One persistent question in economic development policy is how incentives impact private sector investment decisions. Recent and ongoing research from Murillo Campello and Guilherme Junqueira of the University of Florida, published in the National Bureau of Economic Research working paper series, explores the impact of the Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) program on venture capital risk-taking. The researchers found that the availability of QSBS tax benefits strongly influences venture capital investment behavior, specifically in traditionally structured venture capital funds. They also found no similar behavior among angel or corporate investors, an insight that may hold important program design and policy lessons for the TBED community.
Incentive programs typically offset upfront project costs or provide increased profit after the project is completed. Tax incentives that increase the net profitability of investments are a common way to steer activity toward a desired outcome. The Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) program is one such federal tax incentive program intended to drive investment to early-stage small businesses. The program offsets the capital gains appreciation from successful investments in the first equity financing round of small business in priority industries, thus increasing net return for compliant investments.
-
Qualified companies must be a C-corporation in the U.S.
-
Companies receiving investment must have assets of $50 million or less before and after the issuance of the stock.
-
Eligible companies must be active business engaged in manufacturing, retail, technology, or wholesale.
-
Stock must be acquired in exchange for money or property or as payment for services provided to the corporation.
-
If stock is held for more than five years, there is no tax on the gain.
-
The excludable gain is limited to the greater of $10 million or 10 times the adjusted basis of the investment.
To evaluate the impact of the QSBS program, the researchers examined 158,000 investor-firm pairings over a two-decade period. They found that VCs shift investment behavior toward riskier pre-commercial companies and toward more innovative industries and companies. The researchers found.QSBS qualification shifts VCs toward higher risk, with 71% higher failure rates and 169% longer periods without raising funds. Conversely, QSBS investments yield 131% higher valuations at exit. The authors also explore the impact of QSBS on innovation and find that VC-backed QSBS company patents have a 21% increase in scientific and commercial value, and a 196% gain in citation-weighted patents, compared to non-QSBS companies.
Importantly, the study did not find the same changes in angel and corporate investment activity. While not the headline of the paper, this nuance opens important and interesting TBED policy questions about how and why these specific incentives work. Evidence of different behavior patterns across investor types after implementation of the tax incentive suggests incentives alone do not change investment decision criteria. A takeaway from the research for policy makers attempting to increase innovation finance availability might be: incentive programs should consider investors’ risk appetite and compensation structure, as well as their control over portfolio companies (or projects’) trajectories.
An often-overlooked difference between angel and VC investors is that angels invest their own resources and personally retain the proceeds of successful investments, whereas VCs invest funds raised from third parties and receive a share of the proceeds. The authors strongly link the shift in investor behavior in response to tax benefits to the compensation structure of the fund managers. Fundamentally, venture fund managers have relatively limited personal risk of direct financial loss and significant upside participation through carried interest. Fund managers must generate strong investment returns to be compensated and continue raising new funds from LPs.
Fund manager compensation through carried interest—typically 20% of investment profits—is subject to capital gains tax rather than ordinary income tax. The QSBS benefits and limits apply at the taxpayer or investor level, not at the fund or company level. This means the $10 million tax benefit applies to each investor in a fund, including each individual General Partner. As a result, a team of fund managers can each exclude up to $10 million of taxes per company. The researchers find that, in typical exits, the QSBS exemption increased after-tax proceeds from carried interest by 31%. LP investors also receive QSBS benefits individually. Note then that LPs which are tax-exempt foundations, pension funds, or endowments, receive no direct financial upside from QSBS.
For policymakers considering whether or not to deploy tax subsidies, questions influencing the decision should turn to how much desirable behavioral change is achieved versus taking unnecessarily reduced revenues for behavior that would have happened anyway. Another related question revolves around the opportunity for tax arbitrage. In fact, the paper finds a strong link between QSBS benefits and investors exiting at exactly five-year holding threshold, implying that exits are often timed to maximize the tax benefit, not the optimal timing for the long-term success of the company.
A limitation of the research is what is not considered. While identifying the cost to taxpayers of the QSBS was $3,4 billion in 2024 alone, the authors do not estimate the return to taxpayers from that forgone revenue. Nor do they look at employment outcomes such as job creation resulting from QSBS portfolio companies. That is not to suggest that there is no net benefit to QSBS; these types of potential societal returns were not directly addressed by the research, though the link to increased innovation does point to potential broader impacts.
With no apparent benefit found in the research for angels and corporate investors, and no direct benefit potential for institutional LPs, the QSBS analysis suggests the tax policy is of most use to venture fund managers who might be motivated to maximize their personal profit potential. Based on this and further research, federal policy makers may wish to consider the effectiveness of QSBS as a means for increasing innovation finance options to expand economic development across more of the country. It is also possible that the same federal resources could be invested more efficiently in other financing programs that directly expand the pool of available capital, such as direct financing programs, providing matching funds for well-structured nonprofit venture development organizations, and revolving funds.
From a more localized TBED perspective, the research suggests three considerations for potentially positively tweaking state and regional innovation finance policies. Given the limited population deriving most of the recognized financial benefit from QSBS, that is, VC fund managers:
-
How might QSBS eligibility influence which local companies are selected for investment?
-
How might inclusion in a QSBS-motivated portfolio affect the long-term viability and employment outcomes of those firms.
-
What alternate policy interventions, adjacent to QSBS, may be deployed to increase the participation of angel, corporate and institutional investors in regional innovation finance?