新股发行、价格确定与信息效率

本文从新股发行价格对各类信息的反应效率这一角度来研究核准制下新股发行定价效率问题.针对影响新股发行定价的信息因素具有多层次、多维度的特点,本文建立了一个有内在逻辑关系、能够较全面反映新股发行价格影响因素的理论框架,并采用协方差结构模型分析方法进行实证研究.结果显示:在核准制下新股价格基本上反映了内在价值因素和市场环境因素,具有一定的信息效率;而对发行因素反映的较少,缺乏这方面的信息效率.总体而言,我国新股发行定价的信息效率仍较为有限.     

新股发行、价格确定与信息效率

本文从新股发行价格对各类信息的反应效率这一角度来研究核准制下新股发行定价效率问题.针对影响新股发行定价的信息因素具有多层次、多维度的特点,建立了一个有内在逻辑关系、能够较全面反映新股发行价格影响因素的理论框架,并采用协方差结构模型分析(CSM)方法进行实证研究.实证结果显示:在核准制制度下新股价格基本上反映了内在价值因素和市场环境因素,具有一定的信息效率;而对发行因素反映的较少,缺乏这方面的信息效率.总体而言,我国新股发行定价的信息效率仍较为有限.     

论核准制下的新股竞价发行

我国新股发行已经由审批制转向核准制，核准制带来的一项主要变化是新股发行与定价方式的市场化，而竞价发行将成为核准制下新股发行与定价的主要方式之一。     

我国中小企业板IPO定价影响因素的实证研究

选取2009年6月到2012年11月在中小企业板发行的428只新股为研究样本,运用因子分析和逐步回归法对IPO定价影响因素进行实证研究。研究发现,公司的盈利因子F2、发行市盈率、发行费用、发行数量、新股发行改革政策、预计募集资金、成长因子F3、中签率、营运因子F4对新股发行价格有重要影响,而其他因素的影响均不显著。继而构建中小板IPO定价模型,可为拟发行新股的公司提供定价指导,并建议继续深化新股发行市场化改革,以提高定价效率。     

我国询价制的信息揭示效率——基于询价簿记信息的实证研究

本文以2011-2012年8月沪市A股发售的57支新股为样本,通过提取发行人公布的簿记信息,从询价簿记信息与新股发行定价效率和首日超额收益两个角度实证分析询价的信息揭示效率.研究结果表明:(1)虽然我国的询价制尚在完善之中,但依然具有较强的信息揭示能力.(2)承销商选择性地利用相关信息,询价信息有助于预测新股后市变现.出现这一悖论的原因是,价格区间对发行价的硬约束和配售政策限制了询价信息揭示能力.研究结果不仅对监管层完善询价制度和投资者参与新股投资具有一定的指导意义,也为讨论新股首次公开发行的定价效率问题提供新的视角.     

关于新股发行定价效率研究综述

新股发行定价效率关系到资本市场资源配置的有效性,对于股票市场的稳定运行,扩大资本市场的规模,促进资本市场的健康发展均具有极其重要的作用。本文主要从IPO抑价理论、新股发行定价效率与一级发行市场、二级运行市场的关系三方面出发,对新股发行定价效率的研究进行概括与汇总,以对新股发行定价效率的研究有一定的认识与了解。     

关于证券市场新股发行定价机制的研究

股票发行实行核准制后，我国证券发行市场面临巨大变革，新股发行定价方式将进一步朝看市场化、规范化、国际化方向发展，从而带动资本市场逐渐对外开放。本对世界主要证券市场新股发行定价策略进行了比较，同时分析论述了我国新股发行制度演变的进程，并提出了进一步完善我国新股发行定价机制的建议。     

我国新股发行定价制度的演变历程及评述

新股发行定价对于资源配置的效率以及投资者利益的保护程度有着重要的影响。本文从新股发行监管制度、新股定价方式和新股发行方式三个方面回顾了我国新股发行定价制度的演变过程,并对各阶段发行定价方式进行了分析评述。     

我国新股发行定价制度的演变历程及评述

新股发行定价对于资源配置的效率以及投资者利益的保护程度有着重要的影响.本文从新股发行监管制度、新股定价方式和新股发行方式三个方面回顾了我国新股发行定价制度的演变过程,并对各阶段发行定价方式进行了分析评述.     

新股发行市场化改写证券市场游戏规则

证券市场新股发行沿用至今的审批制终于走到了尽头.新股上市实行核准制、放开发行规模、放开发行价格将给证券市场带来以下影响.     

A Comparison of Reverse Leveraged Buyouts and Original Initial Public Offers: Factors Impacting their Issuance in the IPO Market

The purpose of this paper is to assess the factors that affect the returns earned by investors in early trading of reverse LBOs and compare those results to factors affecting original IPOs which are matched by size, industry, and issue date. A mean excess return of 7.64% is observed for the sample of reverse LBOs during the period 1987 to 1998. This return is uniformly lower than returns earned by investing in original IPOs. These results support the information asymmetry hypothesis. The results also show that factors such as number of months the LBO was privately held, the over‐allotment, or greenshoe option, the size of the issue, insider ownership, and gross spread impact the returns earned by investors in reverse LBOs. Other factors which are known to affect returns on original IPOs, such as lead underwriter, whether the deal was syndicated, the number of managers, the listing exchange, lockup agreements, and auditor, are shown to have no impact on the returns in reverse LBOs for the sample in question. We find that the level of insider participation and the over‐allotment option are more important to original IPOs than to reverse LBOs in explaining the excess returns earned by shareholders in early trading. We find, however, that the size of the offering has more impact on excess returns for reverse LBOs than for original IPOs.     

