VEC YEARBOOK 2015

Annual Report on Japanese Startup Businesses 2015
Venture Enterprise Center, Japan

VEC YEARBOOK 2015
Annual Report on Japanese Startup Businesses 2015

March 2016
Venture Enterprise Center, Japan

Foreword
It is my pleasure to publish the “VEC YEARBOOK 2015 -Annual Report on Japanese Startup
Businesses 2015-” in cooperation with our collaborators. We are proud to author the only report thatprovides comprehensive coverage of Japan’s venture capital and startup businesses, which is often quoted
in academic literature and by the media.
The VEC YEARBOOK 2015 will introduce, in the same manner as last year’s yearbook, certain viewsin Silicon Valley, as well as current explanations about the latest developments, primarily in corporate
venture capital (CVC), crowdfunding and the robotics industry. Moreover, with the cooperation of ourcollaborators, we have been able to further enhance the quality of the survey on startup businesses.
The total annual amount of venture capital investments stood at ¥117.1 billion in FY 2014, down
35.6% from ¥181.8 billion in FY 2013. However, the decline was attributable to a significant decline inoverseas investments, and Japanese domestic investments actually rose 3.1% year on year, to ¥74 billion.
Considering the situation in which overall valuations have surged and a tendency to constrain investments
has apparently commenced, we consider that the figures +3.1% came out at reasonable levels.
At the end of April and early May 2015, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited Silicon Valley, becoming
the first Japanese Prime Minister to do so. There, he announced the “Project for a Bridge of Innovation
between Silicon Valley and Japan.” (Please refer to the text for the details of the project.) Although it
would require time, I personally believe that it would be productive in the long term if we could send
inexperienced Japanese capitalists to Silicon Valley and let them learn Silicon Valley-style investments
for several years.
The government and various agencies have been steadily scaling up venture promotional initiatives,and I am paying particular attention to recent developments in the Japan Science and Technology Agency(JST) and New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO). The common
theme is open innovation. Having established a support program for launching innovation hubs, the JST isaiming to develop innovation hubs centered on national research with development agencies, such as theJapan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). NEDO has decided to hold events to share successful
cases of open innovation, both in Japan and overseas, by establishing the Japan Open Innovation Council.

Moreover, a noteworthy recent development is that mega banks have finally started to pay attention to
venture investments. The banks had been leaving the investment to startups to their subsidiaries’ VC, but
now they have started to respond to FinTech-related startup companies. Although it is still difficult for thebanks to deal with seed/early stage businesses, they have reportedly decided to develop a structure inwhich the banks themselves will make investments in and extend loans to businesses after this stage,
including technological startups other than those related to the FinTech industry. This activity is outside
the scope of CVC because banks are not industrial firms. However, it is a welcome development from theperspective that it is another sign that major companies in Japan are starting to pay attention to startups.
I offer my deepest gratitude to those who participated in our surveys and interviews. We will continue
improving our data collection so that we can provide even more useful and relevant information. Thankyou for your continued support.

Venture Enterprise Center, Japan
President Ryuji Ichikawa

I. Analysis: Retrospect and Prospect of Startup Businesses in 2015
II. Data: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends in 2015
CHAPTER I. Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends
CHAPTER II. Survey on Venture Capital Fund Status

I. Analysis: Retrospect and Prospect of Startup Businesses in 2015

VEC YEARBOOK 2015

Table of Contents- Analysis CHAPTERI

Venture Investment Trends (Japan)

１．Venture Capital Investment Trends in FY 2014
Overview of Investment Conditions in FY 2014

I-1

Quarterly Trend of VC Investments

I-4

Investment Trends by Industry and Stage
Industry Analysis

I-5

Stage Analysis

I-8

New Venture Capital Funds Launched

I-11

Status of Investment Exits
Status of Exits for FY 2014

I-12

IPO Trends

I-14

Independent venture capital plays leading role

I-16

The surge of valuations has peaked,
and venture capitalists will become selective in the future

I-17

２．Topics of the Growth Industry

I-18

Startup Companies and Robot Development- Concept of Co-robots (Collaborative Robots) -I-18

Space Development Led by Startup Companies- Realizing People Living in Space by Using Robots -I-22

３．Support of the Government andRelated Organizations for Startup Companies

I-25

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry

I-30

Small and Medium Enterprise Agency

I-37

Organization for Small & Medium Enterprises andRegional Innovation, JAPAN (SME Support, JAPAN)

I-39

Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO)

I-42

New Energy and Industrial Technology
Development Organization (NEDO)

I-45

National Institute of Advanced Industrial
Science and Technology (AIST)
Information-technology Promotion Agency, Japan (IPA)

I-54
I-55

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology

I-56

Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)I-59

Ministry of Internal Aﬀairs and Communications

I-62

National Institute of Information andCommunications Technology (NICT)

I-64

Employment Security Bureau, Ministry of Health,Labour and Welfare

I-65

Cabinet Oﬃce, Government of Japan

I-66

Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries

I-70

Japan Finance Corporation

I-71

Development Bank of Japan Inc.

I-73

Innovation Network Corporation of Japan (INCJ)

I-74

Regional Economy Vitalization Corporation ofJapan (REVIC)

I-77

Cool Japan Fund Inc.

I-79

Entrepreneur Training: Venture Capitals also Focusing
on University and High School Students

I-81

Expansion of Venues of Training: Venture Capitalists
Train Venture Capitalists

I-82

４．Venture Support from the Private Sector
Change in the Conditions of Class Shares

I-83
I-83

Collaboration between Large Companies and Startups
Foreword

I-84

Collaboration between Large Companies
and Startups in the United States

I-84

Matching of Large Companies and Startups

I-85

Corporate Venture Capital (CVC)

I-86

Issues

I-90
Acceleration in the Matching of Large
Companies and Startups

Mega Banks Are Starting to Pay Attention
to Startup Companies
Mega Banks Acquire FinTech through Startup Support
Crowdfunding Supports Manufacturing Startup Companies:
Rising Expectations also for Equity-based Crowdfunding

I-92

I-93
I-95
I-96

Feeling the Blues in France

I-97

Learning from Israel

I-99

The Resurgence of Germany (Part One)I-101

The Resurgence of Germany (Part Two)

I-102

CHAPTER
II

Japanese Startup Business Survey

Overview
１．Proﬁles of Responding Startup Companies
Industries
Stage
Stage and the Number of Employees

I-105
I-106
II-106
III-107

２．Status of Business Development
Overseas Business Development
Future Business Plans

I-109
II-110I-

３．Status of Fundraising
Status of Fundraising Since Incorporation
Status of Fundraising during
the Most Recent One-year Period
Forecasted Sources of Future Funds

I-111
II-112
II-113I-

４．Needs of Startup Companies
Present Management Needs
Staﬃng Needs

５．Requests to the Government and Other Institutions
on Policies for Creating and Growing Startup Companies
Globalization Holds a Signiﬁcance of its Own Without Needing to
Tackle Challenges in Overseas Markets

I-114
II-114
I-

I-115
I-118

CHAPTER
III

Conclusion

１．Actual Examples of Collaboration between
Large Companies and Startups
２．Aiming to Establish a Venture Ecosystem

Securing and Developing Human Resources andPromoting the Their Flexible Use
Education
Securing Extensive Fundraising Methods for VCs andSteadily Expanding Them

I-120
II-122II-123
II-123I-

VEC YEARBOOK 2015

Table of Contents- Data -CHAPTERI

Survey on Venture Capital Investment

II-1

CHAPTERII

Survey on Venture Capital Fund Status

II-45

List of Venture capital ﬁrms responded to the survey

Ⅱ-99

Chapter I. Venture Investment Trends (Japan)
1． Venture Capital Investment Trends in FY 2014
(1) Overview of Investment Conditions in FY 2014
Venture Enterprise Center, Japan (VEC) carried out a survey on investment trends with venture capital(VC) firms and other organizations that were registered in Japan, and received responses from 106
organizations. It also held interviews with major VCs about the results of the survey.
The total amount of investments by VCs and other organizations in Japan in FY 2014 (April 2014 toMarch 2015) was ¥117.1 billion, with investments in a total of 969 deals (See Figure 1-1-1). Comparedwith FY 2013, the investment amount fell 35.6%, with a 3.1% decrease in the number of deals. The
average investment per deal was ¥121 million (See Figure 1-1-3), a 33.5% decrease compared with ¥182
million in FY 2013.
Since bottoming out in FY 2009, a year after the financial crisis, investments in startups have staged
marginal recoveries. However, they have not reached the peak levels (around ¥280 billion) achieved in
the period from FY 2000 to FY 2007.
Looking at the breakdown by investment destination, investments in domestic companies totaled ¥74
billion, a 3.1% increase compared to ¥71.8 billion in FY 2013. However, the number of deals was 727,
down by 19 compared with 746 deals in FY 2013 (See Figure 1-1-2). On the other hand, ¥41.8 billion
was invested in overseas companies, a 61.8% drop compared to ¥109.3 billion invested in FY 2013.
With respect to investment per deal by investment destination, the average investment per deal indomestic companies was ¥102 million, a 6.3% increase compared to ¥96 million in FY 2013. Despite adecline in the number of investments, the increasing deal sizes meant that the total investments indomestic companies increased. On the other hand, investment per deal in overseas companies was ¥204
million on average, a 64.5% decrease compared to ¥575 million in FY 2013.
In interviews about the survey results, a number of venture capitalists stated that the fact thatinvestments in domestic companies were rising agreed with what they sensed through their own
businesses. In addition, a majority of venture capitalists held the view that valuations had surged. As
reasons for this, some venture capitalists pointed out the concentration of investments in certain attractive
startup companies and increases in venture investments (including LP* investments) by corporations. A
number of venture capitalists also commented that general VCs had started to be selective in choosing
investment targets as a result of a surge in valuations. Accordingly, it is possible that the number ofinvestments in domestic companies will continue to decline in the next fiscal year and beyond.
Some venture capitalists commented that investments in domestic companies were expected tocontinue to increase in the future because the number of high-quality domestic startup companies was
rising. However, there were certain venture capitalists who expected total investments will fall, reflecting
the view that investments in attractive startups and overall valuations had peaked.
Moreover, it is believed that a decline in investments in overseas companies was greatly affected bychanges in investments by several specific VC firms because VCs that actively invest in overseas
companies are limited to certain major firms.
* Limited partner: Investors with limited liability

I-1
Ⅰ－ 1

Figure 1-1-1 Trend of Investments and Loans by Japanese Venture Capital（¥ Billions）
300
282.5
3,578
250

（Number of deals）
279.0

3,736
3,500

234.5

232.3
2,788

200

181.3

2,672

165.0

150

196.8

2,245

193.3
2,834 2,774

2,759

150.3

(181.8)

2,579
136.6

0.7

87.5
991
1,294

50

(124.0)109.3 (117.1)(102.6)
2.1
1,017
915
51.0
30.4
824
431

50.5

49.5

VC investmentsin overseas companies

VC investments in companies
whose locations are unknown

Value in ( ) is the total amount invested.

1.3

1,400
41.8
1,000
969
700
71.8 74.0

FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014

VC investments
in domestic companies

2,800

2,100
113.2

100

0

4,200

0

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

Note1: 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
Note2: Only the total amount is listed until FY 2010.
Note3: The number of deals shows the total number of deals.

Figure 1-1-2 Trend of Investments in Domestic and Overseas Companies andNumber of Deals（¥ Billions）
200（Number of deals）
1,000
900

180

746

160
140

650

120

600
500

30.4

40

0

41.8

109.3

80

20

700

589

100

60

800

729

136

51.0

300

190

166

203

50.5

49.5

71.8

74.0

FY2011FY2012FY2013

FY2014

VC investments
in domestic companies

VC investmentsin overseas companies

Number of deals(domestic)

400

200
100
0

Number of deals(overseas)（Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC）

I-2
Ⅰ－ 2

Figure 1-1-3 Investments and Loans per Deal (Average)（¥ Millions）
575

600

600

500

500

400

400

307

300

300

223
200
100

65

76

65

62

67

71

83

101

75

106

88

124

122

204
200

121
102

125

100

78

0

182

84

96
0

FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014（Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC）
Note: Figures above are obtained by dividing investment amount by number of deals each year.

I-3
Ⅰ－ 3

(2) Quarterly Trend of VC Investments
VEC has been conducting surveys on the trend of investments on a quarterly basis since 2012, in
addition to the annual survey. Figure 1-1-4 shows the trend of investments (flows) made by VCs and otherorganizations up to the second quarter of 2015.
In accordance with the quarterly survey, total investments in FY 2014 (from Q2 2014 to Q1 2015)
stood at ¥118.3 billion, almost the same level as those in the annual survey (¥117.1 billion)Note. Quarterly
investments appear to follow a cycle. Since 2012, when the surveys commenced, investments in Q2(April through June) have been around half of those in Q1 (January through March) every year, showing
the effects of a fall in investments, in a reaction to increased investments that is typical at the end of the
fiscal year.
Note: In FY 2013 (from Q2 2013 to Q1 2014), there was a difference between total investments based on thequarterly survey (¥177.4 billion) and the results of the annual survey (¥181.8 billion). It is believed thatthe main reason for this is that the number of VCs that responded to the annual survey was higher than
the number of those that responded to the quarterly survey.

Figure 1-1-4 Quarterly Trend of Investments by Japanese Venture Capital（¥ Billions）

50（46.8）

197

0

137（19.4）

43
28.7（46.0）（20.5）

91（15.0）
6.3
3.7
13.1

35

11.3

250

245

233

40

9.7

169

9.5
17.1

34

11.4

19.9

122
43.6

155

48
20.6

16.5

10.9

157 150

7.9（21.7）

14.5

59

49

51

（33.2）（27.9）

29.8

26.1（20.9）

10.8 51200（35.5）

136
29.7

227

224

197

170

17.0

20
10

300

（50.4）（45.7）

40
30（Number of deals）（60.1）

60

56 10.4 57（18.5）

60

60
13.4

24.6

11.3

25.3

8.0

49

10.5

2012‐Q1 2012‐Q2 2012‐Q3 2012‐Q4 2013‐Q1 2013‐Q2 2013‐Q3 2013‐Q4 2014‐Q1 2014‐Q2 2014‐Q3 2014‐Q4 2015‐Q1 2015‐Q2（N：92）
（89）
（90）
（86）
（93）
（89）
（90）
（87）
（89）
（90）
（88）
（92）
（97）
（90）
VC investment amount (domestic)

VC investment amount (overseas)

Number of deals (domestic)

Number of deals (overseas)※ VC investment amount in ( ) represents a total of domestic + overseas
N = Number of VC firms responded to the survey

100
50
0

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

I-4
Ⅰ－ 4

(3) Investment Trends by Industry and Stage(3-1) Industry Analysis
When examining the breakdown of investments by industry in FY 2014 (See Figure 1-1-5), investments
in IT-related industries (mainly PCs, mobile, and communications) accounted for around 50% of total
investments. Investments in Biotech/Medical Services/Healthcare decreased from 20.5% in FY 2013 to
16.2% in FY 2014.
Looking at the FY 2014 results by the number of deals (See Figure 1-1-6), the percentages were almost
the same as those by investment amounts. Compared to the figures in FY 2013, the percentage of
Biotech/Medical Services/Healthcare rose from 10.4% to 15.6%, and in contrast, that ofIndustrial/Energy/Other Industries declined from 23.1% to 14.7%. In Industrial/Energy/Other Industries,
the absolute investment amount increased while the absolute number of deals declined, indicating an
increase in investments per deal.
In Biotech/Medical Services/Healthcare, certain venture capitalists believed that general expectations
had been high, particularly in the biotech sector, but that its growth rate was slowing down. On the other
hand, there were other venture capitalists who said that because the absolute investment amount grew from
¥15.8 billion to ¥17.6 billion (See Figure 1-1-7), the sector was not yet at a stage where a pessimistic view
could be justified.
In this survey, services and industries that use IT are included in IT-Related for both the investment
amount and the number of deals. As a result, attention is required due to the fact that certain service
businesses are included in IT-Related, not in Products/Services. Moreover, because there were VC firmsthat did not respond to a survey on the investment distribution by industry, the total number of deals andthe total investment amount are lower than those presented in Figure 1-1-1.
Figure 1-1-5 Investment Distribution by Industry（Percentage of JPY value invested）
100%

80%

60%

14.8%

14.6%

15.2%

15.3%

20.5%

16.2%

40%

20%

0%

49.5%

53.9%

FY2013

FY2014

Products/Services
Industrial/Energy/
Other Industries
Biotech/Medical
Services/Healthcare
IT-Related（Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC ）

I-5
Ⅰ－ 5

Figure 1-1-6 Investment Distribution by Industry（Percentage of number of deals invested）
100%

16.6%
80%

23.1%
60%

10.4%

14.4%
14.7%
15.6%

40%

20%

0%

49.9%

FY2013

55.3%

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

FY2014（Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC）

I-6
Ⅰ－ 6

Figure 1-1-7 Investment Distribution by Industry（Investment amount）（¥ Billions）

120（Total: ¥109.2 billion)

16.0

100
80
60
40
20
0

（Total: ¥77.2 billion)

16.8

11.4
11.7

17.6

FY2013

Industrial/Energy/
Other Industries
Biotech/Medical
Services/Healthcare

15.8
38.2

Products/Services

58.9

IT-Related

FY2014（Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC）

Figure 1-1-8 Investment Distribution by Industry（Number of deals）（Number of deals）

1000

800

（Total: 796 deals)

132
600

184

400

83

200

397

0

FY2013（Total: 827 deals)

119
122
129

Products/Services
Industrial/Energy/
Other Industries
Biotech/Medical
Services/Healthcare

457

FY2014

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

I-7
Ⅰ－ 7

Reference: Figure 1-1-9 shows investments in domestic companies by industry in FY 2014. The amount
was calculated by adding up the investment amounts presented in the quarterly surveys (fromQ2 2014 to Q1 2015) and converting them to annual figures.
Figure 1-1-9 FY 2014 Investments in Domestic Companies by Industry and Percentage
Industry

Amount（\ Bil）

Percentage

Products/Services

15.9

22.6%

Industrial/Energy/Other Industries

10.0

14.1%

Biotech/Medical Services/Healthcare

12.8

18.1%

IT-Related

31.9

45.2%

70.5

100%

Total

（Source: Quarterly Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC ）(3-2) Stage Analysis
When examining investment distribution by stage (See Figure 1-1-10), FY 2014 witnessed slightdecreases in Seed Stage business and Early Stage business investments, down from 19.4% in FY 2013 to
13.9% in FY 2014 and from 45.1% in FY 2013 to 43.3% in FY 2014. On the other hand, the percentage ofExpansion Stage businesses rose from 20.8% in FY 2013 to 27.8%.
Looking at the FY 2014 results by the percentage of the number of deals (See Figure 1-1-11),
compared with that in FY 2013, Early Stage businesses rose from 33.2% to 48.1%, while Later Stagebusinesses declined from 30.8% to 11.9%. Some venture capitalists thought that the number ofinvestments in Early Stage businesses increased because there was an increase in the number of VCs thatshifted their focus on investments in Early Stage businesses whose valuations were relatively low, avoiding
investments in companies with high valuations.
Figure 1-1-10 Investment Distribution by Stage（Percentage of JPY value invested）

100%

14.7%
80%

20.8%

15.0%
27.8%

60%

40%

Later
Expansion

45.1%

Early

43.3%

Seed

20%

19.4%
0%

FY201313.9%
FY2014（Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC ）

I-8
Ⅰ－ 8

Figure 1-1-11 Investment Distribution by Stage（Percentage of number of deals invested）

100%

11.9%

80%

30.8%

60%

17.6%

25.2%

Later
Expansion
Early

40%

48.1%

33.2%

Seed

20%

0%

18.4%

14.8%

FY2013

FY2014（Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC ）Figure 1-1-12 Investment Distribution by Stage（Per deal）

Amount（\ Mil）

Stage

FY 2013

FY 2014

Later

46

150

Expansion

114

132

Early

132

107

Seed

102

112

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

Note: Because there were VC firms that did not respond to a survey on
investment distribution by stage, the total amount is lower than that
presented in Figure 1-1-1.
Reference 1: Figure 1-1-13 shows investments in domestic companies by stage in FY 2014. The amount
was calculated by adding up the investment amounts presented in the quarterly surveys (fromQ2 2014 to Q1 2015) and converting them to annual figures.
Figure 1-1-13 FY 2014 Investments in Domestic Companies by Stage and Percentage

Stage

Amount（\ Bil）

Percentage

Later

10.7

16.5%

Expansion

15.9

24.5%

Early

27.3

42.2%

Seed

10.9

16.8%

64.8

100%

Total

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

I-9
Ⅰ－ 9

Reference 2:The stages in VEC’s survey are defined as follows.
Figure 1-1-14 Definition of Stage
Stage
Seed
Early
Expansion
Later

Definition
Companies undergoing research and product development but has
yet to establish a commercial business operation.
Companies with product development, and the early stage ofmarketing, manufacturing and sales promotion.
Companies that have started production and shipment with its
inventory and/or sales growing in size.
Companies that have a continuous cash flow and are nearing thestage for IPO.

I-10
Ⅰ－ 10

(4) New Venture Capital Funds Launched
In FY 2014, 39 VC funds were launched with a total fund value of ¥91.1 billion (See Figure 1-1-15).
The total fund value has recovered compared to a low of ¥47.4 billion in FY 2009, when the business wasaffected by the collapse of Lehman Brothers. However, since the value hit a peak of ¥119.7 billion in FY
2011, it has continued to experience small declines.
Still, there are a number of venture capitalists that feel that both the number of funds launched and thetotal fund value have been growing. This survey does not include certain funds launched by corporations(so-called corporate venture capital; CVC). The number of funds launched and the total fund value
including CVC are higher than the figures presented in this survey.
Figure 1-1-15 Number of New Funds and Total Fund Value（Number of funds）（¥ Billions）

300

100

100
198.0

87

204.4
64

150

274.0

245.4

250

200

120

281.6

165.5
63

137.6
61

150.9
109.5

70
50

46

60
44

119.7
39
84.8
52.5
23 47.4
13
15

50

0

80

103.6

92.1

31

35

91.1
39

26

FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 FY2014

40

20

0

Number of funds launched

Total fund value（¥ Billions）（Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC）

I-11
Ⅰ－ 11

(5) Status of Investment Exits(5-1) Status of Exits for FY 2014
In FY 2014, a survey item for exits, M&A, was added (until FY 2013, M&A were included in Trade
Sales). Looking at the status of exits in FY 2014 compared with FY 2013, the number of M&A and Trade
Sales declined significantly from 278 cases to 166 cases (36 M&A and 130 Trade Sales) (See Figure
1-1-16). The number of cases other than the above did not change substantially.
A number of venture capitalists expect that M&A will continue to grow in the future. Both VCs andstartups appear to have been softening the resistance against M&A.
With the establishment of deemed liquidation clauses, there are class shares that bring about the same
effects as the distribution of preferred residual assets at the time of liquidation when M&A are carried out.
Because this type of investments through class shares has been increasing, VCs are now able to secure
profits not necessarily only through IPOs, but also through M&A. In fact, there are VCs that tend to
welcome M&A, through which they are able to promptly lock in profits.
In the period between 2013 and the first half of 2015, on the back of the active stock market, valuations
at the time of IPOs surged and the difference in prices compared with M&A became significant, resulting
in a situation in which IPOs generated relatively higher returns. In the short term, if stock prices fall andthe market becomes unfavorable for IPOs, it is possible that M&A will increase.
On the other hand, in the long term, certain venture capitalists believe that whether or not M&A will
increase in the same manner as in the United States depends on a change in the perception of buyers. In
Japan, the target of active M&A of startup companies is limited to certain companies in the Internet sector.
When major companies start carrying out M&A in other sectors, M&A as exits are forecasted to increasein Japan in the same manner as in the United States.
Startup companies also appear to be softening the resistance against the idea of being acquired, and anumber of startups are actually participating in events in which major companies and startups meet toholding discussions about possible M&A.
With the change in the perception about M&A of both VCs and startups, in addition to other factors, itappears that a number of venture capitalists believe that M&A will increase in the future.
Figure 1-1-16 Number of Exits by Type
（Cases）
1,200（1,043）
71

1,000

800

621

600

（699）
53

314
400

200

0
IPO

120

106

175

127

（737）
45

288

（795）
67

260

（682）
54

276

73
112

70

278

56

99

138

117

130
36
116

FY2010FY2011FY2012FY2013

FY2014

M&A

Trade Sales

Write-off/Settlements

154

Buybacks byCompany Management

Other

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

I-12
Ⅰ－ 12

Figure 1-1-17 Percentage of Number of Exits by TypeFY201417%

FY2013

15%

19%

14%

FY2011

5%

17%

15%
15%

12%
20%

M&A

40%
9%

21%
18%

0%
IPO

10%

35%

19%

FY2012FY20105%

Trade Sales

8%

33%

8%

39%

6%

45%

8%

59%
40%
Write-off/Settlements

60%

I-13
Ⅰ－ 13

80%

Buybacks byCompany Management

Reference: M&A: Sales that involve the transfer of management rights
Trade Sales: Sales to secondary funds, etc.

7%
100%
Other

(5-2) IPO Trends
As of the end of October 2015, the number of IPOs in 2015 is expected to be 75. It is believed that it
will be between 80 and 100 in 2015 by the end of the year. Reviewing the past decade, following thecollapse of Lehman Brothers in the fall of 2008, the number of IPOs decreased sharply in 2009 (19 IPOs).
However, the number of IPOs began to increase gradually since 2010, and exceeded 50 in 2013 for the
first time in six years.
Figure 1-1-18 Number of IPOs
（Number of companies）

200

（188）

33
150
（121）

115 14
100

（77）

77
50

（54）
（49）

155

（36）

7
36
42
2008

2009

0
2006

2007

（19）

6
13

107

（46）

1
9 22

（22）

7

6
16

10

2010

27
2011

22

4

2

41

2012

2013

6
48

55

64

2014

2015*

34

39 29

11

51

13

7

（75）

3

Number of IPOs on Emerging Stock Exchanges

Number of IPOs on Existing Stock Exchanges

Other 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 2015 : as of end‐October 2015

（Source：TRADER’S WEB、TOKYO PRO MARKET, prepared by VEC）

Figure 1-1-19 Initial Price Appreciation and Depreciation, Stocks Traded Below POP,and Initial Price Up-down Ratio Average（Number of companies）

200

150%

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

160

120.7%

Initial price up‐down ratio (average)

120%

Ratio of stocks trade below POP

120

159
77.1%

89

80

49.6%

40

0

20

29

2006

2007

35.4%

40.9% 40.5%

49.0%
37

18.3% 21.1% 24.7% 19 22.2%
26
10
13
15
9
9
4

2008

90%

60%

53.1%

24.0%20

10.6%

78.8%

91.0%

2009

2010

2011

2012

53
19.6%

2013

58
37
1.9%
1

30%

13.0%
10

2014

7

9.3%
0%

2015*

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 2015 : as of end‐October 2015

Note: Excludes TOKYO AIM in 2011 and TOKYO PRO MARKET from 2012 to 2014.
（Source：TRADER’S WEB, prepared by VEC）

I-14
Ⅰ－ 14

Figure 1-1-20 Summary of IPO in 2015（as of end-October）
Listing
Date

MarketStock Name

Industry

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

2/12
2/18
2/18
2/19
2/20
2/23
3/17
3/17
3/19
3/19
3/19
3/24
3/24
3/24
3/25
3/25
3/25
3/26
3/26
3/26
3/27
4/8
4/17
4/20
4/21
4/22
4/24
4/24
4/28
4/28
4/28
4/30
4/30
6/16
6/16
6/17
6/18
6/24
6/24
6/25
6/25
6/25
6/29
7/7
7/8
7/10
7/16
7/29
7/30
8/4
8/5
8/11
8/26
8/28
8/28
8/31
9/2
9/2
9/8
9/14
9/15
9/17
10/15
10/22
10/23
10/27
10/28
11/4
11/4
11/4
11/19
11/19
11/20
11/27
12/3

Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
TSE 2
Mothers
JASDAQ
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
JASDAQ
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
JASDAQ
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
TSE 2
Mothers
Mothers
JASDAQ
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
JASDAQ
Mothers
Mothers
JASDAQ
Mothers
Ambitious
TSE 1
TSE 2
Mothers
JASDAQ
Mothers
JASDAQ
JASDAQ
Mothers
TSE 1
Mothers
Mothers
Q-BoardMothers
Mothers
Mothers
TSE 2
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
TSE 2
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
Mothers
TSE 1
TSE 1
TSE 1
Mothers
Mothers
TSE
Mothers
Mothers

KeePer Giken
FirstLogic
FIRST BROTHERSALBERT
HOKURYO
Silicon Studio
MKSystemCollabos
Showcase-TV
HUMANWEBSLD Entertainment
IID
RS Technologies
First Corporation
Aiming
HOUSEDOSHINDEN HIGHTEX
PLATZJapan Animal Referral Medical Center
Mobile FactorysMedioSanBiokaihanHamee
CRE
Nippon Ski Resort Development
Rentracks
SANKI SERVICE
GunosyLINKBAL
JIG-SAW
DesignOne Japan
TerraSky
Smartvalue
HEALIOS
MarketEnterprise
Digital Information Technologies
Nakamura Choukou
ECONOS
Menicon
FUJI DIE
Fundely
NAGAOKA INTERNATIONAL
Fujisan Magazine Service
Crestec
HIRAYAMA
iRidgeDexerials
ITOKUROPCI Holdings
SK-HOME
Palma
C.E.Management Integrated Laboratory
MetapsLacto Japan
Aqualine
STUDIOUSBESTERRAJESCO HOLDINGSPIXTAInternetworking & Broadband Consulting
Brangista
AppBank
Green Peptide
GMO Media
Partner AgentBALNIBARBI
Japan Post BankJAPAN POST INSURANCE
Japan Post
Anshin Guarantor Service
Rozetta
BELLSYSTEM24 Holdings
NEOJAPAN
Investors cloud

Service
Service
Real Estate
Information/Telecommunications
Fisheries/Agriculture and Forestry
Information/Telecommunications
Information/Telecommunications
Information/Telecommunications
Information/Telecommunications
RetailRetailService
MetalwareConstruction
Information/Telecommunications
Real Estate
Wholesale
Other Product
Service
Information/Telecommunications
Information/Telecommunications
Pharmaceutical
RetailRetailReal Estate
Service
Service
Service
Service
Service
Information/Telecommunications
Service
Information/Telecommunications
Information/Telecommunications
Pharmaceutical
RetailInformation/Telecommunications
Machinery
RetailPrecision Equipment
Machinery
RetailMachinery
RetailOther Product
Precision Equipment
Information/Telecommunications
ChemicalService
Information/Telecommunications
Construction
Real Estate
Service
Service
WholesaleService
RetailConstruction
Construction
RetailInformation/Telecommunications
Service
Service
Pharmaceutical
Service
Service
RetailBank
Insurance
Service
Other financial services
Service
Service
Information/Telecommunications
Construction

76
77
78
79
80
81

1/27
3/23
8/18
9/11
10/15
11/25

TOKYO PRO MARKET Simplex Financial Holdings
TOKYO PRO MARKET TSONTOKYO PRO MARKET SUZUKI SOLAR TECHNOTOKYO PRO MARKET Dentas
TOKYO PRO MARKET WBF Resort Okinawa
TOKYO PRO MARKET Triumph Corporation

Securities
Real Estate
Construction
Service
Service
Information/Telecommunications

Initial Price
Up-Down
Ratio
49%
53%
2%
116%
9%
102%
332%
138%
194%
12%
15%
46%
-24%
25%
12%
47%
12%
70%
44%
99%
59%
-15%
76%
67%
-7%
10%
53%
37%
0%
28%
236%
51%
350%
345%
23%
167%
246%
12%
120%
74%
51%
102%
41%
126%
82%
29%
429%
-3%
4%
170%
14%
71%
-2%
-8%
0%
22%
20%
25%
5%
35%
251%
44%
46%
-8%
101%
217%
130%
-

2015 Oct-End Up-Down
Ratio vs. Initial Price

-51%
-19%
-33%
-74%
60%
-65%
-84%
-30%
-33%
18%
14%
-31%
15%
135%
5%
-62%
-38%
-36%
-1%
-23%
-45%
-43%
-21%
-38%
-31%
17%
-62%
-20%
-50%
-55%
64%
-61%
108%
-73%
-19%
-32%
-34%
46%
-55%
-5%
-22%
-42%
-43%
-27%
-36%
-35%
-22%
-11%
-1%
23%
-15%
-50%
44%
9%
8%
-33%
-12%
166%
-11%
-1%
-28%
66%
109%
-7%
1%
-31%
-22%
-

(Source: TRADER’S WEB, TOKYO PRO MARKET, Prepared by VEC)

I-15
Ⅰ－ 15

Independent venture capital plays leading role

Independent venture capital (VC) has started to play a leading role among VCs. As a result of successful precedingcases from VCs such as Globis Capital Partners, Global Brain and Incubate Fund, many venture capitalists arefollowing suit. It is considered that venture investing arms associated with banks, securities companies and life andnon-life insurance companies and other corporate-type of VCs do not offer sufficient gains to individual venture
capitalists. This appears to have partly resulted in the growth of independent VCs. Due, in part, to the fact thatpreceding independent VCs have already covered startups in the IT sector, the emergence of VCs that makeinvestments in sectors where companies are built onresearch results of universities has been noticeable.
Beyond Next Ventures (Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo) was established by Mr. Tsuyoshi Ito who, as the person in charge ofacademia-industry cooperation at JAFCO, had made investments in CYBERDYNE, a robot suit startup companies
originating from Tsukuba University, and led the listing of the company on the stock exchange.
Leave a Nest (Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo), which mainly supports research-based startups, established a new VC jointlywith euglena, a company that is known for the production of euglena microalgae, and SMBC Nikko Securities. With
its extensive network, including universities and corporate researchers, Leave a Nest fundraised from Japan Tabacco,
ROHTO Pharmaceutical, Mitsui Fudosan and other companies. The new VC will reportedly invest in “Real-Tech,” asector that encompasses both online and offline elements, such as robotics, IoT, bio, agriculture and energy. It seems
that new independent VCs are likely to play a key role in this sector.
There are examples of successful entrepreneurs investing in startup companies. Tokyo Founders Fund (TFF),
which was established in 2015, is comprised of prominent members. The Representative of TFF is former Presidentof Spotlight Yo Shibata, and funds are jointly contributed by President of nanapi Kensuke Furukawa, President of
Coach United Nobuhiro Ariyasu, President of peroli Ayataro Nakagawa, CEO of Chanoma Kiyotaka Kobayashi,
COO of FreakOut Yusuke Sato, former President of mixi Yusuke Asakura and President of Livesense Taichi
Murakami. Most of these entrepreneurs have sold their own companies, and have surplus funds. The purpose ofinvestments is reportedly to learn about the trends of the Internet business. This is considered to be a new type of
independent VC that is along the lines of angel investing.
On the other hand, establishing new funds with a significant amount of cash is also continuing. In the UnitedStates, large-scale unlisted startups with total market values reaching $1 billion have emerged. As a response to thisdevelopment, hedge funds and private equity funds have initiated venture investments. Parties related to this sector
have also started to make preparations in Japan. However, the business environment is slightly unfavorable due to aslump in the stock market.

I-16
Ⅰ－ 16

The surge of valuations has peaked,
and venture capitalists will become selective in the futureOver the last two or three years, the valuations of venture investments have been surging continuously. Recently,
however, partly reflecting a slump in the stock market, the valuations have been gradually adjusted (according to theperson in charge of investments at a listed Internet company). There were cases of companies whose share prices fell
below the price level that was used at the time of capital increases when they were still unlisted. Accordingly, thereview of the valuations is now progressing.
A venture manager who has just developed α-version services said, “The valuation of my company is ¥1 billion. In
the United States, there are companies that provide similar services whose valuations have exceeded ¥30 billion.”
Having received such an explanation, a partner of an independent venture capital firm answered, “We cannot makean offer at such a valuation when the company has not even generated sales,” and turned down the proposal. Suchstories were reportedly heard often over the last one or two years, a time when the bubble of venture stocks in Silicon
Valley increased.
Even if experienced VCs turned down such businesses, certain government funds and corporate venture capital(CVCs) that were lacking experience but had funds often decided to invest in the businesses. Government funds and
CVCs do so because they tend to prioritize the use of funds to budgeted levels. As a result, managers became evenmore aggressive. A vicious cycle started in this way, and valuations shot up to unrealistic levels.
“The general picture was like that until around last year, but as is to be expected, VCs have now become
selective,” said a person in charge of investments at a listed Internet company who has extensive investment
experience. The direct catalyst was the share price trend of gumi, whose shares were listed on the exchange inDecember 2014. The share price has remained sluggish after the announcement of the downward revision of its
results and other developments.
This trend was clearly visible in the valuation of Metaps, whose shares were listed on the exchange in August
2015, when it was treated as the star of startup companies. The share price after the listing even experienced a fall
below the level of the share price that was used for fundraising carried out in February 2015. Metaps recorded
operating losses in the terms ended in both August 2014 and August 2015. This has raised queries regarding the story
that, even if making losses, as long as a company is considered to have growth potential, it will be able to raise alarge amount of funds and things will go well for it anyhow once it is listed.
Cases where share prices fall to this extent immediately after listing were also found in 2000, when the Internet
share bubble burst. At that time, the stock market slowed down severely, and it then also became difficult for unlisted
startups to raise funds. The cases of a “downround” in which capital was increased based on the lower valuation werealso noticeable. Market participants have begun to whisper that such a case will also occur soon in the current
business environment.
“Changes in the listed market start affecting the fundraising of startup companies six months or a year later,” said aperson in charge of startups at an auditing company. Facing such a situation, based on reaction and reflection,
reducing valuations in an irrational manner is not a good idea. It is believed that the extent of fluctuations invaluations will remain wide for the time being. “It is essential to make an effort to carefully study the fair value ofeach case,” according to a foreign VC.

I-17
Ⅰ－ 17

2． Topics of the Growth Industry
Artificial intelligence has been attracting greater attention due to the significant improvements incomputer performance and the advancement of information processing technologies. In addition, there
has also been development of more sophisticated technologies related to sensors and driving equipment,
which led to great advances in technologies related to the development of robots.
According to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, the size of the global market for industrial
robots in 2011 was $8.497 billion. In this market, the total value of shipments from Japanese enterprises
amounted to $4.267 billion, accounting for a 50.2% share. Moreover, the market size of the robotics
industry in Japan in 2035 is forecasted to reach ¥9.7 trillion (approximately $124.4 billion based on a rateof ¥78 per dollar, the average dollar/yen exchange rate in 2011). This includes not only industrial robots,
but also robots in all other sectors (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry: The 2012 Trend Survey on
the Robot Industry Market). The government has been supporting the promotion of the robotics industry
through various measures, such as by establishing the Robot Revolution Council, to build up the robotics
industry as a growth sector in Japan.
This environment has given rise to robotics startup companies like SCHAFT and CYBERDYNE. For
these kinds of companies to succeed, they need to possess know-how about both hardware and software,
along with technologies that combine these two aspects in developing robots. As a result, the hurdle ishigh for startup companies seeking to enter this sector. However, it appears that specializing in aparticular sector enables startup companies to maximize their strengths.
The following columns of this report will introduce startup companies that are actually engaged in thedevelopment of robots. The first company is Life Robotics Inc., which aims to develop robots thatcooperate with people. The company believes that the development of co-robots (collaborative robots) is
suitable for startup companies that are able to take large risks. Another company is ispace technologies,
inc., which aims to develop lunar exploration robots. The company believes that the software sector in the
robotics industry is the sector in which startup companies are able to fully exert their capabilities.
Interviews were held with the representatives of each company.

Startup Companies and Robot Development- Concept of Co-robots (Collaborative Robots) -Life Robotics Inc.
Founder and CEO/CTO Woo-Keun Yoon

Decision to establish a company with the aim of commercializing robots
As a senior research scientist at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), I
was involved in research related mainly to industrial robots and nursing care and welfare robots. I took a leave fromthe AIST in January 2014, and I am now fully committed to activities of Life Robotics Inc., a robotics startup
company that was established in 2007.
While nursing care has gained an increasing amount of attention as a social issue and measures have been carriedout for the nursing care of the elderly, I felt that welfare for the physically challenged has been overlooked. This led
me to start undertaking research about nursing care and welfare robots, thinking that I might be able to help thephysically challenged become independent. People who have problems in their legs can get around in a wheelchair asthey go about their lives. However, life becomes much more difficult for people that develop problems with theirarms. To help these people, I desired to develop robots that could perform the functions of human arms. This
involved the development of co-robots (collaborative robots), with the basic concept of not only safely operating

I-18
Ⅰ－ 18

alongside people, but also capable of being safely and easily controlled by people with no real knowledge of robots.
As I continued my research and gradually started to form ideas for products, I found people who were eager toacquire them. However, the problem I faced was that AIST was a public research organization, and by nature it did
not run businesses that sold products. Naturally, there were no sales staff members. I felt certain amount of frustrationin that even if I was successful in my research, I would be unable to commercialize the results. I really began toquestion myself and wonder whether simply carrying out research on a product and waiting for someone tocommercialize it was the right approach to take. This questioning motivated me to establish a startup company bymyself.
Manufacturing industry and co-robots
Just as nursing care has become an important social issue, the shortage in workers in the manufacturing industry is
now another issue that needs to be addressed. China, where manufacturers of developed economies have built up
their operations, is about to enter a stage in which manufacturing dependent upon human resources is no longer able
to maintain a competitive advantage due to the effects of higher labor costs. Southeast Asia has emerged as the region
that will succeed China. However, the rapid pace at which labor costs are rising in Southeast Asia means that it will
likely experience the same problems as China in the near future. The era of business models dependent on lower
labor costs is coming to an end. Several years before the Obama administration, the United States adopted a policy ofbringing the manufacturing industry back to US soil to solve this problem. Similar movements are now being seen in
the EU. Partly due to the effects of the weak yen, there were emerging signs showing the manufacturing sector
starting to bring back operations that had been moved overseas. On the other hand, given the falling working age
population, labor shortages have also become especially serious in regional areas.
Currently, labor costs in developed economies are much higher than those in China and Southeast Asia. In thisenvironment, one of the most effective measures for controlling costs and becoming more competitive in countries
where labor costs are high is to introduce co-robots.
Co-robots are not replacements for people
Co-robots perform the simple repetitive tasks normally handled by workers. However, this does not mean that they
actually replace workers because the intelligence level of these robots is very low. There was a time in the past when
Toyota Motor promoted the automation of welding operations, but it has recently changed the policy and is now
working to develop welders. Once automated operations are established, technologies stop improving. Unlike humanbeings, robots are not able to create technologies or carry out research. Robots are only able to be tools that support
people, and in fact that is what they should be. If everything becomes automated, there is little likelihood that better
technologies will be created in the future.
People are able to have robots handle operations that they do not want to carry out or find to be tedious. In doingso, people become able to focus on more sophisticated issues or matters that will improve their skills, which in turns
helps technologies to further advance.
In short, the emergence of co-robots will never result in eliminating workers from the manufacturing line.
Realization of nursing care and welfare robots
Without the introduction of governmental policies, it will be difficult to develop a market for nursing care andwelfare robots. Even if this kind of market is developed, in the current environment I believe that society is only able
to accept relatively inexpensive robots for cost reasons. Moreover, if there is a need for people to look after theserobots, it will be difficult for robots to become widespread. However, these robots are different from the robots thatmany people often imagine. From both the technological and cost perspectives, at the present time I do not think that
we are capable of developing a robot like “Astro Boy” that can carry out tasks without relying on the assistance ofpeople.
I have been developing nursing care and welfare robots since my days at AIST, and I have now realized that theactual target is robots that support backyard operations. Essentially, we must meet the needs for the systemization andautomation of washing, cleaning, and other miscellaneous operations. When we succeed in doing this, I believe thatpeople will be able to increase the amount of time they spend in contact (communicating) with other people.

