MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400245585 · doi:10.1504/ijbaf.2024.139370

Does market sentiment affect IPO pricing

2024· article· en· W4400245585 on OpenAlexaff
Cynthia J. Campbell, Yan Du, S. Ghon Rhee, Ning Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Behavioural Accounting and Finance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Finance and Governance
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInitial public offeringAffect (linguistics)EconomicsFinancial economicsMonetary economicsMarket sentimentBusinessPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sentiment has been proposed as one of many possible explanations for initial public offering (IPO) underpricing. In this paper, we explore the role of market wide sentiment in IPO pricing before the start of secondary market trading. We find that the IPO initial filing price multiples are higher when the level of sentiment is higher. Interestingly, the level of sentiment does not appear to affect the IPO final offer price multiples. Instead, changes in sentiment have a significant impact on the final offer price multiples. Additionally, we find that underwriters with a higher reputation tend to incorporate the change in sentiment more aggressively than underwriters with a lower reputation.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

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 communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Behavioural Accounting and FinanceSame topicCorporate Finance and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207