Publications

IPO firms’ rivals tend to experience performance declines following an IPO in the industry. Why? We estimate a dynamic structural oligopoly model to distinguish among alternative theories that can explain an industry’s evolution post-IPO. We find that most changes in rivals’ performance are due to industry trends that also drive IPOs. However, there are also some “competitive” IPOs where the IPO enhances the IPO firm’s performance, at the expense of competitors. These findings help reconcile prior evidence of average performance reductions of both IPO firms and their rivals with well-known cases in which firms have benefited from going public.

Lia Majid had spent nearly a year and a half searching for a business to acquire and thought she’d finally found a deal worth pursuing. She spent months negotiating with the firm’s sellers and believed she was on the verge of a purchase. However, at the last minute, her backers and mentors at the Search Fund Accelerator (SFA) wanted her to completely restructure the deal.

Majid was part of the first cohort of SFA. SFA was the brainchild of Timothy Bovard who founded the accelerator to help search fund entrepreneurs vet deals, review proposals, and provide emotional support during the search. Through SFA’s leads, Majid had identified a target company that was willing to sell one of its divisions, but she still needed Bovard’s input before drafting a Letter of Intent (LOI) for the seller. Bovard, however, was concerned about the proposed carve-out acquisition, a complex task for even a seasoned CEO, let alone a first time CEO.

Faced with Bovard’s concerns and SFA’s new deal structure, Majid had to decide whether to reengage the target firm with this new deal or to move on to investigate other prospects.