Finnerty, John D., Cameron D. Miller, and Ren-Raw Chen. 2013. “The impact of rating announcements on credit default swap spreads.” Journal of Banking & Finance, 37:2011-2030.

Toh, PK and Cameron D. Miller. 2017. “A pawn to save a chariot or a drawbridge into the fort? Firms’ complementary technologies and disclosure during standard setting.” Strategic Management Journal, 38(11): 2213-2236.

  • Within an ecosystem, standard setting coordinates development of complementary technologies across firms. But each firm can itself own multiple of these complementary technologies. We study how a firm’s own complementary technologies influence its disclosure inclination during standard setting. We identify a tradeoff: disclosure increases value-creation of the firm’s non-disclosed complementary technologies, but also heightens expropriation risk. Using data on the U.S. communications equipment industry 1991–2008, we show that the firm’s complementary technologies increase its disclosure inclination when its technological areas are less crowded, but decrease such inclination when there are SSO members with strong expropriation abilities. Findings stress that disclosure involves but a piece of the firm’s portfolio; a systemic perspective of the entire portfolio provides a more comprehensive picture of value-creation during standard setting.

Working Papers

Wang, Richard D. and Cameron D. Miller. “Managing relationships with a platform: An empirical study of publisher’ e-book offerings on Amazon Kindle.”

  • Under review
  • Tension between value creation and value appropriation can arise when firms enter into relationships with a platform. While creating value, these relationships strengthen the platform’s network effects, thereby increasing the platform’s ability to appropriate value. Foreseeing this bargaining power shift, firms might restrain cooperation with the platform that diminishes joint value creation. We analyze e-book and printed book data to study product offerings as a mechanism that publishers use when managing relationships with Amazon Kindle. We find that publishers make product decisions that balance value creation benefits and appropriation risks. Moreover, publishers with greater bargaining powers make product decisions that are less conducive to Kindle’s success. We discuss our empirical findings in relation to theory and future research.

Miller, Cameron D. “Strong firms, weak products? The role of within-firm product complementarities in new market entry strategy.”

  • I examine how product complementarities influence product strategy in a new market. Evidence suggests that highly capable firms often enter markets with inferior products yet thrive in the market. I address this puzzle by examining firms’ product feature choices as they enter new markets, and how these choices affect performance. I argue that new product markets are embedded in ecosystems comprised of other, complementary product markets and that this influences firms’ product strategy. I theorize that firms with complementary products will endogenously segment the market, focusing on customers who the firm believes will benefit from the combining the new market product with the firm’s complementary products. I also argue that firms choose features that function with their complementary products and will tradeoff non-complementary features when necessary. My theory explains why firms with strong technological capabilities may enter a market with product behind the technological frontier and why such firms may forego potential supply side benefits. Examining entry into the nascent smartphone market using a rich set of data on smartphone product technology and features, I find strong support for these conclusions. I identify complementarities within the firm’s product portfolio as an important driver of firm’s product strategy.

Miller, Cameron D. and PK Toh. “Complementary Technologies and Returns to Disclosure during Standard Setting. ”

  • Under review
  • In industries with systems consisting of many technological components that need to be interoperable, coordination is increasingly achieved via firms’ disclosure to Standard Setting Organizations (SSOs). We study whether and how such disclosure generates returns to the disclosing firm during standard setting. Departing from the convention of focusing on disclosed standard essential patents (SEPs), we examine the role of the firm’s non-disclosed complementary technologies in generating returns during standard setting. Main results show that firms with more non-disclosed complementary technologies experience greater returns to stock prices over disclosure events, and these technologies gain more in value (indicated by patent citations) over disclosure, at rates higher than even that of the disclosed SEPs. Our findings suggest that, in these systems, a firm is using its larger technological portfolio to appropriate value from coordinating a smaller part of it with others via standard setting, and that a systemic view of the firm’s portfolio is important in understanding firm strategy within these systems.

Miller, Cameron D. and PK Toh. “The effect of complementary technologies on value appropriation in cooperative settings: Evidence from patent litigation related to compatibility standards.”

  • In many settings, firms must reveal intellectual property to other, potentially rival, firms so to enable coordination and value creation. Such disclosures come with a cost, as the firm will often lose exclusivity over its intellectual property, which can severely deteriorate its ability to appropriate value directly from the associated technology. I examine how firms incorporate disclosures into their strategy. In the context of compatibility standards, I examine where the firm appropriates value after it discloses technology to the standard setting body. I argue that firms utilize their disclosures to increase the value of their portfolio of complementary technologies. Using patent litigation as a signal of appropriation efforts, I estimate the impact of complementarity on patent litigation rates. Findings suggest that after disclosure to a standard, firms’ focus their litigation efforts around their complementary technologies.

Examples of other projects

Ganco, M, CD Miller, and PK Toh. “The value of litigiousness.”

Miller, Cameron D. and PK Toh. “Resource allocation, capacity, and innovation in the chemicals sector.”

  •  I have collected a 30-year chemical industry database covering innovation, plant location and capacity. I plan to use this data to study how cyclicality affects technology and innovation, how firms toggle between process and product innovation, and how price volatility and cyclicality affect resource allocation.

Miller, Cameron D. “The effect of investors’ time horizon on firms’ innovation outcomes and performance.”

  • I study when investors’ time horizons impact the firm’s technology strategy and innovative outcomes.I depart from the popular mantra that investor short-termism is bad for firm innovation, to uncover what mechanisms can short-term focused investors be both good and bad for the firm. The project aims to highlight how the complex relationship between shareholders, rivals, and industry conditions impact the firm’s technology strategy and innovation performance.

Miller, Cameron D. “Comparing propensity score and instrument variable estimators across realistic information sets.”

  • Researchers must confront endogeneity problems when strong instruments or good conditioning variables are unavailable. I compare different instrumental variable and propensity score methods under various information sets that mimic situations typically faced in applied research.

Miller, Cameron D. “Technology strategy for complex products.”