Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

The Future of the New Issues Market

Contents:

Author Info

  • Jay R. Ritter

Abstract

Every MBA program that I have taught in has some Asian students, and in some Asian societies, such as Korea, it is common for a student to give a gift to a teacher at the end of the year. Some Korean students continue this practice when they are students in the U.S., and over the years I have received a number of gifts from students. Most of these gifts fall into the category of trinkets and knick-knacks, and I would guess that the average value of these gifts has been about twenty dollars. I typically accept these gifts when offered, and sometimes I even remember the student’s name. I don’t think that many people would consider my acceptance of these gifts after the end of a semester as unethical behavior. I haven’t been faced with the decision, but what would I do if I was offered a gift of a work of art, a gift worth $200? And what if I could sell this gift (I would wait until after the student graduated and left town, of course), and pocket the $200? Would accepting this gift be unethical? Would it change my behavior? What if the work of art was worth $10,000, but the Korean student let me know in advance of the final exam that he or she only gave gifts to professors in classes where an ‘A’ was received? Would this affect my decisions on what grade to give this student, especially if it turned out the student was right on the borderline between an A and a B when I was making up the grade distribution? What if the student didn’t tell me this in advance, but I had learned from experience that I would receive much more valuable gifts from Korean students if they received high grades? Would it be OK for me to accept significant gifts from students who received high grades if other professors were doing so? In other words, if it was “standard industry practice?” Because this article is about the new issues market, I will not discuss further the ethical problems associated with professors who give high grades to students and receive gifts in return. This article will focus mainly on the initial public offerings (IPOs) of equity securities. I will focus on equity IPOs mainly because this is where almost all of the controversy lies. In particular, there are controversies associated with underwriters who allocate hot IPOs to hedge funds and receive commission business in return. After presenting some statistics concerning IPOs and discussing controversies, the article ends with some policy recommendations.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/papers/02/0205.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Wharton School Center for Financial Institutions, University of Pennsylvania in its series Center for Financial Institutions Working Papers with number 02-05.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Jan 2002
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wop:pennin:02-05

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 3301 Steinberg Hall-Dietrich Hall, 3620 Locust Walk, Philadelphia, PA 19104.6367
Phone: 215.898.1279
Fax: 215.573.8757
Email:
Web page: http://fic.wharton.upenn.edu/fic/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

No references listed on IDEAS
You can help add them by filling out this form.

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wop:pennin:02-05. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Thomas Krichel).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.