Growth paths and routes to exit: 'shadow of death' effects for new firms in Japan

Abstract

Research has recently emphasized that the non-survival of entrepreneurial firms can be disaggregated into distinct exit routes such as merger and acquisition (M&A), voluntary closure, and failure. Firm performance is an alleged determinant of exit route. However, there is a lack of evidence linking exit routes to their previous growth performance. We contribute to this gap by analyzing a cohort of incorporated firms in Japan and find some puzzles for the standard view. Our empirical analysis suggests that sales growth generally reduces the probability of exit by merger, voluntary liquidation, and also bankruptcy. However, the relationship is U-shaped—such that rapid growth actually increases the probability of exit. More generally, each of the three exit routes can occur all across the growth rate distribution. Large firms are more likely to exit via merger or bankruptcy, while small firms are more likely to exit via voluntary liquidation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Closely related to our current research is the work that has briefly investigated the performance of Japanese firms in the 2 years before a merger event (Kubo and Saito 2012, see their Tables 2 and 3 and Figure 1).

  2. 2.

    The literature has even invented the concept of an “involuntary exit strategy,” although we doubt that something truly strategic can also be involuntary.

  3. 3.

    Given the scope of this paper, however, we do not investigate the determinants of startup size, but take startup size as given, and focus on post-entry growth and exit routes.

  4. 4.

    To be fair, this idea has been hinted at in the previous literature, e.g. Wennberg and DeTienne (2014, p9): “the type of exit routes available and the willingness to exit may differ significantly between lifestyle entrepreneurs and growth entrepreneurs.”

  5. 5.

    Moreover, we have another advantage to use COSMOS2 that firms’ status can be traced after firms’ relocation. In contrast, firms’ relocation is often regarded as exit from a region and entry into another region in government statistics, partly because the surveys are done by prefecture.

  6. 6.

    The credit investigation company asks the managers about the numbers for total annual sales, number of employees, profits etc., although the managers do not necessarily disclose the exact amount. So, the investigators usually attempt to obtain such information by a number of means, for example, by asking whether the number is same as the previous year. This explains why the number for sales is sometimes identical to the previous year (i.e. change of zero yen from one year to the next), and why we have a likely over-representation of annual growth rates of sales of exactly zero.

  7. 7.

    Note that the earliest years are not included in the regressions because these observations are lost due to the inclusion of lagged growth as independent variable.

  8. 8.

    Figure A3 in the Appendix shows (parametric) quadratic fits of the non-parametric patterns in Figure 4, including confidence intervals. Figure A3 therefore helps to establish that the observed nonlinearity is statistically significant.

  9. 9.

    For discussion of advantages of a discrete-time survival model, see Wiklund et al. (2010).

  10. 10.

    Regarding the effect size: Table 3 column (2) shows that if lagged growth increases by one standard deviation, then the change in the odds of exit via voluntary liquidation (compared to the benchmark case of survival) is 0.052 x (exp(−0.359) = 0.0363.

  11. 11.

    See Haans et al. (2016) for critical issues in theorizing and testing of quadratic relationships.

  12. 12.

    There is no clear cut-off point to distinguish between small and large firms because the firm size distribution in our sample is a continuous and approximately lognormal distribution (see Figure A1 in the Appendix). Therefore, we distinguish between small and large size subsamples by referring to the median size.

  13. 13.

    This effect is only found in the specification without quadratic terms for the second lag of growth. When quadratic terms are added, the coefficient is no longer statistically significant.

  14. 14.

    One potential drawback, however, of this alternative independent variable is that growth is measured over different growth periods across firms (e.g. time from startup to exit could be 2 years for one firm, and 6 years for another), and averaging over periods of different lengths could introduce bias. This could make it problematic to compare firms whose growth unfolds over different timescales (e.g. if rapid growth is harder to sustain over longer periods). This possible measurement error should be kept in mind.

