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.

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

5 incubators and accelerators fueling the growth of Houston startups

meet the finalists

Houston is home to numerous accelerators and incubators that support founders in pushing their innovative startups and technologies forward.

As part of our 2025 Houston Innovation Awards, the new Incubator/Accelerator of the Year category honors a local incubator or accelerator that is championing and fueling the growth of Houston startups.

Five incubators and accelerators have been named finalists for the 2025 award. They support startups ranging from hard-tech companies to digital health startups.

Read more about these organizations below. Then join us at the Houston Innovation Awards on Nov. 13 at Greentown Labs, when the winner will be unveiled.

Get your tickets now on sale for this exclusive event celebrating Houston Innovation.

Activate

Hard tech incubator Activate supports scientists in "the outset of their entrepreneurial journey." The Houston hub was introduced last year, and joins others in Boston, New York, and Berkley, California—where Activate is headquartered. It named its second Houston cohort this summer.

This year, the incubator grew to include its largest number of concurrent supported fellows, with 88 companies currently being supported nationally. In total, Activate has supported 296 fellows who have created 236 companies. Those companies have raised over $4 billion in follow-on funding, according to Activate. In Houston, it has supported several Innovation Awards finalists, including Solidec, Bairitone Health and Deep Anchor Solutions. It is led locally by Houston Managing Director Jeremy Pitts.

EnergyTech Nexus

Cleantech startup hub EnergyTech Nexus' mission is to accelerate the energy transition by connecting founders, investors and industrial stakeholders and helping to develop transformative companies, known as "thunderlizards."

The hub was founded in 2023 by CEO Jason Ethier, Juliana Garaizar and Nada Ahmed. It has supported startups including Capwell Services, Resollant, Syzygy Plasmonics, Hertha Metals, EarthEn Energy and Solidec—many of which are current or past Innovation Awards finalists. This year Energy Tech Nexus launched its COPILOT Accelerator, powered by Wells Fargo Innovation Incubator (IN²) at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). COPILOT partners with Browning the Green Space, a nonprofit that promotes diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in the clean energy and climatech sectors. Energy Tech Nexus also launched its Liftoff fundraising program, its Investor Program, and a "strategic ecosystem partnership" with Greentown Labs.

Greentown Labs

Climatetech incubator Greentown Labs offers its community resources and a network to climate and energy innovation startups looking to grow. The collaborative community offers members state-of-the-art prototyping labs, business resources and access to investors and corporate partners. The co-located incubator was first launched in Boston in 2011 before opening in Houston in 2021.

Greentown has seen major changes and activity this year. In February, Greentown announced Georgina Campbell Flatter as its new CEO, along with a new Board of Directors. In July, it announced Lawson Gow as its Head of Houston, a "dedicated role to champion the success of Greentown Houston’s startups and lead Greentown’s next chapter of impact in the region," according to Greentown. It has since announced numerous new partnerships, including those with Energy Tech Nexus, Los Angeles-based software development firm Nominal, to launch the new Industrial Center of Excellence; and Houston-based Shoreless, to launch an AI lab onsite. Greentown Houston has supported 175 startups since its launch in 2021, with 45 joining in the last two years. Those startups include the likes of Hertha Metals, RepAir Carbon, Solidec, Eclipse Energy (formerly GoldH2) and many others.

Healthtech Accelerator (TMCi)

The Healthtech Accelerator, formerly TMCx, focuses on clinical partnerships to improve healthcare delivery and outcomes. Emerging digital health and medical device startups that join the accelerator are connected with a network of TMC hospitals and seasoned advisors that will prepare them for clinical validation, funding and deployment.

The Healthtech Accelerator is part of Texas Medical Center Innovation, which also offers the TMCi Accelerator for Cancer Therapeutics. The Healthtech Accelerator named its 19th, and latest, cohort of 11 companies last month.

Impact Hub Houston

Impact Hub Houston supports early-stage ventures at various stages of development through innovative programs that address pressing societal issues. The nonprofit organization supports social impact startups through mentorship, connections and training opportunities.

There are more than 110 Impact Hubs globally with 24,000-plus members spanning 69 countries, making it one of the world’s largest communities for accelerating entrepreneurial solutions toward the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

---

The Houston Innovation Awards program is sponsored by Houston City College Northwest, Houston Powder Coaters, FLIGHT by Yuengling, and more to be announced soon. For sponsorship opportunities, please contact sales@innovationmap.com.



Rice University launches  engineering-led brain science and health institute

brain research

Rice University has announced the creation of a new interdisciplinary center known as the Rice Brain Institute (RBI).

The new hub will aim to use engineering, natural sciences and social sciences to research the brain and reduce the burden of neurodegenerative, neurodevelopmental and mental health disorders.

