This paper investigates for the first time the valuation of university–based companies and their ability to translate the potential benefits of academic affiliation into long–term performance gains. It contributes to the literature on technology transfer by expanding the view from the product market to the financial market. Among the 499 high–tech SMEs that went public on the stock markets of Germany, the U.K., France, and Italy between 1995 and 2003, we find that 131 were university–based firms. For firms who publicize the fact that they are university based and have chosen to go public, the affiliation with a university is recognized as beneficial by investors. Our econometric models show that affiliation with a university enhances valuation, in particular when academics are present in the Top Management Team at the time of the initial public offering. However, over the long run, university–based companies exhibit worse operating performance than independent firms.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkerlofG.A. (1970). The market for “lemons”: Quality, uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.
2.
ArellanoM. & BondS. (1991). Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Review of Economic Studies, 58, 277–297.
3.
BeaverW., McNicholsM.F., & RhieJ.W. (2005). Have financial statements become less informative? Evidence from the ability of financial ratios to predict bankruptcy. Review of Accounting Studies, 10, 93–122.
4.
BergerJ., BalkwellW., ZormanR., & SmithR.F. (1992). Status inconsistency in task situations: A test of four status processing principles. American Sociological Review, 57, 843–855.
5.
BergerA. & UdellG. (1998). The economics of small business finance: The roles of private equity and debt markets in the financial growth cycle. Journal of Banking and Finance, 22, 613–673.
6.
BlackB.S. & GilsonR.G. (1998). Venture capital and the structure of capital markets: Banks versus stock markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 47, 243–277.
7.
BlundellR. & BondS. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87, 115–143.
8.
BonardoD., PaleariS., & VismaraS. (2010). The M & A dynamics of European science based entrepreneurial firms. Journal of Technology Transfer, forthcoming.
9.
BondS. (2002). Dynamic panel data models: A guide to micro data methods and practice. Portuguese Economic Journal, 1, 141–162.
10.
BoothJ.R. & SmithR. (1986). Capital raising underwriting and the certification hypothesis. Journal of Financial Economics, 15, 261–281.
11.
BrutonG.D., ChahineS., & FilatotchevI. (2009). Founders, private equity investors, and underpricing in entrepreneurial IPOs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 909–923.
12.
CanovasG.H. & SolanoP.M. (2007). Effect of the number of banking relationships on credit availability: Evidence from panel data of Spanish small firms. Small Business Economics, 28, 37–53.
13.
CarpenterR.E. & PetersenB.C. (2002). Capital market imperfections, high–tech investment, and new equity financing. Economic Journal, 112, 54–72.
14.
CarterR.B. & ManasterS. (1990). Initial public offerings and underwriter reputation. Journal of Finance, 65, 1045–1067.
15.
CertoS.T. (2003). Influencing initial public offering investors with prestige: Signaling with board structures. Academy of Management Review, 28, 432–446.
16.
CertoS.T., DailyC.M., CanellaA.A., & DaltonD.R. (2003). Giving money to get money: How CEO stock options and CEO equity enhance IPO valuations. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 643–653.
17.
ChenG., HambrickD.C., & PollockT.G. (2008). Puttin’ on the Ritz: Pre–IPO enlistment of prestigious affiliates as deadline–induced remediation. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 954–975.
18.
CloodtM., HagedoornJ., & KranenburgV.H. (2006). Mergers and acquisitions: Their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high–tech industries. Research Policy, 35, 642–654.
19.
CoffR.W. (1999). How buyers cope with uncertainty when acquiring firms in knowledge–intensive industries: Caveat emptor. Organization Science, 10, 144–161.
20.
CohenW. & LevinthalD. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
21.
ColomboM., MustarP., & WrightM. (2010). Dynamics of science–based entrepreneurship. Journal of Technology Transfer, forthcoming.
22.
DeanD.H. & BiswasA. (2001). Third party organization endorsement of products: An advertising cue affecting customer pre–purchase evaluation of goods and services. Journal of Advertising, 30, 41–58.
23.
DehejiaR.H. & WahbaS. (2002). Propensity score matching methods for nonexperimental casual studies. Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 151–161.
