Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The M&A exit outcomes of new, young firms

  • Published:
Small Business Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examine the M&A exit behavior of new, young businesses and the way the exit is shaped by their innovative capabilities and their growth in employment. Using a large sample of startups founded in 2004, we find that businesses organized as corporations had very different acquisition outcomes than those organized as sole proprietorships. These different acquisition outcomes could be explained by differences in innovation and growth potential in the startup year as well throughout the business’ lifetime. Our results suggest that higher innovation and employment growth explain the likelihood of M&A exit for new, young corporations but not for sole proprietorships. These results indicate that acquirers value the growth potential signaled by corporations through intellectual property rights and growth in employment and, therefore, businesses with high quality innovations are the most attractive targets for acquisitions. Young corporations with external equity investors are more likely to become M&A targets, as angels or venture capitalists have the first opportunity to liquidate some or all their equity holdings when the business becomes an acquisition target. Our results also show that young corporations owned by serial entrepreneurs are more likely to become M&A targets. From an acquirer’s perspective, entrepreneurs with startup experience are typically favored due to their proven ability to realize the growth potential of a venture as well as their willingness and ability to harvest value for themselves and their investors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The case for small venture funds, Industry Ventures, 2014

  2. More companies pulling deals to be acquired, WSJ, Feb. 21, 2005

  3. Retrieved on 11/30/2015 from http://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/consumer-business/articles/wholesale-distribution-mergers-and-acquisitions.html

References

  • Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for lemons: qualitative uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arum, R., & Muller, W. (2004). The re-emergence of self-employment: a comparative study of self-employment dynamics and social inequality. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Astebro, T. & Winter, J. K. (2012) More than a dummy: the probability of failure, survival and acquisition of firms in financial distress. European Management Review 9, 1–17

  • Audretsch, D. B. (1991). New-firm survival and the technological regime. Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(3), 441–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation and industry evolution. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Mahmood, T. (1995). New-firm survival: new results using a hazard function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77, 97–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Klomp, L., & Thurik, A. R. (2002). Gibrat’s law: are the services different?. ERIM report series research in management ERS-2002-04-STR. Erasmus: Research Institute of Management (ERIM).

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J. R. (1995). The dynamics of industrial competition: a north American perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, J. R., & Rafiquzzaman, M. (1995). Selection versus evolutionary adaptation: learning and post-entry performance. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13, 501–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, T. (2005). Analysis of young, small firms that have closed: delineating successful from unsuccessful closures. Journal of Business Venturing, 20, 343–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayar, O., & Chemmanur, T. (2011). IPOs and the valuation premium puzzle: a theory of exit choice by entrepreneurs and venture capitalists. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 46, 1755–1793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, S. & Kaplan, J. (2006). Baird/M&A market analysis 2006 mid-year M&A update.

  • Bertram, T. A., Tentoff, E., Johnson, P. C., Tawil, B., Van Dyke, M., & Hellman, K. B. (2012). Hurdles in tissue engineering/regenerative medicine product commercialization: a pilot survey of governmental funding agencies and the financial industry. Tissue Engineering Part A, 18(21–22), 2187–2194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brau, J. C., Francis, F., & Kohers, N. (2003). The choice of IPO versus takeover: empirical evidence. Journal of Business, 76, 583–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruderl, J., Preisendorfer, P., & Ziegler, R. (1992). Survival chances of newly founded business organizations. American Sociological Review, 57(2), 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2011). Born to flip: exit decisions of entrepreneurial firms in high- tech and low-tech industries. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 21, 473–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, J. C. (2000). Built to Flip. Fast Company, 32, 131–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. C., Gimeno-Gascon, F. G., & Woo, C. Y. (1994). Initial human and financial capital as predictors of new venture performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 9(5), 371–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming, D. (2008). Contracts and exits in venture capital finance. The Review of Financial Studies, 21(5), 1947–1982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidsson, P., & Honig, B. (2003). The role of social and human capital among nascent entrepreneurs. Journal of Business Venturing, 18, 301–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeTienne, D. R. (2010). Entrepreneurial exit as a critical component of the entrepreneurial process: theoretical development. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2), 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeTienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. S. (2012). Impact of founder experience on exit intentions. Small Business Economics, 38, 351–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doms, M., Dunne, T., & Roberts, M. J. (1995). The role of technology use in the survival and growth of manufacturing plants. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13, 523–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farhat, J., & Robb, A. M. (2013). Analyzing the 2004–2011 KFS multiply imputed data. Available at SRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2367300.

  • Farhat, J., & Robb, A. M. (2014). Applied survey data analysis using Stata: The Kauffman firm survey data. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2477217.

