This study examines the determinants of firms’ liquidation and acquisition in the Indian electronics industry during the period 1990–2006. It is argued that liquidation and acquisition are alternative modes of exit. Therefore, these modes of exit might have different determinants. To explore this possibility, a multinomial logistic (MNL) regression model is estimated using cross-sectional data of 540 firms. We find that the effects of age, size, leverage, innovative competence and profitability are significant for the likelihood of liquidation. In contrast, the effect of profitability was found insignificant for the likelihood of acquisition. Moreover, the effects of size and leverage are dissimilar across the exit modes, that is, large firms are more likely to be liquidated but less likely to be acquired, and high leverage firms are more likely to be liquidated but less likely to be acquired. The findings of this study show that the determinants of liquidation and acquisition modes of exit are different in the Indian electronics industry.
AgarwalR.GortM. (2002). Firm and product life cycles and firm survival. American Economic Review, 92(2), 184–90.
2.
AltmanE.I. (1968). Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate bankruptcy. Journal of Finance, 23(4), 589–609.
3.
AudretschD.B. (1991). New firm survival and technological regime. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 441–50.
4.
BojnecS.XavierA. (2007). Determinants of firm exit in Slovenian manufacturing.Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(5), 717–27.
5.
BraggL.A.DaltonT.J. (2004). Factors affecting the decision to exit dairy farming: A two-stage regression analysis. Journal of Dairy Science, 87(9), 3092–98.
6.
DasS.SrinivasanK. (1997). Duration of firms in an infant industry: The case of Indian computer hardware. Journal of Development Economics, 53(1), 157–67.
7.
DeanA. (1997). The characteristics of takeover target firms: The case of the English brewing industry, 1945–1960. Review of Industrial Organization, 12(4), 579–91.
8.
DeweyD. (1961). Mergers and cartels: Some reservations about policy. American Economic Review,51(2), 255–62.
9.
DisneyR.HaskelJ.HedenY. (2003). Entry, exit and establishment survival in UK manufacturing. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 51(1), 91–112.
10.
EvansD.S. (1987). The relationship between firm growth, size, and age: Estimates for 100 manufacturing industries. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 567–81.
11.
EricsonR.PakesA. (1995). Markov-perfect industry dynamics: A framework for empirical work. Review of Economic Studies, 62(1), 53–82.
12.
Esteve-PérezS.Sanchis-LlopisA.Sanchis-LlopisJ.A. (2010). A competing risks analysis of firms’ exit. Empirical Economics, 38(2), 281–304.
13.
FotopoulosG.LouriH. (2000). Location and survival of new entry. Small Business Economics, 14(4), 311–21.
14.
HallB.H. (1987). The relationship between firm size and firm growth in the U.S. manufacturing sector. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 583–606.
15.
HarhoffD.StahlK.WaywodeM. (1998). Legal form, growth and exit of West German firms—Empirical results for manufacturing, construction, trade and service industries. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(4), 453–88.
16.
HausmanJ.McFaddenD. (1984). Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica, 52(5), 1219–40.
17.
HeeleyM.B.KingD.R.CovinJ.G . (2006). Effects of firm R&D investment and environment on acquisition likelihood. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 1513–35.
18.
HensherD.A.RoseJ.M.GreeneW.H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HudsonJ. (1986). An analysis of company liquidations. Applied Economics, 18(2), 219–35.
20.
JensenM.C. (1986). Agency cost of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. American Economic Review, 76(2), 323–29.
21.
JovanovicB. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50(3), 649–70.
22.
KornaiJ. (1998). The place of soft budget constraint syndrome in economic theory. Journal of Comparative Economics, 26(1), 11–18.
23.
LongJ.S.FreeseJ. (2001). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using STATA. Texas: STATA Corporation.
24.
LoveR. (2008). Industrial policy and the Indian electronics industry, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Unpublished Dissertation. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/44809
25.
MajumdarS.K. (1997). The impact of size and age on firm-level performance: Some evi-dence from India. Review of Industrial Organization, 12(2), 231–41.
26.
MataJ.PortugalP. (1994). Life duration of new firms. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 42(3), 227–45.
27.
MahmoodT. (2000). Survival of newly founded businesses: A log-logistic model approach. Small Business Economics, 14(3), 223–37.
28.
PastenaV.RulandW. (1986). The merger/bankruptcy alternative. The Accounting Review, 61(2), 288–301.
29.
RosenbaumD.I.LamortF. (1992). Entry, barriers, exit, and sunk costs: An analysis. Applied Economics, 24(3), 297–304.
30.
ScharyM.A. (1991). The probability of exit. RAND Journal of Economics, 22(3), 339–53.
31.
ShapiroD.KhemaniR.S. (1987). The determinants of entry and exit reconsidered. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 5(1), 15–26.
32.
ShleiferA.W.VishnyR.W. (1992). Liquidation values and debt capacity: A market equilibrium approach. Journal of Finance, 47(4), 1343–46.
33.
TrainK. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