I-19
Ⅰ－ 19

Market size of industrial co-robots
The market size of industrial co-robots is very large because co-robots are expected to become the backbone of the
manufacturing industry in the future. Companies in the United States and Europe have moved ahead of Japan and are
actively developing co-robots. On May 13, 2015, Teradyne, Inc. acquired Universal Robots, a Danish startup
company involved with co-robots. The company was reportedly acquired at a value of more than ¥30 billion. We
have also seen the emergence of startup companies capable of raising enormous amounts of funds in excess of ¥10billion.
In Japan, the focus has been on nursing care and welfare robots. If Japan continues to remain focused purely onthese robots, it may fall behind the rest of the world.
Startup companies and robot development
The hurdle is very high for startup companies seeking to enter the field of robot development. Unlike the IT sector,
robots involve complicated hardware factors, and thus the fusion of hardware and software technologies is essential
to developing robots. In addition to the engineers who design machines and electric circuits, there is also a need forsoftware engineers. The development of robots can only start when a company has more than one competent engineer
with ample experience in these fields.
Repairing hardware after sales not only involves a significant amount of costs, but may also harm the reputation of
the company. Unlike software, it is not possible to apply a certain number of bug fixes after the hardware is sold.
Likewise, because the development of robots involves making and testing a number of trial products, the costs aremuch higher than those for software development. This also makes it difficult to for companies to enter the robot
development sector.
Manufacturing startup companies are generally created by people who already have an established certain trackrecord in related fields and are able to take advantage of their name value. This is particularly true in the robot sector.
Mr. Yoshiyuki Sankai of CYBERDYNE uses the name value of his status as a professor at the University of Tsukuba,
and I also use the name value of being associated with AIST.
Developing robots requires a certain amount of time to not only enhance the name value, but also to accumulatetechnologies. Including the period for basic research at the University of Tsukuba, more than 20 years have passed
since CYBERDYNE was founded. “Roomba,” a vacuum cleaning robot, was also developed by applying the resultsof research by Mr. Rodney Brooks, a former professor of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) who spent
more than 20 years at the institute. I have also accumulated more than 15 years of experience in research anddevelopment. So, while it can be said that most robotics startups are startups, in many regards some are not really
startups when one considers how long they have been around.
Strength of startup companies
Startup companies have their own unique strength that the existing major companies do not. The strength is thatthey are able to take major risks. Because startup companies have really nothing to lose, they are able to boldly takelarge risks and act as leaders in releasing new products and services that bring about significant innovation in theworld.
For example, Fuji Heavy Industries (Subaru) introduced the first vehicles in the industry equipped with automatic
break systems. Major automobile companies, such as Toyota, Honda and Nissan, also had automatic break systemtechnologies, but they had decided not to introduce vehicles equipped with automatic break systems because they felt
the risks of having to pay compensation and deal with boycott campaigns were too high in cases when malfunctions
or accidents occurred. Despite these risks, Subaru decided to take a chance and work to increase its market share. The
automatic break systems were accepted by society, and major companies soon began to follow in Subaru’s footsteps.
The approach Subaru adopted is the exact approach that startups would eventually adopt.
People who decide to take doctoral courses with the goal of establishing startup companies
In the United States, it is not unusual to see cases in which people take doctoral courses to establish startups.
Aiming at establishing startups, they learn the world’s top level technologies at universities, and then leave after they
identify target markets. In Japan, most students who take doctoral courses aim to become researchers. There are very
few cases in which students decide leave universities and venture out on their own. The same can be said at the AIST,
to which I belong. For people with the AIST, pay is reasonably high, the research environment is good, and they arecalled sensei or a doctor by people and treated well wherever they go. There is no need to take any risks. Almost no

I-20
Ⅰ－ 20

one leaves this wonderful research environment and works to establish a startup company.
Having said that, I feel that the situation has been gradually changing in Japan. There are a rising number ofstudents who are determined to develop robots that are useful for society. Life Robotics also accepts competentstudents as interns, and some students have joined Life Robotics after turning down job offers from major companies.
There are a growing number of staff members who left major manufacturing companies to join Life Robotics.
If more people take doctoral courses or join the AIST to pursue their desire to establish startup companies, we will
see a dramatic change occur in Japanese society.
The first thing that needs to happen is for more hardware startups to be founded
The number of software startups has been rising in tandem with the expansion of the IT market. In contrast, thenumber of hardware startups is extremely low. The hurdle for entering the hardware startup company sector is highbecause businesses must be competitive from the time they are established. Considering this situation, I would like to
see more hardware startups established by people spinning off from universities, research organizations, andmanufacturing companies. Hopefully more engineers will think “if Woo-Keun Yoon can do it, then so can I,” andestablish their own startup companies.
Although startup companies are said to be booming, the level of investment in Japan is unfortunately much lower
than what we see in the United States. Japan’s GDP is approximately half of that of the United States, and investment
in startup companies in Japan is only one tenth of the level in the United States. I do not think we can say startup
companies are booming until the level of investment reaches at least the GDP ratio between the two countries, orapproximately five times greater than the current investment level.
I believe that the future of Japan is in great peril. I am gripped by a sense of crisis, and fear that it will be too late
to rebuild Japan unless the necessary measures are taken now while Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is working torevitalize the economy.
I personally think that it is difficult for startup companies to grow in the nursing care and welfare robot market, but
my honest feeling is that somebody will overcome these difficulties in the future. I hope that competent startups will
emerge and take an active role in the nursing care and welfare robot market.
I think we need to develop an environment that allows for the creation of numerous hardware and software startup
companies that exhibit a world-class level of competitiveness and capable of applying this advantage to support
Japan.

I-21
Ⅰ－ 21

Space Development Led by Startup Companies- Realizing People Living in Space by Using Robots ispace technologies, inc.
CEO & Founder Takeshi Hakamada
COO Takahiro Nakamura
ispace and Team HAKUTO
ispace technologies, inc. (ispace) has entered a joint research agreement with Professor Kazuya Yoshida fromTohoku University. Under the agreement, it currently manages Team HAKUTO, a group that seeks to carry out lunar
exploration. The goal of ispace is to develop businesses that use robotics in space, and it is now recruiting individuals
with a firm background in technology.
A number of volunteer staff members have also participated in Team HAKUTO, and they manage events andpromotion through social networking services. Graduate students from Professor Yoshida’s laboratory have taken partin the project as well.
The team is comprised of a variety of members. However, everyone shares the common goal of winning theGoogle Lunar XPRIZE (GLXP; a competition sponsored by Google for unmanned lunar robotic exploration in theprivate sector), so I have not experienced many problems in managing the team. I think that the most important
aspect of managing the team is setting up an environment in which team members are able to remain freely engagedin activities.
In Japan, it is very difficult to raise funds for projects labeled with the term “space”. ispace receives investmentsfrom venture capital (VC) firms, including Incubate Fund, and other investors, such as angel investors. However,these investments are not intended for Team HAKUTO. Instead of identifying itself with terms like “robots” and“space”, Team HAKUTO has adopted a business model in which sponsors make investments in the advertisingbusiness. ispace plans to produce prototype products through Team HAKUTO, and in the future use them in the
robotics business. ispace receives investments from investors who support this plan.
Guided by the concepts of “expand our planet” and “expand our future,” we aim to achieve the dream of people
living in space by using robots. In order for people to settle in space, we need to develop economic zones in space. To
develop these economic zones, resources must be developed. To meet these needs, robots will be used to develop
resources. This is the scenario that we depict.
Robot technologies can also be applied on Earth. Therefore, in the long-term prospective, I am thinking about the
robotics business on Earth as well as in space. However, at present, I am not necessarily focusing on the Earth part ofthis business right now.
Hurdles startup companies face when they enter the robotics industry
We have seen a rising number of robotics startup companies join the ranks of manufacturing startup companies.
Yet, it is harder for startups to enter the robotics industry than it is to enter the IT industry. In the case of IT
development, the major barrier is securing people who can handle computers and programming. Moreover, we haveseen the emergence of an environment in which even people that lack the most sophisticated technologies can handle
programming.
In the robotics industry, people are not only required to have the knowledge of software but also hardware. In
addition, they are required to have the ability to link these two technologies. For this reason, the hurdles for entering
the robotics industry are much higher than those for the IT industry. Moreover, the higher costs that stem from thefact that the development of robots also involves manufacturing makes it harder for startup companies to enter theindustry.
While much attention is given to hardware in robot development, the software used is also important. For example,
a network that links individual robots is extremely important when using multiple small-scale robots to develop
services. I believe that the importance of software will grow in the future. Existing companies that have been
producing massive and heavy products are not accustomed to the development of services centered on software. In
the robotics industry, I think that startup companies are able to create businesses in the software sector. The fact thatcosts of developing software are not as high as hardware is one reason why startup companies are able to enter thesoftware sector more easily.
In the United States, Google is working to develop a Robot Operation System (ROS), a common platform ofsoftware parts for robots. I think that the development of the ROSs will potentially lower the entry hurdle, allowing agreater number of startup companies to enter the robotics industry more easily.

I-22
Ⅰ－ 22

In addition, I believe we will see the development of platforms not only in software, but also in hardware to acertain extent. The three elements of robots are sensors, brains (computers), and operation devices. The basic
function of robots is to sense objects through their sensors, use their computers to make judgments, and perform
operations through their operation devices. People may think that computers are the main part of robots, but thefunction of operations is also important. I think there is a possibility that operation device platforms will be
developed in the future.
Space industry and IT industry
Robots by themselves will not become its own major industry. They require other industries in which they can beutilized. With the participation of human resources from the IT industry, it will become possible to use robots toprovide services and thus create added value. This, in turn, means that industries which use robots will emerge.
Similar developments are also taking place in the space industry. In the United States, Planet Labs, Inc. is working
to launch hundreds of small satellites into Earth orbit and develop systems in which satellite photos are updated every
hour. The goal of this project is not to launch satellites. Instead, this project presents a different application target,
which is the provision of a real time ground map. Planet Labs, Inc. apparently claims that its business domain falls
within the IT industry, not the aerospace industry.
The business model of the space industry is very similar to the one in the IT industry. The structure of the industry
is organized in a way that allows space to be used as a means for obtaining and providing information.
Space development led by startup companies in the United States
The basic framework for space development up until now is for government organizations (NASA, JAXA, etc.) tospearhead projects and for them to use major companies as their subcontractors. However, in the future privatecompanies are likely to be the leaders in space development. For example, the United States established a policy tocommercialize space development in 2010. A major reason for this is that it has become difficult for the government
to allocate part of the national budget for space development. Nevertheless, the government has adopted a policy that
entrusts private companies with operations they are capable of handling, and when necessary NASA will acquire theservices private companies provide. NASA has fully adopted the policy, and this move has encouraged a number ofstartup companies to enter the space industry. One successful example stemming from this development is Space
Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX). Planet Labs, Inc. is another startup company established through aspin-off by former NASA employees.
In Japan, the market size of the space industry is so small that there is very little room for startup companies toenter the market. Startup companies in Japan have always been much more stagnant than those in Silicon Valley.
When it comes to space, businesses remain very rigid. In contrast to NASA’s annual budget of approximately $18
billion, the annual budget of JAXA in Japan is about $2 billion. This difference perfectly reflects the differences
between Silicon Valley and Japan when it comes to investing in startup companies. The United States also excels inthe space industry partly because the country has a significantly large amount of funds coming from the military
budget that is also used in space development. In Japan, because the budget scale is quite small, there is almost no
room to allocate experimental funds to private companies. There was the case of the Maido No. 1 satellite, in which a
project was carried out with cooperation of small-to-medium-sized companies, but thus far I believe there has beenno attempt to adopt innovation through full-fledged cooperation with startup companies.
The space industry in Japan is a “space community.” JAXA stands at the top of this community, and orders frombusinesses are placed with IHI and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. This setup makes it difficult for parties outside thecommunity to enter the industry. It also poses great dangers. Innovation takes place when ideas are combined withother sectors. As we have seen with the establishment of SpaceX in the United States by Mr. Elon Musk, a former
employee of PayPal Inc., there are people and businesses from other industries that have entered the space industry.
VCs in the United States invest in startup companies related to space because the space industry is gradually
becoming an industry that uses software and is likely to grow in the future. An industry that excludes outsiders likethe space industry does in Japan will miss out on opportunities to expand.
Misconception that consumer products cannot be used in space
Many people think that space development requires cutting-edge and special technologies, but that is a
misconception. While it is true that space development requires more extensive technological expertise because spaceis different from the environment on Earth, space development up until now has been carried out by using large

I-23
Ⅰ－ 23

amounts of taxes under government direction. As a result, it has always carried the restriction that failure was totally
unacceptable. Thus, technological development has been conducted in an overly protective manner. However, it has
become clear that it is not necessary to be so overly protective, and now existing technologies can be used as theyare. For example, NASA successfully carried out an experiment in which they launched smartphones into space andtook pictures of Earth. This means that consumer products can be used in space. Of course, it does not mean that all
consumer products can be used in space, but there are a number of consumer products that can be used after a few
small adjustments are made. Present consumer products are light and sophisticated, and this light weight means thatless energy is needed to launch them into space. I believe that the availability of consumer products will bring greater
flexibility to space development in the future.
In addition, the fact that consumer products can be used in a severe environment such as space suggests that they
can potentially be used in environments on Earth where people cannot go, such as contaminated nuclear power plants
and volcanos.

Robots that fulfill and expand the capabilities of human beings
A perfect and fully-automated robot is unlikely to be created overnight. I think the natural progression is for robots
that stand in for and expand the capabilities of human beings, such as HAL from CYBERDYNE, to be widely used
first. In the case of fully-automated robots, significantly higher levels of safety standards are required. Therefore,
from the social perspective of introducing robots, I think that it will be faster to create robots that expand thecapabilities of humans. I believe that the lunar robotic exploration machine we are developing is an example of arobot that fulfills and expands the capabilities of humans in the sense that it can enter places people cannot andmonitor objects for people.
The capabilities that robots fulfill are not limited to physical aspects, but also extend to psychological aspects. For
example, if robots can handle the excretion of waste in nursing care, the psychological burdens of both caregivers
and the people receiving care will be reduced. This also means that robots can fulfill the psychological needs ofhumans.
In short, robots do not fulfill all the things that people have been doing. Instead, I believe that they will slowly takeon more activities in the future. This type of approach is considered to be better suited for startup companies that canoperate with more flexibility than large-scale companies.
Japan’s technological capabilities and future outlook
I think that in general Japan’s robot technologies have been making progress, although the degree of progress
varies by sector. However, it seems that technologies are more concentrated in the hardware sector. In addition, in the
United States, when demand from the military is on the rise, technologies make quick and substantial progress. Thislevel of advancement is not seen in Japan at the present time.
Japan also has a tendency not to immediately appreciate the technologies it creates. This is perfectly demonstrated
by the case of HAL, which was approved in Germany before it was approved in Japan. In our case, winning the
GLXP Milestone Prize has also helped to enhance our presence in Japan.
Having said that, there are startup companies with superior technologies like SCHAFT that have been establishedin Japan. There is no doubt that the United States is also paying attention to Japanese robotics startup companies andclosely monitoring potential opportunities to learn new technologies.
In the case of Japan, miniaturization is likely to be a key factor. Japan is extremely good at developing small parts.
Small factories in Tsubamesanjo in Niigata Prefecture and in Ota-ku, Tokyo may achieve ground-breaking
innovations in the future.
Looking at space development, the Cabinet Office of Japan is aiming to act as control tower. This commitment isreflected in the establishment of the Office of National Space Policy. The government appears to be aiming todevelop the private space industry. However, because there is a limit to the plans the government can conceive on its
own, lobbying efforts will play an important role in the future. In the United States, space-related startup companies
actively lobby the government. For example, SpaceX urges the government to establish regulations that allow privatecompanies to launch rockets. The lobbying efforts of Ansari X Prize have opened the road to space flights by privatecompanies. It also appears to be conducting activities to gain approval for the ownership of space under federal
legislation in order to pave the way for the resources development business in space. These are all the results oflobbying efforts of space-related startup companies.
The nature of the policies adopted by governments in the future and how private companies approach these official
policies will also play an important part in the robot sector.

I-24
Ⅰ－ 24

3． Support of the Government and Related Organizations for Startup Companies
One of the policy pillars of the Japan Revitalization Strategy (growth strategy) announced by thegovernment in late June 2013 was support for startup companies.
The “Industry Revitalization Plan” was among three action plans set out in the growth strategy. The
following venture support initiatives were listed in the plan under the promotion of startup investments
and re-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
and equipment can be replaced with the state-of-the-art assets. R&D aimed at retaking a global leadshould be accelerated. Funds, human resources, and facilities/equipment should be actively mobilized in
growth sectors. Bold business restructuring should be pushed through by companies and industries topromote this turnover.
KPI
Raise the entry and exit rate to the 10% range, which is on a par with rates in the USA and the UK(from the current rate of around 5%), while ensuring that the firm entry rate exceeds the exit rate.
Venture Support Initiatives under the Industry Revitalization Plan
○ Cultivating personnel who bear responsibility to create venture businesses and other new businesses,

personnel who have mature judgment and supporting personnel○ Encouraging individuals to invest in business ventures (improving operation of the tax system forangel)○ Encouraging the private sector to invest in business ventures (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○ Utilizing operating resources of existing companies (supporting spin-off and carve-out, and promoting

open innovation)
In June 2015, the government announced the Japan Revitalization Strategy (Growth Strategy) 2015,
revealing its plans to establish a venture ecosystem as a key policy measure in the revised strategy.

● Establishment of a venture ecosystem
The progress of digitalization and networking has sparked significant and ongoing changes in global
business models. To set off industrial restructuring that has an impact on the economy, the creation of new
industries by startup businesses is especially important.
In particular, it is essential to develop competitive companies on a global scale. A mechanism (a global
venture ecosystem) for creating global startup businesses needs to be established. Working through thismechanism, startup businesses tackle challenges in the global market from the domestic market, or
establish overseas operations and bring innovation to the domestic market and domestic players.

I-25
Ⅰ－ 25

Venture Support Initiatives under the Japan Revitalization Strategy (Growth Strategy) 2015
○ Establish new undergraduate and graduate school systems for formulation of international hubs forinnovation/venture creation.
○ Silicon Valley-Japan Bridge Project (the Kakehashi Project).*○ Coordination with global venture ecosystems.
○ New legislative measures to promote utilization IT.
○ Develop global startups that will support the digital and network age.
○ Develop R&D startup businesses and establish an ecosystem by utilizing Japan’s strengths.
○ Strengthen the functions of R&D companies and actively introduce the cross-appointment system.
○ Promote the supply of funds for medium-to-long-term growth by using private funds.
○ Promote the use of IT that will contribute to regional revitalization.

* Silicon Valley-Japan Bridge Project (the Kakehashi Project)
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe announced the Silicon Valley-Japan Bridge Project (Kakehashi Project) in
the first part of the speech he gave at a symposium held on April 30, 2015 at Stanford University during
his visit to Silicon Valley.
Project for a Bridge of innovation between Silicon Valley and Japan (in Japanese: Kakehashi)
Bridge forcompanies

Dispatch small-to-medium-scale companies and startup to sectors such as robotics, biotech,and medical care.
(200 companies are expected to be dispatched over a period of five years.)

Bridge forhuman
resources

Dispatch human resources, such as business people in charge of new businesses at large
companies and entrepreneurs.
(Around 120 people participated in a program in Japan, and 20 participants were dispatched in
October 2015.)[Refer to page I-34, “Program for Fostering Global Entrepreneurs”).]

Bridge foropportunities

Hold business matching events and symposiums both in Tokyo and Silicon Valley.
(Source: Documents prepared by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry)

As of September 30, 2015, the Program for Fostering Global Entrepreneurs has been launched. This
program, which serves as a bridge for human resources, represents the first step forward in this project.

I-26
Ⅰ－ 26

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 below, METI has been providing venture support through the Organization for Small &Medium Enterprises and Regional Innovation, Japan, the Japan External Trade Organization, the New
Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, the National Institute of Advanced
Industrial Science and Technology, and the Information-technology Promotion Agency, Japan.
Government agencies other than METI have also promoted a wide range of venture support initiatives.
See below for details on the activities of each government agency.

I-27
Ⅰ－ 27

List of Venture Support Activities Carried out by the Government and Related Organizations
Operator

Economic and Industrial
Policy Bureau
New Business Policy Office

Implementation Details
The Expert Meeting on Venture Business
Proposals for Venture Policies at the Council for
Industrial Competitiveness
The Venture Business Creation Council
Startup/large company collaboration events
Program for Supporting the Creation of Venture
Businesses that Tackle Cutting-edge Issues
Program for Developing Global Entrepreneurs
Angel Tax System
Startup Company Investment Promotion System
Network for Promoting Entrepreneurship Education at
Universities and Graduate Schools
Entrepreneurship Education Promotion Project

Business Creation School
Small and Medium Enterprise Partial amendment of the Act on Ensuring the Receipt
Agencyof Orders from the Government and Other Public
Agencies by Small and Medium-sized Enterprises

Ministry of
Economy,Trade andIndustry

Funds to spur growth of startups
Japan Venture Awards
Organization for Small & Provision of incubator facilities
Medium Enterprises and Operation of Venture Investment Navi website
Operation of BusiNest, startup business and new
Regional Innovation, Japanbusiness support facilities
Operation of TIP*S, an event space
Japan External Trade
Organization (JETRO)JETRO Innovation Program,a program to support intellectual property application
businesses in Japan
Program to support overseas applications by medium
and small enterprises

Innovation Commercialization Venture Support Project
New Energy Venture Business Technology Innovation
ProgramR&D Venture Support Program
Problem-solution Welfare Equipment
New Energy and Industrial
Commercialization Development Support Program
Technology Development
Innovative Manufacturing Industries Creative
Organization (NEDO)
Collaboration and Promotion Project (contract project
type)
Program to Promote R&D for Bridging Medium andSmall Enterprises
Open Innovation Council
Business development task force
National Institute of Advanced Carve-out projects
Industrial Science andSupport system for AIST start-ups
Technology (AIST）
Investments in things such as AIST equipment, patentrights, etc.
Information-technology
Promotion Agency, Japan(IPA)

Holding the MITOH Symposium

I-28
Ⅰ－ 28

Operator
Science and Technology
Policy Bureau
Higher Education Bureau
Ministry of
Education,
Culture, Sports,
Science andTechnology
Japan Science andTechnology Agency (JST）Implementation Details
Enhancing Development of Global Entrepreneur
Program (EDGE Program)
Public-Private Innovation Program
Creating STart-ups from Advanced Research andTechnology (START)Support Program of Capital Contribution to EarlyStage Companies （SUCCESS）
Award for Academic Startups
Innovation Hub Development Support Program

Technology Policy Division,
Global ICT Strategy Bureau

Ministry ofInternal Affairs
andNational Institute ofCommunications Information andSpecial Framework for Creative People: (inno) vation
Program
I-Challenge! (ICT Innovation Creation Challenge
Program)
Kigyouka Koshien - a business competition in whichyoung people—including students of colleges oftechnology, universities, and graduate schools
Communications Technology
Kigyouka Expo - an event for ICT startups(NICT)

Ministry of
Health, Labourand Welfare

Clarifying the provision of the basic allowance for
employment insurance to people who prepare for or
Employment Security Bureau
consider starting up new businesses during their jobseeking periods

Cabinet Office

Office for Promotion ofRegional Revitalization

National Strategic Special Zone (Initiatives forbusiness creation and starting)

New Business Creation
Division

Program to promote the creation of the sixth industry
and other new industries (commercialization possibility
survey)Sixth industry creation network activity subsidies(verification of the commercialization of newtechnologies, etc.)

Japan Finance Corporation

Capital loans
High School Student Business Plan Grand Prix

Ministry ofAgriculture,
Forestry and
Fisheries

Government
AffiliatedFinancial
Institutions

Public-private
fund

Development Bank of Japan DBJ Women Entrepreneurs New Business Plan
Inc.
Competition
Innovation Network
Corporation of Japan

Funds to spur the growth of startups

Regional Economy
Vitalization Corporation ofJapan

Provision of funds to spur the growth of startup
businesses, etc. that contribute to the vitalization of
local economies and management support

Cool Japan Fund Inc.

Provision of funds to spur the growth of startup
businesses, etc. related to the development ofoverseas demand

In this section, the venture support measures that were implemented between FY 2014 and FY 2015 arelisted (pioneering support measures, including those that have been implemented on a consistent basis,are also listed).

I-29
Ⅰ－ 29

■ Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
The New Business Policy Office of the Economic and Industrial Policy Bureau in the Ministry of
Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) has engaged in a wide range of activities to support startups,
including the management of the Expert Meeting on Venture Business, the planning, development andimplementation of venture policies to achieve the key performance indicators set out in the Japan
Revitalization Strategy, the establishment of the Venture Business Creation Council, the creation ofventure support personnel networks, and the 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 results ofthe discussions were compiled into a final report and released in April 2014.
st
3rd: March 31, 2014
Schedule 1 : December 4, 2013nd
2 : January 27, 2014
Report: April 14, 2014
【Report on Expert Meeting on Venture Business】（Source: Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, “Report on the Expert Meeting on Venture Business”）

I-30
Ⅰ－ 30

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 forthe planning 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.
Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
Items Presented in “Creating a Virtuous Cycle of Venture Creation”
Item

Details

1. Creation of venturesby the entire Japanese
economy(1) Creating the 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(1) Promoting the use of venture companies in government procurement(2) Implementing bold tax measures for ventures, etc.
(3) Reconsidering the portfolio of public and quasi-public funds(4) Providing support to ventures through national projects(1) Entrepreneurship education from the primary school level(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

2. Implementation ofbold structural reforms

3. Human resources:
Mindset reforms andentrepreneur support toback up ventures thattake on challenges(Source: “Creating a Virtuous Cycle of Venture Creation” (April 16, 2014, Report to Minister of Economy, Tradeand Industry Toshimitsu Motegi) explained at the third joint meeting of the Council on Economic and Fiscal Policy
and the Industrial Competitiveness Council, the Headquarters for Japan’s Economic Revitalization)

3. Establishment of the Venture Business Creation Council
A report was compiled by the Expert Meeting on Venture Business (mentioned in item 1 above) in
April 2014. Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry Yuko Obuchi announced the establishment of thiscouncil at the Conference for Commemorating the Establishment of the Venture Business Creation
Council in September 2014, and indicated that it would tackle the challenge of developing anenvironment in Japan for facilitating many startups and their growth, an issue cited in the report. The
Venture Business Creation Council aims to create a virtuous cycle of venture creation in Japan byfacilitating collaboration between large/middle market companies and ventures under the broad vision ofsociety as a whole taking on new challenges.
The council aims to create a major social movement for venture creation by inviting participation from

I-31
Ⅰ－ 31

venture support institutions such as major companies, startup companies, VC, attorneys, accountants, andtax accountants, financial institutions, universities, and government affiliated institutions to provide aforum for holding business matching events and exchanging information on human resource development
programs.
In January 2015, the Venture Business Creation Council hosted the commendation ceremony of theFirst Nippon Venture Awards. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe presented the Prime Minister’s Award toeuglena Co., Ltd.

4. Startup/Large Company Collaboration Events
METI hosted or sponsored the following events from FY 2014 to FY 2015 as part of its activities tosupport venture businesses.
Venture Support Events by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
Name of Event

Date

Venue

Remarks

Conferencefor

September

Toranomon

Hosted by METI.

Commemorating

the

2014

Hills

Announced the establishment of the
Venture Business Creation Council

Establishment of the Venture
Business Creation Council

Hosted by the Tokyo Innovation Leaders
Summit Committee, supported by METI.

The Second Tokyo Innovation
Leaders Summit

A business matching event where 97 large
companies

and

447

next-generation

ventures gathered
NipponVentureAwardsJanuary 2015

Commendation Ceremony

The Hotel

Of the 153 applications nationwide, one

New Otanicompany was selected for the Prime
Minister’s Award (Nippon Venture Award),
two companies were selected for the
METI

Minister’sAwards,andtwocompanies were selected for the Special
Jury Awards.
New

Business

SupportCreation

Conference

Hosted by the Venture Business Creation&

Council, METI, JNB, and NBC, andConnect!

sponsored by the National Institute for
Policy Studies, and the Japan Innovation
Network. An event organized around thethemes of “open innovation” and “newbusiness creation”

The Third Tokyo Innovation
Leaders Summit

October 2015

Toranomon
Hills

Hosted by the Tokyo Innovation Leaders
Summit Committee, supported by METI.
A business matching event where 112
large companies and 488 next-generation
startups gathered

I-32
Ⅰ－ 32

5. Program for Supporting the Creation of Venture Businesses that Tackle Cutting-edge
Issues (FY 2014 supplementary budget)
METI invited applications for a team that supported entrepreneurs from FY 2014 to FY 2015. The
selected supporters have implemented a model business to support Seed stage startups and have createdsupport networks, while also sharing expertise on providing support within the working group.
Invitation of Applications for Venture Supporter Team
Item

Details

Program description- Creating a supporting personnel working group (WG) 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 and training
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 that is heldroughly four times a year; reporting results and issues of support activities
to the supporter meeting

Application periodst

1 application: February 10, 2015 to March 6, 2015nd2
Responsible officeapplication: May 11, 2015 to May 29, 2015

New Business Policy Office, Economic and Industrial Policy Bureau, Ministryof Economy, Trade and Industry(Source: Invitation of Applications for Venture Supporter Team regarding the Program for Supporting the Creation of
Venture Businesses that Tackle Cutting-edge Issues)

I-33
Ⅰ－ 33

6. Program for Fostering Global Entrepreneurs (FY 2015 initial budget)
The program aims to develop entrepreneurs who create new businesses with ambitious goals, such as
developing operations in the global market and solving social issues, and in-house entrepreneurs who are
engaged in the development of new businesses in large companies and other organizations.
Invitation of Applications to the Program for Fostering Global Entrepreneurs
Item
Program objective

Details- Developing core human resources that will be involved with the next
generation of innovations by providing opportunities for acquiring effective
methods and mindsets for creating innovations to entrepreneurs whocreate new businesses with ambitious goals, such as developing
operations in the global market and solving social issues, and in-houseentrepreneurs who are engaged in the development of new businesses inlarge companies and other organizations

Program description- 120 participants passed the primary selection and participated in programsin Japan six times. 20 of these participants were selected and dispatchedto Silicon Valley.
- Experienced business persons participated in the program in Japan as
lecturers and mentors. The participants learned the skills and theknow-how to innovate through business and organizational reforms.
- In the Silicon Valley program, the participants presented business plansthat they created and prepared to mentors and entrepreneurs from Silicon
Valley. Through dialogues simulating real life situations, the participants
were able to practice the skills that they had gained in the program inJapan.

Application period
Responsible office

From May 1, 2015 to May 31, 2015
New Business Policy Office, Economic and Industrial Policy Bureau, Ministryof Economy, Trade and Industry

I-34
Ⅰ－ 34

7. Angel Tax System
The angel tax system provides tax incentives to investors who make angel investments in startup
companies that meet certain requirements.
Benefit A (for investments in companies less than three years old): Amount of investment inventure is deducted from taxable income for the year
* The limit on the amount of investment is up to 40% of taxable income or ¥10
million.
Benefit B (for investment in companies less than 10 years old): Amount of investment in venture
is deducted from capital gain on stock sales for the year
* There is no 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 meetingcertain requirements
Considering that the adoption of the angel tax system is not increasing as expected, METI is promoting
the system by implementing a series of initiatives, including the renewal of the Angel tax system website
and the development of Angel tax system assessment sheets.

8. Startup Company Investment Promotion System
The system gives preferential tax treatment to companies that provide funds to startup companies
through qualified VC funds with hands-on support skills. More specifically, 80% of investments made instartups are deductible as a loss reserve.
To date, METI has approved three specified new business investment plans based on the Industrial
Competitiveness Enhancement Act for venture funds. (For more details, see the Ministry of Economy,
Trade and Industry website.)

9. 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 industry. As a part of this effort, the network is holding the University Venture Grand Prix, anationwide business plan competition for schools providing entrepreneurship education.

10. Entrepreneurship Education Promotion Project
METI manages the program designed to improve entrepreneurship education and increase the numberof individuals that possess the entrepreneurial spirit—which is characterized by ambitious disposition,
sense of creativity, and inquisitive mind—and other abilities by providing primary and junior high school
students opportunities to meet local entrepreneurs and by carrying out model initiatives. In managing the

I-35
Ⅰ－ 35

program, METI works through private groups and other organizations to cooperate with primary andjunior high schools and municipalities to support forward-looking initiatives, such as providing
opportunities to meet with entrepreneurs and visit workplaces.
Invitation of Applications for the Entrepreneurship Education Promotion Project
Item

Details

Program

The program aims to develop and increase the number of individuals that possess

objectivethe entrepreneurial spirit (ambitious disposition, sense of creativity, inquisitive mind,
and other abilities) and the qualities and capabilities of entrepreneurs (informationcollection and analysis capabilities, judgment, execution capabilities, leadership,communication

capabilities,

and

other

capabilities)bycarrying

out

entrepreneurship education at primary and junior high schools. In addition, METI
will broadly promote the importance of and know-how related to entrepreneurshipeducation, and develop a sustainable and practical model of entrepreneurshipeducation that is rooted in the local community.
Program

METI invites applications from schools nationwide for entrepreneurship education

description

model schools (or model school consortiums) to promote entrepreneurshipeducation at primary and junior high schools nationwide, and it provides support forlabor costs (including costs for advisors and lecturers), teaching materials costs
and other costs related to the implementation of the entrepreneurship education
program.

Application

From May 15, 2015 to June 12, 2015

periodResponsible

New Business Policy Office, Economic and Industrial Policy Bureau, Ministry of

officeEconomy, Trade and Industry

I-36
Ⅰ－ 36

■ Small and Medium Enterprise Agency

1. Business Creation School
To increase the business entry rate from the current rate of 4.8% to the 10% range, which would be on
a par with rates in the USA and the UK, the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency has been managing theBusiness Creation School nationwide since FY2014. The Business Creation School aims to help
tomorrow’s entrepreneurs acquire basic knowledge and to develop business plans. The agency continues
to manage the school in FY2015, and plans to offer approximately 270 courses nationwide.

【Business Creation School】
Entrustment

Re‐entrustment

Entrepreneur,etc.

Supportorganization

Privateorganization, etc.
Government

Support【Entrepreneur Education Business】

SupportPrivate organization, etc.
Entrustment

Collaboration

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

College 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)

FY2014 Achievement of Business Creation School
Item
Summary

School location/
Number of courses
Number ofparticipantsParticipation fees
Operation

Responsible officeDetails
Providing support for business startups by preparing curriculums such as
business management, marketing, accounting, tax, and others for people whoare planning to start businesses in the region or those who try to make a second
attempt, and providing them with support to acquire the knowledge andknow-how necessary when starting a business and developing business plans
Number of schools opened: 222 schools nationwide
Number of courses offered: 282 courses in total
Approximately 3,200
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: Small and Medium Enterprise Agency)

I-37
Ⅰ－ 37

2. Partial Revision of the Act on Ensuring the Receipt of Orders from the Government andOther Public Agencies by Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (Public Sector Demand
Act)
The Small and Medium Enterprise Agency submitted the Bill for the Act for Partial Revision of the Act
on Ensuring the Receipt of Orders from the Government and Other Public Agencies by Small andMedium-Sized Enterprises and Other Acts (Act for Demand Creation for SMEs) in the 2015 ordinary Diet
session. The act was enacted in July.
Partial Revision of the Public Sector Demand Act
Item

Details

Purpose of
the revision of
the act

Encouraging newly launched SMEs to receive orders from the government and publicagencies to expand the virtuous economic cycle throughout the entire country

Main outline

To expand opportunities of SMEs established within ten years (newly-established SMEs)
to receive orders- Stipulating that special consideration be given to newly-established SMEs
- Formulating a government contracting policy that stipulates the setting of a numericalgoal for contracts to be concluded with newly-established SMEs and the formulationof measures for increasing these opportunities- Stipulating that ministries and agencies formulate a policy for making a contract with
newly-established SMEs, based on the respective situation of each individual ministry- Stipulating that ministries and agencies publicize the contracted orders with
newly-established SMEs
July 7, 2015

Date enacted
Date
enforced
Responsible
officeAugust 10, 2015
Fair Trade Division, Business Environment Department, Small and Medium Enterprise
Agency(Source: Small and Medium Enterprise Agency)







I-38
Ⅰ－ 38

■ Organization for Small & Medium Enterprises and Regional Innovation, JAPAN (SME Support, JAPAN)
In July 2010, the Organization for Small & Medium Enterprises and Regional Innovation, JAPAN(SME Support, JAPAN) realigned its fund investment business into the Venture Fund, SME Growth
Capital & Buyout Fund, and SME Turnaround Fund.
Among these three funds, the 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 Lehman Brothers collapse, SME
Support, JAPAN continues to invest in VC funds and is playing a substantial role as an LP.
Venture Fund and SME Growth Capital & Buyout Fund Operated by SME Support, JAPAN1. Fund formation:
SME Support, JAPANinvests a maximum of 50%
of total funds as an LP.
2. Investment targets:
Small and midsizedenterprises that are at thedevelopment or early growthstage and aim to achieve
new growth or expansion.
3. Support mechanism:
Providing
such

funds

measuresthroughsuchasacquisition of equity and（Source: SME Support, JAPAN）

bonds with warrants.

Trend of SME Support, JAPAN’s Fund Investments【Total value of funds invested in SME Support, JAPAN】
2008

2009

Venture Fund (Before FY 2011)（\ millions）

2010

2011

2013

2014

4,040

Regional Support Fund

1,000

1,120

Venture Fund (Since FY 2011)
SME Growth Capital & Buyout Fund
5,040

11,842

3,000

3,270

935

4,750

3,136

5,400

58,85542,492

61,28975,86648,291

6,520

61,85545,76262,22480,616【SME Support, JAPAN Capital commitment】
2008

51,427（\ millions）

2009

Venture Fund (Before FY 2011)

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

End of
September
2015

5,000

Ganbare! SME Fund

2,000

Regional Support Fund

500

520

Venture Fund (Since FY 2011)
SME Growth Capital & Buyout Fund
Total

End of
September
2015

11,842Ganbare! SME Fund

Total

2012

2,500

5,000

1,400

1,500

450

2,000

750

1,300

21,00014,40026,44024,15018,1901,820

22,40015,90026,89026,15018,940Note 1: Values in the figure exclude those of the SME Turnaround Fund, Industrial Reconstruction Corporation Fund, and BusinessContinuity Fund.
Note 2: Values in the figure are the amounts when SME Support, JAPAN entered investment contracts.
Note 3: Values in the figure are rounded amounts.
Note 4: Value of SME Growth Capital & Buyout Fund includes certain investments in buyout funds.

（Source: SME Support, JAPAN）

I-39
Ⅰ－ 39

Trend of SME Support, JAPAN’s Fund Investments（¥ Billions）

35
30（26.9）（26.2）
2.0
0.5（22.4）

25

1.4

20

（18.9）
0.8（15.9）
1.5

15

26.4

21.0

10

24.2
18.2

14.4

5

（1.3）
1.3

0

2010

2011

2012

2013

SME Growth Capital & Buyout Fund2014

End of
September
2015

Venture Fund

（Source: SME Support, JAPAN, Prepared by VEC）
Note 1: Values in the figure exclude those of the SME Turnaround Fund, Industrial Reconstruction Corporation Fund,and Business Continuity Fund.
Note 2: Values in the figure are the amounts when SME Support, JAPAN entered investment contracts.
Note 3: Value of SME Growth Capital & Buyout Fund includes certain investments in buyout funds.

Total Value of Funds Invested by SME Support, JAPAN, and Total Value of its Investments（¥ Billions）
100

80

60

50%
43% 80.6

36%
28%

61.9

35%

37%

32%

62.2

40%

30%

51.4
45.8

20%

40
22.4
20
6.5

26.9

26.2
18.9

15.9

10%

1.8
0%

0

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

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

End of
September
2015（Source: SME Support, JAPAN, Prepared by VEC）
Note 1: Values in the figure exclude those of the SME Turnaround Fund, Industrial Reconstruction Corporation Fund, andBusiness Continuity Fund.
Note 2: Values in the figure are the amounts when SME Support, JAPAN entered investment contracts.
Note 3: Value of SME Growth Capital & Buyout Fund includes certain investments into buyout funds.

I-40
Ⅰ－ 40

Summary of Funds Invested by SME Support, JAPAN
Number of funds

Fund type

FY2014FY2015

Venture Fund

1

1

SME Growth Capital & Buyout Fund

10

9

94.9

51.9

Total Value of Funds （\ Billions）
Note 1: Values for FY2015 are based on the end of September.

Note 2: Values exclude those of the SME Turnaround Fund, Industrial Reconstruction Corporation Fund and BusinessContinuity Fund.
(Source: SME Support, JAPAN)

In addition to investing in funds, SME Support, JAPAN has been providing a wide range of support
since FY 2001, including the presentation of awards to outstanding startups, the provision of incubator
facilities, and the delivery of VC/VB information. It has also been engaged in new support programs
since FY2014, including the management of BusiNest, a startup support and new business support facility,
and TIP*S, a base for exchanging information and activities that functions as a venue to support new
business creation.
Startup Support Activities of SME Support, JAPAN
Item
Award

Details
Holding the Japan Venture Awards

Responsible officeStartup and Venture

An annual award program established to honor startup company

Business Support

executives (15th in 2015)

Division, Business（http://j-venture.smrj.go.jp/outline/index.html）
Provision of

A list of business incubators

incubator（http://www.smrj.go.jp/incubation/054808.html）

Support Department

facilities
Provision of

Operation of “Venture Investment Navi” website

Fund Management

VC/VB（https://vdb.smrj.go.jp/viis/REF_BP001_SCR002.action）

Department

Provision ofManagement of BusiNest, a startup support and new business support

Tokyo SME University

facilities

facility（Providing office spaces, a variety of seminars, and otherinformation

services at Tokyo SME University）（http://businest.smrj.go.jp/)
Holding ofManagement of TIP*S, a base for exchanging information and activities

Human Resources

eventsthat functions as a venue to support new business creation

Department Planning（Providing a venue for training through a range of events, workshops

Division, Humanand seminars）

Resource（http://tips.smrj.go.jp/）

Development Group(Source: SME Support, JAPAN)

I-41
Ⅰ－ 41

■Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO)The Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO) supports small-to-medium-sized companies andstartup companies that possess industrial property rights by helping them establish business models todevelop their overseas operations, including license contracts that make use of their intellectual property.
Overview of JETRO Innovation Program, a Japanese intellectual-property-based program thatprovides support for creating businesses(All the items listed below are examples of initiatives taken in FY2015)
Item

Details

Applicable

Small-to-medium-sized companies and startup companies that possess or have applied forindustry/company

industrial property rights (patents, utility models and designs) and possess innovativetechnologies, products, and business models; subject to screening.

Free programs(examples)● Domestic seminars (organized as needed through the year)
Silicon Valley-style intellectual property-based business seminar[June 15 to 17, 2015 (Tokyo, Osaka and Fukuoka)]
Introduction of know-how on intellectual property-based marketing presentations andother matters. Mr. Mark Kato from Silicon Valley and Mr. Michio Hisanaga from the
National Center for Industrial Property Information and Training (INPIT) were invited.
● Silicon Valley style business development training(i) Boot Camp
[July 7 to 10, 2015 (Tokyo) and July 13 to 16, 2015 (Osaka)]
Four-day intensive training, conducted all in English, covering measures for preventing
technology leaks, measures for using intellectual properties, the preparation of KPI,
marketing, pitches, and other matters. Mr. Alfredo Coppola and Ms. Gigi Wang of
USMAC, an accelerator in Silicon Valley, and two other presenters were invited.
(ii) Communication Training[August 26 to 28, 2015 (1st session) and August 31to September 2, 2015 (2nd session)]
Three-day intensive training examining the themes of communication, customer
approach, and presentation methods. Mr. Steve Pollock from Silicon Valley and Mr.
Tomohiro Kida from Tokyo were invited.
● Overseas mentoring(i) Provision of comprehensive mentoring for more than 16 hours at overseas locations
through the selection of designated mentors that best fit the participating companies(package method).
(ii) Provision of individual advice by more than one mentor who plays a key role in Silicon
Valley. Coordinated with the travelling schedules of participating companies (Ad hoc
method)

I-42
Ⅰ－ 42

● TechCrunch / Disrupt SF
Participation in an event in San Francisco that is globally recognized as a gateway to
Paid programs(examples)

success.
● TechMatch (JETRO hosting type)Participation in JETRO’s unique matching events that are jointly held in Silicon Valley with
USMAC, an accelerator.

Other regions● Mentoring and events are also held in Singapore and Israel (Tel Aviv) in the second half of
FY2015.

Application

First application deadline: June 26, 2015. Second application deadline: August 25, 2015.

periodApplications will also be accepted in the second half of FY2015 (as of September 2015).

Responsible

Innovation Promotion Division, Intellectual Property and Innovation Department

office(Source: JETRO Innovation Program; website: http://www.jetro.go.jp/services/innovation/)

I-43
Ⅰ－ 43

To facilitate strategic overseas applications (for patents, utility models, designs and trademarks) bymedium and small-sized companies and other organizations, JETRO supports those with plans to develop
overseas operations and other activities by subsidizing half of the expenses they incur when submitting
overseas applications that are identical to the applications in Japan.
Overview of the Program to Support Medium and Small-sized Companies and Other
Organizations in Submitting Overseas Applications(All the items listed below are examples of initiatives taken in FY2015)
Item

Details

Applicable

Small-to-medium-sized companies, startups, private business operators, and otherindustry/company

organizations with plans for submitting applications to overseas patent offices that are
identical to the applications (for patents, utility models, designs, and trademarks) inJapan on which the corresponding overseas developments are based.

Service details

If applications that are identical to the applications that have already been made to theand expenses

Japan Patent Office are made to overseas patent offices by December 2015 after
approval is given under this program, a portion of the expenses (expenses subject tosubsidies) related to overseas applications—such as application fees to overseas
patent offices, domestic and overseas agency fees, and translation fees—is subsidized.
Subsidies rate: Half of the expenses subject to subsidies (Fractions less than ¥1,000
are rounded off.)
Maximum amount: Maximum amount per company: ¥3 million
Maximum amount per application: Patents - ¥1.5 million
Utility models, designs and trademarks: ¥600,000
Misappropriation countermeasure trademarks*: ¥300,000* Misappropriation countermeasure trademarks: Applications of trademarks to counter
abusive applications (misappropriated applications) by third parties

Application

First application deadline: June 30, 2015

periodSecond application deadline: August 26, 2015

Responsible

Overseas Application Desk, Intellectual Property Division, Intellectual Property andofficeInnovation Department(Source: JETRO overseas application expenses subsidies (Program to support medium and small-sized companies andother organizations in submitting overseas applications) http://www.jetro.go.jp/services/ip_service_overseas_appli.html)

I-44
Ⅰ－ 44

■New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO)The New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) provides thefollowing startup support programs:
1. Innovation Commercialization Venture Support Project
2. New Energy Venture Business Technology Innovation Program
3. R&D Venture Support Program
4. Problem-solution Welfare Equipment Commercialization Development Support Program
5. Innovative Manufacturing Industries Creative Collaboration and Promotion Project (contract
project type)
6. Program to Promote R&D for Bridging Medium and Small Enterprises

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

Details

Project

As part of the “Platform for Supporting the Creation of New R&D-based Business,” thepurposeproject provides support for commercializing excellent technical seeds and promising

Requirements

An application must satisfy the following conditions:of project

1. It must be a new and highly innovative commercial development that can contribute tounused technologies owned by R&D-based startup companies

the creation of innovation to enhance competitiveness and achieve sustainableeconomic growth; and2. There must be a concrete plan based on which commercialization will be achieved
within approximately three to five years after the project period.
Subsidy rate

Two thirds or lessSubsidy

15 million yen to 500 million yen

amountProject period

From the date (late May 2014) of the decision of a grant to February 28, 2015

Application

From January 15, 2014 to March 3, 2014

periodResponsible

Platform Group, Innovation Promotion Department

office(Source: NEDO)

I-45
Ⅰ－ 45

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

Details

Project

Invite applications for technology development based on potential technology seeds owned

purposeby SMEs, etc. (including startup companies), focusing on the importance of the renewableenergy 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

periodContract

Up to ¥10 million/theme

Up to ¥50 million/theme

Up to ¥50 million/theme

type

Commission: NEDO burden

Commission: NEDO burden

Subsidy: NEDO burden ratio

ratio 100%

ratio 100%

2/3

Application

First application: From March 16, 2015 to April 17, 2015

periodSecond application: From August 31, 2015 to October 1, 2015

Responsible

Platform Group, Innovation Promotion Department

office(Source: NEDO)

I-46
Ⅰ－ 46

3. R&D Venture Support Program
3-1. Implementation of Commercialization Feasibility Studies, etc. by startup innovators
Receiving hands-on instruction from business Catalyzers (people who support commercialization),
NEDO invited applications from entrepreneur candidates (startup innovators: SUIs) who aim to createmega venture companies in the future. In FY2014, there were 420 applications, of which 14 applications
were accepted.
Item

Details (The details of support in FY2014 and FY2015 are different.)

