We empirically investigate valuations of Internet firms at various stages of the initial public offering (IPO) from two perspectives. First, we examine the association between the valuation of Internet IPOs and a set of financial and nonfinancial variables, which prior anecdotal or empirical evidence suggests may serve as value drivers. Second, we document differences in IPO valuations between Internet and non‐Internet firms as well as across different stages in the IPO process—i.e., initial prospectus price, final offer price, and first trading day price—within each set of firms. Our primary two conclusions are as follows. First, there are noticeable differences between valuations of Internet and non‐Internet firms, especially at the prospectus and final IPO stage. Specifically, the valuation of non‐Internet firms generally follows the conventional wisdom regarding valuation: positive earnings and cash flows are priced, while negative earnings and negative cash flows are not. The valuation of Internet firms, however, departs from conventional wisdom, with earnings not being priced, and negative cash flows being priced perhaps because they are viewed as investments. This difference between the two classes of firms may be expected, given the age and unique nature of the Internet industry. Second, there are significant differences between the initial valuation of firms at the prospectus and IPO stage and their valuation by the stock market at the end of the first trading day. For non‐Internet firms, the difference is largely ascribed to the relative offering size. For Internet firms, however, the differences are with respect to positive cash flows, sales growth, R&D, and high‐risk warnings, in addition to the relative offering size.
This study estimates individual-firm style loadings for classification of individual securities into growth (glamour) and value groups. Style loadings are similar to betas, measuring the comovement of a firm's return with the return on a particular style index. The study examines this classification by comparing the extent of unrecorded economic assets for growth and value firms. The study also examines the systematic-risk characteristics associated with this classification. Using Ohlson's (1995) valuation model, this study estimates the persistence of abnormal earnings for individual firms using time-series analysis. Growth firms are shown to have higher levels of abnormal earnings persistence than value firms, probably due to their greater levels of unrecorded economic assets than value firms. Indeed, the study finds that growth firms have greater levels of R&D and advertising intensity than value firms. The study also shows that growth and value firms differ in their systematic risk. Possibly due to the greater uncertainty associated with unrecorded economic assets, the systematic risks of growth firms are larger than those of value firms.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.