Is the Market Surprised By Poor Earnings Realizations Following Seasoned Equity Offerings?

DAVID J. DENIS Krannert Graduate School of Management Purdue University West Lafayette, IN 47907-1310 (765) 494-4434 daviddenis@mgmt.purdue.edu

ATULYA SARIN Leavey College of Business and Administration Santa Clara University Santa Clara, CA 95053 (408) 554-4953 asarin@scu.edu

July, 2000

* We are grateful for helpful comments received from Brad Barber, Diane Denis, Greg Kadlec, Jonathan Karpoff, David Lesmond, Tim Loughran, Raghu Rau, Jay Ritter, Sunil Wahal, Susan Watts, an anonymous referee, and seminar participants at Indiana University, Tulane University, and the University of Missouri.

Is the Market Surprised By Poor Earnings Realizations Following Seasoned Equity Offerings?
Abstract We examine the stock price reaction to earnings announcements in the five years following seasoned equity offerings (SEOs). On average, post-SEO earnings announcements are met with a significantly negative abnormal stock price reaction. Although this negative reaction accounts for a disproportionately large portion of long-run post-SEO abnormal stock returns, on average, abnormal stock price reactions to post-SEO earnings announcements are reliably negative only within the smallest quartile of equity issuers. For small firms, therefore, these findings are broadly consistent with the hypothesis that firms issue equity when the market over-estimates the firms future earnings performance.

Is the Market Surprised By Poor Earnings Realizations Following Seasoned Equity Offerings?

I. Introduction In a pair of provocative studies, Spiess and Affleck-Graves (1995) and Loughran and Ritter (1995) document significant negative abnormal returns over the five years following issues of seasoned common stock. Kang, Kim, and Stulz (1999) confirm these findings for Japanese equity issuers, a finding that is notable because of the different stock price behavior of Japanese firms surrounding the announcement of seasoned equity offerings (SEOs). In the U.S., SEOs also tend to be preceded by large increases in operating performance [Loughran and Ritter (1997)] and in abnormal accruals [Rangan (1996), Shivakumar (1999), and Teoh, Welch, and Wong (1996)] and followed by decreases in operating performance [Loughran and Ritter (1997)]. The interpretation of the above patterns has been the subject of considerable debate. Some characterize the evidence as a striking indictment of market efficiency. A specific

behavioral explanation for these findings, offered first by Loughran and Ritter (1995), is that SEOs take place during periods in which investors make expectational errors regarding the future profitability of the firm.1 According to this explanation, which we label the overoptimism hypothesis, investors naively extrapolate strong pre-issue earnings performance. These investors are then subsequently disappointed by earnings realizations in the post-issue period. An

important implication of this view is that the cost of equity capital for equity issuers is

Whether managers knowingly time equity offerings for periods of misvaluation is a separate issue. Both Rangan

(1998) and Teoh, Welch, and Wong (1998) argue that managers engage in pre-issue earnings management in order to achieve a higher issue price. Kahle (2000), Karpoff and Lee (1991), and Lee (1997) all document unusual insider selling in the months leading up to the issuance of common stock. However, Lee (1997) finds no relation between insider trading patterns prior to SEOs and long-run post-SEO returns, a finding inconsistent with managers knowingly selling overvalued equity.

substantially lower than that implied by equilibrium asset pricing models such as the capital asset pricing model (CAPM). An alternative interpretation of low post-SEO stock returns, however, is that SEO firms appear to perform poorly only because their returns are measured against an inappropriate benchmark [see, for example, Fama (1998)], or because test statistics are biased. Studies by Kothari and Warner (1997) and Barber and Lyon (1997) point out several difficulties with distinguishing between market mispricing and model misspecification in interpreting the results of event studies measuring long-horizon abnormal performance. In addition, Mitchell and

Stafford (2000) show that the time-clustering of SEOs leads to inflated test statistics for long-run buy-and-hold returns. The interpretation of stock price patterns following seasoned equity

offerings thus remains an unresolved issue. Several recent studies attempt to resolve this issue by employing alternative models of expected returns and correcting for biases in test statistics.2 Although these studies find that post-SEO abnormal performance is sensitive to the benchmark employed, they are, nonetheless, subject to the criticism that their empirical models are ad hoc. Tests for abnormal performance employing these models of expected returns are necessarily joint tests of (i) whether there is abnormal post-SEO performance, and (ii) whether the model for expected returns is correct. As Barber and Lyon (1999) put it, (T)he analysis of long-run abnormal returns is treacherous. In this study, we adopt a different approach and provide direct evidence on the claim that investors systematically overestimate post-issue earnings. We do so by documenting the stock price reaction to earnings announcements following seasoned equity offerings. A similar

approach has been used by Chopra, Lakonishok, and Ritter (1992), LaPorta (1996), and LaPorta, Lakonishok, Shleifer, and Vishny (1997) to test behavioral explanations for the superior returns

See, for example, Brav, Geczy, and Gompers (2000), Eckbo, Masulis, and Norli (2000), Jegadeesh (1998), and

Mitchell and Stafford (2000). We later discuss the relation between the results in these studies and our own findings.

earned by so-called value stocks.3 We extend their approach by controlling for systematic differences in the pricing of value versus glamor stocks, then testing whether the market is systematically surprised by the lower earnings realized by firms following seasoned equity offerings. In this way, we provide direct evidence on the hypothesis that poor post-SEO stock price performance is due at least in part to investors having overestimated the future earnings potential of firms issuing common stock. Our sample consists of 1,213 seasoned equity offerings completed between 1982 and 1990. Like the SEOs examined in prior studies, our sample firms exhibit poor long-run postSEO stock price performance relative to a set of firms matched on industry, size, and book-tomarket ratios, and exhibit declines in earnings growth following the SEO. Consistent with the overoptimism hypothesis, we find that the sample firms exhibit, on average, significant negative stock price reactions to earnings announcements in the five years following their equity offering. These negative stock price reactions are concentrated during the second year following the SEO. Moreover, abnormal returns during earnings announcement periods are significantly more negative than abnormal returns during non-earnings announcement intervals in the post-SEO period. However, stock price reactions to post-SEO earnings announcements are reliably

negative only among issuers in the smallest quartile of firm size. We conclude, therefore, that for small equity issuers, a portion of the poor long-run performance of the issuing firm is due to investors systematically overestimating the firms future earnings prospects. For larger equity issuers, our findings provide no support for the overoptimism hypothesis.

LaPorta et al. (1997) define value stocks as those stocks in the top decile of book-to-market ratio and glamor stocks

as those stocks in the bottom decile of book-to-market. They also report results defining value and glamor stocks on the basis of cash-flow-to-price ratios and sales growth rates. Contemporaneous papers by Jegadeesh (1998) and Brous et al (1998) also examine the stock price reaction to earnings announcements following SEOs. We discuss these papers in section IV.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section II describes our data sources and reports descriptive statistics for the sample equity offerings. We also report measures of long-run stock price and earnings performance to facilitate comparison of our sample with the samples analyzed in previous studies. Section III reports evidence on the stock price reaction to earnings announcements in the two years preceding, and the five years following the sample equity offerings. Section IV provides a discussion of our results and how they relate to other studies of the SEO anomaly that use different approaches. Section V concludes. II. Sample Selection and Description A. Sample selection Our sample is drawn from the Global Corporate Financings database of Securities Data Corporation (SDC) and consists of all primary seasoned equity offerings of U.S. industrial firms over the period 1982 to 1990 that meet the following criteria. First, because we examine the performance of the equity issuers over a five-year period following the issue, we require that the firm not have made an equity offering over the preceding five years. In other words, once a firm has completed a seasoned equity offering, it cannot reenter the sample for at least five years following the offering date. Note that this requirement also excludes any equity issuers that have gone public in the five years preceding the seasoned equity offering. Second, because we examine the stock price effects of quarterly earnings announcements, we require the sample firms to appear on the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) and COMPUSTAT databases. Imposing these requirements results in a sample of 1,213 seasoned equity offerings. Table I reports a time profile and descriptive statistics for the sample offerings. As has been documented in several previous studies, there is wide time-series variation in the volume of equity offerings, with 26% of our sample offerings occuring in 1983 alone. Of the 1,213 offerings, 45% are made by firms listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), 12% by firms listed on the American Stock Exchange (AMEX), and 43% by firms listed on NASDAQ. Twenty-eight percent of the offerings contain a secondary component, while 72% are pure

primary offerings. The number of shares issued in sample offerings is equal to 16% of the issuing firms shares outstanding prior to the offering, on average.