Overview of- Inviting applications from 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 amega venture company in the future

Details of
support[FY2014]
1. Provision of hands-on support for business startup activities by a business Catalyzer(person who supports commercialization) who is commissioned by NEDO
2. Annual payment of up to ¥15 million per team for the maximum period of two years,
in principle, for activities conducted by SUIs as commercialization feasibility studies
3. Provision of support with monthly payment of up to ¥542,000/person (equivalent to
the payment of ¥6.5 million/year) as labor costs of SUIs who are engaged incommercialization feasibility studies
4. Matching with outside technology seeds
5. Matching investors and partners
6. Provision of co-working space that SUIs can use at NEDO Headquarters (Kawasaki)[FY2015] Number 2 above was integrated with number 3. Numbers 1, 4, 5 and 6
remained unchanged from FY2014.
2. Annual payment of up to ¥35 million (including labor costs) per team for one year, inprinciple, for activities conducted by SUIs as commercialization feasibility studies

Project[FY2014] In principle, up to two years from the date designated by NEDO

period[FY2015] In principle, up to one year from the date designated by NEDO

Application[FY2014] From July 18, 2014 to August 18, 2014

period[FY2015] From September 18, 2015 to October 23, 2015

Responsible

Platform Group, Innovation Promotion Department

office(Source: NEDO)

I-47
Ⅰ－ 47

3-2. Support of the Commercialization of Seed-stage R&D Ventures
In FY2015, NEDO started the program in which it approves venture capital, seed accelerators, andother organizations (hereinafter the “VC, etc.”) both in Japan and overseas that support R&D ventures. It
assists the commercialization development of seed-stage R&D ventures in which the VC, etc. invest.
NEDO firstly approved the VC, etc. (12 approvals), and then made a public invitation for seed-stage
technology-based startups (STSs), which are operators who are subject to subsidies, to apply.
Item

Details

Project

Creating and fostering STSs that will become mega venture companies in the future bypurposeproviding R&D that STSs require and the funds and assistance necessary forcommercialization through the cooperation between the VC, etc. and NEDO. The
program targets the vitalization of activities in Japan of the VC, etc. that possess global
networks and the strengthening of the eco-system.

Requirements
of project- Businesses that have specific technological seeds, are considered to have R&D
elements, and are able to create innovation for strengthening competitiveness- It is necessary for businesses to have business plans that use specific technologicalseeds and have a plan to receive investments from approved VC, after the relevant
VC completes checking of the relevant business plans, for the amount no less than
15% of 85% of the subsidy application amount (no more than 85% of the expenses
subject to subsidies) stated on subsidy application sheets.
- Businesses must not have received investments of ¥100 million or more fromprofessional investors at the time of application.

Subsidy rate

85% or lessSubsidy

Up to ¥70 million for two years

amountProject period

From the date (late October 2015) of the grant is decided to February 28, 2017

Application

From July 9, 2015 to August 31, 2015

periodResponsible

Platform Group, Innovation Promotion Department

office(Source: NEDO)

I-48
Ⅰ－ 48

3-3. Technology Commercialization Program（TCP）
NEDO also carries out a program for researchers and other parties in universities and companies inJapan who aim to develop R&D ventures. This program provides training on the preparation of businessplans and pitch events, which are opportunities to present business plans prepared for investors and otherparties.
Item

Details

Project

Aiming to promote the commercialization of results of research at universities and otherpurposeorganizations, develop entrepreneurs, and identify startup companies developed in

Project

The program provides training for the preparation of business plans and individual

detailscoaching of mentors, such as venture capitalists and former entrepreneurs. It also

universities

provides selected participants with opportunities to participate in pitch events in Japanand overseas in which they are able to present business plans that they have preparedthrough the training and coaching of investors and other parties.
Subsidy

The program is purely for training and thus there are no subsidies or other forms ofratemonetary support.

SubsidyamountProject

From late July 2014 to March 31, 2017

periodApplication

From July 1, 2015 to August 28, 2015

periodResponsible

Platform Group, Innovation Promotion Department

office(Source: NEDO Open Innovation Platform)

I-49
Ⅰ－ 49

4. Problem-solution Welfare Equipment Commercialization Development Support
Program
Item

Details

Project

Aiming to promote commercial development of welfare equipment and improve thepurposequality of life of the elderly, mentally, and physically disabled persons and care givers byproviding subsidies to companies and other organizations that develop welfare
equipment

Requirements
of project

1. Welfare equipment subject to research and development. Equipment must feature
new and technological development elements in that there are no other productswith identical function and design.
2. The relevant businesses meet user needs and satisfy the purpose of the subsidy
grant, such as the existence of research and development elements.
3. Commercialization development of the relevant welfare equipment is expected tosupport nursing care, self-reliance, and participation in society, improve physicalsubstitution functions, and bring about other specific positive effects. A market witha certain scale is expected for the product, while the relevant welfare equipment
possesses economic advantages from the perspective of the users.
4. The relevant businesses do not receive other subsidies or assistance funds.

Subsidy rate

Up to two thirds (however, the subsidy rate for so-called deemed large-scale companies
is 50%)

Subsidy

Up to ¥20 million per year (the maximum amount of ¥60 million in three years)

amountProject period

Up to 3 years (until March 20, 2018)

Application

From May 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015

periodResponsible

Platform Group, Innovation Promotion Department

office(Source: NEDO)

I-50
Ⅰ－ 50

5. Innovative Manufacturing Industries Creative Collaboration and Promotion Project(contract project type)
Item

Details

Project

In the Innovative Manufacturing Industries Creative Collaboration and Promotion

purpose

Project– Strategic Fundamental Technologies Advancement Support Program(so-called the Supporting Industry Program) that is carried out by the government (theSmall and Medium Enterprise Agency), the program supports R&D and the trial productdevelopment of SMEs, etc. that are likely to be commercialized by using the capabilitiesof bridging research institutions and that are in line with the themes designated by thegovernment

Requirements

Contracted projects are required to satisfy conditions as given below:of project

1. Projects are required to be R&D and trial product development stages based on theSpecific R&D Plan that is approved under the Act on Enhancement of Small andMedium Sized Enterprises’ Core Manufacuturing Technology.
2. Projects are required to be related to R&D that is in line with themes designated by
the government and R&D and trial product development that will help solve policy
issues, such as development that is likely to help SMEs participate in public
procurement and other opportunities.
3. Projects are required to be those in which bridging research institutions that havebeen confirmed by the NEDO are participating as partners of SMEs, etc. for joint
research and other activities.

Contract type
Contract

Commission: NEDO burden ratio 100%
Up to ¥100 million per year (the minimum amount of ¥10 million)

amountProject period

Two years or three years

Application

From June 26, 2015 to July 31, 2015

periodResponsible

Platform Group, Innovation Promotion Department

office(Source: NEDO)

I-51
Ⅰ－ 51

6. Program to Promote R&D for Bridging Medium and Small Enterprises
Item

Details

Project

The program aims to support the technological enhancement and the innovation of

purposeproduction methods and other matters of individual small-to-medium-sized companies
and startup companies. It does so by assisting business of companies that receive thetransfer of technological seeds from bridging research institutions, commercializingthese seeds, and promptly and steadily commercializing technologies that
small-to-medium-sized companies and other organizations possess by using thecapabilities of bridging research institutions. In addition, because NEDO assists withinitiatives such as those described above, it encourages bridging research institutions
to take active measures to strengthen their functions.

Requirements

New and highly innovative commercialization development that is carried out by SMEs,

of project

etc. associations, and other organizations that fall under any of the items given below
through joint research with bridging research institutions:
1. SMEs that are defined in the Small and Medium-sized Enterprises Basic Act
2. Enterprises whose sales are less than ¥100 billion or those with less than 1,000
employees
3. Associations and other organizations that satisfy the sales standards and employee
standards described in 2 above

Contract type

Subsidy: NEDO burden ratio 2/3

Subsidy

Up to ¥100 million in total over the project period (the minimum amount is ¥15 million)

Project period

From the date the grant is decided (end of September 2015, scheduled) until February
28, 2017 (plan)

Application

From May 26, 2015 to July 22, 2015

periodResponsible

Platform Group, Innovation Promotion Department

office(Source: NEDO)

I-52
Ⅰ－ 52

Japan Open Innovation Council
In addition to the previously mentioned programs, NEDO has established a Japan Open Innovation
Council, which aims to help spark innovation and strengthen the competitiveness of Japanese industries.
It has been carrying out a variety of studies and research and has been holding events related to open
innovation.
Item

Details

Purpose and

The Japan Open Innovation Council was established on February 12, 2015 to promotesummary

the open innovation initiatives of private business operators, and help spark innovationand strengthen the competitiveness of Japanese industries. There are 16 Directors(private business operators), including Chairman Kunio Noji (the Chairman of theBoard of Komatsu Ltd.). NEDO holds a secretariat position.

Activities

1. Sharing examples of promoting open innovation with other members(i) Holding large-scale seminars and events(ii) Holding workshops by theme (Themes: Business-academia collaboration,
corporate internal management, coordinator training, etc.)(iii) Holding events (NEDO pitch) aiming at creating business projects
2. Understanding the trends of open innovation in other countries
3. Nationwide awareness and promotional activities
4. Policy proposal activities
5. Preparation of an open innovation white paper
6. Examinations of the promotion of open innovations in key sectors
7. Promotion of exchanges with universities, research institutions, and otherorganizations
8. Other activities that contribute to achieving the goals of the council

Number of

380 (as of October 30, 2015)

members
Members

Private companies (members), organizations other than business corporations, andindividuals who are approved by the Board of Directors (supporting members)

Membership

Free

fees
Application

Dispatching a membership application sheet that is downloadable from the website tomethodthe secretariat (applicable at any time)

Websitehttp://www.nedo.go.jp/news/other/ZZCA_100013.html

Responsible

General Management Group, Innovation Promotion Department

office(Source: NEDO)

I-53
Ⅰ－ 53

■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 with the aim of publishing leading-edge research findings in atimely manner. The AIST has been developing frameworks for startup development and support since
FY2002. Innovation Center for Technology Transfer and Startups is now responsible for promoting theBusiness Development Task Force and operating the support system for AIST start-ups and in-kind
investments.
Overview of Operations of Innovation Center for Technology Transfer and Startups
Item
Business Development Task Force

Details
A project to build startup businesses based mainly ontechnology seeds created at AIST through cooperation
between researchers and business personnel

Carve-out ProjectA project for the Task Force to build startup businesses by
accepting companies’ technology seeds and humanresources

Support system for AIST start-ups

Partial granting of intellectual property rights to AIST
start-ups, setting exercise rights for exclusive use,
reduction of usage charge of facilities and equipment,
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
https://unit.aist.go.jp/ictes/tmb/(Source: National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology)

Innovation Center for Technology Transfer and Startups was established in April 2015 through the
integration of the Intellectual Property Division Technology Licensing Office. The aim of the center is topromote commercialization in line with the characteristics and nature of each technological seed. The
center is an organization that handles the two commercialization methods in an integrated fashion: (i)commercialization through technology transfer through the licensing of intellectual properties and othermatters to the existing companies, and (ii) commercialization through the creation of technology transfer
startups.
Innovation Center for Technology Transfer and Startups has held the Venture Development Report
Meeting (formerly: Taskforce Report Meeting) since FY2005 to report the results of its startup
development and support activities. https://unit.aist.go.jp/ictes/ci/tf/tf-review.html）

I-54
Ⅰ－ 54

■Information-technology Promotion Agency, Japan (IPA)
The Information-technology Promotion Agency, Japan (IPA) introduces outstanding young IT humanresources who have been discovered and trained under the Exploratory IT Human Resources Project(MITOH program), along with their technologies and services. It held the MITOH Kaigi (MITOH
conference) in which there were discussions on the creation of an eco-system where innovation continues
to take place in a variety of fields in the economic society.
Overview of the MITOH Kaigi
Item
Purpose

Details
The conference introduces challenges taken by young creators who have graduated from
the MITOH program, examining what is required to further promote the discovery, training,and development of exploratory human resources through industry and academic
cooperation with the aim of creating an eco-system in which innovations continue to takeplace in a variety of fields in the economic society.

Number of150

participants
Venue

Auditorium, Roppongi Academy Hills

Date

March 10, 2015

Responsible

Center for Innovative Human Resources, IT Human Resources Development Headquarters

office(Source: Information-technology Promotion Agency, Japan, Program for the MITOH Kaigi)

In addition, also on March 10, past participants in the MITOH program and related parties took the leadin establishing the Mitou Foundation and started activities. The IPA and the Mitou Foundation will
cooperate with each other and participate in initiatives, including the promotion of exchanges among
MITOH creators and the development of an environment in which the creators are fully able to exercise
their capabilities.

I-55
Ⅰ－ 55

■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 Enhancing Development of Global Entrepreneur Program (EDGE
Program) and the Public-Private Innovation Program.

● Enhancing Development of Global Entrepreneur Program (EDGE Program)
The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology has been carrying out the
Enhancing Development of Global Entrepreneur Program (EDGE Program) since FY2014. The aim of
this program is to develop an environment (innovation ecosystem) that fosters human resources who
undertake the challenge of establishing startups and creating innovations based on the results of researchand development, and gives rise to a series of innovations. Under this program, the ministry supports
universities that develop advanced global entrepreneurs and innovative human resources, targeting
graduate school students and young researchers with expertise, by cooperating with private companies,
such as venture capital firms, and overseas institutions. In FY2014, proposals from 13 universities wereselected and each university started its own program.
Institutions Selected by the Enhancing Development of Global Entrepreneur Program(EDGE Program)Names of Programs

Names of Institutions

The University of Tokyo Global Innovation Human Resources

The University of Tokyo

Development Program
Startup Practice Program for Developing Innovative Leaders

Tokyo University ofAgriculture and Technology

Team Oriented Cross-border Entrepreneur Development Program

Tokyo Institute of Technology

Development and Implementation of an I (Medical), Ko (Technology),

Shiga University of Medical

and Design Cooperative Global Entrepreneur Development Program

Science(iKODE Program)
Global Technology Entrepreneurship Program (GTEP)

Kyoto University-World Tekijuku Groundbreakers-

Osaka University

Global Entrepreneurs in Internet Of Things（GEIOT）

Nara Institute of Science andTechnology

Hiroshima Entrepreneurship Program

Hiroshima University

Kyushu University Global Innovation Human Resources Development

Kyushu University

and Ecosystem Creation Program
Sustainable Innovation and Ecosystem Base Founded upon the

Osaka Prefecture University

Cooperation between Regional Industry, Academia, and Government:
Scientific Technology Driven Innovation Creator Development Program
Keio EDGE Global Innovator Program

Keio University

WASEDA-EDGE Human Resources Development Program –Waseda University

Establishing a Kyosokan Innovation Ecosystem Innovation Architect Development Program

Ritsumeikan University(Source: Science and Technology Policy Bureau, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology)

I-56
Ⅰ－ 56

● Public-private Innovation Program (Promotion of public-private research anddevelopment 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 went into effect in April 2014, has enabled
national universities, etc. to invest in VC funds that satisfy certain requirements.
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
and experience in joint research as part of the FY 2012 supplementary budget
・Investments by university (total of ¥100 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

AmountStatus of Applications for Approval

1. University¥41.7○ No applications for approval to invest in VCs had been made as of the end ofof Tokyobillion

2. Kyoto
University

September 2015

¥29.2

○ An application for approval to invest in Kyoto University Innovation Capital Co.,billionLtd. was made; the Public-Private Innovation Program, National University
Corporation Evaluation Committee exchanged opinions on September 3, 2014.
○ Kyoto University Innovation Capital Co., Ltd. was established on December 22,
2014.

3. Osaka
University¥16.6○ An application for approval to invest in OSAKA University Venture Capital Co.,billionLtd. was made; the Public-Private Innovation Program, National University
Corporation Evaluation Committee exchanged opinions on September 3, 2014.
○ OSAKA University Venture Capital Co., Ltd. was established on December 22,
2014.
○ The Specific Research Result Utilization Support Program Plan related to theNo.1 Investment Limited Partnership, under which OSAKA University Venture
Capital Co., Ltd. was an unlimited liability partner, was approved on June 8,2015.
○ A No.1 Investment Limited Partnership was established on August 21, 2015.
○ ¥300 million was invested in Microwave Chemical Co., Ltd. on September 30,
2015.

4. Tohoku
University¥12.5○ An application for approval to invest in Tohoku University Venture Partners wasbillionmade; the Public-Private Innovation Program, National University Corporation
Evaluation Committee exchanged opinions on November 4, 2014.
○ Tohoku University Venture Partners was established on February 23, 2015.
○ The Specific Research Result Utilization Support Program Plan related to theNo.1 Investment Limited Partnership, under which Tohoku University VenturePartners was an unlimited liability partner, was approved on June 26, 2015.
○ A No.1 Investment Limited Partnership was established on September 3, 2015.
(Source: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology materials)

I-57
Ⅰ－ 57

(Source: National University Investment Symposium documents)

I-58
Ⅰ－ 58

■Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST)As part of its venture support activities, Japan Science and Technology Agency (JST) has engaged in
the Program for Creating STart-ups from Advanced Research and Technology (START), the Support
Program of Capital Contribution to Early-Stage Companies (SUCCESS), the Award for Academic
Startups, and the Innovation Hub Construction Support Program led by national research anddevelopment agencies.

● Program for Creating STart-ups from Advanced Research and Technology (START)The JST Department of Industrial-Academic Collaboration manages the Program for Creating
STart-ups from Advanced Research and Technology (START), which provides support for academic
startup companies.

● 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 output ofJST-funded R&D. The program aims to attract private sector funds by making JST a shareholder ofstartup companies. In FY2014, the program made two investments. In FY2015, it made one investment at
the end of September 2015.
Item

Details

Investment

Those satisfying both of the following conditions are eligible:

target1. Startup companies that are finding practical applications for the output ofJST-funded R&D
2. Companies at an early stage of development

Investment
details

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

Responsible

Support for Entrepreneurship Office, Department of Business Innovation

officeDevelopment, Japan Science and Technology Agency(Source: JST website (http://www.jst.go.jp/entre/outline.html))

I-59
Ⅰ－ 59

● Award for Academic Startups
The Award for Academic Startups is a new award program started in FY 2014.
JST and New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization (NEDO) held the 2015
Award for Academic Startups ceremony at Tokyo Big Sight in August 2015.
The award program recognizes startups launched by universities that utilize the results of their R&D
and are expected to thrive in the future. In addition, the program awards universities and companies thathave contributed to the startups’ growth.
Item
Purpose

Details
Facilitating business startups using the results of R&D from universities, etc.,
engaging in activities after business launch, and supporting universities andcompanies with university-operated startups

Applicable parties

Academic startups (Definitions as described in 1 through 4 below)
1. Startups established by using the patents of universities and otherorganizations*
2. Startups established by using the results of research by universities and otherorganizations other than patents
3. Human-resources-transfer startups established by mainly professors, staff
members, and students of universities and other organizations
4. Investment-and-management-support startups that are supported byuniversities and other organizations
Awards are also presented to organizations and companies that have madesignificant contributions to the growth of the startups.
* Universities and other organizations
National, public and private universities, colleges of technology, national andpublic research institutes, national research and development agencies, andnon-profit corporations such as public interest corporations

Application period

From May 15, 2015 to June 25, 2015

Date/venue ofAugust 27, 2015 / Tokyo Big Sightaward ceremony
Responsible office

Support for Entrepreneurship Office, Department of Business Innovation
Development, Japan Science and Technology Agency
Innovation Promotion Department, New Energy and Industrial Technology
Development Organization(Source: JST website (http://www.jst.go.jp/aas/))

I-60
Ⅰ－ 60

● Innovation Hub Construction Support Program Led by National Research andDevelopment Agencies
This is the program in which the national research and development agencies* lead industry andresearch organizations, such as universities, in the creation of innovation by concentrating R&D resourceson the themes that have been set out. The agencies work to fully analyze the trends and needs in themarket, and establish and promote strategies as an open innovation hub. JST supports innovative
initiatives taken by such national research and development agencies.
* Former R&D independent administrative agencies: Renamed in April 2015

Themes Adopted in FY2015
Agencies
National Institute for

Details of programs
Information-integration Substances and Materials Development Initiative

Materials Science
Japan Aerospace

Open Innovation Hub for Expanding Humanosphere and Domain of Activity

Exploration Agency

through Solar System Frontier Development(Source: JST website (http://www.jst.go.jp/ihub/))

I-61
Ⅰ－ 61

■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 technical issues, in order to create disruptive andglobal-scale value in the ICT sector. In addition, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications isproviding support to startup companies, etc. with the goal of commercializing innovative technical ideas,
and VCs, etc. supporting companies in the ICT sector.
Special Framework for Creative People: (inno) vation Program
Item
Purpose

Details
Providing support to human resources who undertake unique, ambitious andhigh-potential ICT technical issues, in order to create disruptive and global-scale value inthe ICT sector

Applicable

Individuals who take up the challenge of unique, ambitious, and high-potential technicalpersonsissues, in order to create disruptive and global scale value in the globally unpredictable
ICT sector where new technologies and ideas are generated every day; those who are notafraid of the failures that will create a path to achieving goals; applicants are limited tothose who satisfy the following conditions:(1) Persons who have completed compulsory education(2) Persons who have Japanese nationality

Number of

About 10 cases

cases to beapproved
Support period

1 yearResearch¥3 million (upper limit) + indirect costs (30%)

expenses to becoveredResponsible

SCOPE Office, Technology Policy Division, Global ICT Strategy Bureau

office(Source: (inno) vation website (http://www.inno.go.jp/))

I-62
Ⅰ－ 62

I-Challenge! (ICT Innovation Creation Challenge Program)
Item
Purpose

Details
Promoting business development support and R&D support in an integrated manner byusing the expertise of commercialization and other know-how of private companies, such
as VCs, for startup companies, etc. with the goal of creating new businesses by using
innovative technical ideas in the ICT sector.

Applicable[Startup companies, etc. with the goal of commercializing innovative technical ideas (R&D

persons

institutions)]- Small and medium enterprises specified under the Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
Basic Act
- Public interest institutions and other organizations, including universities specified under
the School Education Act[VC, etc. providing support to R&D institutions (Commercialization support institutions)]- Small and medium business investment and consultation companies specified under the
Small and Medium-sized Enterprise Investment Business Corporation Act- Investment LPs specified under the Limited Partnership Act for Investment, etc.

Number of

About 3 to 5 cases

cases to beapproved
Support period

1 yearResearch

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

expenses to becovered

Subsidy rate: SMEs 66%
Universities, etc. 100%Commercialization support institutions: Up to ¥10 million (including administrative costs)
Subsidy rate: 66%

Responsible

Research Team, Technology Policy Division, Global ICT Strategy Bureau

office(Source: Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications website(http://www.soumu.go.jp/menu_seisaku/ictseisaku/ictR-D/ichallenge/))

I-63
Ⅰ－ 63

■National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT)The National Institute of Information and Communications Technology organizes the ICT Mentor
Platform* and holds Kigyouka Koshien for students to support ICT startups. It also holds the Kigyouka
Expo for general participants.
* ICT Mentor Platform
To close the three gaps (businesses, funds, and human resources) that are believed to prevent
commercialization in the ICT sector, the ICT Mentor Platform serves as a platform in which people
who are actively engaged in operations in the ICT industry and other industries are organized. It
consists of the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology ICT Mentor
Platform Mentors, connecting mentors with regions and young human resources.

Overview of Kigyouka Koshien
Item

Details

Project

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

description

students

ofcollegesoftechnology(kosen),universities,andgraduateschools—selected from around the country compete by making presentations with thespirit of entrepreneurship on ICT products/services that they have developed andhave improved with the help of the mentors. In FY2014, 11 teams participated in thecompetition.
Date

March 3, 2015

Organizer

National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

Participants

Approximately 190 persons, including teachers and students(Source: National Institute of Information and Communications Technology website; NICT NEWS No.451 APR 2015)

Overview of Kigyouka Expo
Item

Details

Project

The Kigyouka Expo is an event, in which ICT startups nationwide engage in activities

description

to build an affluent and vibrant society by using ICT. Startups present unique new
businesses (products/services) and seek matches for primarily business alliances,funding, sales channel expansion, and securing human resources. In FY2014, 10
companies made presentations.

Date

March 4, 2015

Organizer

National Institute of Information and Communications Technology

Participants

Approximately 190 persons, including those from large companies, ICT companies inTokyo, and investment companies and parties related to regional support groups(Source: National Institute of Information and Communications Technology website; NICT NEWS No.451 APR 2015)

I-64
Ⅰ－ 64

■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,
the government 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 leaving their companies. The intent was to eliminate
concerns that entrepreneurs may have about the destabilization of their lives when starting up a business.
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
growthThe 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.

I-65
Ⅰ－ 65

■Cabinet Office, Government of JapanThe Cabinet Office, Government of Japan has been carrying out regulatory reforms and other measuresin the National Strategic Special Zone in a comprehensive and focused manner. The measures include avariety of initiatives related to venture support.

1. Outline of the National Strategic Special Zone
(1) Characteristics of the system
The National Strategic Special Zone is a system that is positioned as a breakthrough in leading theoverall reform of regulations, including so-called hard-rock regulations, in the focused period, a period up
to FY2015, to promote the creation of bases for global economic activities. The government has
previously carried out regulatory reforms by developing Special Zones for Structural Reform andComprehensive Special Zones. However, the National Strategic Special Zone is forcibly carrying out
regulatory reforms by introducing two structures that the existing special zone systems did not offer.
The first characteristic is a system in which the government does not merely take a passive role. The
existing special zone system is a system in which the government designates special zones by approving
applications from local municipalities that are prepared based on proposals from each region. Within thisframework, the government only takes a passive role. In contrast, the National Strategic Special Zone
system has a structure in which each special zone has an area conference that is comprised of three groupsof parties: the Minister of State for the National Strategic Special Zones, the heads of related local
municipalities, and the representatives from the private sector. The minister visits each region and directly
receives proposals and requests through the conference. A number of area conferences have already been
held frequently, and a large number of specific plans (area plans) that include bold regulatory reforms
have been approved.
The second characteristic is that the National Strategic Special Zone system has a structure in which
the Prime Minister takes leadership in achieving regulatory reforms. In this structure, there is a Special
Zone Advisory Council that is chaired by the Prime Minister and made up of a total of 11 members,
including related ministers and experts in the private sector, as well as ministers in charge of thecorresponding regulations. When necessary, the participants openly discuss the pros and cons ofregulatory reforms, with the Prime Minister making the final decisions. The Special Zone Advisory
Council has held 16 meetings to date and, with the strong leadership of the Prime Minister, it has
efficiently promoted bold regulatory reforms in a visible manner.

I-66
Ⅰ－ 66

2. Initiatives Related to Starting and Establishing Businesses in the National StrategicSpecial Zone
(1) Policy issues of each special zone
In the National Strategic Special Zones and National Strategic Special Zone Plans (Prime Minister
Decision: May 1, 2014; Partial revision: August 28, 2015), which stipulate the goals and policy issues ofeach special zone and basic matters related to programs that each specific zone is expected to carry out,
the policy issues described below have been identified (items highlighted are those related to starting andopening businesses).
Policy Issues of Each Special Zone
Area

Policy Issues

I. Tokyo area
(Tokyo, Kanagawa
Prefecture, and Narita
City, Chiba Prefecture)(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 citywith an eye to the Olympics/Paralympics(1) Accumulating and enhancing collaboration of healthcare facilities, research
institutions, manufacturers, etc. that contribute to providing advanced medical
care(2) Removing factors that prevent R&D on advanced medicine, medical equipment,
etc., and the 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 of corporate participation, etc.
(2) The so-called sixth industry and development of high value-added food products(3) Implementing innovative agriculture using new technologies(4) Promoting exports of farm and food products(5) Supporting the creation of agricultural startups(1) Converting abandoned farmland, etc. into cultivated land
(2) Developing high value-added new agricultural and food products through theso-called sixth industry(3) Regional development through the unified promotion of agriculture andtourism/history and culture(1) Improving the firm entry rate through the provision of support for startups
including business launches, etc.
(2) Promoting innovation by attracting MICE, etc. and creating new
businesses, etc.
(1) Creating an environment in which overseas tourists, etc. can easily travel(2) Promoting a tourism business model by leveraging regional strengths(3) Creating global-standard innovation bases

II. Kansai area
(Osaka, Hyogo
Prefecture and Kyoto)

III. Niigata City, Niigata
Prefecture

IV. Yabu City, Hyogo
Prefecture

V. Fukuoka City, Fukuoka
Prefecture
VI. Okinawa PrefectureVII. Semboku City, Akita
Prefecture

VIII. Sendai City, Miyagi
Prefecture

IX. Aichi Prefecture(1) Efficiently using national forests by opening them up to the private sector(2) Promoting international exchange by using the clinical training system(3) Converting abandoned farmland, etc. into cultivated land
(4) Attracting both Japanese and overseas visitors and developing tourism bases(5) Using unmanned flight systems for regional security measures and primaryindustry(1) Developing ambitious entrepreneurs by focusing on women, youth, andthe elderly(2) Speeding up procedures for starting businesses by mainly stockcompanies and non-profit organizations(3) Stabilizing the management of entrepreneurs and startups and the
expansion of employment(4) Expanding the level of social participation by women by securing nursery staff
members and decreasing the number of children who are on the waiting list for
nursery schools(5) Promoting the demonstration of next-generation mobile systems to deal withdisasters and industrial restoration(1) Developing industrial human resources by providing diversified training at publicschools(2) Improving the income level of agriculture and transforming it into a growth sector(3) Expanding the scope of advanced medical care(4) Developing an optimal employment environment suitable for workers, including
foreigners(5) Establishing core bases for growth industries and advanced technologies(Source: National Strategic Special Zones and National Strategic Special Zone Plans (Prime Minister Decision: May 1,
2014; Partial revision: August 28, 2015)

I-67
Ⅰ－ 67

(2) Specific initiatives related to starting and establishing businesses
Specific initiatives include the establishment of Employment Consultation Center in Fukuoka City, theKansai area and Tokyo area, starting in the autumn of 2014. At this center, lawyers and other counselors
offer free advice with the aim of raising awareness of employment rules and preventing individual labor
related disputes. Niigata City has also received approval for a plan related to the establishment of a centerin June 2015.
In addition, in the Tokyo area the Tokyo One-stop Business Establishment Center was established on
April 1, 2015 at the headquarters of the Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO). This center, which
is managed jointly by the Japan government and the Tokyo metropolitan government, promotes theestablishment of foreign companies, domestic startup companies, and other organizations. To reduce thelevel of work involved in establishing businesses due to the vertically-divided administrative procedures,the center has integrated desks related to procedures for establishing companies, such as registration,
taxes, pension and social insurance, and residence status authorization certificates. As a result, the center
allows visitors to complete all the procedures on a one-stop basis. The booths of each department havecounselors who are dispatched from the related ministries and agencies and the Tokyo metropolitan
government. They engage in services such as helping to prepare applications and other documents, andreceiving these documents. The center also provides multilingual interpretation and translation services tocompanies upon request.
In the past, the certification of Articles of Incorporation was generally required to be processed at anotary’s office. However, following the enforcement of the revised Act on National Strategic Special
Zones, a notary is now able to provide certification at the Tokyo One-stop Business Establishment Center,
which is an office outside a normal notary’s office.
Tokyo One-stop Business Establishment Center (at the JETRO headquarters)(Source: Documents of the Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, and Tokyo Metropolitan government)

I-68
Ⅰ－ 68

In addition, following the enforcement of the revised Act on National Strategic Special Zones, it has
become possible to make the most of regulatory reform items, such as the special provision related to
speeding up procedures for establishing non-profit organizations and the special provision related to thepromotion of the flexible movement of human resources across the border between the public and private
sectors. With these initiatives, the government is aiming to further facilitate the start up and establishmentof businesses in the special zones.
Special tax measures for certain companies (small enterprises and small and medium enterprises in the
agriculture, medical, and bio sectors) have also been introduced. They include the relaxation of deficit
requirements in operating cash flows related to the angel tax system.
Regulatory Reform Items, etc. Related to Starting and Establishing Businesses under the
Revised Act on National Strategic Special Zones (Enforced on September 1, 2015)
Items

OutlineEstablishment of theIntegration of desks for a variety of applications that must be submitted

Tokyo One-stop Business

when establishing companies, such as registration, taxes, pension, andEstablishment Centersocial insurance and certification of Articles of Incorporation, to encourage* Legalized with thepeople, including foreigners, starting and establishing businesses; provide

revised act

comprehensive support, including counseling

Certification of Articles ofClarification that, although notaries are required to perform their duties atIncorporation by a notary

the notary’s offices, they are allowed to certify Articles of Incorporation at

at an office outside thethe One-stop Business Establishment Center, an office outside thenotary’s officenotary’s office

Speeding up procedures

To facilitate the establishment of specified non-profit corporations, whichof establishing non-profit

represent one of the key factors of social businesses, drasticallyorganizations

shortening the public inspection period (currently two months) for theapplication documents required in procedures to obtain certification forestablishing a corporation

Promotion of the flexible

To secure competent human resources in startup companies and develop

movement of humana framework in which human resources who work for the government,

resources beyond the

local municipalities and other organizations experience no difficulties inborder between theworking for startup companies (consideration of including a period in the

publiccalculation of retirement benefits if they return to the government and local

and private sectors

municipal offices)

Establishment of a

Establishing a human resources flexibility center (provisional name) thathumanresources

ensureflexibility centermunicipalities, and large enterprises experience no difficulties in working

human

resources

who

work

for

the

government,

local

for startup companies, providing support that leads to greater flexibility inthe labor market and the securing of competent human resources atstartup companies
Promotion of receiving a

In regards to the requirements by local municipalities for examinations,variety of foreigners,

etc. of business plans,

including startup humanbusiness management of startup human resources (employing two or

resourcesmore regular staff members or investing 5 million yen at the minimum, etc.

relaxing the criteria for the resident status offrom the beginning)

I-69
Ⅰ－ 69

■ Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries has been carrying out measures in an integrated andcomprehensive manner through programs that help transform rural areas into the so-called sixth industry.
The following programs are not necessarily subsidy programs that target startup companies, but they
are initiatives that have been implemented to date by a number of startups with the aim ofcommercialization, aided by the cooperation of agricultural, forestry and fishery operators.

(1) Sixth Industry and New Industry Creation Program (Commercialization Feasibility
Survey)As part of its promotional programs, the ministry carried out the greenery and water environmental
technological revolution project program in FY2010 through FY2014. The ministry conducted thecommercialization feasibility survey about the creation of new products and services that meet the needsof the market with the cooperation of agricultural, forestry, fishery, and other business operators. It also
supported commercialization demonstrations of new technologies and other matters for new products,
services, and items that were expected to be commercialized.
Item

Details

Project

Supporting the implementation of the commercialization feasibility survey about thedescription

creation of new products and services that meet needs of the market with the cooperationof agricultural, forestry, fishery, and other business operators

Applicable

Private organizations, etc.

organizations
Subsidy rate

Fixed rate (Maximum: ¥5 million)

Application

First application: February 25, 2015 to March 6, 2015; Second application: April 10, 2015

periodto April 30, 2015(2) Sixth Industry Promotion Network Activities Subsidies (Commercialization
demonstrations of new technologies, etc.)
In FY2015, the ministry is supporting the commercialization feasibility survey through the Sixth
Industry and New Industry Creation Program. It is supporting the commercialization demonstrations of
new technologies and other matters as a part of the Sixth Industry Promotion Network Activities
Subsidies.
Item

Details

Project

Working in cooperation with agricultural, forestry, fishery, and other business operators to

description

support commercialization demonstrations of new technologies and other matters for new
products and services that meet the needs of the market and are expected to becommercialized.

Applicable

Municipal governments and councils of municipal governments

organizations
Subsidy rate

No more than half of the project expenses

Application

In accordance with the provisions set out by prefectural governments

periodI-70
Ⅰ－ 70

■ Japan Finance Corporation
Japan Finance Corporation has provided funds to new business operators, including startup companies,
mainly through capital loans. It also holds the High School Student Business Plan Grand Prix, with theaim of offering startup education to high school students.

● Capital Loans
The Provision Scheme for Challenge Support and Capital Enhancement (Capital Loans) started in April
2008 (the scheme for small businesses started in March 2013) as a scheme to provide capital funds
without security or guarantees to improve the financial strength of business operators who undertake thechallenge of setting up new businesses. The maximum loan amounts are ¥40 million (for small business
operators) and ¥300 million (for small and medium enterprises). The loan periods are a minimum of 5
years and one month but no longer than 15 years (for small business operators), and 5 years and one
month, 7 years, 10 years, and 15 years (for small and medium enterprises). The repayment method is a
lump-sum repayment at maturity. In FY 2014, capital loans were provided to 369 companies (¥22.7
billion) in total, including 119 small businesses (¥2.1 billion) and 250 SMEs (¥20.5 billion).
Provision Scheme for Challenge Support and Capital Enhancement (Capital Loans)Startup/

Number ofNew

Companies

Business

Total Loan

Loans

Amount

FY2010FY2011FY2012FY2013

FY2014

98

142

246

664

369

4.3

4.4

13.4

51.4

22.7

(¥ billions)(Source: Disclosure, Japan Finance Corporation)● High School Student Business Plan Grand Prix (from FY 2013)
Since FY 2013, 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 know-how that it gained in providing startup loans to entrepreneurial education. There
were 2,333 entries from 264 schools in FY2015.
During the application period, staff members in charge of startup support from Japan FinanceCorporation visited high schools upon request to help students draft business plans. They visited 148
schools (310 times), with a total of approximately 5,500 students participating from May to October in
FY 2014.

I-71
Ⅰ－ 71

Second High School Student Business Plan Grand Prix
Item

Details

Applicable persons

Individuals or groups consisting of high school students nationwide

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

Schedule

July to mid-October 2014: Acceptance of applications
December 2014: Announcement of finalists
January 2015: Final review

Number of entries

1,717 entries (Number of high schools applied: 207)

School visits

148 schools (310 times), participation by a total of approximately 5,500 students(May - October 2014)

Feedback to

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 (http://www.jfc.go.jp/n/grandprix/))

3rd Event Poster
Creativity Unlimited: High School Student Business Plan Grand Prix

I-72
Ⅰ－ 72

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

Number of406

applications
Announcement ofJune 22, 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
Ⅰ－ 73

■ 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
Government
guarantee
Operational period

Government investment: ¥286 billion; Private investment: ¥14.01 billion (26companies and 2 individuals)
When funds are raised from financial institutions, a maximum of ¥1.8 trillion is
guaranteed by the government.
Operations started on July 27, 2009, and the operational period is 15 years.

[Basic Philosophy and Investment Criteria]

Create industries through open innovation that will be responsible
for the national wealth of the next generation.
What is open innovation?
Open innovation refers to activities that give rise to new added value by achieving innovation
through the sharing and modifying of technologies and ideas externally beyond the frameworksof organizations and sectors, without insisting on an in‐house development policy.
<INCJ’s investment criteria>
Target projects in which INCJ makes investments must fall under all of the criteria described in (1) through (3) below.
(1) Respond to social needs
Projects must be those that respond to social needs, such as projects that respond to energy and environmental
issues both in Japan and overseas, projects that realize a healthy and long‐living society, and projects thatenhance the productivity of the national economy by utilizing Japan’s latent real strength.
(2) Growth potential (must fall under all the items described in (i) through (iii) below)(i) Expected to create new added value, etc.
(ii) Expected to receive funds from private business operators, etc.
(iii) Expected to have a high possibility of disposing stocks that have been acquired(3) Innovation(i) Concentration anduse of cutting‐edgebasic technologies(ii) Concentration anduse of management
resources of startups,
etc.

(iii) Realignment andintegration ofbusinesses centeredon technologies, etc.

(iv) Use ofmanagement
resources other thanthose existing inJapan

Create new added value that goes beyond the existing frameworks, such as
business sectors, companies, products, and markets.
(Source: Documents of INCJ)[Evaluation Axes for Investment Projects]
When examining individual investment
projects, INCJ judges the attractiveness ofinvestment and the feasibility of business plansin an objective manner. It also examines theexistence and the level of impact on society –with investment impact as the axis of judgment.
The two judgment axes, the attractiveness of(Source: Documents of INCJ)

I-74
Ⅰ－ 74

investment and the feasibility of business plans, are evaluated based on the investment funds method. Due
diligence is performed from various perspectives, including operations, technologies, finance, legal andhuman resources.
The investment impact is a judgment axis that is unique to INCJ. As described below, the impact of therelated investment projects, in terms of the feasibility of changes that are designed to take place in thepresent and in the future, are judged in a comprehensive manner from two main viewpoints: 1) the
development and accumulation of next-generation industries and emerging companies, and 2) the growthof next-generation industries through the innovation of existing companies.

[Objectives of INCJ – Specific Investment Impact]
1. Development and accumulation of next‐generationindustries and emerging businesses/companies: Value of
unused technologies and new technologies is improved,
and these technologies are commercialized.
■Commercializing scattered patents, intellectual
properties, technologies and ideas, achieving higher
earnings‐ Concentration and modification of technologies and ideas‐ Creation of new startup investment and development models‐ Realization of matching that enables global business expansion■ Creating demand, customers, and business sectors
through the modification of the existing framework,
enabling Japanese companies to take a leading role.

‐ Realization of non‐continuous innovation through ideas that go
beyond the framework of corporate groups, technologies, ideas,
and other matters, and the modification of these ideas■ Creating a new business model of cooperation amonglarge enterprises, small and medium enterprises, andstartups that will create new businesses■ Through the expansion of the previously described
activities, the private sector provides risk money thatencourages open innovations, and infrastructure isestablished in which the knowledge, technologies,
human resources, and ideas are shared with an eye on
the future.

2. Growth of next‐generation industries throughinnovation within existing companies: Change in theposition occurs within the value chain.
■ Changing rules of the game

‐ Acquiring global standards and specifications‐ Changing the position in the value chain
・ Changing from the subcontractor model to the planning model・ Creating business models for actual production processes■ Creating global leader companies in specific segments‐ Reconstruction of business strategies‐ Creation of companies that are able to lead the global market■ Improving business development capabilities (sales andservice and maintenance capabilities) that are rooted inoverseas communities‐ Understanding of sales methods and earnings models that are
different from existing models‐ Strengthening of sales capabilities (between countries) as aplatform instead of as individual companies■ Creating groups that have a chance to become next‐
generation growth industries by realizing the global
development of local companies (including small andmedium enterprises) and global niche companies■ Maintaining the external competitiveness of key
technologies, fundamental technologies, and importantsegments by working to achieve effective
commercialization in Japan(Source: Documents of INCJ)In FY2014, startup investments amounted to ¥19.47 billion in a total of 19 companies both in Japanand overseas. In addition, LP investments were made in two funds for a total of ¥7.5 billion. Following
the same manner as the previous fiscal year, in FY2015 investments have been made in companies in avariety of business sectors on different stages.

I-75
Ⅰ－ 75

Summary of Startup Investments by INCJ in FY 2014
Date
(Day ofAnnouncement)

Investment
Amount (JPY
100 million)(See Note 1)
15.0

Name of Portfolio Company

4/24/2014 WISDOMS

DomesticorForeignIndustry

Stage

Investment
Type
Follow-on

Foreign

Manufacturing

Expansion

5/16/2014 CUSTOMER COMMUNICATIONS, Ltd.
5/19/2014 Sansan, Inc.
5/22/2014 Create Vaccine Company, Ltd.
6/2/2014 Microwave Chemical Co., Ltd.

4.0
7.5
2.8
8.0

Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic

IT services
IT services
Pharmaceuticals
Manufacturing

Early
Early
Seed
Early

New
New
New
New

7/8/2014 Cloudian Holdings Inc.
7/14/2014 QUADRAC Co., Ltd.
7/25/2014 NejiLaw inc.
8/4/2014 Oh My Glasses Inc.
8/7/2014 Agra Corporation(Note 2)

15.6
7.0
7.0
9.0
6.0

Foreign
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic

SoftwareIT services
Manufacturing products
IT services
IT services

Expansion
Early
Early
Expansion
Expansion

New
New
New
New
New

9/3/2014 WHILL Inc.
9/8/2014 K-engine Corporation
9/22/2014 SCIVAX Corporation
10/7/2014 BIC Co., Ltd.
2/9/2015 Quantum Biosystems Inc.

(Note 2)

9.4
20.0
6.6
10.0
33.0

Foreign
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic

Other industry
Early
IT services
Early
Manufacturing
Early
Telecommunications/Network Seed
Biotech
Seed

5.0
5.2
20.0
3.6

Domestic Manufacturing
Domestic IT services
Domestic Biotech
Foreign IT services

3/9/2015 Spectronix Corporation
3/16/2015 GRA AgriPlatform
3/23/2015 Megakaryon Corporation
3/31/2015 Miselu Inc.

(Note 3)

Total

New
New
New
New
New

Early
Early
Expansion
Expansion

New
New
Follow-on
Follow-on

194.7

Note1: Investment amount based on public data (excluding investment deals without a disclosed amount)Note2: Investment amount calculated based on Q3 2014 average exchange rate of $1=¥103.9
Note3: Investment amount calculated based on Q1 2015 average exchange rate of $1=¥119.2

Summary of LP Investments by INCJ in FY 2014
Date
(Day ofAnnouncement)

Investment
Amount (JPY
100 million)(See Note 1)
50.0

Name of Portfolio Company

1/5/2015 Incubate Fund III, LP
2/23/2015 Kansai Science City ATR-Venture NVCC Investment Limited Partnership
Total

25.0

DomesticorForeign
Domestic
Domestic75.0

Note1: Investment amount based on public data (excluding investment deals without a disclosed amount)

Summary of Startup Investments by INCJ in FY 2015
（As of the end of September 2015 ）Date(Day ofAnnouncement)

Name of Portfolio Company

6/17/2015 Floadia Corporation
7/23/2015 NanoMist Technologies Co., Ltd.
7/27/2015 SMART INSIGHT CORPORATION
8/3/2015 Innophys Co., Ltd.
8/5/2015 SmartDrive
8/6/2015 Rena Therapeutics Inc.
9/11/2015 AQUA Therapeutics Co., Ltd.
Total

Investment
Amount (JPY
100 million)(See Note 1)
6.0
5.0
5.0
6.5
6.6
6.0
5.0

DomesticorForeign
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic
Domestic

Industry
Semiconductor
Manufacturing
Software
Manufacturing
IT services
Pharmaceuticals
Pharmaceuticals

Stage

Investment
Type

Early
Later
Expansion
Early
Early
Seed
Early

New
New
Follow-on
New
New
New
Follow-on

40.1

Note1: Investment amount based on public data (excluding investment deals without a disclosed amount)

Summary of LP Investments by INCJ in FY 2015
（As of the end of September 2015 ）Date(Day ofAnnouncement)

Name of Portfolio Company

4/14/2015 EEI Smart Energy Limited Partnership for Investment
Total

Investment
Amount (JPY
100 million)(See Note 1)
50.0
50.0

Note1: Investment amount based on public data (excluding investment deals without a disclosed amount)

I-76
Ⅰ－ 76

DomesticorForeign
Domestic

■ Regional Economy Vitalization Corporation of Japan (REVIC)The Regional Economy Vitalization Corporation of Japan (REVIC) is a corporation whose predecessor
was the Enterprise Turnaround Initiative Corporation of Japan (ETIC). ETIC was established on October
14, 2009 in accordance with the Act on the Enterprise Turnaround Initiative Corporation of Japan. REVIC
as it exists now came into being following the comprehensive reorganization and expansion of its
functions in accordance with the revision of the act on March 18, 2013. Its capital stood at ¥26.0848
billion (Deposit Insurance Corporation of Japan: ¥25.5848 billion; private financial institutions: ¥500
million) as of the end of September 2015.
ETIC engaged in operations intended to support the regeneration of businesses, such as small andmedium enterprises, that possessed useful management resources but held excessive debts. In addition tothese operations, REVIC that was established based on a new governing act, the Act on the Regional
Economy Vitalization Corporation of Japan, started new operations. These operations include theestablishment and management of companies that manage business regeneration and regional vitalization
funds (specific business management), the dispatching of specialists to financial institutions and otherorganizations (specific specialist dispatching), the trust underwriting of loan claims of non-main banks(specific trust underwriting), and investments in and loans to business companies (specific investments).
New operations were later added as a result of the partial revision of the act on October 14, 2014.
These included investments in limited partnerships related to business regeneration and regional
vitalization funds (specific partnership investments), the purchasing of loan claims with managers’
guarantees (specific support and specific claims purchasing), and the expansion of the scope of specificspecialist dispatching to companies in which funds and other organizations with REVIC involvement
make investments.
Operations related to the provision of funds for the growth of startup companies are carried out throughregional vitalization funds that were jointly established by the fund management subsidiaries of REVIC(GP: REVIC Capital, etc.) and private fund management companies (there are cases in which REVIC andprivate operators established joint venture fund management companies). As of the end of September
2015, a total of 25 funds had been established, including 3 regeneration funds and 22 regional vitalization
funds. Of these 22 regional vitalization funds, 4 funds target startups, and the remaining 18 funds that are
categorized into tourism, healthcare, and growth in accordance based on their investment targets also
include a number of funds that are able to make investments in startups.
The support period of REVIC is finite and the majority of the existing period of funds is 7 to 8 years.
The ways in which REVIC and venture funds deal with companies in which investments are madediffer according to the governance methods and needs of these companies. There is a hands-on style inwhich management support is provided in an extensive manner, and a hands-off style in which minority
investments are made. The style is determined based on the individual situation.

I-77
Ⅰ－ 77

Vitalization Funds Launched (As of September 30, 2015)
Targeted AreaCategory

RegionTourism
VentureGrowthGrowthGrowthVentureVentureGrowthGrowthTourism
VentureFund NameGP

Wakayama Regional Vitalization
Investment Limited Partnership
Shigagin Growth Strategic Fund
Investment Limited Partnership
Seikan Vitalization
Investment Limited Partnership
Triple Acceleration Growth Support
Fund
Investment Limited Partnership
Gunma Medical and Industry
Cooperation Vitalization
Investment Limited Partnership
Tottori University
Industry-Academia Cooperation
Investment Limited Partnership
Shimane University
Industry-Academia Cooperation
Investment Limited Partnership
NCB Kyushu Vitalization
Investment Limited Partnership
Hida Takayama Sarubobo Yui Fund
Investment Limited Partnership
Yamato Tourism Vitalization
Investment Limited Partnership
Ibaraki New Industry Creation

The Kiyo Lease & Capital Co., Ltd.
REVIC Capital
SHIGAGIN LEASE CAPITAL
CO.,LTD.
REVIC CapitalNorth Pacific Capital Co., Ltd.
REVIC Capital
Yamaguchi CapitalCommitted
Investment
Amount(¥100
million)5

January
2014
April 20142

May 2014

10

May 2014

REVIC Capital
The Gungin Leasing Co., Ltd.

8.6

REVIC Capital
The Gogin Capital Co., Ltd.

November
2014

10.2

REVIC Capital
The Gogin Capital Co., Ltd.

January2015

10.2

January
2015

50

January
2015
February
2015

REVIC Capital
NCB Capital Co., Ltd.
Hidashin Innovation Partners Co.,Ltd.
REVIC Capital
AGS Consulting Co., Ltd.
REVIC Capital
Joyo Industrial Research Institute10

LaunchDate5
1.5

March 201510

March 2015

5

March 2015

12

March 201513

March 201520

June 2015

5

July 2015

3

August2015
September
2015
September
2015

Ltd．
GrowthTourism
Tourism
GrowthTourism
Tourism
GrowthTourism

Nationwide

Tourism
Healthcare
GrowthInvestment Limited Partnership
Hachijuni Regional Industry Growth
SupportInvestment Limited Partnership
ALL Shinshu Tourism Vitalization
Investment Limited Partnership
Shizuoka Tourism Vitalization
Investment Limited Partnership
Okinawa Vitalization
Investment Limited Partnership
Saga Tourism Vitalization
Investment Limited Partnership No.
1
Fukui Tourism Vitalization
Investment Limited Partnership
Koiki Chiba Regional Vitalization
Investment Limited Partnership
Chiba Edo Masari Sawara Tourism
Vitalization
Investment Limited Partnership
Tourism Vitalization Mother Fund
Investment Limited Partnership
Regional Healthcare Industry
Support Fund
Investment Limited Partnership
Regional Core Company
Vitalization
Investment Limited Partnership

REVIC Capital
Hachijuni Capital Co., Ltd.
REVIC Capital
Hachijuni Capital Co., Ltd.
REVIC Capital
Shizuoka Capital Company Limited
REVIC Capital
Okinawa Vitalization Solutions Co.,Ltd.
REVIC Capital
Sagin Capital & Consulting Co., Ltd.
REVIC Capital
Fukui Capital & Consulting Co., Ltd.
REVIC Capital
RD Tourism Solutions Co., Ltd.
REVIC Capital
CHIBAGIN CAPITAL CO.,LTD.
REVIC Capital
RD Tourism Solutions Co., Ltd.
REVIC Capital
AGS Consulting Co., Ltd.
REVIC Capital
REVIC Partners Co., Ltd.

5552

April 2014100

September
2014

290.5

April 2015

Note: Funds in which REVIC is involved only as LP are not included. Funds that are categorized as “Venture” are venture funds.

(Source: REVIC)

I-78
Ⅰ－ 78

■ Cool Japan Fund Inc.
Cool Japan Fund Inc. was established in accordance with the corresponding act in November 2013 as apublic-private fund. It aims to support and promote the development of overseas demand for attractive
Japanese products and services.
Cool Japan Fund Inc. aims to commercialize the concept of “Cool Japan” and increase overseas
demand by providing risk capital for businesses across a variety of areas, including media and content,
food and services, and fashion and lifestyle.
With a committed focus to the policy of complementing private businesses, Cool Japan Fund Inc.
conducts initiatives by providing risk money to facilitate private investments. These initiatives include thedevelopment of platforms (bases) and supply chains (distribution networks), foundations for gaining
overseas demand, which have not been achieved by the private sector.
Cool Japan Fund Inc. also develops foundations in which regional small and medium enterprises andinnovative creators, designers, and other parties are able to manage businesses in the way that they canreceive benefits from their added value by expanding channels for the overseas consumption of attractive
goods and services.
Investment Amount and the Business Scheme of Cool Japan Fund Inc.
(as of September 2015)
Investment amount: ¥40.6 billion(Fund ceiling (budget): Approximately ¥100 billion)

Examples of programs implemented[Cool Japan Fund Inc.]
Government investments(Special account for the fiscal
investment and loan program, etc.)¥30 billion (present)
Investment[Budget]Risk money
Budget carried forward for FY2014

providing
function

Special account for the fiscal investment
and loan program: ¥20 billion

Private companies,
etc.
Consortiumcompanies

Budget for FY2015

Special account for the fiscal investment
and loan program: ¥10 billion
Government guarantee: ¥31 billion¥10.6 billion (present)

In addition to
Investment
support throughinvestments,
providing business,management, andother forms of
support in an
integrated manner* Duration: No more than 20 years(Established in November 2013)

I-79
Ⅰ－ 79

・
・
・
・
・

Businesscompanies, etc.

Investment

Private investments

Investment* Development andsecuring of space forbases (physical space /media space)* Acquisition andexpansion of overseas
demand, including
M&As and joint
venture development* Overseas developmentof regional companies
that have potential andare highly motivated* Programs that indirectly
support overseas
development

Summary of Cool Japan Fund’s Investment Projects (as of the End of September 2015)
Day ofAnnouncement

1

September 25,

Operator’s NameTokyo Otaku Mode

2014

Project Description
Media and e-commerce businesses, telling

Investment

TargetAmountCountry¥1.5 billion

Global market

the world about the appeal of Japanese pop
culture23

September 25,

CLK Cold Storage

Logistics business to create a cold chain in

¥735

2014

Company Limited

VietnammillionSeptember 25,

ICJ Department Store

Commercial facility business that will become¥970

a hub for Cool Japan in Malaysia

million2014
45

September 25,

Ningbo Hankyu

Large-scale Japanese entertainment

2014

Commerce Co., Ltd.

commercial facility in Ningbo City, China

October 30,

Anime Consortium

Internet streaming and e-commerce

2014

Japan Inc.

businesses for official Japanese anime

Vietnam

Malaysia¥11 billion

China¥1 billion

Global market¥1 billion

Asia

Japan Food Town Project in Singapore¥0.7 billion

Singapore¥0.7 billion(Creditfacility of¥1.3
billion)Europe, the¥7 billion

Global market

content
6

October 30,

MCIP Holdings Co., Ltd.

2014

Business of creating and distributing
Japan-style entertainment content
throughout Asia

7

8

December 8,

Japan Food Town

2014

Development

December 8,

Chikaranomoto Holdings

Restaurant business to communicate

2014

Co., Ltd.

Japan’s incredible food cultures in major
Western markets

9February 19,

SDI Media Group, Inc.

2015

Media localization service to accelerate theUnited Statesand Australia

distribution of Japanese content overseas

10

March 4, 2015

WAKUWAKU JAPANOverseas “Japan Channel” business¥4.4 billion

Indonesia, etc.

11March 30,

KADOKAWA Contents

Overseas content creator development¥450

Global market

2015

Academyschool businessmillionApril 6, 2015

GREEN TEA WORLD

US-based Japanese tea cafe business that¥260

USA, Inc.

originated in Nagasaki Prefecture

million12

United States

Note 1: Investments highlighted in the table are investments related to startup companies.
Note 2: The investment amount is based on documents available at the time of the announcement.
(Source: Cool Japan Fund Inc.)

I-80
Ⅰ－ 80

Entrepreneur Training: Venture Capitals also Focusing on University
and High School Students

Considering the scale of investment funds, the absolute number of startup companies is limited. This fact has been
pointed out often in recent years as one of the issues faced by the Japanese venture investment environment. Whiledifferent methods, such as persuading experienced workers of large companies to become independent, have been
adopted in response, certain venture capital (VC) firms have started to conduct Aotagai, which involves recruiting
high school students, university students, and other young people.
In certain cases in which seed stage VC firms are involved, there have been cases of high school students leaving
school and entering evening high schools, or deciding not to go to university and starting businesses.
East Ventures has established an office near the Hongo Campus of the University of Tokyo to recruit students fromthat university. It is also eager to build up student startup communities by actively accepting student interns. It aims
to identify and develop entrepreneurs in the ecosystem.
The University of Tokyo itself has also consistently pursued initiatives to create entrepreneurs. The Entrepreneur
Dojo celebrated the eleventh anniversary of its founding in 2015. Now, 15% of the students are reportedly interested
in starting businesses.
Mr. Peter Thiel was the individual who further inspired young people with entrepreneurial minds when he visited
Japan in February 2015. Mr. Thiel is the founder of PayPal and also a venture capitalist. He has established the Thiel
Fellowship, a system in which support is provided to young people 20 years old or younger through a foundation that
Mr. Thiel himself established. He offers funds to competent young people and, when necessary, he recommends thatthey leave university before they get their degree so that they can set up startup businesses.
Although Mr. Thiel expressed his concerns about excessively encouraging high school students to start businesses
because he believed that it was a little too early, it is still important for young people to be aware that they can also
start businesses. Proof of this can be seen in SLUSH, a startup event in Finland that has recently generated a lot ofinterest. Finland is known for being a country that has eagerly focused on entrepreneur training for young people
since the 1990s.

I-81
Ⅰ－ 81

Expansion of Venues of Training: Venture Capitalists Train Venture Capitalists

There are an increasing number of opportunities for venture capitalists to become actively involved in businesses.
There are also experienced capitalists who aggressively provide opportunities to a reserve army of capitalists who are
motivated and competent. Likewise, there are an increasing number of cases of individual venture capitalists withtrack records moving to different funds. This development partly reflects the fact that a number of new funds,
including corporate venture capital (CVC) funds, have been established recently.
Tohru Akaura, general partner of Incubate Fund, is known for his keen involvement in the training of juniorcapitalists. In 2014 and 2015, Incubate Fund served as the LP in making investments in No. 1 funds launched by
Inclusion Japan and the KK Fund in Singapore. Inclusion Japan mainly invests in the IoT, and KK Fund invests
predominantly in IT startups in Southeast Asia.
Monetary returns are preconditions. General Partner Akaura has a desire to contribute to the development of
human resources by broadening the base of venture capitalists. He has supported venture capitalists by investing in
the Samurai Incubate funds from the early stages. In developing venture capitalists, it is true that training does have acertain impact, but acquiring skills through hands-on work is also essential. In that sense, providing money to No. 1
funds has a major impact.
East Ventures also plays a part in training venture capitalists by making investments as an LP in next-generation
VCs, such as Skyland Ventures.
On the other hand, in 2014 and 2015 there was significant movement in venture capitalists leaving their firms andjoining different firms. This included movement from CyberAgent Ventures, Inc. to firms related to Digital Garage,from Globis Capital Partners to the University of Tokyo Edge Capital, from MITSUI SUMITOMO INSURANCE
Venture Capital to Globis Capital Partners, from ITOCHU Technology Ventures to Salesforce Ventures, and from
Salesforce Ventures to Draper Nexus Ventures. With the continuing flow of risk money into VC firms, there is strong
demand for venture capitalists who possess proven track records.
There is the expectation that the movement of venture capitalists to other firms will help to spread and shareknow-how throughout the industry, and as a result improve the quality of venture capitalists in Japan.

I-82
Ⅰ－ 82

4． Venture Support from the Private Sector
Japanese venture capital (VC) firms are becoming increasingly selective in choosing investment targets,reflecting a recent surge in the valuation of startup investments. At the same time, investments in startup
companies by corporate venture capital (CVC) subsidiaries of non-financial corporations appear to betrending higher.
VCs and securities companies have played a significant role, particularly in supporting startup
companies aiming for IPOs. They are likely to continue playing this role in the future. In contrast, banks
appear to have maintained a rather conservative stance in dealing with startups, although there aresuggestions that this is beginning to change. One particular development that requires attention is thechange in mega banks that have broad networks in the business community. Over the past one to two
years these banks have reviewed the division of roles internally and at their subsidiary VCs, and havestarted to adopt more aggressive and diversified approaches that differ from existing startup support.
In light of the progress of initiatives for open innovation, this section will spotlight the following two
topics: 1) the establishment of collaboration between startups and large companies that have become
active mainly through CVCs, and 2) the latest trends in startup support by mega banks.

Change in the Conditions of Class Shares

The use of class shares in making venture investments has also become fairly popular in Japan. Initially, theclauses included in class shares mainly reflected the interest of VC firms due to differences in the supply/demand
relationship of funding and the level of understanding about the legal system. However, this practice has beenchanging in recent years. The residual asset distribution right related to the sales of companies through M&A isconsidered to be a representative example of this change.
“My friends said to me, ‘Congratulations’ and ‘Buy us a round of drinks.’ But in actuality, I didn’t make any
money at all,” said one manager disagreeably. The manager recently sold his company to a listed company. He
explained that the residual asset distribution right was exercised and VCs took away profits first. This is because hiscompany had received investments from a VC and the scale factor for the residual asset distribution right had been
set at three times. The cash generated through the M&A was distributed to the VC first. In doing so, an amount threetimes larger than the actual investments was distributed to the VC based on the clause of class shares. As a result,
there was apparently hardly any cash left for management. When this company received investments, the position of
VCs that were making the investments was stronger than that of the startup company because flows of risk money tostartups were limited.
However, the situation has changed in recent years because an excess of funds are available for investments. A
Chief Financial Officer of a startup company in the education sector made the following statement: “In the past ascale factor of between three and five times was normally demanded, but in recent years, it is only one time. Our(startups’) requests seem to be generally accepted.” It appears that not only are the amounts of investments increasing
and the valuations rising, but also that the conditions of class shares have become favorable for startup companies.

I-83
Ⅰ－ 83

(1) Collaboration between Large Companies and Startups
Foreword
There have been a number of cases in the United States in which large companies and startups actively
collaborate. In Silicon Valley, an ecosystem that surrounds startups has been established, with large
companies playing a key role within this system. The majority of large Japanese companies havetraditionally taken an in-house approach to development, commercializing products based on the resultsof their own research. For this reason, there were not many attempts to adopt external innovations.
However, the limits of innovation, including the speed of commercialization, for companies that rely
purely on in-house development are now beginning to be pointed out. To maintain their competitive edge,
companies have become actively involved in so-called “open innovation” initiatives in which they evenuse innovations that are created externally. As a result, Japanese large companies have also begun to takenotice of startups as potential partners in open innovation.
This section will analyze with the focus on CVC, which is considered to be one method of open
innovation.
To sum up the conclusion of this analysis, it leads to a few specific points. The first is that CVC
generates merits for both large companies and startups. The second is that the key points for success are
the clear commitment of management and the focus on achieving financial returns. A detailed explanation
is provided as follows.
In preparing this report, interview-based surveys were conducted with individuals at large companies
that have already invested in startups or have plans to make these investments in the future. Goingforward, we aim to collect a wider range of information in a quantitative manner through questionnaire
surveys. We hope this plan will contribute to the development of CVC activities in the future.
Collaboration between Large Companies and Startups in the United States
A number of global startup companies have been established in the United States, particularly in
Silicon Valley. One of the factors that prompted the development of Silicon Valley is the existence of an
ecosystem that surrounds startups. In the process of building up startups, the establishment of an alliancewith large companies and capital participation by large companies further accelerates the growth ofstartups. Ultimately, startups may become large companies through IPOs, or they may become part oflarge companies as a result of M&A.
In the past, large companies such as General Electric, IBM, Microsoft, and Cisco Systems haveconsistently achieved growth through investments in startups and M&A. Examples of this in more recent
years include Facebook and Google, which have been aggressively building up collaborative relationships
with startups. Facebook and Google were originally startups and have experienced accelerated growththat both major companies and startups achieve when they form business alliances. For this reason,
having become large companies themselves, Facebook and Google are now investing in startups. One of
the motivating factors for making these investments appears to be a desire to facilitate their own growth.
Based on the survey conducted by the National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) in the UnitedStates, CVCs accounts for nearly 10% of the total investments made in startup companies. The total
amount of investments made in startups in January 2014 through December 2014 stood at $49.3 billion in

I-84
Ⅰ－ 84

the United States, of which the investment amount made by CVCs amounted to $5.3 billion. In otherwords, investments made only by CVCs by far exceed the amount of investments in startup companies inJapan.
Matching of Large Companies and Startups
The growing number of large companies seeking to collaborate with startup companies has lead to anincrease in the number of structures and events that encourage cooperation between large companies andstartups. For example, there are a number of programs that seek to take startups in the seed stage and help
them to advance to the stage in which they are able to carry out business in cooperation with large
companies.
Acceleration Program
In the past, governments, local municipalities, and public interest corporations took on the role ofmanaging incubation programs that were aimed to build up startup companies in the seed stage. Recently,
acceleration programs in the private sector, such as seed accelerators, have become popular. Typicalexamples of seed accelerators in the United States are Y Combinator, Techstars, and Seedcamp. Startups
that complete programs provided by the accelerators reported receiving investments from a number ofleading VCs and large companies. Acceleration programs managed by private companies have also
emerged in Japan. They include MOVIDA Seed Acceleration Program, Leave a Nest TECH PLANTER,
KDDI∞Labo, and DOCOMO Innovation Village and Open Network Lab. In addition, promising startups
that complete acceleration programs will have a chance to receive investments and other support in the
future from large companies that participate in the programs. As a result, acceleration programs appear tohave become an extremely important link for startups that seek to collaborate with large companies. In
fact, there are sponsors who clearly state that they do not make investments in the acceleration stage.
There were also persons in charge of acceleration programs who said that, although there were cases of
the actual provision of funds, there was only a limited number of startups that required funds when they
were in the stage of participating in programs. In the case of the previously mentioned Y Combinator andTechstars, sponsors make relatively small investments (between approximately $10,000 and $50,000).
Matching Events
Matching events are also counted as a scheme which brings together large companies and startup
companies. There are a variety of events being organized, including Morning Pitch, Connect!, creww,
Infinity Ventures Summit, and B Dash Camp. There are a number of cases of existing VCs playing a rolein inviting startups by sponsoring or co-sponsoring events. In the majority of cases, the basic structure ofmatching consists of an event in which the main part is devoted to presentations by startups. Afterwatching these presentations, participants from VCs and large companies contact the startups in which
they are interested. There are also matching events in which large companies give presentations tostartups about the types of startups and technologies they are looking for, after which startups contact thelarge companies who gave the presentations that caught their attention. Certain events start in the earlymorning or continue for a few days. Regardless the structure, the large number of companies participatingin these events indicates how serious both VCs and startups are.
I-85
Ⅰ－ 85

Corporate Venture Capital (CVC)
Background for the Increasing Number of CVCs
As reported in VEC YEARBOOK 2014, private non-financial corporations have been accelerating
investments and M&A activities involving startup companies. In the investment amounts presented in the
VEC Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, the trends in the amount invested by the CVC
subsidiaries of private non-financial corporations indicate significant growth in the amount invested from
FY2011 (Figure 1-4-(1)-1). Looking at this survey, it is important to note the fact that the survey does notcover investments made by all CVCs.
(Reference) According to reports from newspapers and other sources, the amount of startup investment funds
launched by the CVC subsidiaries of private non-financial corporations reached ¥70 billion in FY2014.
The scale of certain funds even reached ¥20 billion. While these amounts are the commitment amount ofinvestments in funds, it is assumed that the investment amount has also become larger in line with thecommitment amount.

Figure 1-4-(1)-1 Trends in the Amount Invested by the CVC Subsidiaries of Private
Non-Financial Corporations(Total amount invested both in Japan and overseas)（¥ Billions）
8

7.2

7

6.2

6
5
4

3.2

3

2.2

2
1

1.2

1.2
0.5

0
FY2008FY2009FY2010FY2011FY2012FY2013

FY2014（Source: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends, VEC）

It is said that the amount invested by CVCs has increased because the possibility of choosing todevelop a cooperative relationship by investing in startup companies has emerged. This is believed to be
the result of the rising necessity to enter business sectors that large companies have never engaged in on
their own. The existence of a large sum of internal reserves held by large companies supports this increase
in investments. According to the “Flow of Funds” released by the Bank of Japan, as of the end of June
2015, cash and bank deposits held by private non-financial corporations amounted to ¥243 trillion.
Certain Japanese companies (such as Nippon Steel, NTT, and FUJITSU) took the initiative as LPs andmade investments in VCs in the United States in the latter half of the 1980s. NEC began CVC activities in
1997, followed by Panasonic in 1998. Although some companies withdrew from CVC activities in the

I-86
Ⅰ－ 86

United States after the IT bubble began to collapse in 2000, certain Japanese companies are still involvedin these activities even now (as of 2015).
Definition of CVC
There are different investment types of CVCs. The typical patterns are shown in the figure below.
Figure 1-4-(1)-2 Types of CVC

There is a variety of opinions about how to define CVC. Some people define CVC as small-amountdirect investments in startup companies by existing companies or investments in startups by
non-financial general business corporations with strategic and financial targets. Others define CVC as
activities involving investments in startups and capital participation without controlling power(minority investments) by business corporations whose main operations are not investments. As these
opinions show, the majority of people appear to define CVC by specifying conditions, such as “small
amount” or “minority investment.”
VEC defines CVC as startup investments by private non-financial corporations. Essentially, as longas a structure is set up in a way that the source of funds is a private non-financial corporation and thefunds flow into startups, then these activities are considered to be a type of CVC. VEC also includes
the process of concluding M&A by carrying out majority investments in CVC (as explained later,
because certain companies approach CVC with an eye on M&A, it is necessary to include M&A thatare an extension of the minority investments in CVC). If additional investments are made in startups
after the power to control the startups is obtained by making majority investments, these investments
are regarded as additional investments in subsidiaries, and are not included within the scope of CVC.
(See Figure 1-4-(1)-3.)

I-87
Ⅰ－ 87

Figure 1-4-(1)-3 Scope of CVC Assumed by VEC

Objective of CVCs
In interview-based surveys, a number of large companies indicated that the objective of CVCs was“strategic.” For example, many large companies appear to make investments with the expectation ofachieving a sense of synergy within their operations. For manufacturers alone, the idea of CVC can beconsidered an R&D strategy. There are also companies that carry out CVC to acquire the latest
technological information and trends. In this case, the majority of companies appear to pursue LP
investment rather than direct investment.
There were only a limited number of companies that carried out CVC to “gain a financial return.”
There were also companies that “do not expect any financial return at all” or “expect a minimum financial
return.” However, it would be fair to consider that even for companies who do not use CVC to gain afinancial return, if there is a financial return, it would make it easier for these companies to continue
carrying out CVC activities.
Merits and Demerits of CVCs
Establishing a business alliance with startup companies may “possibly speed up” the decision makingof large companies, or at least companies in the business sector in which the alliance is established. Thisis considered to be the merit of CVCs. In many cases, it is believed that startups make decisions fasterthan large companies, and also achieve technological development relatively faster than large companies.
The ability to share the efficiency of startups is considered to be a significant merit of CVC for large
companies. Even in the sectors in which large companies are able to carry out internal R&D, using the

I-88
Ⅰ－ 88

innovations of startups still holds significance for large companies because it allows them to “buy time
(as well as human resources).”On the other hand, CVCs also provide startups with the merit of “satisfying needs other than funds,”
something that cannot be done with financing through ordinary VCs. Because many large companies thatcarry out CVC make investments with an eye on business alliances, they not only aim to establish capitalalliances, but often provide assets along with to funds or support to expand the sales channels of startups.
In addition, when large companies commercialize technologies that were developed by startups, they canhelp to greatly reduce the risks borne by startups by playing a role in mass production or the quality
assurance of products.
However, concerns that investment funds from CVCs become so-called funds tainted with a large
company image cannot be denied. For example, startups will probably prioritize transactions(procurement, sales, etc.) with large companies that are the source of funds. One person in charge of CVC
at a large company felt that CVCs were restricting the activities of a startup in which funds had been
invested, when instead it should really be dealing with a variety of business partners.

Results of CVC
It is believed that CVC activities enable many companies to actually experience the “speed of startups”
and the “improved awareness of innovation and taking the initiative with startups.” However, partly
reflecting the fact that a majority of companies that responded to interview-based surveys started CVC
activities less than five years before, the number of companies that clearly stated that they achieved
significant results by now was very limited. Certain companies have gained a financial return as a resultof the IPOs of investment targets or M&A by other companies, but these companies often do not consider
these returns to be the result of CVCs.
In addition, it seems that certain companies have not established clear key performance indicators(KPI). In other words, in many cases it appears that results are measured based on qualitative evaluations,such as determining whether companies were able to promote their activities or whether investment was
strategically meaningful.”

M&A as Part of CVCs
There are cases in which companies that carry out CVCs aim to pursue M&A. When interviews werearranged, certain companies clearly indicated that “the final objective of a CVC is to complete M&A.”
However, there were companies that believed that it was difficult to carry out M&A as an extension of
CVC. One person in charge of CVC at a manufacturing company said “there are examples of medium
companies carrying out M&A, but the grounds for carrying out M&A that target startup companies havenot been established.” Overall, it appears that although companies seek to pursue M&A, for practicalreasons the number of cases in which M&A are actually carried out is rather small.

I-89
Ⅰ－ 89

Issues
The latest interview-based surveys revealed a range of issues. Currently, we even feel that the number
of issues is actually larger than that of results. We believe that steadily uncovering solutions for issues
will lead to the success of CVCs. We would like to conclude this section with the following summary ofissues in CVC activities.
1. Management’s Commitment to CVC Activities
It usually takes time before venture investments begin generating returns. Venture investments alsoentail large risks. It is considered natural for the finance divisions of large companies to respondnegatively to them. In addition, there seem to be many cases when negative views are issued by research
offices, such as central research centers of manufacturers. A majority of large companies tend to reach thedecision that they can handle things themselves. Therefore, amid the echo of the many negative views
held internally, it is believed that the ability to sustain CVC activities depends on the decisions ofmanagement and its degree of insight. In other words, management’s commitment significantly influences
the direction of CVC activities. One person in charge of CVCs said “it is easy for us to promote activities
now because management is firmly committed, but I do not know what will happen in the future if there
is a change in management.”
Restrictions when investment decisions are made are more severe in CVCs than in ordinary VCs. In thecase of CVCs with strategic objectives, the management strategies of a parent company exert a strong
influence on investment activities. Although there are many companies that separate CVC activities fromtheir parent companies by establishing CVC subsidiaries, it is still difficult to ignore the intentions of theparent companies. There are CVC subsidiaries (although the number is limited) that maintain a reasonable
degree of independence from their parent companies by voluntarily accepting investments fromcompanies outside the parent company groups in the funds that these subsidiaries manage.
2. Contact with Key Persons in Large Companies
There is also the issue of how to match the innovations of startups with the different kinds of humanresources in large companies. For large companies, it is difficult to determine exactly who needs what. As
a result, there are cases of people in large companies who experience problems in not always being able
to make contact with the staff members (key persons) with whom they need to speak. The accuracy ofmatching technologies that startups have and companies’ internal needs will involuntarily determine thesuccess of CVC activities. Likewise, when introduced to key persons inside companies, it is necessary toensure that introductions are made without relying on specific individuals. When activities depend on
specific individuals, operations may continue effectively for a certain period of time, but the transfer ofthese individuals may immediately destroy all the relationships that have been developed.
3. Balance of Operational Speed and Governance
There were also cases of persons in charge of CVCs at large companies who are puzzled by the sense of
speed at which investments are carried out in startups. In the case of listed companies because corporate
governance is important, there is a need to follow the required procedures in order to remain accountable

I-90
Ⅰ－ 90

to shareholders when making investments. However, if governance is observed too strictly when making
actual investments, companies will become unable to deal with the situation and possibly miss out on
projects if they fail to make the investments at the right time. The balance between the operational speed
and governance is considered to be one of the main issues of CVC.

4. Size of Management Costs for Large Companies when Building a Cooperative Relationship with
Startups
One person in charge of CVCs who faced the issue of cooperating with startups said that “even when
you ask them (startups), they are incapable of handling matters that pose no problems for large
companies.” Even if a startup has competent engineers and sales staff, it does not necessarily mean that it
has capable human resources in the administration division. There are reportedly companies that are
unable to prepare extensive reports, such as monthly financial statements. In addition, if the president of acompany is an engineer, he tends to be focused on development, and at times is not very interested inreporting on the management situation of the company. In these cases, large companies will incur
significant management costs when they attempt to build a cooperative relationship with startups in which
they have invested.
5. Training of Human Resources and the Development of a Human Network
Human resources and a human network are crucial to the success of CVCs. Generally speaking, large
companies do not possess a system in which they are able to internally develop human resources that have
VC operational skills. In addition, the world of people related to investments in startups is very small, andthere is even an air of exclusivity. As a result, it is said that unless people join the network of a groupinvolved in investments, it will be difficult for them to find high-quality investment projects. However, it
is difficult to develop relationships and become part of a human network in a short period. People assume
that there are not many large companies in Japan that are equipped with both human resources and human
networks. Some people feel that human resources and human networks have been developed over a longtime in regions and countries where CVCs are actively pursued, such as the United States. Certain large
companies even set human resources development as the primary objective of CVCs. They reportedly
send human resources to startup companies in which they have made investments, and the startups
provide training to elevate these individuals into capitalists. It appears that there are also companies
which seek to slowly develop human networks by making LP investments in funds. In addition, there are
CVCs in which capitalists are externally outsourced. One certain large company has established andmanaged startup investment funds jointly with existing VCs.
Capitalists must have “hands-on ability” through which they can expand startups together with the
managers of the startups. It is definitely not easy for large companies to develop human resources withbusiness management capabilities. If a company cannot afford developing capitalists internally, it needs toexamine the possibility of externally outsourcing venture capitalists.
VCs that are specialized in fund management outsourcing have also emerged. It is reported that thesetypes of VCs subcontract fund management operations of companies that carry out CVC and venture
capitalists that have concluded a business outsourcing agreement with VC actually manage the funds.

I-91
Ⅰ－ 91

We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to the people in charge of CVCs, startup
managers, and academic experts for their cooperation and advice in preparing this report. We hope that
we can continue to count on their cooperation in the future in our efforts to further develop CVC activities
and other initiatives in Japan.

Acceleration in the Matching of Large Companies and Startups

The matching of large companies and startups has become active. For companies to achieve growth, it is essentialthat they create new businesses in a sustainable manner. However, in large companies employees all tend to think thesame way, and ideas for new businesses often go unnoticed because the scale of the operations is large. To tackle thissituation, efforts have started to make use of startups’ power to create ideas and their ability to deal with a wide rangeof difficulties. We are also now seeing companies that intermediate between large companies.
The Second Tokyo Innovation Leaders Summit (organized by PROJECT NIPPON Co., Ltd.) attracted 97 large
companies and 447 startups, and hosted a total of 1,480 business meetings. In 807 of these meetings, or more than
70%, large companies expressed their desire to have further meetings. TEIJIN LIMITED began to offer sleep related
services by cooperating mainly with Unlog (Shibuya-ku, Tokyo), a health-related startups. LOFT established the firstreal store of Oh My Glasses (Minato-ku, Tokyo), an Internet mail order operator.
There has also been a rise in the number of “corporate accelerator programs,” which are systems that large
companies manage to support startups. GAKKEN HOLDINGS started a trial of run of support for education related
startups in 2015. It invites business ideas, including those from individuals, and also makes investments in the best
ideas. In the first term, it received 111 applications and decided to invest in four companies.
01Booster (Minato-ku, Tokyo) managed programs as a supporter. It runs its operations by making a model ofmethods employed mainly by Techstars in the United States, which supports the accelerator programs of large
companies, such as Disney in the United States and Barclays in the United Kingdom. It also provides services tocompanies such as MORINAGA and West Japan Railway Company in business sectors in they rarely had aopportunity to interact with startups in the past.
Crew (Meguro-ku, Tokyo) also provides similar services. Large companies decide on themes for initiatives theywish to tackle with startups, and are able to invite startups that are willing to develop a form of collaboration with thestartups members of Crew. Companies in a variety of business sectors, such as Asahi Group Holdings and YOMIURISHIMBUN, have been using its services.

I-92
Ⅰ－ 92

(2) Mega Banks Are Starting to Pay Attention to Startup Companies
Mega banks with extensive networks in the business community have recently started to become
serious about offering support to startup companies. This can be seen in the following developments:
1. Mega banks (banks themselves) have started to support startups through aggressive and diversified
methods that are different from their existing approaches.
2. As part of open innovation in the banking sector, mega banks have started to provide aggressive
support to startups related to FinTech.
For details about the support to startups related to FinTech, please see the column on page I-95. Thissection will examine the recent activities of mega banks in relation to their support of startups other thanthose related to FinTech, taking into account the content of interviews with the three mega banks and theresults of other developments.
Adopting Aggressive Stance on Extending Loans to Startups
VC firms that are subsidiaries of mega banks were established in the 1970s. These subsidiaries have along history in the VC industry.
To date, financial support to startups has been extended through the combined approach of subsidiary
VCs handling equity finance and banks handling loans. However, banks were said to be very cautious
about extending loans to startups, and even if they did, they limited borrowers to startups in the laterstages or those that just made or were about to make IPOs.
However, in recent years there have been an increasing number of cases in which mega banks
cooperate with subsidiary VCs to provide working capital and other funds to startups not only in the laterstages, but also to those in the expansion stages. Certain banks have even provided working capital tostartups in the early stages. In addition, by establishing business alliances with public financial
institutions (such as Japan Finance Corporation), mega banks are starting to provide funds to startups
through a scheme in which public institutions extend subordinated loans that are similar in nature tocapital while banks offer syndicated loans.
The screening system of mega banks has also been improved and changed. For example, one megabank has established a screening department that exclusively handles growth companies, centering on
startup companies. Instead of screening paper documents as was done in the past, the person in charge ofscreenings assesses the actual situation and the potential of the operations of startups by mainly visiting
the startups in person and holding meetings with their managers. Another mega bank carries out due
diligence and other operations by allocating human resources with the capabilities of venture capitalists toa startup support department. The bank holds discussions and conducts screenings with the threeparties—the startup support department, the screening department, and one of the sales branches—andthen the screening department makes the final decision.
A new trend of establishing business alliances with the National Institute of Advanced Industrial
Science and Technology has also emerged among mega banks. Through these alliances, they work toenhance technology seeds and the capabilities in order to make mature technological judgments.

I-93
Ⅰ－ 93

In addition, we are now starting to see mega banks whose stated policy indicates that they, and not a
subsidiary VC, will make investments and provide loans for large-scale projects. The businesses proposedby these projects exhibit great potential to develop large markets in the future, even though it will take along time for them to commercialize products and require a large amount of funds. As a result, these megabanks have adopted a policy of addressing specific large-scale projects as a group. Although the numberof the projects appears to be still limited, this development is worth noting.
Diversification of Startup Support: Introduction of Customers Is Most Important for Startups
One noticeable trend over the last one to two years is that subsidiary VCs and banks themselves aretrying to cooperate in an organized manner to identify and train startups and provide sales support, suchas introducing customers.
To aid the development and training of startups, banks started to hold various kinds of events. These
include pitch contests sponsored by banks for startups, and business plan training and pitch events
co-sponsored by a public institution (NEDO), and think tanks that are the group companies of mega banks,with the aim of identifying academic startup companies. For all of these events, banks provide businesssupport funds, consulting services, business matching services, and other benefits to companies and teams
who have been awarded prizes, indicating the banks’ commitment to initiatives for actively supportingand developing startups.
Startups have an especially strong need for customers of their products. To this end, mega banks thatpossess an extensive range of information on customers are focusing on an organized and full-fledged
approach to introducing startups to potential customers of their products. This service provides support
that is very beneficial and effective for startups.
In addition, banks are offering diversified types of support to startups by improving their services
through the introduction of their own unique ideas. For example, banks themselves have started
establishing business alliances with industry-leading patent and law offices to support startups with theuse of the intellectual property rights they own.
Rising Expectations for Mega Banks: Approaches from Even Large Companies
Mega banks have made these changes because they have adopted a form of fundamental management
judgment that is more focused on the medium-to-long-term perspective. When forecasting banking
transactions ten years from now, mega banks appear to be gripped with a sense of crisis regarding thefollowing two points: (1) Target transactions will no longer be secured by relying solely on the growth ofexisting industries. Without creating new industries, mega banks will not be able to secure transactions
they anticipate. (2) Asset risks in the investment and loan asset portfolio cannot be diversified by relying
on existing industries and placing too much emphasis on specific industries.
Mega banks have positioned startups as one of main sectors that hold the key to the creation of new
industries. As a result, they have started to actively engage in startup support, based on the notion of
offering support that takes into account the anticipated business situation 10 years into the future. Even if
cyclical changes in the financial environment occur, it appears there will be no significant scale-down in
activities to support startups in the future.

I-94
Ⅰ－ 94

In addition, one of the latest and most notable developments is that mega banks have been receiving an
increasing number of inquiries and requests from the new business development sections of large
companies. These sections reach out to mega banks because they want to be introduced to startups that
operate in sectors in which their companies are exploring the prospects of business development. Megabanks have vast customer networks and are known to gather information efficiently, partly due to thereliability of their information management. For these reasons, they are poised to play a new role in aneffort to promote startups.

Mega Banks Acquire FinTech through Startup Support

Mega banks have become serious about providing support for startups. Their activities are particularly noticeable
in startups related to FinTech, a sector in which finance and the IT are integrated. Certain projects aim to establish
business alliances. It is difficult for the engineers of mega banks on their own to understand IT trends and develop
new financial IT services, such as in the rapidly expanding website, mobile service, and big data fields. It is essential
to be engaged in open innovation in order to adopt the capabilities of startups.
In this environment, one mega bank that is leading the way is the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd. (MUFG). In
June 2015, MUFG held the Fintech Challenge 2015, a pitch contest in which FinTech startups participated. The
defining feature of this contest was that in the selection of startups, priority was placed on the capabilities of startups
to develop a cooperative business relationship with MUFG.
Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation also held a presentation event in September 2015 to which it invited
FinTech startups. The purpose of the event was also to find partners with which the bank was able to establish
business alliances. The main themes of the event were applications for mobile terminals, artificial intelligence (AI),and biometric authentication. In both events put on by these two banks, the officers of each group company
participated in the events as judges and sought to evaluate startups in a practical manner.
Movements to support startups in the technology sector have also started among smaller banks. In August 2015 the
Shizuoka Bank, Ltd. invested in Money Forward, Inc. (Minato-ku, Tokyo), a provider of family finance management
services. Money Forward is considered to be a front runner among FinTech startups. This is a pioneering case ofinvestments made by a bank. The Shizuoka Bank also took a stake in Monex Group, Inc., an online securities
company, in 2014.
In December 2015, Fukuoka Financial Group, Inc. sent out an invitation to businesses involved with settlement
services and the sharing economy that used information and communication technology (ICT). Moving forward, it
will examine the possibility of cooperative relationships for the commercialization of products.
Reference: FinTech

FinTech is a coined term that is made up of the words “finance” and “technology.” It essentially refers
to financial services that use IT technologies. Traditionally, major vendors that provide accounting
systems to financial institutions have held a leading position in this sector.
In recent years, startup companies that specialize in FinTech have emerged.

I-95
Ⅰ－ 95

Crowdfunding Supports Manufacturing Startup Companies:
Rising Expectations also for Equity-based Crowdfunding

Crowdfunding is becoming an important funding method for startup companies. It is a convenient system for
manufacturing startups involved predominantly with the Internet of things (IoT) because crowdfunding also serves as
test form of marketing for newly developed products and helps create fans.
The most popular form of crowdfunding among manufacturing startups is reward-based crowdfunding. This can be
regarded as a type of build-to-order manufacturing. One extremely popular platform is Makuake (Operator:
CyberAgent Crowd Funding, Inc.). The strength of this platform is the media presence of CyberAgent. Makuake isable to reach a wide range of people and identify demand. There are a number of funds in this platform that are
ranked in the top level in terms of funding amounts in Japan. Makuake has also captured the demand of in-housestartups, such as Sony. In addition, it has established a business alliance with the group’s venture capital (VC) arm.
Other platforms, such as kibidango (Operator: Kibidango, Inc.) and zenmono (Operator: enmono Co., Ltd.), also
focus on projects related to manufacturing startups.
However, in Japan, the record amount of reward-based crowdfunding is still only in the ¥30 million range, while
the accumulated amount is no more than approximately ¥2 billion (based on the report prepared by Yano ResearchInstitute Ltd. in 2014). This accumulated amount actually falls short of the top funded case of Kickstarter in the
United States. There was a case in Japan of a project that attracted more than a record of ¥40 million. However, it
was unable to get off the ground because its target was not met. As this case and other examples show, certain
instances of crowdfunding are plagued by opaque and inappropriate operations. There appear to be issues that require
improvement in a variety of aspects.
There was one incident that spoiled the wider use of equity-based crowdfunding, which was expected to play aleading role in fund raising along with reward-based crowdfunding. In this incident, authorities issued Crowd
Securities Japan, Inc. an order to suspend its business operations. Crowd Securities was preparing to launchequity-based crowdfunding, but it ultimately received this order largely because of a problem with its internal control
structure.
Considering the fact that currently risk money is readily available, the need for equity-based crowdfunding may
not be so high at this time. However, there is a need to develop equity-based crowdfunding in preparation for the time
when the funding environment becomes more limited.

