Eurobond underwriter spreads

We examine the determinants of underwriter spreads on straight/fixed rate Eurobonds issued by US firms between 1990 and 1998. We find that underwriter spreads are influenced by: (i) the governing law as it influences the timely and orderly renegotiation of contract terms, with bonds governed by English law having significantly lower spreads; (ii) the distribution mechanism, with spreads higher on public issues than private placements; (iii) underwriter reputation, with more reputable underwriters charging higher spreads; and (iv) the choice of currency, with spreads higher in the less frequently used currencies and/or in currencies where underwriting activities are more concentrated.     

Does reputation of sponsors matter in IPO? Evidence from Hong Kong

Contrary to other markets where underwriters perform a combined role of underwriting and sponsoring in an Initial Public Offering (IPO), IPO issuers in Hong Kong must appoint at least one sponsor in addition to the underwriters. The splitting of the single role of underwriters into two separate ones offers an ideal setting to disentangle the effects of the two roles and to examine which of the two roles—sponsor or underwriter—is more important in explaining IPO underpricing and initial volatility in the Hong Kong equity market. Interestingly, our findings provide supportive evidence that the sponsor reputation does matter in an IPO and it is even more significant than the underwriter reputation in explaining the IPO underpricing phenomenon. Given the recent high-tech fervor, our research goes deeper to examine specifically the role of sponsors on high-tech firms, with results indicating that the reliance on sponsors is higher for traditional issuers than for technology firms. We further discover that sponsors and underwriters are playing substitution roles rather than complementary roles. In order to examine the regulatory policy impact, our research also compares the role of IPO sponsors before and after the launch of the new sponsor regulatory regime in 2013. The empirical findings lend support to our argument that after the launch of the new regulations, public awareness of sponsors is raised, respect towards more reputable sponsor increases, and thus, the role of sponsors becomes more important than before.     

On post-IPO stock price performance: A comparative analysis of RLBOs and IPOs

This is the first study to examine the post-IPO stock price performance by differentiating between IPOs and three types of RLBOs (i.e. public-to-private (or re-IPOs), division-to-private, and private-to-private deals). We document that public-to-private RLBOs outperform their industry rivals, IPOs, mature firms in comparable industries, and a propensity-score matched control group for up to five years post-offering. Further, we document that, within RLBOs, public-to-private RLBOs, outperform private-to-private and division-to-private RLBOs. We also find support for the underwriter signaling effect for public-to-private RLBOs. Our analysis identifies for the first time what private period restructuring activities contribute to superior post-re-IPO stock price performance. Further, the beneficial effects of private period restructurings are enhanced for deals associated with prestigious underwriters. Our findings suggest that first IPOs and re-IPOs differ substantially in term of post-offer performance, the impact of prestigious underwriters on performance, and performance over time.     

我国承销商利用分析师报告托市了吗?

学术界对于我国IPO市场是否存在承销商托市行为一直存在争议。本文通过搜集新股上市一年之内的分析师报告数据,系统考察了我国承销商利用分析师报告进行托市的行为特征,以及投资者对于承销商分析师具有托市性质报告的市场反应。结果发现:(1)承销商会利用乐观、但偏颇的分析师报告为市场表现不佳的新股进行托市,但这一现象在新股上市90天后消失;(2)声誉机制在新股解禁期后才能有效约束承销商利用分析师报告托市的利益冲突行为;(3)市场投资者总体上能够识别承销商的托市意图,并对承销商分析师报告的系统偏误进行自我调整。本文的研究不仅为我国承销商是否存在托市行为提供了新的直接性经验证据,而且有助于市场各方洞悉分析师报告背后的利益冲突,同时也为监管部门出台相关的规范政策提供了新的决策参考。     

Determinants of Underwriter Participation in Initial Public Offerings of Common Stock: An Empirical Study

This paper examines an optimal underwriter participation model and develops testable hypotheses regarding the influence of certain factors on the degree of underwriter participation in initial public offerings (IPOs) of common stock. The issue of underwriter participation is important primarily due to the tradeoff between foregone underwriter compensation and underwriting risk reduction. The results of this paper indicate that factors related to the issue, issuing firm, underwriter, and IPO market conditions all are important determinants of the participation decision. Interestingly, the results also show that the importance of these factors is not consistent across underwriter prestige groups. In particular, factors external to underwriters (e.g., the issuing firm and market characteristics) are more important for explaining nonprestigious underwriter participation, while factors related to underwriters themselves play a more important role for explaining prestigious underwriter participation.     

