The Puzzling Increase in the Underpricing of Seasoned Equity Offerings

Using a sample of over 3,000 seasoned equity offerings (SEOs) from 1983 to 1998, we test the hypothesis that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b‐21, which disallows the covering of short positions with newly issued SEOs, makes pre‐offer stock prices less informative, which, in turn, causes the new seasoned equity to be priced at a discount. Consistent with the hypothesis, we find that the year the rule went into effect coincides with the year from which we begin observing significant SEO discounts. Further, we find that ex ante uncertainty and SEO discounts are positively related. We also conduct tests specifically related to short selling, and we also consider an exhaustive set of alternative explanations for the discounts. Based on all of the evidence, we conclude that it is the rule that makes issue discounts larger in the 1990s.     

Analyst Following and Equity Offerings Subsequent to Initial Public Offerings

Analyst forecast information is collected for firms following their IPOs and is used in an examination of subsequent seasoned equity offerings (SEOs). Consistent with information asymmetry arguments, the analysis indicates that a larger percentage of firms conducting SEOs within three years of the IPO are covered by financial analysts than those without SEOs, and that analyst coverage is a significant predictor of subsequent SEOs. In addition, the results indicate that long-term earnings growth forecasts are larger for firms with subsequent SEOs, but growth forecasts decline significantly following the SEOs. Further, SEO abnormal returns exhibit a significant negative relationship with earnings growth forecasts. These results are consistent with windows of opportunity arguments since they suggest that SEOs are timed to coincide with the peak of earnings growth expectations, but that market participants compensate by reacting more negatively to offerings by firms with high growth forecasts.     

Does the Stock Market Compensate Banks for Diversifying into the Insurance Business?

This paper explores a wide range of corporate restructurings, all available deals from wire services, in the banking and insurance sectors that led to bancassurance ventures. An event study methodology is employed to calculate excess returns on and around the deals’ announcement date. Using both univariate and multivariate analysis the paper finds bank driven mergers, deal's size and regional categorization all triggering positive and significant market reactions. Unlike the univariate framework, multivariate analysis shows that geographic focus and language are not significant factors. The results also indicate that markets are indifferent with respect to bank withdrawals from the bank‐insurance operations. Finally, Canadian, U.S. and European bank‐insurance deals produce positive results, while Australasian bidders offer statistically insignificant equity returns.     

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.     

Why do large shareholders adopt a short‐term versus a long‐term investment horizon in different firms?

I ask why the same large shareholders have different investment horizons. Using data for 1998–2013, I examine four fundamental firm policies for their potential influence on blockholders’ investments with different time horizons. The panel ordinary least squares, difference‐in‐difference (using the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act), logistic, and dynamic generalized method of moments regression analyses reveal that blockholders adopt a short‐term horizon in smaller firms with a less independent board, high leverage, and high dividends while the same blockholders keep their investments longer in firms with a more independent board and low dividends. Under various economic conditions, different firm characteristics gain importance in blockholders’ decision on short‐term versus long‐term investments.