Anticipated vs. Actual Synergy in Merger Partner Selection and Post-Merger Innovation

References

• Achilladelis B, Schwarzkopf A, Cines M (1987) A study of innovation in the pesticide industry: Analysis of the innovation record of an industrial sector. Res. Policy 16(2–4):175–212.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahuja G, Katila R (2001) Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management J. 22(3):197–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akkus O, Cookson JA, Hortacsu A (2016) The determinants of bank mergers: A revealed preference analysis. Management Sci. 62(8):2241–2258.Link, Google Scholar
• Albert J, Chib S (1993) Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 88(422):669–679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bahadir SC, Bharadwaj SG, Srivastava RK (2008) Financial value of brands in mergers and acquisitions: Is value in the eye of the beholder? J. Marketing 72(6):49–64.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barkema HG, Bell JHJ, Pennings JM (1996) Foreign entry, cultural barriers, and learning. Strategic Management J. 17:151–166.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bena J, Li K (2014) Corporate innovations and mergers and acquisitions. J. Finance 69(5):1923–1960.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berman K, Knight J (2009) When is debt good? Harvard Bus. Rev. (July 8), https://hbr.org/2009/07/when-is-debt-good/.Google Scholar
• Bertrand O, Capron L (2015) Productivity enhancement at home via cross-border acquisitions: The roles of learning and contemporaneous domestic investments. Strategic Management J. 36(5):640–658.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bierly P, Chakrabarti A (1996) Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management J. 17(S2):123–135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Borah A, Tellis GJ (2014) Make, buy, or ally? Choice of and payoff from announcements of alternate strategies for innovations. Marketing Sci. 33(1):114–133.Link, Google Scholar
• Bower JL (2001) Not all M&As are alike—And that matters. Harvard Bus. Rev. 79:93–101.Google Scholar
• Capron L (1999) The long-term performance of horizontal acquisitions. Strategic Management J. 20(11):987–1018.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Capron L, Hulland J (1999) Redeployment of brands, sales forces, and marketing expertise following horizontal acquisitions: A resource-based view. J. Marketing 63(2):41–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cassiman B, Massimo MG, Garrone P, Veugelers R (2005) The impact of M&A on the R&D process: An empirical analysis of the role of technological and market relatedness. Res. Policy 34:195–220.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandrasekaran D, Tellis GJ (2008) The global takeoff of new products: Culture, wealth, or vanishing differences. Marketing Sci. 27(5):844–860.Link, Google Scholar
• Chandy R, Hopstaken B, Narasimhan OM, Prabhu J (2006) From invention to innovation: Conversion ability in product development. J. Marketing Res. 43(3):494–508.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cloodt M, Hagedoorn J, Van Kranenburg H (2006) Mergers and acquisitions: Their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries. Res. Policy 35(5):642–654.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1):128–152.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Comanor W, Scherer F (1969) Patent statistics as a measure of technical change. J. Political Econom. 77(3):392–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Day GS, Wensley R (1988) Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. J. Marketing 52(2):1–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Duchin R, Schmidt B (2013) Riding the merger wave: Uncertainty, reduced monitoring, and bad acquisitions. J. Financial Econom. 107(1):69–88.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dutta S, Narasimhan O, Rajiv S (1999) Success in high-technology markets: Is marketing capability critical? Marketing Sci. 18(4):547–568.Link, Google Scholar
• Erel I, Liao RC, Weisbach M (2012) Determinants of cross-border mergers and acquisitions. J. Finance 67(3):1045–1082.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Feather PM (2003) Valuing food store access: Policy implications for the food stamp program. Amer. J. Agricultural Econom. 85(1):162–172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fuller K, Netter J, Stegemoller M (2002) What do returns to acquiring firms tell us? Evidence from firms that make many acquisitions. J. Finance 57(4):1763–1793.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gale D, Shapley CS (1962) College admissions and the stability of marriage. Amer. Math. Monthly 69:9–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gelfand A, Smith A (1990) Sampling based approaches to calculating marginal densities. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 85:398–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geweke J (1999) Using simulation methods for Bayesian econometric models: Inference, development, and communication (with discussion and rejoinder). Econometric Rev. 18:1–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghosh A, Ruland W (1988) Managerial ownership, method of payment for acquisitions, and executive job retention. J. Finance 53(2):785–798.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Golubov A, Petmezas D, Travlos NG (2012) When it pays to pay your investment banker: New evidence on the role of financial advisors in M&As. J. Finance 67(1):271–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Griliches Z (1984) R&D, Patents, and Productivity (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Griliches Z (1990) Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. J. Econom. Literature 28(4):29–56.Google Scholar
