Professional Documents
Culture Documents
This study examines the determinants of firms liquidation and acquisition in the Indian
electronics industry during the period 19902006. It is argued that liquidation and
acquisition are alternative modes of exit. Therefore, these modes of exit might have dif-
ferent determinants. To explore this possibility, a multinomial logistic (MNL) regression
model is estimated using cross-sectional data of 540 firms. We find that the effects of age,
size, leverage, innovative competence and profitability are significant for the likelihood
of liquidation. In contrast, the effect of profitability was found insignificant for the likeli-
hood of acquisition. Moreover, the effects of size and leverage are dissimilar across the exit
modes, that is, large firms are more likely to be liquidated but less likely to be acquired,
and high leverage firms are more likely to be liquidated but less likely to be acquired. The
findings of this study show that the determinants of liquidation and acquisition modes
of exit are different in the Indian electronics industry.
1. INTRODUCTION
The era of the Indian electronics industry commenced a decade after Indias
independence. The Indian government played a vital role in developing a
domestic electronics industry. For example, in the initial stages of the industrys
development, that is, the 1960s and 1970s, government policies were geared
The author is Senior Research Fellow, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur, Kanpur, India-208016, Tel: +919935829507, email:
irfan@iitk.ac.in
An earlier draft of this article was presented at the Second Doctoral Theses Conference
organised by the IBS, Hyderabad, 78 March 2008. The author would like to thank the
conference participants and anonymous referees of this journal for their constructive com-
ments and suggestions.
1
Authors own calculations based on data provided by the Industry Analysis Service of the Center
for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE).
2.1 Age
Age is considered a key determinant of liquidation and acquisition. The gen-
eral consensus of the empirical studies which examine the impact of age on
exit modes is that the likelihood of liquidation decreases with age whereas the
likelihood of acquisition increases with age (Audretsch, 1991; Disney et al.,
2003; Evans, 1987; Mahmood, 2000; Mata and Portugal, 1994). According to
Jovanovic (1982), older firms learn from their past experience and hence are
more likely to survive in adverse situations. The literature suggests that older
firms develop a brand name and reputation in the industry which makes them
attractive targets for acquisitions (Esteve-Prez et al., 2010).
2.2 Size
There is a general agreement that the likelihood of exit declines with firm size.
Large firms are equipped with large amounts of physical, financial, human and
other resources which improve their possibility of exploiting scale economies.
As a result, such firms protect themselves from liquidation by earning higher
profits (Audretsch, 1991; Hall, 1987; Mahmood, 2000). Similarly, acquisition of
large firms requires large investments and thus increases the cost of acquisition.
Shleifer and Vishny (1992) argue that the market for corporate control is less
liquid as firm size increases. So it is expected that an increase in the firm size
reduces the likelihood of liquidation and acquisition.
higher for innovative firms. In contrast, Mahmood (2000) finds that the effect
of innovative competence varies across industries. Innovative firms are good
acquisition targets because the acquisition of innovative firms supports the
acquirers expansion policy and it is an economical way to expand (Heeley
et al., 2006). Therefore, it is expected that innovative firms are less likely to be
liquidated and more likely to be acquired.
2.4 Leverage
Leverage is the firms reliance on debts to finance its assets, and higher the
reliance on debt the greater the risk of liquidation. On the one hand, excessive
debt leads to a large debt burden on firms and firms with high leverage are
more likely to be liquidated (Pastena and Ruland, 1986). On the other hand,
high leverage firms are less attractive targets for acquisitions, because acquir-
ing a high-leverage firm transfers the risk of the debt burden to the acquirer
(Fotopoulos and Louri, 2000; Kornai, 1998; Pastena and Ruland, 1986). Hence,
we expect that leverage increases the likelihood of liquidation and reduces the
likelihood of acquisition.
