MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993925995 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v1n1p87

Influences of Different Underwriting Mechanisms on Offering Prices and the Case of China

2009· article· en· W1993925995 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fangliang Huang, Zuoling Nie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPrivate Equity and Venture Capital
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersShandong University
KeywordsUnderwritingIssuerInvestment bankingBusinessChinaInitial public offeringInvestment (military)Monetary economicsFinanceEconomicsFinancial economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There seem to be little discussions on the influences of different underwriting mechanisms on offering prices. Underdifferent underwriting mechanisms, the issuer, the investment bank and the investor will consider the offering prices basedon his own benefit. As a result, the offering price is affected by different underwriting mechanisms. In China, most of thestock IPO takes the form of stand-by underwriting. Because of the huge demand on the new share issue from Chineseinvestors, the investment bank almost has not unsold stocks to underwrite. Therefore, there is no big difference in the riskthat the investment bank faces between the firm commitment underwriting and best-effort underwriting. As a result, whenthe Chinese investment bank is allowed to participate in the procedure of pricing offering price, the pricing behavior of theinvestment bank has no big difference in the two risk- similar mechanisms. Considering different advantage and suitabilityof different mechanisms, China needs to change the single underwriting mechanism situation and encourage the practice ofthe firm commitment underwriting mechanism.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicPrivate Equity and Venture CapitalFrench-language works237,207