{"title":"The (Heterogenous) Economic Effects of Private Equity Buyouts: A Comment","authors":"B. Ayash, M. Rastad","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3944209","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Davis, Haltiwanger, Handley, Lerner, Lipsius, and Miranda (2021) continue to produce ex- tensions to the Davis, Haltiwanger, Handley, Jarmin, Lerner, and Miranda (2014) collection without addressing the critical research design issues raised in Ayash and Rastad (2017), Ayash and Rastad (2018) and Ayash and Rastad (2019b). Every error in Davis et al. (2014) and Davis, Haltiwanger, Handley, Lerner, Lipsius, and Miranda (2019) is carried over into their manuscript with a new title. First and foremost, the authors misrepresent their sample as specific to lever- aged buyouts; it is not. We clearly illustrates this fact. Policy makers do not have an issue with venture capital and growth equity buyouts giving piles of cash to firms they acquire because of the subsequent investment in R&D, innovation, jobs and physical capital. However, policy makers cannot learn about the subject of interest, controversial leveraged buyouts, when these make up such a small portion of the sample tested in Davis et al. collection (Davis, Haltiwanger, Jarmin, Lerner, and Miranda, 2008 and Davis, Haltiwanger, Jarmin, Lerner, and Miranda, 2011 focus on employment, Davis, Haltiwanger, Jarmin, Lerner, and Miranda, 2009 presented at the World Economic Forum introduces productivity to the analysis, Davis, Haltiwanger, Handley, Jarmin, Lerner, and Miranda, 2013 brings it all together, and the final published version is Davis et al., 2014. Davis et al. (2019) is basically identical to Davis et al. (2021)). Unfortunately, these authors continue to obfuscate our understanding of the (heterogeneous) economic effects of these complex transactions due to the fact that they cannot observe leverage; they treat all buyouts as equivalent to leveraged buyouts. We therefore gladly reiterate our analysis to bring light to these researchers who have been in the dark for more than a decade.","PeriodicalId":74863,"journal":{"name":"SSRN","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSRN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3944209","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Davis, Haltiwanger, Handley, Lerner, Lipsius, and Miranda (2021) continue to produce ex- tensions to the Davis, Haltiwanger, Handley, Jarmin, Lerner, and Miranda (2014) collection without addressing the critical research design issues raised in Ayash and Rastad (2017), Ayash and Rastad (2018) and Ayash and Rastad (2019b). Every error in Davis et al. (2014) and Davis, Haltiwanger, Handley, Lerner, Lipsius, and Miranda (2019) is carried over into their manuscript with a new title. First and foremost, the authors misrepresent their sample as specific to lever- aged buyouts; it is not. We clearly illustrates this fact. Policy makers do not have an issue with venture capital and growth equity buyouts giving piles of cash to firms they acquire because of the subsequent investment in R&D, innovation, jobs and physical capital. However, policy makers cannot learn about the subject of interest, controversial leveraged buyouts, when these make up such a small portion of the sample tested in Davis et al. collection (Davis, Haltiwanger, Jarmin, Lerner, and Miranda, 2008 and Davis, Haltiwanger, Jarmin, Lerner, and Miranda, 2011 focus on employment, Davis, Haltiwanger, Jarmin, Lerner, and Miranda, 2009 presented at the World Economic Forum introduces productivity to the analysis, Davis, Haltiwanger, Handley, Jarmin, Lerner, and Miranda, 2013 brings it all together, and the final published version is Davis et al., 2014. Davis et al. (2019) is basically identical to Davis et al. (2021)). Unfortunately, these authors continue to obfuscate our understanding of the (heterogeneous) economic effects of these complex transactions due to the fact that they cannot observe leverage; they treat all buyouts as equivalent to leveraged buyouts. We therefore gladly reiterate our analysis to bring light to these researchers who have been in the dark for more than a decade.
Davis、Haltiwanger、Handley、Lerner、Lipsius和Miranda(2021)继续对Davis、Haltiwanger,Handley、Jarmin、Lerne和Miranda(2014)系列产生影响,但没有解决Ayash和Rastad(2017)、Ayash与Rastad和Ayash and Rastad中提出的关键研究设计问题。Davis等人(2014)和Davis、Haltiwanger、Handley、Lerner、Lipsius和Miranda(2019)中的每一个错误都会以新的标题转移到他们的手稿中。首先也是最重要的,作者将他们的样本误传为杠杆收购的特定样本;事实并非如此。我们清楚地说明了这一事实。政策制定者对风险投资和成长股权收购向他们收购的公司提供大量现金没有异议,因为它们随后投资于研发、创新、就业和实物资本。然而,政策制定者无法了解利益、有争议的杠杆收购、,当这些物质在Davis等人收集的测试样本中只占这么小的一部分时(Davis,Haltiwanger,Jarmin,Lerner和Miranda,2008和Davis,Haltiwangerl.,2014年。Davis等人(2019)与Davis等人基本相同。(2021))。不幸的是,这些作者继续混淆我们对这些复杂交易的(异质)经济影响的理解,因为他们无法观察杠杆作用;他们将所有收购视为杠杆收购。因此,我们很高兴地重申我们的分析,为这些蒙在鼓里十多年的研究人员带来光明。