IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/stratm/v42y2021i5p1024-1053.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Information disclosure and the market for acquiring technology companies

Author

Listed:
  • George Chondrakis
  • Carlos J. Serrano
  • Rosemarie H. Ziedonis

Abstract

Research Summary The market for acquiring technology companies is rife with information frictions. Although such frictions can stifle trading activity, they also provide room for strategic gain. We investigate this dual role of information frictions by exploiting an institutional reform that releases technological information to the public domain. Leveraging cross‐sectoral variation in the magnitude of disclosure, we find an increase in acquisition activity and in the technological distance between matched pairings. In line with predictions from strategic factor market theory, however, we also find a disproportionate decline in acquirer returns on average. Our findings suggest that information disclosed through the reform‐facilitated exchange in the takeover market yet had a leveling effect on the returns to acquirers. Managerial Summary Firms acquire technology‐oriented companies to complement internal R&D projects and accelerate the innovation process. But identifying promising targets is challenging, not least due to the lack of information about the value of acquired technologies. This study investigates an information shock and tests its effects on the market for acquiring technology‐intensive companies. We find that greater disclosure of technological information to the public domain intensifies trading activity and allows acquirers to better identify and assess targets outside their core technological domains. But it also reduces the returns to acquirers. In combination, our findings illuminate a dual role of information disclosure: placing more information into the public domain may facilitate trade in corporate takeover markets while simultaneously restricting acquirer opportunities for strategic gain.

