Abstract:We analyze the desinvestment decision of venture capitalists in the course of an IPO of their portfolio firms. The capital market learns of the project quality only in the period following the IPO. Venture capitalists with high-quality firms face a trade-off between immediately selling their stake in the venture at a price below the true value and having to wait until the true value is revealed. We show that the dilemma may be resolved via a reputation-acquiring mechanism in a repeated game set-up. Thereby, we can explain, e.g., the advent of "hot-issue market behavior" involving early disinvestments and a high degree of price uncertainty. Furthermore, we provide a new rationale for underpricing. Young venture capitalists may use underpricing as a device for credibly committing themselves to acquiring reputation. JEL Classification: G24, G14, D82Keywords: Exit Decisions, Venture Capital, IPO, Underpricing We would like to thank seminar participants at the Universities of Frankfurt and Bonn for suggestions and comments. We are also grateful to an anonymous referee for the very helpful and constructive comments on an earlier version of the paper.

We contribute to the literature on debt collection agencies in two ways: First, we present an estimation of the collection rates. The distribution of collection rates exhibits a mean of about 65% and a strong bimodality with peaks at the very ends of the distribution. Second, we investigate potential determinants of the collection success. We find that collection rates are positively related to the exposure at default and to prior debtor‐specific collection rates. In contrast, the age of the account and—if applicable—prior experience with the debtor have a negative impact on collection rates.

Abstract:We analyze the desinvestment decision of venture capitalists in the course of an IPO of their portfolio firms. The capital market learns of the project quality only in the period following the IPO. Venture capitalists with high-quality firms face a trade-off between immediately selling their stake in the venture at a price below the true value and having to wait until the true value is revealed. We show that the dilemma may be resolved via a reputation-acquiring mechanism in a repeated game set-up. Thereby, we can explain, e.g., the advent of "hot-issue market behavior" involving early disinvestments and a high degree of price uncertainty. Furthermore, we provide a new rationale for underpricing. Young venture capitalists may use underpricing as a device for credibly committing themselves to acquiring reputation. JEL Classification: G24, G14, D82Keywords: Exit Decisions, Venture Capital, IPO, Underpricing We would like to thank seminar participants at the Universities of Frankfurt and Bonn for suggestions and comments. We are also grateful to an anonymous referee for the very helpful and constructive comments on an earlier version of the paper.

We study an asymmetric triopoly in a heterogeneous product market where quantity decisions are delegated to managers. The two biggest firms are commonly owned by shareholders such as index funds, whereas the smallest firm is owned by independent shareholders. Under such a common holding owner structure, the owners have an incentive to coordinate when designing their manager compensation schemes. This coordination leads to a reallocation of production and induces a redistribution of profits. The trade volume in the market is reduced so that shareholder coordination is detrimental to consumer surplus as well as welfare.

We study oligopolistic competition in product markets where the firms' quantity decisions are delegated to managers. Some firms are commonly owned by shareholders such as index funds, whereas the other firms are owned by independent shareholders. Under such an asymmetric ownership structure, the common owners have an incentive to coordinate when designing the manager compensation schemes. This implicit collusion induces a less aggressive output behavior by the coordinated firms and a more aggressive behavior by the noncoordinated firms. The profits of the noncoordinated firms are increasing in the number of coordinated firms. The profits of the coordinated firms exceed the profits without coordination if at least 80% of the firms are commonly owned.