References

  1. Ahlers, G. K., Cumming, D., Günther, C., & Schweizer, D. (2015). Signaling in equity crowdfunding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39, 955–980.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Almus, M. (2004). The shadow of death - an empirical analysis of the pre-exit performance of new German firms. Small Business Economics, 23, 189–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arora, A., & Nandkumar, A. (2011). Cash-out or flameout! Opportunity cost and entrepreneurial strategy: theory, and evidence from the information security industry. Management Science, 57, 1844–1860.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bartelsman, E., Scarpetta, S., & Schivardi, F. (2005). Comparative analysis of firm demographics and survival: evidence from micro-level sources in OECD countries. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 365–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Baù, M., Sieger, P., Eddleston, K. A., & Chirico, F. (2017). Fail but try again? The effects of age, gender, and multiple-owner experience on failed entrepreneurs’ reentry. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41, 909–941.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bernard, A. B., Massari, R., Reyes, J. D., & Taglioni, D. (2017). Exporter dynamics, firm size and growth, and partial year effects. American Economic Review, 107, 3211–3228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Blanchard, P., Huiban, J. P., & Mathieu, C. (2014). The shadow of death model revisited with an application to French firms. Applied Economics, 46, 1883–1893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Botham, R., & Graves, A. (2011). Regional variations in new firm job creation: the contribution of high growth startups. Local Economy, 26, 95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brännback, M., Carsrud, A. L., & Kiviluoto, N. (2014). Understanding the myth of high growth firms: the theory of the greater fool. New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht & London: Springer Science & Business Media. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Carreira, C., & Teixeira, P. (2011). The shadow of death: analysing the pre-exit productivity of Portuguese manufacturing firms. Small Business Economics, 36, 337–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2005). A matter of life and death: innovation and firm survival. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 1167–1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2011). Born to flip. Exit decisions of entrepreneurial firms in high-tech and low-tech industries. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 2, 473–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cefis, E., & Marsili, O. (2012). Going, going, gone. Exit forms and the innovative capabilities of firms. Research Policy, 41, 795–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Coad, A. (2014). Death is not a success: reflections on business exit. International Small Business Journal, 32, 721–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Coad, A., Frankish, J., Roberts, R., & Storey, D. (2013). Growth paths and survival chances: an application of Gambler’s ruin theory. Journal of Business Venturing, 28, 615–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Coad, A., Frankish, J. S., & Storey, D. J. (2019). Too fast to live? Effects of growth on survival across the growth distribution. Journal of Small Business Management, forthcoming.

  17. Coad, A. (2018). Firm age: a survey. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 28, 13–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. de Jong, J. P., & Marsili, O. (2015). Founding a business inspired by close entrepreneurial ties: does it matter for survival? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39, 1005–1025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dencker, J. C., Gruber, M., & Shah, S. K. (2009). Pre-entry knowledge, learning and the survival of new firms. Organization Science, 20, 516–537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. DeTienne, D. R., McKelvie, A., & Chandler, G. N. (2015). Making sense of entrepreneurial exit strategies: a typology and test. Journal of Business Venturing, 30, 255–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Diwisch, S., Voithofer, P., & Weiss, C. (2006). The ‘shadow of succession’: a non-parametric matching approach. Mimeo.

  23. Fackler, D., Schnabel, C., & Wagner, J. (2014). Lingering illness or sudden death? Pre-exit employment developments in German establishments. Industrial and Corporate Change, 23, 1121–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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, 750–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Graebner, M. E., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2004). The seller's side of the story: acquisition as courtship and governance as syndicate in entrepreneurial firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49, 366–403.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Griliches, Z., & Regev, H. (1995). Firm productivity in Israeli industry 1979–1988. Journal of Econometrics, 65, 175–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Haans, R. F., Pieters, C., & He, Z. L. (2016). Thinking about U: theorizing and testing U-and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 1177–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Harada, N. (2007). Which firms exit and why? An analysis of small firm exits in Japan. Small Business Economics, 29, 401–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Harhoff, D., Stahl, K., & Woywode, M. (1998). Legal form, growth and exit of west German firms—empirical results for manufacturing, construction, trade and service industries. Journal of Industrial Economics, 46, 453–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Headd, B. (2003). Redefining business success: distinguishing between closure and failure. Small Business Economics, 21, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Honjo, Y. (2015). Why are entrepreneurship levels so low in Japan? Japan and the World Economy, 36, 88–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Honjo, Y., & Nagaoka, S. (2018). Initial public offering and financing of biotechnology start-ups: evidence from Japan. Research Policy, 47, 180–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ito, T. (2011). Reform of financial supervisory and regulatory regimes: what has been achieved and what is still missing. International Economic Journal, 25, 553–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50, 649–670.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kato, M., & Honjo, Y. (2015). Entrepreneurial human capital and the survival of new firms in high-and low-tech sectors. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 25, 925–957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kato M, Onishi K, Honjo Y, (2017). Does patenting always help new-firm survival? Discussion paper series no. 159, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University.

  37. Khelil, N. (2016). The many faces of entrepreneurial failure: Insights from an empirical taxonomy. Journal of Business Venturing, 31, 72–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kiyota, K., & Takizawa, M. (2007). The shadow of death: pre-exit performance of firms in Japan. Discussion paper series no.204, Hitotsubashi University.

  39. Klotz, A. C., Hmieleski, K. M., Bradley, B. H., & Busenitz, L. W. (2014). New venture teams: a review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management, 40, 226–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Koski, H., & Pajarinen, M. (2015). Subsidies, the shadow of death and labor productivity. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 15, 189–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kubo, K., & Saito, T. (2012). The effect of mergers on employment and wages: evidence from Japan. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 26, 263–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lansing, P., & Wechselblatt, M. (1983). Doing business in Japan: the importance of the unwritten law. The International Lawyer, 17, 647–660.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lee, S. H., Peng, M. W., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Bankruptcy law and entrepreneurship development: a real options perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32, 257–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lee, S. H., Yamakawa, Y., Peng, M. W., & Barney, J. B. (2011). How do bankruptcy laws affect entrepreneurship development around the world? Journal of Business Venturing, 26, 505–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Le Mens, G., Hannan, M. T., & Polos, L. (2011). Founding conditions, learning, and organizational life chances: age dependence revisited. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56, 95–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Levinthal, D. A. (1991). Random walks and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 397–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Marlow, S., Mason, C., & Mullen, H. (2011). Advancing understanding of business closure and failure: a critical re-evaluation of the business exit decision. Paper presented at the Institute for Small Business and Entrepreneurship Conference 2011, Sheffield, 9–10 November, 2011.

