Cash-Out or Flameout! Opportunity Cost and Entrepreneurial Strategy: Theory, and Evidence from the Information Security Industry

References

• Agarwal R., Audretsch D. B. Does entry size matter? The impact of the life cycle and technology on firm survival. J. Indust. Econom. (2001) 49(1):21–43Crossref, Google Scholar
• Amit R., Muller E., Cockburn I. Opportunity costs and entrepreneurial activity. J. Bus. Venturing (1995) 10(2):95–106Crossref, Google Scholar
• Åstebro T., Bernhardt I. Start-up financing, owner characteristics, and survival. J. Econom. Bus. (2003) 55(4):303–319Crossref, Google Scholar
• Åstebro T., Winter J. More than a dummy: The probability of failure, survival, and acquisition of firms in financial distress. (2001) . Working paper, HEC Paris, Jouy en Josas, France. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=260949Google Scholar
• Audretsch D. B., Mahmood T. New firm survival: New results using a hazard function. Rev. Econom. Statist. (1995) 77(1):97–103Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bates T. Entrepreneur human capital inputs and business longevity. Rev. Econom. Statist. (1990) 72(4):551–559Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bates T. Analysis of young, small firms that have closed: Delineating successful from unsuccessful closures. J. Bus. Venturing (2005) 20(3):343–358Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhide A. V.The Origin and Evolution of New Businesses (2003) (Oxford University Press, New York) Google Scholar
• Boden R. J., Nucci A. R. On the survival prospects of men's and women's new business ventures. J. Bus. Venturing (2000) 15(4):347–362Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boyd D., Lankford H., Loeb S., Wyckoff J. Explaining the short careers of high-achieving teachers in schools with low-performing students. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2005) 95(2):166–171Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cabral L. M. B., Mata J. On the evolution of the firm size distribution: Facts and theory. Amer. Econom. Rev. (2003) 93(4):1075–1090Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cressy R. Are business startups debt-rationed? Econom. J. (1996) 106(438):1253–1270Google Scholar
• Cressy R. Credit rationing or entrepreneurial risk aversion? An alternative explanation for the Evans and Jovanovic finding. Econom. Lett. (2000) 66(2):235–240Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cressy R. Why do most firms die young? Small Bus. Econom. (2006) 26(2):103–116Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dunne T., Roberts M. J., Samuelson L. Patterns of firm entry and exit in U.S. manufacturing industries. RAND J. Econom. (1988) 19(4):495–515Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dunne T., Roberts M. J., Samuelson L. The growth and failure of U.S. manufacturing plants. Quart. J. Econom. (1989) 104(4):671–698Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evans D. S. Tests of alternative theories of firm growth. J. Political Econom. (1987a) 95(4):657–674Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evans D. S. The relationship between firm growth, size, and age: Estimates for 100 manufacturing industries. J. Indust. Econom. (1987b) 35(4):567–581Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evans D. S., Jovanovic B. An estimated model of entrepreneurial choice under liquidity constraints. J. Political Econom. (1989) 97(4):808–827Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evans D. S., Leighton L. S. Some empirical aspects of entrepreneurship. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1989) 79(3):519–535Google Scholar
• Fairlie R., Chatterji A. High-technology entrepreneurship in Silicon Valley opportunities and opportunity costs. (2008) . Working paper, NET Institute, New York. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1285712Google Scholar
• Gimeno J., Folta T. B., Cooper A. C., Woo C. Y. Survival of the fittest? Entrepreneurial human capital and the persistence of underperforming firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. (1997) 42(4):750–783Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldfarb B., Kirsch D., Miller D. A. Was there too little entry during the Dot Com Era? J. Financial Econom. (2007) 86(1):100–144Crossref, Google Scholar
• Headd B. Redefining business success: Distinguishing between closure and failure. Small Bus. Econom. (2003) 21(1):51–61Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holmes T. J., Schmitz J. A. A theory of entrepreneurship and its application to the study of business transfers. J. Political Econom. (1990) 98(2):265–294Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holmes T. J., Schmitz J. A. On the turnover of business firms and business managers. J. Political Econom. (1995) 103(5):1005–1038Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holmes T. J., Schmitz J. A. Tenure, business age, and small business turnover. J. Labor Econom. (1996) 14(1):79–99Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsu D. H., Marino A. Organizational routines development and new venture performance. (2010) . Working paper, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
• Hsu D. H., Ziedonis R. H. Patents as quality signals for entrepreneurial ventures. (2007) Presentation, DRUID Summer ConferenceCopenhagen(CBS, Denmark) . http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id=1717&cf=9Google Scholar
• Jovanovic B. Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica: J. Econometric Soc. (1982) 50(3):649–670Crossref, Google Scholar
• King A. A., Tucci C. L. Incumbent entry into new market niches: The role of experience and managerial choice in the creation of dynamic capabilities. Management Sci. (2002) 48(2):171–186Link, Google Scholar
• Klepper S. The capabilities of new firms and the evolution of the U.S. automobile industry. Indust. Corporate Change (2002) 11(4):645–666Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klepper S., Sleeper S. Entry by spinoffs. Management Sci. (2005) 51(8):1291–1306Link, Google Scholar
• Knott A. M., Posen H. E. Is failure good? Strategic Management J. (2005) 26(7):617–641Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levesque M., Minniti M. The effect of aging on entrepreneurial behavior. J. Bus. Venturing (2006) 21(2):177–194Crossref, Google Scholar
• Martin X., Mitchell W. The influence of local search and performance heuristics on new design introduction in a new product market. Res. Policy (1998) 26(7):753–771Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mata J., Portugal P. Life duration of new firms. J. Indust. Econom. (1994) 42(3):227–245Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mata J., Portugal P., Guimaraes P. The survival of new plants: Start-up conditions and post-entry evolution. Internat. J. Indust. Organ. (1995) 13(4):459–481Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nandkumar A. Securing the future? The role of markets for technology, organizational capabilities and opportunity costs on business models and performance in the information security market. (2008) . Ph.D. dissertation. Heinz College, Carnegie Mellon University, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
• Parker S.The Economics of Entrepreneurship (2009) (Cambridge University Press, UK) Crossref, Google Scholar
• Phillips B. D., Kirchhoff B. A. Formation, growth and survival; small firm dynamics in the U.S. economy. Small Bus. Econom. (1989) 1(1):65–74Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shane S., Stuart T. Organizational endowments and the performance of university start-ups. Management Sci. (2002) 48(1):154–170Link, Google Scholar
• Shane S., Venkataraman S. The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of research. Acad. Management Rev. (2000) 25(1):217–226Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson P. Selection and firm survival: Evidence from the shipbuilding industry, 1825–1914. Rev. Econom. Statist. (2005) 87(1):26–36Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xu B. A reestimation of the Evans-Jovanovic entrepreneurial choice model. Econom. Lett. (1998) 58(1):91–95Crossref, Google Scholar