Abstract:We examine IPO survival in a 'reputational' market, the Alternative Investment Market (AIM), where principle-based regulation pivots on the role of a regulatory agent, the nominated advisor (Nomad) to the IPO company. We find that Nomad reputation has a significant impact on IPO survival. IPOs backed by reputable Nomads 'survive longer (by about two years) than those backed by other Nomads. We also find that survival rates of AIM IPOs are broadly comparable to those of North American IPOs. While these results are of obvious interest to various stakeholders of AIM firms, they also provide important lessons for market places modeled on AIM including the upper-tier of the US over-the-counter market (OTCQX), Italy's AIM Italia, and Japan's Tokyo AIM.

This paper examines differences in the use of trade credit by publicly listed firms and their privately held counterparts. We show that public firms maintain a significantly lower level of trade credit than private firms. This finding is consistent with the argument that public firms rely less on supplier financing because of their greater access to cheaper and less risky sources of external capital. We further find that while public and private firms actively seek to adjust toward their optimal trade credit levels, the former firms experience faster adjustment. The recent financial crisis had differential effects on the trade credit ratios of public and private firms.

PurposeThe aim of the paper is to study the long‐run under‐performance of UK initial public offerings (IPOs) by relating it to the pre‐IPO financial performance of the firm as well as the managerial decisions taken before the IPO.Design/methodology/approachThe three‐year share returns of UK IPOs is studied using various methodologies such as buy and hold returns, cumulative abnormal returns and Fama and French three‐factor returns.FindingsIt was found that the percentage of equity issued and the degree of multinationality of a firm are the key predictors of its performance after the IPO. It is also found that small firms behave differently from large firms and suffer from worse long‐run performance than large firms.Research limitations/implicationsThere is a great need for future research to focus on ownership structure and long‐run returns. Further, a focus on the level of debt and venture capital financing in the pre‐IPO period may also uncover important relationships with the long‐run performance of a firm.Practical implicationsThe results obtained from this study provide important information for the prospective long term investors in new issues. While pre‐IPO performance of a firm cannot predict the post‐IPO performance with certainty, nevertheless the results of this study suggest that long‐term investors should show caution while deciding on long term investment in IPO firms.Originality/valueThe paper explains the post‐IPO underperformance of firms by relating it to the pre‐IPO managerial decisions made in the firm. It also documents the role of multinationality in explaining long run underperformance.

No abstract

No abstract