This study examines whether IPO disclosure requirements mandated by countries’ securities laws are associated with variation in IPO underpricing in international IPO markets. Our empirical analysis uses a unique sample of 6,025 IPOs from 34 countries over the period from 1995 to 2002. We show for the first time that the stringency of disclosure requirements for IPO prospectuses is negatively associated with the extent of IPO underpricing, after controlling for various country‐ and firm‐level determinants of underpricing. Moreover, we find that the disclosure effect on IPO underpricing is moderated by the extent of a country’s capital market integration. Taken together, our findings are consistent with the view that increased disclosure regulation appears to reduce IPO underpricing and hence the cost of equity, and that institutional factors such as capital market integration play an important role in understanding the economic consequences of disclosure regulation in international IPO markets.

We examine the relationship between IPO underpricing and litigation risk in an international setting using a sample of 13,759 firms that went public across 40 countries between 1991 and 2011. While the majority of single-country studies do not find support for the lawsuit avoidance hypothesis, we find a significant positive relationship between litigation risk and underpricing in a cross-country framework. Contrary to all single-country legal liability studies outside the U.S. and consistent with the U.S. studies of Tiniç (1988) and Lowry and Shu (2002), our empirical results support the insurance effect of the lawsuit avoidance hypothesis in an international context. Our findings imply that the degree of litigation risk in a given country affects the level of underpricing for firms that go public in that country. We conclude that differences in legal risk factors can partially explain differences in underpricing across countries.

We conducted a field experiment in Southern Ghana to test the effect of asymmetric information on intrahousehold allocation. A lottery was conducted, where prizes were distributed in public and in private. The results indicate that asymmetric information over windfalls has a differential effect on observable and concealable expenses, consistent with hiding. Husbands' public windfalls increase investment in assets and social capital, while there is no such effect when wives win. Private windfalls of both spouses are committed to cash (wives) or in-kind gifts (husband) which are either difficult to monitor or to reverse if discovered by the other spouse.