Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the factors that affect the likelihood of being public using a comprehensive database of private and public companies in Mexico, from all sectors, during 2006-2014.

The authors estimate a longitudinal probit model to identify the ex ante characteristics of public Mexican firms that differentiate them from those Mexican firms that continue to remain private.

The authors find that larger, younger and less levered Mexican firms are more likely to be public in Mexico. They additionally test the influence of market conditions and location on the probability of being public. They find that location matters but they find no evidence that initial public offerings (IPOs) are driven by favorable Mexican market conditions.

This paper contributes to the Mexican and international literature on IPOs because it uses an original database built from information of private and public Mexican firms. The study contributes to a better understanding of the determinants of the decision of going public in Mexico.

En este artículo se examinan los factores que afectan la probabilidad de que una empresa salga a Bolsa, utilizando una base de datos integral de empresas privadas y públicas en México, de todos los sectores, durante 2006-2014.

Se estima un modelo probit longitudinal para identificar las características ex-ante de las empresas mexicanas listadas en bolsa que las diferencian de aquellas que siguen siendo privadas.

Los autores encuentran que las empresas mexicanas más grandes, jóvenes y menos apalancadas tienen más probabilidades de estar listadas en la bolsa mexicana. Además, prueban si hay influencia de las condiciones del mercado y la ubicación en la probabilidad de listarse. Ellos encuentran que la ubicación de las empresas importa, pero no encuentran evidencia de que las OPIs sean impulsadas por condiciones favorables del mercado mexicano.

Este trabajo de investigación contribuye a la literatura mexicana e internacional sobre OPIs, ya que utiliza una base de datos original construida a partir de información de empresas mexicanas privadas y públicas. El estudio contribuye a una mejor comprensión de los determinantes de la decisión de listar una empresa en bolsa en México.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate which cross-country characteristics influence the going-public decisions and how the cultural values of the countries affect initial public offering (IPO) firms’ profitability and risk of financial distress.

Using a sample of privately held and firms that went public on the European and Asian Stock Exchanges between 2007 and 2011, this paper applies probit model and ordinary least squares regression to examine which cross-country characteristics could affect the decision to go public and how cultural values affect the profitability and risk of IPO firms.[AQ1] In addition, to overcome multicollinearity concerns caused by the use of Global Leadership and Organizational Behavioural Effectiveness culture dimensions, this paper factor analyses the dimensions using principal component analysis.

The results are as follows. First, this paper finds that firms in tradition-oriented countries are less likely to go public, while firms in result-oriented countries are more likely to hold an IPO. Second, this paper finds that country characteristics (i.e. financial deepening and taxation) affect the going-public decision. Third, this paper documents that IPO firms in traditionally and result-oriented countries have positive profitability and less risk of financial distress.

This study is intended for all those European and Asian policymakers and managers who want to improve their knowledge about what different indicators can establish the decision of firms that going-public facing different stages of their lifecycle. Specifically, policymakers wishing to promote IPO-activity in their countries may find it useful to strengthen the set of formal-institutions both to reduce corporate-taxation and to reduce the uncertainty associated with first-time share issuance and investment in such initiatives. This study is also intended for managers of companies that are not yet publicly-traded on their national stock-markets to be helpful to their decision-making processes.

This paper aims to extend the growing literature on the effects of cross-country factors on economic decision-making in finance and particularly adds to research that investigates the influence of these factors on the IPO decision of European and Asian firms.

Financial constraints limit firms' ability to invest in working capital, which results in opportunity costs from lost sales or stockouts. The author examines initial public offering (IPO) firms' working capital management and build on the idea that newly listed firms experience a liquidity shock that allows them to invest more in working capital.

The empirical results are based on a sample of European IPO firms matched with comparable non-IPO firms; the author uses the generalized method of moments panel-data regressions to test the hypotheses.

The author observes that IPO firms increase their inventories-on-sales ratio, accounts receivable-on-sales ratio and operating working capital after the IPOs, which is consistent with the idea that going public relaxes financial constraints and allows firms to adopt more conservative working capital management practices. The observed results are stronger for smaller firms and zero-debt firms, which are the most financially constrained firms.

The study shows that working capital requirements can be financed via equity and not only via debt, and can even motivate the decision to go public for financially constrained firms.

This paper aims to investigate how the passage of the Sarbanes Oxley Act (SOX) impacted the likelihood and timing of the decision of leveraged buyout (LBO) firms to exit via initial public offering (IPO) (reverse-LBO) and the mediating effect of reputed private equity (PE) firms.

The sample comprises firms that went private via LBO between 1990 and 2018. The authors use logistic and ordinary least square regression models to compare the effect of SOX on the re-listing decision and the time taken to re-list.

LBO firms were less likely to exit via public offering after SOX, and the time from LBO to IPO was significantly longer for exiting firms post-SOX. PE firm reputation partially reversed the reluctance to exit via IPO and shortened the time to exit.

The primary focus is RLBOs; the authors do not directly examine other methods of LBO exit. The findings have policy implications for unintended impacts of SOX. Despite the benefits of increasing transparency and protecting investors, SOX reduced the likelihood of going public and increased the time to IPO, potentially reducing product market competition.

