In emerging markets, pricing — not reputation — drives the partnership between underwriter and IPO. Photo via business.rice.edu

Many investors assume they can judge the strength of an IPO based on the reputation of the underwriter supporting it.

However, a recent study by Rice Business professors Anthea Zhang and Haiyang Li, along with Jin Chen (Nottingham University) and Jing Jin (University of International Business and Economics), proves this is only sometimes true — depending on how mature the stock exchange is.

Getting your company listed on the stock market is a big step. It opens new opportunities to raise money and grow the business. But it also means facing increased regulations, reporting requirements and public scrutiny.

To successfully launch an initial public offering (IPO), most companies hire “underwriters” — financial services firms — to guide them through the complex process. Because underwriters have expertise in valuations, filing paperwork and promoting to investors, they play a crucial role in ushering companies onto the market.

In well-established markets like the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), an underwriter’s reputation carries immense weight with investors. Top-tier banks like Goldman Sachs have built their reputations by rigorously vetting and partnering with only the most promising companies. When Goldman Sachs takes on the role of underwriter, it sends a strong signal to potential investors that the IPO has met stringent standards. After all, a firm of Goldman’s caliber would not risk tarnishing its hard-earned reputation by associating with subpar companies.

Conversely, IPO firms recognize the value of having a prestigious underwriter. Such an association lends credibility and prestige, enhancing the company’s appeal. In a mature market environment, the underwriter’s reputation correlates to the IPO’s potential, benefiting both the investors who seek opportunities and the companies wanting to make a strong public debut.

However, assumptions about an underwriter’s reputation only hold true if the stock exchange is mature. In emerging or less developed markets, the reputation of an underwriter has no bearing on the quality or potential of the IPO it pairs with.

In an emerging market, the study finds, investors should pay attention to how much the underwriter charges a given IPO for their services. The higher the fee, the riskier it would be to invest in the IPO firm.

To arrive at their findings, the researchers leveraged a unique opportunity in China’s ChiNext Exchange. When ChiNext opened in 2009, regulations were low. Banks faced little consequence for underwriting a substandard IPO. Numerous IPOs on ChiNext were discovered to have engaged in accounting malpractice and inaccurate reporting, resulting in financial losses for investors and eroding confidence in the capital markets. So, for 18 months during 2012-2013, ChiNext closed. When it reopened, exchange reforms were stricter. And suddenly, underwriter reputation became a more reliable marker of IPO quality.

“Our research shows how priorities evolve as markets mature,” Zhang says. “In a new or developing exchange without established regulations, underwriter fees paid by IPO firms dictate the underwriter-company partnership. But as markets reform and mature, reputation and quality become the driving factors.”

The study makes a critical intervention in the understanding of market mechanisms. The findings matter for companies, investors and regulators across societies, highlighting how incentives shift, markets evolve and economic systems work.

The research opens the door to other areas of inquiry. For example, future studies could track relationships between underwriters and companies to reveal the long-term impacts of reputation, fees and rule changes. Research along these lines could help identify best practices benefiting all market participants.

“In the future, researchers could explore how cultural norms, regulations and investor behaviors influence IPO success,” says Li. “Long-term studies on specific underwriter-firm pairs could reveal insights into investor confidence and market stability. Understanding these dynamics can benefit companies, investors and policymakers alike.”

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from Yan “Anthea” Zhang, the Fayez Sarofim Vanguard Professor of Management – Strategic Management at Rice Business, and Haiyang Li, the H. Joe Nelson III Professor of Management – Strategic Management at Rice Business.

People tend to have stronger reactions to unexpected news, so news that meets the public’s expectations of a company can go unnoticed. Photo via Getty Images

Houston research: How best to deliver unexpected news as a company

houston voices

According to Forbes, the volume of mergers and acquisitions in 2021 was the highest on record, and 2022 has already seen a number of major consolidation attempts. Microsoft’s acquisition of video game company Activision Blizzard was the biggest gaming industry deal in history, according to Reuters. JetBlue recently won the bid over Frontier Airlines to merge with Spirit Airlines. And, perhaps most notably, Elon Musk recently backed out of an attempt to acquire Twitter.

