Search results

Initial public offering (IPO) underpricing remains a puzzle after decades of investigation. The stock markets in emerging economies are attractive to international investors but their unique characteristics need to be examined. Chinese stock markets experienced much more significant IPO underpricing than most other stock markets in the world. This paper offers a two-period wealth maximum model to explain the strategic IPO underpricing by state owners. Given the fact that the entire IPO procedure, including IPO price, is regulated and controlled by state owners, we argue that state owners strategically underprice the IPO, because they care less about the IPO proceeds but more about the wealth gain after IPO. The empirical finding of a positive relationship between IPO underpricing and state ownership in Chinese stock market is consistent with the wealth maximization hypothesis of IPO pricing. The paper offers better understanding for IPO procedure of state-owned enterprises in emerging markets.

This chapter investigates whether non venture-backed, venture-backed and bridge financed companies going public on Germany’s Neuer Markt differ with regard to issuer characteristics, balance sheet data or offering characteristics. Moreover, this chapter contributes to the underpricing literature by focusing on the role of venture capitalists and underwriters in certifying the quality of a company. Companies backed by a prestigious venture capitalist and/or underwritten by a top bank are expected to show less underpricing at the Initial Public Offering (IPO) due to reduced ex-ante uncertainty. This analysis provides evidence to the contrary: VC-backed IPOs appear to be more underpriced than non VC-backed IPOs.

Using data from the U.S., Japan and Israel, we test two hypotheses suggested by theory regarding the comparison of book-building and auction IPO mechanisms. Our results are inconsistent with both hypotheses. We find that underpricing is higher under book-building than under auctions, even after attempting to control for market conditions, firm size, lead underwriter and information gathered. We also find that higher underpricing is associated with less pricing accuracy in the U.S. and that U.S. IPO aftermarket prices are less accurate than Japanese prices, using both aftermarket volatility and long run returns as indicators of accuracy.

Many researchers suggest that investment bankers underprice IPOs. However, from 1989 to 1996, all Japanese IPOs were auctioned, reducing the role of underwriters. Initial returns of Japanese price-competitive IPOs are not found lower than underwriter-priced U.S. IPOs. Issue size, firm size, general market movements, insider sales levels, and underwriter quality are not highly related to initial returns under price-competitive auctions. However, there appears to be a strong partial adjustment phenomenon. Thus, price-competitive auctions did not result in significantly lower initial returns, but did reduce the impacts of many traditional variables found to significantly affect initial returns in U.S. underwriter-priced IPOs.

In this study, we examine the relationship between political connections of private firms and the initial public offering process. Using registration statement information, we create a unique database of politically connected IPO firms. We find that political connections are substitutes to high-quality underwriters and big four auditors. Politically connected firms manage earnings more highly upward than non-connected firms prior to the public offering. Politically connected firms also exhibit less underpricing than non-connected firms. Finally, politically connected IPO firms have superior post-IPO returns relative to non-connected IPO firms.

Economic theory posits a universal sociocultural orientation toward pricing complicated only by systematic cognitive biases. While institutional and organizational theorists have challenged the purported homogeneity of market logics, they have not linked market heterogeneity to price outcomes. If market logics are internally complex with multiple orientations toward pricing, skilled actors should be able to influence prices through market logics. This study utilizes qualitative analysis of interview data with a stratified random sample (75 percent response rate) of key participants to examine how investment banks (underwriters) instantiate a hybrid market logic in the Initial Public Offering (IPO) market. Underwriters exploit their status position to promulgate IPO pricing methods contradicting neoclassical rationality, behavioral models of pricing, and the underwriters’ own calculative mode of behavior. They successfully create this hybrid logic for issuers while hiding the nature of their market power through deceptive use of vocabulary from the market logic itself. Hence, the internal complexity of market logics directly impacts financial prices, with skilled actors achieving superior outcomes. This study concludes with an assessment of the implications for price theory, developing propositions to guide future research on market logics and pricing.

Economic theory posits a universal sociocultural orientation toward pricing complicated only by systematic cognitive biases. While institutional and organizational theorists have challenged the purported homogeneity of market logics, they have not linked market heterogeneity to price outcomes. If market logics are internally complex with multiple orientations toward pricing, skilled actors should be able to influence prices through market logics. This study utilizes qualitative analysis of interview data with a stratified random sample (75 percent response rate) of key participants to examine how investment banks (underwriters) instantiate a hybrid market logic in the Initial Public Offering (IPO) market. Underwriters exploit their status position to promulgate IPO pricing methods contradicting neoclassical rationality, behavioral models of pricing, and the underwriters’ own calculative mode of behavior. They successfully create this hybrid logic for issuers while hiding the nature of their market power through deceptive use of vocabulary from the market logic itself. Hence, the internal complexity of market logics directly impacts financial prices, with skilled actors achieving superior outcomes. This study concludes with an assessment of the implications for price theory, developing propositions to guide future research on market logics and pricing.

In this chapter we investigate whether the pricing of IPOs on Europe’s new stock market differs from that of IPOs on main market segments. We report a 22.3 percentage point difference in the average first-day return of new market IPOs (34.3%) and the average first-day return of main market IPOs (12%). We show that reduced incentives to control wealth losses and different firm and offer characteristics partially explain the higher average first-day return on new market segments. We also find that the bundling of IPO deals has been more important to control underpricing costs on new market than on main market segments.

Chen and Ritter (2000) documented that underwriter spreads for recent US initial public offerings (IPOs) in $20 million range as well as much larger IPOs in the $80 million range are clustered at 7%. This observation has led to a Department of Justice (DOJ) enquiry into potential price fixing by underwriters. We demonstrate through a times series analysis that IPOs have tripled in size and become much riskier over time. A pooled data analysis can therefore mask evidence of competition in the market. We find that spread clustering is not a recent phenomenon. Over time, clustering at 7% has increased as clustering above 7% has declined. IPO spreads have declined significantly over time as the firms going public more recently are riskier, underwriting efforts have increased and recent IPOs are much larger than IPOs in the past. Controlling for time trends, larger IPOs have lower average spreads. The market for underwriting IPOs seems to be competitive with entry of new firms during the hot markets.

Corporate governance research based on agency theory has been criticized for being “under-contextualized,” and for evaluating various governance practices independently. To address both criticisms, we take a configurational approach and show how firm-level governance practices interact with informational asymmetries associated with a firm’s industry. By examining foreign Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) that have chosen to list on London stock exchanges, we demonstrate that an assessment of the firm-level corporate governance configurations is incomplete without taking into account the firm’s industry affiliation. Our use of fs/QCA underscores the possibilities configurational approaches have in advancing theories of corporate governance.