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
A patent is an asset — one with a price associated with it when it comes to procuring a loan for your business. Photo via Getty Images

Rice research: What innovations can be used to borrow against?

Houston voices

For companies and leaders, patents represent important assets. They’re a marker of innovation and tech development. But patents do so much more than protect intellectual property. Firms increasingly deploy them as collateral to secure loans. Between 1995 and 2013, the number of patents pledged as loan collateral increased from about 10,000 to nearly 50,000. Forty percent of U.S. patenting firms have used patents as collateral.

However, patents are intangible assets, and their liquidity and liquidation value are difficult to assess. To evaluate an individual patent, lenders must consider the invention space to which the patent belongs. A patent’s linkage to prior inventions can provide important information for lenders, as the linkage affects the extent to which the patent under consideration may be redeployed and potentially purchased by other firms in the case of loan default.

Rice Business professor Yan Anthea Zhang examined more closely how this market operates and how both lenders and borrowers can make more informed decisions on which patents make appealing collateral. In their paper, “Which patents to use as loan collateral? The role of newness of patents' external technology linkage,” Zhang, who specializes in strategic management, and her co-authors studied the data on 107,180 U.S. semiconductor patents owned by 436 U.S. firms. The team focused on semiconductor patents because the semiconductor industry involves intensive innovation, which leads to many patent applications and grants. The market for semiconductor patents is an active and well-functioning market, given specialization in different stages of the innovation process and the growing technological market. Information on whether a patent was used as loan collateral came from the USPTO Patent Assignments Database.

Zhang and her colleagues argue that lenders prefer patents linked to prior inventions that are relatively new because these patents are riding on recent technology waves and are less likely to become obsolete. As a result, such patents are likely to remain deployable to other firms in the future. However, patents that are based upon too new prior inventions might not prove to be commercially viable and carry higher risk for lenders.

As a result of this research, Zhang and her colleagues found an inverted U-shape relationship to demonstrate the likelihood that a patent will be used as loan collateral. On one end, patents based upon the newest prior inventions, on the other, patents based upon mature prior inventions. The curve of the U-shape represents the sweet spot for patent collateral—the patents’ technological base is new enough to be relevant and competitive with other firms in its invention space, but not so new that it has yet to prove market success.

Zhang’s team also found that the impact of external linkage also varies depending on borrower attributes, especially the borrowers’ expertise in the invention space. If a borrower is a technological leader in the invention space, the market tends to give the borrower credit, and as a result, even if its patents are based upon very new prior inventions, its patents are still likely to be accepted as collateral.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and was based on research from Yan Anthea Zhang, the Fayez Sarofim Vanguard Professor of Management at Rice Business.

Expanding into foreign markets is tempting, but strategic fit can determine success or disaster. Photo via Getty Images

To expand or not to expand? Houston researcher weighs in on global growth

houston voices

You built your business from the ground up, patiently finding techniques and products that work, carefully crafting solid bonds with your clients. Then one day a new project, opportunity or simple request poses a question: Is it time to branch out overseas?

Of the welter of questions to consider, the first and most important involves location: not just the physical location of the prospective expansion site, but the cultural differences between a firm's home country and its new destination. Secondly, key company traits need to be considered in choosing the investment locations. Is your firm large or small? Young or old? Finally, of pivotal importance to companies outside the United States: Is your company privately held or state-owned?

In a recent paper, Rice Business professor Yan Anthea Zhang looked closely at these three variables with Yu Li of the University of International Business and Economics Business School in Beijing, China and Wei Shi of the Miami Business School at the University of Miami. What, the researchers wanted to know, was the relation of these three features and firms' location choices for their overseas investments?

To find out, Zhang and her colleagues analyzed 7,491 Chinese firms that had recently ventured into foreign markets with 9,558 overseas subsidiaries. Because China now has become the world's leading source of foreign direct investments, the sample promised to be instructive. Thanks to the large sample size, researchers could test hypotheses relating to firm size, age, ownership and the impact of geographical and cultural distance on their location choices.