It can be hard to predict how markets will react to such high-profile deals (and, in Elon Musk and Twitter’s case, whether or not the deal will even pan out). But Rice Business Professor Haiyang Li and Professor Emeritus Robert Hoskisson, along with Jing Jin of the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing, have found that companies can take advantage of these deals to buffer the effects of other news.

The researchers looked at 7,575 mergers and acquisitions from 2001 to 2015, with a roughly half-and-half split between positive and negative stock market reactions. They found that when there’s a negative reaction to a deal, companies have two strategies for dealing with it. If it’s a small negative reaction, companies will release positive news announcements in an attempt to soften the blow. But when the reaction is really bad, companies actually tend to announce more negative news afterward. Specifically, companies released 18% less positive news and 52% more negative news after a bad market reaction.

This may seem counterintuitive, but there’s a method to the madness, and it all has to do with managing expectations. If people are lukewarm on a company due to a merger or acquisition, it’s possible to sway public opinion with unrelated good news. When the backlash is severe, though, a little bit of good PR won’t be enough to change people’s minds. In this case, companies release more bad news because it’s one of their best chances to do so without making waves in the future. If people already think poorly of a company due to a recent deal, more bad news isn’t great, but it doesn’t come as a surprise, either. Therefore, it’s easier to ignore.

It might make more sense to just keep quiet if the market reaction to a deal is bad, and this study found that most companies do. However, this only applies when releasing more news would make a mildly bad situation worse. If things are already bad enough that the company can’t recover with good news, it can still make the best out of a bad situation by offloading more bad news when the damage will be minimal. Companies are legally obligated to disclose business-related news or information with shareholders and with the public. If it’s bad news, they like to share it when the public is already upset about a deal, instead of releasing the negative news when there are no other distractions. In this case the additional negative news is likely to get more play in the media when disclosed by itself.

But what happens when people get excited about a merger or acquisition? In these cases, it also depends on how strong the sentiment is. If the public’s reaction is only minimally positive, companies may opt to release more good news in hopes of making the reaction stronger. When the market is already enthusiastic about the deal, though, companies won’t release more positive news. The researchers found that after an especially positive market reaction to a deal, companies indeed released 12% less positive news but 56% more negative news. Also, one could argue that the contrasting negative news makes the good news on the acquisition look even better. This may be important especially if the acquisition is a significant strategic move.

There are several reasons why a company wouldn’t continue to release positive news after a good press day and strong market reaction. First of all, they want to make sure that a rise in market price is attributed to the deal alone, and not any irrelevant news. A positive reaction to a deal also gives companies another opportunity to disclose bad news at a time when it will get less attention. If the bad news does get attention, the chances are better that stakeholders will go easy on them — a little bit of bad press is forgivable when the good news outshines it.

Companies may choose to release no news after a positive reaction to a merger or acquisition, the same way they might opt to stay quiet after backlash. They’re less likely to release positive news when stakeholders are already happy, preferring to save that news for the next time they need it, either to offset a negative reaction or strengthen a weak positive reaction.

Mergers and acquisitions can produce unpredictable market reactions, so it’s important for companies to be prepared for a variety of outcomes. In fact, Jin, Li and Hoskisson found that the steps taken by companies before deals were announced didn’t have much effect on the public’s reaction. They found that it’s more important for companies to make the best out of that reaction, whatever it turns out to be.

The researchers also found that, regardless of whether the market reaction was positive or negative, as long as the reaction was strong, companies could use the opportunity to hide smaller pieces of bad news in the shadow of a headline-making deal. Overall, the magnitude of the reaction mattered more than the type of reaction. People tend to have stronger reactions to unexpected news, though, so companies prefer to release negative news when market expectations are already low.

These findings are relevant beyond merger announcements, of course; they also point to strategies that could be useful in everyday communications. A key takeaway is that negative information is less upsetting when people already expect bad things — or when it comes after much bigger, and much better, news. Bad news is always hard to deliver, but this research gives us a few ways to soften the blow.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from Jing Jin, Haiyang Li and Robert Hoskisson.

Firms looking to expand globally need to ensure that their organizational resources are adaptable to new markets. Getty Images

Houston startups planning to go global need to prioritize adaptability, researchers find

Houston voices

When foreigners invest in emerging markets, the prospect for those markets' local businesses looks bright. The payoffs for a country's companies can range from injections of foreign capital to better managerial talent, technological sophistication and international know-how. But does foreign investment ever push local firms to venture into international projects of their own?

