3%
N=71

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided both the number of companies and the investment/loan amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of companies and investment/loan amount for both periods, Apr.
2012 – Mar. 2013 and Apr. 2013 – Mar. 2014.
Note 3: Investment includes purchases of stocks and bonds (including bonds with share option) as well as investment in a fund managed by a third
party.
Note4: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-9

(5) Distribution of portfolio companies by region
Chart 2-10 illustrates the number of companies and investment/loan amount (“by Principal and Partnerships”)
categorized by the region according to the location of the companies.
Chart 2-10: Number of companies and investment/loan amount by region(Principal and Partnerships, April 2013 - March 2014)

Japan total
Hokkaido
TohokuKanto（excl. Tokyo）
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa
Overseas total
Asia-Pacific
EuropeNorth America
Other Regions
Total

Number ofcompanies
746
5
19
66
319
61
108
13
8
42
190
117
2
60
6
936

N: Number of VC firms responded

79.7%
0.5%
2.0%
7.1%
34.1%
6.5%
11.5%
1.4%
0.9%
4.5%
20.3%

Amount(Yen millions)
71,802
99
1,248
4,880
40,034
2,713
6,160
622
453
2,630
109,343

12.5%
0.2%
6.4%
0.6%
100.0%

96,085
186
12,017415
181,145

Percentage

N=59

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment/loan amount.
Note 2: Percentages of the number of companies and the amount are calculated based on the total of each category.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Distribution of companies by region for investment/loan amountNote: Numbers above refer to investment/loan companies whose region is known in answers to the survey.

Ⅱ-10

Percentage
39.6%
0.1%
0.7%
2.7%
22.1%
1.5%
3.4%
0.3%
0.3%
1.5%
60.4%
53.0%
0.1%
6.6%
0.2%
100.0%
N=66

(6) Distribution of portfolio companies by stage
Charts 2-11 to 2-13 show the total figures and the composition ratio for the number of companies and investment
amount, and investment amount per company for “New”, “Follow-On” and “New and Follow-On” investments.
These figures are based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment
amount (by “Principal and Partnerships”) by stage of portfolio companies.

Chart 2-11: Distribution of portfolio companies of New investments by stage (April 2013 - March 2014)(Yen millions)Stage

Number ofcompanies

Percentage

AmountPercentage

Amount percompany

Seed

123

21.1%

13,599

21.3%

110.6

Early

180

30.8%

27,909

43.8%

155.1

Expansion

91

15.6%

12,970

20.3%

142.5

Later

190

32.5%

9,296

14.6%

48.9

Total

584

100.0%

63,774100.0%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=66

－
N=66

N=66

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per company" refers to VC firms that provided both the number of companies and investment amount by stage.
Note 3: Percentages of the number of companies and the amount are calculated based on the total sum of each stage.
Note 4: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Chart 2-12: Distribution of portfolio companies of Follow-On investments by stage(April 2013 - March 2014)(Yen millions)Stage

Number ofcompanies

Percentage

AmountPercentage

Amount percompany

Seed

23

11.0%

1,291

9.8%

56.1

Early

83

39.7%

6,796

51.7%

81.9

Expansion

49

23.4%

3,046

23.2%

62.2

Later

54

25.8%

2,018

15.3%

37.4

Total

212

100.0%

13,416100.0%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=58

－
N=58

N=58

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per company" refers to VC firms that provided both the number of companies and investment amount by stage.
Note 3: Percentages of numbers of companies and amounts are calculated based on the total sum of each stage.
Note 4: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-11

Chart 2-13: Distribution of portfolio companies of New and Follow-On investments by stage(April 2013 - March 2014)(Yen millions)
Number ofcompanies

Stage

AmountPercentage

Amount percompany

Percentage

Seed

146

18.4%

14,889

19.4%

102.0

Early

263

33.2%

34,706

45.1%

132.0

Expansion

140

17.7%

16,016

20.8%

114.4

Later

244

30.8%

11,314

14.7%

46.4

Total

796

100.0%

77,190100.0%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=69

－
N=69

N=69

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per company" refers to VC firms that provided both the number of companies and investment amount by stage.
Note 3: Percentages of the number of companies and the amount are calculated based on the total sum of each stage.
Note 4: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

(7) Distribution of portfolio companies by industry
Charts 2-14 to 2-16 show the total figures and the composition ratio of the number of companies and investment
amount, and investment amount per company for “New,” “Follow-On” and “New and Follow-On” investment.
These figures are based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment
amount (by “Principal and Partnerships”) by industry.

Chart 2-14: Distribution of portfolio companies of New investment by industry (April 2013 - March 2014)(Yen millions)
Number ofcompanies

Percentage

AmountPercentage

Amount percompany

285

48.8%

32,42850.8%

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

31

5.3%

2,547

4.0%

82.2

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

188

32.2%

19,099

29.9%

101.6

IT-related

113.8

Software

37

6.3%

6,822

10.7%

184.4

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

29

5.0%

3,960

6.2%

136.6
237.5

53

9.1%

12,587

19.7%

Biotechnology/M edicine

36

6.2%

7,256

11.4%

201.6

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

17

2.9%

5,331

8.4%

313.6

Industrial/Energy/Other

147

25.2%

9,044

14.2%

61.5

Products and S ervices

99

17.0%

9,714

15.2%

98.1

59

10.1%

5,432

8.5%

92.1

Biotechnology, Medical and Healthcare

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

40

6.8%

4,282

6.7%

107.1

25

4.3%

2,545

4.0%

101.8

Total

584

100.0%

63,774100.0%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=65

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services
Clean Technology (Among the above)

N=65

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per company" refers to VC firms that provided both the number of companies and investment amount by industry.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-12

N=65

Chart 2-15: Distribution of portfolio companies of Follow-On investment by industry(April 2013 - March 2014)(Yen millions)
Number ofcompanies

Percentage

AmountPercentage

Amount percompany

112

52.8%

5,765

43.0%

51.5

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

18

8.5%

424

3.2%

23.6

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

64

30.2%

3,109

23.2%

48.6

Software

17

8.0%

1,055

7.9%

62.1

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

13

6.1%

1,176

8.8%

90.5

30

14.2%

3,255

24.3%

108.5

Biotechnology/M edicine

22

10.4%

2,499

18.6%

113.6

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

8

3.8%

756

5.6%

94.5

Industrial/Energy/Other

37

17.5%

2,663

19.8%

72.0

Products and S ervices

33

15.6%

1,734

12.9%

52.5

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

19

9.0%

1,179

8.8%

62.0

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

14

6.6%

555

4.1%

39.6

4

1.9%

331

2.5%

82.8

Total

212

100.0%

13,416100.0%-

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=59

IT-related

Biotechnology, Medical and Healthcare

Clean Technology (Among the above)

N=59

N=59

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per company" refers to VC firms that provided both the number of companies and investment amount by industry.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Chart 2-16: Distribution of portfolio companies of New and Follow-On investments by industry(April 2013 - March 2014)(Yen millions)
Number ofcompanies

Percentage

AmountPercentage

Amount percompany

397

49.9%

38,194

49.5%

96.2

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

49

6.2%

2,971

3.8%

60.6

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

252

31.7%

22,208

28.8%

88.1

Software

54

6.8%

7,878

10.2%

145.9

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

42

5.3%

5,136

6.7%

122.3

83

10.4%

15,842

20.5%

190.9

58

7.3%

9,755

12.6%

168.2

IT-related

Biotechnology, Medical and Healthcare
Biotechnology/M edicine

25

3.1%

6,087

7.9%

243.5

Industrial/Energy/Other

184

23.1%

11,706

15.2%

63.6

Products and S ervices

132

16.6%

11,448

14.8%

86.7

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

78

9.8%

6,611

8.6%

84.8

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

54

6.8%

4,837

6.3%

89.6

29

3.6%

2,876

3.7%

99.2

Total

796

100.0%

77,190100.0%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=70

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

Clean Technology (Among the above)

N=70

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per company" refers to VC firms that provided both the number of companies and investment amount by industry.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-13

N=70

3. Overview of Investment Partnership(1) Overall status of funds
Chart 3-1 shows the status of funds set up by VC firms. Chart 3-2 shows the distribution of VC firms concerning
the most recent number of funds and the total amount of money invested in such funds. Chart 3-3 shows thenumber of funds set up or matured during the year as well as the number of limited partners and the total amountof capital commitments to those funds.

Chart 3-1: Status of funds
End of March 2013 End of March 2014

y/y % change

Number of funds

404

382

-3.5%

Total number of limited partners

2,596

2,422

-6.1%

Capital commitments to funds (Yen billions)

1,695.1

1,728.1

2.3%

Average number of limited partners

9.6

9.4

-4.3%

Average capital commitments (Yen billions)

4.2

4.5

6.0%

(Average number of limited partners)

N=73

N=70

N=70

(Average capital commitments)

N=80

N=76

N=76

N: Number of VC firms responded

Note 1: Average figures are calculated based on answers from VC firms that provided both the number of funds and the number of limited partners, orboth the number of funds and the amount of capital commitments.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of companies and investment/loan amount for both 2013 and 2014(as the end of March).
Note 3: Capital commitments are based on the amounts committed to funds (In the absence of capital commitments, based on the amount actually
paid into funds).

Chart 3-2: Distribution of VC firms by the number of funds/amount of capital commitments(as of the end of March 2014)

5 or lessNumber of
VC firms
59

6 - 1010

over 10 - 50

18

11 - 20

5over 50 - 100

5

21 - 300over 100 - 200

0Over 30

2over 200

2

Total

76

Number of funds

Capital commitments
to funds (Yen billions)
10 or lessNumber of
VC firms
51

Total

76

Chart 3-3: The number of limited partners and amount of capital commitments per fund
for funds established and matured during the year (April 2013 – March 2014)
Established

MaturedNumber of funds

35

40

Total number of limited partners

140

329

Capital commitments to funds (Yen billions)

92.1

78.2

Average number of limited partners

5.0

10.0

Average capital commitments (Yen billions)

2.6

2.0

(Average number of limited partners)

N=46

N=45

(Average capital commitments)

N=48

N=48

N: Number of VC firms responded

Ⅱ-14

Note 1: “N” refers to VC firms that own at least one fund as of the end of March 2014, and that have answered concerning funds established or
matured during the period.
Note 2: Average figures are calculated based on answers from VC firms that provided both the number of funds and the number of limited partners, orboth the number of funds and the amount of capital commitments.
Note 3: Capital commitments are based on the amounts committed to funds (In the absence of capital commitments, based on the amount actually
paid into funds).

(2) Breakdown of investor type
Chart 3-4 shows the breakdown of investors to the funds newly established between April 2013 and March 2014.
Chart 3-4: Breakdown of investors (April 2013 – March 2014)(Yen millions)
Number ofinvesters

Percentage

I. GP/Managing partners

27

25.7%

9,141

14.7%

351.6

II. Domestic total

78

74.3%

53,205

85.3%

700.1

Family/Individual relatives

7

6.7%

219

0.4%

36.5

Other VC/Fund of funds

1

1.0%

173

0.3%

173.0

Corporations

30

28.6%

18,106

29.0%

603.5

Bank/Trust and credit unions

25

23.8%

19,155

30.7%

798.1

Insurance companies

3

2.9%

540

0.9%

180.0

Brokerage firms

1

1.0%

10

0.0%

10.0

Pension funds

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Government/Local public bodies (non-pension)

8

7.6%

13,20221.2%

1,650.3

Academic/University endowment

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Other domestic

3

2.9%

1,800

2.9%

600.0

Type of investors

AmountPercentage

Per investor

III. Overseas total

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Total ( I+II+III )105

100.0%

62,346100.0%

611.2

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=18

N=17

N=17

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of investors or investment amount (excluding VC firms that replied there was no
investment from any type of investor).
Note 2: Per-investor figures refer to VC firms that provided both the number of investors and the amount.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.
Note 4: Capital commitments are based on the amounts committed to funds (In the absence of committed amounts, based on the amount actually paid
into funds).

Chart 3-5: Breakdown of investors in terms of the amount invested
2.9%

0.9%

0.4%

0.3%

Bank/Trust and credit unions
Corporations
14.7%
30.7%

Government/Local public bodies(non-pension)
GP/Managing partners
Other domestic

21.2%

Insurance companies
Family/Individual relatives
29.0%

Other VC/Fund of funds

Ⅱ-15

4. Exit (Cashing out an investment) Status
Chart 4-1 shows the number of companies by exit route in the last five years. Chart 4-2 shows the percentage
breakdown of exit route. The figures used in Charts 4-1 and 4-2 are based on simply adding up the figures insurvey answers. “Stock sales” includes cases that a company is “sold to a secondary fund” and “sold to a third
party”.

Chart 4-1: Number of companies by exit route in the last five years（Number of companies）
1,200（1,043）
71

1,000
（823）
800

54

67

45

53

621

304

600

（795）

（737）

（699）

260
288
314

400

162
278

154
127

175
197

200

56

138

117

FY2010FY2011FY2012FY2013

Buyback bycompany management

Other

0

IPO

73

99

106
FY2009

112

106

120

Write-off/Settlements

Trade sales

Chart 4-2: Percentage breakdown of companies by exit route in the last five years

FY201315%FY201219%

FY2011FY2010

9%

14%

5%

FY2009

15%

15%

12%

IPO

21%

18%

33%

8%

39%

6%

45%

8%

59%

17%

13%

0%

35%

24%

20%

7%

37%

6%

20%

40%

60%

Write-off/Settlements

Trade sales

Buyback bycompany management

Ⅱ-16

80%

100%
Other

5. Comparison of venture capital investment trends between US, EU and Japan
Chart 5-1 compares the yearly investment amount by VC firms between Japan, EU and US.

