Visiting Associate Professor of Business Administration
Shai Bernstein is an Associate Professor of Finance at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is also a Faculty Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR). His research interests lie at the intersection of corporate finance, entrepreneurship and innovation. He has a PhD from Harvard University, MA from Hebrew university and a BA from Ben Gurion University.
Shai Bernstein is an Associate Professor of Finance at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. He is also a Faculty Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR). His research interests lie at the intersection of corporate finance, entrepreneurship and innovation. He has a PhD from Harvard University, MA from Hebrew university and a BA from Ben Gurion University.
Bernstein, S., T. McQuade, and R. Townsend. "Do Household Wealth Shocks Affect Productivity? Evidence from Innovative Workers During the Great Recession." Journal of Finance (forthcoming).
View Details
This paper explores the creation and evolution of new stock exchanges around the world geared towards entrepreneurial companies, known as second-tier exchanges. Using hand-collected novel data, we document the proliferation of these new stock exchanges that were created in a large number of countries, attracted a significant volume of global IPOs, were introduced fairly cyclically, and had lower listing requirements when compared to first-tier stock exchanges. We find that increases in demand for entrepreneurial capital—as proxied for by patenting, IPOs, and stock market valuations—led to a higher likelihood of the introduction of second-tier exchanges. We find no evidence that new second-tier exchanges diverted the existing flow of IPOs from established stock exchanges. Shareholder protection strongly predicted exchange success, even in countries with high levels of venture capital activity, patenting, and financial market development. Second-tier exchanges in countries with better shareholder protection allowed younger, less profitable, but faster-growing companies to raise more capital. These results highlight the importance of institutions in enabling the provision of entrepreneurial capital to young companies.
Shai Bernstein, Emanuele Colonnelli, Xavier Giroud and Benjamin Iverson
How do different bankruptcy approaches affect the local economy? Using U.S. Census microdata, we explore the spillover effects of reorganization and liquidation on geographically proximate firms. We exploit the random assignment of bankruptcy judges as a source of exogenous variation in the probability of liquidation. We find that employment declines substantially in the immediate neighborhood of the liquidated establishments, relative to reorganized establishments. The spillover effects are highly localized and concentrate in nontradable and service sectors, consistent with a reduction in local consumer traffic and a decline in knowledge spillovers between firms. The evidence highlights the externalities that bankruptcy design can impose on nonbankrupt firms.
Bernstein, Shai, Emanuele Colonnelli, Xavier Giroud, and Benjamin Iverson. "Bankruptcy Spillovers." Special Issue on Labor and Finance. Journal of Financial Economics 133, no. 3 (September 2019): 608–633.
View Details
Do private equity firms contribute to financial fragility during economic crises? We find that during the 2008 financial crisis, PE-backed companies increased investments relative to their peers, while also experiencing greater equity and debt inflows. The effects are stronger among financially constrained companies and those whose private equity investors had more resources at the onset of the crisis. PE-backed companies consequentially experienced higher asset growth and increased market share during the crisis.
Bernstein, Shai, Josh Lerner, and Filippo Mezzanotti. "Private Equity and Financial Fragility during the Crisis."Review of Financial Studies 32, no. 4 (April 2019): 1309–1373. (Earlier version distributed as National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 23626 and Harvard Business School Working Paper No. 18-005.)
View Details
Shai Bernstein, Josh Lerner, Morten Sorensen and Per Stromberg
The growth of the private equity industry has spurred concerns about its potential impact on the economy more generally. This analysis looks across nations and industries to assess the impact of private equity on industry performance. Industries where PE funds have invested in the past five years have grown more quickly in terms of productivity and employment. There are few significant differences between industries with limited and high private equity activity. It is hard to find support for claims that economic activity in industries with private equity backing is more exposed to aggregate shocks. The results using lagged private equity investments suggest that the results are not driven by reverse causality. These patterns are not driven solely by common law nations such as the United Kingdom and United States, but also hold in Continental Europe.
