Underpricing of Seasoned Equity Offerings by Canadian Cross-Listed Firms in the Pre- and Post-Sarbanes-Oxley Periods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the impact of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 on underpricing of seasoned equity offerings by Canadian cross-listed firms and its determinants. It finds underpricing is not significantly different between the pre- and post-Sarbanes-Oxley periods. When distinguishing underpricing by two methods of choice for underwriting seasoned equity offerings -bought deals vs. firm commitment-, underpricing is higher for firm commitment than for bought deals during the overall period 1995-2008 and the post-Sarbanes period, after controlling for offer and firm characteristics. In addition, underpricing of bought deals and firm commitment are subject to different determinants for the pre- and post-Sarbanes periods, respectively. The main reason underpricing is high on firm commitment, after the passage of the Act, is for global offers. This suggests issuing equity globally has been unfavorable for firm commitment after the passage of the Act.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".