Leverage and IPO under‐pricing: high‐tech versus low‐tech IPOs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose The extant literature on initial public offerings (IPOs) generally assumes that a high degree of pre‐IPO leverage serves as a positive signal of firm quality as it forces a firm's managers to adhere to tough budget constraints. The purpose of this paper is to question the validity of this assumption when it is indiscriminately applied to all firms, while other potentially important determinants of a firm's optimal capital structure are ignored. High‐tech versus low‐tech firms are specifically focused on. Design/methodology/approach Multivariate regression controlling is used for various firm and offer characteristics, market and industry returns, and potential endogeneity between investment bank rankings, price revisions, and under‐pricing. Findings It is found that debt only serves as a signal of better firm quality for low‐tech IPOs, as reflected in smaller price revisions and lower under‐pricing. For high‐tech IPOs, the effect of leverage is reversed: for these firms, higher leverage is associated with increased risk and uncertainty as reflected by higher price revisions and greater under‐pricing. The results remain significant after controlling for various firm variables as mentioned above. Practical implications The research results allow managers of high‐tech firms that contemplate going public to better understand the effect their company's capital structure will have on the pricing of their IPO. Prior research generally suggests that – irrespective of a firm's underlying characteristics – higher financial leverage results in lower under‐pricing. The findings highlight the falsity of this generalization and point out that it only holds for low‐tech firms. Firms that operate in a high‐tech sector, on the other hand, will leave less money on the table if they use equity rather than debt financing. Originality/value It is shown that leverage only serves as a positive signal for low‐tech firms. The IPOs of these firms generally undergo smaller price revisions and are less under‐priced than the IPOs of low‐tech firms that use little debt in their capital structure. While this result is consistent with earlier studies, it is show that the relationship between these variables reverses for high‐tech IPOs. Specifically, it is found that high‐tech IPOs with high leverage undergo larger price revisions and are more under‐priced than high‐tech firms with low leverage. In contrast to earlier findings, this suggests that for high‐tech IPOs, higher leverage implies increased ex‐ante uncertainty and risks.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».