Chart 5-1: The change in VC investments, US vs. Europe vs. Japan（¥ Billions）
3,500
3,130.1
2,935.1

3,000

2,895.9

2,913.5
2,680.3

2,500

2,290.3
1,988.4

2,000
1,500
1,000

816.4

858.0
540.8

509.6

513.5

440.7

500
193.2

136.6

113.2

87.5

124.0

443.3
181.8

102.6

0

2007

2008

2009

United States

2010
Europe

2011

2012

2013

Japan

Sources
United states: NVCA YEAR BOOK 2014（converted at the rate of 1US$=98yen, annual average rates of exchange 2013）
Europe: EVCA 2013 European Private Equity Activity（converted at the rate of 1euro=130yen, annual average rates of exchange 2013）
Japan: VEC, Survey on Trends in Venture Capital Investment, each year
Note 1: US and EU use a calendar year. Japan uses a fiscal year (from April 1 to March 31).
Note 2: Above charts comprise only of VC investment, and do not include turnaround/buyout investment.
Note 3: The figures for US represent only domestic investment, while those for EU and Japan include overseas investment.

Ⅱ-17

6. Results of the Survey
Chart 6-1: Investment/loan balance of VC firms
As of the end of March 2013
Number of companies
Investments

Amount (Yen millions)

Number of companies

3,949

774,003

3,798

1

54

1

54

3,950

774,058

3,799

956,185

N=60

N=61

Loans
Total

As of the end of March 2014

Amount (Yen millions)

N: Number of VC firms responded

956,131

Chart 6-2: Investment balance of Partnerships
As of the end of March 2013
Number of companies
Investments

As of the end of March 2014

Amount (Yen millions)

4,388

463,955

N: Number of VC firms responded

Number of companies

Amount (Yen millions)

3,738

468,237

N=84

N=82

Chart 6-3: Investment/loan balance of VC firms and Partnerships
As of the end of March 2013
Number of companies
Investments
Loans
Total

As of the end of March 2014

Amount (Yen millions)

Number of companies

Amount (Yen millions)

8,337

1,237,959

7,536

1

54

1

54

8,338

1,238,013

7,537

1,424,422

N=89

N=88

N: Number of VC firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-18

1,424,368

Chart 6-4: Investment/loan balance by region: VC firms

Japan total
Hokkaido
TohokuKanto (excl. Tokyo)
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa
Overseas total
Asia-Pacific
EuropeNorth America
Other Regions
Total

As of the end of March 2013
As of the end of March 2014
Number of companies Amount (Yen millions) Number of companies Amount (Yen millions)
3,652
120,980
3,508
125,524
65
1,581
62
1,479
95
2,683
99
2,742
397
11,917387
12,776896
34,498851
33,941
842
23,917902
25,312
792
7,578
783
6,351
139
1,394
132
1,142
46
289
51
375
164
948
166
920
127
42,458101
124,32784
37,095
62
118,962
4
92
2
92
36
5,228
34
5,229
3
43
3
43
3,748
164,7293,670
251,127

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=56

N=57

Chart 6-5: Investment/loan balance by region: Partnerships

Japan total
Hokkaido
TohokuKanto (excl. Tokyo)
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa
Overseas total
Asia-Pacific
EuropeNorth America
Other Regions
Total

As of the end of March 2013
As of the end of March 2014
Number of companies Amount (Yen millions) Number of companies Amount (Yen millions)
3,332
295,656
2,895
280,773
65
3,739
30
2,408
70
5,025
63
7,484
444
25,544371
20,4191,512
126,044
1,342
115,952
201
9,757
164
8,690
448
29,126397
25,606
73
2,280
80
2,449
33
2,463
27
1,880
158
7,726
145
8,224
558
144,674504
167,595
317
81,065309
93,892
19
3,174
16
3,058
189
54,656
151
65,366
23
4,650
21
4,623
4,076
451,718
3,596
460,631

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=76

N=75

Chart 6-6: Investment/loan balance by region: VC firms and Partnerships

Japan total
Hokkaido
TohokuKanto (excl. Tokyo)
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa
Overseas total
Asia-Pacific
EuropeNorth America
Other Regions
Total

As of the end of March 2013
As of the end of March 2014
Number of companies Amount (Yen millions) Number of companies Amount (Yen millions)
6,984
416,636
6,403
406,297
130
5,320
92
3,886
165
7,708
162
10,226841
37,461758
33,194
2,408
160,542
2,193
149,893
1,043
33,674
1,066
34,002
1,240
36,704
1,180
31,957
212
3,674
212
3,591
79
2,752
78
2,255
322
8,674
311
9,143
685
187,132605
291,922401
118,160
371
212,854
23
3,266
18
3,150
225
59,884
185
70,595
26
4,694
24
4,666
7,824
616,447
7,266
711,758

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=80

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-19

N=80

Chart 6-7: Breakdown of investments/loans made during the year: VC firms
April 2012 - March 2013
Follow-On investments/loans

New investments/loans

Total

Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil)

ⅠCommon stocks

56

1,903

27

373

80

2,276

ⅡClassified stocks

36

895

4

47

40

942

ⅢBonds

4

173

1

1

5

174

ⅣOther

1

50

18

517

18

567

151

16,056

64

1,894

229

41,089

0

0

0

0

0

0

151

16,056

64

1,894

229

41,089N=58

N=58

Total Investments (I+II+III+IV)
Total Loans
Total (Investments + Loans)
N: Number of VC firms responded

April 2013 - March 2014
Follow-On investments/loans

New investments/loans

Total

Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil)

ⅠCommon stocks

70

1,971

22

1,594

92

3,565

ⅡClassified stocks

38

1,398

6

78

44

1,476

ⅢBonds

5

279

2

26

7

305

ⅣOther

6

190

18

292

24

482

202

25,889

62

2,824

280

101,743

0

0

0

0

0

0

202

25,889

62

2,824

280

101,743

N=55

N=54

Total Investments (I+II+III+IV)
Total Loans
Total (Investments + Loans)
N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-8: Breakdown of investments/loans made during the year: Partnerships
April 2012 - March 2013
Follow-On investments/loans

New investments/loans

Total

Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil)

ⅠCommon stocks

244

21,311

82

3,812

325

25,086

ⅡClassified stocks

90

10,692

37

2,379

127

13,071

ⅢBonds

42

1,679

23

1,715

64

3,373

ⅣOther

7

196

12

545

18

681

384

33,844

153

8,414

645

63,831

N=69

N=68

Total Investments (I+II+III+IV)
N: Number of VC firms responded

April 2013 - March 2014
New investments/loans

Total

Follow-On investments/loans

Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil)

ⅠCommon stocks

222

17,682

79

4,597

301

22,279

ⅡClassified stocks

160

18,254

72

4,987

232

23,241

ⅢBonds

31

2,045

21

1,070

52

3,115

ⅣOther

8

579

7

482

15

1,061

421

38,561

179

11,136

720

80,097

N=71

N=71

Total Investments (I+II+III+IV)
N: Number of VC firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-20

Chart 6-9: Breakdown of investments/loans made during the year: VC firms and Partnerships
April 2012 - March 2013
Follow-On investments/loans

New investments/loans

Total

Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil)

ⅠCommon stocks

300

23,213

109

4,185

404

27,361ⅡClassified stocks

126

11,587

41

2,426

167

14,013

ⅢBonds

46

1,852

24

1,716

69

3,546

ⅣOther

8

246

30

1,062

36

1,248

535

49,900217

10,308874

104,920

0

0

0

0

0

0

535

49,900217

10,308874

104,920

N=76

N=75

Total Investments (I+II+III+IV)
Total Loans
Total (Investments + loans)
N: Number of VC firms responded

April 2013 - March 2014
Follow-On investments/loans

New investments/loans

Total

Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil)

ⅠCommon stocks

292

19,653

101

6,191

393

25,844

ⅡClassified stocks

198

19,651

78

5,065

276

24,717

ⅢBonds

36

2,324

23

1,096

59

3,420

ⅣOther

14

769

25

774

39

1,543

623

64,449241

13,9601,000

181,840

0

0

0

0

0

0

623

64,449241

13,9601,000

181,840

N=81

N=80

Total Investments (I+II+III+IV)
Total Loans
Total (Investments + loans)
N: Number of VC firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-21

Chart 6-10: New and Follow-On investments by region: VC firms
Follow-On investment

New investment

Total

Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil)Japan total
Hokkaido
TohokuKanto（excl. Tokyo）
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa

187
4
9
22
42
37
45
7
5
16

23,83489803
1,906
17,464
812
2,006
216
165
374

44
0
2
7
10
11
11
0
0
3

2,532
0
28
1,234
334
109
797
0
0
30

243
4
11
29
52
48
56
7
5
19

26,82289
831
3,140
17,798
921
2,803
216
165
404

Overseas total
Asia-Pacific
EuropeNorth America
Other Regions

10
2
0
8
0

1,943
142
0
1,801
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

14
6
0
8
0

74,51672,715
0
1,801
0

197

25,777

44

2,532

257

101,338

Total
N: Number of VC firms responded

N=42

N=34

N=49

Chart 6-11: New and Follow-On investments by region: Partnerships
Follow-On investment

New investment

Total

Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil)Japan total
Hokkaido
TohokuKanto（excl. Tokyo）
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa
Overseas total
Asia-Pacific
EuropeNorth America
Other Regions
Total

304
1
8
22
194
10
43
5
1
19
81
63
1
18
0
385

N: Number of VC firms responded

27,09410417
865
18,286
1,752
2,894
401
50
1,802
10,710
5,936
144
5,052
0
37,804

113
0
0
15
73
3
9
1
2
4
60
23
1
30
1
173

N=51

6,594
0
0
875
3,950
40
463
5
238
424
4,615
1,637
43
2,263
33
11,209

503
1
8
37
267
13
52
6
3
23
176
111
2
52
6
679

N=54

44,98010
417
1,740
22,236
1,792
3,357
406
288
2,226
34,827
23,370186
10,216415
79,807
N=60

Chart 6-12: New and Follow-On investments by region: VC firms and Partnerships
New investment

Follow-On investment

Total

Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil)Japan total
Hokkaido
TohokuKanto（excl. Tokyo）
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa
Overseas total
Asia-Pacific
EuropeNorth America
Other Regions
Total
N: Number of VC firms responded

491
5
17
44
236
47
88
12
6
35
91
65
1
26
0
582

50,928
99
1,220
2,770
35,749
2,564
4,900
617
215
2,176
12,653
6,078
144
6,853
0
63,581
N=61

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-22

157
0
2
22
83
14
20
1
2
7
60
23
1
30
1
217

9,126
0
28
2,109
4,284
149
1,260
5
238
454
4,615
1,637
43
2,263
33
13,741
N=59

746
5
19
66
319
61
108
13
8
42
190
117
2
60
6
936

71,802
99
1,248
4,880
40,034
2,713
6,160
622
453
2,630
109,343
96,085
186
12,017415
181,145
N=68

Chart 6-13: Distribution of portfolio companies of New investments by VC firms
by industry and stage (Number of companies)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

0

1

0

7

8

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

9

6

2

4

21

Software

1

1

1

7

10

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

1

2

1

5

9

Biotechnology/M edicine

2

2

0

1

5

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

0

1

0

3

4

Industrial/Energy/Other

3

3

9

76

91

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

1

1

1

22

25

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

1

2

21

24

Clean Technology (Among the above)

0

1

0

2

3

Total

17

18

16

146

197

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=44

Chart 6-14: Distribution of portfolio companies of Follow-On investments by VC firms
by industry and stage (Number of companies)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

0

0

0

2

2

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

0

1

0

0

1

Software

0

0

0

0

0

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

0

1

1

1

3

Biotechnology/M edicine

0

1

0

1

2

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

0

0

0

1

1

Industrial/Energy/Other

0

1

1

19

21

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

0

0

0

6

6

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

0

0

8

8

Clean Technology (Among the above)

0

0

0

0

0

Total

0

4

2

38

44

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=35

Chart 6-15: Distribution of portfolio companies of New and Follow-On investments by VC firms
by industry and stage (Number of companies)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

0

1

0

9

10

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

9

7

2

4

22

Software

1

1

1

7

10

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

1

3

2

6

12

Biotechnology/M edicine

2

3

0

2

7

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

0

1

0

4

5

Industrial/Energy/Other

3

4

10

95

112

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

1

1

1

28

31

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

1

2

29

32

Clean Technology (Among the above)

0

1

0

2

3

Total

17

22

18

184

241

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=44

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-23

Chart 6-16: Distribution of New investment amount by VC firms by industry and stage(Yen millions)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

Early

Expansion

0

900

Later

0

Total
199

1,099

2,417

1,653

812

71

4,953

Software

180

25

1,000

180

1,385

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

710

485

2

160

1,357

1,925

1,450

0

3

3,378

0

4,400

0

62

4,462

1,700

507

196

2,335

4,738

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

Biotechnology/M edicine
M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related
Industrial/Energy/Other
M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

1

36

30

738

805

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

2,840

51

707

3,598

0

500

0

40

540

6,933

12,296

2,091

4,456

25,776

Clean Technology (Among the above)Total
N: Number of VC firms responded

N=44

Chart 6-17: Distribution of Follow-On investment amount by VC firms
by industry and stage(Yen millions)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

0

0

0

9

9

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

0

7

0

0

7

Software

0

0

0

0

0

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

0

650

20

20

690

Biotechnology/M edicine

0

200

0

9

209

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

0

0

0

22

22

Industrial/Energy/Other

0

1,095

6

303

1,404

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

0

0

0

51

51

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

0

0

142

142

Clean Technology (Among the above)

0

0

0

0

0

Total

0

1,952

26

554

2,532

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=35

Chart 6-18: Distribution of New and Follow-On investment amount by VC firms
by industry and stage(Yen millions)
Industry
Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment
Computers and Peripherals/IT services

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

0

900

0

208

1,108

2,417

1,660

812

71

4,960
1,385

Software

180

25

1,000

180

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

710

1,135

22

180

2,047

1,925

1,650

0

12

3,587

Biotechnology/M edicine
M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related
Industrial/Energy/Other
M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods
Finance/Real Estate/Business Services
Clean Technology (Among the above)

Total

0

4,400

0

84

4,484

1,700

1,602

202

2,638

6,142

1

36

30

788

855
3,740

0

2,840

51

849

0

500

0

40

540

6,933

14,248

2,117

5,010

28,308

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=44

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-24

Chart 6-19: Distribution of portfolio companies of New investments by Partnerships
by industry and stage (Number of companies)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

