Background and Motivation

  • Andreas Kemper
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)


In this world of constant changes, software markets are no exception. Growing transaction volumes of the merger-driven industry and capital markets pressure to accurately value companies increases the demand for reliable valuation in software markets. This trend is supported by an increasing number of internal capital budgeting decisions that required to determine the financial impact of strategic investments on tangible and intangible assets (Srivastava et al. 1999). Valuation in software markets has always been challenging. The reason for this challenge is their dynamic nature which is characterized by exponential growth and decay, fierce competition and highly lucrative rents. Such factors increase the danger of false evaluation and misinterpretation.1 During the Internet hype the volatility of the stocks reached a peak as software companies were among the best performing stocks, but also among the losers of the subsequent downturn.2 This volatile development caused great concerns, but financial research was not capable of explaining it despite of considerable research progress as a variety of problems have not yet been resolved (Busse von Colbe 1957; Ballwieser 1987; Moxter 1991; Copeland et al. 1996; Ross et al. 1996; Brealey and Myers 1996; Achleitner and Nathusius 2004). Conventional approaches tend to ignore the following phenomena which are particularly relevant to valuation in software markets: (Rohlfs 1974; Wiese 1990; von Westarp 2003).


Cash Flow Complex Network Network Effect Intangible Asset Financial Research 
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.


  1. Achleitner, A., & Nathusius, E. (2004). Unternehmensbewertung bei Venture-Capital-Finanzierungen. Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Studium,33, 134–139.Google Scholar
  2. Albert, R. (2001). Statistical Mechanics of Complex Networks. Ph. D. book, University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
  3. Ballwieser, W. (1987). Unternehmensbewertung und Komplexittsreduktion. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  4. Barabasi, A., Jeong, H., Ravasz, E., Neda, Z., Schuberts, A., & Vicsek, T. (2002). Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications,311, 590–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blattberg, R., Getz, G., & Thomas, J. (2001). Customer equity: Building and managing relationships as valuable assets. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  6. Blattberg, R., & Thomas, J. (1998). The Fundamentals of Customer Equity Managment. In Handbuch Kundenbindungsmanagement (pp. 329–357). Wiesbaden: Gabler Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Boccara, N., & Cheong, K. (1992). Automata network sir models for the spread of infectious diseases in populations of moving individuals. Journal of Physics. A: Mathematical General,25, 2447–2461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brealey, R., & Myers, S. (1996). Principles of corporate finance. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Busse von Colbe, W. (1957). Der Zukunftserfolg: Die Ermittlung des knftigen Unternehmenserfolges und seiner Bedeutung fr die Bewertung von Industrieunternehmen. Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  10. Copeland, T., Koller, T., & Murrin, J. (1996). Valuation: measuring and managing the value of companies. New York:Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Farrell, J., & Saloner, G. (1986). Installed base and compatibility: Innovation, product preannouncement, and predation. American Economic Review,76(4), 940–955.Google Scholar
  12. Grochla, E. (1978). Einfhrung in die Organisationstheorie. Stuttgart: Schaeffer-Poeschel.Google Scholar
  13. Gupta, S., Lehmann, D., & Stuart, J. (2001). Valuing Customers, Volume Working Paper No. 02-119. Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  14. Hommel, U., & Pritsch, G. (1999). Marktorientierte Investitionsbewertung mit dem Realoptionsansatz. Finanzmarkt- und Portfoliomanagement,13, 121–144.Google Scholar
  15. Katz, M., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. American Economic Review,75(3), 424–440.Google Scholar
  16. Kirsch, W. (1984). Wissenschaftliche Unternehmensfhrung oder Freiheit vor der Wissenschaft? Herrsching, Wartaweil.Google Scholar
  17. Moxter, A. (1991). Grundstze ordnungsmßiger Unternehmensbewertung. Wiesbaden: Gabler.Google Scholar
  18. Reichheld, F. (1999). The Loyalty Effect. Boston: Bain, The Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Richins, M. (1983). Negative word-of-mouth by dissatisfied consumers: A pilot study. Journal of Marketing,47, 68–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rohlfs, J. (1974). A theory of interdependent demand for a communication service. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science,5, 16–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ross, S., Westerfield, R., & Jaffe, J. (1996). Corporate Finance. Boston MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  22. Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. (1998). Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Harvard: Harvard Business School.Google Scholar
  23. Srivastava, R., Shervani, T., & Fahey, L. (1998). Marked-based assets and shareholder value: A framework analysis. Journal of Marketing,62, 2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Srivastava, R., Shervani, T., & Fahey, L. (1999). Marketing, business processes, and shareholder value. Journal of Marketing,63(4), 168–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Trigeorgis, L. (1996). Real options: Managerial flexibility and strategy in resource allocation. Boston: MIT.Google Scholar
  26. von Westarp, F. (2003). Modeling Software Markets - Empirical Analysis, Network Simulations, and Marketing Implications. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Wiese, H. (1990). Netzeffekte und Kompatibilitt - Ein theoretischer und simulationsgeleiteter Beitrag zur Absatzpolitik fr Netzeffekt-Gter. Stuttgart: C.E. Poeschel Verlag.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FrankfurtGermany

Personalised recommendations