This paper examines the direct private equity investment strategies across sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) and their relationship to the funds' organizational structures. SWFs seem to engage in a form of trend chasing, since they are more likely to invest at home when domestic equity prices are higher and invest abroad when foreign prices are higher. Funds see the industry P/E ratios of their home investments drop in the year after the investment, while they have a positive change in the year after their investments abroad. SWFs where politicians are involved have a much greater likelihood of investing at home than those where external managers are involved. At the same time, SWFs with external managers tend to invest in lower P/E industries, which see an increase in the P/E ratios in the year after the investment. By way of contrast, funds with politicians involved invest in higher P/E industries, which have a negative valuation change in the year after the investment.
We characterize the contribution of immigrants to US innovation, both through their direct productivity as well as through their indirect spillover effects on their native collaborators. To do so, we link patent records to a database containing the first five digits of 160 million of Social Security Numbers (SSN). By combining this part of the SSN together with year of birth, we identify whether individuals are immigrants based on the age at which their Social Security Number is assigned. We find that over the course of their careers, immigrants are more productive than natives, as measured by number of patents, patent citations, and the economic value of these patents. Immigrant inventors are more likely to rely on foreign technologies, to collaborate with foreign inventors, and to be cited in foreign markets, thus contributing to the importation and diffusion of ideas across borders. Using an identification strategy that exploits premature inventor deaths, we find that immigrant collaborators create especially strong positive externalities on the innovation production of natives, while natives create especially large positive externalities on immigrant innovation production, suggesting that combining these different knowledge pools into inventor teams is important for innovation. A simple decomposition suggests that despite immigrants only making up 16% of inventors, they are responsible for 30% of aggregate US innovation since 1976, with their indirect spillover effects accounting for more than twice their direct productivity contribution.
We examine the characteristics of the individuals who become entrepreneurs when local opportunities arise. We identify local demand shocks by linking fluctuations in global commodity prices to municipality level agricultural endowments in Brazil. We find that the firm creation response is almost entirely driven by young and skilled individuals. Their response is larger in municipalities with better access to finance and more skilled human capital, and is driven entirely by the formal market. These results highlight how the composition of the local population can have a significant impact on the entrepreneurial responsiveness of the economy.
Lerner, Josh, Shai Bernstein, and Ann Leamon. "Hony Capital and Jushi Group." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 820-073, December 2019.
View Details
This teaching note is meant to accompany “GeBBS Healthcare Solutions: Did You Ever Have to Make Up Your Mind? (A),” HBS No. 820-041, and “GeBBS Healthcare Solutions: Did You Ever Have to Make Up Your Mind? (B),” HBS No. 820-074. The cases follow Nitin Thakor, President and CEO of GeBBS Healthcare Solutions (GeBBS), an India- and California-based healthcare back office outsourcing company, as he evaluates two vastly different acquisition offers, one from a strategic acquirer and the other from a private equity firm, ChrysCapital.
Bernstein, Shai Benjamin. "GeBBS Healthcare Solutions: Did You Ever Have to Make Up Your Mind? (A) and (B)." Harvard Business School Teaching Note 820-094, January 2020.
View Details
While still a general partner at Silicon Valley–based New Enterprise Associates (NEA), Ravi Viswanathan considered the challenges presented by evolving market dynamics in the venture capital space. Startups were staying private longer, which led to limited partners thirsty for liquidity and venture capital funds managing overloaded portfolios. Viswanathan and the senior leaders of NEA orchestrated the purchase of 31 NEA unrealized portfolio companies by the newly created $1.35 billion NewView Capital spinout that he would head. This secondary transaction provided liquidity to NEA’s limited partners and reallocated NEA partners’ time to shepherd other portfolio companies, while at the same time allowing NewView Capital to reap gains from future exits from a portfolio of diverse, high-quality growth stage technology companies. Now, as he prepares to raise Fund II, Viswanathan acknowledges that the unique circumstances that enabled the launch of Fund I would not be replicable, and he must consider alternative strategies to pursue next. Should he continue to focus on secondary transactions, focus on direct investments, or some combination of the two?