RLBOs present a unique experimental setting as the authors can test the impact of SOX on both the likelihood and time to go public, whereas prior literature using first-time IPO samples are able to test only the likelihood. The authors also show that the reputation of the advising PE firm attenuates the reluctance and time taken for RLBOs to re-list. The authors are, thus, able to provide a new perspective on the impact of SOX on the going public decision.

This study aims to identify why restaurant firms go public (IPO) despite high financing costs and which factors make firms stay public for the long term after an IPO. Also, this study aimed to link and compare restaurant firms’ pre- and post-IPO accounting information and how IPO proceeds were used.

This study used random-effects regression analysis with a number of dependent variables for a sample of 1,347 unbalanced panel data. In addition, logistic regression analyses were used to identify why restaurant firms were delisted within short periods after going public.

First, rebalancing financial structures was the most important reason for IPOs, whereas financing future growth was only a minor motivation. Second, post-IPO performance significantly differed between restaurant firms based on their pre-IPO financial conditions, as well as how they used IPO proceeds. Third, restaurant firms with low profitability, inefficient non-operating expenses and difficulties in generating revenue increased their financial burdens, which ultimately caused restaurant firms to be delisted within a short period after an IPO. Furthermore, the reasons for merging included cash shortages, large short-term liabilities and increased major operating expenses, together with increases in capital expenditures.

This study is unique, in that it explains the relationships between motivations for going public and post-IPO performances by directly linking the usages of IPO proceeds with firms’ operational performances. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to examine the effects of IPOs on restaurant firms’ operational, non-operational, investment and financial activities on firms’ performances.

Using the backdrop of an (apparently) extended visit to the West Indies, analogies with key concerns of internal audit are drawn. An unusual and refreshing way of exploring the main themes ‐ a discussion between Bill and Jack on tour in the islands ‐ forms the debate. Explores the concepts of control, necessary procedures, fraud and corruption, supporting systems, creativity and chaos, and building a corporate control facility.

Using the backdrop of an (apparently) extended visit to the West Indies, analogies with key concerns of internal audit are drawn. An unusual and refreshing way of exploring the main themes ‐ a discussion between Bill and Jack on tour in the islands ‐ forms the debate. Explores the concepts of control, necessary procedures, fraud and corruption, supporting systems, creativity and chaos, and building a corporate control facility.

The aim of this paper is to explore the family firms' propensity to undertake R&D investments after going public, showing how it varies due to the ownership structure.

The analysis is based on a sample of 132 French and Italian family and nonfamily IPOs in the period 2013–2018.

The empirical findings show a positive relationship between the quantity of post-IPO shares retained by family owners and R&D investments. Furthermore, the abovementioned relationship is negatively affected by the generational stage and positively by the presence of a lone founder.

Outside investors of family firms may be assured in buying shares of founding family firms after going public because they are stimulated to undertake R&D investments and therefore create overall value in the long term. Furthermore, external managers of lone-founder and first-generation family firms can adopt innovation investments without fear of being replaced as a consequence of a hostile takeover. Lastly, private equity should support later generation family IPOs, providing them with capital and managerial skills in order to generate value for shareholders.

Past studies have mostly shown family firms' reluctance to undertake R&D investments; however, scholars have focused on private or public family firms, ruling out the analysis of family firms' innovation behaviour within the setting of an IPO. To the best of the author's knowledge, this study represents the first empirical attempt to investigate the relationship between family firms and post-IPO innovation investments, when the capital infusion relaxes the financial constraints of family firms.

Within the past few years, a new phenomenon has taken place among the world's leading microfinance institutions (MFIs) – entry into new capital markets through initial public offerings (IPOs). “Going public” launches MFIs into a new frontier, not only presenting challenges but also providing new opportunities for the institutions and the clients they serve.

This chapter explores the advantages (for large investors) of directly owning productive assets, compared with indirect ownership through stock in corporations. Significant factors are agency costs and recent changes in the tax and regulatory environment. Recent corporate scandals have led to legislative and regulatory responses that significantly increase the monitoring costs and other burdens of becoming or remaining a public corporation. As a result, there has been a substantial increase in going-private transactions, particularly among smaller public companies. Acquisitions and minority equity positions that allow large corporations to join with smaller companies have also increased. The pressures to go private are not entirely new, however. This chapter, reflecting collaboration by professors of finance and business law, traces the legal concept that the corporation is an entity separate and apart from its owners, showing how the legal status of corporations hinders resolution of conflicts among the parties to the enterprise. Thus, there have long been fundamental flaws inherent in the corporation as the form of organization for certain activities. The current wave of Sarbanes–Oxley restructuring via private equity firms is part of a significant increase in direct ownership of major assets by institutional investors. Direct ownership prevents management expropriation of resources, and is preferable to corporate ownership whenever other alternatives for indemnification or liability limitation are available (such as insurance, limited partnerships, limited liability companies, etc.). Finally, the renewal of direct ownership is not a radical shift, but a return to long-established tradition in the organization of business activities.