Information diffusion and value redistribution among transaction partners of the IPO firm

Abstract

This paper examines the diffusion of information around the initial public offering (IPO) process and identifies transaction partners on which IPO firms are dependent. Using a resource payments perspective, we argue that this dependence will lead to greater cumulative abnormal stock returns for transaction partners when this information is revealed in the market (when the initial form S-1 is filed with the SEC). Moreover, we examine the uniqueness of the resource configuration between the IPO firm and transaction partners and find that greater uniqueness is associated with higher valuation for these transaction partners.We also find that multiple dependencies (by the IPO firm) reduce the valuation effect for transaction partners, indicating that a bargaining effect reduces the potential value that any transaction partner can appropriate.

Embracing the Paradox of Interorganizational Value Co‐creation–Value Capture: A Literature Review towards Paradox Resolution

“…compound factors that form a highly pressured environment owing to a combination of resource scarcity, constant changes and plurality of actors' views. -Partner with high learning intent (Jordan 2004;Norman 2002) -Changes in technology and scope of the IOR (Oxley 1999) and therefore difficulty to enforce property rights (Möller et al 2008;Pisano 1990) -Challenges to separate knowledge (Li et al 2012;Martinez-Noya et al 2013;Oxley and Sampson 2004;Reuer et al 2002) -Evolving preferences (Gillier et al 2010) Compound -Matching the type of partner with scope of the IOR (Jordan 2004;Li et al 2008;Liu et al 2014), appropriation mechanism (Henttonen et al 2016;Leiponen and Byma 2009), and type of R&D (Caloghirou et al 2003) -Patent pools for small firms; co-patenting (Belderbos et al 2014;Rayna and Striukova 2010) -Interdependence in contract negotiation; limiting the relationship to independent and non-specific assets (short-term) or developing relationship-specific and complementary assets (long term) (Miranda and Kavan 2005) -Commitment to R&D investments in IOR and maintaining balance between cooperation and competition (Baglieri et al 2016;…”

The New Regulator in Town: The Effect of Walmart's Sustainability Mandate on Supplier Shareholder Value

“…The final sample consists of 118 Walmart suppliers, of which 115 had complete information on all covariates. The size of our sample is similar to that of other event studies on buyer-supplier relationships (e.g., Kalaignanam et al 2013;Liu et al 2014) and customer power (e.g., Boyd, Chandy, and Cunha 2010;Deitz, Hansen, and Richey 2009). The suppliers in our sample are active in grocery categories, such as cereals (e.g., General Mills, Kellogg's) and meat products (e.g., Bob Evans, Tyson Foods), as well as nongrocery categories, such as apparel (e.g., Hanesbrands, VF Corporation), electronics (e.g., Emerson Radio Corporation, Koss), and entertainment (e.g., Activision Blizzard, Electronic Arts).…”

When does crowdsourcing benefit firm stock market performance?

“…Under this assumption, the firm's stock market capitalization may be considered a reasonable proxy of its underlying value, which changes only if new information affecting the firm's future profits is released. Thus, to assess the impact of crowdsourcing, we analyzed the stock market reactions to crowdsourcing announcements measured by the cumulative abnormal return (CAR), i.e., the stock market return in excess of the expected return in the days around the announcement (Liu et al, 2014).…”