A European Empirical Study of Institutional Differences in IPOs Anomalies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present research shows the influence of institutional differences on the performance of initial public offerings (IPOs), both at the level of initial underpricing and at the level of 1-, 3- and 5-year performance. Our results represent a relevant empirical contribution to the international evidence because they allow us to test the influence of institutional differences on initial and long-term performance in a large database consisting of IPOs from 18 European countries, given that the European framework has been less analysed than the U.S. institutional environment. The main novelty and contribution of this research in relation to previous investigations is that those existing to date only analyse the institutional effect on the anomaly that occurs on the first day of IPO listing, i.e., underpricing, whereas this study is more ambitious; it considers the institutional effect on both underpricing and the long-term performance of the IPOs considered, which makes it possible to cover subsequent returns of up to 5 years after the start of the stock market listing. It is therefore, to our knowledge, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of institutional factors on the two IPO anomalies: short and long term.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".