We examine valuation effects of announcements of seasoned equity issuance and assess the impact of the choice of flotation method in the U.K. Rights offerings are predominant, but in 1986, British firms gained the flexibility to conduct placings, which are comparable to U.S. firm commitment offerings. A placing is a fixed-price bought deal that increases ownership dispersion. Placings generate significantly positive share price effects, whereas rights offerings have large negative valuation effects that become more adverse after 1985. We conclude that the option to conduct placings enhances the ability of firms to signal their quality and to use a seasoned equity offering to reduce ownership concentration.

We examine a sample of firms that reset the exercise prices on their executive options. These repricings follow a period of about one year of poor firm-specific performance in which the average firm loses one-fourth of its value. No other offsetting changes to option terms or compensation are made, and many firms reprice more than once. Without repricing, a majority of the options would have been at-the-money within two years. We find that when faced with circumstances in which repricing might be chosen, firms with greater agency problems, smaller size, and insider- dominated boards are more likely to reprice.

The ‘new issues puzzle’ is that stocks of common stock issuers subsequently underperform nonissuers matched on size and book-to-market ratio. With 7000+ seasoned equity and debt issues, we document that issuer underperformance reflects lower systematic risk exposure for issuing firms relative to the matches. A consistent explanation is that, as equity issuers lower leverage, their exposures to unexpected inflation and default risks decrease, thus decreasing their stocks’ expected returns relative to matched firms. Equity issues also significantly increase stock liquidity (turnover), again lowering expected returns relative to nonissuers. We conclude that the ‘new issue puzzle’ is explained by a failure of the matched-firm technique to provide a proper control for risk. This conclusion is robust to issue characteristics and the choice of factor model framework.