  48. Mehrotra, V., van Schaik, D., Spronk, J., & Steenbeek, O. W. (2008). Impact of Japanese mergers on shareholder wealth: an analysis of bidder and target companies. Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM) Report Series, ERS-2008-032-F&A.

  49. Miller, C. C., Washburn, N. T., & Glick, W. H. (2013). The myth of firm performance. Organization Science, 24, 948–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Parker, S. C. (2018). The economics of entrepreneurship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Pe'er, A., Vertinsky, I., & Keil, T. (2016). Growth and survival: the moderating effects of local agglomeration and local market structure. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 541–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Peng, M. W., Yamakawa, Y., & Lee, S. H. (2010). Bankruptcy laws and entrepreneur–friendliness. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34, 517–530.

  53. Ponikvar, N., Kejžar, K. Z., & Peljhan, D. (2018). The role of financial constraints for alternative firm exit modes. Small Business Economics, 51, 85–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Porter, M. E., & Sakakibara, M. (2004). Competition in Japan. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(1), 27–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Ries, E. (2011). The lean startup: how today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Books.

  56. Schary, M. A. (1991). The probability of exit. RAND Journal of Economics, 22, 339–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sedlacek, P., & Sterk, V. (2017). The growth potential of startups over the business cycle. American Economic Review, 107, 3182–3210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Shepherd, D., & Wiklund, J. (2009). Are we comparing apples with apples or apples with oranges? Appropriateness of knowledge accumulation across growth studies. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 105–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Stinchcombe, A. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In J. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Storey, D. J. (2011). Optimism and chance: The elephants in the entrepreneurship room. International Small Business Journal, 29, 303–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Strese, S., Gebhard, P., Feierabend, D., & Brettel, M. (2018). Entrepreneurs' perceived exit performance: conceptualization and scale development. Journal of Business Venturing, 33, 351–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Tornqvist L., Vartia P., Vartia Y.O. (1985). How Should Relative Changes Be Measured? American Statistician39, 43–46.

  63. Villalonga, B., & McGahan, A. M. (2005). The choice among acquisitions, alliances, and divestitures. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 1183–1208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Wennberg, K., & Anderson, B. S. (2019). Editorial: enhancing quantitative exploratory entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Venturing, forthcoming.

  65. 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, 4–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Wennberg, K., Wiklund, J., Detienne, D. R., & Cardon, M. S. (2010). Reconceptualizing entrepreneurial exit: divergent exit routes and their drivers. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 361–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Wiklund, J., Baker, T., & Shepherd, D. (2010). The age-effect of financial indicators as buffers against the liability of newness. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 423–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Yamakawa, Y., & Cardon, M. S. (2017). How prior investments of time, money, and employee hires influence time to exit a distressed venture, and the extent to which contingency planning helps. Journal of Business Venturing, 32, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Zhou, H., & van der Zwan, P. (2019). Is there a risk of growing fast? The relationship between organic employment growth and firm exit. Industrial and Corporate Change, forthcoming.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Giulio Bottazzi, Elena Cefis, Masaru Karube, Francesco Lamperti, Sadao Nagaoka, Alessandro Nuvolari, and seminar participants at the Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies (Pisa, Italy), the Innovation Economics Workshop, Hitotsubashi University (Tokyo, Japan), and University of Bergamo (Bergamo, Italy) for many helpful comments and discussions. Any remaining errors are ours alone.

Funding

Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (No. 26285060) and (C) (No.18K01639), Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Masatoshi Kato.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Fig. A1
figure5

Distribution of log sales

Fig. A2
figure6

Lagged growth distribution (kernel density)

Fig. A3
figure7

Exit rates for each exit route across the growth rates distribution with confidence intervals (95%)

Table A1 Definition of variables
Table A2 Summary statistics for variables used in the regressions
Table A3 Correlation matrix of variables (Number of observations is 20,238)
Table A4 Summary statistics for independent variables by status: survival, merger, voluntary liquidation, and bankruptcy
Table A5 Summary statistics for independent variables for below- and above-median subsamples in terms of the number of employees at the first year of observation
Table A6 Complimentary log-log regression results

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Coad, A., Kato, M. Growth paths and routes to exit: 'shadow of death' effects for new firms in Japan. Small Bus Econ (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-020-00341-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Exit routes
  • Shadow of death
  • Post-entry growth
  • Start-up size
  • Voluntary liquidation
  • M&A

JEL codes

  • L26
  • L25