Refine
Document Type
- Working Paper (7) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (7) (remove)
Keywords
- Innovation (7) (remove)
This paper shows that active investors, such as venture capitalists, can affect the speed at which new ventures grow. In the absence of product market competition, new ventures financed by active investors grow faster initially, though in the long run those financed by passive investors are able to catch up. By contrast, in a competitive product market, new ventures financed by active investors may prey on rivals that are financed by passive investors by “strategically overinvesting” early on, resulting in long-run differences in investment, profits, and firm growth. The value of active investors is greater in highly competitive industries as well as in industries with learning curves, economies of scope, and network effects, as is typical for many “new economy” industries. For such industries, our model predicts that start-ups with access to venture capital may dominate their industry peers in the long run. JEL Classifications: G24; G32 Keywords: Venture capital; dynamic investment; product market competition
Innovations are a key factor to ensure the competitiveness of establishments as well as to enhance the growth and wealth of nations. But more than any other economic activity, decisions about innovations are plagued by failures of the market mechanism. As a response, public instruments have been implemented to stimulate private innovation activities. The effectiveness of these measures, however, is ambiguous and calls for an empirical evaluation. In this paper we make use of the IAB Establishment Panel and apply various microeconometric methods to estimate the effect of public measures on innovation activities of German establishments. We find that neglecting sample selection due to observable as well as to unobservable characteristics leads to an overestimation of the treatment effect and that there are considerable differences with regard to size class and betweenWest and East German establishments.
Der Beitrag bietet eine Übersicht zu den Zusammenhängen zwischen Immaterialgüterrechten (IP [intellectual property]-Rechte), Privatautonomie und Innovation. Demnach beruht das IP-Recht auf der Annahme, dass erst die Kombination aus fungiblen Ausschließlichkeitsrechten und Privatautonomie – also die juristische Form der Marktwirtschaft – einen innovationsförderlichen Effekt verspricht. Dementsprechend kombiniert das geltende Recht ein hohes materielles IP-Schutzniveau mit einer weitreichenden Anerkennung der Privatautonomie der Berechtigten. Dieser Regulierungsansatz hat den Vorteil, dass sehr anpassungsfähige Rahmenbedingungen für Innovationen geschaffen werden. Wer für seine Innovation eine umfassende Exklusivität benötigt, kann unter Geltung der beiden genannten Prinzipien ebenso operieren wie Akteure, die auf IP-Schutz teilweise oder ganz verzichten möchten, weil ihnen dies unter den gegebenen Wettbewerbsbedingungen vorzugswürdig erscheint. Und doch erläutert der Beitrag, dass die naheliegende Folgerung zu kurz greift, der Gesetzgeber könne sich darauf beschränken, möglichst umfassende und zugleich fungible IP-Rechte zu kodifizieren, da der Markt stets für eine effiziente und auch sonst sozial wünschenswerte Ressourcenallokation sorge. Denn die mit ausschließlichen IP-Rechten verbundenen Transaktionskosten stehen diesem Ziel nicht selten im Wege. Damit zeigt sich, dass keine noch so elaborierte Vertragsrechtstheorie die Frage nach dem Sinn des logisch vorrangigen Eigentums erübrigt.
This paper studies a two-country production economy with complete and frictionless financial markets and international trade of final goods in which competition in R&D leads to endogenous new firm creation and economic growth. Current monopolists ("incumbents") and potential new firms ("entrants") compete in developing patents domestically. I find that this induces negative spillover in consumption, i.e. home country's consumption decreases in response to positive productivity shocks in the foreign country. Second, there is positive spillover in R&D expenditures, i.e. home country's R&D expenditures increase in response to positive foreign productivity shocks, which is consistent with empirical evidence on international technology diffusion. Furthermore, the stylized fact in international macroeconomics that the cross-country correlation of consumption growth is significantly lower than the one of output growth is explained by the model. Fourth, net exports are negatively correlated with output as in the data. Fifth, the model matches the high comovement of the risk-free rates and stock returns across countries. Finally, the model produces a positive value premium.
We investigate the impact of reporting regulation on corporate innovation. Exploiting thresholds in Europe’s regulation and a major enforcement reform in Germany, we find that forcing firms to publicly disclose their financial statements discourages innovative activities. Our evidence suggests that reporting regulation has significant real effects by imposing proprietary costs on innovative firms, which in turn diminish their incentives to innovate. At the industry level, positive information spillovers (e.g., to competitors, suppliers, and customers) appear insufficient to compensate the negative direct effect on the prevalence of innovative activity. The spillovers instead appear to concentrate innovation among a few large firms in a given industry. Thus, financial reporting regulation has important aggregate and distributional effects on corporate innovation.
We investigate the impact of reporting regulation on corporate innovation. Exploiting thresholds in Europe’s regulation and a major enforcement reform in Germany, we find that forcing firms to publicly disclose their financial statements discourages innovative activities. Our evidence suggests that reporting regulation has significant real effects by imposing proprietary costs on innovative firms, which in turn diminish their incentives to innovate. At the industry level, positive information spillovers (e.g., to competitors, suppliers, and customers) appear insufficient to compensate the negative direct effect on the prevalence of innovative activity. The spillovers instead appear to concentrate innovation among a few large firms in a given industry. Thus, financial reporting regulation has important aggregate and distributional effects on corporate innovation.
Venture capital-backed firms, unavoidable value-destroying trade sales, and fair value protections
(2020)
This paper investigates the implications of the fair value protections contemplated by the standard corporate contract (i.e., the standard contract form for which corporate law provides) for the entrepreneur–venture capitalist relationship, focusing, in particular, on unavoidable value-destroying trade sales. First, it demonstrates that the typical entrepreneur–venture capitalist contract does institutionalize the venture capitalist’s liquidity needs, allowing, under some circumstances, for counterintuitive instances of contractually-compliant value destruction. Unavoidable value-destroying
trade sales are the most tangible example. Next, it argues that fair value protections can prevent the entrepreneur and venture capitalist from allocating the value that these transactions generate as they would want. Then, it shows that the reality of venture capital-backed firms calls for a process of adaptation of the standard corporate contract that has one major step in the deactivation or re-shaping of fair value protections. Finally, it argues that a standard corporate contract aiming to promote social welfare through venture capital should feature flexible fair value protections