Initial Public Offerings Of Firms Research Articles

Torpedo Your Competition: Strategic Reporting and Peer Firm IPO

ABSTRACT A firm’s initial public offering (IPO) generates negative externalities for industry competitors. To mitigate this threat, incumbent firms manage their earnings downward, issue more negative management forecasts, and use a more negative disclosure tone when their industry peers file for an IPO. Negative accruals reverse when the threat subsides. Incumbents manage earnings more aggressively when costs are small and benefits are large, and when they follow negative disclosures of industry leading incumbents. Such strategic disclosure lowers incumbent firm valuation multiples and associates with more negative IPO firm media sentiment. IPO firms obtain lower offer prices, raise less capital, and are more likely to withdraw from the offering. They also invest less, hoard more cash, and experience lower profitability post-IPO, whereas incumbents experience higher profitability and market share growth. Our results highlight the role of strategic reporting on product market competition and identify a new cost of going public.

The Underpricing of Sin Stocks

Sin firms engage in alcohol, tobacco, and game-related business activities. Using a sample of initial public offerings (IPOs), we examine the performance of sin and non-sin firm IPOs. We find that sin firm IPOs are more underpriced than non-sin firm IPOs after controlling for pre-issuance firm and issuance characteristics, such as asset size, firm age, lead underwriter’s reputation rank, listing exchange, and issuance size, providing further confirming evidence to the shunned-stock hypothesis and reasons for increased interest in alternative investments. Our research enriches the current literature on sin firms and IPOs. TOPICS:Portfolio theory, portfolio construction Key Findings • Sin firms have a unique return characteristic, which may be the result of investment firms’ focusing on more socially acceptable firms. • As the general sentiment surrounding socially responsible (or acceptable) investments continues to gain strength, investors who are willing to provide capital to sin firms may be able to obtain a reputational risk premium. • As social norms and the legal environment (e.g., cannabis and sports gambling legalization) continue to evolve, asset managers need to be aware of the potential return characteristics of new equity offerings from nontraditional firms.

CEO Turnover and IPO Performance

Previous research presents extensive conclusive results regarding the association between firm performance and CEO turnover. However, the issue of CEO turnover is still rarely investigated with regard to the usefulness Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) performance in the topic of Chief Executives Officers (CEOs) turnovers. The principle objective of this study is to investigate whether the likelihood of the CEOs turnover is inversely correlated with the IPO performance of the firm. This study is conducted by employing the U.S. sample data consists of 462 firms including 173 CEO turnover events within 5 years after the IPO offering during the period between 2003 and 2013, and it is mainly concluded that CEO turnover matters with respect to firm IPO performance, however, only for IPO long-term performance, rather than short-term performance.

Torpedo Your Competition: Strategic Reporting and Peer Firm IPO

A firm’s initial public offering (IPO) generates negative externalities for industry competitors. To mitigate this threat, incumbent firms manage their earnings downwards, issue more negative management forecasts, and use a more negative disclosure tone when industry peers file for an IPO. Negative accruals reverse when the threat subsides. Incumbents manage earnings more aggressively when costs are small and benefits are large. Such strategic disclosure lowers incumbent firm valuation multiples and associates with more negative IPO firm media sentiment. IPO firms obtain lower offer prices, raise less capital, and are more likely to withdraw from the offering. They also invest less, hoard more cash, and experience lower profitability post IPO, while incumbents experience higher profitability and market share growth. Our results highlight the role of strategic reporting on product market competition and identify a new cost of going public.

How does dependence on key employees matter for initial public offerings of U.S. high-tech firms?

Human capital is a key component of the resource base of the firm, particularly in high-tech entrepreneurial firms. In the initial public offering (IPO) context, the IPO firm sometimes identifies individual key employees because the IPO firm is dependent on the services of those employees. However, research is limited on determining the impact of such employee dependence on firm IPO performance. Using a sample of U.S. high-tech firms, we show that the IPO firm's performance is lower when the IPO prospectus discloses such dependence. Among firms with such disclosures, long-tenured executives increase IPO performance. In addition, the effects of long-tenured executives are stronger when multiple key employees are identified in the IPO firm.

