Around the world, investors, practitioners, regulators and policy makers seek to understand whether, when and why recently listed stocks, initial public offerings (IPOs) are delisted rather than continue trading (survive). Using data on 7,627 IPOs issued during 2000–2008 across 32 countries, we explore the impact of the legal system on IPO survival. We find that IPOs in countries with better investor protections remain listed for longer. This suggests that better legal systems increase the net benefits companies derive from staying listed. We also provide evidence that better legal systems increase the effectiveness of IPO certification by venture capitalists, underwriters and auditors.

We examine state income and reputation incentives to account for the high dividends of privatized firms. Consistent with these agency-cost based incentives, we show strong and robust evidence that the extent of state ownership is positively related to corporate dividends. We distinguish between the empirical importance of these incentives using variation in the rule of law to protect minority shareholders, the fiscal deficit and the political orientation of the state. Our findings show that an incentive to enhance the state's reputation with minority shareholders can account for the high dividends of privatized firms.

We examine the impact on firm cash holdings of uncertainty of uncertainty, measured as the ex post volatility of economic policy uncertainty. Using the news-based index developed by Baker et al. (2016) for twenty-two countries, we find that, when there is greater volatility of economic uncertainty, firms hold more cash. Our results are robust to controlling for a host of firm-level and country-level factors. Consistent with Baker et al. (2016), we consider that less economic policy uncertainty is associated with more investment; and so the real-option value of cash is sensitive to the possibility of a future desirability of investment. Therefore, when there is greater expected volatility of uncertainty, measured under rational expectations as the recent ex post volatility of uncertainty, firms will hold more cash. We also find that the volatility of economic policy uncertainty is much more economically significant in determining firm cash holdings than economic policy uncertainty itself. Therefore, our paper not only adds to the literature on uncertainty and cash holdings, but also, importantly, to the limited literature in finance on the impact of uncertainty of uncertainty.

We document that global board reforms are associated with a significant reduction in the underpricing of initial public offerings (IPOs). The effect is amplified for IPOs with greater agency problems and mitigated for IPOs certified by reputable intermediaries, IPOs with greater disclosure specificity, and IPOs in countries with better shareholder protection and stringent financial reporting regulations. Furthermore, global board reforms have led to an improvement in the long-term market performance, proceeds, and subscription level of IPOs and have enhanced board independence in the issuing firms. Our findings suggest that global board reforms have strengthened board oversight in the issuing firms, leading to less underpriced IPOs.

We study the impact of the staggered adoption of anti-collusion leniency legislations around the world on IPO activity. We document that the passage of leniency legislations prompts IPO activity. The effect is amplified in more concentrated industries , while it is mitigated in countries with more stringent competition laws in place and countries in which investors have a lower ability to diversify risk in the financial market. Collectively, these findings are consistent with the view that, by enhancing product market competition, leniency legislations increase the benefits for firms from going public, resulting in higher IPO activity. The results of supplemental analyses suggest that the passage of leniency legislations leads to less underpriced IPOs and a more efficient use of IPO proceeds, and prompts firms with less proprietary information to go public.

Using federal judge ideology as an exogenous measure of issuing firms’ litigation risk, we document that the initial public offerings (IPOs) of the firms headquartered in more liberal circuits are more underpriced. The effect is mitigated when plaintiffs’ pleading standards are more stringent and is amplified when judges have more discretion in their decisions. The effect is also amplified among deep pocketed issuing firms, while it is mitigated among issuing firms hiring reputable intermediaries in the IPO process. The results of additional analysis suggest that issuing firms located in more liberal circuits are more likely to become targets of lawsuits after their IPOs and that these lawsuits are less likely to be dismissed by the courts and result in larger settlements. Collectively, our findings underscore the salience of litigation risk stemming from the issuing firms’ legal environment in driving IPO underpricing.

Our primary contribution to the finance literature is the introduction of folklore narratives as a major factor in influencing corporate outcomes. Using the initial public offering (IPO) underpricing as the main focus, we demonstrate that folklore narratives depicting lower tolerance toward antisocial behavior are associated with lower IPO underpricing. The relation between folklore narratives and IPO pricing is independent of indicators of trust, religion, culture, societal preferences, or institutional democracy. This relation is weaker in countries with a more transparent information environment and following reforms that improve disclosure and corporate governance. Folklore narratives on punishment for antisocial behavior are also related to enhanced information disclosure, lower agency problems, better long-term performance for IPO firms, higher proceeds raised and free float, and overall IPO activity in the market. Collectively, we show that informal institutions, such as folklore narratives, exert a strong influence on IPO outcomes globally.

Using terrorist attacks as exogenous shocks to investor sentiment, we study the impact of investor sentiment on initial public offering (IPO) pricing. IPOs listed within the 30-day period following terrorist attacks, on average, experience lower first-day returns. The documented impact of terrorist attacks is magnified when there is greater IPO valuation uncertainty and when the terrorist attacks are more salient to investors, while mitigated for IPOs “certified” by reputable intermediaries. We also show that the affected IPOs, on average, have more pessimistic media tone in the post-attack/pre-listing day period. The affected IPOs also tend to have lower levels of price revisions, subscriptions, primary share revisions, and total proceeds. Collectively, our findings underscore the salience of investor sentiment in shaping IPO outcomes.

Using a large sample of 13,459 initial public offerings (IPOs) from 37 countries, we find that trading rules on market manipulation reduce IPO underpricing. The effect is weaker for IPOs certified by reputable intermediaries, in countries with greater shareholder rights protection, better financial reporting quality, and after the adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards. Better trading rules on market manipulation are also related to higher IPO proceeds, subscription-level, and trading volume, lower IPO listing fees, and better long-term post-IPO performance. Our findings are consistent with the notion that exchange trading rules mitigate information asymmetry problems for investors, resulting in lower IPO underpricing.

We study how media coverage impacts pricing of initial public offerings (IPOs) around the world. Higher media coverage in the pre-IPO period leads to lower IPO initial returns. The effect is mitigated in countries with better financial reporting quality, greater shareholder rights protection, and more stringent media censorship, and for IPOs “certified” by reputable intermediaries, while it is amplified in countries with higher levels of media penetration and media trust. Further, IPOs with higher pre-IPO media coverage have lower ex post price revision volatility. Our findings suggest that higher pre-IPO media coverage reduces information asymmetry among investors, leading to less underpriced IPOs.