Changes in underwriters' selection of comparable firms pre- and post-IPO: Same bank, same company, different peers

Silvio Vismara, Andrea Signori and Stefano Paleari

Journal of Corporate Finance, 2015, vol. 34, issue C, 235-250

Abstract: We compare the selection of peer firms made by investment banks as underwriters at the IPO with that done shortly thereafter as analysts. We find that 3 out of 7 comparable firms, on average, are changed. The peers published in the IPO prospectuses have higher valuations than those published in the post-IPO equity research reports of the same firm, especially if the underwriter is US-based. We argue that underwriters select comparable firms that make the issuer's shares look conservatively priced at the IPO, while this conflict of interest tends to fade afterwards. The upward bias in peer selection is larger for underwriters with greater market power, and lower for repeat players in the IPO market. A biased selection of peers results in higher underpricing and lower long run performance of IPOs.

Keywords: Initial public offerings; Valuation; Underwriters; Analyst; Comparables (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: G24 G30 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2015
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (14)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929119915000838
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:corfin:v:34:y:2015:i:c:p:235-250

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2015.07.010

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Corporate Finance is currently edited by A. Poulsen and J. Netter

More articles in Journal of Corporate Finance from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().