I-96
Ⅰ－ 96

Feeling the Blues in France

President Ryuji Ichikawa
Venture Enterprise Center, Japan

VEC relies on reports prepared by the European Venture Capital Association (EVCA) about trends and othermatters related to venture capital (VC) investments in Europe. With the courtesy of the French Embassy in Tokyo, we
recently obtained the February 2015 report “France, a favourable country for the development of start-ups?” preparedby the Compagnie Française d'Assurance pour le Commerce Extérieur (COFACE). Based on this report, I would liketo introduce certain aspects about the domestic situation in France.
As indicated in the graph below, the rate of startup activity in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) survey(an indicator that shows the activeness of startup activities in each country, the Total Early-Stage Entrepreneurial
Activity (TEA)), France ranks as low as Japan.
40%

Total early‐stage
Entrepreneurial Activity（TEA）

30%

20%

10%

0%

（Global Entrepreneurship Monitor 2014 Global Report）

In response to the question “Fear of failure prevents people from setting up businesses” in the GEM survey, 43%of all French respondents said “Yes.” In contrast, this percentage among Americans and the British was 33% and38%, respectively. About 44% of Japanese respondents have this fear, a percentage that is just as high as the French.
The COFACE report states, “Before 2013, failure was treated seriously, and entrepreneurs who went throughliquidation in accordance with the Corporate Rehabilitation Act were put on a black list by French banks. Although aneffort was made to restore their honor from failure from 2013, entrepreneurs with a history of failure continue to havedifficulties completing banking transactions when they want to start new activities.” Just like in Japan, it seems that
France has an environment in which taking renewed challenges is difficult for people who have experienced failure.
Likewise, in response to a question “Do you believe an opportunity will arise in the next six months to start a venturein the area where you live? ” in the GEM survey (perceived opportunities), only 29% of French answered “Yes.” Therate is higher at 53% among Americans, 44% among the British, and 42% among Germans. For Japanese, the rate isextremely low at 9%.
Here I will introduce an excerpt from the interview with, Monsieur Tanguy de la Fouchardière, the Vice Chairmanof France Angel, that appears in the COFACE report.
Q: What is the most significant brake on the development of venture capital in France?
A: Half of the Business Angels surveyed for the Barometer France Angels/BFM Business in 2014 said that regulatory
and fiscal uncertainty was the main brake on the development of their investments. In second place was the legal
framework's lack of visibility and insufficient fluidity in the funding chain (for example between the Business Angels
and investment funds) which makes it difficult to pass from one to the other.
Among the factors for improvement they would like to see: making it easier to bring investors together (especially
Business Angels during the first funding rounds in the life of a company and accordingly establishing relations with
Venture Capitalists to finance the development of start-ups) and having a regulatory framework that remains stable
over the medium term in order to encourage investments.

I-97
Ⅰ－ 97

Q: Does the ICT sector occupy a dominant position in your investments?
A: The digital sector and the Business Angels are at the heart of innovation. This is all the more important now that,in an increasingly globalised economy in which digital technology has no borders, it has become indispensable to theemergence of tomorrow's champions. Where the constant search for permanent gains in competitiveness cannot takeplace without innovation, the latter likewise cannot take place without financial investment. The Business Angels
who are members of networks affiliated to France Angels are by definition closely associated with the digital universe(which represented 60% of annual investments in volume and value terms in 2013). This is explained by the fact thatthe Business Angels are there as guides to innovation before being investors. And that innovation as a concept is notjust about technological advances, but has now been superseded by the idea of innovation in use and process.
Q: What key characteristics must a young company have to attract attention?
A: The main criteria for attracting a Business Angel include:(1) The market targeted by the company and its size;(2) The added value of the offer compared with the existing offer, its innovative nature;(3) The project's credibility;(4) The cohesiveness of the team;(5) The growth prospects;(6) Exit opportunities for the Business Angels.
It is important to remember that Business Angels intervene at the very start of the marketing phase of the
product/service when the projects are still immature and the business model can evolve. This assumption of risk is
one of the difficulties of their action.
Q: Do you see appearing specific competition from the new participatory funding modes?
A: Participatory finance on the whole complements rather than competes with the actions of the Business Angels inserving the business community and developing the local economy. The crowdfunding platforms represent newopportunities for individuals wanting to invest in young innovative companies. They can also offer new methods ofco-investment for the Business Angels, as participatory finance is not always positioned on the same types of project
as those financed and accompanied by the Business Angels. So, the latter have considerable professional expertise(entrepreneurs, senior managers, engineers, …), are very focused on innovation and tend to be attracted by projects
with a B2B business model. Conversely, individuals investing via crowdfunding platforms are rarely experts and needto see themselves as a potential customer for the product or service proposed by the company before deciding toinvest. They thus come in on business projects in which the Business Angels are not necessarily positioned.
In addition, the report also contains an interview with Monsieur Vincent Lepage, the Chief Technology Officer of
AlephD, a startup that specializes in real-time advertising. The following is an excerpt from that interview
Q: Common knowledge, the French would be risk averse.
A: I am not sure that risk aversion of French people is still as strong: students of the best schools today are dreaming
about creating the next Facebook or Criteo, not working in a large bank or a large strategy firm. Accepting failure as anormal step, even rewarding in a CV, also removes a barrier.
Q: Do you consider the French environment favorable to your development? Have you considered the expatriation ofyour company?
A: The environment in France is rather favorable, mainly thanks to the skills that one can find, relatively inexpensive
in terms of salaries in Silicon Valley. However, our market is not located in France, which has forced us to quickly
prospect export markets, first in Europe and in the United States today. In 2015, we should do more than 70% of ourturnover from exports. But, the heart of R&D and technology remains in France, where the conditions to recruit andemploy are better for these IT and data sciences jobs.
These interviews reveal a trend among young people of abandoning the idea of joining large companies andembracing the idea of “Born Global” in which people set their sights on the global market. They also highlight theimportance of the using the strength gained from failure. The issues mentioned in these interviews have all been
discussed often Japan. It can be said that a major wave of using startup companies, instead of only focusing on large
companies, is starting to rise in France as well. I can also see the expectations of other parties and investors, theexpectations for industrial reorganization, the expectations for the emergence of crowdfunding, and the expectations
for steady managers of startups. These developments are also potentially great guides for Japan, which is striving tomove out of this similar gloomy stage.

I-98
Ⅰ－ 98

Learning from Israel

President Ryuji Ichikawa
Venture Enterprise Center, Japan

I had an opportunity to visit Israel in early March 2015. While I was there I held individual interviews withorganizations and people that create a venture eco-system, including the Ministry of Economy, a former official of the
Ministry of Economy, incubators, venture capital (VC) firms, and entrepreneurs. These interviews made me strongly
feel that there are many things Japan can learn from Israel. Media coverage about Israel tends to focus mainly onpolitical relationships, but Israel’s fundamental economic strength is also worth noting.
Israel only has a population of approximately 8 million, and in terms of area is roughly the same size as the islandof Shikoku. However, it is an advanced economic and scientific technological country that ranks at the top or near the
top in the world in VC investment amount per capita, the ratio of the R&D investment amount to GDP, the number of
non-U.S. companies listed on the NASDAQ in the United States, and the number of laureates who received the threeNobel science awards. It is also a country that is believed to have more than 8,000 startups. We were told that the
Minister of the Economy is an entrepreneur who has experience with two exits.
I had heard that the factors that facilitated the development of startups in Israel were the immigration of highly
qualified Jewish engineers and scientists from Russia to Israel as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union in the
1990s, and the cutting-edge research and development and creation of human networks through military service. In
regards to these points, I was able to obtain information directly from a former official of the Ministry of Economy
who designed the system in the early days. During the peak time of immigration, the population apparently grew by
between 10 to 15% over a period of a few years. I asked if language posed any problems during this period of intense
immigration, and this official indicated that language proved to be the biggest obstacle, saying: “They could only
speak Russian. We quickly helped them learn Hebrew. Women seemed to have adapted to their new surroundings
more quickly.” I thought the immigrants would be taught English, so hearing about the teaching of Hebrew was
somewhat of a surprise.
After I heard the history of policy from the former official of the Ministry of Economy, on the following day, I met
an active bureaucrat of the Ministry of Economy. During the meeting, I was slightly surprised when the bureaucrat
clearly said, “We have now adopted new methods that are different from those previously used.” It is true that Yozma(government funds whose name, Yozma, means “initiative” in Hebrew) that were once well known have now been
privatized, and several incubators that were established under the leadership of the government have also been
privatized. This development really made me feel that Israel swiftly responds to changes in the current environment
and adapts its policies.
When making appointments in Israel, it is better to do so by providing a sufficient amount of leeway in between.
This is because when meetings are held, people always say something like “For that subject, you should meet so andso.” Then they contact the person, who says something like “Well since they’re recommending me, I can meet withyou.” This flow of introductions quickly leads to a number of appointments. I think that Silicon Valley used to be likethis. According to people up to speed with the latest developments there, it is now impossible for people to makeappointments in Silicon Valley unless you have the right connections or business matters to discuss.
Overall, the venture eco-system in Israel is functioning well. There are a large number of technology startups,
including those in IT security, drug discovery, medical care, welfare, energy, and manufacturing. The most popular ofthese are academic startups. For this reason, startups in Israel have grown significantly in the sectors in which Japanneeds to expand in the future. I believe that there are many things that Japan can learn from Israel. In July 2014, thenMinister of Economy, Trade and Industry Toshimitsu Motegi visited Israel. He signed a memorandum concerningindustrial R&D cooperation with the Minister of Economy of Israel. With the subsequent visit of Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe in January 2015 and other developments, cooperation between the two countries is expected to grow in
the future. Japanese companies have practically no business presence in Israel. The only one is Samurai Incubate, Inc.,
which has an office on one of the main streets in Tel Aviv and plays an active role in bridging between Japan and
Israel. Their decision to set up an office in Tel Aviv reflects their great foresight. According to Samurai Incubate,
recent active business development by China and South Korea in Israel is outstanding, while Japanese companies arelagging behind.

I-99
Ⅰ－ 99

After actually visiting Israel, I thought that it would be best to clear up several misunderstandings people haveabout the country.
Visiting Israel is dangerous because of the wars taking place with surrounding Arab nations.
Things may be different in the Gaza Strip and other areas near the borders, but as long as you stay inside Tel Aviv,
there is really no sense of being in a warzone. Tel Aviv is a city facing the Mediterranean with a population of
approximately 400,000, making it the second largest city in Israel. It is a major commercial center, and there aremany high-rise buildings in the city. It is also a resort destination with a number of exclusive hotels, such as Hilton
and Sheraton, located along the beach.
Once an Israeli entry or exit stamp is put in a passport, people will become unable to enter surrounding Arabcountries that view Israel as their enemy.
Currently no stamps are put directly into a passport. Instead, when visitors enter the country, they receive a small
card known as blue card (a white card when leaving the country). After completing immigration screening, visitorspress the card against the machine when they pass the gate, which then automatically opens.
Screening at the airport is so strict that when visitors leave the country, they must come to the airport at least threehours before departure.
After getting out of a car, I was screened by a metal detector at the entrance to the airport building. However, thescreening process seems to have been simplified, and I was not even asked to open my suitcases. From the way theylooked, the screening did not seem to be a full screening. The only thing that happened at passport control was theexchange of very friendly conversation. Ultimately, because I came three hours prior to my departure, I ended uphaving to kill time at the airport.
However, to be fair, I also experienced some difficulties.
The driver of one taxi I caught happened to be able to speak English, but there are some people who only speak
Hebrew and some are not even able to read the Latin alphabet (so one Israeli told me). In fact, it was helpful thatmany street signs and bus stops were written in the Latin alphabet, but some old-looking signs were only written in
Hebrew. In addition, the origin of Hebrew and Arabic is the same and they are written from right to left. I was
puzzled when I used the Internet for the first time in Israel because I could not find a vertical scroll bar, but I thenrealized that it was actually on the left of the screen.

I-100
Ⅰ－ 100

The Resurgence of Germany (Part One)President Ryuji Ichikawa
Venture Enterprise Center, JapanThe German manufacturing industry has experienced a resurgence that extends beyond the framework ofcompanies, driven by the industry-government-academia promotion of the digitalization and networking ofproduction processing (the smart factory) and “Industrie 4.0” (the fourth industrial revolution), and the minimizationof production costs. There also is a case in Japan where a construction machinery manufacturer manages information
about their own products around the world, and uses it to improve the utilization rate and reduce maintenance costs.
However, the most significant feature of “Industrie 4.0” is that promotion moves beyond the framework of acompany.
Promotion of Industrie 4.0 is supported behind the scenes by the education and training system. This system isreferred to as the “Duale System” in German, and it is a kind of a dual academic-corporate vocational education
training system. Simply put, it is the system in which for one week high school students take lessons in the classroom
at school for one to two days, and then receive vocational training from participating companies for the remaining
three to four days. It is reported that one benefit of the system is that it improves the motivation of participating
students toward jobs far more than ordinary students who do not take part. In Japan, by referring to the dual system inGermany, a Tokyo Metropolitan technical high school in Ota-ku, Tokyo established its own “Tokyo dual system”
modeled after the German system. This school has been running system over the last ten years in a trial and error
fashion, slowly fixing it over time. I have also heard stories of the challenges faced by teachers who experience aheavy burden when a system that has never been tried in Japan is actually put into operation. In addition, if an attempt
was made to introduce the system nationwide, there would be the problem of the unavoidable distance between
schools in the rural regions and participating companies. Incidentally, there are reports that Germany is working todevelop the “Duales Studium” on the university level.
“Fraunhofer Venture”, a commercialization support organization of the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft in Munich, is one
particularly well known example of support for startup companies in Germany. It is reportedly facilitating spin-offs
by supporting the matching of researchers who do not have experience in managing companies with externalmanagement human resources.
I spoke about these matters with a German researcher at an international conference. That researcher told me thatthe “Steinbeis Foundation” is also actively involved in efforts to support startups. According to the Steinbeis
Foundation website, the institute has its headquarters in Stuttgart and boasts more than 30 years of experience as oneof the most successful technology transfer organization in the world. The Steinbeis Foundation has a global networkof approximately 1,000 companies, and is supported by 6,000 experts. It appears to provide problem-solution services
to customers by offering prompt access to cutting edge technologies and know-how to address the wide range ofproblems that customers face.
The “Neuer Markt”, a stock market for startups in Germany, was closed in 2002 following the collapse of the IT
bubble. As a result, it is said that it is currently hard for startups to make stock offerings, and exits are mainly carriedout through acquisitions by large companies. It is also reported that the activities of venture capitals are sluggish,making it difficult to say that a venture eco-system based on the Silicon Valley model in the United States has beendeveloped. However, with the recent spotlight on Industrie 4.0, startups in the manufacturing and biotechnology
sectors are expected to grow through the application of German methods in the future.

I-101
Ⅰ－ 101

The Resurgence of Germany (Part Two)

President Ryuji Ichikawa
Venture Enterprise Center, JapanThe first part of this section highlighted the superior features of Industrie 4.0 and the Duale system underlying theresurgence of Germany. The German Federal Government also appears to be eagerly looking for innovation
promotion policies that are unique and different from those of Silicon Valley.
In 2006, the government established the “Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI)” with Professor
Dietmar Harhoff, PhD., the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, acting as the
Chairman. Since then, the EFI has submitted proposals about innovation promotion policies directly to German
Chancellor Angela Merkel every year. It is a high-level commission composed of members who are all professors
with doctoral degrees.
I was able to participate in the workshop recently held by commission members while they were in Tokyo as partof their official visit to Japan and South Korea. Lectures from Japanese participants, including a speech I gave,
covered the recent business models of IT startups in Japan, startup promotion policies in Japan, and the current stateof venture capital (VC) firms in Japan. In the discussions after the lectures, the topics tended to focus largely on theslow change in the traditional Japanese education and labor environment and the entrepreneurial spirit of Japaneseyoung people. In addition, the commission members listened attentively to the discussion of Prime Minister Shinzo
Abe’s visit to Silicon Valley and the “Project for a Bridge. This YEARBOOK will also play a role in facilitating
global understanding about Japan.
Now we will take a brief look at the “Report 2015” the EFI announced in February 2015.
The report stated that Germany’s venture capital market was far less developed than markets in the United Statesand many European countries, and that the Commission of Experts welcomed the fact that the Federal Government
was planning several measures to improve the international competitiveness of the framework conditions for venture
capital in Germany. The Commission of Experts particularly welcomed the Federal Government’s announcement torevise the restrictive tax regulations for the treatment of carried-over losses. In addition, it opposed tax increases andother measures that would reduce the incentives of startups, while also suggesting that new restrictions regarding
investment opportunities for insurance companies and pension funds need to be avoided. In addition, the commission
proposed that the Federal Government’s plan to create a growth financing fund for German startups via the European
Investment Fund (EIF) should be implemented without delay.
As for the cluster policies that have been adopted over the last twenty years, the commission concluded that thepolicies demonstrated there was great innovation potential emerging from financing R&D cooperation projects
between large companies and SMEs, and therefore these forms of collaborations should be supported. In regards tothe clusters it advocated, the commission also stated that the Federal and Länder governments should aim to avoid
excessive focus on regional partners and strive to create transregional networks, proposing the internationalization ofclusters. The commission further called for an assessment of the medium and long-term effects of the clusters, andproposed that systematic monitoring be implemented.
In regards to digital innovation, the commission stated that the current copyright regulations were extremelycomplex, and therefore it urged the Federal Government to simplify copyright provisions and make them moretransparent. It proposed sending violation alerts as a useful alternative to the common practice of issuing formal
warnings. The commission also suggested that the legal claim for the reimbursement of the costs stated in a formal
warning be tied to the condition that a prior violation alert must have been sent via the Internet service provider to theinfringer.
The commission had a high opinion of 3D printing with its potential disruptive power. It suggested thatinterdisciplinary research collaboration (such as with material sciences and nanotechnology) at higher education
institutions and non-university research institutions be strengthened via appropriate measures, and that further supportshould be provided for technology transferred to businesses should also be supported further. Within the context ofpromoting Industrie 4.0, it also stated that 3D printing held great potential, and that best practice examples shouldcollected and support measures provided in a systematic manner. The commission urged for unresolved legal issues
related to 3D printing, such as liability, to be clarified right away, and recommended that the Federal Government set
stronger incentives for developing quality standards. In addition, it also suggested that skills related to using 3D
printing be taught throughout the vocational education and training system.
Having gone through these proposals, we find there are a number of proposals that Japan also shares. This isprobably because both Japan and Germany examine issues from the supply side. In contrast, Silicon Valley focuses
on changing the world from the demand side. As a result, the general public is able to go along with these changes

I-102
Ⅰ－ 102

more easily, and it appears their social impact is far reaching. These are some of the things that participating in theworkshop brought to my attention.

I-103
Ⅰ－ 103

I-104

Chapter II. Japanese Startup Business Survey
Overview
Following on from the 2014 survey, VEC conducted the “Survey on the Startup Business Environment(2015),” covering startup companies established within the previous five years. The following tableprovides an overview of the survey. VEC conducted the survey by postal mail until 2014. From the 2015,it switched to an online format.

Summary of the survey
Startup companies established

Target companies

within the previous five years

Survey collection period

June 3rd – July 1st, 2015

Survey method

Web survey

Number of companies surveyed

1,618

Number of companies responded

277

Response rate

17.1％

Valid number of companies responded

269 ※1

Valid response rate※1※2

16.6％ ※2

Excludes the startup companies over five years since establishment
Valid response rate of the survey in 2014：10.6％

The following table shows the number of responding startup companies that received funds fromventure capital (VC) firms after they were established, and those that did not.
Number of Responding Companies receiving/without VC investments
Number of responding
companies
Receiving VC investments

94

Without VC investments

175

Total

269

Please note that there is a large gap between the number of companies included in “Received VC
investments” and those included “Without VC investments.” Each figure lists the number of valid
responses to the corresponding survey.

I-105
Ⅰ－ 105

1． Profiles of Responding Startup Companies(1) Industries
In terms of the industries of all responding companies, the Computers and Peripherals/IT Services
industry accounted for the largest proportion of responses, or approximately 40%, followed by the
Software industry. In regards to the Biotechnology/Medicine industry, there was a slight difference, withcompanies “Receiving VC investments” accounting for 7.4% and those “Without VC investments”
accounting for 2.9%. However, the percentage was nearly the same in other industries.
Figure 2-1-1 Industry Distribution of Responding Companies
Computers and Peripherals/IT services
Semi‐conductors/Electrical Machinery & Equipment
Biotechnology/Medicine
Media/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods
Robot‐relatedAll
responding
companies

42.8

Companies
receiving VC
investments

43.6

SoftwareTelecommunications/Networking and Equipment
Medical Device and Equipment/Healthcare‐related
Finance/Real Estate/Business Services
Industrial/Energy/Other

14.5

4.8 4.8 4.5 6.3 6.3

7.8 1.5 6.7
(269)

12.8

5.3 4.3 7.4 6.4 4.3 7.4

1.1

7.4
(94)

Companies
Without VC
investments

42.3

15.4

4.6 5.12.9 6.3 7.4

8.0

1.7

6.3

(175)

Unit：% Value within （） represents the number of valid responses(2) Stage
There was no significant difference in distribution by stage between companies “Receiving VC
investments” and those “Without VC investments.” The Early stage accounted for more than 50%, while
the Seed stage and the Expansion stage were nearly the same, with each accounting for approximately
20%. Looking at the breakdown by the stage, similar trends have been observed in the data of theprevious surveys. This distribution percentage is considered to be one of characteristics of the data of thissurvey. In addition, one of the reasons why the number for the Later stage is extremely low is believed to
be attributable to the scope of the survey, which is limited to companies established within the last five
years.
Reference:The stages in VEC’s survey are defined as follows.
Stage
Seed
Early
Expansion
Later

Definition
Companies undergoing research and product development but has yet to establish acommercial business operation.
Companies with product development, and the early stage of marketing, manufacturing
and sales promotion.
Companies that have started production and shipment with its inventory and/or sales
growing in size.
Companies that have a continuous cash flow and are nearing the stage for IPO.

I-106
Ⅰ－ 106

Figure 2-1-2

Stage Distribution of Responding Companies

Seed
All responding
companies

Early

Expansion

22.7

Later

54.6

1.5

21.2

(269)

Companies
receiving
VC investments

21.3

Companies
without
VC investments

23.4

56.4

19.1

3.2
(94)

53.7

0.6

22.3

(175)

Unit：% Value within （） represents the number of valid responses(3) Stage and the Number of Employees
Looking at the number of employees (including irregular employees, such as officers, dispatchedworkers, and part time workers) by stage, overall the employment scale of more than 50% of thecompanies in the Seed and Early stages was “Between one employee and five employees.” The later thestage, the greater the number of employees, and there were companies in the Expansion and Later stages
with “Between 101 and 300 employees.”
In addition, the scale of the business organization of companies “Receiving VC investments” wasgreater than those “Without VC investments.” In particular, there were no companies in the Expansion
and Later stages that had five employees or less. However, considering the fact that 66.6% of companies
in the Expansion stage were those with 20 employees or less, in terms of the number of employees, there
was a large number of small-scale companies.
Figure 2-1-3

Employee Distribution of Responding Companies by stage（All responding companies）

1‐5 employees

6‐10 employees

11‐20 employees

21‐50 employees

51‐100 employees

68.8

Seed

101‐300 employees

19.7

8.2 3.3

16.3

9.5 2.7

(61)

51.1

Early

20.4

(147)

Expansion

28.0

Later

25.0

24.6

22.8

15.8

5.3 3.5
(57)

25.0

50.0
Unit：% Value within （） represents the number of valid responses（Continued on next page）

I-107
Ⅰ－ 107(4)

（Companies receiving VC investments）
1‐5 employees

6‐10 employees

21‐50 employees

51‐100 employees

70.0

Seed
Early

33.9

Expansion

33.3

Later

11‐20 employees

101‐300 employees

20.0
18.9

26.4
33.3

33.3

16.7

10.0
17.0

3.8

11.1

5.6

(20)
(53)
(18)

66.7

(3)

Unit：% Value within （） represents the number of valid responses（Companies without VC Investments）
1‐5 employees

6‐10 employees

11‐20 employees

21‐50 employees

51‐100 employees

19.5

68.3

Seed

101‐300 employees

7.3 4.9
(41)

60.7

Early
Expansion
Later

41.0

20.5
100.0

21.3

10.6 5.3 2.1

17.9

15.4

(94)

2.6
2.6 (39)(1)

Unit：% Value within （） represents the number of valid responses

I-108
Ⅰ－ 108

2． Status of Business Development(1) Overseas Business Development
Companies that had already expanded into overseas markets (sales and procurement) accounted for
24.9% of overall responding companies. Of these companies, those that had overseas bases accounted for
9.3%.
Looking at companies and whether they received VC investments, the percentage of companies“Receiving VC investments” and that of companies “Without VC investments” were nearly the same forcompanies that had already expanded into overseas markets. However, for companies that had alreadyhad overseas bases, the percentage of companies “Receiving VC Investments” was approximately doublethat of companies “Without VC investments.”
Figure 2-2-1

Status of Overseas Business Development

Already expanded into overseas markets

Plan to expand into overseas markets

No history or plan to expand into overseas markets
All responding
companies

24.9

53.5

Having overseas bases:9.3

21.6
(269)

Companies receiving
23.4
VC investments
Having overseas bases:13.8

61.7

14.9
(94)

Companies without
VC investments

25.7

49.2

Having overseas bases:6.9

25.1
(175)

Unit：% Value within （） represents the number of valid responses

In regards to regions where companies had existing overseas businesses, Asia as a whole made up thelargest percentage, accounting for 47.1% (Figure 2-2-2). Here, Asia consists of China, Southeast Asia,and Other Asian Regions. Of these, Southeast Asia was the largest.
Looking at companies whether they received VC investments, Asia accounted for an even higher
percentage of companies “Receiving VC Investments,” standing at 59.2%. This was approximately 1.4
times the percentage of companies “Without VC investments,” which stood at 42.0%. In recent years,
Asia has been attracting attention as a venture investment market, and the number of companies which
receive VC investments that are expanding their operations in Asia will probably continue to increase in
the future.

I-109
Ⅰ－ 109Figure 2-2-2 Existing Overseas Business by Region
China
Other Asian regions
North America
Middle East and Africa
All responding
companies

15.9

Southeast Asia
EuropeLatin America
Not Specified（including Web services）
19.3

11.9

13.9

17.2

7.3

4.6

9.9
(151)

Companies
receiving
VC investments

20.5

20.5

18.2

11.4

18.2

4.5 2.2 4.5(44)Companies without
VC investments

14.0

18.7

9.3

15.0

16.9

8.4

5.6

12.1
(107)

Unit：% Value within （） represents the number of valid responses(2) Future Business Plans
Among all responding companies, the percentage of companies thinking about making an initial public
offering (IPO), including those currently conducting specific procedures for an IPO, accounted for nearly
60%. On the other hand, the companies thinking about pursuing M&A accounted for approximately only
10%. Compared to Europe and the United States, the number of M&A in Japan is extremely low. The
results above again confirmed that the priority order of M&A in Japan in terms of business planning wasclearly lower than IPOs.
In addition, in the group of companies “Receiving VC Investments,” the percentage of the companies
thinking about making an IPO reached 75.5%. This showed that a large number of the companies
receiving VC investments were eyeing IPOs.
On the other hand, in the group of companies “Without VC investments,” the percentage of companies
thinking about making an IPO was even less than 50%. In addition, it became clear that more than 40% of
the companies were not considering IPOs or M&A.
Figure 2-2-3 Future Business Plans

Currently taking specific procedures for initial public offering (IPO)
Considering making an IPO, but no specific procedures have been taken
Considering pursuing M&As (sales of businesses)
Not considering IPOs or M&As
All responding
companies

29.4

13.0

50.6

7.0

(269)
Companies
receiving VC
investments
Companies
without VC
investments

18.1

62.7

12.8

6.4
(94)

4.0

10.3

44.0

41.7
(175)

Unit：% Value within （ ） represents the number of valid responses

I-110
Ⅰ－ 1103． Status of Fundraising(1) Status of Fundraising Since Incorporation
An analysis of the fundraising since incorporation (Figure 2-3-1) reveals that the majority of companies(both companies with VC investments and those without) were provided funds by Founder, Family, andFriends. For the rest, there were no sources of funds that exceeded 50%, and there was no concentration
on any specific source. This indicates that startups use a variety of sources to raise funds.
Next, looking at the percentage of the amount of funds raised since incorporation (Figure 2-3-2),
Venture capital accounted for the largest among all responding companies, followed by Private
corporations. As for Founder, Family and Friends, the percentage of the number of fundraisings far
surpassed 80%, but the percentage of the amount did not reach 10%, indicating that the amount of funds
raised per each instance of fundraising was small.
Looking at companies based on the situation of VC investments, for companies “Receiving VC
Investments,” the amount of funds raised from Venture capital accounted for approximately 50% of thetotal funds raised.
For companies “Without VC investments,” the amount of funds raised from Private corporations
accounted for 29.4%, while that from Banks/Shinkin banks/Credit unions accounted for 24.8%. The totalof these two sources of funds accounted for more than 50% of the total amount of funds raised.
Figure 2-3-1 Sources of Total Funds Raised since Incorporation(By percentage of number of fundraisings: multiple responses included)
0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Founder, Family, Friends
26.0%

Individual investors (Angel)

100%

37.2%

20.0%

38.7%
34.0%
41.1%

Banks, Shinkin banks,Credit unions

34.9%

Venture capital

100.0%

27.1%
28.7%
26.3%

Public organizations

25.3%

Private corporations

Overseas investors

90%

81.8%
86.2%
79.4%

20.6%

34.0%

All responding companies（Number of valid responses：269）
Companies receiving VC investments（Number of valid responses：94）
Companies without VC investments（Number of valid responses：175）

3.7%
6.4%
2.3%

Figure 2-3-2 Sources of Total Funds Raised since Incorporation(By percentage of amount of funds raised: multiple responses included)
Founder, Family,
Friends

Individual investors(Angel)0%

All responding
companies

Banks, Shinkin banks,Credit unions

10%

20%

6.4

14.9

7.5

Companies receiving
VC investments

4.8 3.2

Companies without
VC investments

14.3

11.0

30%

Venture capital

40%

Public organizations

50%

60%

35.5

24.8

Overseas investors

70%

90%

9.6

49.6
14.7

Private corporations

20.8
8.2

13.1

80%

17.3
29.4

100%

5.3

(269)

5.9

(94)

3.7

(175)

Unit：% Value within （ ） represents the number of valid responses

I-111
Ⅰ－ 111

(2) Status of Fundraising during the Most Recent One-year Period
Looking at the percentages of the fundraising sources during the most recent one-year period (Figure
2-3-3), the percentage of Founder, Family, and Friends was the largest among all responding companies,
followed by Banks/Shinkin banks/Credit unions.
Looking at companies “Receiving VC Investments,” for those that have received such investments
since incorporation, the percentage that had received funds from VCs over the most recent one-year
period was 70.2%.
For companies “Without VC investments,” the percentage that had not received funds over the previous
one year was high at approximately 30%.
Looking at the percentage of the amount of funds raised during the most recent one-year period (Figure
2-3-4), Venture capital accounted for the largest among all responding companies, followed by Private
corporations.
The percentage of companies “Without VC investments” that received funds from Private corporations
was not necessarily large at around 10% by number, but the percentage by amount accounted for 30%,
making the Private corporations the largest source of funds provided.
Figure 2-3-3 Sources of Total Funds Raised during the Most Recent One-year Period(By percentage of number of fundraisings: multiple responses included)
0%

10%

20%

30%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

37.9%
34.0%
40.0%

Founder, Family, Friends

15.2%
20.2%

Individual investors (Angel)

12.6%

29.7%
24.5%
32.6%

Banks, Shinkin banks,Credit unions

24.5%

Venture capital

70.2%

19.3%
20.2%
18.9%

Public organizations

18.2%

Private corporations

Overseas investors

40%

12.0%

29.8%
All responding companies（Number of valid responses：269）

2.6%
4.3%
1.7%

Companies receiving VC investments（Number of valid responses：94）
Companies without VC investments（Number of valid responses：175）

13.8%

No funds raised

24.2%
29.7%

Figure 2-3-4 Sources of Total Funds Raised during the Most Recent One-year Period(By percentage of amount of funds raised: multiple responses included)
Founder, Family,
Friends

Individual investors(Angel)0%

All responding
companies
Companies receiving
VC investments
Companies without
VC investments

Banks, Shinkin banks,Credit unions10%

3.2 6.5
0.9
2.8

20%

12.7

30%

Venture capital
40%

Public organizations
50%

60%

40.5

10.6

Private corporations

Overseas investors

70%

90%

8.0

51.9

5.8

80%

22.9
20.5

100%

6.2

（204）

7.5
（81）

11.5

19.4

20.2

16.1

31.4

1.4
（123）

Unit：% Value within （ ） represents the number of valid responses

I-112
Ⅰ－ 112

(3) Forecasted Sources of Future Funds
The percentage of responses that indicated Venture capital as the forecasted source of future funds was
the largest among all companies (both companies with VC investments and those without).
Looking at companies based on the situation of VC investments, for companies “Receiving VC
Investments,” the main choices for the forecasted sources of future funds after Venture capital werePrivate corporations and Banks/Shinkin banks/Credit unions. It is assumed that expectations for Private
Corporations reflected venture investments by business corporations (CVC investments), which haverecently become active.
On the other hand, after Venture capital, companies “Without VC investments” have strong
expectations toward Banks/Shinkin banks/Credit unions.
Expectations for VCs are very strong. However, in some of the interviews conducted by VEC withstartup companies and VCs, certain people indicated it was difficult for hardware manufacturers and othermanufacturing companies to receive investments from VCs because the manufacturers required large
amounts of funds, it would take a long time before businesses got on track, and because it was difficult toforesee whether businesses would be successful.
Figure 2-3-5 Forecasted Sources of Future Funds (multiple responses included)
0%

10%Founder, Family, Friends

20%

9.6%

Individual investors (Angel)

30%

40%

50%

70%

80%

90%

100%

16.0%
19.4%
23.4%

32.0%
36.6%
45.4%
46.8%
44.6%

Banks, Shinkin banks,Credit unions

65.8%

Venture capital

54.9%

86.2%

35.7%
37.2%
34.9%

Public organizations

40.1%

Private corporations

58.5%

30.3%
26.4%

Overseas investors
other

60%

19.4%
1.1%
1.1%
1.1%

39.4%

All responding companies（Number of valid responses：269）
Companies receiving VC investments（Number of valid responses：94）
Companies without VC investments（Number of valid responses：175）

I-113
Ⅰ－ 113

4． Needs of Startup Companies(1) Present Management Needs
The most important management need of startup companies was staff recruitment. This need varied
very little between companies with VC investments and those without. Staff recruitment also ranked at
the top of needs in past surveys, indicating that securing human resources is an important issue forstartups.
Looking at companies based on the situation of VC investments, companies “Receiving VC
Investments” exhibited a greater need for each item than companies “Without VC investments.” The only
exception was sales channel expansion, for which companies “Without VC investments” had greater needthan companies “Receiving VC Investments.”
Figure 2-4-1
0%Management Needs (multiple responses included)
10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

74.7%

Staffing

70.9%

90%

100%

81.9%

60.2%
66.0%
57.1%

Fundraising

50.9%
53.2%
49.7%

Technological development

66.2%
59.6%
69.7%

Sales channel expansion

10.8%
11.7%
10.3%

OthersDo not have needs

80%

0.7%
1.1%
0.6%

All responding companies（Number of valid responses：269）
Companies receiving VC investments（Number of valid responses：94）
Companies without VC investments（Number of valid responses：175）(2) Staffing Needs
Among all responding companies, the mostly sought after human resources were staff members incharge of sales and sales promotion, followed by staff members in charge of technological development.
Both of these were required by more than a half of the responding companies.
Looking at companies based on the situation of VC investments, the percentage of needs for
managers—such as Chief Operating Officer (COO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO), and Chief
Technology Officer (CTO)—was high among companies “Receiving VC Investments.” In particular, theneed to recruit CTOs was noticeably high. This shows that a high percentage of companies “Receiving
VC Investments” are eyeing IPOs (See Figure 2-2-3), and that they need to recruit more human resourcesthat can take responsibility in order strengthen the organizational structure. In regards to technologicaldevelopment, companies had strong needs for not only managers but also staff members. Together theseaccounted for 63.6%, making them the most important recruitment needs. It is apparent that companies“Receiving VC Investments” faced a shortage of human resources in the area of technologicaldevelopment.
Needs for staff members in charge of sales and sales promotion were high among companies “Without
VC investments.” This reflects the management need for sales channel expansion that was described
previously.

I-114
Ⅰ－ 114

Figure 2-4-2

Staffing Needs (multiple responses included)0%

Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and President

10%

20%

1.0%
1.3%
0.8%

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

30%

22.9%
17.7%

Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or financial manager
Chief Technology Officer (CTO) or technologicaldevelopment manager

40%

50%

Staff members in charge of sales and sales promotion

Staff members in charge of overseas development andbusinesses

21.8%

22.4%
28.6%

18.5%
20.4%

Staff members in charge of legal affairs

16.9%
17.9%

Staff members in charge of general affairs
Other

5.5%
3.9%
6.5%

14.5%

80%

90%

100%

57.7%
51.9%
61.3%

36.3%
40.3%
33.9%
29.4%
41.6%

Staff members in charge of technological development
Staff members in charge of finance

70%

31.2%

30.8%
40.3%
25.0%
33.8%
42.9%
28.2%

Staff members in charge of strategies and businessdevelopment

60%

54.7%
49.2%

63.6%

26.0%

23.4%

All responding companies （Number of valid responses：201）
Companies receiving VC investments （Number of valid responses：77）
Companies without VC investments （Number of valid responses：124）

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 forpolicies of the government and other institutions. Of the 269 companies that responded to the survey, 82
companies responded to this particular request (30.5% of respondants). The following is a summary of theresults.
(1) Subsidies, Loan Facilities, etc. (15 companies)
One of most mentioned requests in the responses, accounting for the largest percentage, was in relation
to subsidies and loan facilities. The companies expressed their views, stating that large amount of
documents provided containing information related to subsidies made it difficult for the companies tounderstand the policies. They also indicated that a system in which startups can receive funds before theycommence operations needs to be established, stated that information is not well publicized, andcomplained that only a limited number of companies are able to receive subsidies.

I-115
Ⅰ－ 115

(2) Regional Areas (15 companies)
Comments regarding regional areas attracted the same number of responses as those related tosubsidies and loan facilities. Survey respondents called for local government to directly develop
specialists who have an extensive knowledge about financing, and that information about attractive
regional features, such as regional lifestyle models not found in their cities, an environment that allows
companies to focus on business development should be released widely to the public. They also called for
local governments to develop and manage plans that offer merits to the existing companies, such as
inviting industries and other activities that will bring people to regional areas.
(3) Tax System (8 companies)
In regards to the tax system, there were many comments related to tax benefits. More than one person
asked for tax benefits to be strengthened for startups that have been in the early stages since they were
founded.
(4) Human Resources (7 companies)
Unlike other themes, there were many comments from several different viewpoints. One comment
related to entrepreneurs claimed that extensive support needed to be provided to serial entrepreneurs.
There were also comments about recruiting human resources, with people indicating that Japaneseemployment laws need to be improved because they become an obstacle when recruiting competenthuman resources from other countries. In regards to investors, people claimed there was a need to develop
investors that are viewed as startup investors based on their business vision and use of technologies,
rather than business history.
(5) Fundraising (5 companies)
Many comments related to fundraising indicated that support was lacking. In sectors that needed it
support was insufficient. Some said that adequate funds were needed to support and encourage sizablebusinesses involving the manufacture, research, and development of hardware and other products.
(6) Matching (4 companies)
There were comments about matching with large companies that the government has focused on inrecent years. Like Silicon Valley, people said that existing large companies which began as startups needto establish a foundation that provides support for startups in Japan. Instead of running a program that
ends when a match is made, some argued that it would be better to have a system in which companies that
expect a mutual synergistic effect can quickly establish an alliance.
(7) Others (28 companies)
There were a variety of other comments in addition to the previously raised points. Some discussed theprovision of support based on the stage of business progress, claiming that it would be better to not only
have support for establishing businesses, but also for ensuring the growth of businesses after they are
established. There was also a requests related to improving the business environment, asking for support
to be provided to reduce the burden of security deposits when moving to a larger office in a short periodof time. More than one person said that they continue to expect support from the government and venture

I-116
Ⅰ－ 116

investments in the future.

In recent years, the government has led a number of related institutions in actively offering startup
support. Currently, a diverse range of subsidies and loan facilities systems are provided by a variety ofentities, such as government affiliated financial institutions and local governments. However, certain
startups also indicated that they experienced difficulties in using those support systems. There are also
some who feel that issues remain in certain areas, such as whether information is adequately and broadly
given to startups or whether systems have been developed in a user-friendly manner.
VEC will continue to conduct this survey in the future in an effort to understand the businessenvironment and needs of startup companies. It will also release information to all parties concerned thatwill help improve the business environment in which startups operate.

I-117
Ⅰ－ 117

Globalization Holds a Significance of its Own Without Needing to Tackle Challenges inOverseas Markets

Masahiro Kotosaka, Associate Professor
College of Business Administration of Ritsumeikan University

Until the mid-1980s, it was believed that the only companies capable of tackling challenges in the overseas market
were those that had fully developed in the domestic market and possessed adequate management resources. However,from the early 1990s, it became evident that certain companies, which can be called emerging international
companies, were able to globalize not long after they were founded.
This trend is said to have grown at an accelerating rate since 2000. Now, it is no longer unusual for a company totarget the overseas market immediately after it is established and actually develop a structure that supports
international development and operations in more than one country, despite having around only a few dozen
employees.
Globalization to Achieve Growth in the Home Country Market
VEC conducted the Japanese Startup Business Survey in 2015. Despite the fact that the target companies were
those that had been established in the last five years, approximately 25% of the responding companies stated that they
were already engaged in overseas sales and procurement (see page I-109). Including the companies that had plans todevelop overseas businesses in the future, the survey showed that nearly 75% of startups had established and weremanaging businesses with an eye on developing businesses in other countries (see page I-109).
It is important to note that even though these companies are examining opportunities to develop overseas
businesses, it does not necessarily mean they are aiming for rapid growth or seeking to tackle challenges in theoverseas market. Globalization still holds significance even for companies that only have products and services with alimited capacity to compete globally and lack adequate management resources to tackle challenges in the overseas
market. One reason it is worth exploring opportunities to develop global operations is that it helps companies
improve their competitiveness in the market of their home country.
Globalization does not only mean engaging in overseas sales. In fact, a number of companies that manage overseas
businesses not only engage in overseas sales, but also overseas procurement. Many companies only sell in their homecountry market, while engaging in procurement in the overseas market. It is believed that using overseas business
opportunities to beat the competition in the domestic market represents an option that is available to any startups.
The idea of procurement also has a much broader scope that goes beyond the concept of manufacturers merely
procuring parts and materials. Global procurement not only applies to manufacturing companies, but also companies
that provide services. Actively forming alliances with companies other than those that provide services in Japan will
enable companies to provide quality services at prices more reasonable than those offered by other companies.
Quick and Easy Globalization Is Now a Reality
It is no longer difficult for companies to go global. For example, one startup has its headquarters registered in
Hong Kong, uses accountants and lawyers in Hong Kong, but also uses server services in the United States, and has
staff members in Southeast Asia that provide services to customers in Japan by cooperating with a software company
in India. The company only posted sales of ¥200 million at the time of the survey, but it is recording sufficient, steadyincome.
These kinds of companies are also known as micro-multinationals. They do not grow rapidly like the startups in
Silicon Valley known as unicorns. Micro-multinationals also do not necessarily have the innovative technologies orservices that enable them to grow rapidly in overseas markets. However, they work to become more competitive inthe home country market on which they focus by establishing contacts with a wide range of overseas management
resources, and aggressively globalizing so that they can use these resources.
There is nothing glamorous about the way in which these companies globalize. For instance, one Mexican officethat a startup was developing through external advertising had only two dedicated staff members. In fact, there aremany cases in which there are no dedicated staff members at local offices. To use an old analogy, this style isreminiscent of the representative offices or liaison offices that were seen in the past. These companies understand the
local situation, build up extensive local networks by establishing local offices, and establish a rotation for dispatching
staff members from the home country to the offices on business trips.
With the advancement of information technologies and travelling methods, organizational culture and management
data can now be easily shared with overseas offices, something which only became possible recently. Visiting local
offices once a month can be achieved at the almost same cost as employing one part-time worker. It is also possible tocreate a virtual space that companies can seemingly share with their overseas offices through the use of videoconference applications, such as Skype and appear.in, old PCs, and cheap large-screen televisions.
For the majority of startups, the notion of globalization and developing overseas businesses is seemingly a dreamthat lies beyond success. These startups are grappling with the difficult challenges of the market in their home country,
so the idea of tackling an overseas market that presents even larger uncertainties sounds like something far off in the
future.

I-118
Ⅰ－ 118

However, in the modern management environment, companies can take their first step towards globalization by
adopting a style of management that uses overseas resources. This is a surprisingly small step, and one that will
enable them to improve their competitiveness within the market of their home country.
First Step Towards Globalization Can Be Made Tomorrow
The use of crowdsourcing services, such as Upwork, makes it possible to outsource design to creators in othercountries. These services can be used to to create the animated videos that companies need to promote their services.
They also provide access to freelance workers around the world who can be hired to conduct surveys and collectinformation on examples of operations overseas that companies can refer to in creating their own services.
It is very difficult to enter an agreement from scratch with manufacturing plants in China and Southeast Asia.
However, it may be worthwhile for companies to invite retirees from large companies as an adviser and outsource
manufacturing to overseas companies to make samples or trial products. In this way, they can actually start utilisingproduction capabilities overseas.
There are also simpler choices. One way to look for overseas agencies is to attend overseas exhibitions and set up
booths at the exhibitions, or open a store in local Internet shopping malls, such as Amazon. PayPal and WorldPay
have also made it surprisingly easy to settle international product transactions. Using the services of delivery
companies such as DHL, companies can send their products to even small islands on the other side of the Earth.
These initial steps are all easy to take. Even if companies fail, they will only suffer a minimal amount of damage.
These steps can also be taken with limited funds and human resources. To put it bluntly, they’re easy enough forstudent interns to handle.
However, people must take that first step if they want to reach their goal. With these quick and easy steps,
companies can aim to go global and run international businesses. If the first step proves successful, they can move onto the next.
Note: A portion of the survey and research work the author conducted in writing this article was aided by JSPS research grants(15K17131 “The networks in and around the Born Global Companies: an inquiry into the acquisition of organizational capabilities
in the process of rapid internationalisation”). The author would like to express his gratitude for this support.

I-119
Ⅰ－ 119

Chapter III. Conclusion
In section 4 (1) of Chapter I, “Collaboration between Large Companies and Startups,” the report statedthat Japanese large companies are also beginning to view startups as potential partners in open
innovation.
The actual examples mensioned in the following section will provide insight into how to establish acollaborative relationship between large companies and startups.

1. Actual Examples of Collaboration between Large Companies and Startups
We recently visited Corporation A (Note 1), a large company that had just entered the welfare andnursing care robot sector, and spoke with the manager in charge of promoting the robot business.
Note 1: Corporation A, a major homebuilder, has entered the welfare robot sector by making
investments in Corporation B, an academic startup company. Corporation B was later listedon the stock exchange.
<Why did the major homebuilder enter the robot sector?>
A staff member of Corporation A, working in line with the company’s policy of focusing on theconstruction of nursing care facilities, visited a variety of places and studied them. He later became amanager of the public-private collaboration department, and this position provided him with more
opportunities to interact with teachers at universities. At the end of October 2006, he happened to meet auniversity professor involved in the research and development of robots for welfare use. Listening to theprofessor’s explanation, the manager was convinced that the program was useful for people and society.
He told the management of Corporation A about this program, in December of the same year Corporation
A decided to invest in the program, and invested in February of the following year.
The summary of the interview is as follows:● The management philosophy of Corporation A is to “consider whether businesses are useful to andappreciated by a large number of people.”● Because the robots for the welfare use were being developed for the first time, Corporation A left all
the robot research, development, and manufacturing, and maintenance management to the discretionof Corporation B. Corporation A acted as a sales agent.
● Corporation A assigned employees in accounting, procurement, ISO operations, business
management, and an external director (one employee each) to Corporation B. Their assignment
began when Corporation A invested in Corporation B, and ended when Corporation B was listed on
the stock exchange.
● Since the launch of the welfare robots, the number of startups approaching Corporation A has
increased. More than half of the nine types of welfare and nursing care robots and equipment (Note2) that have been sold use technologies from startups. Manufacturing is also left to these startups.
However, Corporation A has also recently started to develop robots in-house.
Note 2: Of the nine types, six were developed by startups, one was developed by a subsidiary of the large
company, and the remaining two use technologies that were jointly developed by a large company
and universities. When the company started in-house robot development, it had no engineers, but
now it has a group of several engineers.

I-120
Ⅰ－ 120● The welfare and nursing care robot business is not yet generating profits. However, the company
commands a top class position in the industry for the medical, welfare and nursing care facilities
construction sector, which the company initially targeted.
While this case may be a very special case, it reveals the conditions needed for the successful
development of a collaborative relationship between large companies and startups.
1) Strong and consistent commitment made by top management
2) Prompt decision making
3) Cooperation between large companies and startups based on their respective roles
Large companies: Using external technologies and the know-how that the large companies involved
lack - Open innovation
Startups: (a) Using the credit strength of large companies (financing and sales channel expansion),(b) Using the wealth of human resources large companies possess4) Ambitious spirit of large companies that is also shared by startups

I-121
Ⅰ－ 1212. Aiming to Establish a Venture Ecosystem
As the previous example demonstrates, initiatives taken by large companies for open innovation
provide startups with opportunities to demonstrate their abilities. If this type of movement continues togrow, expectations for startups are also likely to increase.
Finally, this report will discuss several issues to be addressed in order to establish a venture ecosystem.
In order to address these issues, it is essential that startups, VC firms, and other parties involved maketheir own individual efforts. However, there are also a number of matters that society as a whole needs totackle.
(1) Securing and Developing Human Resources and Promoting the Their Flexible Use
In order for startups to grow, the right people must be assigned to do the right jobs. However, as thestartup survey shows (See Chapter II), in reality there are a number of startups that face a shortage ofhuman resources (in sales, technology, and management).
In addition, there are growing expectations for academic startups that aim to commercialize andcommoditize new technologies by adapting cutting edge technologies and basic technologies universities
possess. However, many quarters claim that the most critical point in determining the success of startups
is whether they can acquire the right top managers (CEO and COO).
Looking at the VC industry, many believe that it is essential to secure and develop two components.
The first is human resources that are able to make mature judgments about technologies. The second ishuman resources with superior consulting capabilities related to the management of startups.
In this regard, promoting the flexible use of human resources is considered to an effective means forsolving the aforementioned issues.
To promote the flexible use of human resources, it is best to create a flexible labor market that has extra
capacity that allows parties entering labor agreements to make their free decisions, so long as that is thewish of both employers and employees. In regards to this point, there is a need to change the current
structure characterized by the simultaneous recruitment of new graduates, in-house training, and thelifetime employment system in which a rigid labor market is accepted as the base of employment.
The human resources training method of taking time to develop so-called generalists, a practice often
seen at large organizations, is suitable for developing a number of optimum employees in companies.
However, is this truly the best method in a time of drastic innovation and development? The need forhighly professional human resources (with management skills, sophisticated technologies for individual
industries, and various other technologies) has been steadily rising, even in large companies. On the other
hand, highly professional human resources generally tend to look for work places where they are able toapply their professional capabilities free of restrictions. First, opportunities for self-realization through thedevelopment of a flexible employment relationship – increase in non-regular employees and theuniversalization of changing jobs – must be effectively broadened to create a labor market structure inwhich “jobs are granted to those who want them.”
The need for the flexible use of human resources is not limited to professional positions. It is often said
that the success of companies depends on their management teams. It would be no exaggeration to saythat the success of startups in particular is determined by whether they are able to acquire the appropriate

I-122
Ⅰ－ 122

management teams. To maintain the optimum management structure, there will be cases in which more
flexible recruitment of top managers is required based on the progress in the growth stage of startups.
From the standpoint of startups, the acceptance (including temporary assignment) and use of
employees from large companies that possess a variety of human resources, as indicated in the actual
example mentioned previously, is considered to be one of the alternatives.
(2) Education
A number of parties engaged in venture operations often claim that over the last few years, there has
been an increasing number of cases in which competent students (including graduate students) directly
join startups with high-level technologies after they graduate school, establish startups as part of a team,or join major startups after working at large companies, consulting companies as specialists, and otherorganizations. As a result, the level of the managers of startups has also been undoubtedly improving.
It is encouraging to hear that there are young people, albeit still small in number, who possess anambitious spirit eager to test their will, knowledge, and capabilities. In this sense, there are high hopes foreducation to accelerate this development.
Fortunately, education that aims to provide a wide range of knowledge for establishing startup
businesses has become popular at a number of universities and graduate schools. Assuming that otherconditions are the same, it has already been shown that providing a greater variety of knowledge helps tofuel the establishment of businesses. It is hoped that this education will further expand in the future.
More importantly, there is also a need to make a basic change to the approach of education in Japan.
There is no disputing that providing basic academic skills forms the fundamental basis of education. Yet,
it is also right to devote time in education for individuals or teams to develop capabilities to tackle
challenges and make multiple proposals for solving the unresolved issues that they are assigned. Likewise,
there is also a need to adopt a way of thinking that views failures or setbacks in a positive light, treats
them as assets, appreciates efforts to try again.
Many specific proposals must be made, but the keys are the way in which knowledge is applied and thevalue placed on team play. There is also a need to focus on developing leaders and human resources thatcan be trusted. This is a tradition Japan has valued since the Meiji era. Therefore, it is important toreevaluate this value because such Japanese tradition has been likely neglected last 70 years.
(3) Securing Extensive Fundraising Methods for VCs and Steadily Expanding Them
The final goal of the issues as described above should be the involvement of institutional investors.
Currently, there is an overwhelming gap between Japan and the United States in terms of the scale ofstartups and the volume of VC funds. Therefore, Japan must be prepared to devote significant time andeffort before it can begin to close the gap with the United States (pension funds, funds, foundations, andother institutional investors account for around 50% of the fundraising sources of VC funds). No matter
how long it takes, Japanese VC market that is attractive to institutional investors must be established.
To accomplish this, the first thing that must be done is to disclose more information about theperformance of VC funds. Second, the performance of VC funds (the performance and the volume offunds that are able to compete with rival foreign VC funds, private equity funds, and other funds) must

I-123
Ⅰ－ 123

also be improved.
Since the latter half of 2014, more and more people are saying that venture investments in Silicon
Valley are in a bubble state, which has led to growing concern over future development. Moving forward,
we must continue to carefully monitor these trends in the United States.

I-124
Ⅰ－ 124

II. Data: Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends in 2015

VEC YEARBOOK 2015

Table of Contents- Data CHAPTERI

Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends

CHAPTER I-1 Venture Capital Investment

Ⅱ-1

１．Investment/loan Balance
Status of investment/loan balance

Ⅱ-1

Investment/loan balance per deal

Ⅱ-2

Distribution of VC ﬁrms by investment/loan balance

Ⅱ-3

Distribution of investment/loan balance by region

Ⅱ-4

２．Investment Amount Made During the Year
Status of investment amount made during the year

Ⅱ-6

Investment/loan amount per deal during the year

Ⅱ-7

Distribution of VC ﬁrms by investment
amount during the year

Ⅱ-8

New investment and Follow-on investment

Ⅱ-9

Distribution of deals by region

Ⅱ-10

Distribution of deals by stage

Ⅱ-11

Distribution of deals by industry

Ⅱ-12

３．Overview of Investment Partnership
Overall status of funds

Ⅱ-14

Breakdown of investor typeⅡ-15

４．Exit (Cashing out an investment) Status

Ⅱ-16

５．International comparison of VC investments

Ⅱ-17

６．Results of the Survey

Ⅱ-18

CHAPTER I-2 Turnaround / Buyout Investment

Ⅱ-31

１．Investment/loan Balance
Status of investment/loan balance

Ⅱ-31

Investment/loan balance per deal

Ⅱ-32

Distribution of PE ﬁrms by investment/loan balance

Ⅱ-32

２．Investment/loan Amount Made During the Year
Status of investment/loan amount made during the year

Ⅱ-33

Investment/loan amount made during the year per deal

Ⅱ-34

Distribution of PE ﬁrms by investment/loanamount during the year

Ⅱ-34

New investment and follow-on investment

Ⅱ-35

Distribution of deals by region

Ⅱ-36

Distribution of deals by industry

Ⅱ-37

３．Overview of Investment Partnership
Overall status of funds

Ⅱ-39

Breakdown of investor type

Ⅱ-40

４．Results of the Survey

Ⅱ-41

CHAPTERIISurvey on Venture Capital Fund Status

１．Fund Type and the Number of Funds
Number of funds by vintage year

Ⅱ-45

Number of funds by fund type

Ⅱ-46

Number of funds by focused stage

Ⅱ-47

Number of funds by focused industry

Ⅱ-48

Number of funds by focused region

Ⅱ-48

Number of funds by size

Ⅱ-49

２．Characteristics and Average Size of Fund
Total contributions by vintage year

Ⅱ-50

Average size of funds by vintage year

Ⅱ-51

Average size of funds by fund type

Ⅱ-52

Average size of funds by focused stage

Ⅱ-52

Average size of funds by focused industry

Ⅱ-53

Average size of funds by focused region

Ⅱ-53

３．Breakdown of investors

Ⅱ-54

４．Fund Performance
Computation method of performance indices

Ⅱ-55

Internal rate of return (IRR) on all funds

Ⅱ-57

Distribution of IRR (as a whole)

Ⅱ-57

Distribution of IRR (by period of fund management)

Ⅱ-58

IRR distribution by fund typeⅡ-59

IRR distribution by focused stage

Ⅱ-59

IRR distribution by focused industry

Ⅱ-60

IRR distribution by focused region

Ⅱ-61

Cash ﬂow and performance of all funds

Ⅱ-62

５．IRR by vintage year

Ⅱ-64

List of Venture capital ﬁrms responded to the survey

Ⅱ-99

CHAPTER I
Survey on Venture Capital Investment Trends

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.


Number of VC firms responded to the survey: 106 firms

“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 “Internet of Things (IoT)” in the industry classification overlaps with other industry categories.

Classifications for the Analysis
Investment Focus by StageIn stage analysis, deals are classified into four stages according to the maturity of the portfolio companies,
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 deals
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

CHAPTER I-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 deals is given in Chart 1-3. The amount of investments(investments and/or loans) and the number of deals are calculated by simply adding up the figures given in survey
answers.
Chart 1-1: Change in VC investment/loan balance（¥ Billions）（1,316.8）（1,248.9）

1,400

0.05
0.05

1,200
1,000

785.8

872.6

463.1

444.1

End of March 2014

End of March 2015

800
600
400
200
0

Loans

Principal investing

Investments by partnerships

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 2015)(Yen millions)
Principal
Investments
Loans
Total
N: Number of VC firms responded

y/y % change

Partnerships

Total

y/y % change

y/y % change

872,58211.1%

444,143-4.1%

1,316,725

5.4%

53

-1.9%

0

-

53

-1.9%

872,635

11.1%

444,143-4.1%

1,316,778

5.4%

N=56

N=52

N=82

N=80

N=86

N=83

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 2014 and 2015 (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
Ⅱ－ 1

Chart 1-3: Number of deals for investment/loan balance (as of the end of March 2015)(Number of deals)
Principal
Investments

Partnerships

y/y % change

Total

y/y % change

y/y % change

1,183-15.2%

3,289

-9.4%

4,472

1

0.0%

-

-

1

0.0%

Total

1,184

-15.4%

3,289

-9.4%

4,473

-11.1%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=57

N=52

N=83

N=81

N=87

N=84

Loans

-11.0%

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 deals.
Note 3: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided figures for both 2014 and 2015 (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 deal
Chart 1-4 “Investment/loan balance per deal” refers to VC firms that provided both the amount of investment/loanbalance and the number of deals. Per-deal figure is calculated by dividing the total amount of balance by the total
number of deals.
Chart 1-4: Investment/loan balance per deal (as of the end of March 2015)(Yen millions)
End of March 2014
Principal

End of March 2015

Partnerships

Principal

y/y % change

Partnerships

Number of deals

1,397

3,621

1,178

3,287

Investment balance

784,981462,373

871,817443,469

561.9

127.7

740.1

134.9

1

-

1

-

Balance of loans outstanding

54

-

53

-

Balance per loan

54

-

53

-

1,401

3,621

1,179

3,287

785,035

462,373

871,870

443,469

Total balance per deal/loan

560.3

127.7

739.5

134.9

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=56

N=79

N=55

N=81

Investment balance per deal

Number of loans outstanding

Total number of deals/loans
Total balance

Principal

Partnerships

31.3%

5.7%

-1.9%

-

31.6%

5.7%
N=51

N=79

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided both the number of deals and the amount of investments/loans.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of deals and investment/loan amount for both 2014 and 2015 (asof 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
Ⅱ－ 2

Chart 1-5: Investment/loan balance per deal (Principal and Partnerships, as of the end of March 2015)(Yen millions)
End of March 2014 End of March 2015
Number of deals
Investment balance

5,020

4,469

1,248,163

1,316,052

248.6

294.5

Number of loans outstanding

1

1

Balance of loans outstanding

54

53

Balance per loan

54

53

Investment balance per deal

Total number of deals/loans

y/y % change

18.5%

-1.9%

5,024

4,470

1,248,217

1,316,105

Total balance per deal/loan

248.5

294.4

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=84

N=85

Total balance

18.6%
N=82

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of deals and the amount of investments/loans.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of deals and investment/loan amount for both 2014 and 2015 (asof 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 1-6
shows the number of VC firms, the amount of investment/loan balance and the composition ratio for each range ofbalance. Chart 1-7 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 1-6: Distribution of VC firms by investment/loan balance(as of the end of March 2015)
Balance range(Yen billions)

Total balance

Number of
VC firms(Yen billions)

Percentage

1 or less

39

16.3

1.2%

over 1 - 5

26

60.6

4.6%

over 5- 10

7

53.4

4.1%

over 10 - 50

6

74.3

5.6%

over 50 - 100

0

0.0

0.0%

over 100

3

1,112.2

84.5%

81

1,316.8

100.0%

Total

N=81

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 1-7: Share of the top 10 and the rest of VC firms in terms of investment/loan balance
Total balance(Yen billions)
Top 10Percentage

1,196.2

90.8%

Top 11th to 20th

60.9

4.6%

Top 21th and below

59.7

N: Number of VC firms responded

Ⅱ-3
Ⅱ－ 3

4.5%
N=81

(4) Distribution of investment/loan balance by region
Charts 1-8 to 1-10 illustrate investment/loan balance for “Principal and Partnerships” by region according to thelocation of the deals.
Chart 1-8: Investment/loan balance by region(Principal and Partnerships, as of the end of March 2015)
Number ofdeals
Japan total
Hokkaido
TohokuKanto (excl. Tokyo)
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa
Overseas total
China
Southeast Asia
Other Asia-Pacific region
EuropeNorth America
Other Regions
Total
N: Number of VC firms responded

3,420
54
80
392
1,549
178
518
129
25
200
582
138
46
163
16
180
13
4,267
N=84

Percentage

Amount(Yen millions)

85.5%
1.5%
2.2%
10.6%
42.1%
4.8%
14.1%
3.5%
0.7%
5.4%
14.5%
3.7%
1.2%
4.4%
0.4%
4.9%
0.4%
100.0%

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment/loan amount.
Note 2: Percentages of the number of deals 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.

Ⅱ-4
Ⅱ－ 4

292,266
1,698
5,114
20,068123,239
10,03528,544
4,383
1,922
10,676
207,72252,511
15,05650,043
1,041
81,322
3,903
509,220
N=82

Percentage
58.5%
0.4%
1.2%
4.9%
30.1%
2.5%
7.0%
1.1%
0.5%
2.6%
41.5%
12.8%
3.7%
12.2%
0.3%
19.9%
1.0%
100.0%

Chart 1-9: Year-on-year % change by region for investment/loan balance(Principal and Partnerships, as of the end of March 2015)
Number of
deals
3,420
54
80
392
1,549
178
518
129
25
200
582
138
46
163
16
180
13
4,267
N=74

Japan total
Hokkaido
TohokuKanto (excl. Tokyo)
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa
Overseas total
China
Southeast Asia
Other Asia-Pacific region
EuropeNorth America
Other Regions
Total
N: Number of VC firms responded

y/y % change-13.9%-23.9%
0.0%-19.2%-14.2%-21.1%-10.9%-2.3%-35.1%
0.0%
-1.7%
4.9%
50.0%
11.0%
-11.8%-0.6%-13.3%-11.5%

Amount(Yen millions)292,266
1,698
5,114
20,068123,239
10,03528,544
4,383
1,922
10,676
207,72252,511
15,05650,043
1,041
81,322
3,903
509,220N=71

y/y % change-11.4%-42.5%-32.7%-12.6%-10.7%-18.9%-10.9%
22.1%-17.0%
20.5%
7.5%
-2.9%
17.8%
23.8%
-66.0%
14.8%
10.5%
-5.2%

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment/loan amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of deals and/ or investment/loan amount for both 2014 and 2015(as of the end of March).
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Chart 1-10: Investment/loan balance per deal by region (as of the end of March 2015)(Yen millions)
Principal
Japan total
Hokkaido
TohokuKanto (excl. Tokyo)
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa
Overseas total
China
Southeast Asia
Other Asia-Pacific region
EuropeNorth America

45.3
25.9
13.6
22.4
35.2
37.5
36.8
14.1
40.3
15.9
310.3
318.2
365.2
192.4
8.6
382.1

y/y % change
-3.9%
-0.4%
-9.4%
-21.3%-31.7%
14.4%
0.8%-37.6%
-3.4%
-0.3%
9.9%
-44.4%-6.6%
2846.2%-81.3%
130.5%

Partnerships
99.6
35.5
74.8
63.1
93.4
58.1
64.7
44.4
94.1
66.3
365.0
398.6
313.9
312.9
73.2
464.6

y/y % change
2.6%-27.9%-39.1%
12.4%
9.3%
-4.9%
0.5%
42.8%
44.3%
18.1%
8.9%
10.1%
6.4%
8.1%
-62.5%
5.3%

Total
85.5
32.0
64.7
51.6
79.6
56.4
55.3
34.0
76.9
53.4
356.9
380.5
327.3
307.0
65.1
451.8

y/y % change
2.8%-24.1%-32.7%
8.4%
4.1%
2.8%
0.2%
24.9%
28.0%
19.9%
9.4%
-7.5%
-21.4%
11.5%-61.5%
15.4%
27.5%

Other Regions

-

-

300.2

19.2%

300.2

Total

65.9

4.8%

136.5

6.3%

119.4

7.3%

N=51

N=46

N=79

N=69

N=82

N=71

N: Number of VC firms responded

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided both the number of deals and investment/loan amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided both the number of deals and investment/loan amount for both 2014 and 2015(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
Ⅱ－ 5

2. Investment Amount Made During the Year
(1) Status of investment amount made during the year
Chart 2-1 shows the change in the investment 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 deals is shown in Chart 2-3. The amount of investments and the numbers of deals in the charts arecalculated by simply adding up the figures given in survey answers.
Chart 2-1: Change in VC investment amount made in FY2014 and FY2015（¥ Billions）
200（179.7）150（117.1）

99.3

24.3

100

50

92.8

80.4

0

April 2013 - March 2014

April 2014 - March 2015

Principal investing

Investments by partnerships

Note 1: Numbers in parentheses indicate the total amount of investments 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 amount made during the year (April 2014 - March 2015)(Yen millions)
Principal

Partnerships

y/y % change

y/y % change

Total

y/y % change

Common stocks

1,400-24.8%

33,71748.5%

35,118Classified stocks

450-22.9%

30,31123.0%

30,761

25.8%

Bonds

595

-

2,061

-39.7%

2,656-42.7%

Other

42.3%

486

66.3%

3,381

324.3%

3,867

202.3%

Total

24,274-74.9%

92,77912.1%

117,053-36.4%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=46

N=41

N=78

N=66

N=85

N=72

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 amount.
Note 3: y/y % change refers to VC firms that provided the amounts for both periods, Apr. 2013 – Mar. 2014 and Apr. 2014 – Mar. 2015.
Note 4: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-6
Ⅱ－ 6

Chart 2-3: Number of deals during the year (April 2014 – March 2015)(Number of deals)
Principal

Partnerships

y/y % change

y/y % change

Total

y/y % change

Common stocks

31

21.7%

345

14.8%

376

Classified stocks

10

0.0%

271

10.3%

281

12.0%

Bonds

1

-

41

-26.7%

42-32.7%

Other

14.8%

13

-27.8%

54

300.0%

67

75.7%

Total

81

-15.4%

888

20.6%

969

15.4%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=47

N=42

N=79

N=66

N=87

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 the number of deals.
Note 3: y/y % change refers to VC firms that provided the number of deals for both periods, Apr. 2013 – Mar. 2014 andApr. 2014 – Mar. 2015.
Note 4: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

(2) Investment/loan amount per deal during the year
Chart 2-4 and 2-5 “Investment amount per deal” refers to VC firms that provided both the investment amount andthe number of deals. Per-deal figure is calculated by dividing the total amount of investments by the total numberof deals.
Chart 2-4: Investment amount per deal during the year (April 2013– March 2015)(Yen millions)
April 2013 - March 2014

April 2014 - March 2015

Principal

Principal

Partnerships

y/y % change

Partnerships

Principal

Partnerships

99

699

79

885

Investment amount

99,34380,431

24,274

92,779Per deal

1,003.5

115.1

307.3

104.8

-69.6%

-7.1%

N=50

N=68

N=46

N=78

N=41

N=66

Number of deals

N: Number of VC firms responded

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided both the number of deals and investment amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of deals and investment amount for both periods, Apr. 2013 – Mar.
2014 and Apr. 2014 – Mar. 2015.
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
Ⅱ－ 7

Chart 2-5: Investment amount per deal during the year
(Principal and Partnerships, April 2013 – March 2015)(Yen millions)
Principal and Partnerships
April 2013 - March 2014 April 2014 - March 2015

y/y % change

798

964

179,774

117,053

Per deal

225.3

121.4

-44.8%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=74

N=85

N=72

Number of deals

Investment amount

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided both the number of deals and investment amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of deals and investment amounts for both periods,
Apr. 2013 – Mar. 2014 and Apr. 2014 – Mar. 2015.
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 amount during the year
Shown below is the distribution of VC firms classified by investment amount made by principal and partnerships.
Chart 2-6 shows the number of VC firms, the total amount of investment made during the year and thecomposition ratio for each range of the investment amount. Chart 2-7 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 amount.
Chart 2-6: Distribution of VC firms by investment amount during the year
(April 2014 - March 2015)
Investment amount(Yen billions)

Total amount of investment

Number of
VC firms(Yen billions)

Percentage

0

15

0.0

0.0%

1 or less

49

11.1

9.5%

over 1 - 5

17

42.3

36.1%

over 5 - 10

1

5.1

4.3%

over 10 - 20

2

37.1

31.7%

over 20
Total

1

21.5

18.4%

85

117.1

100.0%
N=85

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 2-7: Share of the top 10 and the rest of VC firms
in terms of investment amount made during the year
Total amount of investment(Yen billions)

Percentage

Top 10

84.9

72.5%

Top 11th to 20th

20.0

17.1%

Top 21th and below

12.2

10.4%

N: Number of VC firms responded

Ⅱ-8
Ⅱ－ 8

N=85

(4) New investment and Follow-on investment
Charts 2-8 to 2-10 show the simple totaling of investment amount or the number of deals, year-on-year percentagechange, and the investment amount per deal. These figures are based on the answers from VC firms that provided
new and follow-on investment amount or the number of deals.
Chart 2-8: New and follow-on investment amount (April 2014 – March 2015)(Yen millions)
Principal
New investments
Follow-on investments

y/y % change

Partnerships

y/y % change

21,527-15.5%

62,267

25.4%

Total

y/y % change

83,794

5.9%

2,659

107.6%

23,04971.7%

25,707

61.0%

Total

24,274-74.9%

92,77912.1%

117,053-36.4%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=46

N=41

N=78

N=66

N=85

N=72

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. 2013 – Mar. 2014 andApr. 2014 – Mar. 2015.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Chart 2-9: Number of deals for New and follow-on investments (April 2014 – March 2015)(Number of deals)
Principal
New investments

y/y % change
56

Follow-on investments

Partnerships

0.0%

y/y % change

565

Total

19.2%

y/y % change
621

15.3%

21

-20.8%

215

13.6%

236

9.2%

Total

81

-15.4%

888

20.6%

969

15.4%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=47

N=42

N=79

N=66

N=87

N=73

Note 1: Numbers of deals 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. 2013 – Mar. 2014 andApr. 2014 – Mar. 2015.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Chart 2-10: New and follow-on investment amount per deal
(Principal and Partnerships, April 2013 – March 2015)(Yen millions)
April 2013 - March 2014

April 2014 - March 2015

New

New

Follow-on

y/y % change

Follow-on

New

Follow-on

464

199

619

236

Investment amount

63,01913,354

83,79425,707

Per company

135.8

67.1

135.4

108.9

-7.8%

47.4%

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=68

N=62

N=79

N=68

N=66

N=57

Number of deals

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided both the number of deals and the investment amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of deals and investment amount for both periods, Apr. 2013 – Mar.
2014 and Apr. 2014 – Mar. 2015.
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
Ⅱ－ 9

(5) Distribution of deals by region
Chart 2-11 illustrates the number of deals and investment amount (“by Principal and Partnerships”) categorized by
the region according to the location of the deals.
Chart 2-11: Number of deals and investment amount by region(Principal and Partnerships, April 2014 - March 2015)
Number of
deals
727

Japan total

Amount(Yen millions)

Percentage
78.0%

Percentage

74,025

63.9%

Hokkaido

3

0.4%

81

0.1%

Tohoku

15

2.0%

1,250

1.3%

Kanto (excl. Tokyo)

48

6.4%

4,326

4.4%

Tokyo

339

44.9%

38,253

38.8%

Chubu

19

2.5%

1,204

1.2%

Kinki

80

10.6%

8,692

8.8%
1.4%

Chugoku

18

2.4%

1,411

Shikoku

8

1.1%

851

0.9%

Kyushu and Okinawa

40

5.3%

2,524

2.6%

Overseas total

205

22.0%

41,848

36.1%

China

37

4.9%

7,265

7.4%

Southeast Asia

24

3.2%

3,435

3.5%
10.1%

Other Asia-Pacific region

49

6.5%

10,008Europe

6

0.8%

588

0.6%

North America

62

8.2%

18,496

18.8%

Other Regions

7

0.9%

226

0.2%

Total

934

100.0%

115,593

100.0%

N=81

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=80

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment amount.
Note 2: Percentages of the number of deals 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 2-12: Distribution of deals by region for investment amount
2.1%

2.1% 1.5%

0.1%

1.5%

2.4%

0.6%

Tokyo

4.3%

North America

8.6%

Kinki

Other Asia-Pacific region

Kanto (excl. Tokyo)

7.4%

Kyushu and Okinawa

18.1%
46.2%

Chugoku
14.8%Southeast Asia

Tohoku
65.3%

China

EuropeChubu
Shikoku

25.0%

Hokkaido

Note: Numbers above refer to deals whose region is known in answers to the survey.

Ⅱ-10
Ⅱ－ 10

Other Regions

(6) Distribution of deals by stage
Charts 2-13 to 2-15 show the total figures and the composition ratio for the number of deals and investment
amount, and investment amount per deal for “New”, “Follow-on” and “New and Follow-on” investments. Thesefigures are based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment amount (by“Principal and Partnerships”) by stage of deals.
Chart 2-13: Distribution of deals of new investments by stage (April 2014 - March 2015)(Yen millions)Stage

Number of deals

Percentage

AmountPercentage

Amount per
deal

Seed

92

16.7%

10,499

15.3%

116.7

Early

252

45.7%

28,965

42.1%

116.3

Expansion

136

24.6%

17,375

25.2%

127.8

Later

72

13.0%

11,977

17.4%

166.3

Total

616

100.0%

84,421100.0%

138.2

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=75

N=73

N=73

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per deal" refers to VC firms that provided both the number of deals and investment amount by stage.
Note 3: Percentages of the number of deals 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 2-14: Distribution of deals of follow-on investments by stage(April 2014 - March 2015)(Yen millions)Stage

Number of deals

Percentage

AmountPercentage

Amount per
deal

Seed

19

9.6%

1,971

9.5%

103.8

Early

109

55.1%

9,769

47.2%

89.6

Expansion

53

26.8%

7,544

36.5%

142.3

Later

17

8.6%

1,411

6.8%

83.0

Total

210

100.0%

24,777100.0%

118.0

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=64

N=64

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per deal" refers to VC firms that provided both the number of deals and investment amount by stage.
Note 3: Percentages of numbers of deals 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
Ⅱ－ 11

N=64

Chart 2-15: Distribution of deals of new and follow-on investments by stage(April 2014 - March 2015)(Yen millions)Stage

Number of deals

AmountPercentage

Amount per
deal

Percentage

Seed

111

14.8%

12,471

13.9%

114.4

Early

361

48.1%

38,734

43.3%

108.2

Expansion

189

25.2%

24,919

27.8%

131.8

Later

89

11.9%

13,388

15.0%

150.4

Total

826

100.0%

109,198

100.0%

133.0

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=79

N=77

N=77

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per deal" refers to VC firms that provided both the number of deals and investment amount by stage.
Note 3: Percentages of the number of deals 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 deals by industry
Charts 2-16 to 2-18 show the total figures and the composition ratio of the number of deals and investment
amount, and investment amount per deal for “New,” “Follow-on” and “New and Follow-on” investment. Thesefigures are based on answers from VC firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment amount (by“Principal and Partnerships”) by industry.
Chart 2-16: Distribution of deals of new investment by industry (April 2014 - March 2015)(Yen millions)
Number of
deals

Percentage

AmountPercentage

Amount per
deal

341

55.4%

49,553

58.7%

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

23

3.7%

4,099

4.9%

178.2

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

273

44.3%

38,843

46.0%

143.9

Software

27

4.4%

5,526

6.5%

204.7

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

18

2.9%

1,085

1.3%

60.3

83

13.5%

12,357

14.6%

148.9

Biotechnology/M edicine

58

9.4%

11,053

13.1%

193.9

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

25

4.1%

1,304

1.5%

54.3

Industrial/Energy/Other

93

15.1%

11,043

13.1%

118.7

Products and S ervices

99

16.1%

11,468

13.6%

115.8

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

69

11.2%

5,887

7.0%

85.3

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

30

4.9%

5,581

6.6%

186.0

IT-related

Biotechnology, Medical and Healthcare

145.3

IoT-related (Among the above)

1

0.2%

265

0.3%

265.0

Total

616

100.0%

84,421100.0%

138.2

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=75

N=73

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per deal" refers to VC firms that provided both the number of deals 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
Ⅱ－ 12

N=73

Chart 2-17: Distribution of deals of follow-on investment by industry(April 2014 - March 2015)(Yen millions)
Number of
deals

Percentage

116

IT-related

Amount55.0%

Percentage
37.6%

80.3

680

2.7%

75.6

6,268

25.3%

81.4

1,362

5.5%

80.1

6.2%

1,001

4.0%

77.0

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

9

4.3%

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

77

36.5%

Software17

8.1%

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

13

9,311

Amount per
deal

46

21.8%

5,272

21.3%

114.6

Biotechnology/M edicine

33

15.6%

4,239

17.1%

128.4

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

13

6.2%

1,034

4.2%

79.5

Industrial/Energy/Other

29

13.7%

5,711

23.0%

196.9

Products and S ervices

20

9.5%

4,483

18.1%

224.1

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

16

7.6%

3,071

12.4%

191.9

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

4

1.9%

1,412

5.7%

353.0

IoT-related (Among the above)

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

-

Total

211

100.0%

24,777100.0%

117.4

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=64

Biotechnology, Medical and Healthcare

N=64

N=64

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per deal" refers to VC firms that provided both the number of deals and investment amount by industry.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Chart 2-18: Distribution of deals of new and follow-on investments by industry(April 2014 - March 2015)(Yen millions)
Number of
deals

Percentage

457

IT-related

Amount55.3%

Percentage

58,863

53.9%

Amount per
deal
128.8

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

32

3.9%

4,779

4.4%

149.3

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

350

42.3%

45,111

41.3%

130.0

Software

44

5.3%

6,888

6.3%

156.6

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

31

3.7%

2,085

1.9%

67.3

129

15.6%

17,630

16.1%

136.7

Biotechnology/M edicine

91

11.0%

15,291

14.0%

169.9

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

38

4.6%

2,338

2.1%

63.2

Industrial/Energy/Other

122

14.8%

16,754

15.3%

137.3

Products and S ervices

119

14.4%

15,950

14.6%

134.0

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

85

10.3%

8,958

8.2%

105.4

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

34

4.1%

6,993

6.4%

205.7

Biotechnology, Medical and Healthcare

IoT-related (Among the above)

1

0.1%

265

0.2%

265.0

Total

827

100.0%

109,198

100.0%

133.0

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=79

N=77

Note 1: Numbers above refer to VC firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per deal" refers to VC firms that provided both the number of deals 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
Ⅱ－ 13

N=77

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 2014

End of March 2015

y/y % change

Number of funds

389

364

-4.0%

Total number of limited partners

2,388

2,342

-1.1%

Capital commitments to funds (Yen billions)

1,754.2

1,642.6-6.8%

Average number of limited partners

9.1

9.3

-0.4%

Average capital commitments (Yen billions)

4.6

4.6

-2.2%

N: Number of VC firms responded(Average number of limited partners)

N=71

N=68

N=67

(Average capital commitments)

N=77

N=75

N=73

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 deals and investment amount for both 2014 and 2015 (as theend 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 2015)
Number of funds

Number of
VC firms

Capital commitments
to funds (Yen billions)

Number of
VC firms

5 or less60

10 or less51

6 - 1010

over 10 - 50

20

11 - 20

4over 50 - 100

3

21 - 30

1over 100 - 200

1Over 30

1over 200

Total

76

2

Total

77

Chart 3-3: The number of limited partners and amount of capital commitments per fund
for funds established and matured during the year (April 2014 – March 2015)
Established

MaturedNumber of funds

39

51

Total number of limited partners

164

185

Capital commitments to funds (Yen billions)

91.1

220.5

Average number of limited partners

5.9

6.9

Average capital commitments (Yen billions)

2.5

4.4

(Average number of limited partners)

N=58

N=50

(Average capital commitments)

N=61

N=53

N: Number of VC firms responded

Note 1: “N” refers to VC firms that own at least one fund as of the end of March 2015, 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).

Ⅱ-14
Ⅱ－ 14

(2) Breakdown of investor type
Chart 3-4 shows the breakdown of investors to the funds newly established between April 2014 and March 2015.
Chart 3-4: Breakdown of investors (April 2014 – March 2015)(Yen millions)
Number ofinvesters

Type of investors

Percentage

AmountPercentage

Per investor

I. GP/Managing partners

45

18.6%

4,478

6.8%

101.8

II. Domestic total

193

79.8%

57,357

86.7%

297.2

Family/Individual relatives

44

18.2%

787

1.2%

18.3

Other VC/Fund of funds

14

5.8%

6,590

10.0%

549.2

Corporations

73

30.2%

18,569

28.1%

269.1

Bank/Trust and credit unions

45

18.6%

13,270

20.1%

294.9

Insurance companies

3

1.2%

9,660

14.6%

3,220.0
50.5

Brokerage firms

2

0.8%

101

0.2%

Pension funds

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Government/Local public bodies (non-pension)

6

2.5%

5,680

8.6%

946.7

Academic societies/Universities

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Other domestic

6

2.5%

2,700

4.1%

450.0

III. Overseas total

4

1.7%

4,300

6.5%

1,075.0

Total ( I+II+III )242

100.0%

66,135100.0%

273.3

N: Number of VC firms responded

N=26

N=26

N=26

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

1.2%
4.1%

Corporations

0.2%

Bank/Trust and credit unions
Insurance companies

6.5%
6.8%

Other VC/Fund of funds

28.1%

Government/Local public bodies(non-pension)
GP/Managing partners

8.6%

Overseas total

10.0%

Other domestic

20.1%

Family/Individual relatives

14.6%

Brokerage firms

Ⅱ-15
Ⅱ－ 15

4. Exit (Cashing out an investment) Status
Chart 4-1 shows the number of deals 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 deal is “sold to a secondary fund” and “sold to a third party”.
Chart 4-1: Number of deals by exit route in the last five years（Number of deals）

1,200（1,043）

71

1,000

（795）

（737）

800
（699）

53

621

600

IPO

54

276

73

400

0

（682）

260

288

314

200

67

45

112

70

120

106

175

127

56

99

138

117

130
36
116

FY 2010

FY 2011

FY 2012FY 2013

FY 2014

M&A

Trade sales

Write‐off/Settlements

278

154

Buyback bycompany management

Other（※"M&A" is included in "Trade sales" until FY 2013.）

Chart 4-2: Percentage breakdown of deals by exit route in the last five years

FY 201417%

FY 201315%

FY 2012FY 2011

FY 2010

14%

5%

20%
IPO

M&A

Trade sales

8%

39%

6%

8%

45%

15%

7%

59%

12%

17%

0%

15%

21%

18%

33%

9%

35%

19%

8%

41%

10%

19%

5%

40%

60%

Write‐off/Settlements

80%

Buyback bycompany management

100%
Other

（※"M&A" is included in "Trade sales" until FY 2013.）

Ⅱ-16
Ⅱ－ 16

5. International comparison of VC investments
Chart 5-1 to 5-3 show the comparison of VC investments between US, Europe, China and Japan.
Chart 5-1: Breakdown of VC investments included in Data
Overseas
investment

Domestic investment
RegionDomestic VC
firms located in
the country

US
EuropeChina
Japan

Resource

Foreign-owned VC firms located
VC firms located
VC firms locatedoutside thein the country
in the country
country

○
○
○
○

○
○
○
○*

×

○
○
○
×

NVCA YEARBOOK 2015 (NVCA)
2014 European Private Equity Activity (EVCA)
China VC/PE Market Review （Zero2IPO）VEC YEARBOOK 2015 (VEC)○×○

Note 1: Data for Japan are based on a fiscal year, others are based on a calender year.
Note 2: All data do not include turnaround/buyout investments.

Chart 5-2: International Comparison of VC investment amount
2008
30.4
6.6
4.2
136.6

US（$ Bil）
Europe（€ Bil）
China（$ Bil）
Japan（￥Bil）

2009
20.4
4.2
2.7
87.5

2010
23.4
3.9
5.4
113.2

2011
29.9
4.0
13.0
124.0

2012
27.6
3.4
7.3
102.6

2013
30.1
3.4
6.6
181.8

2014
49.3
3.6
16.9
117.1

Chart 5-3: International Comparison of VC investment amount（converted to USD）

2008
30.4
8.8
4.2
1.3

US
Europe
China
Japan

2009
20.4
5.5
2.7
0.8

2010
23.4
5.2
5.4
1.1

2011
29.9
5.3
13.0
1.2

2012
27.6
4.5
7.3
1.0

Note: converted at the rate of 1Euro=1.3293 USD, 1yen=0.0095 USD (annual average rates of exchange 2014)（$ billions）
2013
2014
30.1
49.3
4.6
4.7
6.6
16.9
1.7
1.1

（US $ Billions）
50

49.3

40

30

30.4

29.9

30.1

27.6

23.4
20.4

20

16.9
13.0

10

0

8.8
4.2
1.3

2008

5.5
2.7
0.8

2009

US

5.3

5.2 5.4
1.1

4.5

7.3

1.2

2010

2011

Europe

Ⅱ-17
Ⅱ－ 17

6.6

4.7
1.7

1.0

2012

China

4.6

2013

Japan

1.1

2014

6. Results of the Survey
Chart 6-1: Investment/loan balance of VC firms
As of the end of March 2014
Number of deals
Investments

Number of deals

Amount (Yen millions)

1,400

785,790

1,183

872,582

1

54

1

53

1,401

785,844

1,184

872,635

N=57

N=56

Loans
Total

As of the end of March 2015

Amount (Yen millions)

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-2: Investment balance of partnerships
As of the end of March 2014
Number of deals
Investments

As of the end of March 2015

Amount (Yen millions)

3,626

463,055

N: Number of VC firms responded

Number of deals

Amount (Yen millions)

3,289

444,143

N=83

N=82

Chart 6-3: Investment/loan balance of VC firms and partnerships
As of the end of March 2014
Number of deals
Investments
Loans
Total

As of the end of March 2015

Amount (Yen millions)

5,026

1,248,845

Number of deals

Amount (Yen millions)

4,472

1,316,725

1

54

1

53

5,027

1,248,899

4,473

1,316,778

N=87

N=86

N: Number of VC firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-18
Ⅱ－ 18

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
China
Southeast Asia
Other Asia-Pacific region
EuropeNorth America
Other Regions
Total

As of the end of March 2014
Number of deals
Amount (Yen millions)
1,106
53,266
21
547
19
271
145
4,137
474
24,318
78
3,363
187
6,813
51
1,155
9
375
55
878
92
25,987
6
14,679
3
3,078
5
52
2
92
30
5,149
2
8
1,260
80,529

N: Number of VC firms responded

As of the end of March 2015
Number of deals
Amount (Yen millions)899
41,398
19
493
13
177
111
2,466
367
12,934
52
2,714
174
6,364
43
608
8
322
50
793
86
26,685
31
9,866
12
4,383
8
1,539
2
17
28
10,6980
0
1,043
69,32852
52

Chart 6-5: Investment/loan balance by region: partnerships
As of the end of March 2014
Japan total
Hokkaido
TohokuKanto (excl. Tokyo)
Tokyo
Chubu
Kinki
Chugoku
Shikoku
Kyushu and Okinawa
Overseas total
China
Southeast Asia
Other Asia-Pacific region
EuropeNorth America
Other Regions
Total

Number of deals
2,812
50
61
340
1,331
146
392
80
28
144
499
75
15
131
16
149
14
3,509

As of the end of March 2015

Amount (Yen millions)
274,297
2,408
7,331
18,802
113,610
8,710
25,127
2,396
1,910
7,978
167,037
34,615
7,935
40,003
3,058
65,3393,525
453,998

N: Number of VC firms responded

Number of deals
Amount (Yen millions)
2,521
250,868
35
1,205
67
4,937
281
17,601
1,182
110,305
126
7,322
344
22,179
86
3,775
17
1,600
150
9,883
496
181,038
107
42,64634
10,673155
48,50414
1,024
152
70,624
13
3,903
3,224
439,892
80
79

Chart 6-6: Investment/loan balance by region: VC firms 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
China
Southeast Asia
Other Asia-Pacific region
EuropeNorth America
Other Regions
Total

Number of deals
3,918
71
80
485
1,805
224
579
131
37
199
591
81
18
136
18
179

As of the end of March 2015

Amount (Yen millions)
327,564
2,955
7,603
22,940137,928
12,073
31,940
3,551
2,285
8,856
193,023
49,294
11,01340,055
3,150
70,488

Number of deals
3,420
54
80
392
1,549
178
518
129
25
200
582
138
46
163
16
180

Amount (Yen millions)292,266
1,698
5,114
20,068123,239
10,03528,544
4,383
1,922
10,676
207,72252,511
15,05650,043
1,041
81,322

16

3,533

13

3,903

4,769

534,527

4,267

509,220

84

82

N: Number of VC firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-19
Ⅱ－ 19

Chart 6-7: Breakdown of investments made during the year: VC firms
April 2013- March 2014
New investments

Follow-on investments

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Total

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

ⅠCommon stocks
ⅡClassified stocks

22

523

4

1,397

26

9

220

0

0

9

220

ⅢBonds

1

2,730

2

26

3

2,756

6

190

18

292

24

482

58

23,948

25

2,365

99

99,34350

50

ⅣOtherTotal
N: Number of VC firms responded

1,920

April 2014- March 2015
New investments

Follow-on investments

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Total

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

ⅠCommon stocks
ⅡClassified stocks

23

1,082

8

318

31

10

450

0

0

10

450

ⅢBonds

1

595

0

0

1

595

2

3

11

483

13

486

56

21,527

21

2,659

81

24,274

47

46

ⅣOther
Total

1,400

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-8: Breakdown of investments/loans made during the year: Partnerships
April 2013- March 2014
New investments

Follow-on investments

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Total

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

ⅠCommon stocks
ⅡClassified stocks

214

17,723

76

4,593

278

22,119168

19,027

72

4,894

236

23,776

ⅢBonds

31

2,043

20

1,050

50

3,073

ⅣOther

9

599

7

482

15

1,061

406

39,071

174

10,989699

80,431

68

68

Total
N: Number of VC firms responded

April 2014- March 2015
New investments
Number of deals

Follow-on investments

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Total

Amount (Yen mil)Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

ⅠCommon stocks
ⅡClassified stocks

265

26,949

80

6,769

345

33,717

177

20,19894

10,113271

30,311

ⅢBonds

21

1,066

20

995

41

2,061

ⅣOther

42

2,236

12

1,146

54

3,381

565

62,267215

23,049888

92,779

79

78

Total
N: Number of VC firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-20
Ⅱ－ 20

Chart 6-9: Breakdown of investments/loans made during the year: VC firms and partnerships
April 2013- March 2014
New investments
Number of deals

