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

Johnson Space Center and UT partner to expand research, workforce development

onward and upward

NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston has forged a partnership with the University of Texas System to expand collaboration on research, workforce development and education that supports space exploration and national security.

“It’s an exciting time for the UT System and NASA to come together in new ways because Texas is at the epicenter of America’s space future. It’s an area where America is dominant, and we are committed as a university system to maintaining and growing that dominance,” Dr. John Zerwas, chancellor of the UT System, said in a news release.

Vanessa Wyche, director of Johnson Space Center, added that the partnership with the UT System “will enable us to meet our nation’s exploration goals and advance the future of space exploration.”

The news release noted that UT Health Houston and the UT Medical Branch in Galveston already collaborate with NASA. The UT Medical Branch’s aerospace medicine residency program and UT Health Houston’s space medicine program train NASA astronauts.

“We’re living through a unique moment where aerospace innovation, national security, economic transformation, and scientific discovery are converging like never before in Texas," Zerwas said. “UT institutions are uniquely positioned to partner with NASA in building a stronger and safer Texas.”

Zerwas became chancellor of the UT System in 2025. He joined the system in 2019 as executive vice chancellor for health affairs. Zerwas represented northwestern Ford Bend County in the Texas House from 2007 to 2019.

In 1996, he co-founded a Houston-area medical practice that became part of US Anesthesia Partners in 2012. He remained active in the practice until joining the UT System. Zerwas was chief medical officer of the Memorial Hermann Hospital System from 2003 to 2008 and was its chief physician integration officer until 2009.

Zerwas, a 1973 graduate of the Houston area’s Bellaire High School, is an alumnus of the University of Houston and Baylor College of Medicine.

3 Houston innovators who are making headlines right now

Featured Innovators

Editor's note: Houston innovators have kicked off the new year with big developments, from an immune-boosting nanodrug to NSF research funding and more. Below, meet three local innovators who have recently been in the headlines.

Kirsten Adam, Rice University

Kirsten Adam. Courtesy photo.

Rice University psychologist Kirsten Adam has received a $600,000 National Science Foundation CAREER Award to research how visual distractions like phone notifications, flashing alerts, crowded screens and busy workspaces can negatively impact focus—and how the brain works to try to regain it. Adam’s work will aim to clarify how the brain refocuses in the age of screens, instant gratification and other lingering distractions. The funding will also be used to train graduate students in advanced cognitive neuroscience methods, expand access to electroencephalography (EEG) and for public data sharing. Read more.

Houston lab-test startup seeks $1M for nationwide expansion

Jim Gebhart, founder and CEO of TheLabCafe.com. Courtesy photo.

Driven by the desire to knock down lab-test barriers, health care industry veteran Jim Gebhart founded Houston-based TheLabCafe.com in 2024. The platform provides access to low-cost medical tests without requiring patients to carry health insurance. It currently serves patients in six states and is poised for major U.S. expansion early this year. Read more.

Wei Gao, University of Houston College of Pharmacy

Wei Gao (center). Photo courtesy UH.

Wei Gao, assistant professor of pharmacology at the University of Houston College of Pharmacy, may have a solution to regulatory B cells (Bregs) which block the body's natural immunity and are found in pancreatic and lung cancers. 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 these cancers. Read more.

Texas booms as No. 3 best state to start a business right now

Innovation Starts Here

High employment growth and advantageous entrepreneurship rates have led Texas into a triumphant No. 3 spot in WalletHub's ranking of "Best and Worst States to Start a Business" for 2026.

Texas bounced back into the No. 3 spot nationally for the first time since 2023. After dropping into 8th place in 2024, the state hustled into No. 4 last year.

Ever year, WalletHub compares all 50 states based on their business environment, costs, and access to financial resources to determine the best places for starting a business. The study analyzes 25 relevant metrics to determine the rankings, such as labor costs, office space affordability, financial accessibility, the number of startups per capita, and more.

When about half of all new businesses don't last more than five years, finding the right environment for a startup is vital for long-term success, the report says.

Here's how Texas ranked across the three main categories in the study:

  • No. 1 – Business environment
  • No. 11 – Access to resources
  • No. 34 – Business costs

The state boasts the 10th highest entrepreneurship rates nationwide, and it has the 11th-highest share of fast-growing firms. WalletHub also noted that more than half (53 percent) of all Texas businesses are located in "strong clusters," which suggests they are more likely to be successful long-term.

"Clusters are interconnected businesses that specialize in the same field, and 'strong clusters' are ones that are in the top 25 percent of all regions for their particular specialization," the report said. "If businesses fit into one of these clusters, they will have an easier time getting the materials they need, and can tap into an existing customer base. To some degree, it might mean more competition, though."

Texas business owners should also keep their eye on Houston, which was recently ranked the 7th best U.S. city for starting a new business, and it was dubbed one of the top-10 tech hubs in North America. Workers in Texas are the "third-most engaged" in the country, the study added, a promising attribute for employers searching for the right place to begin their next business venture.

"Business owners in Texas benefit from favorable conditions, as the state has the third-highest growth in working-age population and the third-highest employment growth in the country, too," the report said.

The top 10 best states for starting a business in 2026 are:

  • No. 1 – Florida
  • No. 2 – Utah
  • No. 3 – Texas
  • No. 4 – Oklahoma
  • No. 5 – Idaho
  • No. 6 – Mississippi
  • No. 7 – Georgia
  • No. 8 – Indiana
  • No. 9 – Nevada
  • No. 10 – California
---

This article originally appeared on CultureMap.com.

View All Listings