24.
EnsleyM.D. & HmieleskiK.M. (2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university–based and independent start–ups. Research Policy, 34, 1091–1105.
25.
European Commission. (2005). Cohesion policy in support of growth and jobs: Community strategic guidelines, 2007–2013. Brussels, 05.07.2005 COM(2005) 0299.
26.
FilatotchevI., TomsS., & WrightM. (2006). The firm's strategic dynamics and corporate governance lifecycle. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 2, 256–279.
27.
GeorgeG., ZahraS.A., & WoodD.R. (2002). The effects of business–university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: A study of publicly traded biotechnology companies. Journal of Business Venturing, 17, 577–609.
28.
GompersP.A. (1996). Grandstanding in the venture capital industry. Journal of Financial Economics, 42, 133–156.
29.
GrilichesZ. (1992). The search of R&D spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94, 29–S47.
30.
HigginsM.C. & GulatiR. (2003). Getting off to a good start: The effects of upper echelon affiliations on underwriter prestige. Organization Science, 14, 244–263.
31.
HigginsM.C. & GulatiR. (2006). Stacking the deck: The effect of upper echelon affiliations for entrepreneurial firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 1–26.
32.
HigginsM.J., StephanP., & ThursbyJ. (2008). Conveying quality and value in emerging industries: Star scientists and the role of learning in biotechnology. Working paper. Atlanta, GA: Andrew Young School of Policy Studies.
33.
HsuD.H. (2007). Experienced entrepreneurial founders, organizational capital, and venture capital funding. Research Policy, 36, 722–741.
34.
HubbardR. (1998). Capital market imperfections and investment. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 193–225.
35.
HughesA. (2003). Knowledge transfer, entrepreneurship and economic growth: Some reflections and implications for policy in the Netherlands. Centre for Business Research Working Paper No. 273. Cambridge, U.K.: University of Cambridge Centre for Business Research.
36.
JainB.A. & KiniO. (1994). The post–issue operating performance of IPO Firms. Journal of Finance, 49, 1699–1726.
37.
JensenM.C. & MecklingW.H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 4, 305–360.
38.
LandryR., AmaraN., & RherradI. (2006). Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin–offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities. Research Policy, 35, 1599–1615.
39.
LockettA., SiegelD., WrightM., & EnsleyM.D. (2005). The creation of spin–off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications. Research Policy, 34, 981–993.
40.
LoughranT. & RitterJ.R. (1995). The new issues puzzle. Journal of Finance, 50, 23–51.
41.
MacLachlanA. (1995). Trusting outsiders to do your research: How does industry learn to do it?Research and Technology Management, 38, 48–53.
42.
MegginsonW.L. & WeissK. (1991). Venture capitalist certification in initial public offerings. Journal of Finance, 46, 879–903.
43.
MeyerM. (2003). Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? Research–based ventures and public support mechanism. R&D Management, 33, 107–115.
44.
MianS.A. (1997). Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: An integrative framework. Journal of Business Venturing, 2, 251–285.
45.
MikkelsonW.H., PartchM.M., & ShahK. (1997). Ownership and operating performance of companies that go public. Journal of Financial Economics, 44, 281–307.
46.
MoseyS. & WrightM. (2007). From human capital to social capital: A longitudinal study of technology–based academic entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 909–935.
47.
MustarP. (1998). Partnerships, configurations and dynamics in the creation and development of SMEs by researchers. Industry and Higher Education, 12, 217–221.
48.
MustarP., RenaultM., ColomboM.G., PivaE., FontesM., LockettA., et al. (2006). Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research–based spin–offs: A multi dimensional taxonomy. Research Policy, 35, 289–308.
49.
MustarP. & WrightM. (2010). Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin–off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Transfer, forthcoming.
50.
NelsonT. (2003). The persistence of founder influence: Management, ownership, and performance effects at initial public offering. Strategic Management Journal, 24, 707–724.
51.
OliverA.L. & LiebeskindJ.P. (1998). Three levels of networking for sourcing intellectual capital in biotechnology: Implications for studying interorganizational networks. International Studies of Management and Organization, 27, 76–103.
