The purpose of this paper is to analyze the OpenIPO process, vis‐à‐vis traditional bookbuilding, and evaluate the suitability of the OpenIPO for various types of companies, market conditions, and assets.
This paper develops the pros and cons of the OpenIPO process, vis‐à‐vis the traditional bookbuilding method, in light of the recent academic literature on securities auctions and the results of the OpenIPOs Hambrecht has conducted, as of mid‐2004.
The main advantage of the OpenIPO process is that it precludes many of the abuses recently observed in investment banking; however, it is not well suited for complex businesses that are either difficult to value or far removed from the public eye.
Only nine OpenIPOs have been conducted by Hambrecht, or using the Hambrecht method, as of the completion of this paper in mid‐2004.
The paper foresees the OpenIPO process of Hambrecht as supplementing, rather than supplanting, the traditional bookbuilding method. This could come about through the emergence of the OpenIPO as a more viable alternative to bookbuilding, or possibly through some hybrid type of offering in which individual investors play a larger role in price discovery, via the internet, and shares are allocated through both the internet auction and traditional bookbuilding.
Managers considering an initial public offering have a choice between the OpenIPO process of Hambrecht, used in the Google offering, and the traditional bookbuilding process. The choice of the OpenIPO has become more viable not only because of the Google offering, but due to the severe criticism the traditional method has received in recent years for alleged abuses related to the pricing and allocation of shares. This paper assists managers in evaluating this choice IPO offer type while rigorously evaluating the pros and cons of the OpenIPO process and its likely future role in the investment banking industry.
Jones, S. and Yeoman, J. (2008), "Internet auctions as a means of issuing financial securities: the case of the OpenIPO", Managerial Finance, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 116-130. https://doi.org/10.1108/03074350810841303Download as .RIS
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2008, Emerald Group Publishing Limited