Welcome!

News Feed Item

Public Offerings Decrease Innovation at Technology Companies, According to Stanford Business School Study

For many entrepreneurs, it is a dream on par with finding the Holy Grail: an initial public stock offering that can turn a startup into the next Google and a 20-something founder into the next mega-millionaire.

Yet, for all that money and drama, do initial public offerings — IPOs — speed up technological innovation?

Not necessarily. An eye-popping new study by Shai Bernstein, an assistant professor of finance at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, finds that innovation slowed down by about 40 percent at tech companies after they went public.

In a meticulous analysis of patent data from nearly 2,000 companies, Bernstein found that newly public companies became noticeably more incremental and less ambitious with their in-house research than comparable firms that stayed private.

And that’s not all. Top inventors were much more likely to leave if their companies went public, and the ones who stayed behind showed a steep decline in “innovation quality.” Indeed, the newly public tech companies became much more dependent on buying technology from outside — usually by making corporate acquisitions.

That’s almost the opposite of what one might expect. Young tech firms go public on the strength of their innovative promise, and going public provides them with cash to double down on their research and development.

From the vantage point of public policy, IPOs may still be a net positive for tech innovation. Many companies go public because they have just scored a major breakthrough and use their new resources to scale up the business. And even if newly public companies do become less daring, they can still propel innovation indirectly by paying top dollar for startups. Google has bought 100 companies since it went public in 2004. Facebook paid $1 billion for Instagram just as it was going public in May 2012.

But Bernstein’s findings raise an important, but largely unexplored, management issue: IPOs appear to spur the outsourcing of innovation. It is a complex tradeoff, and one that tech entrepreneurs and investors may want to examine in more depth.

Bernstein reached that conclusion after a detailed comparison of patent data between companies that went public and similar companies that decided to stay private. All told, the study covered thousands of tech companies that either went public or withdrew IPO plans between 1985 and 2003.

To gauge “innovation,” Bernstein collected data on nearly 40,000 patents awarded to companies both before and after they announced plans to go public. In addition to tracking the absolute number of patents, he estimated the innovative importance of each patent based on the number of times it had been cited in other patent applications.

The basic idea is straightforward: Patents that are cited more frequently are likely to represent more fundamental breakthroughs. But Bernstein also estimated the “originality” of patents, based on how many different technologies were cited. Last, but not least, he analyzed data about the inventors themselves.

Bernstein compared two categories of companies: those that completed public offerings and those that filed IPO registrations with the Securities and Exchange Commission but later withdrew them. To make apple-to-apple comparisons, he compared companies that were in the same technology sectors and that contemplated public offerings in the same year.

He found that the two groups of companies had broadly similar characteristics up to the point they decided to go public or stay private. Both groups had high-quality patents that were much more heavily cited than those of companies that didn’t try to go public. The two groups were also similar in size, age, and research spending. And there were no significant differences in the quality of the IPO underwriters, which is often a proxy for the quality of the companies.

Not surprisingly, the biggest distinction between the companies that went public and those that stayed private was the stock market’s appetite at the time. If the tech-heavy NASDAQ went into a swoon just after a company filed to go public, the company was much more likely to call off its plans. Almost one third of all the abandoned IPOs between 1985 and 2003 occurred in 2000 — the year the dot-com bubble collapsed.

The real difference in innovation came after companies completed public offerings. The average quality of those patents, as measured by how often they were cited, declined by about 40 percent in the five years after going public. By contrast, companies that remained private stayed on the same track as before.

Bernstein also confirmed what even blockbuster companies in Silicon Valley have worried about for years: IPOs can spark a brain drain.

He divided inventors into three categories: “stayers,” “leavers,” and “newcomers.” Inventors were about 18 percent more likely to become leavers at companies that went public. Much more startling, however, was that the stayers saw a 48 percent decline in the quality of their patents. Inevitably, IPO firms recruited large numbers of newcomers.

One explanation for the brain drain is that top inventors have little incentive to stay after an IPO, in part because they often become overnight millionaires. An IPO also dilutes an inventor’s stake in subsequent breakthroughs because those future profits will be spread among many more investors.

Bernstein suggests that yet another important reason for the brain drain is that IPOs lead to different management incentives. Executives at publicly held companies may become more cautious, for example, because they are subject to market pressures and worry more about career threats and takeovers, and feel pressure to tell investors a simple story.

To find out more, Bernstein compared companies with two different management structures. In the first group, chief executives were also chairmen of the board and had more autonomy to resist market pressures. The second group had separate chairmen and chief executives, which usually means the chief executive is less insulated from market pressure.

The result: Companies with separate board chairs and chief executives — those more likely to be sensitive to outside investors — saw a much bigger drop in innovation, and inventors were more likely to leave.

Bernstein cautions that initial public stock offerings still may be good for innovation in general. Public companies may not be as technologically ambitious or as willing to take risks as firms that stay private, but public companies have better access to capital for tapping innovation generated by smaller companies.

But going public clearly changes the mindset of companies, and that might be a reason for some companies to think twice about the Holy Grail.

