An efficient market? Going public in London, 1891–1911

Sturla Fjesme, Neal Galpin, Lyndon Moore

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

There have been claims that British capital was not well deployed in Victorian Britain. There was, allegedly, a lack of support for new and dynamic companies in comparison to the situation in Germany and the US. We find no evidence to support these claims. The London Stock Exchange welcomed young, old, domestic, and foreign firms. It provided funds to firms in old, existing industries as well as patenting firms in ‘new-tech’ industries at similar costs of capital. If investors did show a preference for older and foreign firms, it was because those firms offered investors better long-run performance. In addition, we show some evidence that investors who worked in the same industry and lived close to the firm going public were allotted more shares in high-quality initial public offerings.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1008-1027
Number of pages20
JournalEconomic History Review
Volume72
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2019

Cite this

@article{069893735d4b46ddbe5a44c7ff064677,
title = "An efficient market? Going public in London, 1891–1911",
abstract = "There have been claims that British capital was not well deployed in Victorian Britain. There was, allegedly, a lack of support for new and dynamic companies in comparison to the situation in Germany and the US. We find no evidence to support these claims. The London Stock Exchange welcomed young, old, domestic, and foreign firms. It provided funds to firms in old, existing industries as well as patenting firms in ‘new-tech’ industries at similar costs of capital. If investors did show a preference for older and foreign firms, it was because those firms offered investors better long-run performance. In addition, we show some evidence that investors who worked in the same industry and lived close to the firm going public were allotted more shares in high-quality initial public offerings.",
author = "Sturla Fjesme and Neal Galpin and Lyndon Moore",
year = "2019",
month = "8",
doi = "10.1111/ehr.12783",
language = "English",
volume = "72",
pages = "1008--1027",
journal = "Economic History Review",
issn = "0013-0117",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

An efficient market? Going public in London, 1891–1911. / Fjesme, Sturla; Galpin, Neal; Moore, Lyndon.

In: Economic History Review, Vol. 72, No. 3, 08.2019, p. 1008-1027.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - An efficient market? Going public in London, 1891–1911

AU - Fjesme, Sturla

AU - Galpin, Neal

AU - Moore, Lyndon

PY - 2019/8

Y1 - 2019/8

N2 - There have been claims that British capital was not well deployed in Victorian Britain. There was, allegedly, a lack of support for new and dynamic companies in comparison to the situation in Germany and the US. We find no evidence to support these claims. The London Stock Exchange welcomed young, old, domestic, and foreign firms. It provided funds to firms in old, existing industries as well as patenting firms in ‘new-tech’ industries at similar costs of capital. If investors did show a preference for older and foreign firms, it was because those firms offered investors better long-run performance. In addition, we show some evidence that investors who worked in the same industry and lived close to the firm going public were allotted more shares in high-quality initial public offerings.

AB - There have been claims that British capital was not well deployed in Victorian Britain. There was, allegedly, a lack of support for new and dynamic companies in comparison to the situation in Germany and the US. We find no evidence to support these claims. The London Stock Exchange welcomed young, old, domestic, and foreign firms. It provided funds to firms in old, existing industries as well as patenting firms in ‘new-tech’ industries at similar costs of capital. If investors did show a preference for older and foreign firms, it was because those firms offered investors better long-run performance. In addition, we show some evidence that investors who worked in the same industry and lived close to the firm going public were allotted more shares in high-quality initial public offerings.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053370300&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/ehr.12783

DO - 10.1111/ehr.12783

M3 - Article

VL - 72

SP - 1008

EP - 1027

JO - Economic History Review

JF - Economic History Review

SN - 0013-0117

IS - 3

ER -