Rice Business professor Haiyang Li looked closely at the ripple effects of foreign investments, and concluded it all depends on the local businesses' adaptability. That — and their appetite for risk.

Together with Xiwei Yi of Peking University and Geng Cui of Lingan University, Hong Kong, Li launched a large-scale study of Chinese manufacturers to better understand how multinational investment in domestic companies influences the global market.

The subject was ripe for analysis. Over the past decade, more and more companies in China and other emerging markets have been testing the waters of direct investment in other countries in sectors as varied as food and beverages, apparel, electronics and transportation equipment.

Li's team hypothesized that these emerging market companies were leveraging benefits that foreign investment had ferried into their home markets. This investment, the researchers theorized, had brought in useful resources and skills, which helped ease the local companies into international business markets.

To confirm this, the team needed to test whether the converse was true: Might information gained from foreign investors actually dull a local firm's interest in branching out overseas? Maybe the risks of that type of venture — which are higher for firms in emerging markets — would seem too stark.

To find out, the researchers first vetted the literature on inward and outward investment activities. How, they wanted to know, did domestic firms interact with foreign players in the technology or product importing process? In equipment manufacturing? In franchising and licensing, mergers and acquisitions and activities such as setting up subsidiaries?

Working with a global research company, Li and his colleagues next surveyed 1,500 Chinese businesses in the food, clothing, electronics and vehicle industries. (Firms in finance, banking, natural resources and business services were ruled out because of their government ties, and also because such organizations usually use fewer resources, which made them harder to evaluate.)

Each company that took part in the survey rated how much they engaged with foreign investors in activities such as importing products and services or forming joint ventures. They also indicated if dealing with foreign direct investment had brought them foreign capital, advanced manufacturing know-how, managerial experience or competitive insight into overseas business.

The researchers also measured the "fungibility" of these firms' resources — in other words, how easily could their organizational, cultural and technological resources be adapted to various geographical settings?

Finally, managers rated how risk-prone they thought their firms were.

After Li and his coauthors processed the answers, they found several links between foreign investment in domestic firms and local companies' internationalization efforts.

First, there was a positive relationship between the local gains from foreign investment and a firm's interest in internationalization projects. While this effect was indirect, it was amplified when foreign investment gave a firm new capabilities that made it more adaptable. In other words, the Chinese companies whose contact with foreign multinationals made them more adaptable in general were better positioned to prosper in ventures abroad.

This stands to reason, the researchers note. That's because by its very nature foreign investment sparks awareness of new opportunities: every business trip, plant visit or negotiation with foreign partners is a hands-on lesson in international trade.

But the researchers also uncovered a significant downside to foreign investment for local Chinese firms. When a project was considered high-risk, such as a merger or establishment of a wholly owned subsidiary, the local firms were less prone to venture abroad. This adverse effect was worse for firms that labeled themselves risk-averse, probably because exposure to foreign investors only made the risks of internationalizing clearer.

These findings add important detail to the way foreign investment can affect their local partners' own international plans — for good and ill. Already, businesses in emerging markets are used to optimizing resources, wrangling diverse idioms and artisans and adapting logistically to get their products to market. That nimbleness, Li and his colleagues propose, should also be seen as a globalization tool. For businesses in emerging markets, the researchers conclude, day-to-day technical ability is actually less important than cultural and organizational flexibility — and applying lessons learned from foreign investors to their own projects abroad.

In other words, for firms in emerging markets, globalization is not just a path to new markets. It's a way to study interactions with foreign firms while on their home turf – and learn how to apply those lessons abroad.

------

This story originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom.

Haiyang Li is Area Coordinator and Professor of Strategic Management at Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston medical institutions launch $6M kidney research incubator

NIH funding

Institutions within Houston’s Texas Medical Center have launched the Houston Area Incubator for Kidney, Urologic and Hematologic Research Training (HAI-KUH) program. The incubator will be backed by $6.25 million over five years from the National Institutes of Health and aims to create a training pipeline for researchers.

HAI-KUH will include 58 investigators from Baylor College of Medicine, Texas Children’s Hospital, the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, University of Houston, Houston Methodist Research Institute, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Rice University and Texas A&M University Institute of Biosciences and Technology. The program will fund six predoctoral students and six postdoctoral associates. Trainees will receive support in scientific research, professional development and networking.