3

15

2

3

23

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

80

56

27

4

167

Software

4

17

5

1

27

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

2

10

6

2

20

Biotechnology/M edicine

5

13

8

5

31

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

2

6

5

0

13

Industrial/Energy/Other

4

24

12

16

56

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

4

15

7

8

34

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

2

6

3

5

16

Clean Technology (Among the above)

2

8

6

6

22

Total

106

162

75

44

387

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=54

Chart 6-20: Distribution of portfolio companies of Follow-On investments by Partnerships
by industry and stage (Number of companies)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

2

7

5

2

16

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

15

35

11

2

63

Software

0

10

7

0

17

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

0

2

7

1

10

Biotechnology/M edicine

5

7

3

3

20

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

0

4

2

0

7

Industrial/Energy/Other

0

8

6

2

16

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

1

5

3

4

13

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

1

3

2

6

Clean Technology (Among the above)

0

3

1

0

4

Total

23

79

47

16

168

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=53

Chart 6-21: Distribution of portfolio companies of New and Follow-On investments by Partnerships
by industry and stage (Number of companies)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

5

22

7

5

39

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

95

91

38

6

230

Software

4

27

12

1

44

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

2

12

13

3

30

Biotechnology/M edicine

10

20

11

8

51

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

2

10

7

0

20

Industrial/Energy/Other

4

32

18

18

72

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

5

20

10

12

47

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

2

7

6

7

22

Clean Technology (Among the above)

2

11

7

6

26

Total

129

241

122

60

555

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=60

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-25

Chart 6-22: Distribution of New investment amount by Partnerships by industry and stage(Yen millions)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

21

672

311

444

1,448

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

3,376

6,238

4,185

347

14,146

SoftwareTelecommunications/Networking and Equipment

1,266

2,650

1,491

30

5,437

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

110

1,046

682

765

2,603

Biotechnology/M edicine

705

993

1,707

474

3,878

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

275

290

304

0

869

Industrial/Energy/Other

290

1,621

684

1,710

4,306

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

420

1,978

1,433

796

4,627

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

203

126

81

274

684

Clean Technology (Among the above)

210

776

705

314

2,005

Total

6,665

15,613

10,8794,840

37,998

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=54

Chart 6-23: Distribution of Follow-On investment amount by Partnerships by industry and stage(Yen millions)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

20

128

173

95

416

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

397

1,582

969

154

3,102

Software

0

749

307

0

1,055

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

0

70

152

264

486

834

459

222

610

2,290

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

0

434

200

0

734

Industrial/Energy/Other

0

856

373

30

1,259

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

40

531

320

237

1,128

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

36

303

74

413

0

300

31

0

331

1,291

4,844

3,020

1,464

10,884

Biotechnology/M edicine

Clean Technology (Among the above)Total
N: Number of VC firms responded

N=53

Chart 6-24: Distribution of New and Follow-On investment amount by Partnerships by industry and stage(Yen millions)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

41

799

485

539

1,864

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

3,773

7,820

5,154

501

17,248

Software

1,266

3,399

1,798

30

6,492

110

1,116

834

1,029

3,089

1,539

1,452

1,929

1,084

6,168

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

275

724

504

0

1,603

Industrial/Energy/Other

290

2,476

1,058

1,741

5,565

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

460

2,509

1,753

1,033

5,755

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

203

162

384

348

1,097

Clean Technology (Among the above)

210

1,076

736

314

2,336

Total

7,956

20,45813,8996,304

48,882

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment
Biotechnology/M edicine

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=60

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-26

Chart 6-25: Distribution of portfolio companies of New investments by VC firms and Partnerships
by industry and stage (Number of companies)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

3

16

2

10

31

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

89

62

29

8

188

Software

5

18

6

8

37

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

3

12

7

7

29

Biotechnology/M edicine

7

15

8

6

36

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

2

7

5

3

17

Industrial/Energy/Other

7

27

21

92

147

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

5

16

8

30

59

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

2

7

5

26

40

Clean Technology (Among the above)

2

9

6

8

25

Total

123

180

91

190

584

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=66

Chart 6-26: Distribution of portfolio companies of Follow-On investment by VC firms and Partnerships
by industry and stage (Number of companies)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

2

7

5

4

18

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

15

36

11

2

64

Software

0

10

7

0

17

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

0

3

8

2

13

Biotechnology/M edicine

5

8

3

4

22

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

0

4

2

1

8

Industrial/Energy/Other

0

9

7

21

37

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

1

5

3

10

19

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

1

3

10

14

Clean Technology (Among the above)

0

3

1

0

4

Total

23

83

49

54

212

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=59

Chart 6-27: Distribution of portfolio companies of New and Follow-On investments
by VC firms and Partnerships by industry and stage (Number of companies)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

5

23

7

14

49

104

98

40

10

252

Software

5

28

13

8

54

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

3

15

15

9

42

Biotechnology/M edicine

12

23

11

10

58

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

2

11

7

4

25

Industrial/Energy/Other

7

36

28

113

184

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

6

21

11

40

78

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

2

8

8

36

54

Clean Technology (Among the above)

2

12

7

8

29

Total

146

263

140

244

796

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment
Computers and Peripherals/IT services

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=70

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-27

Chart 6-28: Distribution of New investment amount by VC firms and Partnerships
by industry and stage(Yen millions)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

21

1,572

311

643

2,547

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

5,793

7,891

4,997

418

19,099Software

1,446

2,675

2,491

210

6,822

820

1,531

684

925

3,960

2,630

2,443

1,707

477

7,256

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment
Biotechnology/M edicine

275

4,690

304

62

5,331

1,990

2,128

880

4,046

9,044

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

421

2,014

1,463

1,534

5,432

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

203

2,966

132

981

4,282

Clean Technology (Among the above)

210

1,276

705

354

2,545

Total

13,59927,90912,9709,296

63,774

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related
Industrial/Energy/Other

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=66

Chart 6-29: Distribution of Follow-On investment amount by VC firms and Partnerships
by industry and by stage(Yen millions)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

20

128

173

104

424

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

397

1,589

969

154

3,109

Software

0

749

307

0

1,055

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

0

720

172

284

1,176
2,499

834

659

222

619

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

0

434

200

22

756

Industrial/Energy/Other

0

1,951

379

333

2,663

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

40

531

320

288

1,179

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

36

303

216

555

0

300

31

0

331

1,291

6,796

3,046

2,018

13,416

Biotechnology/M edicine

Clean Technology (Among the above)Total
N: Number of VC firms responded

N=59

Chart 6-30: Distribution of New and Follow-On investment amount by VC firms and Partnerships
by industry and by stage(Yen millions)
Industry

April 2013 - March 2014
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

41

1,699

485

747

2,971

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

6,190

9,480

5,966

572

22,208

Software

1,446

3,424

2,798

210

7,878

820

2,251

856

1,209

5,136

3,464

3,102

1,929

1,096

9,755

275

5,124

504

84

6,087
11,706

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment
Biotechnology/M edicine
M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

1,990

4,078

1,260

4,378

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

461

2,545

1,783

1,821

6,611

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

203

3,002

435

1,197

4,837

Industrial/Energy/Other

Clean Technology (Among the above)

210

1,576

736

354

2,876

Total

14,88934,706

16,016

11,314

77,190

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=70

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-28

Chart 6-31: Establishment and maturity of funds
End of March 2013
Number of funds

April 2013 - March 2014
Established404

Total number of limited partners
Capital commitments (Yen millions)

End of March 2014

Matured
35

40

382

2,596

140

329

2,422

1,695,114

92,07878,194

1,728,087

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=80

Note 1: The term-end figures may not agree with the cash flow figures during the period owing to non-response.
Note 2: Capital commitments are based on the amounts committed to funds (In the absence of committed amounts, based on the amount actually paid
into funds).

Chart 6-32: Types of investors for funds established between April 2013 and March 2014
April 2013 - March 2014

Type of investors

Number of investors Amount (yen mil)

I. GP/Managing partners

27

9,141

II. Domestic total

78

53,205

Family/Individual relatives

7219

Other VC/Fund of funds

1

173

Corporations

30

18,106

Bank/Trust and credit unions

25

19,155

Insurance companies

3

540

Brokerage firms

1

10

Pension funds

00

Government/Local public bodies (non-pension)

8

13,202

Academic/University endowment

0

0

3

1,800

Other domestic
III. Overseas total

00

Total ( I+II+III )105

62,346

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=17

Note: Capital commitments are based on the amounts committed to funds (In the absence of committed amounts, based on the amount actually paid
into funds).

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-29

Chart 6-33: Exit status of portfolio companies invested by VC firms(Yen millions)
April 2013 - March 2014
Realized gain/loss

Unrealized gain/loss

IPO

12

266

1,170

456

Sale to a secondary fund

1

0

1
119

Number of companies

AmountSale to another third party

22

468

Write-off/Settlements

6

22

-12

Buybacks by company management

29

622

-292

Other

10

128

-91
N=39

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-34: Exit status of portfolio companies invested by Partnerships(Yen millions)
April 2013 - March 2014
Realized gain/loss

Unrealized gain/loss

IPO

105

26,45978,66049,920

Sale to a secondary fund

29

458

-80

Number of companies

AmountSale to another third party

226

18,852-2,461

Write-off/Settlements

67

2,460

-3,335

Buybacks by company management

231

6,471

-3,349

Other

57

901

140
N=58

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-35: Exit status of portfolio companies invested by VC firms and Partnerships(Yen millions)
April 2013 - March 2014
Realized gain/loss

Unrealized gain/loss

IPO

117

26,72579,83050,376

Sale to a secondary fund

30

458

-80

Sale to another third party

248

19,320-2,342

Write-off/Settlements

73
260
67

2,482
7,093
1,029

-3,347-3,64149

Number of companies

Buybacks by company management

Other

Amount

N=63

N: Number of VC firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-30

§1-2．Turnaround / Buyout Investment
1. Investment/loan Balance(1) Status of investment/loan balance
Chart 1-1 illustrates the change in the balance of investments/loans in turnaround/buyout over the two mostrecent fiscal years. The breakdown of the balance and the number of portfolio companies are given in Chart
1-2. The amount of investment (investment and/or loan) and the numbers of portfolio companies in thecharts are calculated by simply adding up the figures given in survey answers.
Chart 1-1: Change in balance of investments/loans in turnaround/buyout（¥ Billions）
200

139.7
112.6

100

0
End of March 2013

End of March 2014

Note: Numbers above are based solely on the latest survey.

Chart 1-2: Number of companies and balance (as of the end of March 2014)
Total balance

Number ofcompanies

y/y % change

Investments

90

Loans

2Total

N: Number of PE firms responded-21.1%(Yen millions)y/y % change

111,646-20.1%

921 -

92-19.3%

112,567-19.4%

N=43

N=38

N=41

N=37

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment/loan amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from PE firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment/loan amount for both2013 and 2014 (as of the end of March).
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-31

(2) Investment/loan balance per company
Chart 1-3 “Investment/loan balance per company” refers to PE firms that provided both the balance and thenumber of portfolio companies. Per-company figure is calculated by dividing the total amount of balanceby the total number of companies.
Chart 1-3: Investment/loan balance per company

Number of portfolio companies
Investment balance
Investment balance per companies

Number of loan recipients
Loan balance
Loan balance per recipient
Total number of companies
Total balance
Total balance per company(Yen millions)y/y % change

End of March 2013 End of March 2014
111
86
139,667
111,646
1,258.3
1,298.2020921
460.5 111
88
139,667
112,567
1,258.3
1,279.2

3.2%

1.7%
N=37

N: Number of PE firms responded

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided both the number of companies and investment/loan amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from PE firms that provided both the number of companies and investment/loan amount for both2013 and 2014 (as of the end of March).
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

(3) Distribution of companies by investment/loan balance
The following shows the distribution of turnaround/buyout investment firms (PE firms) by the size ofinvestment/loan balance. Chart 1-4 shows the number of PE firms, the amount of investment/loan balance
and the composition ratio for each range of balance. Chart 1-5 compares a share of the top five PE firms to
the rest of the firms in terms of the investment/loan balance.
Chart 1-4: Distribution of PE firms by investment/loan balance(as of the end of March 2014)
Balance range(Yen billions)

Number of
PE firms

Total balance(Yen billions)

Percentage

1 or less

24

3.8

3.4%

over 1 - 5

8

19.9

17.7%

over 5 - 10

0

0.0

0.0%

over 10 - 50

5

88.8

78.9%

over 50
Total

0

0.0

0.0%

37

112.6

100.0%

Chart 1-5: Share of the top 5 PE firms in terms of investment/loan balance
Total balance(Yen billions)

Percentage

Top 5

88.8

78.9%

Top 6th and below

23.7

21.1%

Ⅱ-32

2. Investment/loan Amount Made During the Year
(1) Status of investment/loan amount made during the year
Chart 2-1 shows the change in the overall of investment/loan amount that were made during the two mostrecent fiscal years. The breakdown of the number of companies and investment/loan amount made during
the year for the most recent year are shown in Chart 2-2. The investment amount (investment and/or loan)
and the numbers of companies in the charts are calculated by simply adding up the figures given in survey
answers.
Chart 2-1: Change in PE investment/loan amount made during the year
(April 2013 – March 2014)（¥ Billions）
38.8

40

30
25.9

20

10

0
April 2012 - March 2013

April 2013 - March 2014

Note: Numbers above are based solely on the latest survey.

