Co‐managers,Information, and the Secondary Market Liquidity of Initial Public Offerings

We provide evidence that co‐managers improve initial public offering (IPO) liquidity through the “information” services they provide. Based on a sample of IPOs completed from January 1993 to December 2005, we find that a high number of co‐managers in the syndicate are associated with a lower spread, lower adverse selection costs, and a lower probability of informed trading. Moreover, increases in the offer price revision, in co‐managers’ underwriting rank, and in the number of analyst recommendations are all associated with the improvement in liquidity. This evidence is consistent with the hypotheses that co‐managers’ premarket and postmarket services mitigate information risk in the aftermarket.     

The Underpricing of Venture and Nonventure Capital IPOs: An Empirical Investigation

In this paper, we examine the premarket underpricing phenomenon within a group of venture-backed and a group of non-venture-backed initial public offerings (IPOs), using a stochastic frontier approach. Consistent with previous research, we find that venture-backed IPOs are managed by more reputable underwriters and generally are associated with less underwriter compensation. However, unlike other papers in the literature, we find that the initial-day returns of venture-backed IPOs on average, are, higher than the non-venture-backed group. We observe a significantly higher degree of premarket pricing inefficiency in the initial offer price of venture-backed IPOs. Further, our results show that a significant portion of the initial day returns is due to deliberate underpricing in the premarket.     

Stabilization and the aftermarket prices of initial public offerings

The paper examines the determinants of stabilization and its impact on the aftermarket prices. We use a unique dataset to relax several assumptions in the stabilization literature. We find that underwriters support IPO prices shortly after listing, particularly in cold markets and when demand is weak. We also show that stabilized IPOs are more common amongst reputable underwriters. This finding suggests that stabilization may be used as a mechanism to protect the underwriter’s reputation. It also implies that reputable underwriters may possess private information and price IPOs closer to their true values (i.e., higher than those indicated by the weak premarket demand). Consistent with the latter view, we show that stabilized IPOs are offered at higher prices and suffer less underpricing than those indicated by the premarket demand, firm characteristics and market-wide conditions. The post-IPO performance results indicate that stabilized IPOs are unlikely to be mispriced as their prices do not exhibit any significant reversal after the initial stabilization period. We conclude that stabilization may be superior to underpricing as it protects investors from purchasing overpriced IPOs, benefits issuers by reducing the total money “left on the table” and enhances the overall profitability of underwriters.     

Characterizing the Risk of IPO Long‐Run Returns: The Impact of Momentum,Liquidity, Skewness,and Investment

We study 6,686 initial public offerings (IPOs) spanning the period 1981‐2005 and find that the new issues puzzle disappears in a Fama‐French three‐factor framework. IPOs do not underperform in the aftermarket on a risk‐adjusted basis and do not underperform a matched sample of nonissuers. IPO underperformance is concentrated in the 1980s and early 1990s, and IPOs either perform the same as the market or outperform on a risk‐adjusted basis from 1998 to 2005. We find that outperformance in the later period is driven by large firms. Factors for momentum, investment, liquidity, and skewness help to explain aftermarket returns, although size and book‐to‐market tend to proxy for skewness. IPO investors receive smaller expected returns due to negative momentum and investment exposure and in exchange for higher liquidity.     

Institutional Allocation in Initial Public Offerings: Empirical Evidence

We analyze institutional allocation in initial public offerings (IPOs) using a new data set of U.S. offerings between 1997 and 1998. We document a positive relationship between institutional allocation and day one IPO returns. This is partly explained by the practice of giving institutions more shares in IPOs with strong premarket demand, consistent with book-building theories. However, institutional allocation also contains private information about first-day IPO returns not reflected in premarket demand and other public information. Our evidence supports book-building theories of IPO underpricing, but suggests that institutional allocation in underpriced issues is in excess of that explained by book-building alone.     

Uncertain Demand,Heterogeneous Expectations,and Unintentional IPO Underpricing

Distinguishing between intentional and unintentional incentives to underprice initial public offerings (IPOs), I develop sufficient conditions for the winners' curse postulated by Miller (1977) and implications for intertemporal changes in the magnitude of underpricing. Specifically, I show that unintentional underpricing (and occasional overpricing) of IPOs is a consequence of investors' heterogeneous expectations of the uncertain value of a stock when the supply is constrained and the underwriter's price discovery process only partially identifies aggregate demand. Moreover, an IPO that is oversubscribed in the premarket sale almost certainly will experience a short‐term price increase in the secondary market.     