According to the organizations, Houston has a high burden of kidney diseases, hypertension, sickle cell disease and other nonmalignant hematologic conditions. HAI-KUH will work to improve the health of patients by building a strong scientific workforce that leverages the team's biomedical research resources to develop research skills of students and trainees and prepare them for sustained and impactful careers. The funding comes through the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.

The principal investigators of the project include Dr. Alison Bertuch, professor of pediatric oncology and molecular and human genetics at BCM; Peter Doris, professor and director of the Institute of Molecular Medicine Center for Human Genetics at UT Health; and Margaret Goodell, professor and chair of the Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology at Baylor.

“This new award provides unique collaborative training experiences that extend beyond the outstanding kidney, urology, and hematology research going on in the Texas Medical Center,” Doris said in a news release. “In conceiving this award, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases envisioned trainee development across the full spectrum of skills required for professional success.”

Jeffrey Rimer, a professor of Chemical Engineering, is a core investigator on the project and program director at UH. Rimer is known for his breakthroughs in using innovative methods in control crystals to help treat malaria and kidney stones. Other co-investigators include Dr. Wolfgang Winkelmeyer (Baylor), Oleh Pochynyuk (UTHealth), Dr. Rose Khavari (Houston Methodist) and Pamela Wenzel (UT Health).

“This new NIH-sponsored training program will enable us to recruit talented students and postdocs to work on these challenging areas of research,” Rimer added in a release.

6 Houston health tech startups making major advancements right now

meet the finalists

Home to leading hospitals, universities and health-focused incubators, Houston is a breeding ground for innovative medical technology and breakthroughs that can improve outcomes and lead to a better quality of life for patients.

The Health Tech Business category in our 2025 Houston Innovation Awards will honor an innovative startup within the health and medical technology sectors.

Six forward-thinking businesses have been named finalists for the 2025 award. They range from an end-of-life care company to others developing devices and systems for heart monitoring, sleep apnea, hearing loss and more.

Read more about these businesses, their innovative founders, and how they're shaping the future of health care below. Then join us at the Houston Innovation Awards on Nov. 13 at Greentown Labs, when the winner will be unveiled at our live awards ceremony.

Tickets are now on sale for this exclusive event celebrating all things Houston Innovation.

Bairitone Health

Bairitone Health is bringing anatomy imaging for sleep apnea to the home environment. The company's platform maps users' anatomy during natural sleep using a facial patch to determine the root cause of airway obstruction. It then offers effective therapies for each patient. The system is currently in the research and development phase and is being used in clinical trials and studies.

The company was founded in 2022 in the Texas Medical Center's Biodesign program by CEO Meagan Pitcher, CTO Onur Kilic and chief medical officer Britt Cross. It was a member of Activate Houston's inaugural cohort and has participated in numerous accelerators and incubators. It raised a pre-seed round last year of $435,000.

Corveus Medical

Corveus Medical has developed a novel catheter device that allows cardiologists to perform a splanchnic nerve ablation, restoring the pressure balance in patients with moderate heart failure. Its pre-FDA-approved, minimally invasive solution deactivates a nerve that has been demonstrated to be a root cause behind heart failure progression, which allows physicians to treat patients who have traditionally had few options.

The company, formerly known as Caridian Medical, was founded in 2021 by CEO Tyler Melton and CMO Ishan Kamat. It has participated in incubators such as TMC Biodesign, Y Combinator, MedTech Innovator and Fogarty Innovation and was named one of the 10 most promising life science companies at Texas Life Science Forum in 2022. The company says it will move toward validation and verification testing for its device in Q4 of this year.

FibroBiologics

Regenerative medicine company FibroBioligics uses fibroblasts, the body’s most common type of cell, rather than stem cells, to help grow new cells to repair tissue and modulate the immune system. The cell therapies offer treatments for chronic conditions such as degenerative disc disease, multiple sclerosis and non-healing wounds.

The publicly traded company was founded in 2021 by CEO Pete O'Heeron. It opened a new 10,000-square-foot Houston lab earlier this year to scale up research efforts and pave the way for in-house manufacturing. The company says it plans to launch its first clinical trial for diabetic foot ulcers soon, representing the transition of its fibroblast technology to the clinic setting.

Koda Health

Koda Health has developed an advance care planning platform (ACP) that allows users to document and share their care preferences, goals and advance directives for health systems. The web-based platform guides patients through values-based decisions with interactive tools and generates state-specific, legally compliant documents that integrate seamlessly with electronic health record systems. The company also added kidney action planning to its suite of services for patients with serious illnesses last year.

Koda Health was founded out of the TMC's Biodesign Fellowship in 2020 by CEO Tatiana Fofanova, chief medical officer Dr. Desh Mohan, and chief technology officer Katelin Cherry. The company raised a $7 million series A earlier this year, and also announced major partnerships and integrations with Epic, Guidehealth, Medical Home Network, Privia Health and others.

NanoEar

NanoEar has miniaturized hearing aid technology so that it can be implanted across the eardrum, allowing adults with age-related hearing loss to enjoy better sound quality than they would with behind-the-ear hearing aids.

Dr. Ron Moses, an ENT specialist and surgeon at Houston Methodist, developed the technology, and the company was founded in 2016 with CFO Willem Vermaat and COO Michael Moore. The company participated in the TMC Innovation Institute in 2016. It has issued nine U.S. patents and performed successful human cadaver and animal proof-of-concept experiments. Its next step is developing a prototype.

Wellysis USA

Wellysis USA Inc. works to detect heart rhythm disorders with its continuous ECG/EKG monitor with AI reporting. Its S-Patch cardiac monitor is designed for extended testing periods of up to 14 days on a single battery charge. The device weighs only 9 grams, is waterproof and designed to be comfortable to wear, and is considered to have a high detection rate for arrhythmias. It is ideally suited for patient-centric clinical trials to help physicians make diagnoses faster, cheaper and more conveniently.

It was established in Houston in 2023 and participated in the JLABS SFF Program the same year. It closed a $12 million series B last year. It was founded by CEO Young Juhn, CTO Rick Kim, CFO JungSoo Kim and chief strategy officer JoongWoo Kim.

---

The Houston Innovation Awards program is sponsored by Houston Community College, Houston Powder Coaters, FLIGHT by Yuengling, and more to be announced soon. For sponsorship opportunities, please contact sales@innovationmap.com.

Houston university is at the top of the class in new college ranking

Top of the Class

Rice University is maintaining its reputation as one of the top colleges in the U.S., according to a new batch of rankings from WalletHub.

Rice topped WalletHub's 2026 lists comparing the best colleges and universities in Texas and the best universities in the South. The private institution also ranked as the 9th best university in the country, three spots lower than its 2024 ranking.

The personal finance website's experts analyzed nearly 800 colleges and universities in the U.S. using 30 key metrics, including factors like student-faculty ratios, graduation rates, campus safety, and many more.

Rice was ranked across seven major categories in the report and scored highly for its faculty resources (No. 10), student educational outcomes (No. 12), student selectivity (No. 16), student career outcomes (No. 26), and campus experience (No. 46).

The only two categories Rice lagged behind in were campus safety (No. 576) and cost and financing (No. 700). U.S. News & World Report says tuition and fees at Rice can add up to more than $65,000 per year for in-state students, with the total cost soaring to nearly $84,000 when factoring in the price for housing, food, books and supplies, transportation, and personal expenses.

In addition to topping WalletHub's rankings, Rice has also claimed top spots in other prestigious lists by U.S. News, Forbes, The Princeton Review, and more. Rice's revered graduate schools – including the MBA program at the Jones Graduate School of Business and Brown School of Engineering and Computing – are also among the best in the country, according to U.S. News and The Princeton Review.

Locally, University of Houston also ranked among the statewide top 10 and ranked as the 268th best university in the U.S. for 2026. In the regional rankings of best universities in the South, UH ranked 52nd on the list

The 10 best colleges and universities in Texas for 2026 are:

  • No. 1 – Rice University, Houston
  • No. 2 – The University of Texas at Austin
  • No. 3 – Trinity University, San Antonio
  • No. 4 – Texas A&M University-College Station
  • No. 5 – Texas Christian University, Fort Worth
  • No. 6 – Austin College, Sherman
  • No. 7 – Southwestern University, Georgetown
  • No. 8 – University of Dallas
  • No. 9 – The University of Texas at Dallas
  • No. 10 – University of Houston
---
This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.