In this article, we use a large sample of transaction-level institutional trading data to analyze the role of institutional investors in initial public offerings (IPOs). The theoretical literature on IPOs has long argued that institutional investors possess private information about IPOs and that underpricing is a mechanism for compensating them to reveal this private information. We study whether institutions indeed have private information about IPOs, retain their information advantage in post-IPO trading, and are able to realize significant profits from their participation in IPOs. We also study institutional IPO allocations and allocation sales to analyze whether institutions play an important role in supporting IPOs in the aftermarket and are rewarded by underwriters for playing such a role. We find that institutions sell 70.2% of their IPO allocations in the first year, fully realize the “money left on the table,” and do not dissipate these profits in post-IPO trading. Further, institutions hold allocations in IPOs with weaker post-issue demand for a longer period, and they are rewarded for this by underwriters with more IPO allocations. Finally, institutional trading has predictive power for long-run IPO performance, especially in IPOs in which they received allocations; however, this predictive power decays over time. Overall, our results suggest that institutional investors possess significant private information about IPOs, play an important supportive role in the IPO aftermarket, and receive considerable compensation for their participation in IPOs.

Institutional investors, collectively the majority shareholders of most publicly traded corporations, play important roles in almost all aspects of corporate finance. This special issue puts together sixteen papers covering a wide range of topics, such as M&As, capital structure, bonds and loans, corporate governance, IPOs, VCs, SEOs, broker/underwriter relationships, behavioral finance, corporate disclosure, and regulation. These special issue papers demonstrate that institutional investors, a traditional focus of investments research, are worthy of continued and further academic inquiry in many corporate finance topics. In terms of directions for future research, we believe that the availability of new datasets (or existing datasets not yet widely used in corporate finance) and the application of new or unique research methodologies could bear fruit for researchers, as demonstrated by some papers in this special issue. In terms of datasets, the success of Abel Noser institutional trading data serves as a good example.

We analyze transaction-level data on institutional trading and examine information flows around CEO turnovers. We find that institutional trading prior to a CEO turnover is positively related to the nature of a CEO turnover (forced versus voluntary). We further find that institutions produce information partly by analyzing insider trading prior to a CEO turnover, though they are able to produce additional information independently as well. Finally, we find that trading by institutions after a forced CEO turnover with an insider as successor CEO is positively related to subsequent long-run stock returns, and realizes significant abnormal trading profits. Overall, our results are consistent with the notion that information production by institutions, and their trading making use of this information, improves the information environment around CEO turnovers.

We survey the growing academic literature using Abel Noser data, including 55 publications thus far. We analyze publication patterns to explore how the availability of a specialized microstructure dataset propagates across different areas within finance and into other disciplines such as accounting. Of note, we identify corporate finance and accounting as the most under-researched areas that offer promising opportunities for future academic research using the data. To provide guidance for researchers interested in using Abel Noser data, we analyze institutional trading using transaction-level data spanning more than 12 years and covering 233 million transactions with $37 trillion traded. We provide background information on the origin and history of the data, offer suggestions for cleaning and using the data, and discuss (dis)advantages of Abel Noser compared to other data sources for institutional trading. We also document two simple facts: 1) institutional trade sizes decline dramatically over time, rendering trade size-based inferences of institutional trades problematic; 2) we estimate that Abel Noser data cover 12% of CRSP volume over our sample period and 15% for 1999–2005, significantly higher than the estimate in Puckett and Yan (2011) for 1999–2005: 8%, a widely quoted number in the literature. This background should prove useful for researchers seeking to address a number of as yet unexplored issues, especially in corporate finance and accounting research.