  • Gimeno, J., Folta, T. B., Cooper, A. C., & Woo, C. Y. (1997). Survival of the fittest? Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 750–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granstrand, O., Bohlin, E., Oskarsson, S., & Sjoberg, N. (1992). External technology acquisitions in large multi-technology corporations. R&D Management, 22, 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grindley, P., & Teece, D. J. (1997). Managing intellectual capital: licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Review, 39(2), 8–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzman, J., & Stern S. (2016). Nowcasting and placecasting entrepreneurial quality and performance. Forthcoming in Measuring Entrepreneurial Businesses: Current Knowledge and Challenges, Haltiwanger, Hurst, Miranda, and Schoar (Ed).

  • Hall, B. (2002). The financing of research and development. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18(1), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurst, E., & Pugsley, B. (2011). What do small businesses do?. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, 43(2), pages 73–142.

  • Kerr, W. R., Lerner, J., & Schoar, A. (2014). The consequences of entrepreneurial finance: evidence from angel financings. Review of Financial Studies, 27(1), 20–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, D., Dalton, D., Daily, C., & Covin, J. (2004). Meta-analyses of post-acquisition performance: indications of unidentified moderators. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klepper, S. (2002). The capabilities of new firms and the evolution of the U.S. automobile industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 645–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanjouw, J. O., & Schankerman, M. A. (2001). Enforcing intellectual property rights. NBER Working Paper No. W8656 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=294094

  • Lerner, J. (1997). An empirical exploration of a technology race. RAND Journal of Economics, 28(2), 228–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahmood, T. (1992). Does the hazard rate of new plants vary between high- and low-tech industries? Small Business Economics, 4, 201–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mata, J., & Portugal, P. (1994). Life duration of new firms. Journal of Industrial Economics, 42, 227–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mata, J., Portugal, P., & Guimaraes, P. (1995). The survival of new plants: start-up conditions and post-entry evolution. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13, 459–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohr, V. & Garnsey, E. (2009). Acquisitions as business opportunity for science-based firms: a resource-based evolutionary perspective. Paper presented at the European Network on the Economics of the Firm, 2009 Workshop.

  • Mueller, D. C. (1969). A theory of conglomerate mergers. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 83, 643–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norback, P., Persson, L., & Svensson, R. (2009). Creative destruction and productive preemption. IFN Working paper.

  • Taylor, M. P. (1999). Survival of the fittest? An analysis of self-employment duration in Britain. The Economic Journal, 109, C140–C155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ucbasaran, D., Wright, M., & Westhead, P. (2003). A longitudinal study of habitual entrepreneurs: starters and acquirers. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 15, 207–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Praag, M. M. (2003). Business survival and success of young small business owners. Small Business Economics, 21, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Witteloostuijn, A. (1998). Bridging behavioral and economic theories of decline: organizational inertia, strategic competition and chronic failure. Management Science, 44(4), 502–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, S., & Cockburn, I. (2010). Patents and the survival of internet-related IPOs. Research Policy, 39, 214–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennberg, K., & DeTienne, D. R. (2014). What do we really mean when we talk about exit? A critical review of research on entrepreneurial exit. International Small Business Journal, 32(1), 4–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., DeTienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. S. (2010). Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial exit: divergent exit routes. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(2), 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westhead, P., Ucbasaran, D., & Wright, M. (2003). Differences between private firms owned by novice, serial, and portfolio entrepreneurs: implications for policy makers and practitioners. Regional Studies, 37, 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Carmen Cotei gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Barney School of Business at the University of Hartford. The authors are grateful for the research support provided by the Kauffman Foundation. We would like to thank the editors David Robinson, Alicia Robb, and Sharon Matusik for their invaluable comments and suggestions as well as participants of the 2015 Entrepreneurial Dynamics: Evidence from the Kauffman Firm Survey at Duke University, 2016 Eastern Finance Association Conference, and 2016 Entrepreneurial Dynamics: Evidence from the Kauffman Firm Survey at University of Colorado Bolder.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hartford, 200 Bloomfield Ave., West Hartford, CT, 06117, USA

    Carmen Cotei

  2. Central Connecticut State University, 1615 Stanley St., New Britain, CT, 06050, USA

    Joseph Farhat

Authors
  1. Carmen Cotei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joseph Farhat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carmen Cotei.

Variables’ Names and Definitions

Variables’ Names and Definitions

Table 8
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cotei, C., Farhat, J. The M&A exit outcomes of new, young firms. Small Bus Econ 50, 545–567 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9907-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-017-9907-1

Keywords

JEL classification

Search

Navigation