How to evaluate an IPO, according to Houston researchers

houston voices

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.

From Your Site Articles
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

Property Showcase

Houston team’s discovery brings solid-state batteries closer to EV use

A Better Battery

A team of researchers from the University of Houston, Rice University and Brown University has uncovered new findings that could extend battery life and potentially change the electric vehicle landscape.

The team, led by Yan Yao, the Hugh Roy and Lillie Cranz Cullen Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at UH, recently published its findings in the journal Nature Communications.

The work deployed a powerful, high-resolution imaging technique known as operando scanning electron microscopy to better understand why solid-state batteries break down and what could be done to slow the process.

“This research solves a long-standing mystery about why solid-state batteries sometimes fail,” Yao, corresponding author of the study, said in a news release. “This discovery allows solid-state batteries to operate under lower pressure, which can reduce the need for bulky external casing and improve overall safety.”

A solid-state battery replaces liquid electrolytes found in conventional lithium-ion cells with a solid separator, according to Car and Driver. They also boast faster recharging capabilities, better safety and higher energy density.

However, when it comes to EVs, solid-state batteries are not ideal since they require high external stack pressure to stay intact while operating.

Yao’s team learned that tiny empty spaces, or voids, form within the solid-state batteries and merge into a large gap, which causes them to fail. The team found that adding small amounts of alloying elements, like magnesium, can help close the voids and help the battery continue to function. The team captured it in real-time with high-resolution videos that showed what happens inside a battery while it’s working under a scanning electron microscope.

“By carefully adjusting the battery’s chemistry, we can significantly lower the pressure needed to keep it stable,” Lihong Zhao, the first author of this work, a former postdoctoral researcher in Yao’s lab and now an assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at UH, said in the release. “This breakthrough brings solid-state batteries much closer to being ready for real-world EV applications.”

The team says it plans to build on the alloy concept and explore other metals that could improve battery performance in the future.

“It’s about making future energy storage more reliable for everyone,” Zhao added.

The research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Battery 500 Consortium under the Vehicle Technologies Program. Other contributors were Min Feng from Brown; Chaoshan Wu, Liqun Guo, Zhaoyang Chen, Samprash Risal and Zheng Fan from UH; and Qing Ai and Jun Lou from Rice.

---

This article originally appeared on EnergyCaptialHTX.com.

Rice biotech accelerator appoints 2 leading researchers to team

Launch Pad

The Rice Biotech Launch Pad, which is focused on expediting the translation of Rice University’s health and medical technology discoveries into cures, has named Amanda Nash and Kelsey L. Swingle to its leadership team.

Both are assistant professors in Rice’s Department of Bioengineering and will bring “valuable perspective” to the Houston-based accelerator, according to Rice. 

“Their deep understanding of both the scientific rigor required for successful innovation and the commercial strategies necessary to bring these technologies to market will be invaluable as we continue to build our portfolio of lifesaving medical technologies,” Omid Veiseh, faculty director of the Launch Pad, said in a news release.

Amanda Nash

Nash leads a research program focused on developing cell communication technologies to treat cancer, autoimmune diseases and aging. She previously trained as a management consultant at McKinsey & Co., where she specialized in business development, portfolio strategy and operational excellence for pharmaceutical and medtech companies. She earned her doctorate in bioengineering from Rice and helped develop implantable cytokine factories for the treatment of ovarian cancer. She holds a bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering from the University of Houston.

“Returning to Rice represents a full-circle moment in my career, from conducting my doctoral research here to gaining strategic insights at McKinsey and now bringing that combined perspective back to advance Houston’s biotech ecosystem,” Nash said in the release. “The Launch Pad represents exactly the kind of translational bridge our industry needs. I look forward to helping researchers navigate the complex path from discovery to commercialization.”

Kelsey L. Swingle

Swingle’s research focuses on engineering lipid-based nanoparticle technologies for drug delivery to reproductive tissues, which includes the placenta. She completed her doctorate in bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania, where she developed novel mRNA lipid nanoparticles for the treatment of preeclampsia. She received her bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering from Case Western Reserve University and is a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow.

“What draws me to the Rice Biotech Launch Pad is its commitment to addressing the most pressing unmet medical needs,” Swingle added in the release. “My research in women’s health has shown me how innovation at the intersection of biomaterials and medicine can tackle challenges that have been overlooked for far too long. I am thrilled to join a team that shares this vision of designing cutting-edge technologies to create meaningful impact for underserved patient populations.”

The Rice Biotech Launch Pad opened in 2023. It held the official launch and lab opening of RBL LLC, a biotech venture creation studio in May. Read more here.

University of Houston archaeologists make history with Mayan tomb discovery

History in the Making

Two University of Houston archaeologists have made scientific history with the discovery of a Mayan king's tomb in Belize.

The UH team led by husband and wife scientists Arlen F. Chase and Diane Z. Chase made the discovery at Caracol, the largest Mayan archeological site in Belize, which is situated about 25 miles south of Xunantunich and the town of San Ignacio. Together with Belize's Institute of Archeology, as well as support from the Geraldine and Emory Ford Foundation and the KHR Family Fund, they uncovered the tomb of Caracol's founder, King Te K’ab Chaak. Their work used airborne light detection and ranging technology to uncover previously hidden roadways and structures that have been reclaimed by the jungle.

The tomb was found at the base of a royal family shrine. The king, who ascended the throne in 331 AD, lived to an advanced enough age that he no longer had teeth. His tomb held a collection of 11 pottery vessels, carved bone tubes, jadeite jewelry, a mosaic jadeite mask, Pacific spondylus shells, and various other perishable items. Pottery vessels found in the chamber depict a Maya ruler wielding a spear as he receives offerings from supplicants represented as deities; the figure of Ek Chuah, the Maya god of traders, surrounded by offerings; and bound captives, a motif also seen in two related burials. Additionally, two vessels had lids adorned with modeled handles shaped like coatimundi (pisote) heads. The coatimundi, known as tz’uutz’ in Maya, was later adopted by subsequent rulers of Caracol as part of their names.

 Diane Chase archaeologist in Mayan tomb Diane Z. Chase in the Mayan tomb. Photo courtesy of University of Houston

During the Classical Period, Caracol was one of the main hubs of the Mayan Lowlands and covered an area bigger than that of present-day Belize City. Populations survived in the area for at least 1,000 years before the city was abandoned sometime around 900 AD. The royal dynasty established by Te K’ab Chaak continued at Caracol for over 460 years.

The find is also significant because this was roughly when the Mexican city of Teotihuacan made contact with Caracol, leading to a long relationship of trade and cultural exchange. Cremation sites found in Caracol contain items that would have come from Teotihuacan, showing the relationship between the two distant cities.

"Both central Mexico and the Maya area were clearly aware of each other’s ritual practices, as reflected in the Caracol cremation," said Arlen F. Chase, professor and chair of Comparative Cultural Studies at the University of Houston.

“The connections between the two regions were undertaken by the highest levels of society, suggesting that initial kings at various Maya cities — such as Te K’ab Chaak at Caracol — were engaged in formal diplomatic relationships with Teotihuacan.”

The Chases will present their findings at a conference on Maya–Teotihuacan interaction hosted by the Maya Working Group at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico in August 2025.

 UH professors Chase make Mayan Discovery UH archaeologists Arlen F. Chase and Diane Z. Chase Photo courtesy of University of Houston

 

---

This story originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

View All Listings