Chart 2-2: Number of companies and investment/loan amount made during the year
(April 2013– March 2014)
Number ofcompanies

Amount(Yen mil)
11,4595,300

Common stocks
Classified stocks

15
2

y/y % change-17.6%-33.3%

Bonds

7-36.4%

6,172

12.9%

Others

8

66.7%

2,002

-76.5%

Total investments

32-16.2%

24,933-23.3%

Loans

2-84.6%

921-85.5%

Total investments/loans

34-34.0%

25,854-33.5%

N=33

N: Number of PE firms responded

y/y % change
-4.6%
-7.5%

N=33

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment/loan amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from PE firms that provided the number of companies and investment/loan amount for both
periods, Apr. 2012 – Mar. 2013 and Apr. 2013 – Mar. 2014.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-33

(2) Investment/loan amount made during the year per company
Chart 2-3 “Investment/loan amount per company” refers to companies that provided both investment/loanamount and the number of companies. Per-company figure is calculated by dividing the total amount ofinvestment/loan by the total number of companies.
Chart 2-3: Investment/loan amount made during the year per company(April 2012 – March 2014)(Yen millions)
April 2012-March 2013 April 2013-March 2014 y/y % change
37
32,475877.7

3224,933
779.2

13

2

Loan amount

6,362

921

Per company

Number of portfolio companies

Investment amount
Per company
Number of loan recipients

489.4

460.5

Total number of companies

50

34

Total investments and loans

38,83725,854Per company

776.7

760.4

-8.4%

-5.9%

0.8%
N=33

N: Number of PE firms responded

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided both the number of companies and investment/loan amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from PE firms that provided the number of companies and investment/loan amount for both
periods, Apr. 2012 – Mar. 2013 and Apr. 2013 – Mar. 2014.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

(3) Distribution of PE firms by investment/loan amount during the year
Shown below is the distribution of PE firms classified by investment/loan amount made during the year.
Chart 2-4 shows the number of PE firms, the total amount of investment/loan made during the year and thecomposition ratio for each range of the investment amount. Chart 2-5 compares the share of top three PE
firms to that of the rest of the firms in terms of investment/loan amount during the year.
Chart 2-4: Distribution of PE firms by investment/loan amount(April 2013 – March 2014)
Investment/loan amount(Yen billions)

Total amount of investment/loan

Number of
PE firms(Yen billions)

Percentage

0

6

0.0

0.0%

1 or less

7

2.4

9.2%

over 1 - 5

5

16.3

62.9%

over 5 - 10

1

7.2

27.9%

over 10 - 20

0

0.0

0.0%

over 20
Total

0

0.0

0.0%

19

25.9

100.0%

Note: “0” billion yen for Investments/loans means that there is a balance but no Follow-On investment or loan is made during the year.

Ⅱ-34

Chart 2-5: Share of the top 3 PE firms in terms of investment/loan amount madeduring the year (April 2013 - March 2014)
Total amount of investment/loan(Yen billions)
15.5
10.4

Top 3
Top 4th and below

Percentage
59.8%
40.2%

(4) New Investment and Follow-On investment
Chart 2-6 show the simple totaling of investment amount or the number of companies, year-on-year
percentage change, and the investment amount per company. These figures are based on the answers fromPE firms that provided new and follow-on investment amount or the number of companies.
Chart 2-6: Amount invested and number of portfolio companies
for New and Follow-On investments
Number ofcompanies

y/y % change

Amount(Yen mil)y/y % change

New investments

31

11.1%

24,363-11.0%

Follow-On investments

1-88.9%

570-78.2%

32-16.2%

24,933-23.3%

Total

N=32

N: Number of PE firms responded

N=32

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided the number of companies and/or new and Follow-On investment amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from PE firms that provided the amounts for both periods, Apr. 2012 – Mar. 2013 andApr. 2013 – Mar. 2014.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-35

(5) Distribution of portfolio companies by region
Chart 2-7 illustrates the number of companies and investment/loan amount by “Principal and Partnerships”
by region according to the location of the companies.
Chart 2-7: Number of companies and investment/loan amount by region(Principal and Partnerships, April 2013 – March 2014)

Japan total
Hokkaido

Number ofcompanies
29
1

Amount(Yen millions)100.0%
25,8543.4%
1,215

Percentage

Percentage
100.0%
4.7%

Tohoku

1

3.4%

500

1.9%

Kanto（excl. Tokyo）

2

6.9%

780

3.0%

Tokyo

10

34.5%

16,694

64.6%

Chubu

4

13.8%

981

3.8%

Kinki

2

6.9%

3,300

12.8%

Chugoku

5

17.2%

685

2.6%

Shikoku

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

4

13.8%

1,696

6.6%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Kyushu and Okinawa
Overseas total
Asia-Pacific

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Europe

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

North America

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Other Regions

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Total

29

100.0%

25,854100.0%

N: Number of PE firms responded

N=27

N=27

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment/loan amount.
Note 2: Percentages of numbers of companies and amounts are calculated based on the total sum of each region.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-36

(6) Distribution of companies by industry
Charts 2-8, 2-9 and 2-10 show the total figures and the composition ratio for the number of companies andinvestment amount, and investment amount per company for “New”, “Follow-On” and “New andFollow-On” investments. These figures are based on answers from PE firms that provided the number ofcompanies and/or investment amount by industry.

Chart 2-8: Distribution of companies of New investment by industry (April 2013 – March 2014)
Number ofcompanies

Percentage

Amount(Yen millions)

Percentage

Amount percompany(Yen millions)

8

28.6%

13,66454.0%

1,708.0

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

1

3.6%

2,730

10.8%

2,730.0

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

4

14.3%

7,386

29.2%

1,846.5

Software

2

7.1%

1,548

6.1%

1,547.8

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

1

3.6%

2,000

7.9%

2,000.0

3

10.7%

4,524

17.9%

1,508.1

Biotechnology/M edicine

2

7.1%

1,724

6.8%

862.2

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

1

3.6%

2,800

11.1%

2,800.0

Industrial/Energy/Other

7

25.0%

1,347

5.3%

192.4

Products and S ervices

10

35.7%

5,749

22.7%

574.9

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

7

25.0%

2,893

11.4%

413.3

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

3

10.7%

2,856

11.3%

951.9

1
28

3.6%
100.0%
N=29

558
25,2842.2%
100.0%
N=28

558.0
936.4
N=22

IT-related

Biotechnology, Medical and Healthcare

Clean Technology (Among the above)Total
N: Number of PE firms responded

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per company" refers to PE firms that provided both the number of companies and investment amount by industry.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Chart 2-9: Distribution of companies of Follow-On investment by industry (April 2013– March 2014)
Number ofcompanies

Percentage

Amount(Yen millions)

Percentage

Amount percompany(Yen millions)

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Software

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

1

100.0%

570

100.0%

570.0

Biotechnology/M edicine

1100.0%

570

100.0%

570.0

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Industrial/Energy/Other

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Products and S ervices

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

1

100.0%

570

100.0%

570

N=28

N=28

IT-related

Biotechnology, Medical and Healthcare

Clean Technology (Among the above)

Total

N=29

N: Number of PE firms responded

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per company" refers to PE firms that provided both the number of companies and investment amount by industry.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-37

Chart 2-10: Distribution of companies of New and Follow-On investments by industry(April 2013 – March 2014)
Number ofcompanies
IT-related
Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment
Computers and Peripherals/IT services
SoftwareSemi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment
Biotechnology, Medical and Healthcare
Biotechnology/M edicine
M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related
Industrial/Energy/Other
Products and S ervices
M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods
Finance/Real Estate/Business Services
Clean Technology (Among the above)

Total

8
1
4
2
1
4
3
1
7
10
7
3
1
29

N: Number of PE firms responded

Percentage
27.6%
3.4%
13.8%
6.9%
3.4%
13.8%
10.3%
3.4%
24.1%
34.5%
24.1%
10.3%
3.4%
100.0%
N=27

Amount(Yen millions)
13,664
2,730
7,386
1,548
2,000
5,094
2,294
2,800
1,347
5,749
2,893
2,856
558
25,854

Percentage

Amount percompany(Yen millions)

52.8%
10.6%
28.6%
6.0%
7.7%
19.7%
8.9%
10.8%
5.2%
22.2%
11.2%
11.0%
2.2%
100.0%
N=27

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided the number of companies and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per company" refers to PE firms that provided both the number of companies and investment amount by industry.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-38

1,708.0
2,730.0
1,846.5
1,547.8
2,000.0
1,273.6764.8
2,800.0
192.4
574.9
413.3
951.9
558.0
923.4

3. Overview of Investment Partnership(1) Overall status of funds
Chart 3-1 shows the status of funds set up by PE firms. Chart 3-2 shows the distribution of PE firms
concerning the most recent number of funds and the total amount of money invested in such funds. Chart
3-3 shows the number of funds set up or matured during the year as well as the number of limited partners
and the total amount of capital commitments to those funds.

Chart 3-1: Status of funds
End of March 2013

End of March 2014

41

29

-9.4%
21.7%

Number of funds

y/y % change

Total number of limited partners

180

196

Capital commitments to funds (Yen billions)

330.9

304.2

-0.3%

Average number of limited partners

7.2

9.3

15.9%

Average capital commitments (Yen billions)

8.1

10.5

10.1%

(Average number of limited partners)

N=16

N=12

N=13

(Average capital commitments)

N=21

N=16

N=17

N: Number of PE firms responded

Note 1: Average figures are calculated based on answers from PE firms that provided both the number of funds and the number of limited
partners, or both the number of funds and the amount of capital commitments.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from PE firms that provided both the number of companies and investment/loan amount for both2013 and 2014 (as the end of March).
Note 3: Capital commitments are based on the amounts committed to funds (In the absence of capital commitments, based on the amountactually paid into funds).

Chart 3-2: Distribution of PE firms by the number of funds/amount of capital commitments(as of the end of March 2014)
Number of funds
1
2
3
4 and over
Total

Capital commitments
to funds (Yen billions)
10 or lessover 10 - 50
over 50 - 100
over 100
Total

Number of
PE firms
6
7
3
0
16

Number of
PE firms
7
8
0
1
16

Chart 3-3: The number of limited partners and amount of capital commitments per fund
for funds established or matured during the year (April 2013 – March 2014)
Established

MaturedNumber of funds

2

5

Total number of limited partners

40

5
21.1

Capital commitments to funds (Yen billions)

20.3

Average number of limited partners

17

5

Average capital commitments (Yen billions)

7.9

4.2

N: Number of PE firms responded(Average number of limited partners)

N=2

N=1

(Average capital commitments)

N=2

N=3

Ⅱ-39

Note 1: “N” refers to PE firms that own at least one fund as of the end of March 2014, and that have answered concerning funds establishedor matured during the period.
Note 2: Average figures are calculated based on answers from PE firms that provided both the number of funds and the number of limited
partners, or both the number of funds and the amount of capital commitments.
Note 3: Capital commitments are based on the amounts committed to funds (In the absence of capital commitments, based on the amountactually paid into funds).

(2) Breakdown of investor type
Chart 3-4 shows the breakdown of investors to the funds newly established between April 2013 and March
2014.

Chart 3-4: Breakdown of investors (April 2013 – March 2014)
Invest type

Number ofinvesters

Percentage

Amount(Yen millions)

Percentage

Per investor(Yen millions)

I. GP/Managing partners

2

4.9%

435

2.1%

217.5

II. Domestic total

35

85.4%

18,505

91.0%

528.7

Family/Individual relatives

3

7.3%

800

3.9%

266.7

Other VC/Fund of funds

1

2.4%

200

1.0%

200.0

Corporations

7

17.1%

2,000

9.8%

285.7

Bank/Trust and credit unions

18

43.9%

6,805

33.5%

378.1

Insurance companies

1

2.4%

500

2.5%

500.0

Brokerage firms

1

2.4%

500

2.5%

500.0

Pension funds

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Government/Local public bodies (non-pension)

2

4.9%

6,010

29.5%

3005.0

Academic/University endowment

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Other domestic

2

4.9%

1,690

8.3%

845.0

III. Overseas total

4

9.8%

1,400

6.9%

350.0

Total ( I+II+III )41

100.0%

20,340100.0%

496.1

N: Number of PE firms responded

N=3

N=3

N=3

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided the number of investors or investment amount (excluding firms that replied there was
no investment from any type of investor).
Note 2: Per-investor figures refer to PE firms that provided both the number of investors and the amount.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.
Note 4: Capital commitments are based on the amounts committed to funds (In the absence of committed amounts, based on the amountactually paid into funds).

Ⅱ-40

4. Results of the Survey
Chart 4-1: Investment/loan balance of PE firms
As of the end of March 2013

As of the end of March 2014

Number of companies Amount (Yen millions) Number of companies Amount (Yen millions)
Investments
Loans
Total

114

139,667

90

0

0

2

921

114

139,66792

112,567

N=38

N=43

N: Number of PE firms responded

111,646

Chart 4-2: Investment/loan balance by region

Japan total
Hokkaido
TohokuKanto (excl. Tokyo)
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa
Overseas total
Asia-Pacific
EuropeNorth America
Other Regions
Total

As of the end of March 2013
As of the end of March 2014
Number of companies Amount (Yen millions) Number of companies Amount (Yen millions)110
135,27490
109,018
0
0
1
1,552
4
1,736
3
1,720
8
34,0496
15,53732
44,95530
44,572
6
7,335
7
6,409
3
2,845
1
3
18
6,012
19
6,285
0
0
0
0
21
5,066
9
2,495
1
1,001
1
1,001
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1,001
1
1,001
116
139,57792
112,569

N: Number of PE firms responded

N=28

N=40

Chart 4-3: Breakdown of investment/loan made during the year

ⅠCommon stocks

April 2012 - March 2013
New investmensts/loans
Follow-On investments/loans
Total
Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil)
11
10,277
6
1,719
17
11,996

ⅡClassified stocks

5

12,1220

0

512,122

ⅢBonds

8

4,565

3

900

11

5,465

ⅣOther

3

392

0

0

3

392

27

27,356

9

2,619

37

32,475

Total Investments (I+II+III+IV)
Total Loans

0

0

0

0

13

6,362

Total (Investments + Loans)27

27,356

9

2,619

50

38,837
N=36

N: Number of PE firms responded

ⅠCommon stocks

April 2013 - March 2014
New investmensts/loans
Follow-On investments/loans
Total
Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil)
14
10,8891570
15
11,459

ⅡClassified stocks

2

5,300

0

0

2

5,300

ⅢBonds

7

6,172

0

0

7

6,172

ⅣOther

8

2,002

0

0

8

2,002

31

24,3631570

3224,933

Total Investments (I+II+III+IV)
Total Loans

2

921

0

0

2

921

Total (Investments + Loans)33

25,2841570

34

25,854
N=34

N: Number of PE firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-41

Chart 4-4: Distribution of portfolio companies by region (April 2013 – March 2014)
Follow-On investment

New investment

Total

Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil) Number of companies Amount (Yen mil)Japan total

