[At what point in a firm's life should it go public? How do a firm's ex ante product market characteristics relate to its going-public decision? Further, what are the implications of a firm going public on its post-IPO operating and product market performance? In this article, we answer the above questions by conducting the first large sample study of the going-public decisions of U.S. firms in the literature. We use the Longitudinal Research Database (LRD) of the U.S. Census Bureau, which covers the entire universe of private and public U.S. manufacturing firms. Our findings can be summarized as follows. First, a private firm's product market characteristics (total factor productivity [TFP], size, sales growth, market share, industry competitiveness, capital intensity, and cash flow riskiness) significantly affect its likelihood of going public after controlling for its access to private financing (venture capital or bank loans). Second, private firms facing less information asymmetry and those with projects that are cheaper for outsiders to evaluate are more likely to go public. Third, as more firms in an industry go public, the concentration of that industry increases in subsequent years. The above results are robust to controlling for the interactions between various product market and firm-specific variables. Fourth, IPOs of firms occur at the peak of their productivity cycle: the dynamics of TFP and sales growth exhibit an inverted U-shaped pattern, both in our univariate analysis and in our multivariate analysis using firms that remained private throughout as a benchmark. Finally, sales, capital expenditures, and other performance variables exhibit a consistently increasing pattern over the years before and after the IPO. The last two findings are consistent with the view that the widely documented post-IPO operating underperformance of firms is due to the real investment effects of going public rather than being due to earnings management immediately prior to the IPO.]

We model the employee incentive problem jointly with a firm’s exit decision. Our model predicts that firms in industries where human capital is important are more likely to go public and use high-powered, stock-based compensation. We also show that the higher the management quality, the more likely a firm is to go public than to be acquired. Regarding life cycle, a firm with high capital intensity and/or high management quality will choose to go public at a younger age.

We use a large sample of transaction-level institutional trading data to analyze, for the first time in the literature, the role of institutional investors as producers of information around corporate spin-offs. Our results may be summarized as follows. First, there is a significant imbalance in post-spin-off institutional trading between the equity of new parent firms versus subsidiaries, suggesting that spin-offs increase institutional investors' welfare by relaxing a trading constraint. This imbalance in institutional trading is driven by differences in information asymmetry across the two spun-off firm divisions. Second, institutional trading around spin-offs has significant predictive power for the announcement effect of a spin-off and for post-spin-off long-run stock returns. Third, institutional investors are able to realize significant abnormal profits by trading in the subsidiary firm equity in the first quarter post-spin-off. Overall, we show that spin-offs enhance information production by institutional investors, who profit from this enhanced information production.

Prior literature finds that staggered state-level adoption of the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine (IDD) significantly constrains labor mobility. Using the IDD as an exogenous shock to labor mobility, we find that firms headquartered in states that adopt the IDD gravitate towards issuing short-term debt for external debt financing. We examine three mechanisms—default risk, information asymmetry, and agency cost mitigation—through which labor mobility restrictions affect debt maturity. Our results provide support for the information asymmetry mechanism, which suggests that firms are more inclined to use short-term debt when their information environment deteriorates. We find that in the wake of IDD adoption, firms tend to utilize short-term debt only in corporate bond markets and their debt maturity profiles become more concentrated.

Do institutional investors possess private information about seasoned equity offerings (SEOs)? If so, do they use this private information to trade in a direction opposite to this information (a manipulative trading role) or in the same direction (an information production role)? We use a large sample of transaction-level institutional trading data to distinguish between these two roles of institutional investors. We explicitly identify institutional SEO allocations for the first time in the literature. We analyze the consequences of the private information possessed by institutional investors for SEO share allocation, institutional trading before and after the SEO and realized trading profitability, and the SEO discount. We find that institutions are able to identify and obtain more allocations in SEOs with better long-run stock returns, they trade in the same direction as their private information, and their post-SEO trading significantly outperforms a naive buy-and-hold trading strategy. Further, more pre-offer institutional net buying and larger institutional SEO allocations are associated with a smaller SEO discount. Overall, our results are consistent with institutions possessing private information about SEOs and with an information production instead of a manipulative trading role for institutional investors in SEOs.

At what point in a firm's life should it go public? How do a firm's ex ante product market characteristics relate to its going-public decision? Further, what are the implications of a firm going public on its post-IPO operating and product market performance? In this article, we answer the above questions by conducting the first large sample study of the going-public decisions of U.S. firms in the literature. We use the Longitudinal Research Database (LRD) of the U.S. Census Bureau, which covers the entire universe of private and public U.S. manufacturing firms. Our findings can be summarized as follows. First, a private firm's product market characteristics (total factor productivity [TFP], size, sales growth, market share, industry competitiveness, capital intensity, and cash flow riskiness) significantly affect its likelihood of going public after controlling for its access to private financing (venture capital or bank loans). Second, private firms facing less information asymmetry and those with projects that are cheaper for outsiders to evaluate are more likely to go public. Third, as more firms in an industry go public, the concentration of that industry increases in subsequent years. The above results are robust to controlling for the interactions between various product market and firm-specific variables. Fourth, IPOs of firms occur at the peak of their productivity cycle: the dynamics of TFP and sales growth exhibit an inverted U-shaped pattern, both in our univariate analysis and in our multivariate analysis using firms that remained private throughout as a benchmark. Finally, sales, capital expenditures, and other performance variables exhibit a consistently increasing pattern over the years before and after the IPO. The last two findings are consistent with the view that the widely documented post-IPO operating underperformance of firms is due to the real investment effects of going public rather than being due to earnings management immediately prior to the IPO.

Using unique U.S. Census data sets, we analyze how entrepreneurial firms’ product market characteristics affect their choice between going public, being acquired, or remaining private. Size, total factor productivity (TFP), sales growth, capital expenditure, market share, access to private funding, and human capital intensiveness significantly increase a private firm’s likelihood of an initial public offering (IPO) relative to an acquisition. Firms in industries with less information asymmetry and higher stock liquidity are more likely to choose an IPO over an acquisition. While TFP peaks around either form of exit, the rate of increase in TFP prior to acquisitions and the subsequent decrease is smaller than that around IPOs.