F. R. MACAULAY' and other writers2 have noted a tendency for changes in the square roots of common-stock prices to be constant regardless of price level. This phenomenon has naturally suggested that when such prices are represented graphically the charts be designed so that vertical distances from the origin are proportional to the square roots of the prices indicated in the margins. There is some reason to believe that charts of this kind might also be useful in plotting other kinds of data. Assume that n sales are distributed at random over 1/p firms during some interval of time, and that u1, u2, *, u1/, are the actual numbers of sales made by the different firms F1, F2, , Fil, Then, a priori, the probability that a particular firm will make one of these sales is p, and the mean and variance of the u's will tend to be

[Despite the central importance of investors to all initial public offering (IPO) theories, relatively little is known about their role in practice. This article is based on a survey of how institutional investors assess IPOs, what information they provide to the investment banking syndicate, and the factors they believe influence allocations. We find that investor characteristics, in particular brokerage relationships with the bookrunner, are perceived to be the most important factors influencing allocations, which supports the view that IPO allocations are part of implicit quid pro quo deals with investment banks. The survey raises doubts as to the extent of information production or revelation]

Using survey data, we analyze institutional investors’ expectations about the future performance of fund managers and the impact of those expectations on asset allocation decisions. We find that institutional investors allocate funds mainly on the basis of fund managers’ past performance and of investment consultants’ recommendations, but not because they extrapolate their expectations from these. This suggests that institutional investors base their investment decisions on the most defensible variables at their disposal and supports the existence of agency considerations in their decision making.

We examine the effects of time-limited disclosure relief under the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act of 2012. The Act grants newly public firms up to five years of exemptions, and our results suggest that the fixed duration of this relief, as much as its availability, shapes post-IPO behavior. Using an intention-to-treat design, we compare treated firms with smaller reporting companies whose exemptions are similar but carry no fixed expiry date. Equity issuance by treated firms increases significantly as the deadline nears while debt issuance declines, and cash reserves accumulate over the period. Capital expenditure increases relative to controls in the early post-IPO years, while R&D shows no differential response. As expiry approaches, the differential with the control group in internal investment weakens but cash-financed acquisitions accelerate. This shift in investment composition coincides with deteriorating operating performance and declining market valuations relative to IPO levels. Our post-expiry analysis reveals an abrupt reversal in acquisition activity upon transition to full disclosure while internal investment remains unchanged, supporting the argument that pre-expiry behavior was driven by the regulatory timeline rather than natural firm maturation. We conclude that the duration of regulatory relief is as important as its scope in shaping corporate behavior, and that time-limited exemptions from mandatory disclosure can induce anticipatory firm responses that work against the policy's intended objectives.

Despite the central importance of investors to all initial public offering (IPO) theories, relatively little is known about their role in practice. This article is based on a survey of how institutional investors assess IPOs, what information they provide to the investment banking syndicate, and the factors they believe influence allocations. We find that investor characteristics, in particular brokerage relationships with the bookrunner, are perceived to be the most important factors influencing allocations, which supports the view that IPO allocations are part of implicit quid pro quo deals with investment banks. The survey raises doubts as to the extent of information production or revelation.

Using data from the Stockholm Stock Exchange (SSE), we study the value added by (as distinct from the abnormal returns to) analysts’ recommendations. Recommending brokers’ clients trade profitably around positive recommendations at the expense of other brokers’ clients. Significant profits come from transactions before recommendation dates. Value added is greatest for upgrades to large caps, and largely insignificant for downgrades and recommendations of small caps, despite high abnormal returns. Brokers making profitable recommendations generate abnormally high commission income, recouping much of their clients’ abnormal profits, and their abnormal commission income varies in line with the abnormal profits for their clients.

This paper uses evidence from a data set of 27 European IPOs to analyze how investors bid and the factors that influence their allocations. We also make use of a unique ranking of investor quality, associated with the likelihood of flipping the IPO. We find that investors perceived to be long‐term holders of the stock are consistently favored in allocation and in out‐turn profits. In contrast to Cornelli and Goldreich (2001) , we find little evidence that more informative bids receive larger allocations or higher profits. Our results cast doubt upon the extent of information production during the bookbuilding period.

Individuals increasingly buy mutual funds via online platforms, whose “best-buy” recommendations heavily influence flows. As intermediaries of mutual funds, platforms provide none of the unobservable interaction or intangible benefits of brokers, and so allow clean tests of the determinants, influence, and value of their fund recommendations. Using unique U.K. data, we find that platforms favor “own-brand” funds and those paying them a higher commission share. Investors discount own-brand recommendations, but not those paying high commission shares (which were not observable in the United Kingdom). A regulatory ban on commission sharing lowered costs and improved the informativeness of platform recommendations.

Using data from all of the leading international investment banks on 220 initial public offerings (IPOs) raising $160 billion between January 2010 and May 2015, we test the determinants of IPO allocations. We compare investors’ IPO allocations with proxies for their information production during bookbuilding and the broking (and other) revenues they generate for bookrunners. We find evidence consistent with information revelation theories. We also find strong support for the existence of a quid pro quo whereby broking revenues are a significant determinant of investors’ IPO allocations and profits. The quid pro quo remains when we control for unobserved investor characteristics and investor‐bank relationships.