Valuing University–Based Firms: The Effects of Academic Affiliation on IPO Performance

This paper investigates for the first time the valuation of university–based companies and their ability to translate the potential benefits of academic affiliation into long–term performance gains. It contributes to the literature on technology transfer by expanding the view from the product market to the financial market. Among the 499 high–tech SMEs that went public on the stock markets of Germany, the U.K., France, and Italy between 1995 and 2003, we find that 131 were university–based firms. For firms who publicize the fact that they are university based and have chosen to go public, the affiliation with a university is recognized as beneficial by investors. Our econometric models show that affiliation with a university enhances valuation, in particular when academics are present in the Top Management Team at the time of the initial public offering. However, over the long run, university–based companies exhibit worse operating performance than independent firms.

[1]  Joshua B. Powers,et al.  University Start-Up Formation and Technology Licensing with Firms that Go Public: A Resource-Based View of Academic Entrepreneurship , 2005 .

[2]  Philippe Mustar,et al.  Partnerships, Configurations and Dynamics in the Creation and Development of SMEs by Researchers , 1998 .

[3]  George A. Akerlof,et al.  The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism , 1970 .

[4]  Alexander MacLachlan,et al.  Trusting Outsiders to Do Your Research: How Does Industry Learn to Do It? , 1995 .

[5]  Stephen Bond,et al.  Dynamic panel data models: a guide to micro data methods and practice , 2002 .

[6]  Teresa Nelson,et al.  The persistence of founder influence: management, ownership, and performance effects at initial public offering , 2003 .

[7]  Ginés Hernández-Cánovas,et al.  Effect of the Number of Banking Relationships on Credit Availability: Evidence from Panel Data of Spanish Small Firms , 2007 .

[8]  D. Massey,et al.  Academic-industry links and innovation: questioning the science park model* , 1992 .

[9]  Shaker A. Zahra,et al.  The effects of business-university alliances on innovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnology companies , 2002 .

[10]  Thomas J. Allen,et al.  Determinants and consequences of university spinoff activity: a conceptual framework , 2008 .

[11]  Albert A. Cannella,et al.  Giving Money to Get Money: How CEO Stock Options and CEO Equity Enhance IPO Valuations , 2003 .

[12]  J. Stiglitz.  The Contributions of the Economics of Information to Twentieth Century Economics , 2000 .

[13]  David Roodman.  How to do Xtabond2: An Introduction to Difference and System GMM in Stata , 2006 .

[14]  Mike Wright,et al.  From Human Capital to Social Capital: A Longitudinal Study of Technology–Based Academic Entrepreneurs , 2007 .

[15]  R. Coff,et al.  How Buyers Cope with Uncertainty When Acquiring Firms in Knowledge-Intensive Industries: Caveat Emptor , 1999 .

[16]  James Tobin,et al.  Pitfalls in Financial Model-Building , 1968 .

[17]  W. Beaver,et al.  Have Financial Statements Become Less Informative? Evidence from the Ability of Financial Ratios to Predict Bankruptcy , 2004 .

[18]  T. Allen,et al.  Entrepreneurial orientation, technology transfer and spinoff performance of U.S. universities , 2005 .

[19]  Stefano Paleari,et al.  The going public decision: evidence from the IPOs in Italy and in the UK , 2008, Int. J. Appl. Decis. Sci..

[20]  Mike Wright,et al.  Entrepreneurial Team Development in Academic Spinouts: An Examination of Team Heterogeneity , 2006 .

[21]  D. Siegel,et al.  Assessing the Relationship between Human Capital and Firm Performance: Evidence from Technology–Based New Ventures , 2007 .

[22]  Mike Wright,et al.  University Spin-Out Companies and Venture Capital , 2006 .

[23]  M. C. Jensen,et al.  Harvard Business School; SSRN; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI); Harvard University - Accounting & Control Unit , 1976 .

[24]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[25]  R. Hubbard,et al.  Capital-Market Imperfections and Investment , 1997 .

[26]  Bharat A. Jain,et al.  The Post-Issue Operating Performance of IPO Firms , 1994 .

[27]  Ranjay Gulati,et al.  Getting Off to a Good Start: The Effects of Upper Echelon Affiliations on Underwriter Prestige , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[28]  Robert E. Carpenter,et al.  Capital Market Imperfections, High-Tech Investment, and New Equity Financing , 2002 .

[29]  Monica C. Higgins,et al.  Stacking the Deck: The Effect of Upper Echelon Affiliations for Entrepreneurial Firms , 2006 .

[30]  S. Trevis Certo,et al.  Influencing Initial Public Offering Investors with Prestige: Signaling with Board Structures , 2003 .

[31]  J. Stiglitz,et al.  Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Information , 1981 .

[32]  Sarfraz A. Mian,et al.  Assessing and managing the university technology business incubator: An integrative framework , 1997 .

[33]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  The Search for R&D Spillovers , 1992 .

