Does earnings management lead to favorable IPO price formation or further underpricing? Evidence from Japan

This study addresses an important but unanswered question regarding the relationship between earnings management and underpricing. Earnings management has long been one of the central issues in initial public offerings (IPOs), however little evidence exists on whether earnings management leads to favorable price formation or further underpricing. Using several proxies for earnings management, this study finds evidence that firms with aggressive earnings management during the pre-IPO period tend to be more underpriced than firms without it, in contrast to the dominant hypothesis that IPO firms can sell their stocks at inflated prices by manipulating earnings upwardly. This finding is consistent with the asymmetric information theory of underpricing and suggests that aggressive earnings management increases valuation uncertainty of IPO firms and leads to steeper price discounts.     

Executive stock options and IPO underpricing

In about one-third of US IPOs between 1996 and 2000, executives received stock options with an exercise price equal to the IPO offer price rather than a market-determined price. Among firms with such “IPO options”, 58% of top executives realize a net benefit from underpricing: the gain from the options exceeds the loss from the dilution of their pre-IPO shareholdings. If executives can influence either the IPO offer price or the timing and terms of their stock option grants, there should be a positive relation between IPO option grants and underpricing. We find no evidence of such a relation. Our results contrast sharply with the emerging literature on managerial self-dealing at shareholder expense.     

The Underpricing and Excess Returns of Initial Public Offerings in Taiwan Based on Noisy Trading: A Stochastic Frontier Model

Initial public offerings (IPOs) are typically offered at prices lower than the transaction price in the early aftermarket. With a stochastic frontier model, we measured the fair offer price of an IPO and then the deliberate IPO underpricing and the market misvaluation based on the estimated fair offer price. Our results show that IPOs are deliberately underpriced. The extent of noisy trading leading to significantly higher market transaction prices explains the excess IPO returns. We conclude that initial IPO returns result primarily from the noisy trading activities instead of the deliberate IPO underpricing.     

Public Information, IPO Price Formation, and Long-Run Returns: Japanese Evidence

The price formation process of JASDAQ IPOs is more transparent than in the United States. The transparency facilitates analysis of important issues in the IPO literature—why offer prices only partially adjust to public information and adjust more fully to negative information, and why adjustments are related to initial returns. The evidence indicates that early price information conveys the underwriter's commitment to compensate investors for acquiring and/or disclosing information. Offer prices reflect pre-IPO market values of public companies and implicit agreements between underwriters and issuers that originate well before the offering. Underadjustment of offer prices is substantially reversed in the aftermarket.     

Let us work together: The impact of customer strategic alliances on IPO underpricing and post-IPO performance

Leveraging the availability of three years of pre-IPO data and related vs unrelated-party customer information for Chinese firms, we examine the impact of customer strategic alliances (CSA) on IPO underpricing from 2007 to 2015. Our core findings suggest that IPO firms with CSAs have less IPO underpricing than those without such a relationship. The decrease in underpricing is more salient for IPO firms that have non-related-party customers. Additional analysis suggests that the core findings are primarily driven by firms with good information environment pre-IPO, including high audit quality, high analyst following, and low earnings management. We interpret the results as indicating that a good pre-IPO information environment enhances the credibility of CSA relationships and signals high IPO quality. Furthermore, we document that a CSA relationship has a positive impact on an IPO firm's post-IPO performance, especially when the firm has non-related-party customers. Overall, CSAs reduce IPO underpricing and enhance IPO returns post-IPO.     

Deliberate premarket underpricing and aftermarket mispricing: New insights on IPO pricing

We decompose initial returns into deliberate premarket underpricing and aftermarket mispricing using stochastic frontier analysis. We model deliberate underpricing as a function of proxies of information asymmetry surrounding IPO value between market participants. Equity retained is an unlikely signalling mechanism to convey IPO value to outside investors through deliberate premarket underpricing. The presence of lock-in agreements, underwriter fees, number of uses of proceeds, and venture capital or private equity backing have positive impacts on deliberate premarket underpricing. Demand for firms' capital also explains deliberate premarket underpricing, whereas new issues market conditions have no impact. All these factors are found to explain a significant fraction of the variations in our deliberate underpricing estimates. Deliberate underpricing is the more dominant component that makes up initial return when compared to the fraction of aftermarket mispricing. We attribute aftermarket mispricing to trading volume in IPO shares on the first day, price adjustment between the filing price range and the offer price, and offer size. Equity retained explains the aftermarket mispricing rather than the deliberate premarket underpricing in contradiction to the signalling argument. More reputable underwriters are likely to provide price support in the early aftermarket, whereas we observe no impact on deliberate premarket underpricing.     

Do multiple credit ratings reduce money left on the table? Evidence from U.S. IPOs

Using credit ratings as an uncertainty-reducing mechanism, we provide evidence of the beneficial impact of multiple credit ratings on reducing IPO underpricing and filing price revision. We find that the acquisition of multiple ratings in the pre-IPO period mitigates uncertainty more than the acquisition of a single rating. Multi-rated firms also have higher probabilities of survival than those with a single rating, whereas credit rating levels matter only for IPOs with more than one rating. The IPOs that are awarded the first rating on the borderline between investment and non-investment grades are more likely to seek an additional rating.     

Why are IPOs underpriced? Evidence from Japan's hybrid auction-method offerings

We document discretionary underpricing and partial adjustment of IPO prices in the public offer tranche of Japan's hybrid auction regime, in which investor information differences are not important, there are no roadshows, preferential allocations are negligible, institutional investing is low, and the public offer tranche cannot fail. The magnitude and variation of underpricing in our sample, which spans relatively hot and cold markets, are similar to those reported for US IPOs. The evidence is most consistent with underpricing arising from an implicit contract to allocate risk related to initial mispricing where, in exchange for guaranteeing a minimum price, the underwriter participates indirectly in upside performance. The results raise important questions about interpretations of IPO underpricing in the US.     

Offer pricing of Australian industrial initial public offers

In the present paper we examine the setting of offer prices for Australian industrial initial public offers (IPOs) by fixed price offers. Our investigation focuses on the associations between offer prices and both market prices and accounting based measures of intrinsic value. Fixed‐price offers are less likely to be influenced by the canvassing of market demand when compared to the US setting, where book‐builds are typically used. We conclude that while Australian industrial IPOs are underpriced, they are not systematically undervalued. Contrary to research undertaken by Purnanandam and Swaminathan in the US book‐build setting, we do not conclude that Australian IPOs are systematically overvalued. As part of our analysis, we develop an empirical model of offer prices based on interviews with several leading Australian stockbrokers involved in setting them. Finally, using the ratio of offer price to intrinsic value measure, we find some evidence that undervaluation is positively related to underpricing.     

Litigation risk,underpricing, and money-losing IPOs

We examine the impact of firms' pre-IPO earnings on the relationship between litigation risk and IPO underpricing. We confirm the insurance effect of the lawsuit avoidance hypothesis; however, we find that the use of underpricing to reduce litigation risk is mainly associated with firms with negative earnings at the time of going public. Our results are robust to the timelines over which sample firms were sued, alternative underpricing measures, the addition of various control variables to our baseline regression models, and different proxies to categorize IPO firms. We also investigate the relationship between litigation risk, pre-IPO earnings, and underwriter gross spreads. The results indicate that, when dealing with firms facing a high risk of litigation, underwriters charge significantly higher spreads to negative-earnings issuers than profitable IPO firms.