28

25,2841570

2925,854

Hokkaido

1

1,215

0

0

1

1,215

Tohoku

1

500

0

0

1

500

Kanto（excl. Tokyo）

1

210

1

570

2

780

Tokyo

10

16,69700

10

16,697

Chubu

4

981

0

0

4

981

Kinki

2

3,300

0

0

2

3,300

Chugoku

5

685

0

0

5

685

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

Kyushu and Okinawa

4

1,696

0

0

4

1,696

Overseas total

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

0

0

0

0

0

0

Europe

0

0

0

0

0

0

North America

0

0

0

0

0

0

Other Regions

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

28

25,2841570

2925,854

N=28

N=28

N: Number of PE firms responded

Chart 4-5: Breakdown of portfolio companies of New investment by industry
April 2013 - March 2014

Industry

Number of companies Amount (Yen mil)Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

1

2,730

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

4

7,386

Software2

1,548

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

1

2,000

Biotechnology/M edicine

2

1,724

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

1

2,800

Industrial/Energy/Other

7

1,347

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

7

2,893

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

3

2,856

Clean Technology (Among the above)

1

558

Total

28

25,284
N=29

N: Number of PE firms responded

Chart 4-6: Breakdown of portfolio companies of Follow-On investment by industry
April 2013 - March 2014

Industry

Number of companies Amount (Yen mil)Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

00Computers and Peripherals/IT services00Software00

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

00

Biotechnology/M edicine

1570

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

00Industrial/Energy/Other00

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods00

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

00Clean Technology (Among the above)

0

0

Total

1

570
N=22

N: Number of PE firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-42

Chart 4-7: Breakdown of portfolio companies of New and Follow-On investments by industry
April 2013 - March 2014
Industry
Number of companies Amount (Yen mil)Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

1

2,730

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

4

7,386

Software2

1,548

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

1

2,000

Biotechnology/M edicine

3

2,294

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

1

2,800

Industrial/Energy/Other

7

1,347

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

7

2,893

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

3

2,856

Clean Technology (Among the above)

1

558

Total

29

25,854

N: Number of PEfirms responded

N=29

Chart 4-8: Status of funds
April 2013 - March 2014

End of March 2013

EstablishedEnd of March 2014

MaturedNumber of funds

41

2

5

29

Total number of limited partners

180

40

5

196

330,932

20,34021,126304,245

Capital commitments (Yen millions)
N: Number of PE firms responded

N=21

Note 1: The term-end figures may not agree with the figures during the period owing to non-response.
Note 2: Capital commitments are based on the amounts committed to funds (In the absence of committed amounts, based on the amountactually paid into funds).

Chart 4-9: Manner of acquisition
April 2013 - March 2014
Continued listing

4

Secondary buyout

2

Bankruptcy

0

Public to Private

1

Business succession

2

Other capitalization strategy

15

N: Number of PE firms responded

N=12Chart 4-10: Manner of exit by companies(Yen millions)
April 2013 - March 2014
Number of companies Realized gain/loss
IPO

8

5,686

Sale to a secondary fund00Sale to another third party

12

19,910

Write-off/settlements

10

Buybacks by company management

5

-291

Other

8

724

N: Number of PE firms responded

Unrealized gain/loss
10,218

N=6Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-43§2 Survey on Venture Capital Fund Status

Table of Contents

1. Fund Type and the Number of Funds ..................................................... 45(1) Number of funds by vintage year ..................................................... 45(2) Number of funds by fund type ....................................................... 46(3) Number of funds by focused stage .................................................... 47(4) Number of funds by focused industry.................................................. 48(5) Number of funds by focused region ................................................... 48(6) Number of funds by size ............................................................ 49
2. Characteristics and Average Size of Fund ................................................. 50(1) Total contributions by vintage year .................................................... 50(2) Average size of funds by vintage year ................................................. 51(3) Average size of funds by fund type .................................................... 52(4) Average size of funds by focused stage ................................................ 52(5) Average size of funds by focused industry .............................................. 52(6) Average size of funds by focused region ............................................... 53
3. Breakdown of investors ............................................................... 54
4. Performance ........................................................................ 55(1) Internal rate of return (IRR) on all funds ............................................... 57(2) Cash flow and performance of all funds ................................................ 62
5. IRR by vintage year .................................................................. 64

Reading the charts and tables (points of notice) Vintage year of a fund is the year where the first closing date belongs. (The first contribution
cut-off date or the first cash flow date.)
 The sample funds in the survey consist of those funds for which both the first closing date andthe fund size (cumulative capital contributions) are available.
 Regarding foreign currency funds, total capital contributions are converted into yen at theend-of-the-month exchange rate for the first closing date. In computing the IRR, theend-of-the-month exchange rate for the cash flow dates is used.
 For year 2014, data up to the end of June are compiled; for the other years, data for the entire
calendar year are adopted.
 The “Clean Technology” in the industry classification overlaps with other industry categories.

1. Fund Type and the Number of Funds(1) Number of funds by vintage year
The following chart shows the number of funds by vintage year based on the first closing date.
(Liquidated/Existing funds are separately shown.)(Number of Funds)
70

60

Existing

50

Liquidated

40

30

20

10

0
'82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Vintage
year

'82
'83
'84
'85
'86
'87
'88
'89
'90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
'11
'12
'13
'14
Total

Total

Number of Funds
Liquidated
Existing

2
5
4
5
1
3
2
7
8
11
6
1
2
13
26
16
7
22
45
34
37
28
60
68
37
31
29
9
22
23
15
33
13
625

Ⅱ-45

2
5
4
5
1
3
2
7
8
11
6
1
2
13
25
16
7
21
43
31
27
21
18
10
5
2
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
300

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
3
10
7
42
58
32
29
26
8
22
23
14
33
13
324

(2) Number of funds by fund typeThe following chart shows the number of funds established after the enactment of the Limited
Partnership Act for Investment in November 1998. The funds are classified into limited
partnerships based on the Act and voluntary partnerships ruled by the Civil Code.
Note: “Other” includes foreign-based corporate-type funds and US limited partnerships, etc.
(Number of Funds)
70
Foreign funds/Other
60
Voluntary Partnerships
50

Limited Partnerships

40
30
20
10
0
'82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Vintage
year

'82
'83
'84
'85
'86
'87
'88
'89
'90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
'11
'12
'13
'14
Total

Number of Funds
LimitedVoluntaryPartnerships Partnerships

Total

2
5
4
5
1
3
2
7
8
11
6
1
2
13
26
16
7
22
43
34
34
28
60
68
37
31
29
9
22
23
15
33
13
620

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
5
33
22
25
25
49
63
34
26
21
7
13
19
11
31
13
399

Ⅱ-46

2
5
3
4
1
3
2
7
8
11
4
1
2
12
26
15
3
16
9
11
8
2
9
3
1
4
0
0
5
2
0
0
0
179

Foreignfunds/Other

0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
8
2
4
2
4
2
0
42

(3) Number of funds by focused stage
The following chart shows the distribution of focused stages by vintage year.
(Number of Funds)
70

Seed-stage
Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stage
Expansion

Later-stage

Early-stage

60

50-stageLater-stage Buyout
Balanced

40

Recap/
TurnaroundNot specified

30

20

10

0
'82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Vintage
year

'82
'83
'84
'85
'86
'87
'88
'89
'90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
'11
'12
'13
'14
Total

Total

2
5
4
5
1
3
2
7
8
11
6
1
2
13
25
16
7
22
43
34
34
28
56
65
35
31
28
8
21
23
14
31
13
604

Seed-stage

Early-stage

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
0
0
1
3
0
24

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
3
2
6
16
15
9
8
21
17
10
9
3
1
1
4
4
5
3
142

Number of Funds
Expansion
Later-stage Balanced-stage

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
3
0
3
1
2
0
1
0
1
1
0
1
0
20

Ⅱ-47

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
7

2
1
3
4
1
3
2
6
8
10
6
1
1
11
19
12
2
9
18
12
11
10
25
31
12
14
17
4
13
8
6
17
6
305

Buyout

0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
1
3
3
3
4
1
1
0
1
4
0
1
0
27

Recap/
Not specified
Turnaround

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
4
1
0
1
3
0
2
1
2
0
18

0
2
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
3
4
1
4
3
2
7
4
5
3
0
4
4
1
1
4
61

(4) Number of funds by focused industry
The following table shows the breakdown of all funds classified by focused industry.
Industry
Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment
Computers and Peripherals/IT services
SoftwareSemi-conductors/Electrical Machinery & Equipment
Biotechnology/Medicine
Medical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related
Industrial/Energy/OtherMedia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods
Finance/Real Estate/Business Services
Clean Technology
Not specified
Total（1982-2014）

Number of
Funds
13
29
3
8
28
4
24
8
5
4
443
569

Percentage
2%
5%
1%
1%
5%
1%
4%
1%
1%
1%
78%
100%

(5) Number of funds by focused region
The following table shows the breakdown of all funds classified by focused region.
RegionNumber ofFunds

Hokkaido
TohokuKanto (excl. Tokyo)
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa
Asia-Pacific
EuropeNorth America
Mainly domestic
Mainly overseas
Not specified
Total（1982-2014）

11
15
22
28
25
39
29
6
17
33
0
12
285
21
50
593

Ⅱ-48

Percentage

32%

6%
0%
2%
48%
4%
8%
100%

(6) Number of funds by size
The following chart shows the number of funds by size, where size is represented by the cumulative
capital contributions up to the time of survey (where there are multiple capital calls, the relevantsums are added).
(Number of Funds)
140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0.3 or lessover 0.3 - 0.5

over 0.5 - 1.0

over 1.0 - 2.5

over 2.5 - 5.0

over 5.0 - 10.0 over 10.0 - 12.0 over 12.0 - 16.0

over 16.0(¥ Billions)（Number of funds）

Vintage Year
Fund Size(Yen billions)
0.3 or lessover 0.3 - 0.5
over 0.5 - 1.0
over 1.0 - 2.5
over 2.5 - 5.0
over 5.0 - 10.0
over 10.0 - 12.0
over 12.0 - 16.0
over 16.0
Total

2010

2011
1
3
2
6
4
4
1
1
0
22

2012
4
0
4
6
6
2
1
0
0
23

2013
6
3
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
15

Ⅱ-49

Total
（1982-2014）

2014
14
2
4
6
2
3
1
1
0
33

7
0
1
0
4
1
0
0
0
13

92
61
91
138
101
82
21
15
24
625

2. Characteristics and Average Size of Fund
(1) Total contributions by vintage year
The following chart shows the cumulative total contributions up to the time of survey by vintage
year (where there are multiple capital calls, the relevant sums are added).
Total Contributions(¥ Billions)
350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0
'82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Vintage
Year
'82
'83
'84
'85
'86
'87
'88
'89
'90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
'11
'12
'13
'14
Total

Number of Funds
2
5
4
5
1
3
2
7
8
11
6
1
2
13
26
16
7
22
45
34
37
28
60
68
37
31
29
9
22
23
15
33
13
625

Ⅱ-50

Total
Contributions（Yen billions）
4.4
16.8
17.3
25.1
3.7
13.7
7.6
34.2
60.3
52.4
25.1
1.7
10.0
40.7
59.4
41.7
13.1
108.6
344.7
59.7
84.9
66.0
256.6
335.8
170.8
198.3
137.8
19.6
77.4
65.0
18.3
63.6
19.9
2,454.4

(2) Average size of funds by vintage year
The following chart shows the average size of funds by vintage year.
（¥ Billions）

Average Size

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
'82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Vintage
Year
'82
'83
'84
'85
'86
'87
'88
'89
'90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
'11
'12
'13
'14
Total

Number of Funds
2
5
4
5
1
3
2
7
8
11
6
1
2
13
26
16
7
22
45
34
37
28
60
68
37
31
29
9
22
23
15
33
13
625

Ⅱ-51

Average Size
（Yen billions）
2.2
3.4
4.3
5.0
3.7
4.6
3.8
4.9
7.5
4.8
4.2
1.7
5.0
3.1
2.3
2.6
1.9
4.9
7.7
1.8
2.3
2.4
4.3
4.9
4.6
6.4
4.8
2.2
3.5
2.8
1.2
1.9
1.5
-

(3) Average size of funds by fund typeAll funds are classified according to legal regulations, and the average sizes are computed for each
type.
Type offunds
Limited Partnerships
Voluntary Partnerships
Other
Total

Number of Funds
399
179
42
620

Average Size
(Yen billions)
3.7
4.1
4.7
-

（¥ Billions）

Average Size5
4
3

LimitedPartnerships
VoluntaryPartnerships
Other

2
1
0
LimitedPartnerships

VoluntaryPartnerships

Other

Note 1: “Other” includes foreign-based corporate-type funds and US limited partnerships, etc.
Note 2: Funds based on the Limited Partnership Act for Investment were started operating in 1999 onwards.

(4) Average size of funds by focused stage
All funds are classified according to their focused stage and the average sizes are computed for eachstage.

86
42(5) Average size of funds by focused industry
Ⅱ-52

Not specified

Recap/Turnaround

Buyout0Balanced-

Average Size

Later

1.1
2.1
0.7
0.6
5.1
8.4
3.0
4.1

（¥ Billions）
10

Expansion

24
142
20
7
305
27
18
61
604

Average Size
(Yen billions)

Early

Seed
Early
Expansion
Later
Balanced
BuyoutRecap/TurnaroundNot specified
Total

Number of Funds

Seed

Stage

All funds are classified according to their focused industry and the average sizes are computed foreach industry.

12
10
8
6
4

Not specified

Clean Technology

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

Media/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer
Goods

Industrial/Energy/Other

Biotechnology/Medicine

0Medical Device andEquipment/Healthcare-related

2

Semi-conductors/Electrical Machinery &Equipment

3.1
10.2
1.6
4.2
2.8
2.0
1.2
3.1
4.6
2.8
4.0
-

Average Size(¥ Billions)

Software

13
29
3
8
28
4
24
8
5
4
443
569

Average Size
(Yen billions)

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment
Computers and Peripherals/IT services
SoftwareSemi-conductors/Electrical Machinery & Equipment
Biotechnology/Medicine
Medical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related
Industrial/Energy/OtherMedia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods
Finance/Real Estate/Business Services
Clean Technology
Not specified
Total

Number ofFunds

Telecommunications/Networking andEquipment

Industry(6) Average size of funds by focused region
All funds are classified according to their focused region and the average sizes are computed foreach region.

