Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The resulting paper was submitted (dual submission) to the 3rd Annual Entrepreneurial Finance and Innovation Conference (EFIC) conference and the Review of Corporate Finance Studies (RCFS). It was rejected from both.
The key points from the reviewers were:
*We should explain how we get a different result from Masulis and Nahata (2011), who find a +3% return premium to VC-backed acquisitions
*We should use our continous measures of IA (i.e., look to find a monotonic effect). And consider within-industry acquisitions to see whether this mitigates IA problems.
*To back up the winner's curse we should consider the number of competing bidders.
*Possibly we should consider long rum performance and attempt to explain why the acquirers buy VC-backed firms.
*Focus less on the univariate results.
The obvious possibilities for this paper are to:
*Focus more on the IA.
*Do a supply-side VC analysis (i.e., include reputations, the possibility of grandstanding, etc.)
The immediate 'to do' is:
*Read the Masulis and Nahata (2011) paper carefully.
→Acquisitions Paper
The original paper ([[Brander Egan (2007) - The Role of VCs in Acquisitions]]) had a full data rebuild, detailed on: [[VC Acquisitions Paper]].
=Patent Pools Licensing Rate Paper=