B. Control firms To analyze the abnormal performance of the sample firms, we require a control set of firms not making equity offerings. Recent evidence in Barber and Lyon (1997) suggests that tests of long-horizon abnormal returns are well-specified when sample firms are matched to control firms of similar size and book-to-market ratios. Accordingly, we match each SEO firm with a control firm having similar characteristics. At each calendar year-end, all firms listed on CRSP and Compustat that have been traded for at least five years, and have not issued equity within that five-year period, are placed into deciles based on the market value of the firms equity and the firms ratio of book value to market value of equity. For each sample firm, a control firm is randomly chosen from the set of firms having the same two-digit SIC code and appearing in the same market capitalization and book-to-market deciles. If the control firm issues equity over the following five years, or is delisted for any reason, a second control firm is spliced in after the issue (or delisting) date of the first control firm. Like the first control firm, the second control firm is randomly selected from the set of non-issuers having the same two-digit SIC code and appearing in the same market capitalization and book-to-market deciles as the sample firm.

C. Long-horizon stock returns To facilitate comparison of our sample with those examined in previous studies, table I also reports long-horizon abnormal stock returns for subperiods extending from two years prior to five years following the sample equity offerings. Long-horizon abnormal returns are measured as the difference between the buy-and-hold return of the sample firm and the buy-and-hold return of its matched control firm. We also report the fraction of seasoned offering firms that Note that we report long-horizon returns primarily to

underperform their matching firm.

facilitate comparison of our sample with those employed in previous studies of equity offerings.
7

We do not intend for the returns reported in table I to necessarily be viewed as correct measures of abnormal performance. Indeed, our study focuses on short-run returns surrounding earnings announcements precisely because of the difficulties involved in correctly identifying abnormal long-horizon stock returns. The data reported in table I confirm that our sample firms exhibit stock return patterns that are similar to those documented in previous studies of equity offerings. Specifically, the sample firms substantially outperform the control firms in the two years preceding the equity offerings and underperform the control firms following the equity offerings. Abnormal returns average 68% in the pre-offering period and over two-thirds of the sample firms outperform their matched control firm. In contrast, over the five years following the equity offering, abnormal returns average 30% and 62% of the sample firms underform their control firms.4

D. Earnings patterns Several studies document changes in earnings following seasoned equity offerings. Hansen and Crutchley (1990) report significant reductions in return on assets for a sample of 109 firms issuing equity between 1975 and 1982. More recently, using a sample of 1,338 seasoned equity offerings completed between 1979 and 1989, Loughran and Ritter (1997) report substantial improvements in operating performance prior to equity issues, followed by a deterioration in operating performance following the offering. Similar patterns are reported in McLaughlin, Safieddine, and Vasudevan (1996).

For the reasons discussed in Barber and Lyon (1997), Fama (1998), and Kothari and Warner (1997), and because it

is not the focus of our study, we do not attempt to measure the statistical significance of long-horizon abnormal returns. See Barber and Lyon (1999) for an evaluation of alternative methods of testing the statistical significance of long-horizon abnormal returns.

To further facilitate comparison of our sample with those examined in previous studies, we report average quarterly earnings changes for the eight quarters preceding and the twenty quarters following the quarter of the equity offering. We measure quarterly earnings as net income before extraordinary items and discontinued operations (Compustat #8), and measure changes in this earnings measure for each quarter t as the difference between earnings in quarter t and earnings in quarter t-4. To standardize this measure across firms, we express earnings changes as a percentage of the market value of the firms equity as of the fiscal year ending just prior to the equity offering.5 The data reported in table I indicate that equity issuers exhibit positive changes in earnings in the two years prior to equity offering and negative changes in earnings in the five years following the equity offering. These patterns confirm those documented in previous studies and are similar to the patterns in stock returns documented in table I. One explanation that is consistent with this similarity is that the market prices securities under the naive expectation that expected earnings are equal to earnings for the corresponding quarter in the previous year.6 Under this explanation, the market will be pleasantly surprised by earnings

Our findings are not sensitive to the choice of earnings measure. For example, we document qualitatively similar

earnings patterns if we use net income (Compustat #172), which includes extraordinary items, rather than earnings before extraordinary items. We also obtain similar patterns if we scale earnings changes by firm sales rather than equity value. Loughran and Ritter (1997) also find that earnings patterns surrounding SEOs are robust to alternative measures of earnings.

Bernard and Thomas (1990) report evidence that the time series behavior of earnings deviates from the naive

expectations model. Nonetheless, their analysis of abnormal returns surrounding earnings announcements suggests that the market does not properly account for predictable time-series patterns in earnings. Rather, the market appears to price stocks as if expected quarterly earnings were equal to earnings from the corresponding quarter in the previous year.

announcements prior to equity offerings and disappointed by earnings announcements following equity offerings. In the next section, we provide evidence on this issue.

III. Empirical Results A. The stock price reaction to earnings announcements To examine the hypothesis that poor post-SEO performance is due in part to investors overestimating post-SEO earnings, we examine the abnormal stock price reaction to post-issue earnings announcements. The stock price reaction to quarterly earnings announcements is measured over the three-day interval centered on the announcement date as reported on Compustat. Abnormal returns during the earnings announcement period are computed as the difference between the return of the sample firm and the return on the matched control firm. It is possible, however, that this measure is biased. As shown in table I, long-run post-SEO abnormal returns using this measure are negative. If these negative abnormal returns are due to error in the measurement of abnormal returns, we expect to observe negative abnormal returns on any random day in the post-SEO period. Thus, we also report abnormal returns using a measure that adjusts for this potential bias. Specifically, we also compute abnormal returns as the difference between the three-day abnormal return during the earnings announcement period (described above) and the average three-day abnormal return during all of the non-earnings-announcement periods in the five-year post-SEO period. We refer to this alternative measure as the adjusted abnormal return.7 In examining the stock price reaction to earnings announcements, we assume that earnings announcements are informative, but we do not require that information about the

Brous et al (1998) compute a similar, though slightly different, measure, and refer to it as a performance-adjusted

abnormal return. We discuss their measure and findings in more detail in section IV.C.

10

magnitude of quarterly earnings is conveyed exclusively during the three-day announcement period. Indeed, we expect that information about quarterly earnings will gradually be revealed through various channels (e.g. management forecasts and analyst forecasts) throughout the quarter. We assume only that the formal announcement of quarterly earnings has incremental information content. A substantial literature dating back at least to Ball and Brown (1968) supports this assumption. We also do not assume that the market reaction during the earnings announcement period is complete. Evidence from the post-earnings-drift literature suggests that the market reacts only partially to large changes in earnings.8 Our empirical approach admits this possibility. We require only that the stock price reaction to the quarterly earnings

announcement reflects at least a partial updating of the markets estimate of current and future earnings. Table II reports three-day abnormal returns surrounding quarterly earnings

announcements over quarters 8 through +20 relative to the sample equity offerings, where quarter 0 is the fiscal quarter in which the equity offering is completed. If investors overestimate the earnings of firms issuing common stock, we expect the stock price reaction to earnings announcements of SEO firms to be significantly negative in the post-issue period as the market becomes aware of its estimation error. The results in table II indicate that the market reaction to earnings announcements is significantly positive in the four quarters prior to the sample offerings, suggesting that the positive pre-issue earnings changes documented in table I are indeed unexpected. Similar

findings are documented in Korajczyk, Lucas, and McDonald (1991) for earnings announcements in the four quarters preceding a sample of 1,247 equity issues between 1978 and 1983. Following the offering, however, the market appears to be negatively surprised by earnings revelations. When abnormal returns are measured against the industry, size, and

See Bernard and Thomas (1989) for an excellent summary of post-earnings-announcement drift literature.

