IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pjm/journl/vxiiiy2008i3p385-402.html

Determining Knowledge-Intensive Companies Acquisition Value For M&A Purposes: An Intellectual Capital Approach

Author

Listed:
  • João Marcelo Alves

    (NPGA - Federal University of Bahia)

Abstract

The acquisition price of knowledge-intensive companies in an M&A deal depends largely on the resultant operating synergies, i.e. the potential value knowledge companies can bring to the acquirer’s existing businesses through the combination of both firms’ assets. The value of knowledge companies basically resides in their innovation potential and human capital competencies. These intangibles are part of knowledge companies’ intellectual capital, which is generally seen by market-established firms as the least resource- and time-consuming route to innovation. In this paper the author provides an alternative approach to valuation in order to assess the purchase price of a knowledge company in a merger or acquisition context. In particular, he analyzes the additional value a knowledge-intensive company can bring to the acquiring firm and how much of that value should be retained by the acquirer.

Suggested Citation

  • João Marcelo Alves, 2008. "Determining Knowledge-Intensive Companies Acquisition Value For M&A Purposes: An Intellectual Capital Approach," Portuguese Journal of Management Studies, ISEG, Universidade de Lisboa, vol. 0(3), pages 385-402.
    • Handle: RePEc:pjm:journl:v:xiii:y:2008:i:3:p:385-402
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ejms.iseg.ulisboa.pt/files/2008-Determining_knowledge-intensive_companies_acquisition.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baruch Lev, 2003. "Remarks on the measurement, valuation, and reporting of intangible assets," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, issue Sep, pages 17-22.
    2. Stephen R. Bond & Jason G. Cummins, 2000. "The Stock Market and Investment in the New Economy: Some Tangible Facts and Intangible Fictions," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 31(1), pages 61-124.
    3. Nicholas Economides, 1997. "The Economics of Networks," Brazilian Electronic Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, vol. 1(0), December.
    4. Jeremy C. Stein, 1997. "Waves of Creative Destruction: Firm-Specific Learning-by-Doing and the Dynamics of Innovation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(2), pages 265-288.
    5. Arora, Ashish & Fosfuri, Andrea & Gambardella, Alfonso, 2001. "Markets for Technology and Their Implications for Corporate Strategy," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 10(2), pages 419-451, June.
    6. Foss, Nicolai J. (ed.), 1997. "Resources, Firms, and Strategies: A Reader in the Resource-Based Perspective," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198781790.
    7. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Cristiano Antonelli, 2003. "Knowledge Complementarity and Fungeability: Implications for Regional Strategy," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(6-7), pages 595-606.
    2. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2003. "The Governance of Technological Knowledge: Strategies, Processes and Public Policies," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis LEI & BRICK - Laboratory of Economics of Innovation "Franco Momigliano", Bureau of Research in Innovation, Complexity and Knowledge, Collegio 200306, University of Turin.
    3. Davide Consoli & Pier Paolo Patrucco, 2011. "Complexity and the Coordination of Technological Knowledge: The Case of Innovation Platforms," Chapters, in: Handbook on the Economic Complexity of Technological Change, chapter 8 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Peters, Bettina & Diekhof, Josefine & Grimpe, Christoph & Marks, Hannes & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2023. "Machbarkeitsstudie Technologiemärkte," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 8-2023, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    5. Colombo, Massimo G. & Garrone, Paola, 1998. "Common carriers' entry into multimedia services," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 77-105, March.
    6. Krammer, Sorin M.S., 2018. "A double-edged sword? The antipodal effects of institutional distance on partner selection in cross-border alliances," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 53(6), pages 930-943.
    7. Pamela Adams & Roberto Fontana & Franco Malerba, 2022. "Knowledge resources and the acquisition of spinouts," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 12(2), pages 277-313, June.
    8. Kelchtermans, Stijn & Leten, Bart & Rabijns, Maarten & Riccaboni, Massimo, 2022. "Do licensors learn from out-licensing? Empirical evidence from the pharmaceutical industry," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    9. Cantner, Uwe & Graf, Holger, 2006. "The network of innovators in Jena: An application of social network analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 463-480, May.
    10. Fabrizio Cesaroni, 2001. "Technology Strategies in the Knowldge Economy. The Licensing Activity of Himont," LEM Papers Series 2001/18, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    11. Huiyan Zhang & Lee Branstetter & Raffaele Conti & Samir Mamadehussene, 2023. "Who gains and who loses from more information in technology markets? Evidence from the Sunshine Act," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(10), pages 2377-2412, October.
    12. Leiponen, Aija & Delcamp, Henry, 2019. "The anatomy of a troll? Patent licensing business models in the light of patent reassignment data," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 298-311.
    13. Kafouros, Mario I. & Forsans, Nicolas, 2012. "The role of open innovation in emerging economies: Do companies profit from the scientific knowledge of others?," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 362-370.
    14. Desyllas, Panos & Sako, Mari, 2013. "Profiting from business model innovation: Evidence from Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 101-116.
    15. repec:wip:wpaper:3 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Jean-François Hennart, 2020. "More than intent: A bundling model of MNE–SME interactions," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 51(7), pages 1176-1194, September.
    17. Peters, Bettina & Diekhof, Josefine & Marks, Hannes & Grimpe, Christoph & Sofka, Wolfgang, 2021. "Machbarkeitsstudie "Technologiemärkte". Bericht an die Expertenkommission für Forschung und Innovation: Abschlussbericht (10.05.2021)," ZEW Expertises, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, number 243274.
    18. Devarakonda, Ramakrishna & Reuer, Jeffrey J. & Tadikonda, Harsha, 2022. "Founder social capital and value appropriation in R&D alliance agreements," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(4).
    19. Hennart, J.M.A., 2012. "Emerging market multinationals and the theory of the multinational enterprise," Other publications TiSEM 23818daa-f6ed-4fd6-bca4-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    20. Agarwal, Rajshree & Shah, Sonali K., 2014. "Knowledge sources of entrepreneurship: Firm formation by academic, user and employee innovators," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1109-1133.
    21. Barirani, Ahmad & Beaudry, Catherine & Agard, Bruno, 2017. "Can universities profit from general purpose inventions? The case of Canadian nanotechnology patents," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 271-283.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:pjm:journl:v:xiii:y:2008:i:3:p:385-402. 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: Luís Mota de Castro, Tiago Cardão-Pito, Mark Crathorne (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isutlpt.html .

    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.