Entrepreneurial finance meets government investment at initial public offering: The role of minority state ownership

AbstractManuscript TypeEmpiricalResearch Question/IssuePrior studies on the role of state investment tend to focus on either majority state ownership or aggregating majority and minority state ownership. Drawing upon signaling theory, we theorize that the negative intent signaled by minority state ownership reduces initial public offering (IPO) market performance. In addition, we hypothesize that founders as chief executive officers and outside directors not from state‐owned enterprises, representing the positive signal of intent, can attenuate the negative effect of minority state ownership.Research Findings/InsightsThe empirical results, based on 274 small and private firms in China's newly launched stock market, provide support for the hypotheses based on price premium, first‐day turnover rate, first‐day price increase, underpricing, and Tobin's Q.Theoretical/Academic ImplicationsTo the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine how minority state ownership affects small and private firm IPO performance. It suggests new avenues of research on ownership structure and the principal‐principal problem in the corporate governance of emerging economies. This study reveals the distinctive nature and effect between controlling state ownership and minority state ownership. The current research also opens new avenues of research on applying signaling theory, signal of intent in particular, in an IPO study.Practitioner/Policy ImplicationsThis study reveals the negative intent signaled by minority state ownership in privately controlled firms at IPO due to the weak monitoring capacity, limited resource provision, and enhanced political interdependency between private controllers and minority state owners. As minority state ownership becomes a more salient phenomenon in emerging markets, it guides policy makers in governance choices for government‐funded firms.

The Long-run Performance of Chinese Private Firm IPOs

This paper examines the three-year long run performance of Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in the Chinese stock markets from 2002 to 2012. We find that private firm IPO long-term returns are significantly higher than those of non-private firms, measured by both cumulative abnormal returns (CARs) and buy-and-hold abnormal returns (BHARs). Furthermore, the long-term performance of IPOs in the Chinese stock markets seems to have a significant upward tendency after the Non-tradable share (NTS) reform launched in 2005. However, private firm IPO long-run outperformance has experienced a diminishing increase after the NTS reform. This result indicates that state-owned enterprises turn to be more market-oriented after the NTS reform.

Economies of Scope and IPO Activity in Europe

Initial public offering (IPO) activity in Europe has recently come to a near-halt and, similarly to the US, this decline has been more pronounced among small firm IPOs. Three alternative explanations have been proposed: the economies of scope hypothesis states that getting big fast has become more important, resulting in small firms being acquired; the regulatory overreach hypothesis, which states that small firms are remaining private due to an increase in the regulatory costs borne by publicly traded firms; and the market conditions hypothesis, which states that poor stock market levels have resulted in low IPO volume. Although Europe is characterized by more fragmented regulation and by the existence of second markets with lower compliance costs, we argue that the decline in the number of IPOs is partly attributable to the economies of scope explanation. The Panic of 2008 and the Eurozone crisis of 2011 have also temporarily depressed IPO volume, consistent with the market conditions hypothesis. We present evidence of an increased difficulty for small firms to remain profitable, their underperformance, and their higher propensity to be acquired soon after the IPO, relative to large firms. We document that these patterns persist even among second market IPOs, where the regulatory overreach hypothesis does not apply. Controlling for the impact of market valuations, we investigate IPO activity in a time-series setting and unveil a downward trend in European IPOs over time.

Spin-offs to stock markets as a complementary form of entrepreneurship: Contrasting US, UK and Japanese experiences

This study explores the impact of the national institutional environment on the listing of firms on stock exchanges in Japan, the US, and the UK. In particular, the study compares the incidence of: (1) independent firm initial public offerings (IPOs); and (2) the subsidiaries of established corporations being spun-off to stock markets. An empirical analysis is conducted on a sample of 9118 IPOs extracted from the Securities Data Company New Issue Database. The results show that Japan and the UK are more active in incubating new innovative ventures within large corporations and spinning them to the stock markets than their general entrepreneurial activity would suggest. These results direct our attention to different forms of industrial renewal in different institutional environments.

Do Private Equity Investors Create Value for Italian Initial Public Offerings?

This study analyses the role of private equity (PE) backing in initial public offerings (IPOs) using a dataset of 227 companies that went public on the Milan Stock Exchange between January 1995 and December 2007. The evidence rejects the certification and monitoring hypotheses and provides considerable support for the market power hypothesis. In accordance with Chemmanur and Loutskina (2006), we suggest that PE investors exploit their relationships with the key IPO market players to attract attention to the IPOs of firms backed by PE, thus obtaining a higher equity valuation (both in the IPO and in the secondary market).