After studying the elements of geographic distance and cultural distance, Zhang and her colleagues uncovered a paradox. Companies that had an advantage in tackling one dimension of distance were actually disadvantaged — because of the same characteristic — in another dimension.

How, exactly, did this paradox work? Larger firms, with access to more resources, can "experiment with new strategies, new products, and new markets," the researchers wrote. This large size makes geographic distance less of a concern, but it comes with a ponderous burden of its own. Company culture is directly influenced by the country of origin, Zhang wrote. Transferring that culture into a completely different environment can cause the kind of shock that could lead to failure, even with financial and physical resources to ease the geographical distance. Conversely, smaller firms may be more nimble and able to adapt to needed cultural changes — but lack the resources to make true inroads in a foreign market.

A similar paradox exists for older and younger firms, Zhang wrote. A younger firm is more likely to adapt to a culturally distant country than an older firm might, even if that youth means that geographical distance is a greater logistical challenge.

State-owned firms face a similar paradox, one that comes down to the balance of resources against cultural flexibility. A company with state-generated resources may be better equipped to move a caravan people, machinery and materials to a distant new location. However, state-owned companies often typically lack the internal cultural flexibility to handle expansion to a different environment.

What does this mean for the average manager? Simply that going global demands meticulous weighing of factors. Does your firm have the practical resources to expand overseas? Does your staff have the personal flexibility and willingness to meld company culture with that of a different milieu? It's a truism that major overseas expansions require money and heavy lifting. Less obviously, managers of successful companies must thread a very fine needle: ensuring they have the material resources to get their business overseas physically, while confirming that company culture is light enough on its feet to thrive in day-to-day life in a new place.

------

This article originally ran on Rice Business Wisdom and is based on research from Yan Anthea Zhang, a professor and the Fayez Sarofim Vanguard Chair of Strategy in the Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Property Showcase

Houston claims 19% of Texas’ new live-work-play growth

by the numbers

In Texas, Houston is a big player in the live-work-play real estate movement.

A new 21-city analysis from coworking marketplace CoworkingCafe shows the Houston area added five live-work-play projects—mixed-use developments with residential, office and recreational components—over the past decade.

From 2016 to 2025, Houston accounted for 19 percent of Texas’ new live-work-play inventory, the analysis shows. Among the new local developments were Arrive Upper Kirby, St. Andrie, and The Laura:

  • Arrive Upper Kirby, which was sold in 2021 for $182 million, offers more than 61,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space adjacent to apartments and offices. The 13-story, 265,000-square-foot project was completed in 2017.
  • St. Andrie, a 32-acre, mixed-use community, was completed in 2019. The apartment-anchored development includes an H-E-B grocery store and 37,000 square feet of office space.
  • The Laura, spanning 110,000 square feet, was completed in 2023. Among the apartment complex’s amenities is a coworking space.

According to Northspyre, a software provider for real estate developers, live-work-play projects enable people to meet their needs, such as housing, workplaces, stores, restaurants, and recreation facilities, in a single place.

A total of 542 live-work-play developments opened between 2016 and 2025 in the 21 cities, with another 69 in the pipeline for 2026, CoworkingCafe says. Among major markets, New York City made up the largest share (119) of new live-work-play developments from 2016 to 2025.

The Houston area’s five projects were built in 2018, 2019, 2020, 2024, and 2025, CoworkingCafe data indicates, with another project scheduled for completion next year. The Greater Houston Partnership recently highlighted four mixed-use projects taking shape in the region, but only one of them is scheduled to be finished in 2027. It can take two to five years or more to complete a mixed-use development.

Of the five Houston developments finished in the past decade, 56 percent of the space went toward multifamily units, 29 percent toward offices, and 16 percent toward retail, CoworkingCafe says.

As noted by the Houston-Galveston Area Council, economic development in the 21st century “is about cultivating quality live-work-play environments that attract, retain, and grow a diverse and skilled population. Employers and businesses are increasingly choosing to make long-term investments in places that connect and engage people to strengthen economic competitiveness and promote innovation.”

