신생기업의 경영성과와 기업,산업효과와의 연계성 분석 = 경영전략적 접근을 중심으로

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This paper explores how some recently established startups have grown to be the nation’s largest firms. To pursue this issue, 1993 and 2003 Fortune 500 Indexes are compared, and firms that appeared before 1993, left the Index, and appeared back by 2003 are filtered out. Amazingly, 358 firms have newly entered the Index since 1993. Among them, 241 firms (67.2%) were originally founded as startups. The entries by firms that were originally incorporated as subsidiaries, M&As, spinoffs, and joint ventures are 53, 43, 11, and 10 firms respectively. I focus on 44 rapidly growing startups established after 1975, and I refer to these firms as “rapid-growth” startups. Through historic analysis, this paper finds that their exceptional rapid growth is highly associated with several distinctive strategic behaviors. For this purpose, post-1985 six month returns using adjusted closing stock prices and post-1985 six month sales growth rates are collected and various firm strategies are tracked by six month intervals. As a result, following strategic behaviors are considered: related and non-related diversification, M&As for acquiring technologies and skilled labor force and for removing competitors, strategic alliances for new product development and for co-marketing, and niche marketing. The performance of rapid-growth startups is compared with their early competitors’. A higher proportion of the startups is associated with the above-mentioned strategic behaviors. All the strategic behaviors have started to sharply increase since the early 1990’s, and the evolution of the strategic behaviors perfectly coincides with the expansion of the startups. A panel “startup, industry, and time” fixed effect (FE) model is constructed to test if the startups benefit more from the strategic behaviors than their competitors and to see which one between firm and industry effects plays a more important role in enhancing the performance of rapid-growth startups. As performance measures, six-month stock returns is used. According to the empirical results, non-related diversification rather than related diversification, alliance for co-marketing rather than alliance for new product development, and M&As for removing competitors rather than M&As for acquiring technologies and skilled labor force enhance the returns and sales growth of rapid-growth startups. Furthermore, their impacts on the performance measure are significantly greater for the startups compared to the competitors. The effect of niche marketing is also significant and has the largest effect among strategic behaviors. Therefore, it is evident that the rapidgrowth startups take advantage of such strategic behaviors more than their competitors do. Another important finding from the panel analysis is that firm effects, say specific competitiveness, rather than industry effects play a crucial role in shaping the exceptional growth of rapid-growth startups. This result is very meaningful because this paper is the first investigation on the firm and industry effects done with a truncated dataset including service firms. For example, McGahan (1999) used a complete set of manufacturers from Compustat to explore the topic, yielding the result that firm effects explain two thirds of the stock market performance of manufacturers. The empirical result of this study is consistent with her conclusion however, this paper can be said to generate a more robust result because landmark strategic behaviors are added in the panel estimation of firm and industry effects. There are several aspects in the paper needing emphasis. First, the top two important strategic behaviors improving the performance of rapid-growth startups are niche marketing and non-related diversification. The underlying motive of both strategic behaviors is “exploring new markets”. Entering a new market may be a risky investment, but essential to successful startups. Second, among four strategic behaviors, diversification premium or discount is p

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 Fluck,Z., "Why Do Firms Merge and Then Divest? A Theory of Financial Synergy" 319-346, 1999

2 Fuller,K., "What Do Returns to Acquiring Firms Tell Us? Evidence from Firms That Maket Many Acqusitions" 57 : 1763-1793, 2002

