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 neighbor named richest small town in Texas for 2025

Ranking It

Affluent Houston neighbor Bellaire is cashing in as the richest small town in Texas for 2025, according to new study from GoBankingRates.

The report, "The Richest Small Town in Every State," used data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey to determine the 50 richest small towns in America based on their median household income.

Of course, Houstonians realize that describing Bellaire as a "small town" is a bit of misnomer. Located less than 10 miles from downtown and fully surrounded by the City of Houston, Bellaire is a wealthy enclave that boasts a population of just over 17,000 residents. These affluent citizens earn a median $236,311 in income every year, which GoBankingRates says is the 11th highest household median income out of all 50 cities included in the report.

The average home in this city is worth over $1.12 million, but Bellaire's lavish residential reputation often attracts properties with multimillion-dollar price tags.

Bellaire also earned a shining 81 livability score for its top quality schools, health and safety, commute times, and more. The livability index, provided by Toronto, Canada-based data analytics and real estate platform AreaVibes, said Bellaire has "an abundance of exceptional local amenities."

"Among these are conveniently located grocery stores, charming coffee shops, diverse dining options and plenty of spacious parks," AreaVibes said. "These local amenities contribute significantly to its overall appeal, ensuring that [residents'] daily needs are met and offering ample opportunities for leisure and recreation."

Earlier in 2025, GoBankingRates ranked Bellaire as the No. 23 wealthiest suburb in America, and it's no stranger to being named on similar lists comparing the richest American cities.

---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

How a Houston startup is taking on corrosion, a costly climate threat

now streaming

Corrosion is not something most people think about, but for Houston's industrial backbone pipelines, refineries, chemical plants, and water infrastructure, it is a silent and costly threat. Replacing damaged steel and overusing chemicals adds hundreds of millions of tons of carbon emissions every year. Despite the scale of the problem, corrosion detection has barely changed in decades.

In a recent episode of the Energy Tech Startups Podcast, Anwar Sadek, founder and CEO of Corrolytics, explained why the traditional approach is not working and how his team is delivering real-time visibility into one of the most overlooked challenges in the energy transition.

From Lab Insight to Industrial Breakthrough

Anwar began as a researcher studying how metals degrade and how microbes accelerate corrosion. He quickly noticed a major gap. Companies could detect the presence of microorganisms, but they could not tell whether those microbes were actually causing corrosion or how quickly the damage was happening. Most tests required shipping samples to a lab and waiting months for results, long after conditions inside the asset had changed.

That gap inspired Corrolytics' breakthrough. The company developed a portable, real-time electrochemical test that measures microbial corrosion activity directly from fluid samples. No invasive probes. No complex lab work. Just the immediate data operators can act on.

“It is like switching from film to digital photography,” Anwar says. “What used to take months now takes a couple of hours.”

Why Corrosion Matters in Houston's Energy Transition

Houston's energy transition is a blend of innovation and practicality. While the world builds new low-carbon systems, the region still depends on existing industrial infrastructure. Keeping those assets safe, efficient, and emission-conscious is essential.

This is where Corrolytics fits in. Every leak prevented, every pipeline protected, and every unnecessary gallon of biocide avoided reduces emissions and improves operational safety. The company is already seeing interest across oil and gas, petrochemicals, water and wastewater treatment, HVAC, industrial cooling, and biofuels. If fluids move through metal, microbial corrosion can occur, and Corrolytics can detect it.

Because microbes evolve quickly, slow testing methods simply cannot keep up. “By the time a company gets lab results, the environment has changed completely,” Anwar explains. “You cannot manage what you cannot measure.”

A Scientist Steps Into the CEO Role

Anwar did not plan to become a CEO. But through the National Science Foundation's ICorps program, he interviewed more than 300 industry stakeholders. Over 95 percent cited microbial corrosion as a major issue with no effective tool to address it. That validation pushed him to transform his research into a product.

Since then, Corrolytics has moved from prototype to real-world pilots in Brazil and Houston, with early partners already using the technology and some preparing to invest. Along the way, Anwar learned to lead teams, speak the language of industry, and guide the company through challenges. “When things go wrong, and they do, it is the CEO's job to steady the team,” he says.

Why Houston

Relocating to Houston accelerated everything. Customers, partners, advisors, and manufacturing talent are all here. For industrial and energy tech startups, Houston offers an ecosystem built for scale.

What's Next

Corrolytics is preparing for broader pilots, commercial partnerships, and team growth as it continues its fundraising efforts. For anyone focused on asset integrity, emissions reduction, or industrial innovation, this is a company to watch.