11

market-to-book matched control firms, the average abnormal return is negative in seventeen of the twenty post-issue quarters. Similarly, adjusted abnormal returns are negative in sixteen of the twenty post-issue quarters. Although the quarterly results reported in table II suggest that the market is surprised, on average, by poor earnings realizations following seasoned equity offers, they present a somewhat limited view of post-issue earnings announcement effects. It is possible, for example, that the results are driven by a relatively small number of firms that have uniformly negative stock price reactions to earnings announcements in the post-issue period. Alternatively, at the time of the equity offering, the market might overestimate the future earnings of most of the sample firms. However, the subsequent correction of this misperception might come at different points in time for different firms. For some firms, earnings revelations in the first year following the equity offering might reveal mispricing, while for other firms, this correction might not come until the fifth year. To provide a measure of earnings announcement effects that attempts to circumvent these limitations, we average the three-day abnormal stock price reaction to the quarterly earnings announcements of each firm, then compute the mean of this average abnormal return across firms. We do this separately for the eight quarters preceding the equity offering and the twenty quarters following the offering. There are 1,079 firms with at least one quarterly earnings announcement in the eight quarters preceding the equity offering and 1,203 firms with at least one quarterly earnings announcement in the twenty quarters following the equity offering. For each firm, we average the three-day abnormal stock price reaction to earnings announcements over however many quarters for which we have data for that firm.9

We have quarterly earnings announcements in all twenty post-issue quarters for 66% of the sample firms. Eighty

percent of the firms have at least fifteen post-issue announcements, 89% have at least ten announcements, and 94% have at least five announcements.

12

The results, reported in the last two rows of table II, provide evidence of positive preSEO and negative post-SEO earnings surprises. The average SEO issuer exhibits an abnormal return of 0.72% per quarter in the eight quarters preceding its SEO. In contrast, over the twenty quarters following the SEO, the average issuer earns an abnormal return of -0.28% per quarter. Moreover, the abnormal returns associated with earnings announcements in the post-SEO period are more negative than the abnormal returns exhibited by the issuing firms during non-earningsannouncement periods. Specifically, the average issuer exhibits an adjusted abnormal return of -0.21% per quarter over the twenty post-SEO quarterly earnings announcement periods. The average adjusted abnormal return is significant at the 0.01 level. It is interesting to note that abnormal returns around earnings announcements are most negative (and statistically significant) in the second year (quarters 5-8) after the offering. As depicted in figure 1, this pattern in earnings announcement effects closely corresponds with the changes in standardized earnings over this period. When earnings exceed those from the same quarter in the previous year, the stock price reaction is positive. When earnings fall relative to the prior year, the stock price reaction is negative. What makes the post-SEO period anomalous is the fact that the market appears to be surprised by the poor earnings realizations of firms issuing shares in seasoned equity offerings despite the predictable pattern in earnings. To provide a more formal test of the relation between the stock price reaction to postSEO earnings announcments and the length of time since the equity issue, we regress the abnormal return during the three-day earnings announcement period on the standardized change in earnings and a set of five dummy variables denoting the year of the earnings announcement relative to the offering year. Hence, quarters 1-4 following the SEO are year 1, quarters 5-8 are year 2, and so on. The findings, reported in table III, indicate that only the dummy variable denoting year 2 is statistically significant. In other words, controlling for the size of the earnings change, investors are surprised by the negative earnings information released in year 2. Beyond year 2, however, there is no evidence that investors are systematically disappointed by earnings realizations.
13

B. Sensitivity tests Our findings to this point are broadly consistent with the hypothesis that investors overestimate the future earnings of firms conducting SEOs. In this section, we report the results of several robustness checks in which we alter the methodology used to compute abnormal returns. (These results are not reported separately in a table.) We also confirm that the earnings announcement effects documented in table II account for an economically important fraction of the poor long-run returns exhibited by SEO firms. It is possible that stock returns are lower during earnings announcement periods because the risk premium is lower during those periods. Although Chari, Jagannathan, and Ofer (1988) find that returns are actually significantly higher than average during earnings announcement periods, we nonetheless test this possibility in two ways. First, we measure abnormal returns as the difference between the return of the SEO firm during the earnings announcement period and the return of the matched control firm during its earnings announcement period that quarter. Second, we examine raw stock returns during earnings announcement periods. Contrary to the hypothesis that risk premia are lower during earnings announcement periods, we find that, on average, the returns of SEO issuers during earnings announcement periods are 0.30% below those of the control firms during their earnings announcement periods. The difference is statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Perhaps, however, the SEO resolves some uncertainty prior to the earnings announcement period. If so, the risk premium for SEO issuers might be below that of the control firms. Contrary to this view, however, we also find that raw returns during post-SEO earnings announcement periods are actually negative, averaging 0.07%. Moreover, raw returns are significantly negative in the first two years following the SEO, averaging 0.21% and 0.18%, respectively. This is difficult to reconcile with a risk premium explanation unless one believes that the ex ante risk premium is negative during these periods, a prospect that is inconsistent with existing equilibrium asset pricing models. We note also that negative raw returns are inconsistent with the hypothesis that the
14

negative abnormal returns observed around earnings announcements are due to a misspecification of the returns generating process. Finally, we note that the raw returns of the control firms average 0.18% during the earnings announcement periods in the first two years following the SEO. These returns are not low relative to other time periods, suggesting that the poor returns around earnings announcements of SEO issuers do not extend to non-issuing firms with similar characteristics. Yet another possibility is that the negative abnormal returns observed during post-SEO earnings announcement periods are due to market microstructure biases induced by unusual selling activity. Lower earnings realizations following the SEOs could lead to selling pressure around the earnings announcement dates. This could lead closing transaction prices to be disproportionately at bid prices relative to non-earnings announcement periods, thereby leading to a negative bias in measured returns. To address this possibility, we measure returns using bid prices rather than closing prices. For this analysis, we are restricted to the 516 NASDAQ NMS issuers for which we have bid and ask prices.10 Using bid-to-bid returns, we continue to find evidence of significant negative abnormal returns during post-SEO earnings announcement periods. Abnormal returns (measured relative to the matched control firm) average 0.45% (median = -0.34%) and are statistically significant at the 0.01 level. Finally, a criticism of our empirical approach is that, because it uses actual earnings announcement dates that are not necessarily available to investors in advance, it presents a misleading picture of the returns (pre-transactions costs) that could be earned by investors attempting to implement a trading strategy. To address this concern, we follow a procedure similar to that in LaPorta, Lakonishok, Shleifer, and Vishny (1997). Specifically, we first estimate the expected earnings announcement date as the calendar date of the earnings announcement for that quarter in the previous year. We then measure abnormal returns over the

10

For these firms, earnings announcement period abnormal returns average 0.50% (median = -0.41%).

15

period from four days prior to the expected earnings announcement date through one day following the actual announcement date. If a firms actual earnings announcement date is more than four days prior to the expected date, that firm is necessarily excluded from this analysis.11 Our results are similar using this trading strategy to those documented in table II. In the five years post-SEO period, announcement-period abnormal returns average 0.20% (median = -0.18%) and are statistically significant at the 0.01 level. These findings suggest that our earlier results are not driven by an ex post selection bias related to the use of actual earnings announcement dates. We also conduct a test of whether returns during earnings announcement periods account for a disproportionate share of the long-run underperformance of SEO issuers. If the poor longrun performance of SEO firms is due to a misspecification of the returns-generating process, we expect to observe negative abnormal returns during earnings announcement periods that are proportionate to the relative length of the announcement period. More specifically, since each quarter contains about 63 trading days, the three-day earnings announcement period should account for about 4.8% (3/63) of the total abnormal returns over the post-SEO period. To test whether this is the case, we compute the total buy-and-hold abnormal return associated with each firms post-SEO earnings announcements. We then compare the mean of this buy-and-hold abnormal return to the mean buy-and-hold abnormal return over the entire post-SEO period. We find that buy-and-hold abnormal returns over earnings announcement periods average 3.69%. This accounts for 12.2% of the five-year buy-and-hold abnormal returns, a percentage over 2.5 times higher than the 4.8% of trading days accounted for by the earnings announcement periods.

11

If firms systematically announce good earnings results early [see, for example, Chambers and Penman (1984) and

Kross and Schroeder (1984)], the excluded announcements will exhibit positive abnormal returns, on average. Nevertheless, the approach does represent an implementable strategy that should produce zero abnormal profits in an informationally efficient market.

16

We conclude, therefore, that stock returns during these periods account for a disproportionate fraction of the low long-run returns following SEOs. Our findings are thus broadly consistent with the hypothesis that investors overestimate the future earnings potential of SEO issuers. When subsequent poor earnings realizations are announced, investors update their expectations of future earnings and the issuing firms stock price adjusts accordingly. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that negative abnormal returns The

surrounding post-SEO earnings announcements are not a pervasive phenomenon.

percentage of firms exhibiting negative abnormal returns ranges between 53% and 55%, depending on the benchmark employed. This raises the possibility that negative post-SEO earnings announcement effects are limited to a particular subset of issuers, or to a particular time period. We explore these possibilities in the following two subsections.