3 Servaes,H., "Value of Diversification during the Conglomerate Merger Wave" 51 (51): 1201-1225, 1996

4 Lang,L, "Torbin’s q,Corporate Diversification,and Firm Performance" 102 (102): 1248-1280, 1994

5 Brook,J.O., "The Source of Abnormal Returns from Strategic Alliance Announcements" 13 (13): 145-161, 2005

6 Mcgahan,A.M., "The Performance of US Corporations,1981-1994" XLVII (XLVII): 373-398, 1999

7 Roll,R., "The Hubris Hypothesis of Corporate Takeovers" 59 : 197-216, 1986

8 Khanna,T., "The Dynamics of Learning Alliances: Competition, Cooperation, and Relative Scope" 19 (19): 193-221, 1988

9 Lamont,O.A, "The Diversification Discount,Cash Flow versus Returns" 56 (56): 1693-1721, 2001

10 Koza,M.P., "The Co- Evolution of Strategic Alliances, Organization Science, Special Issue" 9 (9): 255-264, 1998

11 Bradley,M., "Synergistic Gains from Corporate Acquisitions and their Division Between the Stockholders of Target and Acquiring Firms" 21 : 3-40, 1988

12 Robinson,W.T., "Sources of Market Pioneer Advantages in Consumer Goods Industries" 22 (22): 305-317, 1985

13 Yim,Hyung Rok, "Quality Shock vs.Market Shock:Lessons from Recently Established Rapidly Growing U.S.Startups" 23 (23): 141-164, 2008

14 Huck,S., "Profitable Horizontal Mergers without Cost Advantages.The Role of Internal Organization Information and Market Structure" 71 (71): 575-587, 2004

15 Schmalensee,R., "Product Differentiation Advantages of Pioneering Brands" 72 (72): 349-365, 1983

16 Mitchell,M., "Price Pressure around Mergers" 59 : 31-63, 2004

17 Covin,J.G., "Pioneers and followers:competitive tactics,environment,and firm growth" 15 (15): 175-210, 2000

18 Golder,P.N., "Pioneer Advantage,Marketing Logic or Marketing Legend" 30 (30): 158-117, 1993

19 Gomes,J., "Optimal Diversification:Reconciling Theory and Evidence" 59 (59): 507-535, 2004

20 Gowrisankaran,G., "Network Externalities and Technology Adoption:Lessons from Electronic Payments" 35 (35): 260-276, 2004

21 Stein,J., "International Capital Markets and the Competition for Corporate Resources" 52 (52): 111-133, 1997

22 Das,S., "Impact of Strategic Alliances on Firm Valuation" 41 (41): 27-41, 1998

23 Rumelt,R.P., "How Much Does Industry Matter?" 12 (12): 167-185, 1991

24 Liberman,M.B., "First-Mover Advantage" 9 : 41-58, 1988

25 Moeller,S.B., "Firm Size and the Gains from Acquisitions" 73 : 201-208, 2004

26 Rose,N., "Firm Diversification and CEO Compensation:Managerial Ability or Executive Entrenchment?" 28 (28): 489-514, 1997

27 Tufano,P, "Financial innovation and first mover advantage" 25 : 213-240, 1989

28 Campa,J.M., "Explaining the Diversification Discount" 57 (57): 1731-1762, 2002

29 Klepper,S., "Entry,Exit,Growth,and Innovation over the Product Life Cycle" 86 (86): 562-583, 1996

30 Kalyaranam,G., "Dynamic effects of the order of entry on market share,trial penetration,and repeat purchases for consumer goods" 11 : 235-250, 1992

31 Maksimovic,V., "Do Conglomerate Firms Allocate Resources Inefficiently Across Industries? Theory and Evidence" 57 (57): 721-767, 2002

32 Burch,T.R., "Divisional Diversity and the Conglomerate Discount:Evidence from Spinoffs" 70 (70): 69-98, 2003

33 Villalonga,B., "Diversification Discount or Premium? New Evidence from the Business Information Tracking Series" 59 (59): 479-506, 2004

34 Tavlos,N.G., "Corporate Takeover Bids,Mothod of Payment,and Bidding Firm’s Stock Returns" 52 : 943-963, 1987

35 Myers,S.C., "Corporate Financing and Investment Decisions When Firms have Information that Investors Do Not Have" 13 : 187-221, 1984

36 Gorg,H., "Analysing Foreign Market Entry,The Choice between Greenfield Investment and Acquisitions" 27 (27): 165-181, 2000

37 Durand,R., "Age,order of entry,strategic orientation,and organizational performance" 15 : 471-494, 2001