Bibliographic record
Abstract
The finance literature extensively documents the abnormal positive returns of unseasoned initial public offerings (IPOs) in the early trading. Neuberger and LaChapelle (1983), McDonald and Fisher (1972), Neuberger and Hammond (1974), Reilly (1977), Logue (1973), Ibbotson (1975), Ibbotson and Jaffe (1975), Ritter (1984), Miller and Reilly (1987), and Ibbotson, Sindelar and Ritter (1988) are but a few studies providing convincing evidence of initial price volatility in IPOs which, after some period of time, tends to level off. Some IPO studies, particularly Neuberger and LaChapelle (1983), Logue (1973), and Friend (1967), intentionally ignore institutional IPOs. Logue (1973) states that banking issues create a downward pricing bias because the market has already accurately priced the assets of financial institutions. Alli, Yau and Yung (1994) provided evidence that banking IPOs enjoyed significantly less positive abnormal returns in the early trading than a control sample of industrial firms. This study examines the early stock price movements of the 32 non‐US banking equities issued on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) from January 1986 through May 2001 and finds that virtually no underpricing exists in the early trading for those issues – a vast deviation from the results of most IPO and ADR event studies, but a strong indication that banking IPOs do create a downward pricing bias when considered in IPO studies with securities from different industries. All new foreign equity issues in this study are traded as American Depository Receipts (ADRs) except the Canadian stocks.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".