2.5 Profitability
A firms profitability is also likely to be an important factor in the exit of firms. If
a firm fails to attain a desired level of profits, its likelihood of survival diminishes
(Bojnec and Xavier, 2007). Altman (1968) observes that low performance firms
are more likely to fail. Dean (1997) argues that firms with poor performance
are more likely to become takeover targets. Besides, acquisitions act as a cor-
porate control measure to improve firms performance (Jensen, 1986; Shleifer
and Vishny, 1992). Hence, it is expected that the least-profitable firms are more
likely to be liquidated and acquired.
where subscript i denotes the firm and subscript j denotes the mode of exit. Xi
is a vector of firm-specific characteristics and j represents mode-specific
constant terms. If the errors ij are i.i.d. according to a type I extreme-value
distribution, then the differences in are distributed logistically, and the prob-
ability that firm i exits in mode j is as follows.
j + Xi j
e
Pij = J
; j = 1, 2,..., J (2)
e
j + Xi j
j =1
response data. The MNL model uses one alternative as a reference category,
and any parameter estimate represents the effect of the explanatory variable in
relative to this reference category (Long and Freese, 2001). In the present study,
we use non-exited as a reference category. More specifically, we restrict 3 = 0
and 3 = 0 for reasons of identification of parameters so that the interpretation
of parameters is relative to the non-exited category. Estimation of the MNL
model is best carried out by the maximum likelihood method (Wooldridge,
2003). Accordingly, for firm i the likelihood function can be represented as
J
li ( ) = Pij (X , )Yij (3)
j =1
where Yij is the indicator function and Yij = 1 if firm i exits in mode j otherwise
Yij = 0, and the log likelihood function for all the firms is as follows:
N J
LL = log P Y
i =1 j =1
ij
ij (4)
The mean value of variable RD is 0.017 for the liquidated firms and 0.016 for
the acquired firms and the mean difference is statistically insignificant.
The mean values of variable DEBT are 0.574 and 0.151 for the liquidated
and acquired firms, respectively. Liquidated firms therefore seem to be high-
leveraged firms than acquired firms. However, the mean difference (0.422) is
statistically insignificant. In terms of profitability, liquidated firms perform
worse than acquired firms. The mean values of variable PROF are 0.095 and
0.133 for the liquidated and acquired firms, respectively and the mean difference
(0.037) is statistically significant at the 10 per cent level. The asset utilisation
of acquired firms is lower than liquidated firms. The mean value of ASUT is
0.014 for the acquired firms and 0.027 for the liquidated firms, and the mean
difference (0.012) is statistically significant at the 10 per cent level.
2
The parameters of the MNL models are estimated using mlogit command in STATA 10.
large firms requires large funds and thus such firms are less likely to be acquired
(Shleifer and Vishny, 1992).
Innovative competence (RD) is negatively related with the likelihood of
liquidation as well as acquisition. The logit coefficients for liquidation and
acquisition modes of exit are 9.428 and 8.072, respectively. The coefficient
for liquidation is statistically significant at the 1 per cent level but the coefficient
for acquisition is statistically significant at the 5 per cent level. The effect of
innovative competence in the Indian electronics industry is inconsistent with
the findings of Ericson and Pakes (1995) and Heeley et al. (2006). This is because
the investments in R&D activities are intangible or sunk costs (Rosenbaum
and Lamort, 1992) and therefore cannot be fully recovered in the liquidation
process or transferred in acquisition. In addition, R&D plays an important
role in increasing profits by increasing sales or reducing costs and thus reduces
the likelihood of liquidation. Hence, more innovative firms are less likely to
be liquidated and acquired. To examine the lagged effect of innovative com-
petence, we estimated another MNL model (that is, Model 2) with a one-year
lag specification for the variable innovative competence (RDt1). Since R&D
impacts with a lag, it is necessary to examine such effects.3 The results of this
model are presented in the last two columns of Table 4. We find that the effect
of variable RDt1 is statistically insignificant for the modes of exit.
The effect of leverage (DEBT) is found positively associated with the likeli-
hood of liquidation and negatively associated with the likelihood of acquisition.