• Gupta D, Gerchak Y (2002) Quantifying operational synergies in a merger and acquisition. Management Sci. 48(4):517–533.Link, Google Scholar
• Hamel G, Prahalad CK (1994) Competing for the Future (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Harrison JS, Hitt MA, Hoskisson RE, Ireland RD (1991) Synergies and post-acquisition performance: Differences versus similarities in resource allocations. J. Management 17(1):173–190.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hauser J, Tellis GJ, Griffin A (2006) Research on innovation: A review and agenda for marketing science. Marketing Sci. 25(6):687–717.Link, Google Scholar
• Heckman JA (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1):153–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson R (1994) Managing innovation in the information age. Harvard Bus. Rev. 72(3):100–105.Google Scholar
• Henderson R, Cockburn I (1994) Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management J. 15(S1):63–84.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hitt M, Hoskisson RE, Ireland RD (1990) Mergers and acquisitions and managerial commitment to innovation in M-form firms. Strategic Management J. 11(Special Issue):29–47.Google Scholar
• Hitt M, Hoskisson RE, Ireland RD, Harrison JS (1991) Effects of acquisitions on R&D inputs and outputs. Acad. Management J. 34(3):693–706.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hofstede G (1991) Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind (McGraw Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Hult GT, Ketchen D (2001) Does market orientation matter? A test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance. Strategic Management J. 22(9):899–906.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jeffreys H (1961) The Theory of Probability, 3rd ed. (Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• John G, Weiss AM, Dutta S (1999) Marketing in technology-intensive markets: Toward a conceptual framework. J. Marketing 63(Special Issue):78–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Johnson J, Tellis GJ (2008) Drivers of success for market entry into China and India. J. Marketing 72(3):1–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jovanovic B, Rousseau PL (2002) The Q-theory of merger. Amer. Econom. Rev. 92(2):198–204.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kamien M, Schwartz N (1982) Market Structure and Innovation (Cambridge University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Karolyi GA, Taboada AG (2015) Regulatory arbitrage and cross-border bank acquisitions. J. Finance 70(6):2395–2450.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut B, Singh H (1988) The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. J. Internat. Bus. Stud. 19(3):411–432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut B, Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ. Sci. 3(3):383–397.Link, Google Scholar
• Kor YY, Sundaramurthy C (2009) Experience-based human capital and social capital of outside directors. J. Management 35(4):981–1006.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lane PJ, Lubatkin M (1998) Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management J. 19(5):461–477.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lyman S (2009) Forget the shortcuts: Creating a truly innovative biotech culture. xconomy (July 27), http://www.xconomy.com/seattle/2009/07/27/forget-the-shortcuts-creating-a-truly-innovative-biotech-culture/2/.Google Scholar
• Makri M, Hitt MA, Lane PJ (2010) Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions. Strategic Management J. 31(6):602–628.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McFadden D (1977) A closed-form multinomial choice model without the independence from irrelevant alternatives restrictions. Working Paper 7703, Urban Travel Demand Forecasting Project, Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley.Google Scholar
• Mintz O, Currim IS (2013) What drives managerial use of marketing use of marketing and financial metrics and does metric use affect performance of marketing-mix activities? J. Marketing 77(2):17–40.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mishra S, Slotegraaf RJ (2013) Building an innovation base: Exploring the role of acquisition behavior. J. Acad. Marketing Sci. 41(6):705–721.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moorman C, Miner AS (1997) The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity. J. Marketing Res. 34(1):91–107.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Moorman C, Slotegraaf RJ (1999) The contingency value of complementary capabilities in product development. J. Marketing Res. 36(2):239–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mowery DC, Oxley JE, Silverman BS (1996) Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management J. 17(S2):77–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Narin F, Noma E, Perry R (1987) Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Res. Policy 16(2–4):143–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Park M (2013) Understanding merger incentives and outcomes in the mutual fund industry. J. Banking Finance 37:4368–4380.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parsons GR, Kealy MJ (1992) Randomly drawn opportunity sets in a random utility model of lake recreation. Land Econom. 68(1):93–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parsons GR, Needelman MS (1992) Site aggregation in a random utility model of recreation. Land Econom. 68(4):418–433.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pautler P (2003) Evidence on mergers and acquisitions. Antitrust Bull. 48:119–207.Google Scholar