“The Rice Brain Institute reflects Rice’s strength in collaboration without boundaries,” Rachel Kimbro, dean of the School of Social Sciences, said in a news release. “Our researchers are not only advancing fundamental science but they’re also ensuring that knowledge reaches society in ways that promote human flourishing.”

RBI researchers will work in thematic clusters focusing on neurodegeneration, mental health, brain injury and neurodevelopment. The clusters will work toward goals such as significantly improving key brain health outcomes, reducing mortality and mental health disorders and improving quality of life for patients living with brain injuries and neurodevelopmental disorders, according to Rice.

The institute will focus on “engineering-driven innovation,” rather than traditional neuroscience, to design tools that can measure, model and modulate brain activity based around Rice’s expertise in soft robotics, neuroimaging, data science and artificial intelligence—making it unique among peer organizations, according to Rice.

Additionally, RBI will be structured around three collaborative Rice “pillars”:

  • The Neuroengineering Initiative, launched in 2018, brings together neuroscience, engineering, and related fields experts
  • The Neuroscience Initiative, a new initiative that brings together cell biologists, neurobiologists, biochemists, chemists and physicists to explore fundamental mechanisms of the brain and nervous system
  • The Brain and Society Initiative, also a new initiative, considers brain research within the broader social and policy landscape

Rice’s Neuroengineering Initiative has already garnered more than $78 million in research funding, according to Rice, and has established major partnerships, like the Rice-Houston Methodist Center for Neural Systems Restoration.

“Rice is uniquely equipped to bridge and connect scientific understanding of the brain and behavior sciences with the technologies and policies that shape our world,” Amy Dittmar, the Howard R. Hughes Provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, added in the news release. “By uniting faculty in neuroengineering, neuroscience and psychological sciences, this interdisciplinary hub embodies the kind of bold, nimble collaboration that allows Rice to turn discovery into societal impact to save lives and enhance human flourishing.”

The formation of the RBI coincides with recent support of the Dementia Prevention Research Institute of Texas (DPRIT), which landed voter approval earlier this week and aims to make Texas the center for dementia research via brain-health tech. According to the World Economic Forum, brain disorders and mental health disorders cost the global economy an estimated $5 trillion per year and could be as high as $16 trillion by 2030.

“Few areas of research have as direct and profound an impact on human well-being as brain health,” Rice President Reginald DesRoches added in the news release. “As rates of Alzheimer’s, dementia and other neurological diseases rise in our country and around the world, universities have a responsibility to lead the discovery of solutions that preserve memory, movement and quality of life. We all know someone who has been affected by a brain-related health issue, so this research is personal to all of us.”

Texas voters OK $3 billion for new dementia research institute

state funding

Texas voters on Nov. 4 overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure that provides $3 billion in state funding over a 10-year span for the newly established Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (DPRIT).

Thanks to the passage of Proposition 14, Texas now boasts the country’s largest state-funded initiative dedicated to dementia research and prevention, according to the Alzheimer’s Association. Up to $300 million in grants will be awarded during the 10-year funding period.

“This is a transformative moment for Texas and for the fight against Alzheimer’s and all other dementia,” said Joanne Pike, president and CEO of the Alzheimer’s Association. “Texans have chosen to invest in hope, innovation, and solutions for the millions of families affected by these devastating diseases. With the passage of Proposition 14, Texas is now poised to lead the nation in dementia research and prevention.”

The association says DPRIT will drive scientific breakthroughs, attract top-notch dementia researchers to Texas, and generate thousands of jobs statewide.

An estimated 460,000 Texans are living with dementia, the association says, and more than one million caregivers support them.

DPRIT is modeled after the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT). Since 2008, the state agency has awarded nearly $4 billion in grants to research organizations for cancer-related academic research, prevention programs, and product development.

An analysis by the McKinsey Health Institute found that investing in brain health initiatives like DPRIT could boost Texas’ GDP by $260 billion. Much of that GDP bump could benefit the Houston area, which is home to dementia-focused organizations such as UTHealth Houston Neurosciences, Baylor College of Medicine’s Center for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases, the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston’s Collaborative Alzheimer’s Disease and Memory Disorders Program, and the Houston Methodist Research Institute’s John M. O’Quinn Foundation Neurodegenerative Disorders Laboratory.

The Greater Houston Partnership says DPRIT holds the potential “to elevate Texas — particularly Houston — as a hub for brain health research.”

State Sen. Joan Huffman, a Houston Republican, is one of DPRIT’s champions. She sponsored legislation this year to create the institute and ask Texas voters to approve the $3 billion in funding.

“By establishing the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, we are positioning our state to lead the charge against one of the most devastating health challenges of our time,” Huffman said in May. “With $3 billion in funding over the next decade, we will drive critical research, develop new strategies for prevention and treatment, and support our health care community.”