The logit coefficients are 1.671 and 2.652 for the liquidation and acquisition
modes of exit, respectively. These coefficients are statistically significant at the
5 per cent level (for liquidation) and 1 per cent level (for acquisition). The results
are consistent with past findings and imply that an increase in debt increases
the likelihood of liquidation but decreases the likelihood of acquisition. High-
leveraged firms have to pay large interests on their debt, which in turn reduces
their profits and increases their chances of liquidation (Pastena and Ruland,
1986). The increase in debt also increases the risks, namely, liquidity, high cost
of financing and a decrease in the acquirers financial performance involved in
acquiring a leveraged firm (Pastena and Ruland, 1986). Importantly, a greater
part of the acquirers revenue will be exhausted in repaying the debt (Fotopoulos
and Louri, 2000; Kornai, 1998). Hence, an increase in leverage reduces the pos-
sibility of a firm to be acquired.
Though profitability is an important determinant of exit in the literature, we
find that in the Indian electronics industry it affects the liquidation mode of exit
only. The logit coefficient for the variable PROF is 4.093 and it is statistically
significant at the 1 per cent level. For the acquisition mode of exit it is insig-
nificant. This suggests that an increase in profitability reduces the likelihood of
liquidation. This finding supports the argument that large profit earnings allow
a firm to develop the distinct capabilities, that is, enhances its ability to adapt
to a changing competitive environment and removes the liquidity constraint,
and hence improves the firms survival prospects (Altman, 1968). The impact
of asset utilisation on the likelihood of liquidation and acquisition is found
insignificant in the Indian electronics industry. This suggests that the survival
prospects in Indian electronics are presumably not governed by the firms ability
to cover their fixed costs over variable costs.
3
The author is thankful to an anonymous referee for suggesting the lag effect of R&D activities
on exit modes.
the exit modes are independent. Hence, the Hausman test for IIA assumption
strongly recommends MNL model to estimate the parameters.
6. CONCLUSION
Previous research studies argue that low demand and low prices are the driv-
ing forces behind the exit of firms. In contrast, the present study has identified
additional factors that affect the exit of firms in the Indian electronics industry.
We have considered two modes of exit, liquidation and acquisition, and utilised
cross-sectional data of 540 firms including 245 non-exited, 103 liquidated
and 142 acquired firms to identify such factors. An MNL regression model is
employed to examine the firm-specific determinants of liquidation and acquisi-
tion in the Indian electronics industry during the period 19902006.
We find significant differences in the determinants across exit modes in the
industry. For example, firm size and leverage affect these two modes of exit
differently. An increase in the firm size increases the chances of liquidation
but decreases the chances of acquisition. Similarly, an increase in the leverage
reduces the chances of being acquired but increases the chances of liquidation.
Moreover, profitability affects the likelihood of the liquidation only. The effects
of firm age and innovative competence are found similar for the two modes
of exit. Our findings suggest that the empirical regularities of previous stud-
ies related to developed countries cannot hold true for the Indian electronics
industry. Therefore, the study of factors beyond product price provides powerful
policy-making information to both the government and electronics industry
organisations. This information can be used to focus on balanced flow of firms,
that is, maintained entry and exit and a competitive electronics industry.
References
Agarwal, R., & Gort, M. (2002). Firm and product life cycles and firm survival. American
Economic Review, 92(2), 18490.
Altman, E.I. (1968). Financial ratios, discriminant analysis and the prediction of corporate
bankruptcy. Journal of Finance, 23(4), 589609.
Audretsch, D.B. (1991). New firm survival and technological regime. Review of Economics
and Statistics, 77(1), 44150.
Bojnec, S., & Xavier, A. (2007). Determinants of firm exit in Slovenian manufacturing.
Industrial Management & Data Systems, 105(5), 71727.
Bragg, L.A., & Dalton, T.J. (2004). Factors affecting the decision to exit dairy farming: A
two-stage regression analysis. Journal of Dairy Science, 87(9), 309298.
