Preemption Risk and the Valuation of R&D Ventures

We develop a model of a multiple-stage patent race between two rival firms to study the impact of technological competition on value and return dynamics of Research and Development (R&D) ventures. The model describes a firm’s capital budgeting decision process in the presence of technical uncertainty, market uncertainty and preemption. We characterize the equilibrium of the race and derive optimal investment strategies. Analysis of the equilibrium firm value shows that the premium accruing to the technology “leader” is larger than the loss accruing to the technology “lagger” and that the marginal effect of success/failure is increasing in the uncertainty of cash flows. Risk premia demanded by an ownership claim to competing R&D ventures (i) increase when a rival pulls ahead in the race and (ii) are lower when rivals are “closer” to each other in the development process. Compared to the case where rival firms merge, R&D competition reduces the industry value and lowers the expected completion time for a project. The erosion in value, due to preemption, is higher when firms are “neck-and-neck” and in early stages of development. Numerical simulations show that, in later stages of development, risk premia demanded by the perfectly collusive market are generally lower than risk premia demanded by a portfolio of competing firms. The opposite is true in early stages of development, which suggests that R&D competition may actually lower the cost of early stage financing. JEL Classification: C73, G12, G31.

[1]  Han T. J. Smit,et al.  A real options and game-theoretic approach to corporate investment strategy under competition , 1993 .

[2]  L. Trigeorgis Valuing the impact of uncertain competitive arrivals on deferrable real investment opportunities , 1990 .

[3]  Steven R. Grenadier The Strategic Exercise of Options: Development Cascades and Overbuilding in Real Estate Markets. , 1996 .

[4]  E. Prescott,et al.  Investment Under Uncertainty , 1971 .

[5]  J. Filar,et al.  Competitive Markov Decision Processes , 1996 .

[6]  R. Green,et al.  Valuation and Return Dynamics of New Ventures , 1998 .

[7]  Tan Wang Equilibrium with new investment opportunities , 2001 .

[8]  Glenn C. Loury,et al.  Market Structure and Innovation , 1979 .

[9]  Ariel Rubinstein,et al.  A Course in Game Theory , 1995 .

[10]  Tom Lee,et al.  Market Structure and Innovation: A Reformulation , 1980 .

[11]  Drew Fudenberg,et al.  Preemption, Leapfrogging, and Co­mpetition in Patent Races , 1983 .

[12]  Jennifer F. Reinganum A DYNAMIC GAME OF R AND D: PATENT PROTECTION AND COMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR' , 1982 .

[13]  Steven R. Grenadier Information Revelation Through Option Exercise , 1999 .

[14]  Allen M. Weiss,et al.  Investment in technological innovations: An option pricing approach , 1997 .

[15]  W. Perraudin,et al.  Real Options and Preemption , 1996 .

[16]  J. Vickers,et al.  Perfect Equilibrium in a Model of a Race , 1985 .

[17]  Carl Shapiro,et al.  Dynamic R&D Competition , 1985 .

[18]  J. Vickers,et al.  Racing with Uncertainty , 1987 .

[19]  Alexander J. Triantis,et al.  Dynamic R&D Investment Policies , 1999 .

[20]  Bart M. Lambrecht,et al.  Strategic sequential investments and sleeping patents , 2000 .