To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
6 results

Analyst Behavior Following IPOs: The "Bubble Period" Evidence

Review of Financial Studies 2008 21(1), 101-133
[We examine over 7400 analyst recommendations made in the year after going public for IPOs from 1999 to 2000. Initiations of coverage at the end of the quiet period come almost exclusively from affiliated analysts, whereas initiations afterward are predominantly from unaffiliated analysts. Contrary to previous findings, we find no evidence that the market discounts recommendations from affiliated analysts once we control for recommendation characteristics and timing. Moreover, analyst coverage in the first year is not affected by underpricing, and after the flurry of initiations at the end of the quiet period, the number of analysts covering a firm during the following 11 months is unrelated to the number of managing underwriters.]

Partial Adjustment to Public Information and IPO Underpricing

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 2002 37(4), 595
We examine the extent to which offer prices reflect public information for 3, 325 IPOs over the period 1990–1999. We focus primarily on four variables: share overhang, file range amendments, venture capital backing, and previous issue underpricing. We show that 35%–50% of the variation in IPO underpricing can be predicted using public information known before the offer date and therefore conclude that IPO offer prices underadjust to widely available public information to a much greater extent than previously documented.

Analyst Behavior Following IPOs: The “Bubble Period” Evidence

Review of Financial Studies 2008 21(1), 101-133
We examine over 7400 analyst recommendations made in the year after going public for IPOs from 1999 to 2000. Initiations of coverage at the end of the quiet period come almost exclusively from affiliated analysts, whereas initiations afterward are predominantly from unaffiliated analysts. Contrary to previous findings, we find no evidence that the market discounts recommendations from affiliated analysts once we control for recommendation characteristics and timing. Moreover, analyst coverage in the first year is not affected by underpricing, and after the flurry of initiations at the end of the quiet period, the number of analysts covering a firm during the following 11 months is unrelated to the number of managing underwriters.

An examination of IPO secondary market returns

Journal of Corporate Finance 2009 15(3), 316-330
IPO stock prices increased approximately 2.3% on the first day of secondary market trading over the period 1993 through 2003. While these aftermarket returns are accentuated during 1999 and 2000, they persist after the bubble burst and even increase as a percentage of total underpricing. We explore several non-mutually exclusive hypotheses to explain our findings including price support, laddering, retail sentiment, and information asymmetry. Our results are most consistent with the view that higher secondary market returns accrue to IPOs with more information asymmetries possibly due to price and aggregate demand uncertainty.

Negotiation and the IPO Offer Price: A Comparison of Integer vs. Non-Integer IPOs

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 2004 39(3), 517-540
We investigate the pricing of 4,989 equity IPOs with offer dates between 1981 and 2000. Approximately three-fourths of these IPOs have integer offer prices. Average initial returns for IPOs with integer offer prices are significantly higher (24.5%) than those priced on the fraction of the dollar (8.1%). This result is robust through time and after conditioning for other effects known to influence initial returns. We hypothesize that integer vs. fractional dollar IPOs are the result of negotiations between the issuing firm and underwriter. Under this negotiation hypothesis, the frequency of integer pricing should be an increasing function of the offer price and the degree of uncertainty surrounding the value of the firm. Empirical evidence, supportive of the negotiation hypothesis, is presented.

The Quiet Period Goes out with a Bang

Journal of Finance 2003 58(1), 1-36 open access
We examine the expiration of the IPO quiet period, which occurs after the 25th calendar day following the offering. For IPOs during 1996 to 2000, we find that analyst coverage is initiated immediately for 76 percent of these firms, almost always with a favorable rating. Initiated firms experience a five‐day abnormal return of 4.1 percent versus 0.1 percent for firms with no coverage. The abnormal returns are concentrated in the days just before the quiet period expires. Abnormal returns are much larger when coverage is initiated by multiple analysts. It does not matter whether a recommendation comes from the lead underwriter or not.