The choice of outside equity: An exploratory analysis of privately held firms

We analyze the choice between public and private equity financing of a unique, hand-collected sample of privately held firms that have indicated their willingness to raise outside equity. We document that these firms are remarkably similar at the time of the announcement, yet 71% complete an IPO, 18% sell equity privately, and the remaining firms do not raise capital at all. To understand what determines the ultimate outcome, we follow these firms over time and record what they might learn up to their final decision. We identify the marginal conditions that favor raising outside equity, and those that determine the choice between public and private equity. Our results show that firms react systematically to changes in market conditions, such as equity returns and the cost of capital, that occur after the announcement, controlling for capital constraints, ownership structure, and the motivation for raising outside capital

What makes issuers happy? Testing the Prospect Theory of IPO Underpricing

We derive a behavioral measure of the IPO decision-maker's satisfaction with the underwriter's performance based on Loughran and Ritter's (2002) prospect theory of IPO underpricing. We assess the plausibility of this measure by studying its power to explain the decision-maker’s subsequent choices. Controlling for other known factors, IPO firms are less likely to switch underwriters for their first seasoned equity offering when our behavioral measure indicates they were satisfied with the IPO underwriter’s performance. Underwriters also appear to benefit from behavioral biases in the sense that they extract higher fees for subsequent transactions involving satisfied decision-makers. Although our tests suggest there is explanatory power in the behavioral model, they do not speak directly to whether deviations from expected utility maximization determine patterns in IPO initial returns

IPO pricing in the dot-com bubble

IPO initial returns reached astronomical levels during 1999-2000. We show that the regime shift in initial returns and other elements of pricing behavior can be at least partially accounted for by a variety of marked changes in pre-IPO ownership structure and insider selling behavior over the period which reduced key decision-makers’ incentives to control underpricing. After controlling for these changes, there appears to be little special about the 1999-2000 period, aside from the preponderance of internet and high-tech firms going public. Our results suggest that it was firm characteristics that were unique during the “dot-com bubble” and that pricing behavior followed from incentives created by these characteristics

Does Prospect Theory Explain IPO Market Behavior?

We derive a behavioral measure of the IPO decision-maker’s satisfaction with the underwriter’s performance based on Loughran and Ritter’s (2002) application of prospect theory to IPO underpricing. We assess the plausibility of this measure by studying its power to explain the decision-maker’s subsequent choices. Controlling for other known factors, IPO firms are less likely to switch underwriters for their first seasoned equity offering when our behavioral measure indicates they were satisfied with the IPO underwriter’s performance. Underwriters also appear to benefit from behavioral biases in the sense that they extract higher fees for subsequent transactions involving satisfied decision-makers. Although our tests suggest there is explanatory power in the behavioral model, they do not speak directly to whether deviations from expected utility maximization determine patterns in IPO initial returns

What makes issuers happy? Testing the Prospect Theory of IPO Underpricing

We derive a behavioral measure of the IPO decision-maker's satisfaction with the underwriter's performance based on Loughran and Ritter's (2002) prospect theory of IPO underpricing. We assess the plausibility of this measure by studying its power to explain the decision-maker’s subsequent choices. Controlling for other known factors, IPO firms are less likely to switch underwriters for their first seasoned equity offering when our behavioral measure indicates they were satisfied with the IPO underwriter’s performance. Underwriters also appear to benefit from behavioral biases in the sense that they extract higher fees for subsequent transactions involving satisfied decision-makers. Although our tests suggest there is explanatory power in the behavioral model, they do not speak directly to whether deviations from expected utility maximization determine patterns in IPO initial returns

Does Prospect Theory Explain IPO Market Behavior?

We derive a behavioral measure of the IPO decision-maker’s satisfaction with the underwriter’s performance based on Loughran and Ritter’s (2002) application of prospect theory to IPO underpricing. We assess the plausibility of this measure by studying its power to explain the decision-maker’s subsequent choices. Controlling for other known factors, IPO firms are less likely to switch underwriters for their first seasoned equity offering when our behavioral measure indicates they were satisfied with the IPO underwriter’s performance. Underwriters also appear to benefit from behavioral biases in the sense that they extract higher fees for subsequent transactions involving satisfied decision-makers. Although our tests suggest there is explanatory power in the behavioral model, they do not speak directly to whether deviations from expected utility maximization determine patterns in IPO initial returns

IPO Pricing in the Dot-Com Bubble: Complacency or Incentives

IPO initial returns reached astronomical levels during 1999-2000. We show that the regime shift in initial returns and other elements of pricing behavior can be at least partially accounted for by a variety of marked changes in pre-IPO ownership structure and insider selling behavior over the period which reduced key decision-makers™ incentives to control underpricing. After controlling for these changes, there appears to be little special about the 1999-2000 period, aside from the preponderance of Internet and high-tech firms going public. Our results suggest that it was firm characteristics that were unique during the “dot-com bubble” and that pricing behavior followed from incentives created by these characteristics

Conflicts of Interest in Sell-side Research and The Moderating Role of Institutional Investors

Because sell-side analysts are dependent on institutional investors for performance ratings and trading commissions, we argue that analysts are less likely to succumb to investment banking or brokerage pressure in stocks highly visible to institutional investors. Examining a comprehensive sample of analyst recommendations over the 1994-2000 period, we find that analysts’ recommendations relative to consensus are positively associated with investment banking relationships and brokerage pressure, but negatively associated with the presence of institutional investor owners. The presence of institutional investors is also associated with more accurate earnings forecasts and more timely re-ratings following severe share price falls