C. Cross-sectional tests Spiess and Affleck-Graves (1995) find that poor post-SEO stock price performance is more severe in younger, smaller firms, having low book-to-market ratios.12 One plausible

interpretation of their findings is that there is greater uncertainty regarding the value of smaller, high-growth firms. These firms tend to operate in newer industries for which information is more scarce and tend to be followed (and owned) by fewer sophisticated investors. Consequently, they are more likely to be mispriced in the market. Moreover, higher trading costs and greater noise trader risk might make it less likely that any mispricing could be arbitraged by more sophisticated investors.

12

In unreported results, we confirm Spiess and Affleck-Graves (1995) finding that five-year post-SEO holding

period abnormal returns are lower for smaller firms. However, we do not find a systematic relation between marketto-book ratios and post-SEO long-run abnormal returns in our sample.

17

Rangan (1996) and Teoh, Welch, and Wong (1995) find that post-SEO abnormal returns are related to unexpected accounting accruals around the time of the offering. These authors interpret their findings as suggesting that firms use earnings management techniques to deliberately overstate pre-issue earnings and therefore manipulate their firms stock price.13 We provide further evidence on these conjectures by examining the cross-sectional distribution of post-issue earnings announcement effects. If the arguments of Spiess and AffleckGraves (1995), Rangan (1996), and Teoh et al. (1995) are correct, we expect to observe more severe negative announcement effects among smaller firms having high market-to-book ratios and high discretionary accounting accruals. Again, by examining quarterly earnings

announcements, our study can provide more direct and cleaner evidence on the above conjectures than can studies employing long-horizon stock returns. We divide the sample firms into quartiles on the basis of firm size, market-to-book ratio, and discretionary accruals. Within each quartile, we then report average and median three-day abnormal returns (both unadjusted and adjusted) for earnings announcements made over the five years following the equity offerings. We again average the three-day abnormal returns for each firm, then compute average and median abnormal returns across firms. Firm size is measured as the market value of the firms equity as of the fiscal year ending just prior to the offering. Market-to-book ratio is measured as the market value of equity plus the book value of total debt, all divided by the book value of total assets as of the fiscal year ending just prior to the offering. Discretionary working capital accruals are measured using the procedure described in the Appendix. The results are reported in table IV. From panel A, negative earnings announcement effects are concentrated among the smallest equity issuing firms. Unadjusted announcement period abnormal returns average

13

Shivakumar (1999) also finds a negative relation between pre-SEO discretionary accruals and post-SEO returns.

However, he attributes this result to inadequate controls for skewness bias in long-run returns measures.

18

0.83% in the quartile containing the smallest firms. This is significantly different from zero and from the average abnormal returns in the other quartiles. Over 60% of the firms in the lowest quartile exhibit negative announcement-period abnormal returns. Similarly, adjusted abnormal returns average -0.64% in the smallest quartile. Perhaps more strikingly, we find that the raw returns of firms in the smallest quartile average 0.35% (median = -0.20%) (results not reported in the table.) Both the mean and median raw return are significantly different from zero at the 0.10 level. Earnings announcement effects are statistically insignificant in the other three quartiles of firm size using both unadjusted and adjusted abnormal return measures. The fact that earnings announcement effects are larger in magnitude for smaller firms is consistent with the findings of previous studies [e.g. Atiase (1985) and Chari, Jagannathan, and Ofer (1988)]. However, our findings differ in that we find systematic negative announcement effects for this set of firms following an identifiable event. One possible explanation for the insignificant stock price reactions to earnings announcements in the three highest quartiles of firm size is that earnings announcements are uninformative for larger firms, perhaps because of greater information flow (e.g. management forecasts, analyst forecasts) in the pre-announcement period. However, contrary to this

explanation, Chari et al. (1988) document significant increases in the variability of stock returns surrounding earnings announcements. Although they find that the increase is greater for small firms than for large firms, they nonetheless document a 60% increase in squared standardized excess returns surrounding the earnings announcements of firms in the highest size decile of the Compustat universe. Thus, earnings announcements are informative even for the largest firms.14

14

In results not reported in the paper, we confirm the results of Chari et al. (1988) for our sample of equity issuers.

Specifically, we find that the variance of abnormal returns increases 116% during earnings announcement periods for firms in the smallest quartile of issuers and 62% for firms in the largest quartile. Thus, even among the larger firms in the sample, there is unusual stock price performance during the earnings announcement period.

19

Panel B of table IV reports abnormal returns for quartiles based on the firms market-tobook ratio. Unlike the case with firm size, earnings announcement period abnormal returns are not monotonically related to market-to-book ratios. Abnormal returns are significantly negative in quartiles 2 and 3, but statistically insignificant in the quartiles with the lowest and with the highest market-to-book ratios. These findings are inconsistent with the view that the market-tobook ratio is a proxy for the degreee of overvaluation at the time of the offering. Panel C reports abnormal returns by quartile of discretionary accounting accruals. Using unadjusted returns, we find significant negative abnormal returns associated with post-SEO earnings announcements in the quartile of firms with the highest pre-SEO discretionary accruals. However, even though average abnormal returns are statistically insignificant in the other three quartiles of discretionary accruals, the abnormal returns in the highest quartile are not significantly different from those in the other three quartiles. Thus, overall, there is only weak support for the earnings management hypothesis of Rangan (1998) and Teoh et al. (1998).15 We also estimate cross-sectional regressions in which the dependent variable is the issuing firms average abnormal stock price reaction to earnings announcements (both adjusted and unadjusted) in the five-year post-SEO period. The independent variables are the log of the issuers market value of equity, the issuers ratio of market value to book value of total capital, and our measure of pre-SEO discretionary accruals. In some regressions, we also include the

15

It is worth pointing out that within the quartiles examined in panels A-C of table IV, earnings announcements still

account for a disproportionate share of the long-run returns. For example, in the highest quartile of discretionary accruals, abnormal returns during earnings announcement periods account for over 15% of the total long-run returns earned by these firms over the five years following the SEO. Thus, the result that the earnings announcement effects mirror the long-run returns is not driven by a common benchmark problem. Rather, the long-run underperformance of the SEO firms appears to be due in part to disappointing earnings realizations for some firms.

20

average earnings surprise, where the earnings surprise in quarter t is measured as the difference between net income before extraordinary items in quarter t and net income before extraordinary items in quarter t-4, scaled by the market value of the issuers equity as of the fiscal year ending just prior to the equity offering. To control for the influence of outliers, all independent variables are winsorized at the 5th and 95th percentile levels.16 The results are reported in table V. Consistent with our univariate findings from table IV, model (1) of table 5 indicates that post-SEO earnings announcement period abnormal returns are significantly related to firm size, but are not significantly related to the issuers book-to-market ratio or to discretionary accruals. In model (2) we control for the magnitude of the quarterly earnings change. In addition, we control for possible period specific effects by including a set of dummy variables denoting the calendar year of the SEO. For the sake of brevity, these coefficients are not reported in the table. Our findings are robust to the inclusion of these additional control variables.

Because our findings in table III suggest that investors are not systematically disappointed by earnings realizations beyond year 2, we have also conducted the cross-sectional tests using abnormal returns from only the first two years following the SEO. Our results from the analysis of this subsample (not reported in a table) are qualitatively very similar to those reported in table IV. Specifically, (i) unadjusted and adjusted abnormal returns are significantly negative for the quartile containing the smallest issuers;17 (ii) abnormal returns are unrelated to market-to-book ratios; and (iii) both unadjusted and adjusted abormal returns are significantly negative in the quartile with the highest pre-SEO discretionary accruals.

16

Our results are qualitatively similar if we use data that is not winsorized.

17

One difference in results is that unadjusted abnormal returns are also significant in the second quartile. However,

adjusted abnormal returns are not statistically significant in this quartile.

21

Collectively, therefore, our findings in this section suggest that abnormal returns surrounding post-SEO earnings announcements tend to be confined to the smallest equity issuers. At the time of the SEO, the market appears to be overly optimistic about the future earnings prospects of these firms, and remains overly optimistic at least through two years following the SEO. However, there is little evidence that this overoptimism extends beyond small firms.

