Premature R&D alliance termination and shareholder returns: Evidence from the biopharmaceutical industry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Prior research has highlighted the performance implications of R&D alliances for innovation outcomes and the financial returns of firms. However, research on R&D alliances has yet to offer insights into how the premature termination of such alliances, before fulfilling their predetermined innovation objectives, affects the shareholder returns of the firm. Applying transaction cost economics (TCE) theory and real options (RO) logic to a post‐formation alliance setting, we posit that premature termination of R&D alliances prompts relative volatility in investors' prospective benefits and risks. Employing an event study analysis method and using a sample of 116 premature alliance termination announcements in the biopharmaceutical industry, we observe an average negative abnormal stock return of 3.21% for focal firms. Further, our analyses reveal that investors respond even more adversely to alliances terminated unilaterally by the partner of the focal firm in which they invested than those terminated through mutual agreements or by the focal firm itself. Also, we find that alliance duration from formation to termination mitigates the negative effect of termination on shareholder returns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".