Advertisement

The Returns to Investments in Innovative Activities: An Overview and an Analysis of the Software Industry

  • Josh Lerner
Chapter
Part of the The Milken Institute Series on Financial Innovation and Economic Growth book series (MILK, volume 2)

Conclusions

The distribution of the returns to innovative activities, whether in the software industry or more generally across high-technology industries, is highly uneven. A small number of firms account for the bulk of the returns. An extensive theoretical literature on technological competition suggests that this empirical regularity is not surprising. This is true not only in high-technology firms in general, but also in the software industry specifically.

Moreover, predicting the success of high-technology firms is exceedingly difficult. Information problems and the intangible nature of the companies’ assets make it difficult for investors to avoid making numerous unsuccessful investments for each successful one. If investors are denied profits from even a handful of their most successful investments in innovative activities, their overall return is likely to fall dramatically.

Finally, this highly skewed distribution of rewards has substantial implications for the designers of regulatory policy. Because it is often impossible to predict which innovations will succeed, investors need to be assured that they will receive substantial returns from successful investments to offset the unsatisfactory returns from the many failed or less successful projects. If investors believe that they will be denied these returns by regulators, their willingness to fund the development of the next generation of innovative technologies will be greatly reduced.

Keywords

Venture Capitalist Initial Public Offering Private Equity Innovative Activity Harvard Business School 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barrett, M. James. 1994. “Testimony of M. James Barrett, Ph.D., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Genetic Therapy, Inc.,” Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress.Google Scholar
  2. Fama, Eugene F., French, Kenneth R. 1997. “Industry Costs of Equity,” Journal of Financial Economics, 43, pp. 153–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Flanagan, Patrick. 1993. “Drug Prices: What’s the Rationale?,” Management Review, 82(July), pp. 10–15.Google Scholar
  4. Fruhan, William E., Jr., Mullins, David W., Jr. 1992. “Communications Satellite Corporation: Teaching Note,” Harvard Business School Teaching Note No. 5-292-046.Google Scholar
  5. Fudenberg, Drew, Gilbert, Richard J., Stiglitz, Joseph E., Tirole, Jean. 1983. “Preemption, Leapfrogging and Competition in Patent Races,” European Economic Review, 22, pp. 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Genzyme Corporation. 1992. “OTA Report on Ceredase Alglucerase Injection Released,” Business Wire, October 5.Google Scholar
  7. Gilbert, Richard J., Newbery, David M.G. 1982. “Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly,” American Economic Review, 72, pp. 514–526.ADSGoogle Scholar
  8. Gompers, Paul A., Lerner, Josh. 1998a. “Money Chasing Deals? The Impact of Fund Inflows on Private Equity Valuations,” Unpublished Working Paper, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  9. Gompers, Paul A., Lerner, Josh. 1998b. “Risk and Return in Private Equity Investments: The Challenge of Performance Assessment,” Journal of Private Equity, 1(Winter), pp. 5–12.Google Scholar
  10. Gompers, Paul A., Lerner, Josh. 1998. The Venture Cycle. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Grabowski, Henry, Vernon, John. 1990. “A New Look at the Returns to Pharmaceutical R&D,” Management Science, 36, pp. 804–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grabowski, Henry, Vernon, John. 1994. “Returns on New Drug Introductions in the 1980s,” Journal of Health Economics, 13, pp. 386–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graham, John. 1996. “The Surge in Satellite Finance,” Institutional Investor, 30(November), pp. 117–124.Google Scholar
  14. Harris, Christopher, Vickers, John. 1985. “Perfect Equilibrium in a Model of a Race,” Review of Economic Studies, 52, pp. 193–209.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris, Christopher, Vickers, John. 1987. “Racing with Uncertainty,” Review of Economic Studies, 54, pp. 1–22.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horsley, Phillip. 1997. Trends in Private Equity. San Francisco: Horsley ∣ Bridge.Google Scholar
  17. Huntsman, Blaine, Hoban, James P. 1980. “Investment in New Enterprise: Some Observations about Risk, Return, and Market Structure,” Financial Management, 9(Summer), pp. 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lanjouw, Jean O. 1993. “Patent Protection: Of What Value and for How Long?,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 4475.Google Scholar
  19. Lerner, Josh. 1998. “‘Angel’ Financing and Public Policy: An Overview,” Journal of Banking and Finance, 22, pp. 773–783.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lerner, Josh, Merges, Robert P. 1998. “The Control of Technology Alliances: An Empirical Analysis of the Biotechnology Industry,” Journal of Industrial Economics, 46, pp. 125–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mullins, David W., Jr. 1976. “Communications Satellite Corporation,” Harvard Business School Case No. 276-195.Google Scholar
  22. Pakes, Ariel. 1986. “Patents as Options: Some Estimates of the Value of Holding European Patent Stocks,” Econometrica, 54, pp. 755–784.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pakes, Ariel, Schankerman, Mark. 1984. “The Rate of Obsolescence of Knowledge, Research Gestation Lags, and the Private Rate of Return to Research Resources,” in Patents. R&D and Productivity, Zvi Griliches, editor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press for the National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  24. Reinganum, Jennifer R. 1983. “Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly,” American Economic Review, 73, pp. 741–748.Google Scholar
  25. Reinganum, Jennifer R. 1984. “Practical Implications of Game Theoretic Models of R&D,” American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 74, pp. 61–66.Google Scholar
  26. Reinganum, Jennifer R. 1989. “The Timing of Innovation: Research, Development and Diffusion,” in The Handbook of Industrial Organization, Richard Schmalensee and Robert D. Willig, editors. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  27. Scherer, F.M., Harhoff, Dietmar, Kukies, Joerg. 1998. “Uncertainty and the Size Distribution of Rewards from Technological Innovation,” Unpublished Working Paper, Harvard University.Google Scholar
  28. Stevenson, Howard H., Sahlman, William A., Turner, James Z. 1986. “Orbital Sciences Corporation (A),” Harvard Business School Case No. 9-386-175.Google Scholar
  29. Teisberg, Elizabeth O., Rossi, Sharon. 1993. “Genzyme Corp.: Strategic Challenges with Ceredase,” Harvard Business School Case No. 9-793-120.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1992. Federal and Private Roles in the Development and Provision of Alglucerase Therapy. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  31. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks and Rewards. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Josh Lerner

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations