Bookbuidling, Auctions, and the Future of the IPO Process

Auction theorists predict that bookbuilding, long the standard process for selling equity IPOs in the U.S., is about to give way to an Internet‐based IPO auction process that is both more efficient and more fair. The promise of auctions is that, by using an electronic platform that gives all investors the opportunity to bid on IPOs, the underpricing of IPOs and commissions to underwriters will be reduced, leading to an increase in net proceeds to issuers. Largely missing from such arguments, however, is an appreciation of why bookbuilding has dominated U.S. practice (and continues to supplant auctions in IPOs in most countries outside the U.S) and the role of undepricing in the IPO process. Rather than canvassing all investors, bookbuilding involves eliciting expressions of interest from institutional investors, and then allocating shares mainly according to the strength of their professed interest. In contrast to auctions, which allocate shares according to a set of explicit rules, bookbuilding involves a set of implicit “rules” that provide considerable room for judgment by the underwriter. This does not mean that the rules are arbitrary or not well understood by participants, particularly after thousands of IPOs conducted over the better part of two centuries. But to manage the exchange of information between issuers and investors, and the potential conflicts of interest in representing both groups, such rules must be administered by an intermediary with a considerable stake in protecting its reputation for fair dealing. Investment banks that deal with both issuers and the investment community on a regular basis are well positioned to perform this function. The underpricing of IPOs is best viewed not as a transfer of wealth from issuers to favored investors but rather as compensation to the large influential investors that play a major role in the price discovery process. By opening the process to all comers, auctions will discourage these large investors from bidding aggressively because less sophisticated investors will be able to “free ride” on their research and due diligence. To the extent this happens, auctions may suc ceed in reducing underpricing (in fact, they may even lead to over pricing), but they will also reduce the net proceeds for issuers. Nevertheless, recent advances in communications technology and auction theory will undoubtedly reshape current securities underwriting practices. In particular, Internet auctions are likely to replace bookbuilding in debt IPOs and less risky equity issues (say, IPOs of LBOs). But the argument that Bookbuilding will be completely cast aside in favor of largely untested alternatives fails to appreciate a successful institutional response to major market imperfections, some of which can never be wholly eliminated. Especially in the case of risky (first‐time) equity IPOs, there will continue to be an important role for managing the information exchange between issuers and investors that is critical to the IPO process.     

Bookbuilding,the option to withdraw,and the timing of IPOs

The ability to withdraw IPOs when demand is weak increases expected proceeds and provides issuers with option value. To enhance this value, the SEC adopted in 2001 the ‘public-to-private’ safe harbor Rule 155 and simplified Rule 477 for withdrawing offerings. The option value can exceed the underpricing associated with soliciting investor demand. Hence, issuers might prefer bookbuilding despite the associated underpricing even if they could sell via fixed price at full expected value. The option value increases faster than underpricing with ex ante uncertainty, generating predictions regarding the use of bookbuilding and the timing of IPOs, and leading to a distinct theory of hot IPO markets.     

Differences between European and American IPO Markets

This brief survey discusses recent developments in the European initial public offering (IPO) market. The spectacular rise and fall of the Euro NM markets and the growth of bookbuilding as a procedure for pricing and allocating IPOs are two important patterns. Gross spreads are lower and less clustered than in the USA. Unlike the USA, some European IPOs, especially those in Germany, have when‐issued trading prior to the final setting of the offer price. Current research includes empirical studies on the valuation of IPOs and both theoretical and empirical work on the determinants of short‐run underpricing.     

REVISITING BOOKBUILDING VERSUS AUCTION IPOS: A PERSPECTIVE OF INFORMATIONALLY EFFICIENT PRICES IN THE AFTERMARKET

We compare price efficiency between auction and bookbuilding initial public offerings (IPOs). Our empirical results fail to support the prevailing conjecture that bookbuilding IPOs are more price efficient than auction IPOs. We find statistical insignificance between two IPO samples or weak evidence for the opposite hypothesis. We add to the evidence that auctions yield aftermarket price efficiency equal to that of bookbuilding or are statistically indifferent when measured by market microstructure and Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) data. We also examine whether underlying price efficiency forces reflect the relative presence of informed institutional and retail investors, aftermarket price support, and divergence of investor expectations.     

