No abstract

This study surveys the European managers on the costs, benefits, and net benefits of foreign listing. Increase in prestige and visibility, and growth in shareholders are perceived as the major benefits, and the costs of public relations and legal fees are cited as the major costs by the managers. While a majority of managers (60%) perceive that benefits outweigh the costs of foreign listing, about 30% also view the net benefits to be negative. Perceived net benefits are positively related to the increase in the total trading volume after foreign listing, the financial disclosure levels of the firm, and the dual listing on both the US and European foreign exchanges. Without the influence of these factors, the perceived net benefits are negative.

"We survey European managers to gain some insights into motivations of convertible issuance. Our analysis shows that a majority of firms issue convertibles as 'delayed equity' and as 'debt sweetener'. Managers also use convertibles to avoid short-term equity dilution and to signal firm's future growth opportunities. We document a large cross-sectional variation across firms in rationales for issuing convertibles and find mixed support for most theoretical models. Our evidence suggests that the popularity of convertibles is driven primarily by their versatility in adjusting their design to fit the financing needs of individual firms, and by their increased demand among institutional investors." Copyright Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 2004.

We survey chief financial officers (CFOs) from 12 European countries regarding the determinants of going public and exchange listing decisions. Most CFOs identify enhanced visibility and financing for growth as the most important benefits of an IPO, but other motivations for IPOs differ significantly across firms, countries, and legal systems. We find strong support for the IPO theories that emphasise financial and strategic considerations, such as enhanced reputation and credibility, and financial flexibility as a major advantage of an IPO. At the same time, we find moderate support for theories that focus on exit strategy, balance of power with creditors, external monitoring, and merger and acquisition motivations. European CFOs' views on the major benefits of an IPO are generally similar to those of US managers as reported in Brau and Fawcett (2006), but differ significantly on outside monitoring; outside monitoring is considered a major benefit by European CFOs but a major cost by US CFOs. Our evidence suggests that the decision to go public is a complex one, and cannot be explained by one single theory because firms seek multiple benefits in going public. These motivations are influenced by the firm's ownership structure, size and age as well as by the home country's institutional and regulatory environment.We are grateful to all Chief Financial Officers who have participated in this study, and to the corporate finance team of BNP Paribas and Euronext for their valuable comments and suggestions. We would like to thank John Doukas (editor) and two anonymous referees for valuable comments and suggestions. We also thank Douglas Cummings, Susanne Espenlaub, Anjo Koenter-Kant and participants at the

The valuation of companies or their assets is at the heart of most financing and investment decisions. Over the last five decades, academics have developed several simple and sophisticated models for corporate valuation. Yet valuation estimates of a firm or its assets appear to vary widely among practitioners. It is unclear whether these differences arise from practitioners' use of different valuation models or from differences in their assumptions about the inputs used in those models. To provide some insights into this issue, the authors recently surveyed 365 European finance practitioners with CFAs or equivalent professional degrees. They find that almost all survey respondents use the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model (along with some version of Relative Valuation that relies on the use of “comparables”). But the estimation methods of such practitioners for almost all inputs in the DCF model, including beta, the equity market risk premium, leverage, cost of debt, and terminal value, vary widely. This can be a serious problem because even small differences in inputs can cause huge variations in valuations. Such differences arise primarily because theory provides little guidance on how to estimate parameters, leaving practitioners to make their own assumptions and judgments. In sum, the authors' findings suggest that the process of estimating valuation parameters can be as important as the choice of the valuation model itself, and requires the serious attention of academics and practitioners. The authors recommend that key valuation parameter estimates be disclosed in financial and valuation reports. Their findings are also relevant to policy makers because the concept of “fair value” plays such a central role in post‐crisis regulation.