IPO Trading without Market Makers or Underwriter Price Support

We investigate the trading behavior and liquidity supply of Chinese initial public offerings (IPOs) that trade in an order‐driven market system with pure limit order books where no market makers or price support is allowed. We find large trades and quoted depths dominate the first day of trading, but this pattern quickly reverses as small trades and quoted depths are more prevalent on subsequent trading days. Quoted depths are positively related to the number of shares offered in the IPO and trade size, but are negatively related to underpricing. Trade size and transaction immediacy are positively related, and large and positive (negative) order imbalance is associated with more aggressive buys (sells). Finally, long‐run performance is not related to initial order imbalance. Overall, our results suggest that despite underwriters not participating in the IPO aftermarket, liquidity provision evolves very quickly and price discovery is immediately reflected in prices.     

THE EFFECT OF THE TRADING SYSTEM ON IPO UNDERPRICING: EVIDENCE FROM THE 1997 ORDER‐HANDLING RULES

We use a natural experiment resulting from the 1997 Securities and Exchange Commission rule mandating a change in the order‐handling rules (OHR) for all NASDAQ stocks to test whether secondary market structure affects initial public offering (IPO) underpricing. We find that the increase in liquidity that the OHR represent led to a decrease in underpricing for cold NASDAQ IPOs, suggesting that when liquidity is lowest, changes in market liquidity display a negative relation to initial returns.     

Order Flows and Stock Returns: Compensation for Market Makers with Inventory Concerns

We investigate whether market makers with inventory concerns are compensated with subsequent monthly returns in the cross‐section. We find a significant negative relation between order flows and monthly returns, “the order flow effect,” suggesting that market makers lower prices for stocks with sell order flows and demand a reward in the form of higher expected returns. Further, the order flow effect is stronger for high‐volatility or high‐volume stocks for which market makers have serious inventory concerns. Funding liquidity of market makers also affects the order flow effect. Finally, our finding is independent of existing regularities and robust to the decimalization.     

Underpricing,stock allocation,ownership structure and post-listing liquidity of newly listed firms

This study investigates the relationship between underpricing, ownership structure and post-listing liquidity of initial public offerings (IPOs). It is argued that higher underpricing induces both broader investor participation and creates a more diffuse ownership structure. These two factors are in turn positively associated with the level of post-listing trading, and therefore offer an explanation of how underpricing can influence liquidity. Using a sample of Australian IPOs, we provide evidence of statistically significant relationship between underpricing and various proxies for shareholding distribution and liquidity. This result remains robust after controlling for a number of potential underlying factors that may drive both underpricing and ownership allocation decisions. Overall, our analysis suggests that liquidity is a partial but important benefit of underpricing an IPO.     

The Wealth Effect of Demutualization: Evidence From the U.S. Property-Liability and Life Insurance Industries

This study examines the wealth effect of demutualization initial public offerings (IPOs) by investigating underpricing and postconversion long‐run stock performance. Our results suggest that there is more “money left on the table” for demutualized insurers than for non‐demutualized insurers. We show that higher underpricing for demutualized firms can be explained by greater market demand, market sentiment, and the size of the offering. Further, contrary to previous research reporting an average underperformance of industrial IPOs, we show that demutualization IPOs outperform non‐IPO firms with comparable size and book‐to‐market ratios and non‐demutualized insurers. We present evidence that the outperformance in stock returns is mainly attributable to improvement in post‐demutualization operating performance and demand at the time of the IPOs. The combined results of underpricing and long‐term performance suggest that the wealth of policyholders who choose stock rather than cash or policy credits is not harmed by demutualization. Stockholders who purchase demutualized company shares either during or after the IPO have earned superior returns. Our findings are consistent with the efficiency improvement hypothesis.     

Heterogeneous Beliefs,IPO Valuation,and the Economic Role of the Underwriter in IPOs

We empirically analyze the economic role of the underwriter in initial public offerings (IPOs), distinguishing between the “certification” and “market power” hypotheses. We find that equity in high‐reputation underwriter backed IPOs is priced higher and further away from intrinsic value than that in low‐reputation underwriter backed IPOs. Our results are robust to controlling for the endogenous selection of firms to take public by underwriters. Overall, our results support the market power hypothesis and reject the certification hypothesis, indicating that the role of underwriters is to obtain the highest possible valuation for the IPOs that they back rather than to price the equity close to intrinsic value.     

Liquidity and initial public offering underpricing

Using eight measures of liquidity, and addressing the potential endogeneity of initial returns, we find underpricing generally increases the secondary market liquidity of IPOs over the first year of trading, irrespective of the horizon over which liquidity is measured. For two model specifications over the eight measures, fifteen regressions display signs consistent with higher underpricing increasing liquidity and thirteen of these are statistically significant. We also find higher initial returns are significantly negatively correlated with the probability of informed trade. Furthermore, the liquidity effects of underpricing survive the lockup date, suggesting they are not quickly dissipated.     

IPO Pricing in “Hot” Market Conditions: Who Leaves Money on the Table?

This paper explores the impact of investor sentiment on IPO pricing. Using a model in which the aftermarket price of IPO shares depends on the information about the intrinsic value of the company and investor sentiment, I show that IPOs can be overpriced and still exhibit positive initial return. A sample of recent French offerings with a fraction of the shares reserved for individual investors supports the predictions of the model. Individual investors' demand is positively related to market conditions. Moreover, large individual investors' demand leads to high IPO prices, large initial returns, and poor long‐run performance.     

IPO Placement Risk and the Number of Co‐Managers

Previous studies show that co‐managers mainly affect initial public offering (IPO) aftermarket activities. We investigate the role of co‐managers in IPO pre‐market activities. We argue that co‐managers help reduce IPO placement risk and hypothesize that IPO issuers hire more co‐managers when placement risk is higher. We find the number of co‐managers is positively associated with three proxies for placement risk. IPOs with more price uncertainty and high‐tech IPOs hire more co‐managers, while IPOs in regulated industries hire fewer co‐managers. We also find larger IPOs, recent IPOs, and IPOs with more reputable lead underwriters hire more co‐managers.     

Intraday asymmetric liquidity and asymmetric volatility in FTSE-100 futures market

In this study, we use both quote and trade data for the FTSE-100 futures for 2001–2004 in order to examine asymmetric volatility in the context of extreme sells. We define extreme sells as ask quotes that involve large percentages of total depth, selling orders executed at prices much closer to bids than to asking prices, and consecutive sell-initiated trades. Sell trades tend to demand higher liquidity than buys, while extreme trading conditions demand more liquidity than non-extreme ones. In extreme sells, liquidity demand surpasses supply. We show that asymmetric liquidity (quote demand vs. supply) better explains the asymmetric volatility observed in high-frequency data than trade information does. Ask-depth share plays a dominant role in asymmetric volatility, while order flow (sell-initiated volume share) makes a far smaller contribution.     

IPO Underpricing and After-Market Liquidity

The underpricing of initial public offerings (IPOs) is generallyexplained with asymmetric information and risk. We complementthese traditional explanations with a new theory where investorsworry also about the after-market illiquidity that may resultfrom asymmetric information after the IPO. The less liquid theaftermarket is expected to be, and the less predictable itsliquidity, the larger will be the IPO underpricing. Our modelblends such liquidity concerns with adverse selection and riskas motives for underpricing. The model’s predictions aresupported by evidence for 337 British IPOs effected between1998 and 2000. Using various measures of liquidity, we findthat expected after-market liquidity and liquidity risk areimportant determinants of IPO underpricing.     

Pursuing Value Through Liquidity in IPOs: Underpricing,Share Retention,Lockup, and Trading Volume Relationships

We argue that in an initial public offering (IPO), pre-IPO owners make decisions regarding underpricing, share retention, and share lockup simultaneously and optimally to maximize aftermarket liquidity. We predict that underpricing fosters higher trading volume in both the short run and the long run. Also, liquidity is negatively related to the proportion of shares retained by pre-IPO owners, ceteris paribus, so IPO underpricing should be positively related to the proportion of shares retained, as an offset. We document evidence consistent with these predictions. In addition, we find that, for IPOs with a lockup restriction, underpricing is more substantial and the positive relation between share retention and underpricing is much stronger. We also find that the relationship between underpricing and trading volume is stronger for IPOs with lockup. IPOs with lockup have higher trading volume, and a significant portion of this difference is associated with the effect of underpricing.JEL Classification: G10, G14, G24     

Initial Public Offerings: CFO Perceptions

We examine four issues pertaining to initial public offerings (IPOs) using a survey of 438 chief financial officers (CFOs). First, why do firms go public? Second, is CFO sentiment stationary across bear and bull markets? Third, what concerns CFOs about going public? Fourth, do CFO perceptions correlate with returns? Results support funding for growth and liquidity as the primary reasons for IPOs. CFO sentiment is generally stationary in pre‐ and post‐bubble years. Managers are concerned with the direct costs of going public, such as underwriting fees, as well as indirect costs. We find a negative relation between a focus on immediate growth and long‐term abnormal returns.     

The Pricing of Insurer Demutualization Initial Public Offerings

This article examines the pricing of the initial public offerings (IPOs) that follow insurance company demutualizations. Insurers that convert from mutual to stock form typically cite the need for capital as a key motivation. Given that capital adequacy is a primary regulatory objective for insurers, one would expect that for a given number of shares to be sold, these firms would price their offerings to maximize proceeds. However, the vast literature on IPO pricing suggests various theories as to why it may be in the issuing firm's best interest to underprice its offering. By examining the initial and long‐run stock returns for these conversion IPOs, the existence and degree of underpricing, as characterized by large initial returns, can be determined. It is observed that on average demutualization insurer IPOs post significantly higher first‐day returns than nondemutualization insurer IPOs. These gains would accrue to the initial investors and to those policyholders who receive compensation in the form of shares in the newly created stock insurer. Attractive returns are sustained for both groups of insurers during the first few years after IPO.