With eight completed projects, Austin led construction of live-work-play developments in Texas from 2016 to 2025, according to CoworkingCafe. Dallas, which welcomed five live-work-play developments during that period, tied with Houston. San Antonio data wasn’t available.

Rice Business Plan Competition awards $1.4M to 2026 student teams

winner, winners

Editor's note: This article has been updated to correct the total amount of investment and cash prizes awarded at the RBPC and with additional information from Rice.

Another team from the Great Lakes State took home top honors and investments at this year's Rice Business Plan Competition.

BRCĒ, a material-tech startup from Michigan State University, took home the top-place finish and the largest investment total at the annual Houston event. It has developed Lattice-Grip technology to create utility-based polymers that can replace traditional fabric. The materials are stronger, fire-resistant and more stable than traditional textiles, according to the company. Last year, the University of Michigan's Intero Biosystems won first-place finish and the largest investment total of $902,000.

In total, the RBPC doled out more than $1.4 million in investment and cash prizes, according to Rice. Over the three-day event, held April 9-11, the 42 competing startups presented their business plans to 300 angel, venture capital and corporate investors. Seven finalists were selected.

Three Texas teams, including one from Houston, were named among the finalists. Here's who won big this year, with their investment totals and some of their awards listed below.

BRCĒ, Michigan State University — $611,500

The recent Shark Tank alum finished in first place for its utility-based polymers technology.

  • $200,000 Goose Capital Investment Grand Prize
  • $100,000 The OWL Investment Prize
  • $100,000 Houston Angel Network Investment Prize
  • $75,000 The Indus Entrepreneurs (TiE) Texas Angels Investment Prize
  • $50,000 nCourage Investment Network’s Courageous Women Entrepreneur Investment Prize
  • $25,000 New Climate Ventures Sustainable Investment Prize
  • $20,000 Aramco Innovator Cash Prize
  • $1,000 Anbarci Family Company Showcase Prize
  • $500 Mercury Fund Elevator Pitch Competition Prize – Consumer Hard Tech

Legion Platforms, Arizona State University — $535,500

The startup won second place for its multiplayer gaming platform that can be accessed with slow internet speeds.

  • $100,000 Anderson Family Fund & Finger Interests Second Place Investment Prize
  • $200,000 Goose Capital Investment Prize
  • $100,000 The OWL Investment Prize
  • $25,000 Pearland EDC Spirit of Entrepreneurship Cash Prize
  • $500 Mercury Fund Elevator Pitch Competition Prize – Consumer

Imagine Devices, University of Texas at Austin — $111,000

The pediatric medical device company won third place for its multifunction neonatal feeding tube, known as Trinity Tube

  • $50,000 Anderson Family Fund & Finger Interests Third Place Investment Prize
  • $25,000 Pearland EDC Spirit of Entrepreneurship Cash Prize
  • $25,000 The Eagle Investors Investment Prize
  • $1,000 Anbarci Family Company Showcase Prize

Altaris MedTech, University of Arkansas – $16,000

The startup won fourth place for its pain-free strep test.

  • $5,000 Norton Rose Fulbright Fourth Place Prize
  • $1,000 Mercury Fund Elevator Pitch Competition Prize — Overall Winner

Routora, University of Notre Dame & University of Texas at Austin – $15,500

The team won fifth place for its route optimization app that works to reduce fuel costs, travel time and carbon emissions

  • $5,000 Chevron Fifth Place Prize
  • $500 Mercury Fund Elevator Pitch Competition Prizes — Digital

DialySafe, Rice University — $15,500

The startup won sixth place for its technology that aims to make at-home peritoneal dialysis simpler and safer.

  • $5,000 ExxonMobil Sixth Place Prize
  • $500 Mercury Fund Elevator Pitch Competition Prizes — Life Science

Arrow Analytics, Texas A&M University – $16,000

The startup won seventh place for its AI-powered sizing system for carry-on baggage.

