344 B.E. Eckbo et al.
ence in the buy-and-hold returns of issuers and matched firms ranges from− 52 .0%
for preferred equity placements (N=379) to− 13 .2% for private placements of debt
(N= 4 ,228). For IPOs (N= 5 ,018), the difference in buy-and-hold returns is− 18 .0%
and− 29 .7% for SEOs (N= 4 ,971). Straight debt issues (N= 4 ,263) are associated
with a difference inBHR of− 17 .0% while the return difference is 40.4% for convert-
ible debt issues (N=897). All return differences are statistically difference from zero
at the one percent level.
Going from equal-weighting to value-weighting the returns alters the results dra-
matically. With value-weights, none of the differences are statistically different from
zero at the one percent level, with the exception ofstraight debtissues (p-value of
0.000). Moreover, SEOs underperform their matched firms with ap-value of 0.026.
Since value-weighting gives additional weight to above-average successful firms (rel-
ative to equal-weighting), the reduction in underperformance is expected. However,
the fact that straight debt issuers in the value-weighted category reliably underperform
matched firms while most other equity-type of issues do not is surprising.
Turning to security issuers by banks and financial institutions, there is no evidence
of underperformance and some evidence of significant overperformance relative to
the matched firms. With equal-weighting, financial issuers outperform matched firms
when issuing preferred equity (N = 573) and straight debt placed either publicly
(N = 11 ,430) or privately (N = 3 ,478). Value-weighting has almost no impact on
the performance measure, except that preferred equity is no longer associated with ab-
normal performance relative to the matched firms.
As shown in the third panel ofTable 17, issues by public utility companies produce
underperformance similar to that of industrial issuers. The exception is private place-
ments of equity (N=878) which produces statistically insignificant underperformance
for the equal-weighted buy-and-hold measure. Private placements do, however, signif-
icantly underperform using the value-weighted measure, as do SEOs (N =659) and
issuers of straight debt (N= 1 ,667).
Table 18lists published studies that present evidence on buy-and-hold returns for
several of the security sales inTable 17. For IPOs, and consistent with the results in
Table 17, the studies ofBrav, Geczy, and Gompers (2000), Ritter and Welch (2002)
andEckbo and Norli (2005)show insignificant abnormal returns over both three-
year and five-year time horizons. For SEOs, the studies with the largest samples are
Jegadeesh (2000), Brav, Geczy, and Gompers (2000), Eckbo, Masulis, and Norli (2000)
andClarke, Dunbar, and Kahle (2001). These show evidence of significant negative
performance (3-year or 5-year), ranging from−4% to−34%. This is consistent with
the−30% abnormal buy-and-hold return for the SEOs inTable 17. There is also nega-
tive, relative performance following private placements of equity (Hertzel et al., 2002;
Krishnamurthy et al., 2005). Interestingly,Krishnamurthy et al. (2005)show that in-
vestors who participate in the private placement discount realize a normal post-issue,
long-run performance.
Turning to debt offerings, with the exception ofEckbo, Masulis, and Norli (2000),
there is consistent evidence of negative performance following convertible debt issues