D. Time-series tests A specific form of the overoptimism hypothesis states that managers time offerings for periods in which their firms are overvalued. Loughran and Ritter (1997) refer to this as the windows of opportunity hypothesis. According to this framework, there is time-series variation in the volume of SEOs that is driven by time-series variation in the overvaluation of firms. Issuing activity is low during years in which there is little overvaluation. In contrast, when there are a large number of overvalued firms, issuing activity is high and SEOs are followed by disappointing earnings realizations. We provide evidence on the windows of opportunity hypothesis by testing for time-series variation in post-SEO earnings announcement effects. Specifically, we augment our regression models from table V with a dummy variable equal to one if the month of the SEO has a greater than median volume of SEOs and zero otherwise. Under the windows of opportunity hypothesis, we expect that abnormal returns surrounding post-SEO earnings announcements will be lowest for offerings completed in those months with the greatest volume of offerings. The results, reported in model (3) of table V, reveal no evidence of an association between earnings announcement effects and the frequency of seasoned equity issues. The

coefficient on the volume dummy is negative, but is not statistically significant. This finding holds whether or not we incluse the calendar year dummy variables in the regression model. The findings in model (3) of table V are thus inconsistent with a framework in which SEOs are systematically timed for periods in which the market overestimates future earnings. This, of course, does not preclude the possibility that managers of individual firms time offerings
22

to take advantage of investor optimism. However, it does suggest that if such timing takes place, it is firm-specific in nature, rather than market-wide.

IV. Discussion and Relation to Other Studies The apparent long-run underperformance of seasoned equity issuers has been the subject of several other studies. These studies have attempted to enhance our understanding of the SEO anomaly (i) by more precisely measuring long-horizon abnormal stock returns, (ii) by examining the behavior of security analysts, and (iii) by examining post-SEO earnings realizations. In this section, we briefly review these alternative approaches and discuss how our findings relate to the findings of these other studies.

A. Studies of long-horizon returns Following the original studies of Loughran and Ritter (1995) and Spiess and AffleckGraves (1995), several studies have examined the robustness of long-horizon returns to different methods of estimating expected returns. Brav, Geczy, and Gompers (2000), Eckbo, Masulis, and Norli (2000), Jegadeesh (1998), and Mitchell and Stafford (2000) all show that the magnitude (and, perhaps, the existence) of SEO issuer long-run underperformance is sensitive to the manner in which expected returns are measured. Specifically, issuer underperformance is significantly attenuated by value-weighting issuer portfolios, by using multi-factor time-series regressions, and by using time-varying multifactor expected return benchmarks. The main criticism of the above studies is that they are subject to what Fama (1998) refers to as the bad model problem. Tests of post-event long-horizon returns are necessarily joint tests of market efficiency and the model used to describe expected returns. Most of the multi-factor models employed in tests of long-run returns are ad-hoc empirical models, rather than equilibrium asset pricing models. As Loughran and Ritter (1999) point out, some of the factors that are correlated with returns may themselves be proxy variables for misvaluation,

23

rather than risk factors. Consequently, multi-factor models have low power to detect abnormal performance. Our approach of studying short-horizon returns surrounding earnings announcements sidesteps most of these problems. Because expected daily returns are close to zero, the model used to estimate expected returns has a small impact on inferences about abnormal stock price performance. Interestingly, however, our finding that abnormal returns surrounding post-SEO earnings announcements are limited to smaller issuers corresponds closely with the findings of the recent studies of long-horizon returns cited above. Brav et al (2000) find that the long-run underperformance of seasoned equity issuers is confined to the smallest tercile of issuing firms. Based on Brav et als table 2, the smallest tercile of SEO firms are all in the smallest quintile of firm size among NYSE firms. In our sample, underperformance is confined to the smallest quartile of equity issuers. All of these firms would be in the smallest quartile of firm size among NYSE firms at the time of the issue. Hence, our study essentially isolates underperformance among the same set of firms as do Brav et al. (2000).18 In summarizing the SEO anomaly literature, Fama (1998) concludes if there is an IPO-SEO anomaly, it seems to be largely restricted to tiny firms. Our findings on post-SEO earnings announcements provide additional support for this conclusion.

B. The behavior of security analysts

18

Brav et al. (2000) also show that the returns of SEO firms covary with those of non-issuers in the smallest quintiles

of firm size and book-to-market ratio. They thus question whether the performance of SEO issuers are unique. In our sample, raw returns of the control firms in the quartile containing the smallest issuers are positive and are larger in magnitude than the raw returns of the control firms in the quartile with the largest issuers. This suggests that the poor returns of the small firms in our sample are unique to equity issuers.

24

A second set of studies attempts to gauge whether the market is overly optimistic about the future earnings potential of equity issuers by examining the behavior of security analysts. Under the assumption that analyst earnings forecasts are a good measure of market expectations, evidence that analysts overestimate the future earnings of equity issuers would be consistent with the subsequent below-normal stock price performance of these firms. Recent evidence in Dechow, Hutton, and Sloan (1998) and Teoh and Wong (1998) supports the view that analysts are overoptimistic about the earnings prospects of seasoned equity issuers.19 One problem with using analyst forecasts, however, is that analyst forecasts are known to be biased, on average. Hence, studies must attempt to adjust for this normal bias when measuring pre-SEO biases in expectations. Indeed, Hansen and Sarin (1998) argue that analyst overoptimism prior to SEOs is not unique to equity issuers. Rather it is characteristic of other similar non-issuing firms. A second problem with using analyst forecast data is that forecasts are not continuously updated. Hence evidence of analyst overoptimism might simply reflect the reluctance of analysts to update earnings estimates negatively. By examining abnormal returns surrounding post-SEO earnings announcements, we provide more direct evidence on the extent to which the market is surprised by subsequent earnings realizations than is possible using analyst forecast data. The stock price reaction to the earnings anouncement provides a clean measure of the manner in which investors update their estimate of current and future earnings based on the quarterly earnings realization. Our finding of a negative stock price reaction to post-SEO quarterly earnings announcements, on average, is consistent with the conclusion in Dechow et al. (1998) and Teoh and Wong (1998) that analysts are overly optimistic about the earnings prospects of equity issuers. Moreover, our finding that

19

Similarly, Rajan and Servaes (1997) report evidence consistent with the view that analysts are overoptimistic about

the earnings potential of firms conducting initial public offerings.

25

negative earnings annoucement effects are limited to smaller firms is consistent with Teoh and Wongs (1998) finding that analyst overoptimism is negatively related to firm size.

C. Other studies of earnings announcements Recent studies by Rangan (1998), Cornett, Mehran, and Tehranian (1998), Jegadeesh (1998), Shivakumar (1999), and Brous, Datar, and Kini (1998) also examine stock price reactions to post-SEO earnings announcements. Consistent with our overall findings, Rangan (1998), Cornett, Mehran, and Tehranian (1998), and Jegadeesh (1998) all report evidence of significant negative stock price reactions to post-SEO earnings announcements. Our study

extends the findings of these studies by examining a more comprehensive sample, by examining the cross-sectional distribution of earnings announcement effects, and by linking the patterns in earnings announcement effects with patterns in actual earnings realizations.20 Brous, Datar, and Kini (1998) study a large sample of SEOs and find results similar to ours using control firms matched by size and market-to-book ratio. However, they argue that if long-run benchmark-adjusted returns are negative, expected benchmark-adjusted returns over the earnings announcement period will also be negative. To adjust for this possible bias, they

20

Rangan (1998) studies a sample of only 230 SEOs between 1987 and 1990, and examines post-SEO earnings

announcements only for the period from three through six quarters following the SEO. Similarly, Shivakumar (1999), whose study focuses primarily on the relation between discretionary accruals and long-run stock price performance, examines the stock price reaction to post-SEO earnings announcements only for the first seven quarters following the SEO. Cornett, Mehran, and Tehranians (1998) study compares the earnings announcement effects of voluntary and involuntary stock issues of commercial banks. Thus, the sample includes only 70 voluntary SEOs made by firms from a single, regulated industry. Jegadeesh (1998) studies a large sample like ours, but focuses his analysis primarily on the measurement of long-horizon abnormal stock price performance. Hence, he does not explore the cross-sectional distribution of post-SEO earnings announcement effects.

