Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
Novosibirsk State Agrarian University (Professor)
Siberian State Transport University
Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
The relevance of the study of evaluating innovative projects in the agro-industrial complex is due to the low susceptibility of the industry to the introduction of new technologies, the difficulty of making an investment decision, the problem of choosing the relevant method of evaluating a company, and the lack of expertise in innovative agricultural technologies. The article studies the most common methods for evaluating innovative companies, which the authors consider the most suitable for considering startups in the field of Agrotech. These are such methods as: the net assets method, the price of the last transaction, the multiplier method, the method of the net monetary approach, the venture capital method, the first Chicago method, the Berkus method, the liquidation value method. It is proposed to consider these methods taking into account the life cycle of the company, considering a multi-criteria approach, which reflects expert assessments with the main determinants: technology, team, investment search goal. The studies have shown that the multi-criteria approach of evaluation was studied by modern economists unelaborated, and it does not allow justifying the significance and effectiveness of the proposed projects in practice. The article considers the problem of creating a rating of innovative attractiveness for development centers and expertise of innovative projects, which can be used in Agrotech and in other areas. The article also raises the question of the lack of centers for innovative development in the regions. It is necessary to create a network of centers that would interact with each other. Rosselkhozbank often takes on the role of such regional centers, but its main function is to finance the already chosen projects, and not to determine their significance for the territories.
investment attractiveness, Agrotech, methods of innovative companies’ evaluation, innovations in the agro-industrial complex
1. The Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation. Order No. 3 dated January 12, 2017. On the forecast of scientific and technological development of the agro-industrial complex of the Russian Federation for the period up to 2030. [Electronic source] URL: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/456038646 ?marker=6500IL (Date of access: 01.03.2023).
2. Research of the Russian Agricultural Bank. The share of billion-dollar agrotech startups in the high-tech business community. [Electronic source] URL: https://rshbdigital.ru/agrobit/infographic/agrotekhnologii/udelnyj-ves-milliardnykh-agrotekh-startapov-v-soobshhestve-vysokotekhnologichnogo-biznesa (Date of access: 01.03.2023).
3. Research of the Russian Agricultural Bank. “Distribution of agrotech startups worth $1 billion or more by country”. [Electronic source] URL: https://rshbdigital.ru/agrobit/infographic/agrotekhnologii/raspredelenie-agrotekh-startapov-stoimostyu-1-mlrd-doll-i-bolee-po-stranam (Date of access: 01.03.2023).
4. The rating of innovation of the regions of the Russian Federation in the agro-industrial complex (AIC). [Electronic source] URL: https://rshbdigital.ru/agrobit/trands/rejting-innovaczionnosti (Date of access: 01.03.2023).
5. De Oliveira, F. B., Zotes, L. P. (2018). Valuation methodologies for business startups: A bibliographic study and survey. Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 15(1), 96–111. DOI:https://doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.2018.v15.n1.a9.
6. Laitinen, E. K. (2019). Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) as a Measure of Startup Financial Success. Theoretical Economics Letters, 9(8), 2997–3020. DOI:https://doi.org/10.4236/tel.2019.98185.
7. Garnsey, E., Stam, E., Heffernan, P. (2006). New Firm Growth: Exploring Processes and Paths. Industry and Innovation, 13, 1–20. DOI: 10.1080/ 13662710500513367.
8. Coad. A., Frankish. J., Roberts. R. G., Storey, D. J. (2013). Growth Paths and Survival Chances: An Application of Gambler’s Ruin Theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(5), 615–632. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jbusvent.2012.06.002.
9. Krishna, A., Agrawal, A., Choudhary, A. (2016). Predicting the outcome of startups: less failure, more success. 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, 12–15 Dec. 2016, Barcelona, Spain: IEEE, 798–805. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICDMW.2016.0118.
10. Goldman, M. (2008). Valuation of startup and early-stage companies. A Professional Development Journal for the Consulting Disciplines, July / August, 8–16.
11. Dehghan-Eshratabad, M., Albadvi, A. (2018). Applying real option approach for startup valuation by venture capitalists in first round of financing. Management Research in Iran, 22(3), 21–27.
12. Dusatkova, M. S., Zinecker, M. (2016). Valuing start-ups–selected approaches and their modification based on external factors. Business: Theory and Practice, 17(4), 335–344. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.17.11129.
13. Fernández, P. (2007). Company valuation methods. The most common errors in valuations. IESE Business School, IESE Research Papers. [Electronic source]. URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1025424 (Date of access: 12.03.2023). DOI: 10.2139/ ssrn.1025424.
14. Hill, B., Power, D. (2008). Business Angels. How to attract their money and experience to implement their business ideas? Moscow : Eksmo, 898.
15. Muziko, E. I. (2021). Evaluation of the effectiveness of venture financing of innovative projects using optional and fuzzy multiple approaches : dis. Doctor of Economics : 08.00.10. Novosibirsk, 376.
16. Ivanova, L. N., Fedorov, V. A. (2021). Valuation of an IT startup by a venture investor. Economics, ecology and society of Russia in the 21st century, 1(1), 285–293. DOI:https://doi.org/10.52899/9785883036230_285.
17. Mandrik. N. V., Vasyutkina, A. A. (2020). Methodological approaches to assessing the cost of innovative projects. Social policy and Sociology, Vol. 19, Is. 1(134), 5–12. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17922/2071-3665-2020-19-1-5-12.
18. Efremov, A. A. (2021). Modern approach to valuation of venture companies. Advances in Science and Technology : collection of articles XXXIV International scientific and practical conference. Moscow, January 31, 2021. Moscow : Relevance. RF, 219–223.
19. All-Russian information and analytical portal Venture Russia International guidelines on direct and venture investment estimates. [Electronic source] URL: www.allventure.ru/lib/get_file/46 / (Date of access: 01.03.2023).
20. Makushina, E. Yu. (2022). Matrix for choosing a method for evaluating the value of a portfolio company at venture stages of development. Bulletin of the Voronezh State University. Series: Economics and Management, 1, 41–59.
21. Bhide, A. (1992). Bootstrap finance: The art of start-ups. Harvard Business Review, 70(6), 109–117.
22. Alvarez, S. A., Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: Alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 11–26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.4.
23. Wessendorf, C. P., Kegelmann, J., Terzidis, O. (2019). Determinants of early-stage technology venture valuation by business angels and venture capitalists. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 11(5), 489–520.
24. Zider, R. (1998). How venture capital works. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 131–139.
25. Vorotnikov, D. G., Kogan, A. B. (2023). Problems of development of innovative activity in the Novosibirsk region. Ideas and ideals, Vol. 15, Is. 2-2, 277–295.
