Understanding the Dynamics of IPO Underpricing and Its Effect on Bond Issuance Strategies
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
Important milestones in a company's life cycle, IPOs are often marked by underpricing. The equities of high-tech enterprises on the China Scientific and Technological Innovation Board (STAR Markets) are significantly underpriced during IPOs. In this paper, we use the Two-tier Stochastic Frontier Models to break IPO underpricing down into its component parts—the pricing effect of the primary market while the transaction effect of the secondary market—and then we examine how these two markets differ in their effects on IPO underpricing. We do this from an investor behavior perspective in order to understand why STAR Market has such high IPO underpricing. Furthermore, company size has little bearing on the IPO underpricing. As a result, the STAR Market's IPO underpricing has historically been mostly influenced by secondary market investor activity. To investigate this, we used Ordinary Least Squares regression modeling to look at how underpricing affected the long-term success of IPOs. In China's STAR market, underpriced IPOs were associated with better long-term success, according to the regression results. We provide an evolving framework of a market for IPOs, where companies seek investment funds by becoming public. In making decisions about going public, raising and investing funds, and pricing the IPO, the initial shareholders have access to confidential information about the quality of their company's investment prospects. There are two categories of outside investors: those who are privy to the original shareholders' hidden financial motivations and those who learn about the IPO market only from publicly available IPO market data.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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