主承销商的买入推荐可信吗?——来自中国的证据和启示

以2004-2009年的A股IPO公司为样本,我们探讨主承销商分析师买入推荐的可信性问题。我们的研究表明,在市场表现较差时,主承销商分析师倾向于给出买入推荐。此外,相对于主承销商,市场更相信其他券商分析师给出的买入推荐。我们还发现,其他券商分析师也能够识别主承销商买入推荐所包含的乐观性偏差。我们的这一结论为主承销商分析师所面临的利益冲突问题提供了直接证据,不仅有助于投资者更好地进行投资决策,也有利于监管当局对证券分析师行业对症下药,从而更好地保护投资者利益。     

Signaling in science-based IPOs: The combined effect of affiliation with prestigious universities,underwriters, and venture capitalists

This paper studies the combined effect of affiliation with prestigious universities, underwriters, and venture capitalists on the valuation of biotech ventures at IPO and their post-IPO performance. We argue that affiliation to a prestigious university provides the affiliated firm with a quality signal in the scientific domain. The pure quality signaling effect of the affiliation is isolated from the substantive benefits it provides by performing a difference-in-difference approach based on the scientific reputation of scientists in firms' upper echelons. The signal is stronger the weaker is the scientific reputation of scientists of the focal IPO-firm and is additive to those provided by prestigious venture capitalists and underwriters. Results for a sample of 254 European biotech ventures that went through an IPO between 1990 and 2009 confirm our predictions.     

Underwriter reputation,earnings management and the long‐run performance of initial public offerings

This study contributes to the extant literature on the nature of earnings management surrounding initial public offerings (IPOs) by investigating the role of underwriter reputation. We argue that prestigious underwriters will protect their reputation by carefully monitoring and certifying financial information on IPO firms, thereby limiting any potential earnings manipulation. As a result, those IPO firms that are associated with more prestigious underwriters are likely to exhibit substantially less‐aggressive earnings management. Conversely, we find the existence of a negative relationship between earnings management and the post‐offer performance of an IPO firm’s stocks only for those firms associated with less‐prestigious underwriters.     

Underwriter choice and earnings management: evidence from seasoned equity offerings

Using a sample of seasoned equity offerings (SEOs), this paper examines the association between the choice of financial intermediary and earnings management. We contend that with more stringent standards for certification and intense monitoring, highly prestigious underwriters restrict firms’ incentives for earnings management to protect their reputation and to avoid potential litigation risks, while firms with greater incentives for earnings management avoid strict monitoring by choosing low-quality underwriters. Consistent with our predictions, we find an inverse association between underwriter quality and issuers’ earnings management. In addition, we find that underwriter quality is positively related to SEOs’ post-issue performance, even after controlling for the effect of earnings management. We also find that firms with low-underwriter prestige and high levels of earnings management under-perform the most. However, the effect of underwriter choice on post-issue performance does not last long.

Why do firms switch underwriters?

In the mid-1990s, 30% of firms completing an SEO within three years of their IPO switched lead underwriter. This article provides evidence on why they switched. Contrary to predictions of prior research, there is little evidence that firms switch due to dissatisfaction with underwriter performance at the time of the IPO. A surprising result is that switchers’ IPOs were significantly less underpriced than non-switchers’ IPOs. However, switchers raised fewer proceeds than expected, compared to the mid-point of the filing range, while non-switchers raised significantly more proceeds. There are two main reasons for switching. Firms graduate to higher reputation underwriters, and they strategically buy additional and influential analyst coverage from the new lead underwriter. Survey results support these conclusions.