Listen to the full conversation with Anwar Sadek on the Energy Tech Startups Podcast to learn more:

---

Energy Tech Startups Podcast is hosted by Jason Ethier and Nada Ahmed. It delves into Houston's pivotal role in the energy transition, spotlighting entrepreneurs and industry leaders shaping a low-carbon future.

This article originally appeared on our sister site, EnergyCapitalHTX.com.

These 50+ Houston scientists rank among world’s most cited

science stars

Fifty-one scientists and professors from Houston-area universities and institutions were named among the most cited in the world for their research in medicine, materials sciences and an array of other fields.

The Clarivate Highly Cited Researchers considers researchers who have authored multiple "Highly Cited Papers" that rank in the top 1percent by citations for their fields in the Web of Science Core Collection. The final list is then determined by other quantitative and qualitative measures by Clarivate's judges to recognize "researchers whose exceptional and community-wide contributions shape the future of science, technology and academia globally."

This year, 6,868 individual researchers from 60 different countries were named to the list. About 38 percent of the researchers are based in the U.S., with China following in second place at about 20 percent.

However, the Chinese Academy of Sciences brought in the most entries, with 258 researchers recognized. Harvard University with 170 researchers and Stanford University with 141 rounded out the top 3.

Looking more locally, the University of Texas at Austin landed among the top 50 institutions for the first time this year, tying for 46th place with the Mayo Clinic and University of Minnesota Twin Cities, each with 27 researchers recognized.

Houston once again had a strong showing on the list, with MD Anderson leading the pack. Below is a list of the Houston-area highly cited researchers and their fields.

UT MD Anderson Cancer Center

  • Ajani Jaffer (Cross-Field)
  • James P. Allison (Cross-Field)
  • Maria E. Cabanillas (Cross-Field)
  • Boyi Gan (Molecular Biology and Genetics)
  • Maura L. Gillison (Cross-Field)
  • David Hong (Cross-Field)
  • Scott E. Kopetz (Clinical Medicine)
  • Pranavi Koppula (Cross-Field)
  • Guang Lei (Cross-Field)
  • Sattva S. Neelapu (Cross-Field)
  • Padmanee Sharma (Molecular Biology and Genetics)
  • Vivek Subbiah (Clinical Medicine)
  • Jennifer A. Wargo (Molecular Biology and Genetics)
  • William G. Wierda (Clinical Medicine)
  • Ignacio I. Wistuba (Clinical Medicine)
  • Yilei Zhang (Cross-Field)
  • Li Zhuang (Cross-Field)

Rice University

  • Pulickel M. Ajayan (Materials Science)
  • Pedro J. J. Alvarez (Environment and Ecology)
  • Neva C. Durand (Cross-Field)
  • Menachem Elimelech (Chemistry and Environment and Ecology)
  • Zhiwei Fang (Cross-Field)
  • Naomi J. Halas (Cross-Field)
  • Jun Lou (Materials Science)
  • Aditya D. Mohite (Cross-Field)
  • Peter Nordlander (Cross-Field)
  • Andreas S. Tolias (Cross-Field)
  • James M. Tour (Cross-Field)
  • Robert Vajtai (Cross-Field)
  • Haotian Wang (Chemistry and Materials Science)
  • Zhen-Yu Wu (Cross-Field)

Baylor College of Medicine

  • Nadim J. Ajami (Cross-Field)
  • Biykem Bozkurt (Clinical Medicine)
  • Hashem B. El-Serag (Clinical Medicine)
  • Matthew J. Ellis (Cross-Field)
  • Richard A. Gibbs (Cross-Field)
  • Peter H. Jones (Pharmacology and Toxicology)
  • Sanjay J. Mathew (Cross-Field)
  • Joseph F. Petrosino (Cross-Field)
  • Fritz J. Sedlazeck (Biology and Biochemistry)
  • James Versalovic (Cross-Field)

University of Houston

  • Zhifeng Ren (Cross-Field)
  • Yan Yao (Cross-Field)
  • Yufeng Zhao (Cross-Field)
  • UT Health Science Center Houston
  • Hongfang Liu (Cross-Field)
  • Louise D. McCullough (Cross-Field)
  • Claudio Soto (Cross-Field)

UTMB Galveston

  • Erez Lieberman Aiden (Cross-Field)
  • Pei-Yong Shi (Cross-Field)

Houston Methodist

  • Eamonn M. M. Quigley (Cross-Field)
View All Listings