26

compute the difference between the three-day abnormal return during the earnings announcement period and the average three-day abnormal return during the rest of that same quarter. After adjusting abnormal returns in this manner, Brous et al. find that post-SEO abnormal returns are no longer statistically significant. Thus, they conclude that the long-run underperformance of seasoned equity issuers is not explained by the post-issue correction of prior optimistic expectations of future earnings. One problem with this adjustment is that it is likely that a portion of the earnings information will be partially impounded into stock prices during the non-earnings announcement periods of that same quarter. For example, firms frequently pre-announce bad news related to upcoming earnings announcements.21 Consequently, if the long-run underperformance of SEO isuers is concentrated during quarters with poor earnings realizations, the performance adjustment method advocated by Brous et al. (1998) will fail to detect this fact. Using the performance-adjustment approach of Brous et al (1998), we continue to find evidence of significant abnormal performance during the earnings announcement period. Performance-adjusted abnormal returns average 0.24% and are significant at the 0.09 level. However, median abnormal returns are only 0.08% and are not statistically significant. Both mean and median abnormal returns are statistically significant at the 0.02 level within the quartile of the smallest equity issuers. There are at least three other reasons why we do not believe that our results can be explained by a benchmarking problem. First, and perhaps most importantly, we find that raw

21

Many studies, beginning with Ball and Brown (1968), have shown that a large proportion of the information

revealed in earnings reports is capitalized in security prices prior to the earnings report date. In addition, Skinner (1994) finds that early quarterly disclosures of earnings convey a significant amount of information, and that 67% of all such disclosures convey bad news. Moreover, he finds that the total return over all earnings-related

announcements is larger for firms with bad news than for firms with good news. He concludes that a large proportion of earnings-related voluntary disclosures are designed to preempt bad quarterly earnings news.

27

returns are, on average, negative (significantly so for small firms) during the three-day earnings announcement period. This cannot be explained as a benchmarking problem. Second, recall that abnormal returns during the earnings announcement period in our sample are more than 2.5 times the magnitude of abnormal returns during the non-announcement periods. This suggests that an unusual amount of negative information is released on the post-SEO earnings announcement dates. Finally, using our own adjusted abnormal returns measure that corrects for the general pattern of negative abnormal returns in the post-SEO period, we find evidence of negative stock price reactions to earnings announcements. We thus conclude that the evidence supports the hypothesis that an unusual amount of negative information is released during earnings announcement periods.

V. Summary and Implications Our study contributes to the growing literature that documents long-horizon abnormal performance following corporate events. The empirical regularities documented in this literature have been difficult to interpret because it is hard to know whether existing results are due to the temporary mispricing of securities or to the misspecification of models of expected returns. Because our approach focuses on short-run returns surrounding earnings announcements, it is largely free of the model specification problems that are inherent in long-run return tests. Moreover, our approach allows us to directly test the specific hypothesis that investors overestimate the future earnings of firms making seasoned equity offerings. Our overall findings provide support for this hypothesis in that we document significant negative abnormal returns in the three-day window centered on earnings announcements in the five-year period following the sample SEOs. However, abnormal returns are reliably negative only within the smallest quartile of equity issuers. For small firms, therefore, our findings are broadly consistent with the overoptimism hypothesis. Why investors are overoptimistic, however, remains an open issue. Recent models by Barberis, Shleifer, and Vishny (1998), Daniel, Hirshleifer, and Titman (1998), and Hong and
28

Stein (1999) attempt to explain market underreaction and overreaction to information by appealing to behavioral biases documented in the cognitive psychology literature. The fact that all three models are broadly consistent with the stock returns patterns surrounding equity offerings is perhaps not surprising since, as Fama (1998) points out, the models were constructed partially in response to observed empirical phenomena. What is less clear is how (if at all) our specific findings on post-SEO earnings surprises can be used to test and/or distinguish between the three models. Even if some investors are subject to behavioral biases of the type described in the models above, there must be some costs that preclude apparent market inefficiencies from being arbitraged by the smart money. These include the costs of collecting information, the costs of transacting, and the risks of taking an arbitrage position. All of these costs are arguably greater for small firms than for large firms. Smaller firms tend to have lower analyst following, higher bid-ask spreads, and greater stock market volatility. Moreover, small firms tend to be held by individual investors who are perhaps more likely than institutional investors to be subject to behavioral biases. Thus, if behavioral biases are to produce anomalous stock price performance, one would expect that they would do so among smaller firms. Among larger firms, greater information flow and lower transactions costs make it more likely that mispricings would be arbitraged away. Our findings are consistent with this conjecture. The anomalous returns following SEOs and other corporate events have led some to question the fundamental paradigm of market efficiency and, therefore, the validity of using announcement period returns as estimates of the stockholder wealth effects of corporate decisions. The fact that the SEO anomaly appears to be limited to very small firms22 suggests caution in drawing such an inference. It would appear that, for most firms issuing seasoned

22

Brav et al. (2000) show that equity issuers, in general, are disproportionately represented among smaller firms.

For example, 40% of their sample SEOs are in the smallest quintile of firm size. Our findings suggest that overoptimism about future earnings is limited to the smallest of equity issuers.

29

common stock, the traditional presumption of rational pricing in securities markets is a good one. We are reluctant, therefore, to conclude from our evidence that the cost of equity capital for the typical firm issuing equity is substantially lower than that implied by equilibrium asset pricing models such as the capital asset pricing model (CAPM).

30

References Atiase, R. Predisclosure Information, Firm Capitalization, and Security Price Behavior Around Earnings Announcements. Journal of Accounting Research, 23 (1985), 21-36. Ball, R. and P. Brown. An Empirical Evaluation of Accounting Income Numbers. Journal of Accounting Research, 6 (1968), 159-178. Barber, B.M. and J.D. Lyon. Detecting Long-Run Abnormal Stock Returns: The Empirical Power and Specification of Test Statistics. Journal of Financial Economics, 43 (1997), 341-372. Barber, B.M. and J.D. Lyon. Improved Methods For Tests of Long-run Abnormal Stock Returns, Journal of Finance, (1999) forthcoming. Barberis, N. A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny. A Model of Investor Sentiment. Journal of Financial Economics, 49 (1998), 307-343. Bernard, V.L. and J.K. Thomas. Post-earnings-announcement Drift: Delayed Price Response or Risk Premium? Journal of Accounting Research, Suppl. 27 (1989), 1-36. Bernard, V.L. and J.K. Thomas. Evidence That Stock Prices Do Not Fully Reflect the Implications of Current Earnings for Future Earnings. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 13 (1990), 305-340. Brav, A., C. Geczy, and P.A. Gompers. Is the Abnromal Return Following Equity Issuances Anomalous? Journal of Financial Economics, 56 (2000), 209-250. Brous, P.A., V. Datar, and O. Kini. Is the Market Optimistic About the Future Earnings of Seasoned Equity Offering Firms? Working Paper, Georgia State University (1998). Chambers, A.E. and S.H. Penman. Timeliness of Reporting and the Stock Price Reaction to Earnings Announcements. Journal of Accounting Research, 22 (1984), 21-47. Chari, V.V., R. Jagannathan, and A.R. Ofer. Seasonalities in Security Returns: The Case of Earnings Announcements. Journal of Financial Economics, 21 (1988), 101-121.

31

Chopra, N., J. Lakonishok, and J.R. Ritter. Measuring Abnormal Performance: Do Stocks Overreact? Journal of Financial Economics, 31 (1992), 235-268. Cornettt, M.M., H. Mehran, and H. Tehranian. Are Financial Markets Overly Optimistic About the Prospects of Firms that Issue Equity? Evidence From Voluntary Versus Involuntary Equity Issuances by Banks. Journal of Finance, 53 (1998), 2139-2160. Daniel, K., D. Hirshleifer, and A. Subramanyam. Investor Psychology and Security Market Under- and Overreaction. Journal of Finance, 53 (1998), 1839-1886. Dechow, P.M., A.P. Hutton, and R.G. Sloan. The Relation Between Analysts Forecasts of Long Term Earnings Growth and Stock Price Performance Following Equity Offerings. Working Paper, University of Michigan (1998). Eckbo, E.B., R.W. Masulis, and O. Norli. Seasoned Public Offerings: Resolution of the New Issues Puzzle. Journal of Financial Economics, 56 (2000), 251-292. Fama, E.F. Market Efficiency, Long-term Returns, and Behavioral Finance. Journal of Financial Economics, 49 (1998), 283-306. Hansen, R.S. and C. Crutchley. Corporate Earnings and Financings: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Business, 63 (1990), 347-371. Hansen, R.S. and A. Sarin. Are Analysts Overoptimistic Around Seasoned Equity Offerings? Working Paper, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (1998). Hong, H. and J.C. Stein. A Unified Theory of Underreaction, Momentum Trading, and Overreaction in Asset Markets. Journal of Finance, forthcoming. Jegadeesh, N. Long-run Performance of Seasoned Equity Offerings: Benchmark Errors and Biases in Expectations. Working Paper, University of Illinois (1998). Jeter, D.C. and L. Shivakumar. Cross-sectional Estimation of Abnormal Accurals Using Quarterly and Annual Data: Effectiveness in Detecting Event-specific Earnings Management. Accounting and Business Research, 29 (1999), 299-319. Kahle, K. Insider Trading and the Long-run Performance of New Security Issues. Journal of Corporate Finance, 6 (2000), 25-53.
32