What Determines IPO Gross Spreads in Europe?

This paper examines the behaviour of underwriting gross spreads in European IPO markets using a data set of 565 IPOs by European issuers in the period 1986–99. Privatisations have lower gross spreads than other IPOs, other things remaining equal. Gross spreads on European listings by European issuers are significantly lower than on US listings by European issuers, except on the technology stock–oriented EASDAQ and Frankfurt Neuer Markt exchanges. IPOs involving a US bulge bracket underwriter (for joint US/Europe listings) or bookbuilding are characterised by relatively higher spreads.     

Competitive IPOs

Competition between investment banks for lead underwriter mandates in IPOs is fierce, but having committed to a particular bank, the power of the issuer is greatly reduced. Although information revelation theories justify giving the underwriters influence over pricing and allocation, this creates the potential for conflicts of interest. In this clinical paper we analyse an interesting innovation that has been used in recent European IPOs whereby issuers separate the preparation and distribution roles of investment banks, and keep competitive pressure on the banks throughout the issue process. These 'competitive IPOs' allow the issuer greater control and facilitate more contingent fee structures that help to mitigate against 'bait and switch.' But unlike more radical departures from traditional bookbuilding – such as auctions – the competitive IPO is an incremental market-based response to potential conflicts of interest that retains many of the advantages of investment banks' active involvement in issues.     

Reforming the Bookbuilding Process for IPOs

The controversy over IPOs has raised questions about whether retail investors are being unfairly denied access to shares in IPOs and whether the new Internet auction methods might provide a fairer and more efficient way to allocate shares. This article argues that much of the popular concern may be misdirected. By and large, bookbuilding is well designed to accomplish price discovery in a cost-effective way. And standard auctions, which have been all but abandoned in a number of countries, have generally proved disappointing for equity IPOs (although they have been successful for bond offerings). The authors propose a "hybrid" form of securities issuance that would retain the advantages of bookbuilding while incorporating a public offer "tranche" for retail investors and other measures designed to increase transparency.     

Syndicate structure and IPO outcomes: The impact of underwriter roles and syndicate concentration

We examine how the composition and concentration of the underwriting syndicate affects outcomes in U.S. initial public offerings (IPOs) from 2002 to 2020. Most IPOs now feature “phantom” lead managers who underwrite significantly fewer shares than the lead-left bookrunner. We hypothesize that the phantom lead is the result of bargaining between issuers wanting greater information production and lead-left bookrunners preferring greater control of the IPO. Larger, less concentrated IPO syndicates feature more absolute price adjustments from the filing price during bookbuilding with downward revisions on average, and more analyst following post-IPO. The magnitude of price adjustments is greater when adding active joint leads relative to passive phantom leads. More concentrated IPOs feature higher first-day returns following positive price adjustments. Adding lead managers reduces the likelihood the lead-left will retain that role in follow-on equity offerings.     

Market conditions and the optimal IPO allocation mechanism in China

This paper investigates the impact of market conditions of market return and volatility on choosing an IPO mechanism, using data of 942 IPOs on either Shanghai or Shenzhen stock exchanges of China from 1994 to 2003. We find, on average, the issuers are more likely to have their IPOs offering and listing during times of high market return and low market volatility. The fixed price procedure of the secondary market proportional offering is optimal in minimising the underpricing and cross-sectional variation of the first day returns. The bookbuilding procedure is optimal in counteracting adverse conditions created by low market profitability, high market volatility and uncertainty induced by the time ‘gap’ from offering to listing. By comparing the advantages between the secondary market proportional offering and bookbuilding procedures, the latter is preferred.     