Suggested Citation

  • George Chondrakis & Carlos J. Serrano & Rosemarie H. Ziedonis, 2021. "Information disclosure and the market for acquiring technology companies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(5), pages 1024-1053, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:42:y:2021:i:5:p:1024-1053
    DOI: 10.1002/smj.3260
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3260
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/smj.3260?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aoki, Reiko & Prusa, Thomas J., 1996. "Product Development and the Timing of Information Disclosure under U.S. and Japanese Patent Systems," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 233-249, September.
    2. Laurence Capron & Jung‐Chin Shen, 2007. "Acquisitions of private vs. public firms: Private information, target selection, and acquirer returns," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(9), pages 891-911, September.
    3. Gordon M. Phillips & Alexei Zhdanov, 2013. "R&D and the Incentives from Merger and Acquisition Activity," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 26(1), pages 34-78.
    4. Jung-Chin Shen & Jeffrey Reuer, 2005. "Adverse Selection in Acquisitions of Small Manufacturing Firms: A Comparison of Private and Public Targets," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 393-407, May.
    5. repec:oup:rfinst:v:26:y::i:1:p:34-78 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Nancy T. Gallini, 1992. "Patent Policy and Costly Imitation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 52-63, Spring.
    7. Jeffrey L. Furman & Markus Nagler & Martin Watzinger, 2021. "Disclosure and Subsequent Innovation: Evidence from the Patent Depository Library Program," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 13(4), pages 239-270, November.
    8. Russell W. Coff, 1999. "How Buyers Cope with Uncertainty when Acquiring Firms in Knowledge-Intensive Industries: Caveat Emptor," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 144-161, April.
    9. Reuer, Jeffrey J. & Ragozzino, Roberto, 2008. "Adverse selection and M&A design: The roles of alliances and IPOs," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 195-212, May.
    10. Christoph Grimpe & Katrin Hussinger, 2014. "Resource complementarity and value capture in firm acquisitions: The role of intellectual property rights," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(12), pages 1762-1780, December.
    11. Marianna Makri & Michael A. Hitt & Peter J. Lane, 2010. "Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(6), pages 602-628, June.
    12. Bronwyn H. Hall & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 2001. "The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools," NBER Working Papers 8498, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Vikas A. Aggarwal & David H. Hsu, 2014. "Entrepreneurial Exits and Innovation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(4), pages 867-887, April.
    14. Heidi L. Williams, 2017. "How Do Patents Affect Research Investments?," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 441-469, September.
    15. Gautam Ahuja & Riitta Katila, 2001. "Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(3), pages 197-220, March.
    16. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2008. "The Impact of Uncertain Intellectual Property Rights on the Market for Ideas: Evidence from Patent Grant Delays," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(5), pages 982-997, May.
    17. Phanish Puranam & Kannan Srikanth, 2007. "What they know vs. what they do: how acquirers leverage technology acquisitions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(8), pages 805-825, August.
    18. Theo Offerman, 2002. "Efficiency in Auctions with Private and Common Values: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(3), pages 625-643, June.
    19. Choelsoon Park, 2003. "Prior performance characteristics of related and unrelated acquirers," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 471-480, May.
    20. Jay B. Barney, 1988. "Returns to bidding firms in mergers and acquisitions: Reconsidering the relatedness hypothesis," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(S1), pages 71-78, June.
    21. Sonja Lück & Benjamin Balsmeier & Florian Seliger & Lee Fleming, 2020. "Early Disclosure of Invention and Reduced Duplication: An Empirical Test," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(6), pages 2677-2685, June.
    22. Steven Tadelis & Florian Zettelmeyer, 2015. "Information Disclosure as a Matching Mechanism: Theory and Evidence from a Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(2), pages 886-905, February.
    23. Ajay Agrawal & Iain Cockburn & Laurina Zhang, 2015. "Deals not done: Sources of failure in the market for ideas," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(7), pages 976-986, July.
    24. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
    25. Higgins, Matthew J. & Rodriguez, Daniel, 2006. "The outsourcing of R&D through acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 351-383, May.
    26. Christian Leuz & Peter D. Wysocki, 2016. "The Economics of Disclosure and Financial Reporting Regulation: Evidence and Suggestions for Future Research," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(2), pages 525-622, May.
    27. Nancy T. Gallini, 2002. "The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 131-154, Spring.
    28. George A. Akerlof, 1970. "The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 84(3), pages 488-500.
    29. Lanjouw, Jean O & Schankerman, Mark, 2004. "Protecting Intellectual Property Rights: Are Small Firms Handicapped?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 45-74, April.
    30. Chondrakis, George, 2016. "Unique synergies in technology acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1873-1889.
    31. Harbir Singh & Cynthia A. Montgomery, 1987. "Corporate acquisition strategies and economic performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(4), pages 377-386, July.
    32. Popp David & Juhl Ted & Johnson Daniel K.N., 2004. "Time In Purgatory: Examining the Grant Lag for U.S. Patent Applications," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 4(1), pages 1-45, November.
    33. Ashish Arora & Alfonso Gambardella, 2010. "Ideas for rent: an overview of markets for technology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 19(3), pages 775-803, June.
    34. Jaffe, Adam B, 1986. "Technological Opportunity and Spillovers of R&D: Evidence from Firms' Patents, Profits, and Market Value," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 984-1001, December.
    35. Francesco Castellaneta & Raffaele Conti & Aleksandra Kacperczyk, 2017. "Money secrets: How does trade secret legal protection affect firm market value? Evidence from the uniform trade secret act," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 834-853, April.
    36. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters, in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    37. Deepak Hegde & Hong Luo, 2018. "Patent Publication and the Market for Ideas," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(2), pages 652-672, February.
    38. Jan Bena & Kai Li, 2014. "Corporate Innovations and Mergers and Acquisitions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 69(5), pages 1923-1960, October.
