We produce the first study to explore the effect of political money contributions on IPO valuation. Drawing evidence from the U.S., we show that both lobbying and PAC expenditure pay off on issue day as donors incur less underpricing, an effect that can be amplified by contribution size and strategic targeting of recipients. Donor IPOs also experience negative offer price revisions and lower aftermarket volatility. Collectively, our results offer new empirical grounding to information asymmetry and bookbuilding theories.

Companies undertaking initial public offerings (IPOs) in Greece were obliged to include next-year profit forecast in their prospectuses, until the regulation changed in 2001 to voluntary forecasting. Drawing evidence from IPOs issued in the period 1993-2015, this is the first study to investigate the effect of disclosure regime on management earnings forecasts and IPO long-term performance. The findings show mainly positive forecast errors (forecasts are lower than actual earnings) and higher long-term returns during the mandatory period, suggesting that the mandatory disclosure requirement causes issuers to systematically bias profit forecasts downwards as they opt for the safety of accounting conservatism. The mandatory disclosure requirement artificially improves IPO share performance. Overall, our results show that mandatory disclosure of earnings forecasts can impede capital market efficiency once it goes beyond historical financial information to involve compulsory projections of future performance.

No abstract

Despite being informationally opaque, small firms often switch from their primary financial institution to transactional lenders, with the relationship banking theory invoking the holdup problem as a culprit explanation. Using US evidence and an estimation strategy that overcomes traditional shortcomings in small business research, our study captures the determinants and, for the first time, the ex post effects of the switching decision. We find that switching is less likely when the primary financial institution is a nearby bank associated with quality services and connected to the firm via other business or social relationships. Small firms become more loyal as they grow in size and pursue nonmortgage credit. Outside the primary relationship, both loan approval and borrowing cost are adversely impacted, however loan maturities are longer. Moreover, the likelihood of pledging collateral remains unaffected, provided that the type of collateral is least sensitive to the borrower’s information environment. Jointly, our findings describe a trade-off inconsistent with the holdup problem, and an opportunity for banks to enhance customer loyalty by improving aspects of the relationship unrelated to the terms of credit.

We produce the first systematic study of the determinants and implications of in-person banking. Using survey data from the U.S., we show that firms which are informationally opaque or operate in rural areas are liable to contact their primary bank in-person. This tendency extends to older, less educated, and female business owners. We find that a relationship based on face-to-face communication, on average, lasts 17.88 months longer, spans a wider range of financial services, and is more likely to be exclusive. The associated loans mature 3.37 months later and bear interest rates which are 11 basis points lower. For good quality firms, in-person communication also relates to less discouraged borrowing. These results are robust to multiple approaches for endogeneity, including recursive bivariate probits, treatment effect models, and instrumental variables regressions. Overall, our findings offer empirical grounding to soft information theory and a note of caution to banks against suppressing channels of interpersonal communication.