ⅠCommon stocks
ⅡClassified stocks

Follow-on investments

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Total

Amount (Yen mil)Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

236

18,247

80

5,990

304

24,039177

19,247

72

4,894

245

23,996

ⅢBonds

32

4,773

22

1,076

53

5,829

ⅣOther

15

789

25

774

39

1,543

464

63,019199

13,354

798

179,774

74

74

Total
N: Number of VC firms responded

April 2014- March 2015
New investments
Number of deals

Follow-on investments

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Total

Amount (Yen mil)Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

ⅠCommon stocks
ⅡClassified stocks

288

28,031

88

7,087

376

35,118187

20,64894

10,113281

30,761

ⅢBonds

22

1,661

20

995

42

2,656

ⅣOther

44

2,238

23

1,629

67

3,867

621

83,794236

25,707969

117,053

87

85

Total
N: Number of VC firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-21
Ⅱ－ 21

Chart 6-10: New and follow-on investments by region: VC firms
New investment
Japan total

Follow-on investment

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Total

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

41

14,4198359

56

Hokkaido

0

0

0

0

0

17,8810

Tohoku

2

530

0

0

2

530

Kanto (excl. Tokyo)

6

774

0

0

6

774

Tokyo

16

8,047

3

266

19

8,313

Chubu

0

0

2

63

2

63

Kinki

12

4,975

2

24

14

4,999

Chugoku

3

49

0

0

3

49

Shikoku

1

38

0

0

1

38

Kyushu and Okinawa

1

6

1

6

2

12

2

2,500

2

1,858

12

5,521

Overseas total
China

0

0

1

1,500

1

1,500

Southeast Asia

0

0

0

0

2

792

Other Asia-Pacific region

0

0

0

0

0

0

Europe

0

0

0

0

0

0
2,858

North America

2

2,500

1

358

3

Other Regions

0

0

0

0

0

0

Total

43

16,919

10

2,217

70

23,40535

N: Number of VC firms responded

30

41

Chart 6-11: New and follow-on investments by region: Partnerships
New investment

Follow-on investment

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Total

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

397

31,369144

15,335671

Hokkaido

2

61

1

20

3

81

Tohoku

12

621

1

99

13

720

Japan total

56,144

Kanto (excl. Tokyo)

28

1,599

14

1,953

42

3,552

Tokyo

236

21,646

84

8,294

320

29,940

Chubu

15

991

2

150

17

1,141

Kinki

52

2,245

14

1,448

66

3,693
1,362

Chugoku

13

1,250

2

113

15

Shikoku

3

113

4

700

7

813

Kyushu and Okinawa

27

1,751

11

761

38

2,512

Overseas total

91

18,900

51

4,447

193

36,328

China

31

4,025

2

579

36

5,765

Southeast Asia

15

1,613

5

167

22

2,643

Other Asia-Pacific region
EuropeNorth America

12
4
24

1,632
551
10,471

4
2
29

276
37
2,725

49
6
59

10,008588
15,638Other Regions

2

40

4

62

7

226

Total

488

50,270195

19,782864

92,188

N: Number of VC firms responded

67

57

75

Chart 6-12: New and follow-on investments by region: VC firms and partnerships
New investment
Japan total

Follow-on investment

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Total

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

438

45,788152

15,694727

Hokkaido

2

61

1

20

3

74,02581

Tohoku

14

1,151

1

99

15

1,250

Kanto (excl. Tokyo)

34

2,373

14

1,953

48

4,326

Tokyo

252

29,693

87

8,560

339

38,253

Chubu

15

991

4

213

19

1,204

Kinki

64

7,220

16

1,472

80

8,692
1,411

Chugoku

16

1,299

2

113

18

Shikoku

4

151

4

700

8

851

Kyushu and Okinawa

28

1,757

12

767

40

2,524

Overseas total

93

21,400

53

6,305

205

41,848

China

31

4,025

3

2,079

37

7,265

Southeast Asia

15

1,613

5

167

24

3,435
10,008Other Asia-Pacific region

12

1,632

4

276

49

Europe

4

551

2

37

6

588

North America

26

12,971

30

3,083

62

18,496

Other Regions

2

40

4

62

7

226

Total

531

67,189205

21,998934

115,593

N: Number of VC firms responded

72

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-22
Ⅱ－ 22

59

80

Chart 6-13: Distribution of deals of new investments by VC firms
by industry and stage (Number of deals)
Industry

April 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

1

0

0

0

1

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

1

4

5

5

16

Software

0

0

1

0

1

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

0

0

0

0

0

Biotechnology/M edicine

2

2

1

0

5

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

0

2

0

0

2

Industrial/Energy/Other

1

10

6

0

17

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

0

0

1

4

5

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

0

1

2

6

IoT-related (Among the above)

0

0

0

0

0

Total

5

18

15

11

53
38

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-14: Distribution of deals of follow-on investments by VC firms
by industry and stage (Number of deals)
Industry

April 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

0

0

0

0

0

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

0

1

2

1

4

Software

0

0

0

0

0

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

0

0

0

0

0

Biotechnology/M edicine

0

1

0

0

1

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

0

0

1

0

1

Industrial/Energy/Other

0

0

1

2

3

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

0

0

0

2

2

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

0

0

0

0

IoT-related (Among the above)

0

0

0

0

0

Total

0

2

4

5

11
32

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-15: Distribution of deals of new and follow-on investments by VC firms
by industry and stage (Number of deals)
Industry

April 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

1
1

0
5

Expansion
0
7

Software00

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

00

Biotechnology/M edicine

2

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related0

Industrial/Energy/Other

Later

Total
0
6

1
20

1

0

1

0

0

0

3

1

0

6

2

1

0

3

1

10

7

2

20

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

0

0

1

6

7

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

0

0

1

2

6

IoT-related (Among the above)

0

0

0

0

0

Total

5

20

19

16

64
40

N: Number of VC firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-23
Ⅱ－ 23

Chart 6-16: Distribution of new investment amount by VC firms by industry and stage(Yen millions)
Industry

April 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

1,000

0

0

0

1,000

520

3,850

1,545

1,087

7,202

Software

0

0

1,560

0

1,560

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

0

0

0

0

0

3,580

1

6

0

3,587

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment
Computers and Peripherals/IT services

Biotechnology/M edicine
M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

0

51

0

0

51

Industrial/Energy/Other

20

3,671

135

0

3,826

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

0

0

26

632

658

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

0

10

16

3,613

0

0

0

0

0

5,120

7,573

3,282

1,735

21,497

IoT-related (Among the above)

Total

37

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-17: Distribution of follow-on investment amount by VC firms
by industry and stage(Yen millions)
Industry

April 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

0

0

0

0

0

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

0

19

361

2

382

Software

0

0

0

0

0

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

0

0

0

0

0

Biotechnology/M edicine

0

50

0

0

50

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

0

0

5

0

5

Industrial/Energy/Other

0

0

1,500

25

1,525

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

0

0

0

241

241

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

0

0

0

0

IoT-related (Among the above)

0

0

0

0

0

Total

0

69

1,866

268

2,203
32

N: Number of VC firms responded

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 2014 - March 2015
Seed
1,000
520

Early
0
3,869

Expansion
0
1,906

Later
0
1,089

Total
1,000
7,584

Software

0

0

1,560

0

1,560

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

0

0

0

0

0
3,637

3,580

51

6

0

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

0

51

5

0

56

Industrial/Energy/Other

20

3,671

1,635

25

5,351

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

0

0

26

873

899

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

0

10

16

3,613

0

0

0

0

0

5,120

7,642

5,148

2,003

23,700

Biotechnology/M edicine

IoT-related (Among the above)

Total

39

N: Number of VC firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-24
Ⅱ－ 24

Chart 6-19: Distribution of deals of new investments by Partnerships
by industry and stage (Number of deals)
Industry

April 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

3

15

4

0

22

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

46

127

43

18

257

Software

2

14

7

3

26

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

5

8

3

2

18

Biotechnology/M edicine

12

16

7

4

53

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

6

9

7

1

23

Industrial/Energy/Other

4

17

19

18

76

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

8

19

23

10

64

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

1

9

8

5

24

IoT-related (Among the above)

0

0

1

0

1

Total

87

234

121

61

563
68

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-20: Distribution of deals of follow-on investments by Partnerships
by industry and stage (Number of deals)
Industry

April 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

0

6

3

0

9

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

6

48

15

0

73

Software

1

9

4

3

17

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

2

6

3

2

13

Biotechnology/M edicine

3

18

6

2

32

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

3

5

4

0

12

Industrial/Energy/Other

2

12

5

4

26

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

2

3

7

1

14

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

0

2

0

4

IoT-related (Among the above)

0

0

0

0

0

Total

19

107

49

12

199
59

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-21: Distribution of deals of new and follow-on investments by Partnerships
by industry and stage (Number of deals)
Industry

April 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

3

21

7

0

31

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

52

175

58

18

330

Software

3

23

11

6

43

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

7

14

6

4

31

Biotechnology/M edicine
Industrial/Energy/Other

15
9
6

34
14
29

13
11
24

6
1
22

85
35
102

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

10

22

30

11

78

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

1

9

10

5

28

IoT-related (Among the above)

0

0

1

0

1

Total

106

341

170

73

762

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

71

N: Number of VC firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-25
Ⅱ－ 25

Chart 6-22: Distribution of new investment amount by partnerships by industry and stage(Yen millions)
Industry

April 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

205

1,795

1,099

0

3,099

2,909

11,936

7,073

5,138

31,641

Software

110

2,001

1,741

115

3,966

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

191

444

242

209

1,085

Biotechnology/M edicine

934

2,218

420

414

7,466

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

203

691

257

102

1,253

Industrial/Energy/Other

240

897

772

2,557

7,217

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

578

896

2,125

665

5,229

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

10

515

364

1,042

1,968

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment
Computers and Peripherals/IT services

0

0

265

0

265

5,379

21,392

14,093

10,242

62,924

IoT-related (Among the above)

Total

67

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-23: Distribution of follow-on investment amount by partnerships by industry and stage(Yen millions)
Industry

April 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

0

349

331

0

680

635

3,082

1,422

0

5,886

Software

20

1,051

237

54

1,362

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

200

532

21

247

1,001

Biotechnology/M edicine

667

2,392

485

253

4,189

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

209

666

154

0

1,029

Industrial/Energy/Other

120

708

1,159

90

4,186

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

120

920

1,291

499

2,830

0

0

579

0

1,412

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment
Computers and Peripherals/IT services

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

0

0

0

0

1,971

9,700

5,679

1,143

22,574

IoT-related (Among the above)

Total

59

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-24: Distribution of new and follow-on investment amount by partnerships by industry and stage(Yen millions)
Industry

April 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

205

2,144

1,430

0

3,779

3,544

15,019

8,494

5,138

37,527

Software

130

3,052

1,978

169

5,328

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

390

976

263

456

2,085

1,601
412
360

4,610
1,357
1,605

905
411
1,931

667
102
2,647

11,654
2,282
11,403

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

698

1,816

3,416

1,164

8,059

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

10

515

943

1,042

3,380

0

0

265

0

265

7,351

31,092

19,771

11,38585,498

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment
Computers and Peripherals/IT services

Biotechnology/M edicine
M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related
Industrial/Energy/Other

IoT-related (Among the above)

Total

70

N: Number of VC firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-26
Ⅱ－ 26

Chart 6-25: Distribution of deals of new investments by VC firms and partnerships
by industry and stage (Number of deals)
Industry

April 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

4

15

4

0

23

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

47

131

48

23

273

Software

2

14

8

3

27

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

5

8

3

2

18

Biotechnology/M edicine

14

18

8

4

58

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

6

11

7

1

25

Industrial/Energy/Other

5

27

25

18

93

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

8

19

24

14

69

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

1

9

9

7

30

IoT-related (Among the above)

0

0

1

0

1

Total

92

252

136

72

616
75

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-26: Distribution of deals of follow-on investment by VC firms and partnerships
by industry and stage (Number of deals)
Industry

April 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

0

6

3

0

9

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

6

49

17

1

77

Software

1

9

4

3

17

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

2

6

3

2

13

Biotechnology/M edicine

3

19

6

2

33

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

3

5

5

0

13

Industrial/Energy/Other

2

12

6

6

29

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

2

3

7

3

16

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

0

2

0

4

IoT-related (Among the above)

0

0

0

0

0

Total

19

109

53

17

210
64

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-27: Distribution of deals of new and follow-on investments
by VC firms and partnerships by industry and stage (Number of deals)
Industry

April 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

4

21

7

0

32

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

53

180

65

24

350

Software

3

23

12

6

44

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

7

14

6

4

31

Biotechnology/M edicine

17

37

14

6

91

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

9

16

12

1

38

Industrial/Energy/Other

7

39

31

24

122

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

10

22

31

17

85

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

34

1

9

11

7

IoT-related (Among the above)

0

0

1

0

1

Total

111

361

189

89

826
79

N: Number of VC firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-27
Ⅱ－ 27

Chart 6-28: Distribution of new investment amount by VC firms and partnerships
by industry and stage(Yen millions)
Industry

April 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

1,205

1,795

1,099

0

4,099

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

3,429

15,786

8,618

6,225

38,843

Software

110

2,001

3,301

115

5,526

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

191

444

242

209

1,085
11,053

4,514

2,219

427

414

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

203

742

257

102

1,304

Industrial/Energy/Other

260

4,568

907

2,557

11,043

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

578

896

2,151

1,297

5,887

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

10

515

374

1,058

5,581

Biotechnology/M edicine

IoT-related (Among the above)

Total

0

0

265

0

265

10,49928,965

17,375

11,97784,42173

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-29: Distribution of follow-on investment amount by VC firms and partnerships
by industry and by stage(Yen millions)
Industry

April 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

0

349

331

0

680

635

3,101

1,782

2

6,268

Software

20

1,051

237

54

1,362

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

200

532

21

247

1,001

Biotechnology/M edicine

667

2,442

485

253

4,239

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

209

666

159

0

1,034

Industrial/Energy/Other

120

708

2,659

115

5,711

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

120

920

1,291

740

3,071

0

0

579

0

1,412

0

0

0

0

0

1,971

9,769

7,544

1,411

24,777

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment
Computers and Peripherals/IT services

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services
IoT-related (Among the above)

Total

64

N: Number of VC firms responded

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 2014 - March 2015
Seed

Early

Expansion

Later

Total

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

1,205

2,144

1,430

0

4,779

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

4,064

18,888

10,4006,227

45,111

Software

130

3,052

3,538

169

6,888

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

390

976

263

456

2,085

5,181

4,661

912

667

15,291

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

412

1,408

416

102

2,338

Industrial/Energy/Other

380

5,276

3,566

2,672

16,754

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

698

1,816

3,442

2,037

8,958

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

10

515

953

1,058

6,993

Biotechnology/M edicine

IoT-related (Among the above)

Total

0

0

265

0

265

12,471

38,73424,91913,388109,198
77

N: Number of VC firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-28
Ⅱ－ 28

Chart 6-31: Establishment and maturity of funds
End of March 2014

April 2014 - March 2015
EstablishedEnd of March 2015

MaturedNumber of funds

389

39

51

364

Total number of limited partners

2,388

164

185

2,342

1,754,170

91,119220,549

1,642,578

Capital commitments (Yen millions)
N: Number of VC firms responded

81

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 2014 and March 2015
April 2014 - March 2015

Type of investors

Number of investors

Amount (yen mil)

I. GP/Managing partners

45

4,478

II. Domestic total

193

57,357

Family/Individual relatives

44

787

Other VC/Fund of funds

14

6,590

Corporations

73

18,569Bank/Trust and credit unions

45

13,270Insurance companies

3

9,660

Brokerage firms

2101

Pension funds

00

Government/Local public bodies (non-pension)

6

5,680

Academic societies/Universities

0

0

6

2,700

III. Overseas total

Other domestic

4

4,300

Total ( I+II+III )242

66,135

N: Number of VC firms responded

26

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
Ⅱ－ 29

Chart 6-33: Exit status of deals invested by VC firms(Yen millions)
April 2014 - March 2015
AmountNumber of deals

Realized gain/loss

Unrealized gain/loss

IPO

17

9,750

18,680

Sale to a secondary fund

3

13

2
69

Sale to another third party

M&A

3

38

Other

6

1,934

30

4

66

-66

Write-off/Settlements
Buybacks by company management

44

694

-317

Other

10

151

-7

2,459

36

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-34: Exit status of deals invested by partnerships(Yen millions)
April 2014 - March 2015
AmountNumber of deals

Realized gain/loss

Unrealized gain/loss

IPO

99

19,55750,654

Sale to a secondary fund

11

163

-10
3,677

M&A

33

4,187

Other

110

4,811

2,788

Write-off/Settlements

66

3,385

-3,232

Buybacks by company management

232

8,030

-5,377

Other

44

1,072

88

Sale to another third party

19,09566

N: Number of VC firms responded

Chart 6-35: Exit status of deals invested by VC firms and partnerships(Yen millions)
April 2014 - March 2015
AmountNumber of deals

Realized gain/loss

Unrealized gain/loss

IPO

116

29,307

69,334

Sale to a secondary fund

14

176

-8

M&A

36

4,225

3,746

Other

116

6,745

2,818

Write-off/Settlements

70

3,451

-3,298

Buybacks by company management

276

8,724

-5,694

Other

54

1,223

82

Sale to another third party

21,55470

N: Number of VC firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-30
Ⅱ－ 30

CHAPTER I-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 deals are given in Chart 1-2. The
amount of investment (investment and/or loan) and the numbers of deals in the charts are calculated bysimply adding up the figures given in survey answers.
Chart 1-1: Change in balance of investments/loans in turnaround/buyout（¥ Billions）

150
114.5
98.9
100

50

0
End of March 2014
Note:

End of March 2015

Numbers above are based solely on the latest survey.

Chart 1-2: Number of deals and balance (as of the end of March 2015)
Total balance

Number ofdeals
Investments
Loans
Total
N: Number of PE firms responded

y/y % change(Yen millions)y/y % change

100

9.9%

97,046-14.6%

9

50.0%

1,822

34.3%

109

11.2%

98,868-13.7%

N=32

N=30

N=31

N=29

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment/loan amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from PE firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment/loan amount for both 2014 and2015 (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
Ⅱ－ 31

(2) Investment/loan balance per deal
Chart 1-3 “Investment/loan balance per deal” refers to PE firms that provided both the balance and thenumber of deals. Per-deal figure is calculated by dividing the total amount of balance by the total numberof deals.
Chart 1-3: Investment/loan balance per deal
(Yen millions)
End of March 2014 End of March 2015
Number of deals

88

97

Investment balance

116,243

97,046

Investment balance per deal

1,320.9

1,000.5

Number of loans outstanding

6

9

Balance of loans outstanding

1,356

1,822

Balance per loan

226.0

202.4

Total number of deals/loans

94

106

Total balance

114,529

98,868

Total balance per deal/loan

1,218.4

932.7

y/y % change-23.4%-10.4%-23.4%
N=29

N: Number of VC firms responded
Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided both the number of deals and investment/loan amount.

Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from PE firms that provided both the number of deals and investment/loan amount for both 2014
and 2015 (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 PE firms 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 2015)
Balance range(Yen billions)

Number of
PE firms

Total balance(Yen billions)

Percentage

1 or less

4

23

2.4%

over 1 - 5

5

135

13.7%

over 5 - 10

2

134

13.5%

over 10 - 50

5

696

70.4%

over 50

0

0

0.0%

16

989

100.0%

Total

Chart 1-5: Share of the top 5 PE firms in terms of investment/loan balance
Total balance(Yen billions)

Percentage

Top 5

696

70.4%

Top 6th and below

293

29.6%

Ⅱ-32
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 deals and investment/loan amount made during theyear for the most recent year are shown in Chart 2-2. The investment amount (investment and/or loan) andthe numbers of deals 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 2014 – March 2015)（¥ Billions）
60

55.4

50
40
26.5

30
20
10
0
Note:

April 2013 - March 2014

April 2014 - March 2015

Numbers above are based solely on the latest survey.

Chart 2-2: Number of deals and investment/loan amount made during the year
(April 2014– March 2015)
Numberof deals
Common stocks

y/y % change
19

11.8%

Amount(Yen mil)
13,958y/y % change
19.6%

Classified stocks

5

0.0%

1,365

-15.3%

Bonds

7

16.7%

1,619

-53.0%

Others7-20.0%

693

380.4%

Total investments

37

16.7%

17,635

-3.2%

Loans

5

0.0%

646

-48.2%

Total investments/loans

44

14.3%

55,437

-6.1%

N=26

N: Number of PE firms responded

N=26

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment/loan amount.
Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from PE firms that provided the number of deals and investment/loan amount for both periods, Apr.
2013 – Mar. 2014 and Apr. 2014 – Mar. 2015.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-33
Ⅱ－ 33

(2) Investment/loan amount made during the year per deal
Chart 2-3 “Investment/loan amount per deal” refers to PE firms that provided both investment/loan amountand the number of deals. Per-deal figure is calculated by dividing the total amount of investment/loan by
the total number of deals.
Chart 2-3: Investment/loan amount made during the year per deal
(April 2013 – March 2015)(Yen millions)
April 2013-March 2014

April 2014-March 2015

35

37

Investment amount25,20917,635Per deal

720.3

476.6

5

5

Number of deals

Number of loans outstanding
Loan amount

1,246

646

Per deal

249.2

129.2

Total number of deals

40

44

Total investments and loans

26,45555,437

Per deal

661.4

1,259.9

y/y % change-17.0%-48.2%-17.9%
N=26

N: Number of PE firms responded
Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided both the number of deals and investment/loan amount.

Note 2: y/y % change is based on answers from PE firms that provided the number of deals and investment/loan amount for both periods, Apr.
2013 – Mar. 2014 and Apr. 2014 – Mar. 2015.
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 2014 – March 2015)
Investment/loan amount(Yen billions)

Total amount of investment/loan

Number of
PE firms(Yen billions)

Percentage

0

2

0.0

0.0%

1 or less

11

5.8

10.4%

over 1 - 5

2

3.9

7.0%

over 5 - 10

1

8.6

15.6%

over 10 - 20

0

0.0

0.0%

over 20

1

37.2

67.0%

17

55.4

100.0%

Total

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
Ⅱ－ 34

Chart 2-5: Share of the top 3 PE firms in terms of investment/loan amount madeduring the year (April 2014 - March 2015)
Total amount of investment/loan(Yen billions)

Percentage

Top 3

47.8

86.3%

Top 4th and below

7.6

13.7%

(4) New investment and follow-on investment
Chart 2-6 show the simple totaling of investment amount or the number of deals, year-on-year percentagechange, and the investment amount per deal. These figures are based on the answers from PE firms thatprovided new and follow-on investment amount or the number of deals.
Chart 2-6: Amount invested and number of deals
for new and follow-on investments
Number of deals

y/y % change

Amount(Yen mil)y/y % change

New investments

30

0.0%

16,883-4.3%

Follow-on investments

7

250.0%

753

29.3%

37

16.7%

17,635

-3.2%

Total

N=26

N: Number of PE firms responded

N=26

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided the number of deals 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. 2013 – Mar. 2014 andApr. 2014 – Mar. 2015.
Note 3: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to rounding and non-response.

Ⅱ-35
Ⅱ－ 35

(5) Distribution of deals by region
Chart 2-7 illustrates the number of deals and investment/loan amount by “Principal and Partnerships” byregion according to the location of the deals.
Chart 2-7: Number of deals and investment/loan amount by region (April 2014 – March 2015)
Number ofdeals
Japan total
Hokkaido

Percentage

Amount(Yen millions)

Percentage

35

94.6%

18,067

32.7%

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Tohoku

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Kanto（excl. Tokyo）

4

10.8%

1,685

3.1%

Tokyo

4

10.8%

10,443

18.9%

Chubu

7

18.9%

1,361

2.5%

Kinki

4

10.8%

769

1.4%

Chugoku

8

21.6%

1,219

2.2%

Shikoku

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Kyushu and Okinawa

7

18.9%

787

1.4%

Overseas total

2

5.4%

37,156

67.3%

China

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Southeast Asia

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Other Asia-Pacific region

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

Europe

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

North America

1

2.7%

5,245

9.5%

Other Regions

1

2.7%

31,911

57.8%

Total

37

100.0%

55,223100.0%

N: Number of PE firms responded

N=29

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment/loan amount.
Note 2: Percentages of numbers of deals 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
Ⅱ－ 36

N=29

(6) Distribution of deals by industry
Charts 2-8, 2-9 and 2-10 show the total figures and the composition ratio for the number of deals andinvestment amount, and investment amount per deal for “New”, “Follow-on” and “New and Follow-on”
investments. These figures are based on answers from PE firms that provided the number of deals and/or
investment amount by industry.
Chart 2-8: Distribution of deals of new investment by industry (April 2014 – March 2015)
Number of deals
IT-related

Percentage

Amount(Yen millions)

Percentage

Amount per
deal(Yen millions)

3

8.3%

2,656

4.7%

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

1

2.8%

803

1.4%

803.3

Software

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

2

5.6%

1,853

3.3%

926.5

3

8.3%

5,659

10.0%

1,886.3

1

2.8%

5,245

9.2%

5,244.8

Biotechnology, Medical and Healthcare
Biotechnology/M edicine
M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

885.3

2

5.6%

414

0.7%

207.0

Industrial/Energy/Other

12

33.3%

34,01359.9%

2,834.4

Products and S ervices

18

50.0%

14,472

25.5%

804.0

13

36.1%

13,95724.6%

1,073.6

5
0
36
N=28

13.9%
0.0%
100.0%

515
056,800
N=28

0.9%
0.0%
100.0%

103.0
NA
1,577.8
N=28

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods
Finance/Real Estate/Business Services
IoT-related (Among the above)Total
N: Number of PE firms responded

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per deal" refers to PE firms that provided both the number of deals 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 deals of follow-on investment by industry (April 2014– March 2015)
Number of deals

Percentage

Amount(Yen millions)

Percentage

Amount per
deal(Yen millions)

1

14.3%

60

7.5%

60.0

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

1

14.3%

60

7.5%

60.0

IT-related

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Biotechnology/M edicine

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Industrial/Energy/Other

3

42.9%

565

70.3%

188.3

Products and S ervices

Biotechnology, Medical and Healthcare

3

42.9%

179

22.3%

59.6

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

3

42.9%

179

22.3%

59.6

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

IoT-related (Among the above)

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Total

7

100.0%

804

100.0%

114.8

N: Number of PE firms responded

N=22

N=22

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per deal" refers to PE firms that provided both the number of deals 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
Ⅱ－ 37

N=22

Chart 2-10: Distribution of deals of new and follow-on investments by industry(April 2014 – March 2015)
Number of deals

Percentage

Amount(Yen millions)

Percentage

Amount per
deal(Yen millions)

4

9.3%

2,716

4.7%

Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Computers and Peripherals/IT services

1

2.3%

803

1.4%

803.3

Software

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

3

7.0%

1,913

3.3%

637.7

IT-related

679.0

3

7.0%

5,659

9.8%

1,886.3

Biotechnology/M edicine

1

2.3%

5,245

9.1%

5,244.8

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

2

4.7%

414

0.7%

207.0

Industrial/Energy/Other

15

34.9%

34,57860.0%

2,305.2

Products and S ervices

Biotechnology, Medical and Healthcare

21

48.8%

14,651

25.4%

697.7

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

16

37.2%

14,136

24.5%

883.5

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

5

11.6%

515

0.9%

103.0

IoT-related (Among the above)

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Total

43

100.0%

57,603100.0%

1,339.6

N: Number of PE firms responded

N=28

N=28

Note 1: Numbers above refer to PE firms that provided the number of deals and/or investment amount.
Note 2: "Amount per deal" refers to PE firms that provided both the number of deals 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
Ⅱ－ 38

N=28

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 2014

End of March 201536

Number of funds

y/y % change

31-11.4%

Total number of limited partners

219

187

-5.6%

Capital commitments to funds (Yen billions)

321.7

277.4

-13.8%

Average number of limited partners

7.8

7.2

-1.9%

Average capital commitments (Yen billions)

8.9

9.0

-1.9%

(Average number of limited partners)

N=14

N=13

N=13

(Average capital commitments)

N=18

N=17

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 deals and investment/loan amount for both 2014
and 2015 (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 2015)
Number of funds

Number of
PE firms

Capital commitments
to funds (Yen billions)

Number of
PE firms

1

7

10 or less

8

2

5

over 10 - 50

7

3

3

over 50 - 100

0

4 and over1

over 100

Total

16

Ⅱ-39
Ⅱ－ 39

Total

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 2014 – March 2015)
Established

MaturedNumber of funds

2

4

Total number of limited partners

248

Capital commitments to funds (Yen billions)

6.2

37.4

Average number of limited partners

12.0

2.7

Average capital commitments (Yen billions)

3.1

9.4

(Average number of limited partners)

N=2

N=2

(Average capital commitments)

N=2

N=3

N: Number of PE firms responded

Note 1: “N” refers to PE firms that own at least one fund as of the end of March 2015, 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 2014 and March
2015.
Chart 3-4: Breakdown of investors (April 2014 – March 2015)
Invest type

Number ofinvesters

Percentage

Amount(Yen millions)

Percentage

Per investor(Yen millions)

I. GP/Managing partners

2

8.3%

200

3.2%

100.0

II. Domestic total

22

91.7%

5,960

96.8%

270.9

Family/Individual relatives

7

29.2%

1,160

18.8%

165.7

Other VC/Fund of funds

1

4.2%

200

3.2%

200.0

Corporations

4

16.7%

1,400

22.7%

350.0

Bank/Trust and credit unions

9

37.5%

3,000

48.7%

333.3

Insurance companies

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Brokerage firms

1

4.2%

200

3.2%

200.0

Pension funds

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Government/Local public bodies (non-pension)

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Academic societies/Universities

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Other domestic

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

III. Overseas total

0

0.0%

0

0.0%

NA

Total ( I+II+III )24

100.0%

6,160

100.0%

256.7

N: Number of PE firms responded

N=2

N=2

N=2

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
Ⅱ－ 40

4. Results of the Survey
Chart 4-1: Investment/loan balance of PE firms
As of the end of March 2014
Number of deals

As of the end of March 2015

Amount (Yen millions)

Number of deals

Amount (Yen millions)

Investments

92

116,243

100

Loans

6

1,356

9

1,822

98

114,529109

98,868

32

31

Total
N: Number of PE firms responded

97,046

Chart 4-2: Investment/loan balance by region
As of the end of March 2014
Number of deals
Japan total

As of the end of March 2015

Amount (Yen millions)

Number of deals

Amount (Yen millions)93

111,630102

98,866

Hokkaido

1

1,552

1

1,420

Tohoku

3

1,720

1

1,000

Kanto (excl. Tokyo)

515,502

7

14,660Tokyo

29

48,06024

36,236

Chubu

3

5,686

4

6,711

Kinki

3

92

6

858

Chugoku

19

6,285

35

7,197

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

Kyushu and Okinawa

17

5,358

15

5,116

Overseas total

1

1,001

0

0

China

0

0

0

0

Southeast Asia

0

0

0

0

Other Asia-Pacific region

0

0

0

0

Europe

0

0

0

0
0

North America

0

0

0

Other Regions

1

1,001

0

0

Total

119

115,181103

98,86632

31

N: Number of PE firms responded

Chart 4-3: Breakdown of investment/loan made during the year
April 2013 - March 2014
New investmensts/loans

Follow-on investments/loans

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Total

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

ⅠCommon stocks
ⅡClassified stocks

15

11,094

2

582

17

3

5,359

0

0

3

5,359

ⅢBonds

7

6,172

0

0

7

6,172

8

2,002

0

0

8

2,002

33

24,6272582

35

25,209

ⅣOtherTotal Investments (I+II+III+IV)

11,676

Total Loans

5

1,246

0

0

5

1,246

Total (Investments + Loans)38

25,8732582

40

26,45533

33

N: Number of PE firms responded

April 2014 - March 2015
New investmensts/loans

Follow-on investments/loans

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Total

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

Amount (Yen mil)Number of deals

ⅠCommon stocks
ⅡClassified stocks

15

13,420

4

539

19

5

1,365

0

0

5

1,365

ⅢBonds

5

1,434

2

185

7

1,619

6

664

1

29

7

693

30

16,8837753

37

17,635

ⅣOtherTotal Investments (I+II+III+IV)

13,958

Total Loans

4

596

1

50

5

646

Total (Investments + Loans)34

17,4798803

4455,43731

31

N: Number of PE firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-41
Ⅱ－ 41

Chart 4-4: Distribution of deals by region (April 2014 – March 2015)
New investment

Follow-on investment

Total

Number of deals Amount (Yen mil) Number of deals Amount (Yen mil) Number of deals Amount (Yen mil)Japan total

28

17,2647804

35

18,067

Hokkaido

0

0

0

0

0

0

Tohoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

Kanto（excl. Tokyo）

3

1,635

1

50

4

1,685

Tokyo

4

10,44300

4

10,443

Chubu

4

1,120

3

241

7

1,361

Kinki

4

769

0

0

4

769

Chugoku

7

714

1

505

8

1,219

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

Kyushu and Okinawa

5

779

2

8

7

787

Overseas total

237,156002

37,156

China

0

0

0

0

0

0

Southeast Asia

0

0

0

0

0

0

Other Asia-Pacific region

0

0

0

0

0

0

Europe

0

0

0

0

0

0

North America

1

5,245

0

0

1

5,245

Other Regions

1

31,91100

131,911

Total

30

54,4207804

3755,22329

29

N: Number of PE firms responded

Chart 4-5: Breakdown of deals of new investment by industry
April 2014 - March 2015

Industry

Number of deals

Amount (Yen mil)Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

00Computers and Peripherals/IT services

1803

Software00

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

2

1,853

Biotechnology/M edicine

1

5,245

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

2414

Industrial/Energy/Other

1234,013

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

13

13,957

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

5515

IoT-related (Among the above)

0

0

Total

36

56,80028

28

N: Number of PE firms responded

Chart 4-6: Breakdown of deals of follow-on investment by industry
April 2014 - March 2015

Industry

Number of deals

Amount (Yen mil)Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

00Computers and Peripherals/IT services00Software00

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

160

Biotechnology/M edicine

00

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

00Industrial/Energy/Other

3565

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

3

179

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services00

IoT-related (Among the above)

0

0

7

804

22

22

Total
N: Number of PE firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-42
Ⅱ－ 42

Chart 4-7: Breakdown of deals of new and follow-on investments by industry
April 2014 - March 2015

Industry

Number of deals

Amount (Yen mil)Telecommunications/Networking and Equipment

00Computers and Peripherals/IT services

1803

Software00

Semi-conductors/Electrical M achinery & Equipment

3

1,913

Biotechnology/M edicine

1

5,245

M edical Device and Equipment/Healthcare-related

2414

Industrial/Energy/Other

15

34,578

M edia/Entertainment/Retailing/Consumer Goods

16

14,136

Finance/Real Estate/Business Services

5515

IoT-related (Among the above)

0

0

Total

43

57,60328

28

N: Number of PE firms responded

Chart 4-8: Status of funds
April 2014 - March 2015

End of March 2014
Number of funds

Established

36

Total number of limited partners
Capital commitments (Yen millions)

End of March 2015

Matured
2

4

31

219

24

8

187

321,675

6,160

37,430277,420

N: Number of PE firms responded

18

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 2014 - March 2015
Continued listing

2

Secondary buyout0Bankruptcy

1

Public to Private

0

Business succession

11

Other capitalization strategy

6

N: Number of PE firms responded

N=25

Chart 4-10: Manner of exit by deals(Yen millions)
April 2013 - March 2014
Number of deals

Realized gain/loss

Unrealized gain/loss

IPO

1

0

Sale to a secondary fund

0

0

M&A

10

5,684

Other

1

0

Write-off/settlements

00

Buybacks by company management

1

0

Other

8

103

Sale to another third party

6,577

N=23

N: Number of PE firms responded

Note: The total may not correspond to the sum of breakdown owing to non-response.

Ⅱ-43
Ⅱ－ 43

CHAPTER II
Survey on Venture Capital Fund Status

Reading the charts and tables (points of notice) In the Fund Status survey, the number of funds responded to the survey was 625, and the number of funds forwhich the internal rate of return was calculated was 374.
 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 and the fund size
(cumulative capital contributions) are available.
 Regarding foreign currency funds, total capital contributions are converted into yen at the end-of-the-monthexchange rate for the first closing date. In computing the IRR, the end-of-the-month exchange rate for the
cash flow dates is used.
 For year 2015, data up to the end of May are compiled; for the other years, data for the entire calendar year
are adopted.

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
Existing
60

Liquidated

50
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 '15

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
'15
Total

Total

Number of Funds
Liquidated
Existing
2
2
0
5

5

0

4

4

0

5

5

0

1

1

0

3

3

0

2

2

0

7

7

0

8

8

0

11

11

0

6

6

0

1

1

0

2

2

0

13

13

0

26

25

1

16

16

0

7

7

0

21

21

0

45

44

1

34

32

2

36

33

3

29

23

6

58

32

26

63

15

48

34

7

27

30

3

27

27

3

24

9

1

8

22

1

21

22

0

22

15

0

15

38

1

37

31

0

31

10

0

10

643

334

309

Ⅱ-45
Ⅱ－ 45

(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
60

Foreign funds/Other
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 '15

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
'15
Total

Number of Funds

2

LimitedPartnerships
0

VoluntaryPartnerships
2

Foreignfunds/Other
0

5

0

5

0

4

0

3

1

5

0

4

1

1

0

1

0

3

0

3

0

2

0

2

0

7

0

7

0

8

0

8

0

11

0

11

0

6

0

4

2

1

0

1

0

2

0

2

0

13

0

12

1

26

0

26

0

16

0

15

1

7

2

3

2

21

5

15

1

43

33

9

1

34

22

11

1

33

24

8

1

29

25

2

2

58

47

9

2

63

58

3

2

34

31

1

2

30

24

5

1

27

21

0

6

9

7

0

2

22

13

5

4

22
15
38

18
11
35

2
0
0

2
4
3

31

31

0

0

10

10

0

0

638

417

179

42

Total

Ⅱ-46
Ⅱ－ 46

(3) Number of funds by focused stage
The following chart shows the distribution of focused stages by vintage year.
70（Number of Funds）

Seed-stage
Seed‐stage

Early‐stage

Expansion
Expansion‐stage

Later‐stage

Early-stage

60-stageLater-stage

50
40

Balanced

BuyoutRecap/
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 '15

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
'15
Total

Number of Funds
Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

5

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

2

4

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

1

5

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

7

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

1

8

0

0

0

0

8

0

0

0

11

0

0

0

0

10

0

0

1

6

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

2

0

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

13

0

0

0

1

11

0

0

1

25

1

3

0

0

19

0

0

2

16

0

3

1

0

12

0

0

0

7

0

2

1

0

2

0

0

2

21

1

6

1

1

8

1

0

3

43

2

16

2

0

18

1

0

4

34

1

15

2

1

12

2

0

1

33

2

9

3

1

11

1

2

4

29

2

9

0

0

10

3

2

3

54

2

21

3

0

23

3

0

2

61

2

15

1

0

29

2

4

8

33

2

11

2

0

10

3

1

4

30

1

9

0

1

12

2

0

5

26

2

2

2

0

15

1

1

3

8

1

1

0

0

3

0

3

0

21

0

1

1

1

13

1

0

4

22

1

4

1

0

8

2

2

4

15

1

3

0

1

7

0

1

2

35

4

4

1

1

18

1

2

4

31

0

9

1

0

10

2

0

9

10

2

2

2

0

1

0

0

3

624

27

147

24

8

300

26

18

74

Total

Ⅱ-47
Ⅱ－ 47

Balanced

Recap/
Not specified
Turnaround

Buyout(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（1982-2015）

Number of
Funds
14
32
2
7
30
5
25
7
5
4
459
590

Percentage
2%
5%
0%
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（1982-2015）

11
16
21
27
21
45
35
6
28
32
0
13
285
21
57
618

Ⅱ-48
Ⅱ－ 48

Percentage

34%

5%
0%
2%
46%
3%
9%
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 relevant sums 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（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

2011

2012
2
1
5
5
4
4
0
1
0
22

2013
4
3
2
4
1
1
0
0
0
15

2014
14
2
8
3
6
3
0
1
1
38

Ⅱ-49
Ⅱ－ 49

Total
（1982-2015）

2015
21
1
1
1
5
2
0
0
0
31

5
1
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
10

108
59
95
138
101
86
17
15
24
643

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 '15

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
'15
Total

Number of Funds
2
5
4
5
1
3
2
7
8
11
6
1
2
13
26
16
7
21
45
34
36
29
58
63
34
30
27
9
22
22
15
38
31
10
643

Ⅱ-50
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
96.3
344.7
59.7
86.1
73.8
240.7
303.3
149.5
195.5
128.0
22.0
88.3
69.4
21.2
89.5
33.7
7.0
2,436.1

(2) Average size of funds by vintage year
The following chart shows the average size of funds by vintage year.
Average Size（¥ Billions）
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 '15

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
'15
Total

Number of Funds
2
5
4
5
1
3
2
7
8
11
6
1
2
13
26
16
7
21
45
34
36
29
58
63
34
30
27
9
22
22
15
38
31
10
643

Ⅱ-51
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
4.6
7.7
1.8
2.4
2.5
4.2
4.8
4.4
6.5
4.7
2.4
4.0
3.2
1.4
2.4
1.1
0.7
-

(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

Average Size
(Yen billions)

417
179
42
638

Average Size（¥ Bil lions）
5

3.5
4.1
5.0

4

-

3
2
1

LimitedPartnerships
VoluntaryPartnerships
Other

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 each stage.

4

Ⅱ-52
Ⅱ－ 52

Not specified

Recap/Turnaround0

Buyout2

Balanced

-

6

Later

1.0
2.1
0.7
0.7
5.2
6.9
3.0
3.5

Average Size（¥ Bi l lions）
8

Expansion

27
147
24
8
300
26
18
74
624

Average Size
(Yen billions)

Early

Seed
Early
Expansion
Later
Balanced
BuyoutRecap/TurnaroundNot specified
Total

Number of Funds

Seed

Stage

(5) Average size of funds by focused industry
All funds are classified according to their focused industry and the average sizes are computed for each industry.

8
6
4

Not specified

Clean Technology

Finance/Real Estate/Business
Services

Industrial/Energy/Other-Media/Entertainment/Retailing/Co
nsumer Goods0

Medical Device andEquipment/Healthcare-related

2

Biotechnology/Medicine

3.6
9.2
2.2
4.6
2.7
1.7
1.3
3.1
4.8
3.4
3.8

Software

14
32
2
7
30
5
25
7
5
4
459
590

Average Size（¥ Bi l lions）
10

Semi-conductors/Electrical
Machinery & Equipment

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
and Equipment

Industry(6) Average size of funds by focused region
All funds are classified according to their focused region and the average sizes are computed for each region.

Total

-

Ⅱ-53
Ⅱ－ 53

3
2

Not specified

Mainly overseas

North America

Mainly domestic

EuropeAsia-Pacific

Kyushu and Okinawa

Shikoku

0

Kinki

1

Chugoku

4.7
5.9
3.7
4.4

4

Chubu

-

5

Tokyo

0.6
1.3
0.7
1.7
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.9
3.8

Average Size（¥ Bi l lions）
6

Kanto (excl. Tokyo)

11
16
21
27
21
45
35
6
28
32
0
13
285
21
57
618

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

0

0

1

10
464

'94
'95
'96
'95
'97
'96
'98
'97
'99
'98
'00
'99
'01
'00
'02
'01
'03
'02
'04
'03
'05
'04
'06
'05
'07
'06
'08
'07
'09
'08
'10
'09
'11
'10
'12
'11
'13
'12
'14
'13
'15
'14
Total

'15
Total

0
4 0
4 4
3 4
2 3
0 2

0

0

1

1

0
0
2
2
1

Number
ofof
Funds
Number
Funds

0 0
6 0
19 6
1019
710
15 7
3315
2533
27
25
24
27
50
24
53
50
26
53
26
1526
626
1115
17 6
1111
3117
2511
1031
46425

'84
'85
'85
'86
'86
'87
'87
'88
'88
'89
'89
'90
'90
'91
'91
'92
'92
'93
'93
'94

'82
'82
'83
'83
'84

Vintage
Vintage
Year
Year

2.8%

Ⅱ－ 54

6.5%
21.0%

36.9%
11.9%
36.9%
19.9%
11.9%
2.5%
19.9%
25.5%
2.5%
21.8%
25.5%
11.7%
21.8%
28.2%
11.7%
11.2%
28.2%
28.2%
11.2%
18.8%
28.2%
8.3%
18.8%
24.3%
8.3%
54.4%
24.3%
3.4%
54.4%
23.1%
3.4%
4.0%
23.1%
4.5%
4.0%
30.9%
4.5%
19.0%
30.9%
6.5%
19.0%
21.0%

- 20.0%
- -

2.8%
3.5%
3.5%
6.9%
6.9%
20.0%

-

5.9%

5.9%

- -

GeneralPartners
GeneralPartners

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3.0%
-

0.0%

1.8%0.0%
0.0%1.8%
0.0%0.0%

0.0%

3.9%
1.8%

0.4%3.0%
0.0%0.4%
1.7%0.0%
0.0%1.7%
10.0%0.0%
1.3%
10.0%
0.9%
1.3%
2.0%
0.9%
2.0%
2.0%
0.5%
2.0%
0.2%
0.5%
0.3%
0.0%0.2%
0.1%0.3%
0.1%0.0%
0.4%0.1%
0.7%0.1%
0.8%0.4%
2.9%0.7%
3.9%0.8%
1.8%2.9%

-

-

0.0%

0.0%

3.0%-

0.0%

7.5% 3.7%
0.0% 7.5%
0.0% 0.0%

3.7%-

3.9%

1.7%
4.6%

2.4% 3.0%
9.7% 2.4%
2.3% 9.7%
4.0% 2.3%
3.4% 4.0%
28.5% 3.4%
2.6%
28.5%
17.9%
2.6%
5.7%
17.9%
3.6%
5.7%
10.8%
3.6%
1.3%
0.7%10.8%
2.6% 1.3%
0.0% 0.7%
0.3% 2.6%
0.0% 0.0%
0.7% 0.3%
1.4% 0.0%
1.7% 0.7%
4.6% 1.4%

-

-

3.9%

11.0%
19.6%

26.1% 36.0%
11.3% 26.1%
55.0% 11.3%
7.9% 55.0%
18.2% 7.9%
16.9% 18.2%
15.6%
16.9%
14.9%
15.6%
14.4%
14.9%
14.7%
14.4%
26.2%
14.7%
26.3%
4.9% 26.2%
5.3% 26.3%
20.2% 4.9%
16.2% 5.3%
8.6% 20.2%
29.0% 16.2%
33.1% 8.6%
11.0% 29.0%
19.6% 33.1%

36.0%--

28.8% 28.6%
50.6% 28.8%
0.0% 50.6%

0.0%

49.0%

28.6%-

-

49.0%

0.0%

49.9%
20.3%

21.1% 12.3%
8.1% 21.1%
12.8% 8.1%
18.7% 12.8%
12.8% 18.7%
12.1% 12.8%
16.5%
12.1%
24.5%
16.5%
24.1%
24.5%
27.9%
24.1%
16.1%
27.9%
21.4%
5.8% 16.1%
35.7% 21.4%
41.7% 5.8%
21.3% 35.7%
33.6% 41.7%
20.5% 21.3%
27.6% 33.6%
49.9% 20.5%
20.3% 27.6%

12.3% --

9.8%

7.0% 12.9%
5.4% 7.0%
0.0% 5.4%

12.9% -

-

9.8%

31.4%

-

4.2%
13.6%
18.8%
23.6%
27.4%
16.3%
6.8%
4.5%
3.6%
11.5%
16.2%
11.0%
12.2%
20.2%
14.6%
6.0%
18.2%
47.3%
2.5%
14.5%
0.0%
13.7%

80.0%

4.2% -

13.6%
18.8%
23.6%
27.4%
16.3%
6.8%
4.5%
3.6%
11.5%
16.2%
11.0%
12.2%
20.2%
14.6%
6.0%
18.2%
47.3%
2.5%
14.5%
0.0%
13.7%

-

22.3% 28.3%
9.9% 22.3%
80.0% 9.9%

28.3% -

-

31.4%

-

0.0%

0.6%
3.2%
3.2%
1.5%
0.0%
1.2%
18.1%
22.6%
0.4%
1.0%
2.9%
14.8%
1.6%
5.7%
0.0%
0.1%
7.5%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
4.2%

-

15.8%
5.1%
6.2%
0.0%

-

-

0.0%

0.6%
3.2%
3.2%
1.5%
0.0%
1.2%
18.1%
22.6%
0.4%
1.0%
2.9%
14.8%
1.6%
5.7%
0.0%
0.1%
7.5%
0.0%
1.7%
0.0%
0.0%
4.2%

-

15.8%
5.1%
6.2%
0.0%

-

-

Percentage
of Contributions
Percentage
of Contributions

-

-

-

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.0%
6.8%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
5.4%
1.2%
6.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%

-

-

-

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
8.0%
6.8%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.8%
5.4%
1.2%
6.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%

-

0.5%
0.9%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
3.6%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
4.9%
3.1%
5.1%
5.7%
6.3%
5.7%
7.7%
3.4%
8.4%
37.7%
7.0%
21.7%
4.6%
11.0%
0.3%
16.8%
5.9%

-

-

0.0%

-

-

-

0.0%

-

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
3.4%
0.6%
0.0%
0.4%
0.0%
1.3%
1.2%
0.0%
1.3%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%

0.0%
0.5% 0.0%
0.9% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% -

0.0%
3.6%
1.5%
0.0%
0.0%
4.9%
3.1%
5.1%
5.7%
6.3%
5.7%
7.7%
3.4%
8.4%
37.7%
7.0%
21.7%
4.6%
11.0%
0.3%
16.8%
5.9%

-

-

0.0%

-

-

-

-

-

0.0%

0.0%
0.7%

3.0%
0.0% 16.3%
0.0% 25.9%
0.0% 0.5%
0.0% 1.7%
3.4% 1.1%
0.6% 0.2%
2.1%
0.0%
8.3%
0.4%
2.2%
0.0%
2.3%
1.3%
1.2%
1.2%
0.7%
0.0% 0.0%
1.3% 0.6%
0.0% 1.8%
0.0% 7.3%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 2.2%
0.0% 1.2%
0.0% 1.0%
0.0% 3.2%-

7.0%
0.0% 23.1%
0.0% 20.2%
0.0% 0.0%
0.0% -

0.0%

-

-

-

0.0%

1.0%
3.2%

-

0.9%
3.0% 1.3%
16.3% 1.6%
25.9% 0.3%
0.5% 3.4%
1.7% 2.9%
1.1% 0.8%
1.4%
0.2%
11.6%
2.1%
2.6%
8.3%
0.8%
2.2%
2.4%
2.3%
0.6%
1.2% 0.0%
0.7% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
0.6% 2.3%
1.8% 0.7%
7.3% 0.7%
0.0% 0.0%
2.2% 9.1%
1.2% 2.0%-

0.6%
7.0% 0.0%
23.1% 0.8%
20.2% 0.0%
0.0%-

-

0.0%

-

0.6%
0.0%
0.8%
0.0%

0.0%

0.9%
1.3%
1.6%
0.3%
3.4%
2.9%
0.8%
1.4%
11.6%
2.6%
0.8%
2.4%
0.6%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
2.3%
0.7%
0.7%
0.0%
9.1%
2.0%

-

-

Government/Local
Academic Academic
Government/Local
Family/Private
VC/ VC/
Corporate
andFamily/Private OtherOther
Corporate Bank/Trust
Bank/TrustandInsurance
Insurance BrokerageBrokerage
Pension Funds
Public Bodies
societies / societies
Other/ Domestic
Foreign Firms Foreign Firms
Pension Funds
Public Bodies
Other Domestic
Individualsof Funds
Individuals FundFundof Funds Investors
Investors Credit Unions
Credit UnionsCompanies
Companies Firms Firms
UniversitiesUniversities(Non-Pension)(Non-Pension)-

The following
followingtable
tableshows
showsthethebreakdown
breakdown
investors
industry.
Theof ofinvestors
by byindustry.

3. Breakdown
Breakdownofofinvestors
investors
3.

Ⅱ-54
Ⅱ-54

4. Fund Performance
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 )Simple単純平均
average IRR
IRR  i 1

n: the number of funds, i: individual funds

Ⅱ-55
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
weightontheindividual

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

Weighted
average IRR
IRR
加重平均



contributions) ) ( IRR )( 出資金総額
 (Total
i1

i

i

n

contributions) )( 出資金総額
 (Totali1i

n: 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

This is a measure of the cumulative distributions returned to

to Paid-in

investors 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 toThis is a measure of total value which is the sum of the residual

Paid-invalue (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
weightontheindividual

beginning-of-the-period size.

Ⅱ-56
Ⅱ－ 56

funds

according

to

their

(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

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%

7
1
5
1
2
7
17
26
66
67
68
52
40
20
1
6
3
6
395

～-60%
Total

Note: Each range of IRR is “x% and over but less than xx%”.

Ⅱ-57
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%

0

60%～

10

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 by investment. All
funds started in 2011 or later have been managed less than 5 years.

60(Number of Funds)
Funds formed before 201050

Funds formed in 2010 or later

40
30
20

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

7
1
5
1
2
7
17
26
66
67
68
52
40
20
1
6
3
6
395

Funds formed
before 2010
5
1
2
0
1
7
17
21
62
56
52
43
36
18
0
3
0
0
324

Funds formed in2010 or later
2
0
3
1
1
0
0
5
4
11
16
9
4
2
1
3
3
6
71

Note: Each range of IRR is “x% and over but less than xx%”.
Ⅱ-58
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%

0

60%～

10

3. IRR distribution by fund type

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%

7
1
5
1
2
7
17
26
66
67
68
52
40
20
1
6
3
6
395

～-60%
Total

Number of Funds
LimitedPartnerships
3
1
4
1
2
3
4
18
26
49
61
45
35
19
1
4
3
6
285

VoluntaryPartnerships
3
0
0
0
0
3
11
7
36
18
7
7
4
1
0
2
0
0
99

Note: Each range of IRR is “x% and over but less than xx%”.

4. IRR distribution by focused stage

Number of Funds
IRR
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

Total
7
1
5
1
2
7
17
25
62
66
67
49
40
20
1
5
2
6
383

Seed

Early
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
1
2
3
3
0
1
0
0
1
17

5
0
3
0
1
1
3
4
12
13
27
23
15
10
0
0
0
0
117

Expansion
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
2
2
1
5
2
1
0
2
0
0
19

Later

Balanced
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
3

Buyout

0
0
1
0
0
4
12
14
32
36
25
11
15
8
0
0
0
2
160

Note: Each range of IRR is “x% and over but less than xx%”.
Ⅱ-59
Ⅱ－ 59

1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
9

Recap/
TurnaroundNot specified

0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
7

0
0
1
0
0
0
1
3
12
10
7
6
4
0
0
3
1
3
51

Ⅱ-60
Ⅱ-60
Ⅱ－ 60

77
1
1
5
5
1
1
2
2
7
7
14
14
25
5725
6157
6661
4866
4048
2040
120
51
35
63
369 6

369

Total

Total
Total

60%～
60%～
50%～60%50%～60%40%～50%40%～50%30%～40%30%～40%20%～30%20%～30%15%～20%15%～20%10%～15%
10%～15%
5%～10%
5%～10%
0%～5%0%～5%-5%～0%-5%～0%-10%～-5%-10%～-5%-15%～-10%-15%～-10%-20%～-15%-20%～-15%-30%～-20%-30%～-20%-40%～-30%-50%～-40%-40%～-30%-60%～-50%-50%～-40%～-60%-60%～-50%
Total
～-60%

IRR
IRR

3 3
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
4 0
0 4
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
10 0

1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
11

10

1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
0
0
11

Telecommunication
TelecommunicationComputers andComputers ands sPeripherals/
Peripherals//Networking
and/Networking and IT Services
IT Services
Equipment
Equipment

5.
distributionby
byfocusedfocusedindustry
industry
5. IRRIRR distribution

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
4

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
4

2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
4
2
4
3
1
0
1
0
1
23

2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
4
2
4
3
1
0
1
0
1
23

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
2
1
10

Note: Each range of IRR is “x% and over but less than xx%”.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
0
2
0
1
2
1
10

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
1
0
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
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
4

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
4

1
0
3
1
2
7
14
21
49
53
55
39
32
14
1
2
1
4
299

1
0
3
1
2
7
14
21
49
53
55
39
32
14
1
2
1
4
299

Semi-conductors/
M edia/ M edia/
Semi-conductors/
M edicalM
Deviceedical Device
ElectricalIndustrial/EnergyEntertainment/
Finance/Real
EstateElectrical Biotechnology/
Biotechnology/
Industrial/EnergyEntertainment/
Finance/Real
Estateand Equipment
Clean
Technology
Not specifiedNot specified
and Equipment /Other
Clean Technology
M achinery&/Business Services
M achinery& M edicine
M edicine/Healthcare-related/Other Retailing/ Retailing//Business Services/Healthcare-related
Equipment
Consumer
Goods
Equipment
Consumer Goods

Note: Each range of IRR is “x% and over but less than xx%”.

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2

Software
SoftwareNumberof Funds
Numberof Funds

6. IRR distribution by focused region

Number of Funds
IRR

Domestic
RegionOverseas
RegionMainlyDomestic

MainlyOverseas

Not specified

0
1
1
0
1
2
1
3
11
25
37
29
17
9
1
2
3
4
147

3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6

3
0
2
1
1
5
14
17
39
29
23
15
21
6
0
0
0
0
176

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
4

1
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
9
8
8
5
2
4
0
2
0
2
45

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
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
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 of the 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 the performance ofindividual 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
'15
Total

2
5
4
5
1
3
2
4
4
8
4
1
1
5
7
7
4
13
27
21
24
16
36
45
23
22
14
5
11
14
9
27
18
3
395

Ⅱ-62
Ⅱ－ 62

DPI

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
0.73
0.64
0.91
0.83
0.43
0.48
0.70
0.66
0.21
0.28
0.41
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.87

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
0.73
0.96
0.93
0.59
0.83
1.20
1.12
0.72
1.24
1.32
0.84
1.03
1.10
0.97
1.88

Total Cash flows（¥ Billions）
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-350
-400

'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 '15

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
'15
Total

Total
Total
Contributions Distributions
-4.4
0.0
-16.8
0.0
-17.3
0.0
-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
-52.7
27.1
-48.2
20.7
-112.356.6-110.185.8-139.775.7-138.0
55.8
-75.8
76.6
-32.1
34.1
-46.8
19.1
-56.9
35.9
-43.2
54.2
-71.5
104.7
-80.1
120.2
-5.5
76.4
-1,479.0
1,288.1

Ⅱ-63
Ⅱ－ 63

Residual
Cumulative
value
Cash Flows
0.0
-4.4
0.0
-21.2
0.0
-38.4
0.0
-56.2
0.0
-56.1
0.0
-64.3
0.0
-69.7
0.0
-76.8
0.0
-95.7
0.0
-91.1
0.0
-85.9
0.0
-72.1
0.0
-66.1
0.0
-66.4
0.0
-62.9
0.0
-39.6
0.0
-8.9
0.0
-35.1
0.0
-35.5
0.0
-21.0
0.0
-46.6
0.0
-74.0
0.0
-129.80.0-154.00.0-217.90.0-300.10.0-299.32.3-295.1
1.5-321.32.5-339.80.5-328.22.6-292.5
157.5
-95.0
202.3
178.2
369.2

5. IRR by vintage year
Here, the capital weighted average IRR based on calculating IRR for each fund and the performance of the stock
market (TOPIX) are compared.
*For years 1986, 1993 and 1994, only one fund was under survey. To avoid disclosing the performance ofindividual funds, no data are shown.
350%
Weighted IRR

300%

Weighted Average TOPIX

250%
200%
150%
100%
50%
0%
-50%
-100%

'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 '15

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
'15
Total

2
5
4
5
1
3
2
4
4
8
4
1
1
5
7
7
4
13
27
21
24
16
36
45
23
22
14
5
11
14
9
27
18
3
395

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%-4.58%-4.86%-1.00%-1.29%-8.11%-2.94%
3.59%
2.72%-11.17%
8.01%
16.78%-10.18%2.28%
16.98%-22.34%16.04%

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%-4.83%-6.66%
2.42%-1.73%-9.61%-6.16%
2.88%
2.22%-14.20%5.75%
35.58%-10.73%-0.79%
33.31%-26.66%
1.79%

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%-2.41%-5.52%-10.94%-6.24%-8.28%-10.56%-10.66%-5.70%
1.05%-8.21%
9.48%
20.01%-11.42%-13.24%-8.85%-27.05%-3.69%

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%
12.72%
8.00%
14.15%
12.10%
11.83%
9.35%
9.73%
16.17%
11.44%
40.05%
92.00%
12.98%
32.85%
63.53%
23.51%
26.03%

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%
2.63%
43.00%
16.15%
24.23%
14.85%
8.47%
52.67%
2.34%
125.29%331.67%-3.37%
47.89%
208.05%0.00%
331.67%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%-2.82%-6.53%-5.52%-1.34%-4.18%-4.89%
2.04%
2.93%
1.11%
10.84%
5.04%-5.32%
0.32%-3.03%-19.30%2.29%

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%
-2.16%-4.86%-11.33%-7.93%-10.20%-9.49%-10.75%-8.63%-3.68%-3.83%-2.18%-5.56%-7.48%-7.77%-7.23%-38.60%-4.88%

Ⅱ-64
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%-16.06%-14.13%-16.44%-17.00%-16.44%-11.48%-6.74%-17.88%-9.90%-6.85%-11.15%-20.30%-14.65%-40.57%-11.99%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%-20.36%-43.10%-43.02%-25.52%-26.44%-14.62%-22.80%-16.81%-52.98%-45.10%-99.01%-98.20%-42.54%-99.01%

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%-5.64%-1.69%
2.20%
2.19%
2.49%
1.73%
0.03%
-0.20%
3.40%
10.46%
15.19%
21.99%
26.41%
24.54%
33.74%
59.86%
2.64%

Management situation by vintage year
(1) Funds starting in 1982
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 1982
2
Liquidated
2
Existing
0Pooled IRR
15.61%
15.61%NA

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
15.59%
15.84%
15.59%
15.84%
NA
NA

Standard
Deviation
1.29%
1.29%
NA

MaximumValue
16.75%

1/4 from
the top
16.29%Median15.84%

1/4 from
the bottom
15.38%

MinimumValue
14.93%

DPI

TVPI

3.13

3.13

Total Contributions ￥4.4 billion
Average Contributions ￥2.2 billion
Average Term

11.8 years

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

'89

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'90

'91

'92

'93

'94

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnership Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

0

2

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

Telecommuni Computersandcations/Netw
orking and Peripherals
Equipment /IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Device andBiotechnology
Electrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-65
Ⅱ－ 65

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
02Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

2

0

(2) Funds starting in 1983
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 1983
5
Liquidated
5
Existing
0Pooled IRR
13.83%
13.83%NA

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
13.07%
8.76%
13.07%
8.76%
NA
NAStandard
Deviation
6.13%
6.13%
NA

MaximumValue
17.16%

1/4 from
the top13.44%Median4.92%

1/4 from
the bottom
4.42%

Minimum
Value
3.84%

DPI

TVPI

2.74

2.74

Total Contributions ￥16.8 billion
Average Contributions ￥3.4 billion
Average Term

12 years

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
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

0

5

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

2

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-66
Ⅱ－ 66

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
05Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

5

0

(3) Funds starting in 1984
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 19844
Liquidated
4
Existing
0Pooled IRR
14.17%
14.17%NA

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
14.06%
13.05%
14.06%
13.05%
NA
NA

Standard
Deviation
2.00%
2.00%
NA

MaximumValue
14.82%

1/4 from
the top14.40%Median13.51%

1/4 from
the bottom
12.16%

MinimumValue
10.35%

DPI

TVPI

2.68

2.68

Total Contributions ￥17.3 billion
Average Contributions ￥4.3 billion
Average Term

14.1 years

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 Distributions

Total Residual Value

Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

0

3

1

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

1

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-67
Ⅱ－ 67

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
04Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

4

0

(4) Funds starting in 1985
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 1985
5
Liquidated
5
Existing
0Pooled IRR
10.91%
10.91%NA

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
11.62%
9.81%
11.62%
9.81%
NA
NAStandard
Deviation
4.64%
4.64%
NA

MaximumValue
16.76%

1/4 from
the top10.14%Median9.20%

1/4 from
the bottom
9.20%

Minimum
Value
3.72%

DPI

TVPI

2.18

2.18

Total Contributions ￥22.3 billion
Average Contributions ￥4.5 billion
Average Term

12.2 years

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 Distributions

Total Residual Value

Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

0

4

1

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

1

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-68
Ⅱ－ 68

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
05Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

5

0

(5) Funds starting in 1986
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 1986
1
Liquidated
1
Existing
0Pooled IRR-

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR-

Standard
Deviation-

MaximumValue-

1/4 from
the top-Median-

1/4 from
the bottom-

Minimum
Value
-

DPI

TVPI
-

-

Total Contributions ￥3.7 billion
Average Contributions ￥3.7 billion
Average Term

12 years

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
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

0

1

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

1

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-69
Ⅱ－ 69

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic00Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

0

1

(6) Funds starting in 1987
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 19873
Liquidated
3
Existing
0Pooled IRR
4.23%
4.23%
NA

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
4.40%
6.80%
4.40%
6.80%
NA
NA

Standard
Deviation
5.48%
5.48%
NA

MaximumValue
13.12%

1/4 from
the top
8.38%

Median3.64%

1/4 from
the bottom
3.64%

Minimum
Value
3.64%

DPI

TVPI

1.40

1.40

Total Contributions ￥13.7 billion
Average Contributions ￥4.6 billion
Average Term

12.1 years

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

'95

'96

'97

'98

Total Contributions

Total Distributions

Total Residual Value

Cumulative Cash Flows'99

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

0

3

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

1

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-70
Ⅱ－ 70

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
02Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

2

1

(7) Funds starting in 1988
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 1988
2
Liquidated
2
Existing
0Pooled IRR
0.10%
0.10%
NA

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
NA
NA

Standard
Deviation
0.03%
0.03%
NA

Maximum
Value
0.12%

1/4 from
the top
0.11%

Median0.10%

1/4 from
the bottom
0.09%

Minimum
Value
0.08%

DPI

TVPI

1.01

1.01

Total Contributions ￥7.6 billion
Average Contributions ￥3.8 billion
Average Term

12 years

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

'95

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'96

'97

'98

'99

'00

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

0

2

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-71
Ⅱ－ 71

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
02Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

2

0

(8) Funds starting in 1989
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 19894
Liquidated
4
Existing
0Pooled IRR-1.60%-1.60%NA

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR-1.65%-1.39%-1.65%-1.39%
NA
NA

Standard
Deviation
3.51%
3.51%
NA

Maximum
Value
3.24%

1/4 from
the top
0.39%

Median-2.34%

1/4 from
the bottom-4.12%

MinimumValue-4.12%

DPI

TVPI

0.87

0.87

Total Contributions ￥13.9 billion
Average Contributions ￥3.5 billion
Average Term

11.9 years

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 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

0

4

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

0

0

0

3

0

0

1

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

2

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-72
Ⅱ－ 72

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
02Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

2

2

(9) Funds starting in 1990
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 1990
4
Liquidated
4
Existing
0Pooled IRR
0.50%
0.50%
NA

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
0.51%
0.69%
0.51%
0.69%
NA
NA

Standard
Deviation
1.32%
1.32%
NA

Maximum
Value
2.51%

1/4 from
the top
1.23%

Median0.29%

1/4 from
the bottom-0.25%

MinimumValue-0.33%

DPI

TVPI

1.04

1.04

Total Contributions ￥38.7 billion
Average Contributions ￥9.7 billion
Average Term

12.7 years

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
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

0

4

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

1

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-73
Ⅱ－ 73

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
03Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

3

1

(10) Funds starting in 1991
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 19918
Liquidated
8
Existing
0Pooled IRR
2.04%
2.04%
NA

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
1.77%
0.84%
1.77%
0.84%
NA
NA

Standard
Deviation
2.27%
2.27%
NA

Maximum
Value
4.31%

1/4 from
the top
2.06%

Median1.35%

1/4 from
the bottom-0.92%

MinimumValue-2.30%

DPI

TVPI

1.15

1.15

Total Contributions ￥39.4 billion
Average Contributions ￥4.9 billion
Average Term

12.8 years

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 Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

0

8

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

0

0

0

7

0

0

1

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

3

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-74
Ⅱ－ 74

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
05Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

4

4

(11) Funds starting in 1992
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 1992
4
Liquidated
4
Existing
0Pooled IRR
4.03%
4.03%
NA

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
3.80%
3.17%
3.80%
3.17%
NA
NA

Standard
Deviation
1.98%
1.98%
NA

Maximum
Value
4.40%

1/4 from
the top
4.39%

Median4.02%

1/4 from
the bottom
2.80%

Minimum
Value
0.25%

DPI

TVPI

1.33

1.33

Total Contributions ￥20.3 billion
Average Contributions ￥5.1 billion
Average Term

12.1 years

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
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

0

3

1

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-75
Ⅱ－ 75

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
04Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

4

0

(12) Funds starting in 1993
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 1993
1
Liquidated
1
Existing
0Pooled IRR-

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR-

Standard
Deviation-

MaximumValue-

1/4 from
the top-Median-

1/4 from
the bottom-

Minimum
Value
-

DPI

TVPI
-

-

Total Contributions ￥1.7 billion
Average Contributions ￥1.7 billion
Average Term

11.4 years

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
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

0

1

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

0

1

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-76
Ⅱ－ 76

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic00Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

0

1

(13) Funds starting in 1994
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 1994
1
Liquidated
1
Existing
0Pooled IRR-

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR-

Standard
Deviation-

MaximumValue-

1/4 from
the top-Median-

1/4 from
the bottom-

Minimum
Value
-

DPI

TVPI
-

-

Total Contributions ￥7.0 billion
Average Contributions ￥7.0 billion
Average Term

12.1 years

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
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

0

1

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

1

0

0

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

1

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-77
Ⅱ－ 77

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic00Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

0

0

(14) Funds starting in 1995
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 1995
5
Liquidated
5
Existing
0Pooled IRR
9.13%
9.13%
NA

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
8.32%
8.66%
8.32%
8.66%
NA
NA

Standard
Deviation
4.65%
4.65%
NA

MaximumValue
12.89%

1/4 from
the top10.92%Median10.90%

1/4 from
the bottom
7.47%

Minimum
Value
1.11%

DPI

TVPI

1.86

1.86

Total Contributions ￥23.1 billion
Average Contributions ￥4.6 billion
Average Term

12.6 years

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 Distributions

Total Residual Value

Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

0

5

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

0

0

0

4

0

0

1

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

1

0

0

0

0

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

1

0

0

Ⅱ-78
Ⅱ－ 78

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
04Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

4

0

(15) Funds starting in 1996
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 1996
7
Liquidated
7
Existing
0Pooled IRR
1.18%
1.18%
NA

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
1.16%-0.69%
1.16%-0.69%
NA
NA

Standard
Deviation
2.85%
2.85%
NA

Maximum
Value
2.01%

1/4 from
the top
1.65%

Median0.06%

1/4 from
the bottom-2.40%

MinimumValue-5.38%

DPI

TVPI

1.10

1.10

Total Contributions ￥22.3 billion
Average Contributions ￥3.2 billion
Average Term

12 years

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
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

0

7

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

1

2

0

0

2

0

0

2

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

3

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-79
Ⅱ－ 79

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
1

1

Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

7

0

(16) Funds starting in 1997
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 19977
Liquidated
7
Existing
0Pooled IRR
30.71%
30.71%NA

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
30.79%
15.18%
30.79%
15.18%
NA
NA

Standard
Deviation
21.84%
21.84%NA

MaximumValue
63.65%

1/4 from
the top12.50%Median6.22%

1/4 from
the bottom
4.52%

Minimum
Value
2.34%

DPI

TVPI

3.23

3.23

Total Contributions ￥24.3 billion
Average Contributions ￥3.5 billion
Average Term

11.6 years

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 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

0

6

1

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

3

0

0

4

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

1

0

1

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

1

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-80
Ⅱ－ 80

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
03Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

6

0

(17) Funds starting in 1998
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 19984
Liquidated
4
Existing
0Pooled IRR
3.11%
3.11%
NA

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
45.38%
25.02%
45.38%
25.02%
NA
NA

Standard
Deviation
61.74%
61.74%NA

Maximum
Value
116.02%

1/4 from
the top35.04%Median1.98%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-8.05%-19.91%

DPI

TVPI

1.14

1.14

Total Contributions ￥8.4 billion
Average Contributions ￥2.1 billion
Average Term

11 years

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

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'06

'07

'08

'09

'10

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

1

2

1

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

2

1

0

1

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

2

1

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

1

0

0

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

1

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-81
Ⅱ－ 81

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic00Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

1

0

0

2

0

(18) Funds starting in 1999
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 1999
13
Liquidated
13
Existing
0Pooled IRR
5.10%
5.10%
NA

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
4.06%
3.15%
4.06%
3.15%
NA
NA

Standard
Deviation
20.10%
20.10%NA

MaximumValue
66.73%

1/4 from
the top
3.44%

Median0.18%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-9.16%-11.98%

DPI

TVPI

1.25

1.27

Total Contributions ￥91.1 billion
Average Contributions ￥7.0 billion
Average Term

11.6 years

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
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

5

7

1

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

5

1

0

3

1

0

3

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

2

0

0

1

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

3

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

1

0

Ⅱ-82
Ⅱ－ 82

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
07Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

12

0

(19) Funds starting in 2000

Funds formed in 2000
Liquidated
Existing

Number of
Funds
27
26
1

Pooled IRR-1.29%-1.33%-

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR-1.87%-2.41%-1.92%-2.59%-

Standard
Deviation
6.97%
7.05%
-

MaximumValue
10.92%

1/4 from
the top
1.01%

Median-2.16%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-8.74%-15.33%

DPI

TVPI

0.91

0.93

Total Contributions ￥112.3 billion
Average Contributions ￥4.2 billion
Average Term

11.6 years(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of May 2015, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60

億
円

-80

）

（

資
金
流
入
総
額

-100
-120
'00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

19

8

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

1

10

1

0

11

0

0

3

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

1

5

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Computers

Telecommunicat
andions/Networking
Peripherals
and Equipment

Software/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

3

1

1

SemiMedical
conductors/
Device andBiotechnology
Electrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

2

Ⅱ-83
Ⅱ－ 83

0

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround1
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
0

16Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

1

0

0

18

1

(20) Funds starting in 2001
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 2001
21
Liquidated
19
Existing
2

Pooled IRR-4.58%-4.67%-4.08%

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR-4.83%-5.52%-4.89%-5.65%-4.20%-4.35%

Standard
Deviation
12.72%
13.40%
0.67%

MaximumValue
41.42%

1/4 from
the top-2.82%Median-4.86%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-12.80%-19.56%

DPI

TVPI

0.73

0.75

Total Contributions ￥33.8 billion
Average Contributions ￥1.6 billion
Average Term

10.2 years (From inception to either dissolution date or the end of May 2015, 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 '15
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

17

4

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

1

11

2

0

6

0

0

1

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

1

2

1

4

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

1

1

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

2

0

Ⅱ-84
Ⅱ－ 84

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
2

9Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

1

18

0

(21) Funds starting in 2002
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 2002
24
Liquidated
22
Existing
2

Pooled IRR-4.86%-4.76%-18.55%Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR-6.66%-10.94%-6.55%-10.11%-18.63%-20.15%

Standard
Deviation
8.00%
7.81%
2.74%

Maximum
Value
2.63%

1/4 from
the top-6.53%Median-11.33%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-16.06%-25.47%

DPI

TVPI

0.64

0.73

Total Contributions ￥61.1 billion
Average Contributions ￥2.5 billion
Average Term

10.7 years (From inception to either dissolution date or the end of May 2015, 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
-60
'01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09 '10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15
Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

21

2

0

1

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

2

9

2

0

6

0

0

2

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

1

1

0

1

1

4

2

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

1

2

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-85
Ⅱ－ 85

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround3
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
1

10Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

20

4

(22) Funds starting in 2003
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 2003
16
Liquidated
13
Existing
3

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
2.42%-6.24%-5.70%-8.19%
18.48%
2.22%

Pooled IRR-1.00%-6.19%
11.58%

Standard
Deviation
14.15%
4.41%
35.38%

MaximumValue
43.00%

1/4 from
the top-5.52%Median-7.93%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-14.13%-20.36%

DPI

TVPI

0.91

0.96

Total Contributions ᪳38.0 billion
Average Contributions ᪳2.4 billion
Average Term

10.4 years (From inception to either dissolution date or the end of May 2015, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds㼀㼛㼠㼍㼘㻌㻯㼍㼟㼔㻌㻲㼘㼛㼣㼟䠄㼰 㻮㼕㼘㼘㼕㼛㼚㼟䠅

























Total Contributions
Total Residual Value















Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

14

1

1

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

1

6

0

0

6

0

1

2

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

1

1

0

2

2

0

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

1

0

2

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

1

0

Kanto
㸦excl. Tokyo㸧

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Device andBiotechnology
Electrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

1

0

ϩ



Ⅱ－ 86

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
2

5Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

14

0

(23) Funds starting in 2004
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 2004
36
Liquidated
19
Existing
17

Pooled IRR-1.29%-1.88%-1.03%

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR-1.73%-8.28%-0.92%-12.74%-2.38%-3.30%

Standard
Deviation
12.10%
10.26%
12.33%

MaximumValue
16.15%

1/4 from
the top-1.34%Median-10.20%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-16.44%-43.10%

DPI

TVPI

0.83

0.93

Total Contributions ￥158.6 billion
Average Contributions ￥4.4 billion
Average Term

9.9 years(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of May 2015, 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
-140
'04

'05

'06

'07

'08

'09

'10

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'11

'12

'13

'14

'15

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

31

4

1

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

2

16

3

0

11

2

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

1

1

4

2

2

2

0

2

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

1

0

3

2

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

1

4

1

Ⅱ-87
Ⅱ－ 87

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround2
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
2

14

Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

1

1

0

0

26

2

(24) Funds starting in 2005

Funds formed in 2005
Liquidated
Existing

Number of
Funds
45
8
37

Pooled IRR-8.11%-13.30%-7.65%

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR-9.61%-10.56%-15.72%-10.93%-8.76%-10.48%

Standard
Deviation
11.83%
20.55%
9.43%

MaximumValue
24.23%

1/4 from
the top-4.18%Median-9.49%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-17.00%-43.02%

DPI

TVPI

0.43

0.59

Total Contributions ￥208.9 billion
Average Contributions ￥4.6 billion
Average Term

9.3 years(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of May 2015, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
50

0

-50

-100

-150

-200
'05

'06

'07

'08

'09

'10

'11

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'12

'13

'14

'15

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

42

3

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

2

14

0

0

19

1

1

6

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

1

1

2

3

2

5

0

1

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

1

2

3

Telecommunica Computersandtions/Networkin
g andPeripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Device andBiotechnology
Electrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

1

6

Ⅱ-88
Ⅱ－ 88

0

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround2
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
3

21

Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

1

0

32

4

(25) Funds starting in 2006
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 2006
23
Liquidated
3
Existing
20

Pooled IRR-2.94%-21.90%-2.20%

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR-6.16%-10.66%-21.95%-21.18%-4.94%-9.08%

Standard
Deviation
9.35%
3.14%
8.95%

MaximumValue
14.85%

1/4 from
the top-4.89%Median-10.75%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-16.44%-25.52%

DPI

TVPI

0.48

0.83

Total Contributions ￥67.7 billion
Average Contributions ￥2.9 billion
Average Term

8.6 years(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of May 2015, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
'06

'07

'08

'09

'10

'11

'12

'13

'14

'15

Total Contributions

Total Distributions

Total Residual Value

Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

20

1

2

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

1

9

2

0

7

0

0

4

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

3

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

2

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-89
Ⅱ－ 89

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
1

9Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

2

0

0

1

17

0

(26) Funds starting in 2007

Funds formed in 2007
Liquidated
Existing

Number of
Funds
22
1
21

Pooled IRR
3.59%
3.60%

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
2.88%-5.70%
2.88%-5.92%

Standard
Deviation
9.73%
9.91%

Maximum
Value
8.47%

1/4 from
the top
2.04%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-11.48%-26.44%

Median-8.63%

DPI

TVPI

0.70

1.20

Total Contributions ￥173.5 billion
Average Contributions ￥7.9 billion
Average Term

7.9 years(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of May 2015, 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

'13

'14

'15

Total Contributions

Total Distributions

Total Residual Value

Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

19

3

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

8

0

1

9

1

0

3

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

5

0

Telecommunica Computersandtions/Networkin
g andPeripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Device andBiotechnology
Electrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

Ⅱ-90
Ⅱ－ 90

0

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
1

9Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing/
Not specified Unknown/EnergyBusiness Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

1

20

0

(27) Funds starting in 2008
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 200814
Liquidated
0
Existing
14

Pooled IRR
2.72%
NA
2.72%

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
2.22%
1.05%
NA
NA
2.22%
1.05%

Standard
Deviation
16.17%
NA
16.17%

MaximumValue
52.67%

1/4 from
the top
2.93%

Median-3.68%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-6.74%-14.62%

DPI

TVPI

0.66

1.12

Total Contributions ￥68.8 billion
Average Contributions ￥4.9 billion
Average Term

7 years(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of May 2015, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
'08

'09

'10

'11

'12

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'13

'14

'15

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

14

0

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

1

2

2

0

6

0

0

3

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

1

0

1

2

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

2

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software1

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-91
Ⅱ－ 91

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
2

6Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

1

0

0

0

11

0

(28) Funds starting in 2009
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 20095
Liquidated
0
Existing
5

Pooled IRR-11.17%NA-11.17%Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR-14.20%-8.21%
NANA-14.20%-8.21%

Standard
Deviation
11.44%
NA
11.44%

Maximum
Value
2.34%

1/4 from
the top
1.11%

Median-3.83%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-17.88%-22.80%

DPI

TVPI

0.21

0.72

Total Contributions ￥10.4 billion
Average Contributions ￥2.1 billion
Average Term

5.9 years(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of May 2015, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
'09

'10

'11

'12

'13

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'14

'15

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

5

0

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

1

1

0

0

1

0

1

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

1

0

0

0

1

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

1

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-92
Ⅱ－ 92

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround1
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
1

1

Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

3

1

(29) Funds starting in 2010
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 201011
Liquidated
1
Existing
10

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
5.75%
9.48%
6.93%
12.03%

Pooled IRR
8.01%
8.99%

Standard
Deviation
40.05%
41.26%

MaximumValue
125.29%

1/4 from
the top10.84%Median-2.18%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-9.90%-16.81%

DPI

TVPI

0.28

1.24

Total Contributions ￥21.0 billion
Average Contributions ￥1.9 billion
Average Term

5 years(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of May 2015, 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
'10

'11

'12

'13

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

'14

'15

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

8

3

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

1

1

0

6

0

0

2

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

1

1

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

1

0

Ⅱ-93
Ⅱ－ 93

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround1
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
1

6

Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

7

2

(30) Funds starting in 2011
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 201114
Liquidated
0
Existing
14

Pooled IRR
16.78%
NA
16.78%

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
35.58%
20.01%
NANA
35.58%
20.01%

Standard
Deviation
92.00%
NA
92.00%

MaximumValue
331.67%

1/4 from
the top
5.04%

Median-5.56%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-6.85%-52.98%

DPI

TVPI

0.41

1.32

Total Contributions ￥45.1 billion
Average Contributions ￥3.2 billion
Average Term

3.8 years(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of May 2015, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
'11

'12

'13

'14

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value'15

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

12

2

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

1

2

1

0

3

2

2

3

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

2

2

1

0

2

1

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

1

1

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

1

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

1

1

0

Ⅱ-94
Ⅱ－ 94

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
04Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

1

0

1

8

0

(31) Funds starting in 2012
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 20129
Liquidated
0
Existing
9

Pooled IRR-10.18%NA-10.18%Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR-10.73%-11.42%NANA-10.73%-11.42%Standard
Deviation
12.98%
NA
12.98%

MaximumValue-3.37%

1/4 from
the top-5.32%Median-7.48%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-11.15%-45.10%

DPI

TVPI

0.00

0.84

Total Contributions ￥5.8 billion
Average Contributions ￥0.6 billion
Average Term

3 years(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of May 2015, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
'12

'13

'14

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value'15

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

9

0

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

1

2

0

1

3

0

0

2

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

1

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

0

0

Ⅱ-95
Ⅱ－ 95

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
2

2

Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

1

0

0

0

8

0

(32) Funds starting in 2013
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 201327
Liquidated
1
Existing
26

Pooled IRR
2.28%
1.65%

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR-0.79%-13.24%-1.36%-15.40%Standard
Deviation
32.85%
31.49%

MaximumValue
47.89%

1/4 from
the top
0.32%

Median-7.77%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-20.30%-99.01%

DPI

TVPI

0.08

1.03

Total Contributions ￥75.5 billion
Average Contributions ￥2.8 billion
Average Term

2 years(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of May 2015, whichever comes first)

Cash Flows
Total cash inflows and outflows of the funds
Total Cash Flows（¥ Billions）
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
'12

'13

'14

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value'15

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

27

0

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

1

4

1

1

11

1

2

4

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

2

0

2

0

0

3

1

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

4

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

2

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

1

0

Ⅱ-96
Ⅱ－ 96

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround2
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
5

10Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

3

0

0

0

20

1

(33) Funds starting in 2014
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 201418
Liquidated
0
Existing
18

Pooled IRR
16.98%
NA
16.98%

Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR
33.31%-8.85%
NANA
33.31%-8.85%

Standard
Deviation
63.53%
NA
63.53%

MaximumValue
208.05%

1/4 from
the top-3.03%Median-7.23%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-14.65%-98.20%

DPI

TVPI

0.00

1.10

Total Contributions ￥19.2 billion
Average Contributions ￥1.1 billion
Average Term

0.9 years(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of May 2015, 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
'14

'15

Total Contributions
Total Residual Value

Total Distributions
Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

18

0

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

0

7

1

0

6

0

0

4

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

1

1

0

0

1

4

1

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

5

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

1

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

2

0

Ⅱ-97
Ⅱ－ 97

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
1

4

Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

2

0

0

0

12

1

(34) Funds starting in 2015
Number of
Funds
Funds formed in 20153
Liquidated
0
Existing
3

Pooled IRR-22.34%NA-22.34%Weighted
Average IRR
Average IRR-26.66%-27.05%NANA-26.66%-27.05%

Standard
Deviation
23.51%
NA
23.51%

Maximum
Value
0.00%

1/4 from
the top-19.30%Median-38.60%

1/4 from Minimum
the bottom
Value-40.57%-42.54%

DPI

TVPI

0.00

0.97

Total Contributions ￥3.3 billion
Average Contributions ￥1.1 billion
Average Term

0.2 years(From inception to either dissolution date or the end of May 2015, 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
'15
Total Contributions

Total Distributions

Total Residual Value

Cumulative Cash Flows

Number of Funds by Characteristics
LimitedVolantary Foreign funds
Partnerships Partnerships/OtherFund type

Investment focus
by stage

Investment focus
by region

Investment focus
by region

3

0

0

0

Seed-stage

Early-stage

Expansion-stageLater-stage

Balanced

Buyout

1

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

Hokkaido

Tohoku

Tokyo

Chubu

Kinki

Chugoku

Shikoku

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

Asia-Pacific

EuropeNorth America

MainlyOverseas

Not Specified

Unknown

0

0

0

0

1

0

Telecommunic Computersandations/Networ
king and
Peripherals
Equipment/IT services

Investment focus
by industry

Unknown

0

0

Kanto
（excl. Tokyo）

Software0

SemiMedical
conductors/
Biotechnology Device andElectrical
Equipment//Medicinemachinery &Healthcareequipment
related

0

2

0

Ⅱ-98
Ⅱ－ 98

Recap/
Not Specified Unknown
Turnaround0
Kyushu and Mainly
Okinawadomestic
01Media/

Industrial Entertainment/ Finance/
Clean
Real Estate/
Retailing//Energy
Not specified Unknown
Business Technology
Customer/OtherServices
Goods

0

0

0

0

1

0

List of venture capital firms responded to the survey (106 in total)
List of VC firms
Agribusiness Investment & Consultation Co.Ltd.

M edVenture Partners, Inc.

AKINAISOUKEN Co., Ltd.

M ezzanine Corporation

Ant Capital Partners Co., Ltd.
Beyond Next Ventures Inc.

M itsubishi UFJ Capital Co.,Ltd
M ITSUI SUM ITOM O INSURANCE Venture Capital Co.,Ltd.

Biofrontier Partners, Inc.
Bio-Sight Capital Inc.

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

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

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

CITIC Capital Partners Japan Ltd

Nippon Venture Capital Co.,Ltd.

CyberAgentventures, Inc.
Daiwa Corporate Investment Co., Ltd.

NISSAY CAPITAL CO., LTD.
NOM URA RESEARCH & ADVISORY CO., LTD.

DBC Capital Co., Ltd.
DCI Partners Co., Ltd.

NTT DOCOM O Ventures, Inc.
Oita Venture Capital Co.,Ltd.

DEFTA Capital,Inc.

OM RON VENTURES CO., LTD.

Dentsu Digital Holdings Inc.
DOGAN, Inc.

OPT Ventures,Inc.
ORIX CAPITAL CORPORATION

Energy & Environment Investment, Inc.
Entrepia Japan

Phoenix Capital CO., Ltd.
Polaris Capital Group Co., Ltd.

Fast Track Initiative, Inc.
Femto Growth Capital LLP

Sagamihara Incubation Center Ltd.
SANSEI CAPITAL INVESTM ENT CO., LTD.

FFG Business Consulting Co., Ltd.

Sapporo Hokuyo Leasing Co.,Ltd

FinTech Global Incorporated
Future Venture Capital Co., Ltd.

SBI Holdings, Inc.
SEIBU Shinkin Capital Corporation

GBI Capital Inc.
Global Brain Corporation

SENSHU IKEDA CAPITAL CO.,LTD.
SHIGAGIN LEASE & CAPITAL CO.LTD

Global Venture Capital Inc.
Globis Capital Partners & Co.

Shigin Regional Economic Research Institute Inc.
Shinkin Capital Co.,Ltd.

GREE Ventures, Inc.

Shinsei Corporate Investment Limited

GUNGIN LEASING CO.,LTD.
Hack Ventures, Inc.

Shizuoka Capital Company Limited
SK Ventures Co., Ltd.

Hamashin Lease, 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

Sync Partners Co.,Ltd.
T ・Hands On Investment, Inc.

Incubate Fund
INNOTECH CORPORATIONThe Gogin Capital Co.,Ltd.
The Japan Science and Technology Agency

Innovation Engine, Inc.
Innovation Network Corporation of JapanThe Kiyo Lease & Capital Co., Ltd.
The Tottori Capital Co., Ltd.

INSPiRE Corporation

The University of Tokyo Edge Capital Co.,Ltd.

INTEC IT Capital,Inc.
Integral Corporation

TNP On The Road Corporation
Tohoku Innovation Capital Corporation

ITOCHU Technology Ventures,Inc.
JAFCO Co., Ltd.

TOKIO M ARINE CAPITAL Co.,Ltd
TSUNEISHI PARTNERS Co., Ltd.

Japan Asia Investment Co., Ltd.
K&P Partners Co., Ltd.

Venture Labo Co., Ltd.
VENTURE UNITED, Inc.

KSP,inc.

Watervein Partners

Kyoritsu Capital Co., Ltd.
Kyushu Venture Partners Co., Ltd.

WERU INVESTM ENT CO.,LTD.
Whiz Partners Inc.

LINE Ventures Corporation
M BL Venture Capital Co., Ltd.

Yasuda Enterprise Development Co., Ltd.
YOKOHAM A CAPITAL CO., LTD.

Ⅱ－ 99

●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 EnterpriseCenter, Japan disclaims any liability including incidental or consequential damages arisingfrom errors or omissions 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 withthe exception noted under the copyright law. All rights reserved. Please contact VEC for any
requests to use the information contained herein.

VEC YEARBOOK 2015
Annual Report on Japanese Startup Businesses 2015
March 29, 2016
Edited,Venture Enterprise Center, Japan
publishedShinjuku 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
Copyright (C) 2015 Venture Enterprise Center, Japan. All Rights Reserved.
ISBN 978‐4‐9907562‐9‐1