IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rcjaxx/v10y2022i2p147-173.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do the outstanding comments of regulatory reviewers for approved IPOs serve as a valuation signal for investors?

Author

Listed:
  • Xuxia Chen
  • Jun Wang
  • Xi Wu

Abstract

Since 2015, the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) has disclosed initial public offering (IPO) companies’ review outcomes and hearing questions. For 15% of the companies that pass the IPO screening process, the CSRC also discloses some of their hearing questions that require further disclosure and clarification after the IPO screening process (termed outstanding comments herein). A company passing the vote means that it has received general approval from the majority of review experts. However, outstanding comments also reflect that some review experts have remaining concerns about the IPO applicant. Results show that approved IPO companies with outstanding comments perform significantly worse than those without outstanding comments both before and after listing, suggesting that outstanding comments serve as a signal of a stock’s valuation. Moreover, investors (particularly institutional ones) appear to perceive the signal of outstanding comments, as they react more negatively around the listing date of such companies.

Suggested Citation

  • Xuxia Chen & Jun Wang & Xi Wu, 2022. "Do the outstanding comments of regulatory reviewers for approved IPOs serve as a valuation signal for investors?," China Journal of Accounting Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(2), pages 147-173, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rcjaxx:v:10:y:2022:i:2:p:147-173
    DOI: 10.1080/21697213.2022.2091063
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21697213.2022.2091063
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21697213.2022.2091063?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rcjaxx:v:10:y:2022:i:2:p:147-173. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rcja .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.