Impact of Charismatic Leadership and Market Shares on IPO First-Day Returns: The Case of Technology Firms
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
First-day returns of initial public offerings (IPOs) have always been an important topic in academic research. Previous literature generally attributes the first-day return of an IPO to the underpricing of the stock, and most studies emphasize on the market-level factors such as the hot market influence and people’s pursuit over IPOs based on the pre-selling market return data. Firm-level variations, on the other hand, are generally under investigated. This research investigates the variations across companies by focusing on two factors that previous studies have not fully articulated: charismatic leadership and market shares. Using logistic regression analysis and a sample of 92 firms in technology industries that went public in the USA during the period from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2014, we find that there is a statistically significant and positive relationship between charismatic leadership and first-day returns of IPOs, as well as between market shares and first-day returns of IPOs. Our study contributes to the IPO performance literature, and it provides practical implications on IPO management and investment.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it