More Stories By Business Wire

Copyright © 2009 Business Wire. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Business Wire content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Business Wire. Business Wire shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Latest Stories
As data explodes in quantity, importance and from new sources, the need for managing and protecting data residing across physical, virtual, and cloud environments grow with it. Managing data includes protecting it, indexing and classifying it for true, long-term management, compliance and E-Discovery. Commvault can ensure this with a single pane of glass solution – whether in a private cloud, a Service Provider delivered public cloud or a hybrid cloud environment – across the heterogeneous enter...
"IoT is going to be a huge industry with a lot of value for end users, for industries, for consumers, for manufacturers. How can we use cloud to effectively manage IoT applications," stated Ian Khan, Innovation & Marketing Manager at Solgeniakhela, in this SYS-CON.tv interview at @ThingsExpo, held November 3-5, 2015, at the Santa Clara Convention Center in Santa Clara, CA.
Today we can collect lots and lots of performance data. We build beautiful dashboards and even have fancy query languages to access and transform the data. Still performance data is a secret language only a couple of people understand. The more business becomes digital the more stakeholders are interested in this data including how it relates to business. Some of these people have never used a monitoring tool before. They have a question on their mind like “How is my application doing” but no id...
@GonzalezCarmen has been ranked the Number One Influencer and @ThingsExpo has been named the Number One Brand in the “M2M 2016: Top 100 Influencers and Brands” by Onalytica. Onalytica analyzed tweets over the last 6 months mentioning the keywords M2M OR “Machine to Machine.” They then identified the top 100 most influential brands and individuals leading the discussion on Twitter.
In IT, we sometimes coin terms for things before we know exactly what they are and how they’ll be used. The resulting terms may capture a common set of aspirations and goals – as “cloud” did broadly for on-demand, self-service, and flexible computing. But such a term can also lump together diverse and even competing practices, technologies, and priorities to the point where important distinctions are glossed over and lost.
Predictive analytics tools monitor, report, and troubleshoot in order to make proactive decisions about the health, performance, and utilization of storage. Most enterprises combine cloud and on-premise storage, resulting in blended environments of physical, virtual, cloud, and other platforms, which justifies more sophisticated storage analytics. In his session at 18th Cloud Expo, Peter McCallum, Vice President of Datacenter Solutions at FalconStor, discussed using predictive analytics to mon...
All clouds are not equal. To succeed in a DevOps context, organizations should plan to develop/deploy apps across a choice of on-premise and public clouds simultaneously depending on the business needs. This is where the concept of the Lean Cloud comes in - resting on the idea that you often need to relocate your app modules over their life cycles for both innovation and operational efficiency in the cloud. In his session at @DevOpsSummit at19th Cloud Expo, Valentin (Val) Bercovici, CTO of Soli...
Information technology is an industry that has always experienced change, and the dramatic change sweeping across the industry today could not be truthfully described as the first time we've seen such widespread change impacting customer investments. However, the rate of the change, and the potential outcomes from today's digital transformation has the distinct potential to separate the industry into two camps: Organizations that see the change coming, embrace it, and successful leverage it; and...
Without a clear strategy for cost control and an architecture designed with cloud services in mind, costs and operational performance can quickly get out of control. To avoid multiple architectural redesigns requires extensive thought and planning. Boundary (now part of BMC) launched a new public-facing multi-tenant high resolution monitoring service on Amazon AWS two years ago, facing challenges and learning best practices in the early days of the new service. In his session at 19th Cloud Exp...
Fact: storage performance problems have only gotten more complicated, as applications not only have become largely virtualized, but also have moved to cloud-based infrastructures. Storage performance in virtualized environments isn’t just about IOPS anymore. Instead, you need to guarantee performance for individual VMs, helping applications maintain performance as the number of VMs continues to go up in real time. In his session at Cloud Expo, Dhiraj Sehgal, Product and Marketing at Tintri, sha...
The Internet of Things (IoT) promises to simplify and streamline our lives by automating routine tasks that distract us from our goals. This promise is based on the ubiquitous deployment of smart, connected devices that link everything from industrial control systems to automobiles to refrigerators. Unfortunately, comparatively few of the devices currently deployed have been developed with an eye toward security, and as the DDoS attacks of late October 2016 have demonstrated, this oversight can ...
Extracting business value from Internet of Things (IoT) data doesn’t happen overnight. There are several requirements that must be satisfied, including IoT device enablement, data analysis, real-time detection of complex events and automated orchestration of actions. Unfortunately, too many companies fall short in achieving their business goals by implementing incomplete solutions or not focusing on tangible use cases. In his general session at @ThingsExpo, Dave McCarthy, Director of Products...
Regulatory requirements exist to promote the controlled sharing of information, while protecting the privacy and/or security of the information. Regulations for each type of information have their own set of rules, policies, and guidelines. Cloud Service Providers (CSP) are faced with increasing demand for services at decreasing prices. Demonstrating and maintaining compliance with regulations is a nontrivial task and doing so against numerous sets of regulatory requirements can be daunting task...
Machine Learning helps make complex systems more efficient. By applying advanced Machine Learning techniques such as Cognitive Fingerprinting, wind project operators can utilize these tools to learn from collected data, detect regular patterns, and optimize their own operations. In his session at 18th Cloud Expo, Stuart Gillen, Director of Business Development at SparkCognition, discussed how research has demonstrated the value of Machine Learning in delivering next generation analytics to impr...
More and more brands have jumped on the IoT bandwagon. We have an excess of wearables – activity trackers, smartwatches, smart glasses and sneakers, and more that track seemingly endless datapoints. However, most consumers have no idea what “IoT” means. Creating more wearables that track data shouldn't be the aim of brands; delivering meaningful, tangible relevance to their users should be. We're in a period in which the IoT pendulum is still swinging. Initially, it swung toward "smart for smar...