American IPOs are priced after a process of bookbuilding, during which issuers can withdraw at any time. We hypothesize that the option to withdraw reduces underpricing by strengthening the issuers’ bargaining power with respect to investors. Empirical analysis reveals that underpricing is lower when investor perception of an IPO's likelihood of withdrawal is higher. Withdrawing issuers are neither smaller nor less profitable than issuers completing their IPOs, and engage underwriters that are as reputable as those managing completed offerings. Withdrawal is correlated with leverage, intended use of proceeds, expected issue size, venture backing, revenues, NASDAQ returns, and IPO activity.

We argue that the empirical evidence against the capital asset pricing model (CAPM) based on stock returns does not invalidate its use for estimating the cost of capital for projects in making capital budgeting decisions. Because stocks are backed not only by projects in place, but also by the options to modify current projects and undertake new ones, the expected returns on stocks need not satisfy the CAPM even when expected returns of projects do. We provide empirical support for our arguments by developing a method for estimating firms' project CAPM betas and project returns. Our findings justify the continued use of the CAPM by firms in spite of the mounting evidence against it based on the cross section of stock returns.