See MyersStewart, “Determinants of Corporate Borrowing,”Journal of Financial Economics, 5 (1977): 147–175; see also MyersS., “Finance Theory and Financial Strategy.” in HaxA., ed., Readings on Strategic Management (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1984). These ideas have been expanded by KesterCarl, “Today's Options for Tomorrow's Growth,”Harvard Business Review (March/April 1984); HamiltonWilliamMitchellGraham, “What Is Your R&D Worth,”The McKinsey Quarterly (1990), pp. 150–160: And CopelandTomWeinerJon, “Proactive Management of Uncertainty,”The McKinsey Quarterly (1990), pp. 133–152; TrigeorsisLeonMasonScott, “Valuing Managerial Flexibility,”Midland Corporate Finance Journal (1988), pp. 14–21.
2.
See BarneyJay, “Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy,”Management Science, 32 (1986): 1231–1241; RumeltRichard, “Towards a Strategic Theory of the Firm,” in LambRobert Boyden, ed., Competitive Strategic Management (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1984); WinterSidney, “Knowledge and Competence as Strategic Assets,” in TeeceD., ed., The Competitive Challenge—Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1987); and TeeceDavidPisanoGaryShuenAmy, “Resource-Based View of the Firm,” mimeo, 1991.
3.
There are more technical obstacles to the application of exact formulations, with a principal problem being the strong assumptions of “risk-neutral” valuations in the absence of arbitrage opportunities. Techniques, such as Monte Carlo simulations or decision trees, generally ignore entirely the option value, even they treat uncertainty explicitly.
4.
JohnsonKaplan, Relevance Lost: The Rise and Fall of Management Accounting (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1987).
5.
For two explanations, see DertouzosMichaelLesterRichardSolowRobert, Made in America: Regaining the Productive Edge (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 1989); and PorterMichael, ed., Investment Horizons in American Business (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, forthcoming).
6.
Useem and Gottlieb estimate the share of institutions holding equity in the U.S. to have risen from 29% in 1980 to 46% in 1990. See UseemMichaelGottliebMartin, “Corporate Restructuring, Ownership-Disciplined Alignment, and the Reorganization of Management,”Human Resource Management, 29 (1990): 285–306. Unpublished data from the Tokyo Stock exchange shows financial institutions holding 38.5% of Japanese equity in 1980 and 42.5% in 1988. For an overview, see PorterMichael, “Capital Disadvantage: America's Failing Capital Investment System,”Harvard Business Review (September/October 1992), pp. 65–82.
7.
ProwseStephen, “Institutional Investment Patterns and Corporate Financial Behavior in the United States and Japan,”Journal of Financial Economics, 27 (1990), pp. 43–66; GerlachMichael, “The Japanese Corporate Network: A Blockmodel Approach.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 (1992): 105–139; and BerglofErikPerottiEnrico, “The Japanese Financial Keiretsu as a Collective Enforcement Mechanism.” working paper #91-09, MIT Japan Program, 1991.
8.
The data are summarized in KogutBruce, “Capital Structure and Financial Institutions in the Federal Republic of Germany,” unpublished manuscript, 1982; primary data are drawn from Studienkommission, Grundsatzfragen der Kreditwirtschaft, Bericht der Studienkommission, Ministry of Finance, (Bonn: Wilhelm Stollfuss Verlag, 1979): Reliance on short-term debt is described in Charles Calomiris. “Regulation, Industrial Structure, and Instability in U.S. Banking: An Historical Perspective,” mimeo, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 1992.
9.
HoshiTakeoKashyapAnilSchaftsteinDavid, “Bank Monitoring and Investment: Evidence from the Changing Structure of Japanese Corporate Banking Relationships,” in HubbardR. Glenn, ed., Information, Investment, and Capital Markets (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago, 1990).
10.
LongJ. Bradford, “Did J.P. Morgan's Men Add Value?” in TeminPeter, ed., Inside the Business Enterprise: Historical Perspectives on the Use of Information (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1991).
11.
Michael Porter's Competitive Strategy (New York, NY: Free Press, 1980) represents the most well-known statement of this approach.
12.
See KogutBruceZanderUdo, “Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology,”Organization Science, 3 (1992): 383–397. BaldwinCarlissClarkKim [“Capabilities and Capital Investment: New Perspectives on Capital Budgeting,” working paper 92-004, 1991, Harvard Business School] develop in detail the link between options and capabilities.
13.
PrahaladHamel, “The Core Competence of the Corporation,”Harvard Business Review (May/June 1990), pp. 79–91.
14.
See the fascinating account by AdlerPaul, “The Learning Bureaucracy: New United Motor Manufacturing.” forthcoming in StawB.CummingsL., eds., Research in Organizational Behavior (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, forthcoming).
15.
See also, KogutBruce, “Joint Ventures and the Option to Acquire and to Expand,”Management Science (1991). pp. 19–33.
16.
Fortune, 1992, p. 60; cited by WolfBernardGlobermanSteven, “Strategic Alliances in the Automotive Industry: Motives and Implications,” mimeo, York University, 1992.
17.
See also, KulatilakaNalin, “The Value of Flexibility: The Case of a Dual-fuel Industrial Steam Boiler,”Financial Management Association, 1993, pp. 271–280.
18.
See also, KogutBruceKulatilakaNalin, “Operating Flexibility, Global Manufacturing, and the Option Value of a Multinational Network,”Management Science (forthcoming).
19.
See CarrollGlennHannanMichael, “Density Delay in the Evolution of Organizational Populations: A Model and Five Empirical Tests,”Administrative Science Quarterly, 34/3 (1989).
20.
See HallBronwyn, “Corporate Restructuring and Investment Horizons,” Working Paper #3794, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1991.