Was There Too Little Entry During the Dot Com Era?

We present four stylized facts about the Dot Com Era: (1) there was a widespread belief in a Get Big Fast business strategy; (2) the increase and decrease in public and private equity investment was most prominent in the internet and information technology sectors; (3) the survival rate of dot com firms is on par or higher than other emerging industries; and (4) firm survival is independent of private equity funding. To connect these findings we offer a herding model that accommodates a divergence between the information and incentives of venture capitalists and their investors. A Get Big Fast belief cascade may have led to overly focused investment in too few internet startups and, as a result, too little entry.

[1]  Quality-Adjusted Prices for the American Automobile Industry: 1906-1940 , 1995 .

[2]  P. David.  Clio and the Economics of QWERTY , 1985 .

[3]  Brett Trueman,et al.  The Eyeballs Have it: Searching for the Value in Internet Stocks , 2000 .

[4]  D. North.  Competing Technologies , Increasing Returns , and Lock-In by Historical Events , 1994 .

[5]  Robert Reid,et al.  Architects of the Web : 1,000 days that built the future of business , 1997 .

[6]  S. Bikhchandani,et al.  Learning from the behavior of others : conformity, fads, and informational cascades , 1998 .

[7]  Hal R. Varian,et al.  Information rules - a strategic guide to the network economy , 1999 .

[8]  S. Bikhchandani,et al.  You have printed the following article : A Theory of Fads , Fashion , Custom , and Cultural Change as Informational Cascades , 2007 .

[9]  Steven Klepper,et al.  Firm Survival and the Evolution of Oligopoly , 2002 .

[10]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  Does Entry Size Matter? The Impact of the Life Cycle and Technology on Firm Survival , 2001 .

[11]  C. Shapiro,et al.  How to License Intangible Property , 1986 .

[12]  J. Mata,et al.  The survival of new domestic and foreign‐owned firms , 2002 .

[13]  Gerard J. Tellis,et al.  First to Market, First to Fail? Real Causes of Enduring Market Leadership , 2006 .

[14]  Hideo Owan,et al.  Internet Exchange Formation and Competition When Potential Participants Can Coordinate , 2004 .

[15]  Jeffrey M. Woodbridge.  Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data , 2002 .

[16]  Christopher L. Tucci,et al.  Internet Business Models and Strategies , 2000 .

[17]  Toby E. Stuart,et al.  Liquidity Events and the Geographic Distribution of Entrepreneurial Activity , 2003 .

[18]  Michael J. Cooper,et al.  A Rose.Com by Any Other Name , 2000 .

[19]  C. Shapiro,et al.  Systems Competition and Network Effects , 1994 .

[20]  J. Barlow.  dot.con. The Greatest Story Ever Sold. , 2002 .

[21]  W. Arthur,et al.  Increasing returns and the new world of business. , 1996, Harvard business review.

[22]  A. Banerjee,et al.  A Simple Model of Herd Behavior , 1992 .

[23]  C. Prahalad,et al.  The Core Competence of the Corporation , 1990 .

[24]  D. Hirshleifer,et al.  Herd Behaviour and Cascading in Capital Markets: A Review and Synthesis , 2003 .

[25]  David B. Audretsch,et al.  The rate of hazard confronting new firms and plants in U.S. manufacturing , 1994 .

[26]  J. Suárez.  Business Creation and the Stock Market , 2000 .

[27]  Darren Filson,et al.  The Impact of E-Commerce Strategies on Firm Value: Lessons from Amazon.Com , 2001 .

[28]  E. Ofek,et al.  The Valuation and Market Rationality of Internet Stock Prices , 2002 .

[29]  P. Schultz,et al.  Do the Individuals Closest to Internet Firms Believe They are Overvalued? , 2000 .

[30]  George Hendrikse,et al.  The Theory of Industrial Organization , 1989 .

[31]  Roger Lowenstein,et al.  Origins of the Crash: The Great Bubble and Its Undoing , 2004 .

[32]  H. G. Ng,et al.  Bubblelepsy: The Behavioral Wellspring of the Internet Stock Phenomenon , 2004 .

[33]  Paul A. Gompers,et al.  The venture capital cycle , 1999 .

[34]  Suresh Kotha,et al.  The Value-Relevance of Network Advantages: The Case of E-Commerce Firms , 2003 .