52.
O'SheaR.P., AllenJ.T., ChevalierA., & RocheF. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities. Research Policy, 34, 994–1009.
53.
O'SheaR.P., ChughH., & AllenT.J. (2008). Determinants and consequences of university spin–off activity: A conceptual framework. Journal of Technology Transfer, 33, 653–666.
54.
PaleariS., PellizzoniE., & VismaraS. (2008). The going public decision: Evidence from the IPOs in Italy and in the UK. International Journal of Applied Decision Sciences, 1, 131–152.
55.
PaleariS., RitterJ.R., & VismaraS. (2009). Explaining the simultaneous consolidation and fragmentation of Europe's stock markets. Working paper. Bergamo: University of Bergamo.
56.
PollockT.G. & GulatiR. (2007). Standing out from the crowd: The visibility–enhancing effects of IPO–related signals on alliance formation by entrepreneurial firms. Strategic Organization, 5, 339–374.
57.
PowersJ.B. & McDougallP.P. (2005). University start–up formation and technology licensing with firms that go public: A resource–based view of academic entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 291–311.
58.
QuintasP., WieldD., & MasseyD. (1992). Academic–industry links and innovation: Questioning the science park model. Technovation, 12, 161–175.
59.
RaoH. (1994). The social construction of reputation: Certification contests, legitimation, and the survival of organizations in the American automobile industry: 1895–1912. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 29–44.
60.
ReuerJ.J. & ShenJ.C. (2003). The extended merger and acquisition process: Understanding the role of IPOs in corporate strategy. European Management Journal, 21, 192–198.
61.
RitterJ.R. (1991). The long–run performance of initial public offerings. Journal of Finance, 46, 3–27.
62.
RitterJ.R. & WelchI. (2002). A review of IPO activity, pricing and allocations. Journal of Finance, 57, 1795–1828.
63.
RoodmanD. (2006). How to do xtabond2: An introduction to “difference” and “system” GMM in Stata. Working Paper 103. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development.
64.
RothaermelF.T., AgungS.D., & JiangL. (2007). University entrepreneurship: A taxonomy of the literature. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 691–791.
65.
SandersG.W. & BoivieS. (2004). Sorting things out: Valuation of new firms in uncertain markets. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 167–186.
66.
ShaneS. (2004). Academic entrepreneurship: University spinoffs and wealth creation. Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
67.
ShaneS. & StuartT. (2002). Organizational endowments and the performance of university start–ups. Management Science, 48, 154–170.
68.
ShraderR. & SiegelD.S. (2007). Entrepreneurial team experience, strategy, and the long–term performance of high–growth technology–based new ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 31, 893–907.
69.
SiegelD.S., WaldmanD., & LinkA. (2003). Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: An exploratory study. Research Policy, 32, 27–48.
70.
SpenceA.M. (1974). Market signaling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
71.
StiglitzJ.E. (2000). The contributions of the economics of information to twentieth century economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 1441–1478.
72.
StiglitzJ.E. & WeissA. (1981). Credit rationing in markets with imperfect information. American Economic Review, 71, 393–410.
73.
TobinJ. (1969). A general equilibrium approach to monetary theory. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 1, 15–29.
74.
TobinJ. & BrainardW. (1968). Pitfalls in financial model building. American Economic Review, 58, 99–122.
75.
VanaelstI., ClarysseB., WrightM., LockettA., MorayN., & S'JegersR. (2006). Entrepreneurial team development in academic spinouts: An examination of team heterogeneity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30, 249–271.
76.
WrightM., LockettA., ClarysseB., & BinksM. (2006). University spin–out companies and venture capital. Research Policy, 35, 481–501.
77.
ZahraS.A., VeldeE.V., & LarranetaB. (2007). Knowledge conversion capability and the performance of corporate and university spin–offs. Industrial and Corporate Change, 16, 569–608.
78.
ZhangJ. (2009). The performance of university spin–offs: An exploratory analysis using venture capital data. Journal of Technology Transfer, 34, 255–285.
