仔细看看太空总署的预测

Manag. Sci. Pub Date : 2022-03-24 DOI:10.1287/mnsc.2022.4385
Elizabeth Blankespoor, Bradley E. Hendricks, Gregory S. Miller, Douglas R. Stockbridge
{"title":"仔细看看太空总署的预测","authors":"Elizabeth Blankespoor, Bradley E. Hendricks, Gregory S. Miller, Douglas R. Stockbridge","doi":"10.1287/mnsc.2022.4385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Firms’ use of special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) to go public has increased dramatically, leading to market and regulatory debate about their use of projections. Examining SPAC mergers from 2004 through 2021, we find that 80% of firms provide projections for four years ahead on average, with approximately one-quarter of recent projections extending more than five years. For the sample of SPAC mergers with observable postmerger revenue, we find that only 35% of firms meet or beat their projections. This proportion declines for forecasts that are longer horizon, and nonserial SPAC sponsors miss forecasts by greater percentages. When we compare SPAC projected revenue growth with benchmark samples of firms completing an initial public offering (IPO) and matched firms, the SPAC projections are approximately three times larger on average than benchmark firms’ actual revenue growth, with even greater differences for long-term projections. After the merger, firms reduce their use of projections, providing them at statistically similar rates as benchmark firms. Overall, the evidence supports concerns that the SPAC merger includes highly optimistic projections. This paper was accepted by Suraj Srinivasan, accounting.","PeriodicalId":18208,"journal":{"name":"Manag. Sci.","volume":"82 1","pages":"4742-4753"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Hard Look at SPAC Projections\",\"authors\":\"Elizabeth Blankespoor, Bradley E. Hendricks, Gregory S. Miller, Douglas R. Stockbridge\",\"doi\":\"10.1287/mnsc.2022.4385\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Firms’ use of special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) to go public has increased dramatically, leading to market and regulatory debate about their use of projections. Examining SPAC mergers from 2004 through 2021, we find that 80% of firms provide projections for four years ahead on average, with approximately one-quarter of recent projections extending more than five years. For the sample of SPAC mergers with observable postmerger revenue, we find that only 35% of firms meet or beat their projections. This proportion declines for forecasts that are longer horizon, and nonserial SPAC sponsors miss forecasts by greater percentages. When we compare SPAC projected revenue growth with benchmark samples of firms completing an initial public offering (IPO) and matched firms, the SPAC projections are approximately three times larger on average than benchmark firms’ actual revenue growth, with even greater differences for long-term projections. After the merger, firms reduce their use of projections, providing them at statistically similar rates as benchmark firms. Overall, the evidence supports concerns that the SPAC merger includes highly optimistic projections. This paper was accepted by Suraj Srinivasan, accounting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18208,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Manag. Sci.\",\"volume\":\"82 1\",\"pages\":\"4742-4753\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Manag. Sci.\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4385\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Manag. Sci.","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4385","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

公司使用特殊目的收购公司(spac)上市的情况急剧增加,导致市场和监管机构对其使用预测的争论。通过对2004年至2021年SPAC并购的研究,我们发现80%的公司提供了平均未来四年的预测,其中约四分之一的公司最近的预测超过了五年。对于合并后收入可观察的SPAC合并样本,我们发现只有35%的公司达到或超过了他们的预测。对于较长期的预测,这一比例会下降,而非系列SPAC发起人的预测失准率更高。当我们将SPAC预测的收入增长与完成首次公开募股(IPO)的公司和匹配公司的基准样本进行比较时,SPAC预测的平均收入增长大约是基准公司实际收入增长的三倍,长期预测的差异甚至更大。合并后,公司减少了对预测的使用,以统计上与基准公司相似的比率提供预测。总的来说,证据支持这样的担忧,即SPAC合并包括了高度乐观的预测。这篇论文被会计Suraj Srinivasan接受。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A Hard Look at SPAC Projections
Firms’ use of special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) to go public has increased dramatically, leading to market and regulatory debate about their use of projections. Examining SPAC mergers from 2004 through 2021, we find that 80% of firms provide projections for four years ahead on average, with approximately one-quarter of recent projections extending more than five years. For the sample of SPAC mergers with observable postmerger revenue, we find that only 35% of firms meet or beat their projections. This proportion declines for forecasts that are longer horizon, and nonserial SPAC sponsors miss forecasts by greater percentages. When we compare SPAC projected revenue growth with benchmark samples of firms completing an initial public offering (IPO) and matched firms, the SPAC projections are approximately three times larger on average than benchmark firms’ actual revenue growth, with even greater differences for long-term projections. After the merger, firms reduce their use of projections, providing them at statistically similar rates as benchmark firms. Overall, the evidence supports concerns that the SPAC merger includes highly optimistic projections. This paper was accepted by Suraj Srinivasan, accounting.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Disclosure in Incentivized Reviews: Does It Protect Consumers? Can Blockchain Technology Help Overcome Contractual Incompleteness? Evidence from State Laws Utility Tokens, Network Effects, and Pricing Power Decentralized Platforms: Governance, Tokenomics, and ICO Design The Conceptual Flaws of Decentralized Automated Market Making
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1