Our paper elaborates the effects of resource relatedness on value of a multibusiness firm. We emphasize that value results from interplay of benefits of synergy and redeployability. This view, considering how synergy and redeployability interact in determining value, extends prior separate considerations of the two benefits. We also diagnose that the value effect of resource relatedness is contingent on uncertainty and specify this contingent relationship. We use the real option valuation approach and formally evaluate the impacts of the two effects of relatedness. This explication enables us to demonstrate how redeployability contributes to value beyond synergy, and how they contribute in tandem. In this sense, we illuminate previously undiagnosed value in multibusiness firms. Beyond theoretical implications, our results have important empirical and managerial implications.

Our paper scrutinizes how corporate value derives from redeployability of firms' resources to new product markets. We focus on the underexplored determinant of redeployability, inducements, defined as advantages in returns in new over existing markets. We assemble separate dimensions of inducements from research on corporate diversification and real options and consider inducements in their entirety. A simulation model casts redeployability as a real option to switch the use of resources across markets and explicates important interdependences among the dimensions of inducements. The model also demonstrates that inducements modify the effect of relatedness on corporate value. Our theoretical arguments amend existing theory and have important implications for corporate diversification research. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Research summary: The dominant view has been that businesses that are more related to each other are more often combined within diversified firms. This study uses a dynamic model to demonstrate that, with inter‐temporal economies of scope, diversified firms are more likely to combine moderately related businesses than the most‐related businesses. That effect occurs because strong relatedness reduces redeployment costs and makes firms redeploy all resources to better performing businesses. The strength of that effect depends on inducements for redeployment measured as the current return advantage of one business over another business, volatilities of business returns, and correlation of those returns. This study develops hypotheses for those relationships and suggests empirical operationalizations, encouraging empiricists to retest the implications of relatedness for the dynamics of corporate diversification. Managerial summary: It is believed that diversified firms are more likely to combine more‐related businesses because relatedness enables sharing of resources between businesses. Indeed, a firm can apply knowledge created in one business to another business, avoiding costly duplication in knowledge development. Resource sharing also adds value when a firm offers several products, adding the convenience of one‐stop shopping and charging higher prices. However, resource sharing is not the only motivation for corporate diversification. In environments where profitability of businesses changes frequently, firms diversify by redeploying part of resources from an underperforming business to a better performing business. This study uses a dynamic model to demonstrate that, with that second motivation for corporate diversification, firms end up combining moderately related businesses rather than the most‐related businesses. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Research Summary: Stock market undervaluation of resources was often assumed to have strategic implications. Such undervaluation lets firms buy resources relatively cheaply, but it can also constrain resource deployment. This article shows that the option to redeploy a firm's resources to a new business can be undervalued in stock markets when investors face ambiguity about that option due to uniqueness of redeployment. The developed formal model derives conditions under which stock markets undervalue resources. Those conditions are summarized with an empirical operationalization that can be tested with a broad range of strategic implications. Besides, the model provides a more complete account of resource redeployability by demonstrating the redeployability paradox. The paradox highlights that some determinants of redeployability enhance undervaluation, while simultaneously increasing objective value of redeployable resources. Managerial Summary: Stock markets can systematically undervalue resources. On the one hand, such undervaluation creates a profitable opportunity for a firm that needs some resources for its growth and compares the option to buy stock in another firm, whose resource are undervalued, with the option to build those resources internally. On the other hand, such undervaluation poses limits to resource deployment strategies of the undervalued firm. When does such undervaluation occur? This study highlights one possible source for undervaluation, ambiguity that is faced by stock market investors about the option to redeploy a firm's resources to a new business. The study specifies conditions under which stock markets are more likely to undervalue resources. The understanding of those conditions can guide managers toward strategic opportunities.

What should the managers of a multibusiness firm do when their company’s resources are not used profitably? Research on redeployment proposes that managers should withdraw those resources from the business where they are underutilized and switch them to a business where they can be used more profitably, whereas the literature on divestiture advocates that managers should divest the business containing those resources. In this study, we investigate the factors that lead managers to choose resource redeployment over divestiture as a mode of exit and vice versa. Using a formal model, we establish that the two exit modes act as intertemporal substitutes, whereby redeployment dominates for earlier exits but divestiture dominates for later exits. Although both redeployment and divestiture are inversely related to their implementation costs, redeployment costs amplify the effect of divestiture costs on the likelihood of exit, and divestiture costs amplify the effect of redeployment costs on the likelihood of exit. Finally, we derive a series of results that show that disregarding one of these two exit options as a strategic alternative to the other may lead to misspecifications of empirical models that seek to predict the likelihood of redeployment, divestiture, or exit. Overall, our work contributes to the corporate strategy literature by uniting two streams of research that have largely remained disparate, yet whose insights have significant implications for each other.