Search results

Many researchers suggest that investment bankers underprice IPOs. However, from 1989 to 1996, all Japanese IPOs were auctioned, reducing the role of underwriters. Initial returns of Japanese price-competitive IPOs are not found lower than underwriter-priced U.S. IPOs. Issue size, firm size, general market movements, insider sales levels, and underwriter quality are not highly related to initial returns under price-competitive auctions. However, there appears to be a strong partial adjustment phenomenon. Thus, price-competitive auctions did not result in significantly lower initial returns, but did reduce the impacts of many traditional variables found to significantly affect initial returns in U.S. underwriter-priced IPOs.

The market for mergers and takeovers, often referred to as the market for corporate control [Manne (1965)], has always attracted the attention of investors and researchers because takeovers represent corporate investment decisions on a scale several times larger than the normal, ongoing, growth‐maintaining capital outlays by the typical value‐maximising firm. Although the theoretical justifications for such corporate actions are reasonably well understood, the true motives for the mergers and the strategies adopted by acquiring firms to consummate them can be complex and diverse in scope. Corporate acquisitions can therefore have widespread effects on the wealth of various groups of agents involved in the market for corporate control.

Institutional investors—insurance companies, pension funds, investment trust companies and unit trusts—have increased significantly and persistently their ownership of British industry. At the end of 1977 they owned approximately 46 per cent of the ordinary shares in UK quoted companies and in recent years have accounted for over 50 per cent of stock market turnover in UK equities. Their presence in the stock market has been associated with their ability to influence share prices, decide the outcome of takeover battles, and trade outside the London Stock Exchange. As major shareholders in public companies they have been encouraged to participate in managerial decision‐making. For corporate management, the growth of institutional shareholdings provides opportunities to utilise their voting power in takeover situations, encourage their support for the market value of the company, and use financial institutions as sources of new capital.

This paper aims to explore the effects of entrepreneurial orientation (EO) on firm survival and examine whether founder chief executive officers (CEOs) are more effective than other types of managers at utilizing entrepreneurial orientation at initial public offerings (IPOs).

Using survival analysis the authors investigate the effects of EO on firm survival as well as the moderating role of founder CEOs.

The results suggest that EO increases post‐IPO survival. Further, founder‐CEOs moderate the EO‐survival relationship.

The paper shows that entrepreneurial orientation enhances long‐term survival in IPO firms. Survival is an important, though generally overlooked consideration in EO research. The paper also concludes that firms with founder CEOs are more likely to value and implement EO. Finally, the paper addresses calls for greater use of secondary measures of EO.

Excessive initial trading day returns (termed underpricing (UP)) and poor long‐run performance (LRP) are two well‐documented anomalies associated with initial public offerings (IPOs).The primary objective of this study is to empirically test the association between the extent of intellectual capital (IC) disclosure in the prospectus of an unseasoned IPO and: UP and LRP.

Ex ante uncertainty surrounding IC – recognized as the pivotal resource underlying a firm's future value creation and sustainable competitive advantage in the “new economic” era – is likely to be high. Unseasoned IPOs world‐wide are increasing with many IPOs heavily IC‐reliant. Given ex ante uncertainty surrounding IC, there is an escalating need to understand how disclosure of information related to IC can reduce an IPO's cost of capital (i.e. UP) and provide an indication of LRP. The analysis is based on a sample of 228 Singapore IPOs listing during the period 1997‐2003. IC disclosure (ICDisc) in IPO prospectuses is measured using an 81‐item researcher constructed disclosure index.

Empirical findings indicate, contrary to expectations, a positive (negative) ICDisc‐UP (ICDisc‐LRP) association.

It is the opinion that regulators, scholars and practitioners alike need to pay attention to developing a responsible model for reporting IC information so as to prevent a potentially unhealthy speculative environment driven by over‐optimism.

The study is the first to simultaneously investigate the linkage between ICDisc and UP and: LRP.

The purpose of this paper is to chart, analyse and attempt to explain, the changes in the scope of consolidation over the last century in national and transnational regulations. It first concentrates on the four countries which have been the main drivers of change (the USA, the UK, Germany and France) and then on the transnational regulations of the EU and International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). This issue is of great topical importance (e.g. the IASB's standard on consolidation of 2011).

The author synthesises the literature and then analyses the extensive set of accounting requirements over a century from the four countries, the EU and the international standard setters. Three theoretical perspectives (transnational operations, financing and diffusion of ideas) are assessed as explanations for the developments.

Definitions of subsidiary have ranged from the simple to the byzantine, including poor use of such words as “control” and “power”. Over time, there have been many types of exclusion from consolidation (e.g. based on lack of ownership, lack of control, dissimilarity or foreignness), but the scope has gradually widened. In terms of the conventional understanding of international accounting differences, the US concentration on ownership and the German concentration on control are unexpected. However, the theoretical perspectives allow an explanation, largely in terms of financing and diffusion of ideas rather than transnational operations.

Policy implications concern the improvement in the use of such terms as “control” and “power”. Suggestions are made for clarifying the scope of consolidation.

This is the first paper to analyse the scope of consolidation over a century up to the present on a transnational basis, and the first to seek to explain the developments in a theoretical context.