Growing profitable or growing from profits : putting the horse in front of the cart?

Top lists of and praise for the economy's fastest growing firms abound in business media around the world. Similarly, in academic research there has been a tendency to equate firm growth with business success. This tendency appears to be particularly pronounced in-but not confined to­ entrepreneurship research. In this study we critically examine this tendency to portray firm growth as more or less universally favorable. While several theories suggest that growth drives profitability we first show that the available empirical evidence does not support the existence of a general, positive relation­ ship between growth and profitability. Using the theoretical lens of the Resource-Based View (RBV) we then argue that sound growth usually starts with achieving sufficient levels of profitability. In summary, our theoretical argument is as follows: In a population of SMEs, superior profitability is likely to be indicative of having built a resource-based competitive advantage. Building such a valuable and hard to-copy advantage may at first constrain growth. However, the underlying advantage itself and the financial resources generated through high profitability make it possible for firms in this situation to now achieve sound and sustainable growth - which may require building a series of temporary advantages- without having to sacrifice profitability. By contrast, when firms strive for high growth starting from low profitability, the latter often indicates lack of competitive advantage. Therefore growth must be achieved in head-to-head competition with equally attractive alternatives, leading to profitability deterioration rather than improvement. In addition, these low profitability firms are unlikely to be able to finance strategies toward building valuable and difficult-to-imitate advantages while growing.

Organic and acquisitive growth : re-examining, testing and extending Penrose’s growth theory

The Theory of the Growth of The Firm by Edith Penrose, first published in 1959, is a seminal contribution to the field of management. Penrose's intention was to create a theory of firm growth which was logically consistent and empirically tractable (Buckley and Casson, 2007). Much attention, however, has been focused on her unintended contribution to the resource-based view (henceforth RBV) (e.g. Kor and Mahoney, 2004; Lockett and Thompson, 2004) rather than her firm growth theory. We feel that this is unfortunate because despite a rapidly growing body of empirical work, conceptual advancement in growth studies has been limited (Davidsson and Wiklund, 2000; Davidsson et ai., 2006; Delmar, 1997; Storey, 1994). The growth literature frequently references Penrose's work, but little explicit testing of her ideas has been undertaken. This is surprising given that Penrose's work remains the most comprehensive theory of growth to date. One explanation is that she did not formality present her arguments, favouring verbal exposition over formalized models (Lockett, 2005; Lockett and Thompson, 2004). However, the central propositions and conclusions of her theory can be operationalized and empirically tested.

Performance configurations over time: implications for growth-and profit-oriented strategies

Entrepreneurship research and practice places emphasis on company growth as a measure of entrepreneurial success. In many cases, there has been a tendency to give growth a very central role, with some researchers even seeing growth as the very essence of entrepreneurship (Cole, 1949; Sexton, 1997; Stevenson & Gumpert, 1991). A large number of empirical studies of the performance of young and/or small firms use growth as the dependent variable (see reviews by Ardishvili, Cardozo, Harmon, & Vadakath, 1998; Delmar, 1997; Wiklund, 1998). By contrast, the two most prominent views of strategic management – strategic positioning (Porter, 1980) and the resource-based view (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984) – are both concerned with achieving competitive advantage and regard achieving economic rents and profitability relative to other competitors as the central measures of firm performance. Strategic entrepreneurship integrates these two perspectives and is simultaneously concerned with opportunity seeking and advantage seeking (Hitt, Ireland, Camp, & Sexton, 2002; Ireland, Hitt, & Sirmon, 2003). Consequently, both company growth and relative profitability are together relevant measures of firm performance in the domain of strategic entrepreneurship.

What drives the commodity price beta of oil industry stocks

We test theoretical drivers of the oil price beta of oil industry stocks. The strongest statistical and economic support comes for market conditions-type variables as the prime drivers: namely, oil price (+), bond rate (+), volatility of oil returns (−) and cost of carry (+). Though statistically significant, exogenous firm characteristics and oil firms' financing decisions have less compelling economic significance. There is weaker support for the prediction that financial risk management reduces the exposure of oil stocks to crude oil price variation. Finally, extended modelling shows that mean reversion in oil prices also helps explain cross-sectional variation in the oil beta.