Jay Habegger
AdTech Entrepreneur ➔ Entrepreneurship & Strategic Management Scholar
AdTech Entrepreneur ➔ Entrepreneurship & Strategic Management Scholar
I’m a Strategy & Entrepreneurship doctoral candidate at the University of Maryland. Before academia, I spent two decades founding, scaling, and exiting venture-backed firms as founder and CEO (bitpipe acquired by Techtarget and ownerIQ acquired by Inmar Intelligence). My entrepreneurial experience motivates my research agenda and shapes my teaching. I study the pivotal role of capital at a venture’s two most consequential points: formation—when talent and ideas must attract external resources—and exit, or “end-of-life”—when market selection, managerial discretion, and capital markets shape a venture’s outcome.
Email: j at habegger dot com -or- habegger at umd dot edu
The Other Half: How does Non-VC Hub Location Affect Startups’ Access to Initial Equity Investment?
Jay Habegger, Florence Honoré & Rajshree Agarwal (R&R at Management Science)
(Previously circulated as Searching in the Dark)
While regional entrepreneurial ecosystems are geographically dispersed within the US, the venture capital (VC) industry is highly localized in three regions: Silicon Valley, Boston, and NYC. We investigate differences in access to initial equity financing of startups located in these VC Hubs and elsewhere (non-VC Hubs) to examine whether financial capital flows efficiently to high-potential entrepreneurial opportunities regardless of their location and adjudicate among potential explanations for observed differences. To do so, we assembled the census of 19,294 US early-stage initial equity financing investments reported in the 1992-2019 period. Although there are just as many investments in VC and non-VC Hubs, we find that relative to those in VC Hubs, startups in non-VC Hubs are more likely to have lower investment amounts, take longer to complete the investment, and have fewer and more diverse investors in their syndicate. These results cannot be explained by observable differences in startup quality. Moreover, we fail to find evidence for co-location (as a mechanism for alleviating agency risk or provision of superior resources), or market power (as an oligopsony mechanism reducing competitive pressures on VC firms) as explanations for these differences. Instead, our analyses suggest a plausible alternative explanation is that non-VC hub startups incur higher search costs when acquiring their initial investment.
Who Calls the Shots? Decision Frameworks Shaping Initial Investment Syndicates
Jay Habegger & Florence Honoré (Under Review at Strategic Management Journal)
Innovative, growth-oriented startups are crucial to economic dynamism and the emergence of new industries. These startups often rely on venture capital (VC) and initial equity investments to finance their development. The entrepreneur and lead investor agree on the investment and then confront a strategic choice regarding whether to expand the syndicate to include additional investors. Existing scholarship focuses on investor motivations for syndicate expansion, with the lead investor often serving as the primary decision-maker. We argue that alternative decision frameworks are equally plausible and infer the best explanation using a sample of 22,483 initial equity investments from 1970 to 2019. We find weak support for investor motivations proposed in existing literature to explain expanded syndicates, such as mitigating information asymmetry, relative investor experience, and the role of prior co-investment relationships. Our results suggest that, if these investor motivations exist, they are attenuated by the specific circumstances of the investment. We find consistent signals that aligned entrepreneur-lead investor motivations, such as the desire to increase the amount of capital acquired, are associated with expanded syndicates. Syndication patterns observed in follow-on investments support this conclusion. Initial syndicate formation is nuanced, and syndicate expansion likely results from a collaborative negotiation between entrepreneurs and investors
Jay Habegger (Working Paper)
The small number of innovative ventures animating Creative Destruction account for a disproportionate share of economic growth, yet identifying these ventures before performance is realized remains a central challenge in management scholarship. Existing approaches rely on revealed growth outcomes or infer entrepreneurial intent at inception, both of which suffer from non-complier problems: innovative companies that intend to grow but do not, and ventures that lack evidence of growth intent but grow nonetheless. This study proposes a new criterion, initial equity investment, typically from investors other than VCs, as a plausibly sufficient marker of ventures at risk of Schumpeterian entrepreneurship. An initial equity investment establishes a Growth Nexus that binds entrepreneur and investor to value creation via innovation and growth sufficient to justify the transaction. To estimate the size of this at-risk population of innovative ventures, the study applies Multiple Systems Estimation (capture–recapture), a method widely used to recover hidden populations in other disciplines. Leveraging divergence across three commercial VC databases and SEC private placement exemption filings, the analysis estimates the population of initial equity investments in U.S. private firms from 2009 to 2020. The results show that initial equity investments, and thus innovative entrepreneurship, are substantially under-recorded in existing data sources and that omissions are highly structured, disproportionately excluding smaller investments outside VC hubs involving informal investors. Converting estimated annual flows into a point-in-time population implies that innovative, growth-oriented ventures constitute an increasing percentage of U.S. employer firms, suggesting that declines in observed high-growth outcomes do not reflect reduced innovative activity ex ante, but a widening gap between attempts at innovative entrepreneurship and realized success.
The Illusion of Precision: A Reexamination of VC Investment Data . AoM 2025 (Session #15284). July 2025.
Searching for Schumpeter Beyond Sand Hill Road. UMD Summer Research Seminar. July 2025.
Searching in the Dark: Regional Disparities in Startup's Initial Equity Financings. SMS, October 2024.
Searching in the Dark? Regional Disparities in Startup's Initial Equity Financings. Strategy Science 2024 Conference, June 2024
What's the Value of a Theory? UMD Summer Research Seminar. July 2024.
Matthew Regions: The Effects on Startups of (Un)Concentrated VC Markets. AoM 2023. August 2023.
Private Ordering Symposium Intro & Private Ordering Summary. Markets & Management Symposium. December 2022.
Don't Know Much About Outcomes. UMD Summer Research Seminar. July 2022.
So You Want to Do a Startup?. Invited Talk. April 2022.
Digital advertising is now the largest share of ad spending, but it wasn’t always. “Retail media” wasn’t even a common phrase—let alone a full advertising category—until recently. Today, global retail-media spend alone in is estimated at about $140 billion annually. These trade articles I wrote while CEO of OwnerIQ are interesting (amusing?) because they date from the inception of programmatic retail media, when the concept still required explanation to retailers and Amazon was not yet seen as an advertising superpower.
What Weather Prediction Tells Us About Programmatic. AdExchanger, 3/16/2016
Bring on Good Measurement. MediaPost, 5/8/2013
The Trend Few Are Discussing: Brands as Media Companies. AdAge, 12/20/2012
Amazon’s Approach to Advertising Might Work, But It’s Not For Every Retailer. AdAge, 2/15/2012
Retailers Are Creating Media Properties That Will Revolutionize Marketing. AdAge, 10/17/2011
Why Amazon is About to Become a Force in Online Advertising. AdAge, 8/11/2011
Your Online Strategy is Missing Something. AdAge, 3/29/2011
Why Online Behavioral Advertising is the Most Consumer Friendly. AdAge, 12/15/2010