The recency of technological inputs and financial performance

Inventions differ in terms of the age of the knowledge base they build upon. We examine what effects differences in the recency of knowledge inputs have on financial performance. Using threshold regression analysis, we isolate three regimes that exhibit different associations between recency and stock return. We find that for firms whose new patents use inputs in the mid-range of the technological recency distribution, the relationship is positive; higher recency leads to higher stock return. However, for firms whose new patents make use of either nascent or very mature technological inputs, the effects are negative; higher recency leads to lower stock return. These findings indicate that it is not firms utilizing the most recent technological inputs that experience the highest returns to their inventive activity. Indeed, firms operating at the technological input frontier have market returns significantly below the mean. Rather, it is firms whose new patents utilize medial-aged technological inputs (i.e., firms using inputs slightly behind the technology frontier) that tend to experience the highest returns. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  A. Gallant,et al.  Fitting Segmented Polynomial Regression Models Whose Join Points Have to Be Estimated , 1973 .

[2]  K. Arrow.  Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[3]  R. Thaler,et al.  Does the Stock Market Overreact , 1985 .

[4]  Joseph T. Mahoney.  Economic Foundations of Strategy , 2004 .

[5]  T. Stengos,et al.  Income Inequality and Economic Development: Evidence from the Threshold Regression Model , 2000 .

[6]  V. Mahajan,et al.  Editorial: Issues and Opportunities in New Product Development: An Introduction to the Special Issue , 1997 .

[7]  S. Kothari.  Capital Markets Research in Accounting , 2001 .

[8]  S. Lippman,et al.  Uncertain Imitability: An Analysis of Interfirm Differences in Efficiency under Competition , 1982 .

[9]  R. Davies.  Hypothesis testing when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative , 1977 .

[10]  S. Girma.  Absorptive Capacity and Productivity Spillovers from FDI: A Threshold Regression Analysis , 2005 .

[11]  R. Katila,et al.  Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: a longitudinal study , 2001 .

[12]  A. Nerkar,et al.  Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry , 2001 .

[13]  Eduardo S. Schwartz,et al.  Investment Under Uncertainty. , 1994 .

[14]  R. Ball,et al.  An empirical evaluation of accounting income numbers , 1968 .

[15]  W. Cleveland,et al.  Locally Weighted Regression: An Approach to Regression Analysis by Local Fitting , 1988 .

[16]  Curtis M. Grimm,et al.  Timing, order and durability of new product advantages with imitation , 2000 .

[17]  Z. Griliches.  Market Value, R&D, and Patents , 1981 .

[18]  Jesper B. Sørensen,et al.  Aging, Obsolescence, and Organizational Innovation , 2000 .

[19]  Rosanna Garcia,et al.  A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review , 2002 .

[20]  A. Spence.  Entry, Capacity, Investment and Oligopolistic Pricing , 1977 .

[21]  D. B. Montgomery,et al.  First‐mover advantages , 1988 .

[22]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  R&D, Patents, and Market Value Revisited: is There Evidence of a Secondtechnological Opportunity Related Factor? , 1988, Economics of Innovation and New Technology.

[23]  M. Polanyi.  Chapter 7 – The Tacit Dimension , 1997 .

[24]  Bruce E. Hansen,et al.  Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing, and inference , 1999 .

[25]  D. Aaker,et al.  The Financial Information Content of Perceived Quality , 1994 .

[26]  Baruch Lev,et al.  Information Disclosure Strategy , 1992 .

[27]  David A. Aaker,et al.  The Value Relevance of Brand Attitude in High-Technology Markets , 2001 .

[28]  A. Dixit.  The Role Of Investment In Entry-Deterrence , 1980 .

[29]  Vijay Mahajan,et al.  Issues and Opportunities in New Product Development: An Introduction to the Special Issue , 1997 .

[30]  Roger C. Kormendi,et al.  Earnings Innovations, Earnings Persistence, and Stock Returns , 1987 .

[31]  Chin W. Yang,et al.  Demand for cigarettes revisited: an application of the threshold regression model , 2006 .

[32]  Kent D. Daniel,et al.  NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES EVIDENCE ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF CROSS SECTIONAL VARIATION IN STOCK RETURNS , 1996 .

[33]  Richard G. Sloan,et al.  Information in prices about future earnings: Implications for earnings response coefficients , 1992 .

[34]  K. Chan,et al.  Consistency and limiting distribution of the least squares estimator of a threshold autoregressive model , 1993 .

[35]  G. Urban,et al.  Information, marketing, and pricing in the U.S. antiulcer drug market. , 1995, The American economic review.

[36]  Steven P. Schnaars.  Managing Imitation Strategies: How Later Entrants Seize Markets from Pioneers , 1994 .

[37]  R. Katila.  New Product Search Over Time: Past Ideas in Their Prime? , 2002 .

[38]  G. Tellis,et al.  Pioneer Advantage: Marketing Logic or Marketing Legend? , 1993 .

[39]  E. Mansfield,et al.  Imitation Costs and Patents: An Empirical Study , 1981 .

[40]  F. Narin,et al.  Science and Technology as Predictors of Stock Performance , 1999 .

[41]  Richard A. Lambert,et al.  The information content of security prices , 1980 .

[42]  J. Barney.  Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage , 1991 .

[43]  Rita Gunther McGrath.  A Real Options Logic for Initiating Technology Positioning Investments , 1997 .

[44]  D. Teece.  Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy , 1993 .

[45]  Constantinos C. Markides,et al.  Fast Second: How Smart Companies Bypass Radical Innovation to Enter and Dominate New Markets , 2005 .

[46]  D. B. Montgomery,et al.  First-mover (dis)advantages: Retrospective and link with the resource-based view , 1998 .

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

[48]  J. V. Reenen,et al.  The Profitability of Innovating Firms , 1993 .

[49]  W. Cleveland.  Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots , 1979 .

[50]  Atul Nerkar,et al.  Old Is Gold? The Value of Temporal Exploration in the Creation of New Knowledge , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[51]  E. Fama,et al.  The Cross‐Section of Expected Stock Returns , 1992 .

[52]  Lee Fleming,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Recombinant Uncertainty in Technological Search , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[53]  George Foster,et al.  Brand Values and Capital Market Valuation , 1998 .

[54]  Michael Funke,et al.  Threshold Effects and Regional Economic Growth - Evidence from West Germany , 2002, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[55]  E. Fama,et al.  Multifactor Explanations of Asset Pricing Anomalies , 1996 .

[56]  J. Schumpeter,et al.  The Theory of Economic Development , 2017 .

[57]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  The myopia of learning , 1993 .