Firms with poor aftermarket performance are given higher target prices and are more likely to receive strong buy recommendations, especially by analysts affiliated with the lead underwriter. This favorable coverage is relatively short lived, typically lasting less than six months. Controlling for the quantity of coverage received, stock prices of newly public firms increase more when the target price ratio is high and recommendation is a strong buy. These results suggest that when a firm goes public, underwriter-affiliated analysts provide protection in the form of “booster shots” of stronger coverage if the firm experiences poor aftermarket stock performance.

A number of mutual funds cater exclusively to institutional investors. Although institutional funds might be a natural place to look for “smart money”, agency costs associated with delegated monitoring may lead to less monitoring and worse overall performance. We split institutional funds based on proxies for the degree of investor oversight, and we find that institutional funds with low initial investment requirements and funds with retail mates perform significantly worse than other institutional funds both before and after adjusting for risk and expenses. Tracking error is especially important in the flow-performance relationship of institutional funds with high minimum investment requirements.

We examine how analysts establish target prices for IPO firms and whether comparable firms used to support target prices are helpful in explaining IPO offer prices. During the bubble period of 1999 to 2000, the average offer price was set at a discount relative to comparable firm valuations. In contrast, the average offer price was set at a small premium relative to comparables in the pre-bubble period. This shift appears to hold even after controlling for the differences in the types of firms going public during the bubble period. Moreover, target prices of IPO firms were set at a higher premium relative to comparables during the bubble period. While our results suggest that underwriters systematically discounted offer prices during the bubble period, an alternative explanation is that the shift arose because underwriters and analysts faced different incentives and legal exposures during the bubble period.