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

Rice Alliance and the Ion leader Brad Burke to retire this summer

lasting legacy

Brad Burke—a Rice University associate vice president who leads the Ion District’s Rice Alliance for Technology and Entrepreneurship and is a prominent figure in Houston’s startup community—is retiring this summer after a 25-year career at the university.

Burke will remain at the Rice Alliance as an adviser until his retirement on June 30.

“Brad’s impact on Rice extends far beyond any single program or initiative. He grew the Rice Alliance from a promising campus initiative into one of the most respected university-based entrepreneurship platforms,” Rice President Reginald DesRoches said in a news release.

During Burke’s tenure, the Rice Business School went from unranked in entrepreneurship to The Princeton Review’s No. 1 graduate entrepreneurship program for the past seven years and a top 20 entrepreneurship program in U.S. News & World Report’s rankings for the past 14 years.

“Brad didn’t just build programs — he built an ecosystem, a culture, and a reputation for Rice that now resonates around the world,” said Peter Rodriguez, dean of the business school. “Through his vision and steady leadership, Rice became a place where founders are taken seriously, ideas are rigorously supported, and entrepreneurship is embedded in the fabric of the university.”

One of Burke’s notable achievements at Rice is the creation of the Rice Business Plan Competition. During his tenure, the competition has grown from nine student teams competing for $10,000 into the world’s largest intercollegiate competition for student-led startups. Today, the annual competition welcomes 42 student-led startups that vie for more than $1 million in prizes.

Away from Rice, Burke has played a key role in cultivating entrepreneurship in the energy sector: He helped establish the Energy Tech Venture Forum along with Houston Energy and Climate Startup Week.

Furthermore, Burke co-founded the Texas University Network for Innovation and Entrepreneurship in 2008 to bolster the entrepreneurship programs at every university in Texas. In 2016, the Rice Alliance assumed leadership of the Global Consortium of Entrepreneurship Centers.

In 2023, Burke received the Trailblazer Award at the 2023 Houston Innovation Awards and was recognized by the Deshpande Foundation for his contributions to innovation and entrepreneurship in higher education.

“Working with an amazing team to build the entrepreneurial ecosystem at Rice, in Houston, and beyond has been the privilege of my career,” Burke said in the release. “It has been extremely gratifying to hear entrepreneurs say our efforts changed their lives, while bringing new innovations to market. The organization is well-positioned to help drive exponential growth across startups, investors, and the entrepreneurial ecosystem.”

Starting April 15, John “JR” Reale Jr. will serve as interim associate vice president at Rice and executive director of the Rice Alliance. He is managing director of the alliance and co-founder of Station Houston, beginning April 15. Reale is co-founder of the Station Houston startup hub and a startup investor and was also recently named director for startups and investor engagement for the Ion.

“The Rice Alliance has always been about helping founders gain advantages to realize their visions,” Reale said. “Under Brad’s leadership, the Rice Alliance has become a globally recognized platform that is grounded in trust and drives transformational founder outcomes. My commitment is to honor what Brad has built and led while continuing to serve our team and community, deepen relationships and deliver impact.”

Burke joined the Houston Innovators Podcast back in 2022. Listen to the full interview here.

Houston team uses CPRIT funding to develop nanodrug for cancer immunotherapy

cancer research

With a relative five-year survival rate of 50 percent, pancreatic cancer is a diagnosis nobody wants. At 60 percent, the prognosis for lung cancer isn’t much rosier. That’s because both cancers contain regulatory B cells (Bregs), which block the body’s natural immunity, making it harder to fight the enemies within.

Newly popular immunotherapies in a category known as STING agonists may stimulate natural cancer defenses. However, they can also increase Bregs while simultaneously causing significant side effects. But Wei Gao, assistant professor of pharmacology at the University of Houston College of Pharmacy, may have a solution to that conundrum.

Gao and her team have developed Nano-273, a dual-function drug, packaged in an albumin-based particle, that boosts the immune system to help it better fight pancreatic and lung cancers. Gao’s lab recently received a $900,000 grant from the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) to aid in fueling her research into the nanodrug.

“Nano-273 both activates STING and blocks PI3Kγ—a pathway that drives Breg expansion, while albumin nanoparticles help deliver the drug directly to immune cells, reducing unwanted side effects,” Gao said in a press release. “This approach reduces harmful Bregs while boosting immune cells that attack cancer, leading to stronger and more targeted anti-tumor responses.”

In studies using models of both pancreatic and lung cancers, Nano-273 has shown great promise with low toxicity. Its best results thus far have involved using the drug in combination with immunotherapy or chemotherapy.

With the CPRIT funds, Gao and her team will be able to charge closer to clinical use with a series of important steps. Those include continuing to test Nano-273 alongside other drugs, including immune checkpoint inhibitors. Safety studies will follow, but with future patients in mind, Gao will also work toward improving her drug’s production, making sure that it’s safe and high-quality every time, so that it is eventually ready for trials.

Gao added: “If successful, this project could lead to a new type of immunotherapy that offers lasting tumor control and improved survival for patients with pancreatic and lung cancers, two diseases that urgently need better treatments."

Houston booms as No. 2 U.S. metro for new home construction

Construction Boom

Driven by population growth, more residential rooftops are popping up across Houston and the rest of Texas than anywhere else in America.

Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau and Zillow, Construction Coverage found 65,747 new residential units were authorized in greater Houston in 2024. That figure landed Houston in second place among major metro areas for the total number of housing permits, including those for single-family homes, apartments, and condos.

Just ahead of Houston was the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, which took first place with 71,788 residential permits approved in 2024. In third place was the country’s largest metro, New York City (57,929 permits).Elsewhere in Texas, the Austin metro ranked sixth (32,294 permits), and the San Antonio metro ranked 20th (14,857 permits).

Construction Coverage also sorted major metro areas based on the number of new housing units authorized per 1,000 existing homes in 2024. Raleigh, North Carolina, held the No. 1 spot (28.8 permits per 1,000 existing homes), followed by Austin at No. 2 (28.6), DFW at No. 3 (22.2), Houston at No. 4 (21.6), and San Antonio at No. 13 (13.6).

A Newsweek analysis of Census Bureau data shows building permits for 225,756 new residential units were approved in 2024 in Texas — a trend fueled largely by activity in DFW, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. That put Texas atop the list of states building the most residential units for the year.

Through the first eight months of last year, 145,901 permits for new residential units were approved in Texas, according to Census Bureau data. That’s nearly 80,000 permits shy of the 2024 total.

Among the states, Construction Coverage ranks Texas sixth for the number of residential building permits approved in 2024 per 1,000 existing homes (17.9).

Extra housing is being built in Texas to meet demand spurred by population growth. From April 2020 to July 2024, the state’s population increased 7.3 percent, the Census Bureau says.

While builders are busy constructing new housing in Texas, they’re not necessarily profiting a lot from homebuilding activity.

“Market conditions remain challenging, with two-thirds of builders reporting they are offering incentives to move buyers off the fence,” North Carolina homebuilder Buddy Hughes, chairman of the National Association of Home Builders, said in a December news release. “Meanwhile, builders are contending with rising material and labor prices, as tariffs are having serious repercussions on construction costs.”

View All Listings