  • $5,000 Shell Ventures Seventh Place Prize
  • $1,000 Anbarci Family Company Showcase Prizes


Other significant prizes included:

BiliRoo, University of Michigan – $26,000

  • $25,000 Southwest National Pediatric Device Consortium Pediatric Device Cash Prize
  • $1,000 Anbarci Family Company Showcase Prizes

BeamFeed, City University of New York – $25,000

  • $25,000 Amentum and WRX Companies Rising Stars Space Technology and Commercial Aerospace Cash Prize

Grapheon, University of Pittsburgh — $20,000

  • $20,000 Aramco Innovator Cash Prize

A total of $75,000 in in-kind legal services was awarded to all finalists. The grand prize winner, BRCĒ, also received a chief financial officer consulting prize worth $40,000. Each competing startup received at least $950 in prizes for placement in the competition.

“The Rice Business Plan Competition has grown into far more than a competition—it’s a proving ground for founders and a catalyst for real company formation, as well as a catalyst for building the Houston entrepreneurial ecosystem,” Brad Burke, associate vice president of Rice Innovation and executive director of Rice Alliance, said in a news release. This year's event was Burke’s final RBPC after nearly 25 years of leadership.

Last year, the Rice Business Plan Competition facilitated over $2 million in investment and cash prizes. According to Rice, more than 910 startups have raised more than $6.9 billion in capital through the competition over the last 25 years.

See a full list of this year's winners and stream rounds from the competition here.

Here's the income it takes to live comfortably in Houston in 2026

Money Talk

2026 report analyzing how much it costs to live "in sustainable comfort" in the biggest U.S. cities has found Houston residents have the 11th lowest salary requirement to live a comfortable life in 2026.

SmartAsset's annual report found single adult residents in Houston need to make $89,981 a year to qualify as "financially stable." Compared to last year, single Houstonians needed to make $83 more to live comfortably in the city.

Families with two working parents and two children need to make a household income of $204,672 to have a financially stable life in Houston, the report found. That's almost $2,000 less than what families needed to make last year.

To determine the rankings, SmartAsset's analysts examined 100 of the largest U.S. cities and used the latest cost of living data – such as the costs for housing, food, transportation, and income taxes where applicable – from the MIT Living Wage Calculator for childless individuals and for two working adults with two children.

For the purpose of the study, the 50/30/20 budgeting strategy was used to determine "comfortable lifestyle" costs for both individuals and families: 50 percent of income to cover needs and living expenses, 30 percent for "wants," and 20 percent for savings or paying down debt.

Here's breakdown of a Houston resident's comfortable lifestyle based on SmartAsset's findings:

  • $44,991 dedicated to needs and living expenses
  • $26,994 dedicated to wants
  • $17,996 dedicated to savings or debt repayment

This is SmartAsset's interpretation of a comfortable lifestyle for families of four:

  • $102,336 dedicated to needs and living expenses
  • $61,402 dedicated to wants
  • $40,934 dedicated to savings or debt repayment
SmartAsset said single individuals and families should compare the fluctuating local cost of living and their long-term goals to fully "understand the context" of their respective household incomes. But it's worth pointing out that a financially stable life in Houston isn't quite attainable for many residents: The city had a median household income of $64,361 in 2024, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Comfortable salaries in other Texas cities

Elsewhere in Texas, the report found that families in the Dallas-Fort Worth suburbs Frisco and McKinney "are closest to a comfortable salary."

"In Frisco, the median household earns $145,444 – substantially higher than the national median of $83,730," the report's author wrote. "This figure also accounts for 63.1 percent of the $230,464 income a family of four in Frisco needs to live comfortably. In McKinney, TX, the $124,177 median household income accounts for 53.9 percent of the $230,464 needed."

Both cities also tied with Plano for the 29th highest salary needed nationally to live comfortably in 2026. Single adults living in these cities need to make $109,242 a year to live a financially stable life this year.


On the opposite end, San Antonio has the lowest salaries needed to live comfortably in the U.S. Single adults only need to make $83,242 a year, and $192,608 for families of four.

View All Listings