• Pisano GP (1994) Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning: An empirical analysis of process development. Strategic Management J. 15(S1):85–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Prabhu JC, Chandy RK, Ellis ME (2005) The impact of acquisitions on innovation: Poison pill, placebo, or tonic? J. Marketing 69(1):114–130.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ramaswamy K (1997) The performance impact of strategic similarity in horizontal mergers: Evidence from the U.S. banking industry. Acad. Management J. 40(3):697–715.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rao VR, Mahajan V, Varaiya NP (1991) A balance model for evaluating firms for acquisition. Management Sci. 37(3):331–349.Link, Google Scholar
• Reed R, DeFillippi RJ (1990) Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Acad. Management Rev. 15(1):88–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rhodes-Kropf M, Robinson DT (2008) The market for mergers and the boundaries of the firm. J. Finance 63(3):1169–1211.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rhodes-Kropf M, Robinson D, Viswanathan S (2005) Valuation waves and merger activity: The empirical evidence. J. Financial Econom. 77(3):561–603.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rindfleisch A, Moorman C (2001) The acquisition and utilization of information in new product alliances: A strength-of-ties perspective. J. Marketing 65(April):1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Roth AE, Sotomayor M (1992) Two sided matching. Aumann R, Hart S, eds. Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications (North-Holland, Amsterdam), 485–541.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Santos BDM, Errunza VR, Miller DP (2008) Does corporate international diversification destroy value? Evidence from cross-border mergers and acquisitions. J. Banking Finance 32(12):2716–2724.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scherer F, Ross D (1990) Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance (Houghton Mifflin, Boston).Google Scholar
• Scherer FM (1988) Corporate takeovers: The efficiency arguments. J. Econom. Perspectives 2(1):7–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shleifer A, Vishny RB (2003) Stock market driven acquisitions. J. Financial Econom. 70(3):295–311.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Singh H, Montgomery CA (1987) Corporate acquisition strategies and economic performance. Strategic Management J. 8(4):377–386.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sood A, Tellis GJ (2009) Do innovations really pay off? Total stock market returns to innovation. Marketing Sci. 28(3):442–456.Link, Google Scholar
• Sorensen M (2005) An economic and econometric analysis of market sorting with an application to venture capital. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Economics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Sorensen M (2007) How smart is smart money? A two-sided matching model of venture capital. J. Finance 62(6):2725–2762.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sorescu AB, Chandy RK, Prabhu JC (2007) Why some acquisitions do better than others: Product capital as a driver of long-term stock returns. J. Marketing Res. 44(1):57–72.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swaminathan V, Murshed F, Hulland J (2008) Value creation following mergers and acquisitions announcements: The role of strategic emphasis alignment. J. Marketing Res. 45(1):989–999.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tanner M, Wong W (1987) The calculation of posterior distributions by data augmentation. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 82(398):528–549.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Train K, McFadden D, Goett A (1987) Consumer attitudes and voluntary rate schedules for public utilities. Rev. Econom. Statist. 69(3):383–391.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Train KE (2003) Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trautwein F (1990) Merger motives and merger prescriptions. Strategic Management J. 11(4):283–295.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Uetake K, Watanabe Y (2013) Entry by merger: Estimates from a two-sided matching model with externalities. Working paper, Yale University, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
• Valentini G (2012) Measuring the effect of M&A on patenting quantity and quality. Strategic Management J. 33(3):336–346.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Volberda HW (1996) Toward the flexible form: How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organ. Sci. 7(4):359–374.Link, Google Scholar
• Walker R (1995) Patents as Scientific and Technical Literature (Scarecrow Press, Lanham, MD).Google Scholar
• Wind J, Mahajan V (1997) Issues and opportunities in new product development: An introduction to the special issue. J. Marketing Res. 34(2):1–12.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yu Y, Umashankar N, Rao VR (2016) Choosing the right target: Relative preferences for resource similarity and complementarity in acquisition choice. Strategic Management J. 37(8):1808–1825.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zollo M, Singh H (2004) Deliberate learning in corporate acquisitions: Post-acquisition strategies and integration capability in U.S. bank mergers. Strategic Management J. 25(13):1233–1256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zucker LG, Darby MR (1996) Star scientists and institutional transformation: Patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93(23):12709–12716.Crossref, Google Scholar