Electronic Markets

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 255–266 | Cite as

The IPO window of opportunity for digital product and service firms

  • Richard B. Carter
  • Troy J. Strader
  • Frederick H. Dark
Special Theme


Recognizing the window of opportunity to go public for digital product and service (DPS) firms is especially critical because they have high fixed-to-variable cost (FCVC) ratios and winner-take-all industry competition. Too early and their very risky nature means a steep discount to their stock. Too late and they may not be able to sell stock or it may be too late to take advantage of a new product or service. We find that the size of the run-up in stock price at the IPO is higher (lower) for DPS firms the earlier (later) they go public and significantly more than for traditional firms. We also find that the DPS firms that go public earlier or later outside the window of opportunity are more likely to fail. This result is also stronger for DPS firms than for traditional firms.


Digital product Digital service Digital technology Financing strategy Initial public offering IPO timing 

JEL classification

G24 – Investment Banking  


  1. Adams, R. (2011). Myspace cuts 47% of workforce. The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703791904576075892399066126.html. Accessed 21 July 2011.
  2. Bakos, J. Y. (1991). A strategic analysis of electronic marketplaces. MIS Quarterly, 15(3), 294–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beal, D. (2005). SAS code to select the best multiple linear regression model for multivariable data using information criteria. Science Applications International Corporation, SA01_05.Google Scholar
  4. Beatty, R. P., & Ritter, J. (1986). Investment banking, reputation and underpricing of initial public offerings. Journal of Financial Economics, 15(1–2), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Busaba, W., Benveniste, L., & Guo, R. (2001). The option to withdraw IPOs during the premarket: Empirical analysis. Journal of Financial Economics, 61, 477–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, J., Lettaqu, M., Malkiel, B., & Xu, Y. (2001). Have individual stocks become more volatile? An empirical exploration of idiosyncratic risk. Journal of Finance, 56, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter, R., & Manaster, S. (1990). Initial public offerings and underwriter reputation. Journal of Finance, 45, 1045–1068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carter, R., Dark, F., & Singh, A. (1998). Underwriter reputation, initial returns and the long-run performance of IPO stocks. Journal of Finance, 53, 285–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1997). Industry costs of equity. Journal of Financial Economics, 43, 153–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gallaugher, J. M., & Wang, Y.-M. (2002). Understanding network effects in software markets: evidence from Web server pricing. MIS Quarterly, 26(4), 303–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Habib, M., & Ljungqvist, A. (2001). Under-pricing and entrepreneurial wealth losses in IPOs: theory and evidence. Review of Financial Studies, 14, 433–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hanley, K., Kumar, W., & Seguin, P. (1993). Price stabilization in the market for new issues. Journal of Financial Economics, 34, 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, J., & Miller, R. (1988). Investment banker prestige and the under-pricing of initial public offerings. Financial Management, 17, 19–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jovanovic, B., & Rousseau, P. (2001). Why wait? A century of life before IPO. American Economic Review, 91, 336–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Katz, M., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition and compatibility. American Economic Review, 75(3), 424–440.Google Scholar
  17. Lehmann-Grube, U. (1997). Strategic choice of quality when quality is costly. The Rand Journal of Economics, 28, 372–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leland, H., & Pyle, H. (1977). Informational asymmetries, financial structure, and financial intermediation. Journal of Finance, 32, 371–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lev, B. (1974). On the association between operating leverage and risk. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 9, 627–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ljungqvist, A., & Wilhelm, J. (2003). IPO pricing in the dot-com bubble. Journal of Finance, 58, 723–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lowry, M., & Schwert, R. (2002). IPO market cycles: bubbles or sequential learning? Journal of Finance, 57, 1171–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Noe, T., & Parker, G. (2005). Winner take all: competition, strategy, and the structure of returns in the Internet economy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 14, 141–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rayport, J. F., & Sviokla, J. J. (1995). Exploiting the virtual value chain. Harvard Business Review, 75–85.Google Scholar
  24. Ritter, J. (1984). The hot issue market of 1980. Journal of Business, 57, 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ritter, J., & Welch, I. (2002). A review of IPO activity, pricing, and allocations. Journal of Finance, 57, 1795–1827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rock, K. (1986). Why new issues are underpriced. Journal of Financial Economics, 15, 87–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ronnen, U. (1991). “Minimum quality standards, fixed costs and competition. The Rand Journal of Economics, 22, 490–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schilling, M. (1998). Technological lockout: an integrative model of the economic and strategic factors driving technology success and failure. Academy of Management Review, 98, 267–284.Google Scholar
  29. Schilling, M. (2002). Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: the impact of learning orientation, timing and network externalities. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 387–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schultz, P. (2003). Pseudo market timing and the long-run underperformance of IPOs. Journal of Finance, 58, 483–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Strader, T. J., Ramaswami, S. N., & Houle, P. A. (2007). Perceived network externalities and communication technology acceptance. European Journal of Information Systems, 16, 54–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Viswanathan, S. (2005). Competing across technology-differentiated channels: the impact of network externalities and switching costs. Management Science, 51, 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48, 817–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wilbon, A. (2002). Predicting survival of high-technology initial public offering firms. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13, 127–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yamamoto, H., Okada, I., Kobayashi, N., & Ohta, T. (2002). The information channel effect in the winner-take-all: a multi-agent simulation. In Proceedings of the 6th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (SCI 2002), 2, 510–513.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Information Management, University of St. Gallen 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard B. Carter
    • 1
  • Troy J. Strader
    • 2
  • Frederick H. Dark
    • 1
  1. 1.Iowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.Drake UniversityDes MoinesUSA

Personalised recommendations