Search results

A variety of papers have analyzed the underpricing of REIT IPOs or property company IPOs. The purpose of this paper is to compare the two sectors and examines differences in the underpricing of the two types of IPOs.

An OLS regression is used to identify factors influencing the underpricing of A-REIT and property company IPOs from 1994 until 2014.

This study finds that A-REIT IPOs have a significantly lower underpricing on average than Australian property company IPOs. The time taken to list appears to influence the underpricing of both A-REIT IPOs and property company IPOs, in that issues that are filled more quickly have higher underpricing but with the magnitude of the impact being less for A-REITs. The sentiment toward the stock market also appears to impact on the underpricing of A-REIT and property company IPOs again with the magnitude of the impact being less for A-REITs.

The paper provides information to new A-REIT and property company issuers, underwriters and investors.

The study is the first to compare and examine the differences in the underpricing of both REITs and property companies in the one country over the same time period.

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.

Based on the textual-analyzed data covering 2148 IPO firms in China’s stock market during the 2007–2018 period, the authors’ purpose is to examine the influence of anti-takeover provision (ATP) adoption on initial public offerings (IPO) underpricing and identify the reducing effect of the former.

The authors examine the sample consisting of Chinese A-share listed IPO firms between 2007 and 2018 from China Stock Market Accounting Research and Chinese Research Data Services, with ATP data collected from the IPO firm chapters. Specifically, the authors use text analysis to identify whether there are ATPs in the IPO firm chapters, as well as the number of ATPs. H1: IPO underpricing is less severe for firms adopting ATPs. H2: The effect of ATP adoption on IPO underpricing is more salient for firms in worse information environments.

The authors examine the influence of ATP adoption on IPO underpricing and identify the reducing effect of the former. This effect can be explained by the fact that adopting ATPs in IPO firm chapters can reduce information asymmetry to a large extent by helping external investors obtain more private information, which alleviates IPO underpricing. The authors also find that the reducing effect is more significant in the worsened information environment. Furthermore, the authors explore the influence of adopting ATPs on other IPO characteristics and find positive effects on IPO over-subscription, funds raised and trading activity and negative effects on listing fees.

This study mainly contributes to the literature from the following two aspects. First, the study enriches the literature about the influencing factors of IPO underpricing. Second, the study also enriches the literature about the economic consequences of ATP adoption. This study also has important policy implications. With the coming of the era of decentralized ownership in China’s capital market, ATP adoption has become more important and attracted more attention. Also, investors focus more on pricing efficiency. The findings in this paper provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between ATP adoption and IPO underpricing.

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.

Since 2018, there has been a resurgence in initial public offering (IPO) pricing studies. The authors aim to consolidate the knowledge and explore current dynamics, understand knowledge progression, elicit trends, and provide future research directions for IPO pricing research.

The authors conducted a two-stage hybrid review based on 512 high-quality Scopus articles on IPO pricing published over the last decade. The authors deploy bibliometric analysis, and then, based on 61 curated articles, the authors conduct content analysis and offer future research directions.

Four key research streams emerged: information asymmetry, agency problems, legal, regulatory, and social environment, and behavioral finance. Future research may focus on behavioral explanations for IPO underpricing, the role of investor sentiment in IPO pricing, text analytics, machine learning, and big data in alleviating information asymmetry and agency problems. The authors summarize and present content analysis using the classic Theory, Context, Characteristics, Methods (TCCM) framework.

Using different databases, bibliometric analysis tools, sample period or article screening criteria for the study might give different results. However, the study's major findings are robust to alternative choices.

This study serves as a ready reckoner for the research scholars, practitioners, regulators, policymakers, and investors interested in understanding the nuances of IPO pricing.

The study sheds light on the most influential documents, authors, and journals, offers an understanding of knowledge structure, identifies and discusses primary research streams and related implications, and provides future research directions.

This paper aims to study the underpricing phenomenon of initial public offerings (IPOs) of 355 Indian companies issued from 2007 to 2019. The research question this paper empirically examines is whether Indian corporate executives deliberately underprice IPOs from its fair value to attract investors, thereby causing an abnormal spike in the prices on the listing day. The findings of this study challenge a commonly held notion of leaving money on the table by IPO issuing companies. Of the overall average listing day returns of 17%, the deliberate premarket underpricing component is found to be mere 5.3%, while the remaining price fluctuation is, inter alia, a result of market momentum along with the unmet demands of impatient investors.

Following Koop and Li (2001), this study uses Stochastic frontier model (SFM) to study a routine anomaly of disparity between the primary market price (i.e. IPO issue price) and the secondary market price (listing price). The jump in the issue price observed on a listing day is decomposed into deliberate premarket underpricing component that reflects the extent of managerial manipulation and the after-market misvaluation component attributable to information asymmetry and prevailing market volatility.

This paper uses SFM to bifurcate initial returns into deliberate underpricing by managers and after-market mispricing by noise traders. This study finds that a significant part of the initial return is explained through after-market mispricing. This study finds that average initial returns are 17%, deliberate premarket underpricing is 5.3% and after-market mispricing averages 11.9%.

This study can isolate underpricing done at the premarket by estimating a systematic one-sided error term that measures the maximum predicted issue price deviation from the offered price. Consequentially, the disaggregation of initial returns may be especially informative for retail investors in planning their exit strategy from an IPO by separating the strength of the firm's fundamentals and its causal relationship with the initial returns. Substantial proportion of after-market mispricing implies that future research should focus on factors causing after-market mispricing. As underlying causes are identified, tailor-made policy responses can be formulated to benefit investors.