[34]  Mike Wright,et al.  The creation of spin-off firms at public research institutions: Managerial and policy implications , 2005 .

[35]  Steven Manaster,et al.  Initial Public Offerings and Underwriter Reputation , 1990 .

[36]  R. Gilson,et al.  Venture Capital and the Structure of Capital Markets: Banks Versus Stock Markets , 1997 .

[37]  Junfu Zhang,et al.  The performance of university spin-offs: an exploratory analysis using venture capital data , 2009 .

[38]  M. Meyer.  Academic entrepreneurs or entrepreneurial academics? research–based ventures and public support mechanisms , 2003 .

[39]  Nabil Amara,et al.  Why are some university researchers more likely to create spin-offs than others? Evidence from Canadian universities , 2006 .

[40]  James R. Booth,et al.  Capital raising, underwriting and the certification hypothesis , 1986 .

[41]  Timothy G. Pollock,et al.  Puttin' on the Ritz: Pre-Ipo Enlistment of Prestigious Affiliates as Deadline-Induced Remediation , 2008 .

[42]  W. Mikkelson,et al.  Ownership and operating performance of companies that go public , 1997 .

[43]  J. Ritter.  The Long-Run Performance of Initial Public Offerings , 1991 .

[44]  Z. Griliches.  The Search for R&D Spillovers , 1991 .

[45]  Scott Shane,et al.  Academic Entrepreneurship: University Spinoffs and Wealth Creation , 2004 .

[46]  Ranjay Gulati,et al.  Standing out from the crowd: the visibility-enhancing effects of IPO-related signals on alliance formation by entrepreneurial firms , 2007 .

[47]  Mike Wright,et al.  Conceptualising the heterogeneity of research-based spin-offs: A multi-dimensional taxonomy , 2006 .

[48]  Abhijit Biswas,et al.  Third-Party Organization Endorsement of Products: An Advertising Cue Affecting Consumer Prepurchase Evaluation of Goods and Services , 2001 .

[49]  David H. Hsu.  Experienced entrepreneurial founders, organizational capital, and venture capital funding , 2007 .

[50]  Tim Loughran,et al.  The New Issues Puzzle , 1995 .

[51]  J. Tobin.  A General Equilibrium Approach to Monetary Theory , 1969 .

[52]  M. Wright,et al.  The firm's strategic dynamics and corporate governance life‐cycle , 2006 .

[53]  Shaker A. Zahra,et al.  Knowledge conversion capability and the performance of corporate and university spin-offs , 2007 .

[54]  J. Reuer,et al.  The Extended Merger and Acquisition Process:: Understanding the Rôle of IPOs in Corporate Strategy , 2003 .

[55]  Mike Wright,et al.  Dynamics of Science-based entrepreneurship , 2010 .

[56]  Igor Filatotchev,et al.  Founders, Private Equity Investors, and Underpricing in Entrepreneurial IPOs , 2009 .

[57]  R. Blundell,et al.  Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models , 1998 .

[58]  Michael D. Ensley,et al.  A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups , 2005 .

[59]  Scott Shane,et al.  Special Issue on University Entrepreneurship and Technology Transfer: Organizational Endowments and the Performance of University Start-ups , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[60]  Stefano Paleari,et al.  The M&A dynamics of European science-based entrepreneurial firms , 2010 .

[61]  Mike Wright,et al.  Convergence or path dependency in policies to foster the creation of university spin-off firms? A comparison of France and the United Kingdom , 2010 .

[62]  Allen N. Berger,et al.  The Economics of Small Business Finance: The Roles of Private Equity and Debt Markets in the Financial Growth Cycle , 1998 .

[63]  Amalya L. Oliver,et al.  Three Levels of Networking for Sourcing Intellectual Capital in Biotechnology , 1997 .

[64]  Steven Boivie,et al.  Sorting things out: valuation of new firms in uncertain markets , 2004 .

[65]  F. Rothaermel,et al.  University entrepreneurship: a taxonomy of the literature , 2007 .

[66]  Monica C. Higgins,et al.  Stacking the Deck: The Effects of Top Management Backgrounds on Investor Decisions , 2006 .

[67]  J. Hagedoorn,et al.  Mergers and acquisitions : their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries , 2006 .

[68]  R. Z. Norman,et al.  Status inconsistency in task situations: A test of four status processing principles. , 1992 .

[69]  William L. Megginson,et al.  Venture Capitalist Certification in Initial Public Offerings , 1991 .

[70]  Paula E. Stephan,et al.  Conveying Quality and Value in Emerging Industries: Star Scientists and the Role of Learning in Biotechnology , 2008 .

[71]  H. Rao.  The Social Construction of Reputation: Certification Contests, Legitimation, and the Survival of Organizations in the American Automobile Industry: 1895–1912 , 1994 .

[72]  Alan Hughes,et al.  Knowledge Transfer, Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth: Some Reflections and Implications for Policy in the Netherlands , 2003 .

[73]  Paul A. Gompers.  Grandstanding in the venture capital industry , 1996 .