Das, S., & Srinivasan, K. (1997). Duration of firms in an infant industry: The case of Indian
computer hardware. Journal of Development Economics, 53(1), 15767.
Dean, A. (1997). The characteristics of takeover target firms: The case of the English brewing
industry, 19451960. Review of Industrial Organization, 12(4), 57991.
Dewey, D. (1961). Mergers and cartels: Some reservations about policy. American Economic
Review, 51(2), 25562.
Disney, R., Haskel, J., & Heden, Y. (2003). Entry, exit and establishment survival in UK
manufacturing. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 51(1), 91112.
Evans, D.S. (1987). The relationship between firm growth, size, and age: Estimates for 100
manufacturing industries. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 56781.
Ericson, R., & Pakes, A. (1995). Markov-perfect industry dynamics: A framework for empirical
work. Review of Economic Studies, 62(1), 5382.
Esteve-Prez, S., Sanchis-Llopis, A., & Sanchis-Llopis, J.A. (2010). A competing risks analysis
of firms exit. Empirical Economics, 38(2), 281304.
Fotopoulos, G., & Louri, H. (2000). Location and survival of new entry. Small Business
Economics, 14(4), 31121.
Hall, B.H. (1987). The relationship between firm size and firm growth in the U.S. manu-
facturing sector. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 35(4), 583606.
Harhoff, D., Stahl, K., & Waywode, M. (1998). Legal form, growth and exit of West German
firmsEmpirical results for manufacturing, construction, trade and service industries.
The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(4), 45388.
Hausman, J., & McFadden, D. (1984). Specification tests for the multinomial logit model.
Econometrica, 52(5), 121940.
Heeley, M.B., King, D.R., & Covin, J.G . (2006). Effects of firm R&D investment and envir-
onment on acquisition likelihood. Journal of Management Studies, 43(7), 151335.
Hensher, D.A., Rose, J.M., and Greene, W.H. (2005). Applied choice analysis: A primer.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hudson, J. (1986). An analysis of company liquidations. Applied Economics, 18(2), 21935.
Jensen, M.C. (1986). Agency cost of free cash flow, corporate finance and takeovers. American
Economic Review, 76(2), 32329.
Jovanovic, B. (1982). Selection and the evolution of industry. Econometrica, 50(3),
64970.
Kornai, J. (1998). The place of soft budget constraint syndrome in economic theory. Journal
of Comparative Economics, 26(1), 1118.
Long, J.S., & Freese, J. (2001). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using
STATA. Texas: STATA Corporation.
Love, R. (2008). Industrial policy and the Indian electronics industry, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Unpublished Dissertation. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.
net/1721.1/44809
Majumdar, S.K. (1997). The impact of size and age on firm-level performance: Some evi-
dence from India. Review of Industrial Organization, 12(2), 23141.
Mata, J., & Portugal, P. (1994). Life duration of new firms. The Journal of Industrial Economics,
42(3), 22745.
Mahmood, T. (2000). Survival of newly founded businesses: A log-logistic model approach.
Small Business Economics, 14(3), 22337.
Pastena, V., & Ruland, W. (1986). The merger/bankruptcy alternative. The Accounting
Review, 61(2), 288301.
Rosenbaum, D.I., & Lamort, F. (1992). Entry, barriers, exit, and sunk costs: An analysis.
Applied Economics, 24(3), 297304.
Schary, M.A. (1991). The probability of exit. RAND Journal of Economics, 22(3), 33953.
Shapiro, D., & Khemani, R.S. (1987). The determinants of entry and exit reconsidered.
International Journal of Industrial Organization, 5(1), 1526.
Shleifer, A.W., & Vishny, R.W. (1992). Liquidation values and debt capacity: A market
equilibrium approach. Journal of Finance, 47(4), 134346.
Train, K. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Wooldridge, J.M. (2003). Introductory econometrics. Delhi: Cengage Learning.
Zingales, L. (1998). Survival of the fittest or the fattest? Exit and financing in the trucking
industry. Journal of Finance, 53(3), 90538.