Explaining the Short‐ and Long‐Term IPO Anomalies in the US by R&D

Abstract:   Financial scholars who research the initial underpricing and long‐term underperformance of IPOs generally attribute these phenomena to information asymmetry and investors' misevaluations. Here, we identify, on a sample of 2,696 US IPOs issued during 1980–1995, a widespread source of information asymmetry and valuation uncertainty—the R&D activities of issuers—and document that these activities significantly affect both the initial underpricing of IPOs (R&D is positively correlated with underpricing) and their long‐term performance (R&D is positively related to long‐term performance). Given the pervasiveness and constant growth of firms' R&D activities in modern economies, our identification of R&D as a major factor affecting IPO's performance contributes to the understanding of this important economic and capital market phenomenon.     

What drives the valuation premium in IPOs versus acquisitions? An empirical analysis

Using a hand-collected data set of private firm acquisitions and IPOs, this paper develops the first empirical analysis in the literature of the “IPO valuation premium puzzle,” which refers to a situation where many private firms choose to be acquired rather than to go public at higher valuations. We also test several new hypotheses regarding a private firm's choice between IPOs and acquisitions. Our analysis of private firm valuations in IPOs and acquisitions indicates that IPO valuation premia disappear for larger VC backed firms after controlling for various observable factors affecting a firm's propensity to choose IPOs over acquisitions. Further, after controlling for the long-run component of the expected payoff to firm insiders from an IPO exit, we find that the IPO valuation premium vanishes even for larger non-VC backed firms and shrinks substantially for smaller firms as well. Our Heckman-style treatment effects regression analysis demonstrates that the above results are robust to controlling for the selection of exit mechanism by firm insiders based on unobservables. Our findings on private firms' choice between IPOs and acquisitions can be summarized as follows. First, firms operating in industries characterized by the absence of a dominant market player (and therefore more viable against product market competition) are more likely to go public rather than to be acquired. Second, more capital intensive firms, those operating in industries characterized by greater private benefits of control, and those which are harder to value by IPO market investors are more likely to go public rather than to be acquired. Third, the likelihood of an IPO over an acquisition is greater for venture backed firms and those characterized by higher pre-exit sales growth.     

Are publicly held firms less efficient? Evidence from the US property-liability insurance industry

This paper studies the performance of publicly held firms in the US property-liability insurance industry by analyzing companies that issued initial public offerings (IPOs) from 1994 to 2005, using private firms as the benchmark. I investigate ex ante determinants and ex post effects of IPOs on firm efficiency, operating performance, and other financials. I also analyze stock returns and follow-on SEO and acquisition activities to provide further information on IPO motivation. The paper finds that the likelihood of an IPO significantly increases with firm size and premium growth. IPO firms experience no post-issue underperformance in efficiency, operations, or stock returns; register improvement in allocative and cost efficiency; and reduce financial leverage and reinsurance usage. Moreover, IPO firms are active in follow-on SEO issues and acquisition activities. The findings are mostly consistent with the theory that firms go public for easier access to capital and to ease capital constraints.     

THE UNDERPRICING OF “SECOND” INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERINGS

The underpricing of initial public offerings (IPOs) of equity represents a well-documented empirical phenomenon. One prominent explanation for this underpricing relies on the uncertainty investors feel about the value of the issuer. In this paper, this asymmetric information hypothesis is tested by examining the underpricing of IPOs of seventy-four firms for which the uncertainty about the value of the firm is likely to be substantially reduced. These firms were once publicly owned, then taken private, and subsequently returned to public ownership. Findings show that the IPOs of these “reverse leveraged buyouts” are significantly less underpriced than typical IPOs. These results support the asymmetric information hypothesis.     

Does the effect of revealed private information on initial public offering (IPO) first trading day return differ by IPO market heat?

By IPO market regime, I decompose the effect of revealed private information on the initial return of IPOs (initial public offerings) into adjusted and unadjusted private information and find (i) investment banks partially adjust the offer price in return for revealed private information in all but the non‐hot IPO market; (ii) the economic importance of private information associated with IPOs (and hence agency costs) is procyclical; and (iii) industry information spillovers between IPOs occur only in the hot and very‐hot IPO markets.     

A review of IPO research in Asia: What's next?

This paper examines the current status of research on IPOs in general, with special focus on Asian IPOs. As in the case of U.S. IPOs, most past studies on Asian IPOs deal with the issue of under-pricing in IPOs and the factors, usually unique to Asian IPOs, that can explain the levels of the IPO under-pricing. Studies on long-term IPO performances are also carried out with results not always consistent with long-term underperformance observed in the U.S. In general, research on Asian IPOs is still quite preliminary with many IPO phenomena discovered in the U.S. are not fully investigated. This paper also suggests some possible areas of IPO research in the future.     

Initial Public Offerings on the Unlisted Securities Market: The Impact of Professional Advisers

This paper tests two hypotheses developed in the context of information asymmetry between companies making initial public offerings (IPO) on the Unlisted Securities Market and potential investors. It is argued that the status of the sponsor and audit firm are interpreted by potential investors as signals of an IPO's quality. The results indicate that for IPOs made during 1986–87 the level of discount and the status of the associated auditing firm are significantly related. Higher quality auditing firms are associated with lower levels of discount. A similar relationship for IPOs made during the period 1988–89 is not detected. The paper suggests that there were significant changes in the IPO market between these two periods. No relationship in either period is detected between the level of discount and the status of the sponsor.