Single versus multiple banking: lessons from initial public offerings

A vast research in banking addresses the question of the costs and benefits of multiple bank relationships versus a single bank relationship. Although no clear-cutting conclusion is reached, several contributions suggest that multiple bank relationships might lead to a sub-optimal level of monitoring, compared to a single bank relationship, as a result of free riding and coordination problems. We take a novel approach to tackle this research question, by looking at the role, if any, played by the number of lending relationships in initial public offerings (IPOs). We look at the short-term performances of IPOs as measured by underpricing and find that firms that go public with multiple bank relationships exhibit more underpricing than those that go public with a single bank relationship. This finding is independent of the number of bank relationships and/or whether any of the lending banks also acts as underwriter in the offering. We interpret our results as suggesting that the market attributes a weaker certification role to multiple bank relationships because of their less effective monitoring of IPO firms.     

Going-concern initial public offerings

We study the relation between audit reports and the capital-raising activities of small business by studying the role of going-concern (GC) audit opinions in IPOs. After controlling for other effects, we find that the presence of a GC opinion is positively related to whether a stock delists (for deleterious reasons) within two years of IPO. We also find that GC IPOs suffer less first-day underpricing. Based on Rock (1986), this implies that firms with GCs have less ex ante uncertainty in the sense that the information conveyed by a GC helps uninformed investors estimate the dispersion of secondary market values.     

Litigation risk, strategic disclosure and the underpricing of initial public offerings

Using word content analysis on the time-series of IPO prospectuses, we show that issuers tradeoff underpricing and strategic disclosure as potential hedges against litigation risk. This tradeoff explains a significant fraction of the variation in prospectus revision patterns, IPO underpricing, the partial adjustment phenomenon, and litigation outcomes. We find that strong disclosure is an effective hedge against all types of lawsuits. Underpricing, however, is an effective hedge only against Section 11 lawsuits, those lawsuits which are most damaging to the underwriter. Underwriters who fail to adequately hedge litigation risk experience economically large penalties, including loss of market share.     

Determinants of intellectual capital disclosure in prospectuses of initial public offerings

Intellectual capital is recognised as the new economic era’s pivotal factor underlying value creation. Deficient and inconsistent intellectual capital reporting is escalating information asymmetry between informed and uninformed investors. This provides fertile ground for informed investors to extract higher abnormal returns and higher wealth transfers from uninformed investors, particularly during a firm’s initial public offering (IPO). This study investigates the association between intellectual capital disclosure levels in prospectuses of 444 IPOs listing on the Singapore Stock Exchange between 1997 and 2006, and three potential explanatory determinants: (1) ownership retention; (2) proprietary costs; and (3) corporate governance structure. Statistical analysis supports our conjecture of a positive association between intellectual capital disclosure and ownership retention. We also find, consistent with expectations, a negative influence of proprietary costs on the positive intellectual capital disclosure – ownership retention association. However, contrary to predictions, we do not find an IPO’s corporate governance structure significantly influences the negative interaction of proprietary costs on the ownership retention – proprietary cost association. Our findings have implications for various parties such as regulators who may impose unnecessary costs on issuers if they introduce mandatory disclosures whilst lacking an understanding of the factors influencing intellectual capital disclosures.     

Share repurchases of initial public offerings: motives,valuation effects,and the impact of market regulation

This study investigates the motives and valuation effects of share repurchase announcements of German firms during the 1998–2008 period, addressing the question why initial public offering (IPO) firms repurchase shares soon after going public. While our focus is on IPO firms, we also examine the impact of firm size by differentiating between IPO and established DAX/MDAX firms and by analyzing the source of surplus cash holdings, that is, either from equity issuances or from operating cash flows. We further explore the impact of the regulatory environment. Our empirical analysis reveals significant differences between the IPO and DAX/MDAX subsamples regarding their repurchase motives, stock price performance, and explanatory factors. Standard corporate payout theories are essential in explaining the different valuation effects. Our empirical analysis suggests agency costs of free cash flow as the main reason for the observed valuation effects of both IPO and DAX/MDAX firms, yet for different reasons. While DAX/MDAX firms continuously generate high operating cash flows before and after repurchasing shares, IPO firms exhibit low operating cash flows during the entire period but large surplus cash holdings due to the mandatory equity issuance at their public offering. Overall, the repurchase decisions of IPO firms are best explained by the agency costs of cash holdings and the unique rules and regulations of the German stock exchange.     

Long-run stock performance of German initial public offerings and seasoned equity issues

We estimate the long-run stock performance after initial public offerings (IPOs) in the German capital market with a larger sample than prior studies and alternative benchmarks (the equally and the value-weighted market portfolio, size portfolios and matching stocks). In addition we present the first results on the long-run performance after seasoned equity issues (SEOs) in Germany. We conclude that size portfolios and matching stocks are better benchmarks than market portfolios. Using buy‐and-hold abnormal returns, we estimate that German stocks involved in an IPO or in a SEO, on average, underperform a portfolio consisting of stocks with a similar market capitalization by 6% in three years. This is considerably less than the underperformance after IPOs and SEOs in the US market reported by Loughran and Ritter (1995) and the underperformance after IPOs in Germany reported by Ljungqvist (1997). We also show that the apparent underperformance of the 1988–1990 IPO cohort discussed by Ljungqvist (1997) disappears when the abnormal performance estimate is based on size instead of market portfolios.     

Local corporate misconduct and local initial public offerings

This paper investigates the cost of going public through initial public offerings (IPOs) for firms located in regions with significant fraud density. We find that companies in regions with a high proportion of nearby firms that have committed corporate misconduct have more pronounced underpricing, experience higher post-IPO stock return volatility, and are more likely to withdraw their offerings. Overall, our results show that local corporate misconduct is associated with the pricing of IPOs, and the breach of trust is related to costly IPOs for newcomers.     

Patents and the performance of technology firms: Evidence from initial public offerings in Germany

The objective of this study is to analyze the relationship between innovation and performance for German firms that went public at the “Neuer Markt” during the period from 1997 to 2002. In the empirical analysis we investigate in particular whether initial public offerings (IPOs) with more or higher quality patents outperformed IPOs with lower quality or no patented technology. For this we measure the impact of patents on underpricing and long-run performance and explain the magnitude of these valuation effects with the Fama–French value and growth factors, with patent-specific variables such as the number of IPC-classes, family size, the number of backward and forward citations, as well as with industry variables. The empirical evidence suggests that patents are a reliable indicator for the success and the short- and long-run performance of start-up technology firms that went public and that the valuation effects are more pronounced for higher quality patents.

Debt financing,venture capital,and the performance of initial public offerings

We examine the roles of two financial intermediaries, lenders and venture capitalists, in a sample of more than 6000 IPO firms during 1980–2012. Venture capitalists and lenders generally fund different types of firms and, on average, are substitutes; however, in some instances we observe interactions and complementary roles between the two funding sources. Firms with high debt have lower valuation uncertainty, and lower initial day returns than those backed by venture capital. However, firms with high debt levels underperform in the long-run, especially those without venture capital. We provide some evidence that firms backed by reputable venture capitalists perform better.     

The underpricing of initial public offerings: A theoretical and empirical reconsideration of the adverse selection hypothesis

In this paper we generalize Rock's theory regarding the underpricing of IPOs. In Rock's model, informed investors have a firm-specific informational advantage pertaining to a firm's cash flow. We derive the new results that the level of beta and the size of the market risk premium positively affect underpricing. These implications extend the adverse selection theory and further distinguish this theory from the current state of signalling theories of underpricing. The results put the “hot and cold” issue markets phenomenon in a theoretical context. Empirical results are consistent with the theoretical propositions and provide support for Rock's theory of underpricing.     

The over/underpricing of initial public offerings

This article shows that lawsuit avoidance motivation can lead entrepreneurs to overprice, as well as underprice, initial public offerings of equity. The article simplifies the lawsuit avoidance argument by addressing the entrepreneur's acceptable probability of lawsuit predicated on the loss of reputation capital, in lieu of the explicit offering revenue/litigation cost trade-off previously treated in the literature. The model yields offering price regimes which include rational cases of overpricing and correct pricing, as well as underpricing, and comparative statics results for the relationship of the optimal offering price with project size, project risk, investors' litigiousness, and the entrepreneur's acceptable probability of lawsuit. The article argues that existing empirical evidence previously used to refute the lawsuit avoidance hypothesis supports the hypothesis in the context of the model.     

Investor sentiment and the underperformance of technology firms initial public offerings

This research examines the effect of individual and institutional investor sentiment toward the overall market at the time of Initial Public Offering (IPO) on the aftermarket performance of technology IPO shares. The study which is based on 1346 U.S. technology IPOs completed between 1992 and 2009 shows that the irrational component of individual investor sentiment negatively affects shares’ aftermarket performance: the more optimistic individual investors are at the time of IPO, the lower the shares’ aftermarket return. On the other hand, the rational component of institutional investor sentiment does not affect the shares’ short-run performance, yet positively affects their long-run performance. In contrast with prior theoretical models this paper shows that investor overconfidence positively affects technology IPO shares’ aftermarket performance. The paper extends the behavioral finance literature by providing evidence on the negative role played by noise trading in affecting technology and biotechnology IPO shares performance.     

Seasoned equity offerings and the short- and long-run performance of initial public offerings in the UK

In contrast to the US practice, rights issues is the predominant method of raising additional equity capital in the London market. the UK evidence for the period 1980-1991 provides no support to the hypothesis that IPO firms deliberately underprice to signal their quality and facilitate subsequent seasoned equity offerings. the level of initial returns is related neither to the size of the issue nor to the price response at the announcement of a rights issue. the results demonstrate, however, that firms with higher first day returns are quicker in returning to the market for additional equity capital. There is also strong evidence to suggest that the announcement of a seasoned equity offering follows a period of significant rises in the stock prices of reissuing firms. Such gains are, however, dissipated quickly in the 18 months after the announcement of the seasoned equity offering. the level of underperformance is particularly pronounced for firms that raised relatively small subsequent amounts of capital in relation to funds raised at the initial offering. Thus, the paper documents a pattern of post-issue behaviour which is fundamentally similar for both unseasoned and seasoned equity offerings.     

Venture capital‐backed and commitments test entity initial public offerings on the ASX

This paper examines initial returns to venture capital (VC) backed and non‐VC‐backed IPO companies on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX). We find support for the theoretical predictions of Rossetto (2008), by providing empirical evidence that VC‐backed CTE IPOs exhibit greater wealth losses to pre‐IPO investors compared to non‐VC‐backed CTE IPOs during hot issue markets. We also find that greater retained ownership increases IPO underpricing. In the subsample of IPOs with below the median level of retained ownership IPOs, VC‐backed CTE IPOs and VC‐backed, non‐CTE IPOs have significantly higher levels of underpricing and wealth loss compared to non‐VC‐backed, non‐CTE IPOs.     

Underwriter warrants,underwriter reputation,and growth signaling

We present an alternative explanation of warrant use for underwriter compensation. We consider underwriter warrants as a signaling device to convey an issuing firm’s future growth potential and test this signaling role of warrant use by taking a direct approach in a seasoned equity offering (SEO) environment. Employing a matched-sample approach, we find that the use of warrants mitigates the negative price effects of SEOs. Specifically, the issuance of SEOs with warrant-based compensation has a significantly less negative impact on abnormal return performance than the issuance of SEOs with cash-based compensation. The results of logit regressions confirm this linkage. We further find that this less negative impact on firm value is attributable to the signaling value representing the issuing firm’s future growth prospects through warrant compensation even in the presence of underwriter reputation variables. These results suggest that firms with greater growth prospects benefit more by issuing SEOs with warrant compensation than with cash compensation. Overall, our results support the growth signaling effect of warrant compensation as an additional role of underwriter warrants in the SEO market.

How the quality of initial coin offering white papers influences fundraising: Using security token offerings white papers as a benchmark

In recent years, many initial coin offerings (ICOs) scams have been reported, attracting attention to this relatively new and unregulated ICO market, which lacks disclosure requirements and therefore suffers from intensifying problems of information asymmetry inherent in crowdfunding. As a prospectus-type document, an ICO white paper serves as a major means of voluntary disclosure practices adopted by ventures seeking external financing. Given the importance of an ICO white paper and the difficulty of assessing its quality, we propose to benchmark it against white paper content for security token offerings (STOs)—a more regulated ICO subset. Using the similarity of ICO white papers with STO white papers to proxy for disclosure quality, we document that the ICO campaigns that have white papers more similar to STO white papers are more likely to raise funding successfully. Our findings provide implications for policymakers, ICO fundraisers, and investors on the importance of white paper quality.     

Unit initial public offerings: Staged equity or signaling mechanism?

We investigate the use of unit (i.e., package) initial public offerings by Australian industrial firms and conclude that their use reflects their role as a signaling mechanism (Chemmanur and Fulghieri, 1997), as distinct from the agency–cost explanation offered by Schultz (1993). From a sample of 394 IPOs between 1976 and 1994, the 66 firms making unit offerings are typically riskier, use less prestigious underwriters and have a lower level of retained ownership than other IPO firms. While these results are also consistent with Schultz's agency cost explanation, other results we report are not. We find no difference in underpricing etween unit IPOs and other IPO firms, nor are there any significant differences in the planned uses of proceeds reported in the prospectus, post–listing failure rates or secondary equity offerings of the type predicted by Schultz. We do however, report evidence consistent with a prediction unique to the signaling explanation. After controlling for the level of ownership retained by insiders, the proportion of firm value sold as warrants is increasing in IPO firms' riskiness.     

The waiting period of initial public offerings

The length of time it takes an IPO firm to go public (called ‘waiting period’) reflects multiple layers of scrutiny from underwriters, auditors, venture capitalists, institutional investors, and regulators. Accordingly, we show that the waiting period is a good barometer of ex ante uncertainty about future cash flows and that it has predictive power after the firm goes public. We find that firms marked by short waiting periods experience lower underpricing and less uncertainty and superior stock/operating performance in the aftermarket. We also report that smaller firms are taking longer to go public after SOX Act, thus providing justification for the 2012 JOBS Act.     

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.     

Securities litigation,withdrawal risk and initial public offerings

I examine the relations between litigation risk, withdrawal risk, and the costs of going public using a sample of withdrawn and completed initial public offerings (IPOs) filed during 1996–2005. Firms with a higher probability of offer withdrawal face higher litigation risk if they complete these offers. Firms with higher litigation risk pay slightly higher gross spreads, but do not underprice their IPOs by a greater amount. Withdrawal probability is strongly and positively associated with underwriter gross spreads, consistent with underwriters charging fees that reflect the probability of not getting paid. When the pre-market demand for an IPO is weak, a higher withdrawal probability raises underpricing on completed deals.