Kang, J., Y. Kim, and R.M. Stulz. The Underreaction Hypothesis and the New Issue Puzzle: Evidence from Japan, Review of Financial Studies, forthcoming (1999). Korajczyk, RA., D.J. Lucas, and R.L. McDonald. The Effect of Information Releases on the Pricing and Timing of Equity Issues. Review of Financial Studies, 4 (1991), 685-708. Kothari, S.P. and J.B. Warner. Measuring Long-Horizon Security Price Performance. Journal of Financial Economics, 43 (1997), 301-340. Kross, W. and D.A. Schroeder. An Empirical Investigation of the Effect of Quarterly Earnings Announcement Timing on Stock Returns. Journal of Accounting Research, 22 (1984), 153-176. LaPorta, R. Expectations and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns. Journal of Finance, 51 (1996), 1715-1742. LaPorta, R., J. Lakonishok, A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny. Good News for Value Stocks: Further Evidence on Market Efficiency. Journal of Finance, 52 (1997), 859-870. Lee, I. Do Managers Knowingly Sell Overvalued Equity? Journal of Finance, 52 (1997), 14391466. Loughran, T. and J.R. Ritter. The New Issues Puzzle. Journal of Finance, 50 (1995), 23-52. Loughran, T. and J.R. Ritter. The Operating Performance of Firms Conducting Seasoned Equity Offerings. Journal of Finance, 52 (1997), 1823-1850. Loughran, T. and J.R. Ritter. Uniformly Least Powerful Tests of Market Efficiency. Journal of Financial Economics, forthcoming (1999). McLaughlin, R., A. Safieddine, and G. Vasudevan. The Operating Performance of Seasoned Equity Issuers: Free cash flow, and Post-issue Performance. Financial Management, 25:4 (1996), 41-53. Mitchell, M.L. and E. Stafford. Managerial Decisions and Long-term Stock Price Performance. Journal of Business, forthcoming (2000). Rajan, R. and H. Servaes. Analyst Following of Initial Public Offerings. Journal of Finance, 52 (1997), 507-529.
33

Rangan, S. Earnings Management and the Performance of Seasoned Equity Offerings. Journal of Financial Economics, 50 (1998), 101-122. Shivakumar, L. Do Firms Mislead Investors by Overstating Earnings Before Seasoned Equity Offerings? Working paper, London Business School (1999). Skinner, D.J. Why Firms Voluntarily Disclose Bad News. Journal of Accounting Research, 32 (1994), 38-60. Spiess, D.K. and J. Affleck-Graves. Underperformance in Long-Run Stock Returns Following Seasoned Equity Offerings. Journal of Financial Economics, 38 (1995), 243-268. Teoh, S., I. Welch, and T.J. Wong. Earnings Management and the Underperformance of Seasoned Equity Offerings. Journal of Financial Economics, 50 (1998), 63-99. Teoh, S. and T.J. Wong. Analysts Credulity About Reported Earnings and the Overoptimism in New Equity Issues. Review of Financial Studies, forthcoming (1998).

34

Appendix Calculating Discretionary Accruals Current accruals are reflected on the balance sheet as increases or decreases in current asset and current liability accounts. These accruals can be decomposed into discretionary and nondiscretionary accruals. Nondiscretionary accruals refer to those accruals that reflect actual changes in underlying business conditions. Discretionary accruals are those accruals that reflect managerial discretion. We estimate nondiscretionary accruals (ac) using a procedure similar to that of Jeter and Shivakumar (1999). Specifically, for each issuer i, in each quarter q, we estimate the following regression using all Compustat firms (excluding equity issuers) having the same 2-digit SIC code as the issuer, that have enough quarterly data and for which there are at least 20 firms in the estimation sample. All variables are from Quarterly Compustat. aciq = 0 + 1reviq + 2gppeiq +

k =1

kdkcfoiq + eiq

Where denotes change from the prior quarter and the data items are defined as follows (Compustat item numbers in parentheses). All data items are scaled by the book value of total assets as of the end of the prior quarter. ac = [receivables (#37) + inventory (#38) + other current assets (#39) - accounts payable(#96) - income tax payable (#47) + other current liabilities (#48)] - depreciation (#5)

rev = [revenues (#2) - receivables (#37)] gppe = cfo dk = quarter ending gross property plant and equipment (#41 + #42) quarterly cash flow (earnings before extraordinary items (#8))

= 1 if cfo is in the kth quintile.

Discretionary accruals are then defined as the difference between actual accruals and expected nondiscretionary accruals. Jeter and Shivakumar (1999) demonstrate that this method is more effective in detecting earnings management than other cross-sectional adaptations of the Jones (1991) model. Our measure of discretionary accruals at the time of the equity offering is the average of discretionary accruals over the eight quarters prior to the SEO.

35

3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Quarter Relative to SEO Change in earnings Abnormal return Adjusted Abnormal Return

Figure 1 Average earnings changes and average stock price reactions to quarterly earnings announcements in the two years prior and the five years following the sample equity offerings. Earnings are measured as net income before extraordinary items and discontinued operations (Compustat #8). Changes in earnings are then expressed as a percentage of the market value of the firms equity as of the fiscal year ending just prior to the equity offering. Abnormal returns (ARs) are measured as the difference between the return of the sample firm and that of a firm matched on industry, size, and book-to-market ratio. Adjusted ARs are computed as the difference between the AR during the earnings announcement period and the average three-day AR during all non-earnings announcement periond in the five years following the equity offering. Abnormal returns are measured over the three-day period centered on the date of the quarterly earnings announcement. The sample consists of 1,213 seasoned equity offerings completed between 1982 and 1990.

Table I
Time Profile and Descriptive Statistics Time profile and descriptive statistics for the sample of 1,213 seasoned equity offerings completed between 1982 and 1990. The offerings and their characteristics are obtained from Securities Data Corporations New Issues database, while the issuers exchange listing is obtained from CRSP. Abnormal stock returns are measured as the buy-and-hold return of the equity issuing firm minus that of a non-issuer matched on firm size and market-to-book ratio. Quarterly earnings are measured as net income before extraordinary items and discontinued operations (Compustat #8). Changes in quarterly earnings in each quarter t are then measured as the difference between earnings in quarter t and earnings in quarter t-4, expressed as a percentage of the market value of the firms equity as of the fiscal year ending just prior to the equity offering. Average quarterly earnings changes are reported for the eight quarters preceding and the twenty quarters following the quarter of the seasoned equity offering (quarter 0).

Offerings By Year Year 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Total Offerings By Exchange Listing Exchange NYSE AMEX NASDAQ Offering Characteristics Characteristic Shares sold/shares outstanding Fraction of offerings with secondary shares Primary shares/Total shares offereda Long-horizon Abnormal Stock Returns Measurement interval Two years prior to offer Five years after offer Earnings Changes Measurement interval Two years prior to offer Five years after offer

Number 71 312 55 142 196 162 63 118 94 1,213

% of sample 5.8% 25.7% 4.5% 11.7% 16.2% 13.4% 5.2% 9.7% 7.7% 100.0%

Number 547 139 527

% of sample 45.1% 11.5% 43.4%

Mean 0.164 0.277 0.687

Median 0.137 N.A. 0.733

Mean 68.14% -30.34%

% negative 32.65% 61.60%

Mean 0.98% -0.87%

% negative 27.39% 47.82%

Includes only those offerings containing a secondary component.

Table II Abnormal Returns Surrounding Quarterly Earnings Announcements

Average three-day abnormal returns surrounding quarterly earnings announcements. Abnormal returns are measured as (1) the difference between the return of the sample firm and the return on the matched control firm; and (2) the difference between the three-day abnormal return during the earnings announcement period and the average three-day abnormal return during all of the non-earnings-announcement periods in the five-year post-SEO period. We refer to this measure as the adjusted abnormal return. We report average quarterly abnormal returns by quarter relative to the SEO, as well as for the two years preceding and the five years following the sample equity offerings. The sample consists of 1,213 seasoned equity offerings completed between 1982 and 1990. P-values denote the significance of the abnormal returns based on a standard t-test for means.

Quarter relative to SEO -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Pre-SEO Post-SEO

Number of firms 618 661 685 759 809 875 954 975 1186 1109 1109 1108 1091 1072 1065 1056 1055 1045 1045 1026 1022 1005 990 978 965 948 936 914 898 1079 1203

Average returns in excess of matching firms 0.47% 0.07% 0.17% 0.19% 0.80% 1.20% 1.44% 0.66% 0.16% -0.46% -0.32% 0.02% -0.23% -0.83% -0.43% -0.06% -0.52% 0.01% -0.22% -0.35% -0.25% -0.42% -0.22% 0.08% -0.29% -0.29% -0.10% -0.44% -0.43% 0.72% -0.28%

p-value 0.138 0.796 0.542 0.483 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.485 0.097 0.225 0.942 0.407 0.002 0.128 0.818 0.050 0.969 0.420 0.223 0.490 0.199 0.466 0.789 0.369 0.407 0.749 0.193 0.168 0.000 0.002

Percentage of firms with positive abnormal returns 53.56 49.77 49.34 49.80 53.58 55.31 56.55 51.64 52.32 47.43 48.20 50.32 47.98 45.34 46.71 46.16 47.16 46.84 47.41 47.81 46.72 46.02 48.89 48.88 46.84 47.10 48.29 49.02 47.22 59.41 45.55

Average adjusted abnormal returns 0.13% -0.24% -0.14% -0.12% 0.49% 0.84% 0.99% 0.25% 0.28% -0.37% -0.19% 0.13% -0.14% -0.73% -0.31% 0.04% -0.40% 0.10% -0.12% -0.25% -0.13% -0.30% -0.10% 0.18% -0.18% -0.17% -0.00% -0.32% -0.34% 0.47% -0.21%

p-value 0.668 0.352 0.603 0.649 0.047 0.001 0.000 0.244 0.202 0.174 0.447 0.614 0.611 0.006 0.256 0.875 0.122 0.703 0.645 0.370 0.721 0.350 0.738 0.556 0.560 0.607 0.998 0.326 0.268 0.000 0.002

Percentage of firms with positive adjusted returns 53.57 49.92 49.49 49.87 53.59 55.28 56.46 51.70 52.37 47.43 48.28 50.32 47.98 45.38 46.76 46.16 47.16 46.84 47.42 47.81 46.72 46.02 48.89 48.88 46.84 47.10 48.29 49.02 47.22 59.04 46.30

Table III Ordinary least squares regressions of the abnormal returns in the three days centered on quarterly earnings announcement dates on the standaridized earnings change and a set of five dummy variables denoting the year of the earnings announcement relative to the year of the SEO. Changes in quarterly earnings in each quarter t are measured as the difference between earnings (defined as net income before extraordinary items) in quarter t and earnings in quarter t-4, expressed as a percentage of the market value of the firms equity as of the fiscal year ending just prior to the equity offering. The sample consists of 1,213 seasoned equity offerings completed between 1982 and 1990. Coefficient estimates are reported with t-statistics in parentheses below. Dependent Variable Unadjusted AR earnings 0.011 (2.29) 0.007 (1.38) Dyear +1 -0.247 (-1.76) -0.140 (-1.02) Dyear +2 -0.449 (-3.13) -0.345 (-2.46) Dyear +3 -0.190 (-1.31) -0.093 (-0.65) Dyear +4 -0.203 (-1.36) -0.096 (-0.66) Dyear +5 -0.307 (-2.00) -0.204 (-1.35) Adj. R2 0.001

Adjusted AR

0.001

Table IV
Abnormal returns in the three days centered on quarterly earnings announcement dates for the five years after the offer by market value of equity, market-to-book ratio, and the average level of discretionary accruals. Market value of equity and market-to-book ratio are measured as of the fiscal year-end just prior to the equity offering. Discretionary accruals are measured as described in the appendix, and are averaged over the two years preceding the offering. The sample consists of 1,213 seasoned equity offerings completed between 1982 and 1990. P-values are reported in parentheses below the mean, median and fraction positive. a indicates that the abnormal return in the highest quartile is significantly different (at the 0.05 level) from the abnormal return in lowest quartile. Percentage of Median firms with Mean Percentage of returns in positive returns in Mean Median firms with excess of adjusted excess of adjusted adjusted positive matching abnormal matching abnormal abnormal returns firms returns firms returns returns Panel A: Quartile by Market Value of Equity Lowest Quartile -0.83% -0.61% 39.35 -0.64% -0.51% 39.68 (0.001) (0.000) (0.001) (0.001) 2 -0.19% (0.264) -0.04% (0.753) -0.19% (0.283) -0.09% (0.690) 47.37 -0.15% (0.259) -0.01% (0.924) -0.03%a (0.707) -0.12% (0.350) -0.39% (0.018) -0.25% (0.055) -0.09% (0.479) -0.10% (0.507) -0.14% (0.157) -0.17% (0.185) -0.41% (0.057) -0.13% (0.319) -0.01% (0.860) -0.02%a (0.862) -0.12% (0.237) -0.24% (0.010) -0.22% (0.051) 0.01% (0.921) -0.19% (0.415) -0.05% (0.323) -0.23% (0.261) -0.21% (0.018) 47.70

46.97

49.66

Highest -0.04%a -0.07%a Quartile (0.665) (0.820) Panel B: Quartile by Market-to-Book Ratio Lowest Quartile -0.15% -0.13% (0.387) (0.232) 2 -0.50% (0.014) -0.35% (0.034) -0.35% (0.006) -0.41% (0.023)

48.80

48.45

45.92

47.28

42.35

42.67

42.95

44.30

Highest -0.12% 0.07% 50.99 Quartile (0.462) (0.949) Panel C: Quartile by Average Discretionary Accruals Lowest Quartile -0.14% -0.29% 44.54 (0.452) (0.369) 2 -0.19% (0.154) -0.21% (0.213) -0.54% (0.043) -0.12% (0.277) -0.29% (0.277) -0.35% (0.009) 47.48

50.99

46.22

47.48

45.53

44.68

Highest Quartile

44.21

43.80

Table V Regression Results

Ordinary least squares regressions of abnormal returns (AR) in the three days surrounding post-SEO quarterly earnings announcements on the log of the market value of the issuers equity, the log of the issuers ratio of book value to market value, pre-SEO discretionary accruals, the standardized change in earnings, a set of dummy variables denoting the calendar year of the SEO (not reported), and a dummy variable denoting months with above-median SEO volume. Market value of equity and book-to-market ratio are measured as of the fiscal year-end just prior to the equity offering. Discretionary accruals are measured as described in the appendix, and are averaged over the two years preceding the offering. Changes in quarterly earnings in each quarter t are measured as the difference between earnings (defined as net income before extraordinary items) in quarter t and earnings in quarter t-4, expressed as a percentage of the market value of the firms equity as of the fiscal year ending just prior to the equity offering. The calendar year dummies are included in models (2) and (3) only. The sample consists of 1,213 seasoned equity offerings completed between 1982 and 1990. Coefficient estimates are reported with t-statistics in parentheses below. Independent Dependent variable: Unadjusted AR Dependent variable: Adjusted AR Variable (1) (2) (3) (1) (2) (3) Intercept -1.01 -0.90 -0.88 -0.50 -0.41 -0.38 (-3.01) (-1.72) (-1.67) (-2.57) (-1.35) (-1.25) Log (equity) 0.19 (2.83) 0.06 (0.46) -0.46 (-0.82) 0.18 (2.68) 0.06 (0.47) -0.55 (-0.98) 0.09 (3.55) 0.18 (2.72) 0.06 (0.46) -0.56 (-1.00) 0.09 (3.53) -0.14 (-0.54) 0.09 (2.22) 0.02 (0.25) -0.07 (-0.20) 0.08 (2.00) 0.02 (0.24) -0.15 (-0.45) 0.05 (3.56) 0.08 (2.11) 0.02 (0.22) -0.16 (-0.48) 0.05 (3.52) -0.17 (-1.12)

Log(B/M)

Accruals earnings

Volume dummy

____________________________________________________________________________________________

41