Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T18:15:02.099Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Signalling and the Valuation of Unseasoned New Issues Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

I. Krinsky  and
W. Rotenberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper provides further empirical evidence on the relation between entrepreneurial ownership retention and the initial value of unseasoned common shares. A Canadian data set is employed to estimate the various empirical specifications used in previous studies and to examine additional variables suggested by recent developments in the theoretical literature. The estimation is carried out using a more general procedure to correct for heteroskedasticity. In contrast to previous findings, the entrepreneurial ownership retention signal does not possess statistical significance in any of the models examined.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 257 - 266
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beatty, R. P. “The Initial Public Offerings Market for Auditing Services.” Working Paper, The Wharton School, Univ. of Pennsylvania (02 1986).Google Scholar
Beatty, R. P., and Ritter, J. R.. “Investment Banking Reputations and the Underpricing of Initial Public Offerings.” Journal of Financial Economics, 17 (06 1986), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, S. M. “Initial Public Offer Underpricing: The Issuer's View—A Note.” Journal of Finance, 42 (03 1987), 159–162.Google Scholar
Downes, D. H., and Heinkel, R.. “Signalling and the Valuation of Unseasoned New Issues.” Journal of Finance, 37 (03 1982), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feltham, G. A., and Hughes, J. S.. “The Role of Audits and Audit Quality in Valuing New Issues.” Working Paper, Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, Univ. of British Columbia (01 1987).Google Scholar
Hughes, P. “Signalling by Direct Disclosure.” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 8 (06 1986), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibbotson, R. G. “Price Performance of Common Stock New Issues.” Journal of Financial Economics, 2 (06 1975), 235–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krinsky, I., and Rotenberg, W.. “The Valuation of Initial Public Offerings.” Contemporary Accounting Research (1989), forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leland, H. E., and Pyle, D. H.. “Informational Asymmetries, Financial Structure, and Financial Intermediation.” Journal of Finance, 32 (05 1977), 371–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lev, B., and Sunder, S.. “Methodological Issues in the Use of Financial Ratios.” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 1 (12 1979), 187–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Logue, D. E. “On the Pricing of Unseasoned Equity Offerings: 1965–1969.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 8 (01 1973), 91–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, J. R. “Signalling and the Valuation of Unseasoned New Issues: A Comment.” Journal of Finance, 39 (09 1984), 1231–1237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Titman, S., and Trueman, B.. “Information Quality and the Valuation of New Issues.” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 8 (06 1986), 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, H. “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica, 48 (05 1980), 817–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar