Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine whether initial public offering (IPO) over-subscription is a function of firm’s prestige signals conveyed by third parties with reputational capital such as underwriter, auditor and independent non-executive board member. Design/methodology/approach The relationship between prestige signals and over-subscription ratio (OSR) of IPOs is analysed using a cross-sectional regression based on a sample of 393 IPOs issued between January 2000 and December 2015. Findings The results indicate that IPOs underwritten by reputable underwriters have lower OSR than those underwritten by non-reputable underwriters. While issuer engages reputable underwriter to certify firm quality to reduce information asymmetry, the action brings with it lower initial returns for its IPO. Investors interpret the signal conveyed by issuer’s choice of underwriter from under-pricing perspective and respond accordingly by reducing IPO demand. This implies that investors regard under-pricing as a more valuable signal than firm quality signal associated with underwriter reputation. The findings also indicate that over-subscription increases in IPOs that have above average initial returns and higher institutional participation. Issuing firms that go public in a period of high IPO volume are associated with low OSR. Originality/value This is the first paper to examine the relationship between the prestige signals and OSR of IPOs in the Malaysian context.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of prestige signals measured by the reputations of the underwriter, auditor and board size on the heterogeneity of investor belief about the true value of IPO in the Malaysian IPO market. Design/methodology/approach This study employs a sample of 281 IPOs issued between January 2000 and December 2015. The relationship between prestige signals and investor heterogeneity, measured by first-day price range of IPOs, is analysed using cross-sectional regression and quantile regression technique. Findings Of the three prestige signals, the findings show that only underwriter reputation and board size have significant negative relationships with IPO first-day price range. This implies that IPOs underwritten by reputable underwriters and issuing firms with larger board members have lower heterogeneity of opinion among investors. The findings also show that underwriter and auditor reputations have negative relationship with IPO initial return, suggesting that these prestige signals help to reduce IPO under-pricing, which is a direct cost of raising capital for the issuing firm. Furthermore, the results indicate that offer price, initial return, over-subscription ratio and private placement are associated with higher first-day price range. However, the findings on offer size suggest that larger IPO offer size is associated with lower first-day price range. Overall, the findings suggest that firm’s prestige signals reduce opinion heterogeneity among investors and that lower investors’ heterogeneity leads to lower IPO under-pricing cost for issuing firms. Originality/value Despite the importance of underwriter, auditor and board member reputations in signalling firm’s quality and reducing the level of information asymmetry of the listing firm’s issues, research on the effects of prestige signals on investor heterogeneity remains unexplored. This study investigates the role of prestige signals in influencing investors’ heterogeneity in Malaysia. The authors conjecture that underwriter, auditor and board member with higher reputations are associated with lower levels of opinion heterogeneity among IPO investors.

Heterogeneity of opinion regarding the value of an initial public offering (IPO) is arguably high due to the lack of prior information on the IPO. This situation is especially true in the case of a fixed-price IPO where, unlike book-building and auction offering methods, potential investors do not have the opportunity to "reveal" their private valuations of the IPO. Using a sample of 112 fixed-price Malaysian IPOs from January 2009 to December 2015, and employing OLS regression together with stepwise regression and hierarchical multiple regression, the objective of this study is to examine the level of underpricing as the main factor that can possibly explain the heterogeneity of opinion among investors regarding the true value of a fixed-price IPO. The study found that the level of underpricing , together with control variable ACE Market versus Main Market can explain 50.7 percent of the variation in the heterogeneity of opinion regarding the value of Malaysian fixed-price IPOs. The novelty of this study as opposed to an earlier study by Low and Yong (2013) is in terms of the more rigorous method employed in the form of not just the OLS, but also the stepwise and the hierarchical multiple regressions. This study also offered an improved model with higher R 2. The results have some policy implications for the regulatory bodies of Bursa Malaysia in terms of special attention to IPOs listed on the ACE market due to their high initial return and price spread which could be due to excessive speculation.

This paper reviews the current status of IPO research in Asia, especially when it comes to the issue of the under-pricing phenomenon. This interest stems from the increasing attention that some of the Asia Pacific region countries have, due to their higher average initial returns in comparison to other developed and developing countries. In this review, we identify the determinants for the high levels of under-pricing as reported in the literature. We find that the regulatory environment of these Asian countries is the most reasonable source for such under-pricing, as it sets it apart from other developed and developing countries.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impacts of stock market and banking sectors development on a country’s efficiency in transforming its innovation input into output. Design/methodology/approach This study employs a generalized method-of-moments panel estimator to examine the role of stock market and banking development in influencing innovation efficiency. Findings Findings show that a country’s stock market development is positively related to its innovation efficiency ratio. Countries with more developed stock markets have relatively higher efficiency in transforming innovation input into innovation output than those with less developed stock markets. There is no evidence that innovation efficiency is influenced by banking sector development. However, when stock market and banking sectors are modeled together, while stock market development retains its positive influence, the findings indicate that banking sector exerts negative impact on innovation efficiency. Practical implications The findings provide useful insights to guide policy decisions for a country’s innovation agenda in enhancing its innovation performance. The findings imply that stock market development should be embraced as one of the key policy areas in order for a country to be more efficient in transforming its innovation input into innovation output. Originality/value This paper provides first evidence using data sourced from Global Innovation Index report, first available in 2007 and published by Cornell University, INSEAD and the World Intellectual Property Organization.