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 ranks among 15 U.S. hot spots for women in tech

Ranking It

Houston is soaring among the best places in the U.S. for women in tech, a new report says. Houston ranked No. 15 nationwide in SmartAsset's new report, "Best and Worst Cities for Women in Tech — 2026 Study," which compared the 50 biggest U.S. cities across four metrics:

  • Gender pay gap — women's median earnings as a percentage of men’s median earnings in tech
  • The share of all tech workers that are women
  • The overall concentration of employment for tech workers, defined as "tech workers as a share of the local workforce"
  • Women tech workers’ median earnings, adjusted for regional price parity
For the purpose of the study, tech workers are defined as "city residents employed in computer and mathematical occupations." The study's findings show that fewer than 9,500 tech workers in Houston are women, or 25.6 percent of the total tech workforce in the city. In total, tech workers in general make up less than 3 percent of the Houston workforce.Despite the high ranking, women tech workers in Houston have a sizeable gap to cross to receive equal pay compared to their male counterparts in the same industry. Women tech workers make just over $97,000 in median earnings after adjusting for regional price parity, which is only 93 percent of what male tech workers make, SmartAsset found.

There are only two U.S. cities where women in tech earn more than what their male counterparts: Miami and Memphis, Tennessee. Women tech workers in Miami make an adjusted $88,650 in median earnings, or 101.7 percent of what men in tech make. In Memphis, women make $84,718 in adjusted earnings, or 101.5 percent of what men in tech earn.

The findings also assert that women remain underrepresented in the nation's overall tech sector, despite making up nearly half of the total workforce. Only 22.6 percent of the country's tech labor force is made up of women, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission."Opportunities for women in tech can vary considerably by location, and these differences shape access to jobs, career advancement and earning potential," the report's author wrote. "In some places, women account for a larger share of tech workers, face narrower pay gaps and enjoy a stronger local labor market. In others, they may encounter a more challenging career environmentThe six other Texas cities that earned spots in the report are Austin (No. 6), Fort Worth (No. 26), Dallas (No. 32), Arlington (No. 38), San Antonio (No. 42), and El Paso (No. 49).

The top 10 best U.S. cities for women in tech are:

  • No. 1 – San Jose, California
  • No. 2 – Seattle, Washington
  • No. 3 – San Francisco, California
  • No. 4 – Atlanta, Georgia
  • No. 5 – Baltimore, Maryland
  • No. 6 – Austin, Texas
  • No. 7 – Oakland, California
  • No. 8 – Portland, Oregon
  • No. 9 – Boston, Massachusetts
  • No. 10 – Minneapolis, Minnesota
---

This article first appeared on CultureMap.com.

2026 Houston Innovation Awards finalists revealed and more top stories

Trending News

Editor's note: The top Houston innovation news for the first half of October celebrates the finalists for our sixth annual awards program. Plus, Rice launches a new venture fund and an energy AI company picks Houston for its first U.S. office. Here are the five most-read stories published October 1-15, 2026:

Announcing the 2026 Houston Innovation Awards finalists

InnovationMap is proud to reveal the finalists for the 2026 Houston Innovation Awards. The sixth annual Houston Innovation Awards program returns in an all-digital format this fall to honor the best of Houston's innovation ecosystem, including startups, entrepreneurs, mentors, and more. Get to know our finalists in more detail through editorial spotlights on InnovationMap.com leading up to the winner announcement in mid-November. Continue reading.

Meet the esteemed judges for the 2026 Houston Innovation Awards

Our 2026 Houston Innovation Awards judging panel comprises past award winners who represent a variety of industries and areas of expertise. They are joined by InnovationMap's interim editor. All are deeply engaged in the Houston innovation ecosystem. Continue reading.

Energy AI company opens first U.S. office at Houston's the Ion

Building on its partnership with Houston-based oilfield services provider Halliburton, energy-sector AI company Shape Digital recently opened an office at The Ion. It’s the company’s first U.S. location. Shape Digital’s workforce in Houston includes employees specializing in tech support, business development and client services. The company’s local hiring projections and headcount weren’t available. The new office will be located within Industrious at the Ion, according to Rice Alliance. Continue reading.

