The long-run performance of US firms pursuing IPOs in foreign markets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the long-run performance of a unique set of US domiciled firms that have bypassed the US capital markets in pursuit of their initial public offering (IPO) overseas. Additionally, this paper then tests the popular underwriter prestige impact and the window of opportunity hypothesis on this unique subset of IPOs. Design/methodology/approach Using a sample of foreign and purely domestic IPOs made by US firms from 2000 to 2011, this study investigates the long-term performance, one-, two- and three-year by using two measures (buy-and-hold return and cumulative abnormal returns) to test the long-run returns of newly listed companies. Finally, the research incorporates both the traditional matching methodology (issue year and size) along with propensity score matching methodology. Findings FIPOs of US companies underperform DIPOs and their matched DIPOs; furthermore, FIPOs underperform the index of the two listing countries they use the most (UK and Canada). Although the choice of a reputable underwriter mitigates underperformance, the choice of listing in a foreign country only may be a result of possible high valuations accorded by foreign investors who buy US-listed companies on the domestic exchange possibly for reducing exchange rate risk and gaining US diversification without incurring additional costs. It is, thus, possible that US companies that undertake Foreign IPOs not only escape potentially higher Security and Exchange Commission regulations and disclosure but also benefit from higher valuations in the foreign markets. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the long-term performance of US firms bypassing the US capital markets in pursuit of their initial equity offering elsewhere. Caglio et al. (2016) investigated why firms decide to pursue such equity raising activity but fail to investigate the firms’ actual performance after issuing equity. This research fills such a gap in the literature and is important for both academics and practitioners. Practitioners can use this information in assessing the quality of such investments in the long-run, and firms can use such information when determining the different options of issuing equity. Further, regulators should be aware of the implications that increased regulations have on capital raising activities in their domestic market.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".