    39. Gregor Andrade & Mark Mitchell & Erik Stafford, 2001. "New Evidence and Perspectives on Mergers," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 103-120, Spring.
    40. Moeller, Sara B. & Schlingemann, Frederik P. & Stulz, Rene M., 2004. "Firm size and the gains from acquisitions," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 201-228, August.
    41. Jay B. Barney, 1986. "Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(10), pages 1231-1241, October.
    42. Ji‐Yub (Jay) Kim & Sydney Finkelstein, 2009. "The effects of strategic and market complementarity on acquisition performance: evidence from the U.S. commercial banking industry, 1989–2001," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(6), pages 617-646, June.
    43. Jarrad Harford, 1999. "Corporate Cash Reserves and Acquisitions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(6), pages 1969-1997, December.
    44. Baruffaldi, Stefano H. & Simeth, Markus, 2020. "Patents and knowledge diffusion: The effect of early disclosure," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(4).
    45. James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, 2008. "Introduction to Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk," Introductory Chapters, in: Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk, Princeton University Press.
    46. Chemmanur, Thomas J. & He, Jie & He, Shan & Nandy, Debarshi, 2018. "Product Market Characteristics and the Choice between IPOs and Acquisitions," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(2), pages 681-721, April.
    47. Bruno Cassiman & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2006. "In Search of Complementarity in Innovation Strategy: Internal R& D and External Knowledge Acquisition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(1), pages 68-82, January.
    48. Abhirup Chakrabarti & Will Mitchell, 2013. "The Persistent Effect of Geographic Distance in Acquisition Target Selection," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 1805-1826, December.
    49. Kathleen Fuller & Jeffry Netter & Mike Stegemoller, 2002. "What Do Returns to Acquiring Firms Tell Us? Evidence from Firms That Make Many Acquisitions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 57(4), pages 1763-1793, August.
    50. Healy, Paul M. & Palepu, Krishna G. & Ruback, Richard S., 1992. "Does corporate performance improve after mergers?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 135-175, April.
    51. Michael Lubatkin, 1987. "Merger strategies and stockholder value," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(1), pages 39-53, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mehdi Beyhaghi & Pooyan Khashabi & Ali Mohammadi, 2023. "Pre-grant Patent Disclosure and Analyst Forecast Accuracy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(5), pages 3140-3155, May.
    2. George Chondrakis & Eduardo Melero & Mari Sako, 2022. "The effect of coordination requirements on sourcing decisions: Evidence from patent prosecution services," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(6), pages 1141-1169, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chondrakis, George, 2016. "Unique synergies in technology acquisitions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1873-1889.
    2. David Benson & Rosemarie H. Ziedonis, 2009. "Corporate Venture Capital as a Window on New Technologies: Implications for the Performance of Corporate Investors When Acquiring Startups," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 329-351, April.
    3. Udichibarna Bose, 2023. "Does green transition promote green innovation and technological acquisitions?," Working Papers w202305, Banco de Portugal, Economics and Research Department.
    4. Varshney, Mayank & Jain, Amit, 2023. "Technology acquisition following inventor exit in the biopharmaceutical industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    5. Figueroa, Nicolás & Serrano, Carlos J., 2019. "Patent trading flows of small and large firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(7), pages 1601-1616.
    6. Stienstra, Miranda, 2020. "The determinants and performance implications of alliance partner acquisition," Other publications TiSEM 7fdee0c2-d4d2-4f5b-95e3-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    7. Li, Shi & Ang, James S. & Wu, Chaopeng & Yang, Shijie, 2021. "Valuing technological synergies in mergers," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    8. Aghasi, Keivan & Colombo, Massimo G. & Rossi-Lamastra, Cristina, 2017. "Acquisitions of small high-tech firms as a mechanism for external knowledge sourcing: The integration-autonomy dilemma," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 334-346.
    9. Mahdiyeh Entezarkheir & Saeed Moshiri, 2021. "Innovation spillover and merger decisions," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(5), pages 2419-2448, November.
    10. Kenneth A. Younge & Tony W. Tong & Lee Fleming, 2015. "How anticipated employee mobility affects acquisition likelihood: Evidence from a natural experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 686-708, May.
    11. Luis A. Rios, 2021. "On the origin of technological acquisition strategy: The interaction between organizational plasticity and environmental munificence," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(7), pages 1299-1325, July.
    12. Xing, Fei & Hai, Mengdie & Cai, Jiayao, 2023. "Network centrality and technology acquisitions: Evidence from China's listed business groups," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    13. Christoph Grimpe & Katrin Hussinger & Wolfgang Sofka, 2023. "Reaching beyond the acquirer-Target Dyad in M&A – Linkages to External knowledge sources and target firm valuation," DEM Discussion Paper Series 23-01, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    14. Andrew Eckert & Corinne Langinier, 2014. "A Survey Of The Economics Of Patent Systems And Procedures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 996-1015, December.
    15. Rainville, Megan & Unlu, Emre & Wu, Juan Julie, 2022. "How do stronger creditor rights impact corporate acquisition activity and quality?," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    16. Kavusan, K., 2015. "Essays on capability development through alliances," Other publications TiSEM 8eb736a5-b217-4718-ac13-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    17. Shafique, Muhammad & Hagedoorn, John, 2022. "Look at U: Technological scope of the acquirer, technological complementarity with the target, and post-acquisition R&D output," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    18. M. D. Beneish & C. R. Harvey & A. Tseng & P. Vorst, 2022. "Unpatented innovation and merger synergies," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 706-744, June.
    19. Aseem Kaul & Brian Wu, 2016. "A capabilities-based perspective on target selection in acquisitions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(7), pages 1220-1239, July.
    20. George Chondrakis & Eduardo Melero & Mari Sako, 2022. "The effect of coordination requirements on sourcing decisions: Evidence from patent prosecution services," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(6), pages 1141-1169, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:stratm:v:42:y:2021:i:5:p:1024-1053. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0143-2095 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.