This paper has empirically validated that initial return is a mix of both components, i.e. deliberate underpricing and aftermarket mispricing. This disaggregation of initial returns can prove helpful for investors in planning their exit strategy. This study can help investors to become more aware of the importance of the fundamentals of the firm and its causal relation with the initial returns. This information in turn can help reduce the information asymmetry amongst investors and help them lessen the costs of adverse selection.

A large number of research studies on IPO pricing find overwhelming evidence of underpricing in public issues. This research attempts to decompose the extent of underpricing into deliberate underpricing and after-market mispricing, thereby supplementing the existing literature on the IPO pricing puzzle. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first contribution to the literature on initial return decomposition for the Indian capital markets.

The purpose of the paper is to examine the impact of corporate governance mechanisms, i.e. board structure and ownership structure on the underpricing of small and medium enterprises (SME) IPOs in India.

Most of the extant empirical research studies have either pivoted on mainstream IPOs or SMEs IPOs in developed economies, but the present study examines 200 SME IPOs issued during Feb 2012 to April 2017. Multiple regressions have been used to examine the impact of the corporate governance mechanisms on raw return (RR). Furthermore, robustness of the results has been verified through the employment of market-adjusted excess return (MAER) as an additional proxy of underpricing.

The results highlight that board size, inverse of board committees, board independence, board age, board directorships positively, and top ten shareholding negatively influence RR. Further, direction of promoter ownership variable indicates curvilinear relationship with underpricing. Other explanatory variables used in model lack statistical validity. Similar results have been obtained when variables were regressed against MAER with related board members being additionally significant in model.

The findings suggest that Indian investors do take cues from board structure and ownership patterns for making investment decisions in small- and medium-sized firms. Further, the results are also helpful to top management in structuring their boards.

The present research enriches SME IPOs underpricing literature because the impact of corporate governance mechanisms on unadjusted returns is relatively under explored particularly within the context of small- and medium-sized firms.

This study aims to explore the moderating impact of governance structure, that is, board characteristics including board size, board independence, board committees and ownership structure like ownership concentration, on the underpricing of small- and medium-sized enterprise (SME) initial public offerings (IPOs) in the context of an emerging economy such as India.

Using a sample size of 403 SME IPOs listed on Bombay Stock Exchange SME platform and National Stock Exchange EMERGE, this study uses moderated hierarchical regression analysis to investigate these relationships.

The findings highlighted that board independence, board committees and ownership concentration negatively influence underpricing measured using market-adjusted excess returns. While analysing the moderating relationship, this study finds that ownership concentration positively moderates the relationship between board independence and underpricing, as well as the relationship between board committees and IPO underpricing.

This study is limited to a single country only. Although perfectly suitable for our research inquiry, it is imperative to check the validity of the findings by extending it to other emerging countries with similar socio-economic characteristics. Furthermore, this study tested the hypotheses concerning three board characteristics only. Hence, it could be extended to explore additional governance characteristics for a more comprehensive understanding.

This study provides a foundation for managers to adopt a fine-grained approach to effectively design the board structure ahead of an IPO event. Additionally, the findings may assist policymakers in formulating various policies and guide regulators in regulating the limit on ownership held by various shareholders to prevent their opportunism. The results of this study may further advise potential investors interested in SME IPO firms to critically consider the ownership concentration as a driving factor when scrutinizing their investment portfolios.

This study is unique as it advances the debate on the importance of a governance characteristic, that is, ownership concentration, as a moderating variable in the underexplored context of IPO underpricing of small- and medium-sized firms in India.

We study the relationship between underwriter prestige, family control, and IPO underpricing in an international setting. Data are collected for 5,789 firms that went public across twenty‐five countries between 1995 and 2002. We find that non‐penny‐stock and non‐U.S. IPOs from countries where firms are predominately family‐controlled benefit from associations with well‐known investment bankers; i.e., these firms are less underpriced than similar firms from countries with a low level of family control. At the same time, our findings support prior evidence that suggests that underwriter prestige is positively related to underpricing in the U.S. IPO market. Family‐controlled firms should consider the findings of this study, which identifies factors that are associated with more successful IPO outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the underpricing of real estate investment trust (REIT) initial public offerings (IPOs) from January 2010 to June 2015, as the sector recovered from the global financial crisis.

This study analyses the first day returns of US REIT IPOs in the post financial crisis period. The study then employs regression analysis to examine the factors that influence IPO underpricing.

The study observes that underpricing, on average, is not significantly different to zero. Furthermore, the REIT IPOs examined display underperformance in the longer term. In contrast to the earlier data samples of Chen and Lu (2006), the authors do not find that underwriting costs are a direct substitute for the indirect cost of underpricing, instead the authors find that higher underwriting costs are associated with higher underpricing. Also in contrast to the mainstream underpricing literature, the data suggest larger capital raisings require higher underpricing. The authors also find that newly listed REITs provided significant excess dividend returns over the post-listing period.

For institutional and retail investors, the results will help to further inform investment opportunities in REIT IPOs.

This paper adds to the ongoing academic debate of the lack of underpricing in REIT IPOs relative to industrial companies. Research has shown periods of underpricing are often replaced with periods of overpricing suggesting that the pattern of behavior in REIT markets is substantially different.