The Returns to Investments in Innovative Activities: An Overview and an Analysis of the Software Industry
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.
KeywordsVenture Capitalist Initial Public Offering Private Equity Innovative Activity Harvard Business School
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- Flanagan, Patrick. 1993. “Drug Prices: What’s the Rationale?,” Management Review, 82(July), pp. 10–15.Google Scholar
- 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
- Genzyme Corporation. 1992. “OTA Report on Ceredase Alglucerase Injection Released,” Business Wire, October 5.Google Scholar
- 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 The Impact of Fund Inflows on Private Equity Valuations,” Unpublished Working Paper, Harvard University.Google Scholar
- 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
- Gompers, Paul A., Lerner, Josh. 1998. The Venture Cycle. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Graham, John. 1996. “The Surge in Satellite Finance,” Institutional Investor, 30(November), pp. 117–124.Google Scholar
- Horsley, Phillip. 1997. Trends in Private Equity. San Francisco: Horsley ∣ Bridge.Google Scholar
- Lanjouw, Jean O. 1993. “Patent Protection: Of What Value and for How Long?,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 4475.Google Scholar
- Mullins, David W., Jr. 1976. “Communications Satellite Corporation,” Harvard Business School Case No. 276-195.Google Scholar
- 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
- Reinganum, Jennifer R. 1983. “Uncertain Innovation and the Persistence of Monopoly,” American Economic Review, 73, pp. 741–748.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Stevenson, Howard H., Sahlman, William A., Turner, James Z. 1986. “Orbital Sciences Corporation (A),” Harvard Business School Case No. 9-386-175.Google Scholar
- Teisberg, Elizabeth O., Rossi, Sharon. 1993. “Genzyme Corp.: Strategic Challenges with Ceredase,” Harvard Business School Case No. 9-793-120.Google Scholar
- 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
- U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Pharmaceutical R&D: Costs, Risks and Rewards. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar