Abstract
We examine whether the market reaction to announcements by banking firms of repeat seasoned stock issues differs from that of first-stage issues. We find that the valuation effect of repeat issues is significantly negative. In contrast, earlier first-stage issues by these banking firms generate normal returns. This evidence supports the Gale and Stiglitz (1989) hypothesis that repeat common stock issues reveal negative private information that cannot be discerned in first-stage issues. The evidence also indicates that the impact of repeat issues is conditioned on the banking firm's capital position.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.