Total

Average Size

7
6
5
4
3
2
1

-

Ⅱ-53

Not specified

Mainly overseas

Mainly domestic

North America

EuropeAsia-Pacific

Kyushu and Okinawa

Kinki

Shikoku

4.3
6.1
3.5
4.5

Chugoku

-

Chubu

0

Tokyo

0.6
1.4
0.7
1.6
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.7
3.8

(¥ Billions)

Kanto (excl. Tokyo)

11
15
22
28
25
39
29
6
17
33
0
12
285
21
50
593

Average Size
(Yen billions)

TohokuHokkaido
TohokuKanto (excl. Tokyo)
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa
Asia-Pacific
EuropeNorth America
Mainly domestic
Mainly overseas
Not specified

Number ofFunds

Hokkaido

Region3. Breakdown of investors
The following table shows the breakdown of investors by industry.
Percentage of Contributions
VintageYear

Number of Funds

Ⅱ-54

'82
'83
'84

0
2
1

'85

1

'86

0

'87

0

'88
'89
'90
'91
'92
'93

0
4
4
3
2
0

'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
'11
'12
'13
'14
Total

0
6
19
10
7
15
33
25
28
23
51
58
27
26
16
6
11
17
11
26
9
441

General Partners

Family/Private
Individuals

Other VC/
Fund of Funds

Corporate
Investors

Bank/Trust andCredit Unions

Insurance
Companies

Brokerage
Firms

Pension Funds

Government/Local
Public Bodies(Non-Pension)

Academic/
University
Endowment

Other Domestic

Foreign Firms

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5.9%

-

0.0%

-

2.8%
3.5%
6.9%
20.0%

3.9%

0.0%
1.8%
0.0%
0.0%

3.7%
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%

49.0%

9.8%

31.4%

0.0%

-

-

-

-

28.6%
28.8%
50.6%
0.0%

12.9%
7.0%
5.4%
0.0%

28.3%
22.3%
9.9%
80.0%

15.8%
5.1%
6.2%
0.0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

36.9%
11.9%
19.9%
2.5%
25.5%
21.8%
11.7%
26.1%
13.4%
28.1%
16.6%
8.9%
25.0%
48.3%
3.6%
26.1%
4.0%
5.0%
31.5%
24.4%
20.7%

3.0%
0.4%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
10.0%
1.3%
1.1%
2.5%
2.0%
0.7%
0.2%
0.0%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.4%
1.2%
0.7%
0.0%
1.8%

3.0%
2.4%
9.7%
2.3%
4.0%
3.4%
28.5%
3.4%
19.0%
5.6%
3.4%
9.4%
1.2%
1.1%
1.6%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
4.6%

36.0%
26.1%
11.3%
55.0%
7.9%
18.2%
16.9%
15.6%
10.4%
14.4%
13.2%
24.9%
27.0%
10.9%
6.0%
16.2%
13.4%
11.7%
32.5%
33.5%
19.1%

12.3%
21.1%
8.1%
12.8%
18.7%
12.8%
12.1%
15.9%
32.6%
24.4%
31.6%
14.4%
19.7%
8.1%
40.4%
42.9%
28.5%
40.6%
19.3%
38.4%
21.2%

4.2%
13.6%
18.8%
23.6%
27.4%
16.3%
6.8%
4.4%
4.4%
11.5%
18.4%
13.5%
12.5%
17.2%
12.9%
4.8%
16.6%
41.2%
2.4%
3.8%
14.3%

0.6%
3.2%
3.2%
1.5%
0.0%
1.2%
18.1%
23.2%
0.4%
1.0%
2.9%
14.3%
1.7%
5.5%
0.0%
0.1%
5.7%
0.0%
1.5%
0.0%
4.2%

0.0%

-

0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

-

0.5%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.0%
6.8%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
4.6%
1.2%
7.8%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.2%

0.0%

0.0%
3.6%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
4.9%
3.1%
6.3%
6.9%
6.2%
4.9%
9.6%
2.2%
7.9%
34.9%
7.9%
22.5%
0.3%
10.6%
0.0%
5.5%

0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

-

7.0%
23.1%
20.2%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.4%
0.6%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
1.2%
1.0%
0.0%
1.3%
0.4%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%

0.0%

-

3.0%
16.3%
25.9%
0.5%
1.7%
1.1%
0.2%
2.2%
10.1%
2.2%
2.2%
1.2%
0.7%
0.0%
0.6%
2.0%
5.4%
0.0%
0.3%
0.0%
3.1%

0.6%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%

0.9%
1.3%
1.6%
0.3%
3.4%
2.9%
0.8%
1.5%
0.3%
2.5%
0.5%
2.4%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.9%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
1.5%

4. Performance(1) Computation method of performance indices

IRR

Fund performance is measured by the internal rate of return, or IRR
which is a cash flow-based return measure for the reason that aventure capital fund does not normally allow timely evaluation offair market value, and it is difficult to liquidate the position once aninvestment is made. The IRR is the discount rate that, if all cash
flows from an investment including contributions and distributions
are discounted to the present value, would bring the total present
value equal to zero. It is very close to the annual percentage yield ona fund. For a fund still being managed, the most recent residual
value of the fund is marked to market, and this value is added to thepositive cash flow at the most recent point.

Computation formula

IRR(r) is computed using the following formula.
n

0=∑
i =0

Ci

(1 + r )titi: The time between inception (0) and time point i
Ci: The amount of cash flow at time point ti (Regarding
contributions as negative cash flow, distributions as positive cash
flow. The residual value of the fund at the final point in time tn isadded to the positive cash flow at tn.)
r: IRR. This value r cannot be analytically arrived at, so anapproximate solution is derived by sequential computation.

Assumptions

In computing the IRR for this survey, we assumed that all cash
flows that occurred during the month actually took place at the endof the month, and regarded one month as one-twelfth year inconsidering the investment period.

Simple average IRR

The simple arithmetic average of the returns of all funds regardlessof their size.
n∑ ( IRR)

IRR = i =1
Simple単純平均
average IRR

n: the number of funds, i: individual funds

Ⅱ-55

n

i

Weighted average IRR

In obtaining an overall picture of the assets of a venture capital fund,it stands to reason that larger funds wield more impact than smaller
funds. Therefore, the weighted average IRR is computed by placing
weight on the individual funds according to their
beginning-of-the-period size. As for fund size, we adopted total
paid-in capital (cumulative contributions up till the time of survey).
n

加重平均
Weighted
average IRR
IRR =(出資金総額contributions) ) ( IRR )∑(Total
i

i =1

i

n

(出資金総額contributions) )∑(Totali =1in: the number of funds, i: individual funds

Pooled IRRThis is an IRR obtained by taking cash flows since inception
together with the residual value for all funds and aggregating theminto a pool as if they were a single fund.

DPI: Distribution
to Paid-in

This is a measure of the cumulative distributions returned toinvestors as a proportion of the cumulative paid in capital. If theratio exceeds 1, returns investors received are larger than theirinvestment.
DPI = (Cumulative distributions) / (Total paid-in capital)

TVPI: Total Value toPaid-inThis is a measure of total value which is the sum of the residual
value (unrealized return on investment) and the distributions to daterelative to invested capital. If the ratio exceeds 1, the current valueof the fund exceeds the total paid-in capital.
TVPI = (Cumulative distributions + Residual value) / (Total paid-in
capital)Weighted average TOPIX

The TOPIX (Tokyo Stock Price Index) is a free-floating adjusted
Index of the total market value of all stocks traded on the firstsection of the Tokyo Stock Exchange. The index is a measure of thechanges in aggregate market value of the stocks, using the closing
total on 4 January 1968 as the base of the Index, with a starting
value of 100. The weighted average TOPIX is computed by placing
weight on the individual funds according to their
beginning-of-the-period size.

Ⅱ-56

(1) Internal rate of return (IRR) on all funds
1. Distribution of IRR (as a whole)(Number of Funds)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

IRR

Number of Funds

60%～
50%～60%40%～50%30%～40%20%～30%15%～20%10%～15%
5%～10%
0%～5%-5%～0%-10%～-5%-15%～-10%-20%～-15%-30%～-20%-40%～-30%-50%～-40%-60%～-50%
～-60%
Total

5
1
1
1
3
7
15
16
67
69
62
54
42
24
1
4
1
1
374

Note: Each range of IRR is “x% and over but less than xx%”.

Ⅱ-57

～-60%

-60%～-50%-50%～-40%-40%～-30%-30%～-20%-20%～-15%-15%～-10%-10%～-5%-5%～0%

0%～5%

5%～10%

10%～15%15%～20%20%～30%30%～40%40%～50%50%～60%60%～

02. Distribution of IRR (by period of fund management)

The next chart shows the distributions of the internal rate of return (IRR) on individual funds classified byinvestment. All funds started in 2009 or later have been managed less than 5 years.

(Number of Funds)
60
Funds formed before 201050

Funds formed in 2010 or later
40
30
20
10

Number of Funds
Total
60%～
50%～60%40%～50%30%～40%20%～30%15%～20%10%～15%
5%～10%
0%～5%-5%～0%-10%～-5%-15%～-10%-20%～-15%-30%～-20%-40%～-30%-50%～-40%-60%～-50%
～-60%
Total

5
1
1
1
3
7
15
16
67
69
62
54
42
24
1
4
1
1
374

Funds formed
before 2010
5
1
1
0
1
7
14
15
60
59
51
46
38
22
0
3
0
0
323

Funds formed in2010 or later
0
0
0
1
2
0
1
1
7
10
11
8
4
2
1
1
1
1
51

Note: Each range of IRR is “x% and over but less than xx%”.

Ⅱ-58

～-60%

-60%～-50%-50%～-40%-40%～-30%-30%～-20%-20%～-15%-15%～-10%-10%～-5%-5%～0%

0%～5%

5%～10%

10%～15%15%～20%20%～30%30%～40%40%～50%50%～60%60%～

03. IRR distribution by fund type
Number of Funds
LimitedVoluntary
Total
Partnerships
Partnerships
60%～
5
2
2
50%～60%11
040%～50%1
1
030%～40%11
020%～30%32
1
15%～20%72
3
10%～15%152
12
5%～10%
16
10
5
0%～5%
67
28
35
-5%～0%
69
49
20-10%～-5%6255
7-15%～-10%5447
7-20%～-15%4236
5-30%～-20%24
24
0-40%～-30%110-50%～-40%
422-60%～-50%
1
1
0
～-60%
1
1
0
Total
374
265
99
Note: Each range of IRR is “x% and over but less than xx%”.
IRR

4. IRR distribution by focused stage
Number of Funds
IRR
Total
60%～
50%～60%40%～50%30%～40%20%～30%15%～20%10%～15%
5%～10%
0%～5%-5%～0%-10%～-5%-15%～-10%-20%～-15%-30%～-20%-40%～-30%-50%～-40%-60%～-50%
～-60%
Total

5
1
1
1
3
7
15
14
65
66
60
51
42
24
1
2
1
0
359

Seed

Early
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
2
1
1
3
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
16

4
1
1
0
0
1
2
5
10
17
23
21
18
11
0
0
0
0
114

Expansion
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
1
2
7
0
0
0
1
0
0
15

Later

Balanced
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
1
4
11
6
37
35
23
11
18
10
1
0
0
0
157

Note: Each range of IRR is “x% and over but less than xx%”.

Ⅱ-59

Buyout
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
3
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7

Recap/
Turnaround
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
0
0
1
0
8

Not specified
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
12
9
6
7
2
2
0
1
0
0
41

5. IRR distribution by focused industry
Number of Funds
IRR
Total

Ⅱ-60

60%～
50%～60%40%～50%30%～40%20%～30%15%～20%10%～15%
5%～10%
0%～5%-5%～0%-10%～-5%-15%～-10%-20%～-15%-30%～-20%-40%～-30%-50%～-40%-60%～-50%
～-60%
Total

5
0
1
1
3
7
13
14
59
62
59
50
42
24
1
2
1
0
344

Telecommunications/Networking andEquipment

3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9

Computers andPeripherals/
IT Services

1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
9

Semi-conductors/
Electrical
M achinery &Equipment

Software

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
3

Biotechnology/
M edicine

1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
4
2
5
5
1
0
0
0
0
21

M edical Device
and Equipment/Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/Other

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

Note: Each range of IRR is “x% and over but less than xx%”.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
6

M edia/Entertainment/ Finance/Real Estate
Clean Technology
Retailing//Business Services
Consumer Goods

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
3

Not specified

0
0
1
1
3
7
12
10
52
54
47
40
35
21
0
0
1
0
284

6. IRR distribution by focused region
Number of Funds
IRR

Domestic
Region60%～
50%～60%40%～50%30%～40%20%～30%15%～20%10%～15%
5%～10%
0%～5%-5%～0%-10%～-5%-15%～-10%-20%～-15%-30%～-20%-40%～-30%-50%～-40%-60%～-50%
～-60%
Total

1
0
0
0
1
2
0
5
9
19
34
25
23
11
0
2
1
1
134

Overseas
Region
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5

MainlyDomestic

MainlyOverseas

Not specified

1
0
1
1
1
5
12
8
43
34
22
18
14
10
0
0
0
0
170

0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
4

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
9
5
7
4
3
1
0
0
0
37

Domestic Region

Hokkaido, Tohoku, Kanto (excl. Tokyo), Tokyo,
Chubu, Kinki,Chugoku, Shikoku, Kyushu and Okinawa

Overseas Region

Asia-Pacific, Europe, North America

Note: Each range of IRR is “x% and over but less than xx%”.

Ⅱ-61

(2) Cash flow and performance of all funds
The next table shows the cash flow for individual funds by vintage year, and the computed results ofthe distribution to paid-in ratio (DPI) and the total value to paid-in ratio (TVPI).
Note: For years 1986, 1993 and 1994, only one fund was under survey. To avoid disclosing theperformance of individual funds, no data are shown.