Two‐Sided Matching: How Corporate Issuers and Their Underwriters Choose Each Other

In this article, the authors update and confirm the findings of a 2005 article that was the first to view corporate underwriter choices as the outcome of a two‐sided matching process in which issuers look to the abilities of the underwriters offering their services and underwriters focus on the quality of the issuers that wish to use their services. This view offers a contrast with both the conventional representation of issuer‐underwriter associations as one‐sided decisions (by either issuers or underwriters) and the classical economist's representation of a competitive market in which prices serve as the primary market‐clearing mechanism. In their examination of both initial public offerings (IPOs) and seasoned equity offerings (SEOs) during the period 1980–2010, the authors continue to find strong evidence that higher‐quality issuers associate with more reputable underwriters and lower‐quality issuers match with lower reputation underwriters. Moreover, when examining cases of underwriter switching between an IPO and SEOs by the same issuer, they find that cases involving the largest divergence in the relative rankings of issuer and underwriter were the most likely to produce a change of underwriter—and that issuers that experienced larger post‐ IPO increases in quality were more likely to find more reputable underwriters for their SEOs (than for their IPOs). The authors also find that the larger the number of offerings brought to market in a given year, the smaller the market share of the top‐tier underwriters, likely reflecting the willingness of the most reputable underwriters to turn down business to maintain quality and reputation. Finally, the most reputable underwriters appear to benefit from the fact that the issuers whose IPOs they underwrite end up raising larger amounts of capital, both at the time of the IPO and in the larger and more frequent seasoned offerings by such issuers that come after the IPO. This evidence in support of two‐sided matching suggests that, especially for high‐quality issuers, the reputation of the underwriters they contract with for security offerings is likely to be more important than the underwriting fees they incur. What's more, the authors' finding that the most reputable underwriters are less likely to lose high‐quality clients and have more stable market share—and that the higher‐quality issuers they attract end up raising larger amounts of capital over their lives as public companies—suggests that underwriters' investments in building and preserving their reputations have a large expected payoff.     

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.     

The strategic reallocation of IPO shares

In this work, we study the reallocation of shares to retail and institutional investors, measured as the difference between the allocation declared before the initial public offering (IPO) and the effective allotment decided by the underwriter after the bookbuilding process. The reallocation is disaggregated into three components, two of which are under the direct control of the underwriter: the initial allocation, and the demand satisfaction ratio. The empirical analysis is based on a sample of 193 hybrid IPOs issued in Italy between 1997 and 2012. Controlling for firm and IPO characteristics, we find that the IPO shares are typically shifted toward institutional investors when positive information is collected during the bookbuilding process. The IPO pricing and share reallocation are found to be interdependent, and reallocation is used in combination with partial adjustment to reward institutional investors.     

Issuer Operating Performance and IPO Price Formation

We study the relation between issuer operating performance and initial public offering (IPO) price formation from the initial price range to the offer price to the closing price on the first trading day. For a post‐bubble sample of 2001–2013 IPOs, we find that pre‐IPO net income and, in particular, operating cash flow are strongly, positively associated with the revision from the mid‐point of the initial price range to the offer price and that the “partial adjustment phenomenon” concentrates among issuers with the strongest operating performance. As for why publicly observable information helps predict changes in valuation from when the initial price range is set to when the offer price is set, our findings suggest that strong‐performing issuers, especially those offering small slices of ownership, have lower bargaining incentives and are susceptible to the underwriter(s) low‐balling the price range. Overall, our results suggest an important role for accounting information in understanding the pricing of book‐built IPOs and are consistent with the presence of agency problems between issuers and underwriters.        

Does the Market Incorporate Previous IPO Withdrawals When Pricing Second‐Time IPOs?

This paper examines the initial public offering (IPO) valuations of issuers that return to the IPO market successfully after withdrawing their first IPO attempt. We find that these second-time IPOs sell at a significant discount relative to similar contemporaneous IPOs that succeed in their first attempt. We also demonstrate that switching underwriters on the second IPO attempt reduces, but does not eliminate, the discount for second-time IPOs. When compared to their matched first-time IPOs, second-time IPOs have similar price revisions and post-IPO long-run stock and operating performances. Overall, these results suggest that the negative information conveyed by the withdrawal event is incorporated into the lower offer valuations for second-time IPOs. Switching investment banks can mitigate, but not eliminate, the perceived higher risk of the second-time offerings.     

