IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/24350.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Waiting for the Payday? The Market for Startups and the Timing of Entrepreneurial Exit

Author

Listed:
  • Ashish Arora
  • Andrea Fosfuri
  • Thomas Roende

Abstract

Most technology startups are set up for exit through acquisition by large corporations. In choosing when to sell, startups face a tradeoff. Early acquisition reduces execution errors but later acquisition improves the likelihood of finding a better match since in the early market, there are fewer buyers because early acquisition requires costly absorptive capacity. Moreover, the buyer’s decision to invest in absorptive capacity is related to the startup’s decision about the timing of the exit sale. In this paper, we build a model to capture this complexity and the related tradeoffs. We find that the early market for startups is inefficiently thin if the timing of exit is a strategic choice, i.e. startups have to commit to whether to exit early or late. Too few startups are sold early, and too few buyers invest in absorptive capacity. Paradoxically, venture capital aggravates the inefficiency. However, if the timing of exit is a tactical choice, i.e. startups can choose to go late after observing the early offers, there are too many early acquisitions and too much investment in absorptive capacity by incumbents

Suggested Citation

  • Ashish Arora & Andrea Fosfuri & Thomas Roende, 2018. "Waiting for the Payday? The Market for Startups and the Timing of Entrepreneurial Exit," NBER Working Papers 24350, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:24350
    Note: PR
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w24350.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ashish Arora & Alfonso Gambardella, 2010. "Ideas for rent: an overview of markets for technology," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 775-803, June.
    2. 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..
    3. Marie-Laure Allain & Emeric Henry & Margaret Kyle, 2016. "Competition and the Efficiency of Markets for Technology," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(4), pages 1000-1019, April.
    4. Seongkyoon Jeong & Sungki Lee, 2015. "Strategic timing of academic commercialism: evidence from technology transfer," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(6), pages 910-931, December.
    5. Pehr-Johan Norbäck & Lars Persson, 2009. "The Organization of the Innovation Industry: Entrepreneurs, Venture Capitalists, and Oligopolists," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(6), pages 1261-1290, December.
    6. Cumming, Douglas J. & MacIntosh, Jeffrey G., 2003. "A cross-country comparison of full and partial venture capital exits," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 511-548, March.
    7. William J. Baumol, 2013. "The Microtheory of Innovative Entrepreneurship," Journal of Economic Sociology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, vol. 14(3), pages 96-108.
    8. David H. Hsu, 2006. "Venture Capitalists and Cooperative Start-up Commercialization Strategy," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(2), pages 204-219, February.
    9. Joshua S. Gans & David H. Hsu & Scott Stern, 2002. "When Does Start-Up Innovation Spur the Gale of Creative Destruction?," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(4), pages 571-586, Winter.
    10. repec:cup:jfinqa:v:46:y:2011:i:06:p:1755-1793_00 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Joshua S. Gans & Scott Stern, 2010. "Is there a market for ideas?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 805-837, June.
    12. Thomas Åstebro & Carlos J. Serrano, 2015. "Business Partners: Complementary Assets, Financing, and Invention Commercialization," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(2), pages 228-252, June.
    13. Sam Ransbotham & Sabyasachi Mitra, 2010. "Target Age and the Acquisition of Innovation in High-Technology Industries," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(11), pages 2076-2093, November.
    14. Arora, Ashish & Cohen, Wesley M. & Walsh, John P., 2016. "The acquisition and commercialization of invention in American manufacturing: Incidence and impact," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 1113-1128.
    15. Keld Laursen & Maria Isabella Leone & Salvatore Torrisi, 2010. "Technological exploration through licensing: new insights from the licensee's point of view," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(3), pages 871-897, June.
    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. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    18. Ilan Guedj & David Scharfstein, 2004. "Organizational Scope and Investment: Evidence from the Drug Development Strategies and Performance of Biopharmaceutical Firms," NBER Working Papers 10933, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Daniel Ferreira & Gustavo Manso & André C. Silva, 2014. "Incentives to Innovate and the Decision to Go Public or Private," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 27(1), pages 256-300, January.
    20. Prajit K. Dutta, 1999. "Strategies and Games: Theory and Practice," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262041693.
    21. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1994. "Evaluating technological information and utilizing it : Scientific knowledge, technological capability, and external linkages in biotechnology," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 91-114, June.
    22. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    23. Hong Luo, 2014. "When to Sell Your Idea: Theory and Evidence from the Movie Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(12), pages 3067-3086, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L26 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Entrepreneurship
    • O34 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:24350. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.