2013
DOI: 10.1002/smj.2048
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inherited agglomeration effects in hedge fund spawns

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
31
0
9

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 62 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
1
31
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…Our findings thus supplement existing studies on the intricacies of the resources allocation process (Kor and Leblebici, 2005;Sirmon, Gove, and Hitt, 2008;Sirmon, Hitt, and Ireland, 2007) as well as existing studies that stress both the individual and firm-level drivers of firm capabilities and performance as well as the interactions between factors at both levels (Felin et al, 2012;de Figueiredo, Meyer-Doyle, and Rawley, 2013;Eggers and Kaplan, 2009;Helfat et al, 2007).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our findings thus supplement existing studies on the intricacies of the resources allocation process (Kor and Leblebici, 2005;Sirmon, Gove, and Hitt, 2008;Sirmon, Hitt, and Ireland, 2007) as well as existing studies that stress both the individual and firm-level drivers of firm capabilities and performance as well as the interactions between factors at both levels (Felin et al, 2012;de Figueiredo, Meyer-Doyle, and Rawley, 2013;Eggers and Kaplan, 2009;Helfat et al, 2007).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 85%
“…In particular, our results highlight how individual influence derived from firm‐specific human capital influences the firm's resource allocation process, and how organizational design elements such as compensation systems can inhibit the potentially adverse impact of powerful individuals on firm‐level processes and outcomes. Our findings thus supplement existing studies on the intricacies of the resources allocation process (Kor and Leblebici, ; Sirmon, Gove, and Hitt, ; Sirmon, Hitt, and Ireland, ) as well as existing studies that stress both the individual and firm‐level drivers of firm capabilities and performance as well as the interactions between factors at both levels (Felin et al ., ; de Figueiredo, Meyer‐Doyle, and Rawley, ; Eggers and Kaplan, ; Helfat et al ., ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We begin to address the impacts of unobserved selection into VC‐funding by using a matching approach to identify similar control firms (i.e., non‐VC‐backed ventures) for each VC‐backed venture. Like several other scholars, we implement a CEM approach to reduce imbalance in observable differences between treated and control groups (e.g., Aggarwal & Hsu, ; De Figueiredo, Meyer‐Doyle, & Rawley, ; Singh & Agrawal, ) . Consistent with previous research on technology ventures, we matched firms by selecting innovative productivity, founding year, and geographical location as matching criteria (Aggarwal & Hsu, ; Fitza et al, ; Hsu, ; Pahnke, Katila, & Eisenhardt, ).…”
Section: Analysis and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Matching treatment and control groups on relevant observable characteristics is likely to mitigate selection bias concerns as it creates a subsample of comparable firms. Propensity score matching (Rosenbaum and Rubin 1983) is often a popular procedure among strategy scholars for estimating the influence of noncomparable control and treatment group observations that are off the common support of an estimated propensity score distribution and allows for the elimination of incomparable observations (e.g., Chang et al 2013, de Figueiredo et al 2013, Leone and Reichstein 2012, Rawley and Simcoe 2010. Yet, recent studies (Blackwell et al 2009, Iacus et al 2012, King et al 2011 suggest that propensity score matching (PSM) may, in fact, degrade inferences relative to not matching at all, and that CEM is likely to produce matched samples that are more balanced.…”
Section: Matchingmentioning
confidence: 99%