VintageYear

Number of
Funds

'82
'83
'84
'85
'86
'87
'88
'89
'90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
'11
'12
'13
'14
Total

2
5
4
5
1
3
2
4
4
8
4
1
1
5
7
7
4
13
27
21
25
16
37
50
24
22
15
6
11
10
9
19
2
374

DPI

Ⅱ-62

TVPI
3.13
2.74
2.68
2.18
1.40
1.01
0.87
1.04
1.15
1.33
1.86
1.10
3.23
1.14
1.25
0.91
0.68
0.60
0.58
0.93
0.35
0.33
0.34
0.29
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.81

3.13
2.74
2.68
2.18
1.40
1.01
0.87
1.04
1.15
1.33
1.86
1.10
3.23
1.14
1.27
0.93
0.75
0.70
0.61
1.21
0.57
0.88
0.98
0.90
0.78
0.93
0.89
0.86
1.01
0.99
1.09

(¥ Billions)

Total Cash flows

400.0
300.0
200.0
100.0
0.0
-100.0-200.0-300.0-400.0'82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

Total
Contributions

Total
Distributions

Residual value

Cumulative Cash Flows（Yen billions）

Vintage
Year
'82
'83
'84
'85
'86
'87
'88
'89
'90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
'11
'12
'13
'14
Total

Total
Total
Contributions Distributions
-4.4
0
-16.8
0
-17.3
0
-18.8
1.0
-3.7
3.8
-14.0
5.8
-10.3
4.9
-11.4
4.3
-41.7
22.8
-27.1
31.8
-14.6
19.8
-1.9
15.7
-20.4
26.4
-24.0
23.7
-24.0
27.5
-25.9
49.2
-5.4
36.2
-46.0
19.7
-82.3
82.0
-56.0
70.5
-53.2
27.1
-48.7
20.7
-110.756.6-113.884.3-142.873.9-140.4
55.4
-78.2
63.9
-31.8
34.1
-47.7
19.2
-56.5
42.5
-36.3
66.6
-61.8
99.2
-29.1
59.5
-1,417.1
1,148.0

Residual
value
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.3
1.5
2.5
0.4
138.0
251.5
396.2

Cumulative
Cash Flows
-4.4
-21.2
-38.4
-56.2
-56.1
-64.3
-69.7
-76.8
-95.7
-91.1
-85.9
-72.1
-66.1
-66.4
-62.9
-39.6
-8.9
-35.1
-35.5
-21.0
-47.1
-75.1
-129.1-158.7-227.6-312.6-327.0-322.4-349.4-360.9-330.2-154.8127.1

Ⅱ-63

Regarding fund performance, cumulative cash flows[(distribution + residual value) －contribution] hasbeen rising sharply according to a leap in residual
value.

5. IRR by vintage year
Here, the capital weighted average IRR based on calculating IRR for each fund and the performanceof the stock market (TOPIX) are compared.
*For years 1986, 1993 and 1994, only one fund was under survey. To avoid disclosing theperformance of individual funds, no data are shown.
120%
100%

Weighted IRR

80%

Weighted Average TOPIX

60%
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
'82 '83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14

VintageYear

Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

M aximum Value

1/4
from the top

M edian

'82
'83
'84
'85
'86
'87
'88
'89
'90
'91
'92
'93
'94
'95
'96
'97
'98
'99
'00
'01
'02
'03
'04
'05
'06
'07
'08
'09
'10
'11
'12
'13
'14
Total

2
5
4
5
1
3
2
4
4
8
4
1
1
5
7
7
4
13
27
21
25
16
37
50
24
22
15
6
11
10
9
19
2
374

15.61%
13.83%
14.17%
10.91%
4.23%
0.10%-1.60%
0.50%
2.04%
4.03%
9.13%
1.18%
30.71%
3.11%
5.10%-1.29%-4.44%-5.20%-8.73%
3.28%-8.99%-2.22%-0.41%-2.79%-8.48%-3.51%-6.34%-11.09%1.04%-3.04%
2.53%

15.59%
13.07%
14.06%
11.62%
4.40%
0.10%-1.65%
0.51%
1.77%
3.80%
8.32%
1.16%
30.79%
45.38%
4.06%-1.87%-4.86%-7.20%-8.16%-0.75%-10.76%-4.42%-1.36%-3.32%-11.03%-6.78%-5.77%-10.92%
1.58%-3.04%-0.99%

15.84%
8.76%
13.05%
9.81%
6.80%
0.10%
-1.39%
0.69%
0.84%
3.17%
8.66%
-0.69%
15.18%
25.02%
3.15%-2.42%-5.52%-11.10%-9.77%-6.72%-11.92%-10.81%-7.83%-0.04%-8.52%-6.31%-8.74%-11.02%-7.94%-1.52%-4.76%

1.29%
6.13%
2.00%
4.64%
5.48%
0.03%
3.51%
1.32%
2.27%
1.98%
4.65%
2.85%
21.84%
61.74%
20.10%
6.97%
12.71%
7.96%
5.21%
15.62%
11.69%
9.18%
9.31%
19.68%
12.59%
15.02%
17.68%
13.24%
20.95%
2.15%
15.59%

16.75%
17.16%
14.82%
16.76%
13.12%
0.12%
3.24%
2.51%
4.31%
4.40%
12.89%
2.01%
63.65%
116.02%66.73%
10.92%
41.42%
2.69%-1.23%
56.79%
24.23%
15.93%
6.66%
67.86%
2.32%
21.77%
12.20%-3.32%
37.38%
0.00%
116.02%

16.29%
13.44%
14.40%
10.14%
8.38%
0.11%
0.39%
1.23%
2.06%
4.39%
10.92%
1.65%
12.50%
35.04%
3.44%
1.01%-1.87%-6.13%-6.56%-1.83%-4.28%-4.32%-1.11%
1.20%-0.30%-0.05%-3.40%-3.39%
1.37%-0.76%
1.63%

15.84%
4.92%
13.51%
9.20%
3.64%
0.10%
-2.34%
0.29%
1.35%
4.02%
10.90%
0.06%
6.22%
1.98%
0.18%
-2.31%-5.10%-11.70%-8.09%-9.78%-11.79%-12.76%-7.95%-5.07%-3.13%-5.12%-7.17%-6.53%-9.63%-1.52%-5.09%

Ⅱ-64

1/4
M inimum Valuefrom the bottom

15.38%
4.42%
12.16%
9.20%
3.64%
0.09%
-4.12%-0.25%-0.92%
2.80%
7.47%-2.40%
4.52%-8.05%-9.16%-8.74%-12.80%-18.01%-14.72%-14.55%-19.73%-17.80%-13.20%-9.41%-14.29%-13.02%-10.88%-11.42%-15.21%-2.28%-12.79%14.93%
3.84%
10.35%
3.72%
3.64%
0.08%
-4.12%-0.33%-2.30%
0.25%
1.11%-5.38%
2.34%-19.91%-11.98%-15.33%-19.56%-25.47%-17.73%-43.10%-44.44%-24.31%-29.20%-13.12%-29.84%-36.93%-52.98%-45.10%-67.89%-3.04%-67.89%Weighted
Average
TOPIX

9.46%
6.63%
4.93%
0.81%
-2.64%-4.49%-5.97%-7.32%-4.48%-1.91%
1.05%-2.61%-1.79%-2.68%-4.93%-5.67%-1.69%
1.81%
1.23%
0.85%
-0.83%-3.26%-4.18%-0.61%
6.37%
10.29%
19.13%
20.04%
17.17%
21.37%-0.58%

Management situation by vintage year

(1) Funds starting in 1982
Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

Minimum
Value

Funds formed in 1982

Number ofFunds
2

15.61%

15.59%

15.84%

1.29%

16.75%

16.29%

15.84%

15.38%

14.93%

Liquidated
Existing

2

15.61%

15.59%

15.84%

1.29%

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Contributions￥4.4 billion

Average Contributions￥2.2 billion

Average Term

11.8 years

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

DPI

TVPI

3.13

3.13

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
'82

'83

'84

'85

'86

'87

'88

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'89

'90

'91

'92

'93

'94

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

0

2

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-65

(2) Funds starting in 1983
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue

17.16%

13.44%

4.92%

4.42%

3.84%

Funds formed in 1983

5

13.83%

13.07%

8.76%

6.13%

Liquidated
Existing

513.83%

13.07%

8.76%

6.13%

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Contributions￥16.8 billion

Average Contributions￥3.4 billion

Average Term

12 years

DPI

TVPI

2.74

2.74

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
'83 '84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

0

5

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

2

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-66

(3) Funds starting in 1984
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue

14.82%

14.40%

13.51%

12.16%

10.35%

Funds formed in 19844

14.17%

14.06%

13.05%

2.00%

Liquidated
Existing

414.17%

14.06%

13.05%

2.00%

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Contributions￥17.3 billion

Average Contributions￥4.3 billion

Average Term

14.1年

DPI

TVPI

2.68

2.68

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
'84 '85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

0

3

1

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

1

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-67

(4) Funds starting in 1985
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue

16.76%

10.14%

9.20%

9.20%

3.72%

Funds formed in 1985

5

10.91%

11.62%

9.81%

4.64%

Liquidated
Existing

510.91%

11.62%

9.81%

4.64%

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Contributions￥25.1 billion

Average Contributions￥5.0 billion

Average Term

12.2 years

DPI

TVPI

2.18

2.18

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
'85 '86 '87 '88 '89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

0

4

1

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

1

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-68

(5) Funds starting in 1986
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top--

Funds formed in 1986

1

-

-

-

-

Liquidated
Existing

1

-

-

-

-

0

-

-

-

-

Total Contributions￥3.7 billion

Average Contributions￥3.7 billion

Average Term

12 years

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

Minimum
Value

-

-

-

DPI

TVPI
-

-

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows

Only one fund was under survey.
No data are shown to avoid disclosing the performance of individual funds.

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

0

1

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

1

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-69

(6) Funds starting in 1987
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue

13.12%

8.38%

3.64%

3.64%

3.64%

Funds formed in 1987

3

4.23%

4.40%

6.80%

5.48%

Liquidated
Existing

3

4.23%

4.40%

6.80%

5.48%

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Contributions￥13.7 billion

Average Contributions￥4.6 billion

Average Term

12.1 years

DPI

TVPI

1.40

1.40

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
'87

'88

'89

'90

'91

'92

'93

'94

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'95

'96

'97

'98

'99

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

0

3

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

1

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-70

(7) Funds starting in 1988
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

Minimum
Value

0.12%

0.11%

0.10%

0.09%

0.08%

Funds formed in 1988

2

0.10%

0.10%

0.10%

0.03%

Liquidated
Existing

2

0.10%

0.10%

0.10%

0.03%

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Contributions￥7.6 billion

Average Contributions￥3.8 billion

Average Term

12 years

DPI

TVPI

1.01

1.01

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
'88

'89

'90

'91

'92

'93

'94

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'95

'96

'97

'98

'99

'00

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

0

2

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-71

(8) Funds starting in 1989
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

Minimum
Value

3.24%

0.39%

-2.34%-4.12%-4.12%

Funds formed in 1989

4

-1.60%-1.65%-1.39%

3.51%

Liquidated
Existing

4-1.60%-1.65%-1.39%

3.51%

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Contributions￥13.9 billion

Average Contributions￥3.5 billion

Average Term

11.9 years

DPI

TVPI

0.87

0.87

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
-14
-16
'89

'90

'91

'92

'93

'94

'95

'96

'97

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'98

'99

'00

'01

'02

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

0

4

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

1

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

2

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

2

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-72

(9) Funds starting in 1990
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

Minimum
Value

2.51%

1.23%

0.29%

-0.25%-0.33%

Funds formed in 1990

4

0.50%

0.51%

0.69%

1.32%

Liquidated
Existing

4

0.50%

0.51%

0.69%

1.32%

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Contributions￥38.7 billion

Average Contributions￥9.7 billion

Average Term

12.7 years

DPI

TVPI

1.04

1.04

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
'90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

0

4

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

1

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-73

(10) Funds starting in 1991
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

Minimum
Value

4.31%

2.06%

1.35%

-0.92%-2.30%

Funds formed in 1991

8

2.04%

1.77%

0.84%

2.27%

Liquidated
Existing

8

2.04%

1.77%

0.84%

2.27%

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Contributions￥39.4 billion

Average Contributions￥4.9 billion

Average Term

12.8 years

DPI

TVPI

1.15

1.15

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08
Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

0

8

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

7

0

0

1

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

3

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

4

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-74

(11) Funds starting in 1992
Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

Minimum
Value

Funds formed in 1992

Number of
Funds
4

4.03%

3.80%

3.17%

1.98%

4.40%

4.39%

4.02%

2.80%

0.25%

Liquidated
Existing

4

4.03%

3.80%

3.17%

1.98%

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Contributions￥21.7 billion

Average Contributions￥5.4 billion

Average Term

12.1 years

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

DPI

TVPI

1.33

1.33

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
'92

'93

'94

'95

'96

'97

'98

'99

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'00

'01

'02

'03

'04

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

0

3

1

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-75

(12) Funds starting in 1993
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top--

Funds formed in 2013

1

-

-

-

-

Liquidated
Existing

1

-

-

-

-

0

-

-

-

-

Total Contributions￥1.7 billion

Average Contributions￥1.7 billion

Average Term

11.4 years

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

Minimum
Value

-

-

-

DPI

TVPI
-

-

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows

Only one fund was under survey.
No data are shown to avoid disclosing the performance of individual funds.

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

0

1

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

1

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-76

(13) Funds starting in 1994
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top--

Funds formed in 1994

1

-

-

-

-

Liquidated
Existing

1

-

-

-

-

0

-

-

-

-

Total Contributions￥7.0 billion

Average Contributions￥7.0 billion

Average Term

12.1 years

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

Minimum
Value

-

-

-

DPI

TVPI
-

-

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows

Only one fund was under survey.
No data are shown to avoid disclosing the performance of individual funds.