Do regulatory changes affect the underpricing of European IPOs?

We use a sample of 3677 European IPOs during the period 1998–2012 to examine how the adoptions of corporate governance codes by Member States of the European Union (EU) have affected IPO underpricing on Member State-regulated markets, where issuers are subject to corporate governance rules instituted by Member States, relative to a control sample of IPOs on exchange-regulated markets, where issuers are exempt from Member State corporate governance codes. Using this control sample approach facilitated by the existence of second-tier, exchange-regulated markets in the EU, we find that, on average, IPO underpricing declined on Member State-regulated markets after Member States adopted corporate governance codes containing SOX-like provisions. We do not find a similar reduction in IPO underpricing on exchange-regulated markets. Our results are robust to alternative specifications, and our findings support the view that elevating corporate governance standards increases transparency and reduces information asymmetries that affect IPO valuations.     

Analyst Hype in IPOs: Explaining the Popularity of Bookbuilding

The bookbuilding IPO procedure has captured significant marketshare from auction alternatives recently, despite the significantlylower costs related to the auction mechanism. In France, whereboth mechanisms were used in the 1990s, the ostensible advantagesof bookbuilding were advertising-related benefits. Book-builtissues were more likely to be followed and positively recommendedby lead underwriters. Even nonunderwriters' analysts promotebook-built issues more in order to curry favor with the IPOunderwriter for allocations of future deals. Yet we do not observevaluation or post-IPO return differentials that suggest thesetypes of promotion have any value to the issuing firm.     

The oversight role of regulators: evidence from SEC comment letters in the IPO process

This study investigates how regulatory oversight affects the price formation of initial public offerings (IPOs). We provide evidence on the oversight role of the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) by examining the effects of comment letters issued by the SEC in the process through which companies are initially listed. We find that IPO issuers reduce their offer price if they receive comment letters. The reduction in price from the IPO filing date to the final issue date is greater when the IPO firm has more correspondence with the SEC. The pricing impact of SEC comment letters is more pronounced for IPO issuers with greater hyping incentives. Moreover, we find that IPO firms that receive more comment letters have similar levels of underpricing and outperform over the long run after the issue date, compared with IPOs with fewer comment letters.     

Do today's trades affect tomorrow's IPO allocations?

Underwriters using bookbuilding can allocate shares of initial public offerings (IPOs) on the basis of, among other things, commissions paid by investors. In testing the hypothesis that investors trade liquid stocks in order to affect their IPO allocations, we find that money left on the table by IPOs is related to the trading volume of the 50 most liquid stocks near the offer date. For an IPO that leaves $1 billion on the table, there is abnormal volume of 2.7% to 4.1% in the 50 most liquid stocks over the six days ending on the day that trading commences in that IPO, although only during the internet bubble period is this volume increase statistically significant.     

Earnings Management and the Long-Run Market Performance of Initial Public Offerings

Issuers of initial public offerings (IPOs) can report earnings in excess of cash flows by taking positive accruals. This paper provides evidence that issuers with unusually high accruals in the IPO year experience poor stock return performance in the three years thereafter. IPO issuers in the most "aggressive" quartile of earnings managers have a three-year aftermarket stock return of approximately 20 percent less than IPO issuers in the most "conservative" quartile. They also issue about 20 percent fewer seasoned equity offerings. These differences are statistically and economically significant in a variety of specifications.     

Auctions vs. Bookbuilding and the Control of Underpricing in Hot IPO Markets

Market returns before the offer price is set affect the amountand variability of initial public offering (IPO) underpricing.Thus an important question is "What IPO procedure is best adaptedfor controlling underpricing in "hot" versus "cold" market conditions?"The French stock market offers a unique arena for empiricalresearch on this topic, since three substantially differentissuing mechanisms (auctions, bookbuilding, and fixed price)are used there. Using 1992–1998 data, we find that theauction mechanism is associated with less underpricing and lowervariance of underpricing. We show that the auction procedure'sability to incorporate more information from recent market conditionsinto the IPO price is an important reason.