Rice University launches new venture fund for university-affiliated startups

Rice University has launched its new One Giant Leap Ventures Fund I, which will invest in the university’s spinouts and alumni-founded startups. The early-stage institutional venture fund will function with a hybrid structure that allows for participation from traditional equity investors and philanthropic investors. According to the university, the fund will invest up to $500,000 per Rice-affiliated company. To be considered eligible for funds, companies must use intellectual property licensed by the university or be led or founded by alumni. Continue reading.

Here’s where wages grew the most in Houston since 2021, according to new report

Bolstered by a thriving manufacturing sector, Waller County—the country’s second-fastest-growing county—leads all Houston-area counties for the growth of pay from 2021 to 2026, according to a new study. The study, conducted by personal finance website SmartAsset, found average pay in Waller County rose 48 percent from 2021 to 2026. The county’s average weekly pay climbed from $891 to $1,323 during that period. Continue reading.

5 female-founded Houston startups shine as Innovation Awards finalists

meet the finalists

Houston is home to many standout female founders, making inroads and breakthroughs in every industry.

As part of the 2026 Houston Innovation Awards, our Female-founded Business category honors women-led startups that are shaping Houston innovation.

Five female-founded businesses have been named finalists for the 2026 award. This year's finalists, selected by our esteemed panel of judges, range from an AI startup for C-Suite execs to a company developing semi-autonomous crawler robots for corrosion detection.

Read more about these innovative startups and the visionary female founders behind them below. The 2026 winners will be announced on InnovationMap.com in mid-November.

Adair

Artificial intelligence startup Adair uses computational linguistics and behavioral economics to measure, model and quantify the impact of spoken and written language on firm valuation and stock prices. The company works with C-Suite executives of public companies on high-stakes communications before they go live.

The company was founded last year by CEO Kathleen Perley, CPO Alex Duong and CTO Anthony Grivet. It raised $5.6 million earlier this year, according to its application.

ARIX Technologies

Energytech startup ARIX Technologies has developed a semiautonomous VENUS crawler robot to detect corrosion under insulation before it becomes a failure. The robots climb insulated piping in refineries, chemical plants and energy facilities to capture inspection data without removing insulation or building scaffolding. ARIX's inspection portal then turns information from the inspection into data a company can act on.

ARIX was founded in 2017 by Dianna Liu, who serves as director, and Head of Product Petter Wehlin. Craig Malloy serves as CEO. The company has raised more than $22 million in seed funding and a Series A round, according to its application.

Bairitone Health

Healthtech startup 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 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. The company raised an oversubscribed seed round for $2.4 million earlier this year and received Breakthrough Device Designation from the Food and Drug Administration in April.

FlowCellutions

Energytech startup FlowCellutions is developing a chemistry-agnostic diagnostics platform for flow and metal-air batteries supporting data centers and critical infrastructure. The platform is designed to help reduce operating costs, prevent failures and costly downtime, and extend battery lifetime from approximately seven years to more than 30 years. It has deployed four paid pilots and plans to take insights from the programs to develop its next-gen sensor platform technology.

CEO Becca Segel founded the company in 2022. It is a member of Greentown Labs, and Segel was a 2025 Activate Fellow. The company has raised over $2 million in non-dilutive funding and received a $1.5 million NSF SBIR Fast-Track award earlier this year.

ParaDocs Health

Healthtech startup ParaDocs Health is developing a clinical intelligence platform that helps doctors and care teams streamline administrative tasks and make better use of patient records. Its technology organizes fragmented clinical data into actionable insights, helping care teams identify gaps in care, assess patient risks and simplify documentation and reimbursement.

ParaDocs was founded in 2022 by CEO Dr. Dhini Nasution and CTO Dr. Omar Mohtar. The company participated in the TMCi Biodesign Program and raised a preseed round last year, according to its application.

View All Listings