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

0

1

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

1

0

0

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-77

(14) Funds starting in 1995
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue

12.89%

10.92%

10.90%

7.47%

1.11%

Funds formed in 1995

5

9.13%

8.32%

8.66%

4.65%

Liquidated
Existing

5

9.13%

8.32%

8.66%

4.65%

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Contributions￥23.1 billion

Average Contributions￥4.6 billion

Average Term

12.6 years

DPI

TVPI

1.86

1.86

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
'95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

0

5

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

1

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

1

0

0

0

0

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

4

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-78

(15) Funds starting in 1996
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

Minimum
Value

2.01%

1.65%

0.06%

-2.40%-5.38%

Funds formed in 1996

7

1.18%

1.16%

-0.69%

2.85%

Liquidated
Existing

7

1.18%

1.16%

-0.69%

2.85%

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Contributions￥22.3 billion

Average Contributions￥3.2 billion

Average Term

12 years

DPI

TVPI

1.10

1.10

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
'96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

0

7

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

1

2

0

0

2

0

0

2

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

1

1

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

3

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

7

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-79

(16) Funds starting in 1997
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue

63.65%

12.50%

6.22%

4.52%

2.34%

Funds formed in 1997

730.71%

30.79%

15.18%

21.84%

Liquidated
Existing

730.71%

30.79%

15.18%

21.84%

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Contributions￥24.3 billion

Average Contributions￥3.5 billion

Average Term

11.6 years

DPI

TVPI

3.23

3.23

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
'97

'98

'99

'00

'01

'02

'03

'04

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'05

'06

'07

'08

'09

'10

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

0

6

1

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

3

0

0

4

0

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

1

0

1

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

6

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-80

(17) Funds starting in 1998
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

Minimum
Value

116.02%35.04%

1.98%-8.05%-19.91%

Funds formed in 1998

4

3.11%

45.38%

25.02%

61.74%

Liquidated
Existing

43.11%

45.38%

25.02%

61.74%

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Contributions￥9.3 billion

Average Contributions￥2.3 billion

Average Term

11 years

DPI

TVPI

1.14

1.14

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
'98

'99

'00

'01

'02

'03

'04

'05

'06

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'07

'08

'09

'10

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

1

2

1

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

2

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

1

0

0

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

2

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-81

(18) Funds starting in 1999
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue

66.73%

3.44%

0.18%

-9.16%-11.98%Funds formed in 1999

13

5.10%

4.06%

3.15%

20.10%

Liquidated
Existing

13

5.10%

4.06%

3.15%

20.10%

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total Contributions￥91.0 billion

Average Contributions￥7.0 billion

Average Term

11.6 years

DPI

TVPI

1.25

1.27

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

5

7

1

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

5

1

0

3

1

0

3

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

2

0

0

1

0

0

0

7

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

3

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

12

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-82

(19) Funds starting in 2000
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

Minimum
Value

6.97%

10.92%

1.01%-2.31%-8.74%-15.33%Funds formed in 2000

27

-1.29%-1.87%

Liquidated
Existing

25-1.32%-1.92%-2.61%

7.19%

2

0.27%

0.22%

-0.03%

3.23%

Total Contributions￥112.3 billion

Average Contributions￥4.2 billion

Average Term

11.4 years-2.42%

Standard
Deviation

DPI

TVPI

0.91

0.93

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
-120
'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

19

8

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

1

10

1

0

11

0

0

3

1

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

0

16

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

1

5

1

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

3

1

1

0

2

0

0

1

0

0

18

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-83

(20) Funds starting in 2001
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR-4.44%

Weighted
Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue-5.52%

12.71%

41.42%-1.87%-5.10%-12.80%-19.56%

Average IRR

Funds formed in 2001

21

Liquidated
Existing

18-5.59%-5.42%-5.96%

13.71%

3-2.08%-2.34%-2.85%

1.96%

Total Contributions￥34.5 billion

Average Contributions￥1.6 billion

Average Term

10.2 years-4.86%

DPI

TVPI

0.68

0.75

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

17

4

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

1

11

2

0

6

0

0

1

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

1

2

1

4

0

0

2

9

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

1

1

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

1

18

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-84

(21) Funds starting in 2002
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

Minimum
Value

7.96%

2.69%

-6.13%-11.70%-18.01%-25.47%

Funds formed in 2002

25

-5.20%-7.20%-11.10%Liquidated
Existing

17-11.46%-11.93%-12.37%6.91%

8-0.73%-1.28%-8.40%

9.79%

Total Contributions￥59.9 billion

Average Contributions￥2.4 billion

Average Term

10.6 years

DPI

TVPI

0.60

0.70

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14
Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

22

2

0

1

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

3

9

2

0

6

0

0

2

3

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

1

1

0

1

1

4

2

0

0

11

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

1

3

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

20

4

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-85

(22) Funds starting in 2003
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRRStandard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue-9.77%

5.21%-1.23%-6.56%-8.09%-14.72%-17.73%

Average IRR

Funds formed in 2003

16

Liquidated
Existing

11-6.16%-5.66%-8.36%

4.81%

5-15.75%-15.76%-12.86%

5.14%

Total Contributions￥33.1 billion

Average Contributions￥2.1 billion

Average Term

10.1 years-8.73%

Weighted
Average IRR-8.16%

DPI

TVPI

0.58

0.61

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

15

1

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

2

5

0

0

6

0

1

2

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

1

1

1

2

2

0

0

2

5

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

2

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

14

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-86

(23) Funds starting in 2004
Number of
Funds

Weighted
Average IRR

Pooled IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue

56.79%-1.83%-9.78%-14.55%-43.10%Funds formed in 2004

37

3.28%

-0.75%-6.72%

15.62%

Liquidated
Existing

9-9.89%-9.59%-16.56%

11.68%

28

3.90%-0.07%-3.56%

15.57%

Total Contributions￥159.3 billion

Average Contributions￥4.3 billion

Average Term

9.4 years

DPI

TVPI

0.93

1.21

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
100

50

0

-50

-100

-150
'04

'05

'06

'07

'08

'09

'10

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'12

'11

'13

'14

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

32

4

1

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

2

16

3

0

12

2

0

0

2

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

1

1

4

3

2

2

0

2

2

14

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

1

0

2

3

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

1

4

1

1

1

0

0

26

3

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-87

(24) Funds starting in 2005
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRRStandard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue-11.92%

11.69%

24.23%-4.28%-11.79%-19.73%-44.44%'13'14

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR-10.76%

Funds formed in 201350

-8.99%

Liquidated
Existing

6

3.80%

2.38%

-10.31%

23.57%

44-9.25%-11.08%-12.14%

9.53%

Total Contributions￥218.9 billion

Average Contributions￥4.4 billion

Average Term

8.5 years

DPI

TVPI

0.35

0.57

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
'06

'05

'07

'08

'09

'11

'10

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value'12

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

47

3

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

2

16

0

0

21

1

1

6

3

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

1

1

3

3

4

5

2

0

3

21

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

1

3

3

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

1

0

1

6

0

0

0

1

0

37

4

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-88

(25) Funds starting in 2006
Number of
Funds

Weighted
Average IRR

Pooled IRR

Average IRR

Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue

15.93%-4.32%-12.76%-17.80%-24.31%

Funds formed in 201324

-2.22%-4.42%-10.81%

9.18%

Liquidated
Existing

2-23.18%-23.03%-21.17%4.44%

22-1.90%-3.86%-9.87%

8.96%

Total Contributions￥67.1 billion

Average Contributions￥2.8 billion

Average Term

7.8 years

DPI

TVPI

0.33

0.88

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows
40 （¥ Billions）
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
'06

'07

'08

'09

'10

'11

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'12

'13

'14

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

21

1

2

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

1

9

2

0

7

0

0

4

1

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

2

1

1

3

3

1

1

0

0

8

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

3

1

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

2

1

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

1

17

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-89

(26) Funds starting in 2007
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

Minimum
Value

9.31%

6.66%

-1.11%-7.95%-13.20%-29.20%22

Liquidated
Existing

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

22

-0.41%-1.36%-7.83%

9.31%

Total Contributions￥172.7 billion￥7.9 billion

Average Term

7 years-1.36%

Standard
Deviation

Funds formed in 2007

Average Contributions-0.41%

Average IRR-7.83%

DPI

TVPI

0.34

0.98

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
'07

'08

'09

'10

'11

'12

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'13

'14

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

19

3

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

1

8

0

0

10

0

0

3

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

1

1

1

1

0

1

0

1

0

11

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

4

1

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

19

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-90

(27) Funds starting in 2008
Number of
Funds

Weighted
Average IRR

Pooled IRR

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue

19.68%

67.86%

1.20%-5.07%-9.41%-13.12%Liquidated
Existing

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

15

-2.79%-3.32%-0.04%

19.68%￥75.5 billion￥5.0 billion

Average Term

6.1 years-0.04%

Maximum
Value

15

Total Contributions-3.32%

Standard
Deviation

Funds formed in 2008

Average Contributions-2.79%

Average IRR

DPI

TVPI

0.29

0.90

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
'07

'06

'08

'09

'10

'11

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'12

'13

'14

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

15

0

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

1

3

1

0

7

0

0

3

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

1

0

1

0

1

2

0

1

7

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

2

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

13

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-91

(28) Funds starting in 2009
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue

12.59%

2.32%-0.30%-3.13%-14.29%-29.84%

Liquidated
Existing

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

6

-8.48%-11.03%-8.52%

12.59%￥9.5 billion￥1.6 billion

Average Term

4.9 years-8.52%

Maximum
Value

6

Total Contributions-11.03%Standard
Deviation

Funds formed in 2009

Average Contributions-8.48%

Average IRR

DPI

TVPI

0.15

0.78

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
'09

'10

'11

'12

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'13

'14

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

6

0

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

1

0

0

2

0

2

0

1

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

1

1

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

4

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-92

(29) Funds starting in 2010
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Average IRR

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue

15.02%

21.77%-0.05%-5.12%-13.02%-36.93%Liquidated
Existing

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

11

-3.51%-6.78%-6.31%

15.02%￥18.5 billion￥1.7 billion

Average Term

3.7 years-6.31%

Maximum
Value

11

Total Contributions-6.78%

Standard
Deviation

Funds formed in 2010

Average Contributions-3.51%

Weighted
Average IRR

DPI

TVPI

0.10

0.93

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
'10

'11

'12

'13

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value'14

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

8

3

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

1

1

0

6

0

0

2

1

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

1

6

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

1

1

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

7

2

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-93

(30) Funds starting in 2011
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Average IRR

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue

17.68%

12.20%-3.40%-7.17%-10.88%-52.98%Liquidated
Existing

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

10

-6.34%-5.77%-8.74%

17.68%￥22.5 billion￥2.3 billion

Average Term

2.4 years-8.74%

Maximum
Value

10

Total Contributions-5.77%

Standard
Deviation

Funds formed in 2011

Average Contributions-6.34%

Weighted
Average IRR

DPI

TVPI

0.05

0.89

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
'11

'13

'12
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value'14

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

8

2

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

2

0

0

3

1

2

2

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

2

2

1

0

2

1

0

0

1

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

1

0

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

6

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-94

(31) Funds starting in 2012
Standard
Deviation

Maximum
Value

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue

13.24%-3.32%-3.39%-6.53%-11.42%-45.10%

Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Weighted
Average IRR

Average IRR

Funds formed in 20129-11.09%-10.92%-11.02%Liquidated
Existing

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

9

-11.09%-10.92%-11.02%

13.24%

Total Contributions￥4.0 billion

Average Contributions￥0.4 billion

Average Term

1.8 years

DPI

TVPI

0.00

0.86

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
'12

'13

'14
Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

9

0

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

1

3

0

1

2

0

0

1

1

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

1

2

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

2

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

6

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-95

(32) Funds starting in 2013
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Average IRR

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

MinimumValue

20.95%

37.38%

1.37%-9.63%-15.21%-67.89%Liquidated
Existing

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

19

1.04%

1.58%

-7.94%

20.95%￥48.5 billion￥2.6 billion

Average Term

1 years-7.94%

Maximum
Value

19

Total Contributions

1.58%

Standard
Deviation

Funds formed in 2013

Average Contributions

1.04%

Weighted
Average IRR

DPI

TVPI

0.00

1.01

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
'13

'14

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

19

0

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

4

1

0

9

1

2

0

2

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

1

0

2

1

0

2

1

0

9

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

2

1

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

1

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

14

2

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-96

(33) Funds starting in 2014
Number of
Funds

Pooled IRR

Average IRR

1/4
from the top

Median

1/4 from
the bottom

Minimum
Value

2.15%

0.00%

-0.76%-1.52%-2.28%-3.04%

Liquidated
Existing

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

2

-3.04%-3.04%-1.52%

2.15%￥5.2 billion￥2.6 billion

Average Term

0.3 years-1.52%

Maximum
Value

2

Total Contributions-3.04%

Standard
Deviation

Funds formed in 2014

Average Contributions-3.04%

Weighted
Average IRR

DPI

TVPI

0.00

0.99

(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of June 2014, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
'14
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
Fund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by industry

LimitedPartnerships

VolantaryPartnerships

Foreign funds/OtherUnknown

2

0

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
Turnaround

Not Specified

Unknown

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

Kyushu andOkinawa

Mainlydomestic

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

1

0

Telecommunication
s/Networking andEquipment

Computers andPeripherals/IT services

SoftwareSemi-conductors/
Electricalmachinery &equipment

Biotechnology/Medicine

M edical Device andEquipment/
Healthcare-related

Industrial/Energy/OtherM edia/Entertainment/
Retailing/
Customer Goods

Finance/
Real Estate/
Business Services

Clean
Technology

Not specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Ⅱ-97

This report has been compiled with the utmost care based on sources believed to be reliable.
However, the accuracy or completeness of the data is not guaranteed. Venture Enterprise Center,
Japan disclaims any liability including incidental or consequential damages arising from errors oromissions in this report.

The copyright of this report is the property of Venture Enterprise Center, Japan. No part of thisreport may be copied, reproduced, electronically transmitted or stored in a retrieval system with the
exception noted under the copyright law. All rights reserved. Please contact VEC for any requests to
use the information contained herein.

［Edited, published］

April 2015

Venture Enterprise Center, Japan
Shinjuku Front Tower 4F 412
2-21-1, Kita-shinjuku, Shinjuku-ku,
Tokyo, 169-0074, Japan
TEL：+81-3-5330-9307
FAX：+81-3-5330-9306
E-mail ：vcdoukou@vec.or.jp
URL：http://www.vec.or.jp