Liquidity, investor sentiment and price discount of SEOs in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to empirically test whether stock liquidity and investor sentiment have interactive effects on seasoned equity offers (SEOs) price discounts in Australia. Design/methodology/approach – The authors focus on the implicit cost borne by firms when issuing seasoned equity capital. This cost is measured as the relative difference between the SEO offer price and the last close price prior to the announcement of the issue. The primary measure of investor sentiment is a composite index constructed similar to that in Baker and Wurgler (2007). Findings – The results show that, in periods of deteriorating investor sentiment, the increase in SEO price discounts for firms with illiquid stocks is larger than the corresponding increase for firms with liquid stocks. This suggests that, as sentiment wanes, investors become even more concerned about illiquidity, leading to even greater required compensation for holding illiquid assets. The authors find that information asymmetry is positively related to SEO price discounts but this relation is not affected by changing investor sentiment. Research limitations/implications – Collectively, the empirical results provide support for the argument that price discount of SEOs represents compensation to investors for bearing costs associated with illiquidity. The results also lend some support to the behavioural argument that pricing of equity offers is dependent upon investor sentiment, particularly for firms with illiquid stocks. Practical implications – The ability for firms to raise capital in a cost-effective manner is critical for firm growth and stability. Investors require compensation for bearing the costs of illiquidity of their investments in equity. Accordingly, firms need to be conscious of their stocks’ existing liquidity and its influence on the cost of raising additional capital which, in turn, affects their operational stability and investment opportunities. Social implications – Ultimately, the implications of this study will assist firms in capital-raising decisions, investors in making portfolio investment decisions, and investment banks in setting offer prices on equity issues. Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to examine the interaction between investor sentiment and SEO price discounts in Australia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".