This article shows how both technological and competitive risks affect the timing of private and initial public offerings in an emerging industry. Early private financing occurs in industries that are perceived to be risky, with high development costs and low probability of being displaced by technologically superior rivals. Early public financing occurs in industries perceived to be viable, with low development costs and low probability of displacement. Due to feedback effects between financial and product markets, the value of investors' proprietary information is greater in private than in initial public offerings. This has implications for underpricing.

We relate the organizational form of investment banking syndicates to moral hazard in team production. Although syndicates are dissolved upon deal completion, membership stability across deals represents a barrier to entry that enables the capture of quasirents. This improves incentives for individual bankers to cultivate investor relationships that translate into greater expected proceeds. Reputational concerns of lead bankers amplify the effect. We derive conditions under which restricted entry and designation of a lead banker strictly Pareto dominate, in which case it is also strictly Pareto dominant for the syndicate's fee to be greater than members' cost of participation.

[We explain and provide evidence for effects of leverage on pricing. Our model identifies two effects that either counteract or reinforce each other, depending on the debt maturity structure: (i) firms set higher prices (underinvest in market share) if they have more debt, and (ii) firms engage in dynamic risk-shifting by setting lower (higher) prices if the current debt obligation will be higher (lower) in the next period than in the present period. Using a unique dataset of owner-managed hotels in Austrian ski resorts, we provide empirical evidence of both effects.]

We develop a unified model of the issuer's decisions that takes into account both mechanism design and adverse selection risk. The model enables us to determine the optimal amount of information gathering prior to setting the offer price, and to understand what does and does not cause underpricing. The flexibility to allocate securities between a pool of investors who provide pricingrelevant information and investors who do not provide information is key to controlling underpricing. Policies that guarantee a minimum allocation to investors in the pool result in underpricing; policies that cap the allocations to such investors do not. The optimal number of investors in the pool, and thus the amount of information acquired, generally increases with the riskiness of the issue. However, this relation breaks down if pool members are guaranteed minimum allocations.

This article shows how both technological and competitive risks affect the timing of private and initial public offerings in an emerging industry. Early private financing occurs in industries that are perceived to be risky, with high development costs and low probability of being displaced by technologically superior rivals. Early public financing occurs in industries perceived to be viable, with low development costs and low probability of displacement. Due to feedback effects between financial and product markets, the value of investors’ proprietary information is greater in private than in initial public offerings. This has implications for underpricing.

When facing hedge fund activists, target firms often fight back. Targets with agency problems and those confronting the threat of investor coordination frequently engage in hostile resistance by implementing governance changes associated with managerial entrenchment. The market negatively responds to hostile resistance, and unless hedge funds counterresist, these campaigns have worse operating performance, faster activist exit, and fewer mergers than do campaigns without hostile target resistance. By contrast, when hedge funds counterresist with proxy fights, lawsuits, or unsolicited tender offers, the impact of hostile target resistance is reversed, and these campaigns have similar outcomes to campaigns without hostile target resistance. Received September 8, 2016; editorial decision March 18, 2018 by Editor Francesca Cornelli.

We analyze the profitability of government-owned banks’ lending to their owners, using a unique data set of relatively homogeneous government-owned banks; the banks are all owned by similarly structured local governments in a single country. Making use of a natural experiment that altered the regulatory and competitive environment, we find evidence that such lending was used to transfer revenues from the banks to the governments. Some of the evidence is particularly pronounced in localities where the incumbent politicians face significant competition for reelection.

We study IPO pricing in Germany to determine whether when-issued trading provides information that is useful for setting IPO offer prices, and whether such trading supplants bookbuilding as a source of information. We find that when-issued trading reveals relevant information for pricing IPOs, and that, once when-issued trading has begun, bookbuilding is not a source of costly information for pricing. But bookbuilding does not appear to be fully supplanted as a source of pricing information. We find evidence consistent with bookbuilding being used to gather information prior to the onset of when-issued trading.

We explain and provide evidence for effects of leverage on pricing. Our model identifies two effects that either counteract or reinforce each other, depending on the debt maturity structure: (i) firms set higher prices (underinvest in market share) if they have more debt, and (ii) firms engage in dynamic risk-shifting by setting lower (higher) prices if the current debt obligation will be higher (lower) in the next period than in the present period. Using a unique dataset of owner-managed hotels in Austrian ski resorts, we provide empirical evidence of both effects. The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for Financial Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]., Oxford University Press.