IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/cefswp/200702.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Quantitative valuation of platform technology based intangibles companies

Author

Listed:
  • Achleitner, Ann-Kristin
  • Nathusius, Eva
  • Schraml, Stephanie

Abstract

In the course of raising external equity, e.g. from venture capitalists, a quantitative valuation is usually required for entrepreneurial ventures. This paper examines the challenges of quantitatively valuing platform technology based entrepreneurial ventures. The distinct characteristics of such companies pose specific requirements on the applicability of quantitative valuation methods. The entrepreneur can choose from a wide range of potential commercialization strategies to pursue in the course of company development which is difficult to take account of in a quantitative valuation. By developing and applying a systematic map of valuation requirements in this context, we analyze whether the cost, market or income approach is suitable for platform technology based entrepreneurial ventures. We argue that all three valuation methods have drawbacks. Yet, the income approach fulfills most of the requirements and, therefore, is considered to be more suitable for the entrepreneur as well as external equity providers than other quantitative valuation methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Achleitner, Ann-Kristin & Nathusius, Eva & Schraml, Stephanie, 2007. "Quantitative valuation of platform technology based intangibles companies," CEFS Working Paper Series 2007-02, Technische Universität München (TUM), Center for Entrepreneurial and Financial Studies (CEFS).
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:cefswp:200702
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/48408/1/577774530.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cockburn, Iain & Griliches, Zvi, 1988. "Industry Effects and Appropriability Measures in the Stock Market's Valuation of R&D and Patents," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 78(2), pages 419-423, May.
    2. Trigeorgis, Lenos, 1993. "The Nature of Option Interactions and the Valuation of Investments with Multiple Real Options," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(1), pages 1-20, March.
    3. Shigeki Kamiyama & Jerry Sheehan & Catalina Martinez, 2006. "Valuation and Exploitation of Intellectual Property," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2006/5, OECD Publishing.
    4. Dong-Jae Kim & Bruce Kogut, 1996. "Technological Platforms and Diversification," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 283-301, June.
    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. Sakakibara, Mariko, 1997. "Evaluating government-sponsored R&D consortia in Japan: who benefits and how?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(4-5), pages 447-473, December.
    2. Jiao Wang & Lima Zhao & Arnd Huchzermeier, 2021. "Operations‐Finance Interface in Risk Management: Research Evolution and Opportunities," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 30(2), pages 355-389, February.
    3. Judith K. Hellerstein & David Neumark, 2003. "Ethnicity, Language, and Workplace Segregation: Evidence from a New Matched Employer-Employee Data Set," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 71-72, pages 1-15.
    4. Fulvio Castellacci & Prince C. Oguguo & Isabel Maria Bodas Freitas, 2022. "Quality of pro-market national institutions and firms’ decision to invest in R&D: evidence from developing and transition economies," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 12(1), pages 35-57, March.
    5. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    6. E. C. Mamatzakis, 2010. "The contribution of the publicly-funded R&D capital to productivity growth and an application to the Greek food and beverages industry," International Review of Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(4), pages 483-494.
    7. Iain M. Cockburn & Megan J. MacGarvie, 2011. "Entry and Patenting in the Software Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(5), pages 915-933, May.
    8. Aamir Rafique Hashmi & Johannes Van Biesebroeck, 2016. "The Relationship between Market Structure and Innovation in Industry Equilibrium: A Case Study of the Global Automobile Industry," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(1), pages 192-208, March.
    9. Zhang, Wei, 2015. "R&D investment and distress risk," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 94-114.
    10. 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.
    11. Thomas Bolli & Martin Woerter, 2013. "Technological Diversification and Innovation Performance," KOF Working papers 13-336, KOF Swiss Economic Institute, ETH Zurich.
    12. Agliardi, Rossella, 2006. "Options to expand: Some remarks," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 65-72, March.
    13. Schilling, Melissa A. & Green, Elad, 2011. "Recombinant search and breakthrough idea generation: An analysis of high impact papers in the social sciences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1321-1331.
    14. Lori Rosenkopf & Paul Almeida, 2003. "Overcoming Local Search Through Alliances and Mobility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 751-766, June.
    15. McGahan, Anita M. & Silverman, Brian S., 2006. "Profiting from technological innovation by others: The effect of competitor patenting on firm value," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1222-1242, October.
    16. Villalonga, Belen, 2004. "Intangible resources, Tobin's q, and sustainability of performance differences," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 205-230, June.
    17. Hirschey, Mark & Richardson, Vernon J., 2001. "Valuation effects of patent quality: A comparison for Japanese and U.S. firms," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 65-82, January.
    18. Lorenz, Steffi, 2015. "Diversität und Verbundenheit der unternehmerischen Wissensbasis: Ein neuartiger Messansatz mit Indikatoren aus Innovationsprojekten," Discussion Papers on Strategy and Innovation 15-01, Philipps-University Marburg, Department of Technology and Innovation Management (TIM).
    19. Sai Yayavaram & Wei-Ru Chen, 2015. "Changes in firm knowledge couplings and firm innovation performance: The moderating role of technological complexity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 377-396, March.
    20. Philippe Aghion & Antoine Dechezleprêtre & David Hémous & Ralf Martin & John Van Reenen, 2016. "Carbon Taxes, Path Dependency, and Directed Technical Change: Evidence from the Auto Industry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(1), pages 1-51.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    entrepreneurial venture; platform technology; young venture valuation; quantitative company valuation; intangible assets; intellectual property; commercialization strategies; value extraction;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M13 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - New Firms; Startups

    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:zbw:cefswp:200702. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwtumde.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.