MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Elite law firms in the IPO market

2019· article· en· W2796627709 on OpenAlexaff
Pablo Morán, J. Ari Pandes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Banking & Finance · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersASCRS Research Foundation
KeywordsInitial public offeringIssuerUnderwritingEliteBusinessInvestment bankingMonetary economicsDispersion (optics)EconomicsFinancial economicsLawActuarial scienceFinancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IPOs with underwriters that retain an elite law firm exhibit a lower average first-day return. This empirical pattern remains after controlling for an extensive set of proxies associated with existing explanations of IPO initial returns. We rationalize this finding with a pre-IPO pricing model, in which underwriters convey their lack of conflicts of interest to the issuer by engaging an elite law firm. Consistent with this selection channel and our model’s predictions, we find a lower incidence of elite law firm involvement and a larger difference in average first-day return associated with elite law firms during the dot-com period. We document similar findings with respect to the dispersion of IPO first-day returns and a pattern in the issuers’ re-hiring decision of investment banks consistent with our theory.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Banking & FinanceSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207