Software Firm Cost Structure and Its Impact on IPOs in the E-Commerce Era

The first decade of the e-commerce era saw an increase in activity in the software development industries as new firms were created and existing firms made acquisitions. Many firms pursued a growth strategy and this growth required capital that was often obtained through an initial public offering (IPO) of equity. Software firm cost structures are very different from traditional physical goods firms because their marginal costs are much lower, but what is not known is whether this affects their financing strategies. In this study we compare software firm and traditional firm IPOs using data from 780 IPOs offered during the late dot-com era (1998-2002) to identify differences in firm and offer characteristics, investment risk, initial returns, and underwriting activity. We find that the characteristics and performance of software firm IPOs are significantly different from IPOs offered by raditional firms during this time period providing supporting for our conclusion that firm cost structure should be considered when analyzing IPOs and other strategic issues.

Performance differences between IPOs in new industries and IPOs in established industries

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide a unique approach to examining issues related to initial public offerings (IPOs).Design/methodology/approachThe price behavior of IPOs in new industries is analyzed relative to IPOs in established industries.FindingsThe results show that there are fundamental differences between IPOs of companies in new industries and those in established industries in that there is greater uncertainty regarding future earnings, less competition and fewer barriers to entry. The results indicate that IPOs in new industries outperform IPOs in established industries during holding periods of one to ten years. Furthermore, IPOs in new industries tend to merge less often, declare bankruptcy less often and are delisted less often than firms conducting an IPO in established industries.Originality/valueA longitudinal approach allows analysis of IPOs of firms relative to other IPOs within the same industry that occurred before or after. By performing such a longitudinal study, issues could be examined which would not have been possible to analyze using a cross section of IPOs from a single time period. The usefulness of this study is that it provides new information to the investor when selecting between IPOs in new or established industries, and also when selecting among IPOs of firms entering a new industry in the early, middle or latter stage of its market cycle.

FAMILY FIRM IPO PERFORMANCE AND MARKET SIGNALS

Recently, the interests in the performance of family firms in the capital market are on the rise. However studies on long-term performance give us little information about the performance of family firms in the initial public offering (IPO) markets. Building on agency theory, we investigated the effect of three IPO signals in family firm IPOs. Practices such as the appointment of outside non-family directors and waiting longer before going public significantly reduce underpricing. In addition, family owners' intent to retain large percentage of share in the long run is an indication of original shareholders' level of confidence in their own companies. Such confidence helps reduce after market investors' uncertainty and thus underpricing. On the other hand, family ownership at the IPO positively moderates the impact of non-family directors on underpricing.

Country of Origin and Foreign IPO Legitimacy: Understanding the Role of Geographic Scope and Insider Ownership

Foreign firms from emergent economies are increasingly seeking equity capital in developed economies like the United States. Utilizing institutional, signaling, and agency theories this research examines the legitimacy of foreign IPOs (initial public offerings) in the United States. Employing the population of foreign IPOs listed on U.S. stock exchanges between 1997 and 2004, it is demonstrated that firms from countries with governmental policies and institutional practices that protect the economic freedom of its citizens are significantly less underpriced than IPOs of firms originating from countries experiencing lower levels of economic freedom. The evidence further indicates that firms from emerging economies can overcome negative country perceptions associated with lower levels of legitimacy by increasing their international scope of operations prior to beginning the IPO process as well as by retaining acceptable levels of ownership in their respective firms.

Are Real Estate IPOs a Different Species? Evidence from Hong Kong IPOs

It is well documented that in the United States, real estate investment trust (REIT) initial public offerings (IPOs) have an abnormally low initial-day return when compared to that of industrial firm IPOs. Researchers suspect that the abnormal return pattern of REIT IPOs is caused by their unique real estate holdings. Examination of 399 IPOs issued in Hong Kong during the 1986-1997 period reveals strong evidence that suggests that underlying real estate holdings cannot be the sole reason for the observed low initial-day return of REIT IPOs. This investigation indicates that there is a need to re-think the current explanations for the abnormal performance of REIT IPOs.