Prior research has assumed that underwriters post a stabilizing bid in the aftermarket. We find instead that aftermarket activities are less transparent and include stimulating demand through short covering and restricting supply by penalizing the flipping of shares. In more than half of IPOs, a short position of an average 10.75 percent of shares offered is covered in 22 transactions over 16.6 days in the aftermarket, resulting in a loss of 3.61 percent of underwriting fees. Underwriters manage price support activities by using a combination of aftermarket short covering, penalty bids, and the selective use of the overallotment option.

We examine the price discovery process of initial public offerings (IPOs) using a unique dataset. The first quote entered by the lead underwriter in the five‐minute preopening window explains a large proportion of initial returns even for hot IPOs. Significant learning and price discovery continues to take place during these five minutes with hundreds of quotes being entered. The lead underwriter observes the quoting behavior of other market makers, particularly the wholesalers, and accordingly revises his own quotes. There is a strong positive relationship between initial returns and the time of day when trading starts in an IPO.

US corporations can raise capital in the offshore market using Regulation S, adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1990 and modified in 1996. We examine how offshore offerings are done under Regulation S, what types of companies use this market, the discount companies offer investors to compensate for illiquidity in the market, and the impact of the new disclosure requirements on capital raising in the offshore market. We find that small firms tend to raise capital in this market. During our sample period before the 1996 rule change the median market capitalization of reporting firms was $16.82 million with a median stock price of $1.13. The mean and median discount offered to foreign investors was 32.84% and 40.53%, respectively. Offerings during this period resulted in average share dilution of 11.97%. We find that before the disclosure requirements, firms were “gaming the system” by giving foreign investors just enough time to resell the securities back into the United States before the initial sale became public information. After the rule changes, Regulation S offerings are not perceived to be “shady”, and larger firms are now using the market, resulting in lower average discount and dilution.

We examine the preopening process and price discovery from the offer price to the first open price in initial public offerings. The extent of price discovery during preopening is influenced by firm characteristics and preopening attributes, such as volume of shares executed in preopening, canceled orders, order imbalance, and changes in indicative price. Institutional investors cancel 4 orders for every executed order. Each phase of preopening contributes to incremental price discovery. In “hot” IPOs, almost all price discovery processes occur during preopening, whereas in “cold” IPOs, half of the price adjustment occurs after the market opens.

Motivated by recent changes to corporate governance standards around the world, we use a regulatory shock that substantially altered the governance structure for some firms to shed light on the long-term impact of mandates that are of global interest. Firms affected by this shock had lower values and non-mandated governance practices that were less shareholder friendly before the mandates were in effect when compared to unaffected matched peers. In the post-mandate period, we document a 48% tightening of the relative value gap, and show that this gap relates to the continued use of less shareholder friendly non-mandated governance practices. Our results suggest that governance mandates can tighten, but not eliminate, the value gap between poorly and well governed firms, and that firms affected by the shock continue to have less shareholder friendly governance cultures long after regulatory intervention.

ABSTRACT We analyze institutional allocation in initial public offerings (IPOs) using a new data set of U.S. offerings between 1997 and 1998. We document a positive relationship between institutional allocation and day one IPO returns. This is partly explained by the practice of giving institutions more shares in IPOs with strong premarket demand, consistent with book‐building theories. However, institutional allocation also contains private information about first‐day IPO returns not reflected in premarket demand and other public information. Our evidence supports book‐building theories of IPO underpricing, but suggests that institutional allocation in underpriced issues is in excess of that explained by book‐building alone.

This study assesses the stock return performance of 131 firms emerging from Chapter 11. Using differing estimates of expected returns, we consistently find evidence of large, positive excess returns in 200 days of returns following emergence. We also examine the reaction of our sample firms' equity returns to their earnings announcements after emergence from Chapter 11. The positive and significant reactions suggest that our results are driven by the market's expectational errors, not mismeasurement of risk. The results provide an interesting contrast, but not a contradiction, to previous work that has documented poor operating performance for firms emerging from Chapter 11.

We construct a firm-level governance index that increases with minority shareholder protection. Compared with U.S. matching firms, only 12.68% of foreign firms have a higher index. The value of foreign firms falls as their index decreases relative to the index of matching U.S. firms. Our results suggest that lower country-level investor protection and other country characteristics make it suboptimal for foreign firms to invest as much in governance as U.S. firms do. Overall, we find that minority shareholders benefit from governance improvements and do so partly at the expense of controlling shareholders.

ABSTRACT This paper investigates voting preferences of institutional investors using the unique setting of the securities lending market. Investors restrict lendable supply and/or recall loaned shares prior to the proxy record date to exercise voting rights. Recall is higher for investors with greater incentives to monitor, for firms with poor performance or weak governance, and for proposals where returns to governance are likely higher. At the subsequent vote, recall is associated with less support for management and more support for shareholder proposals. Our results indicate that institutions value their vote and use the proxy process to affect corporate governance.