Underwriter reputation and IPO underpricing: The role of institutional investors in the Chinese growth enterprise market

This paper investigates the effects of underwriter reputation on initial public offering (IPO) underpricing in the Chinese Growth Enterprise Market, in light of the conflicting evidence in the literature on IPO underpricing. Using data during the post global financial crisis period, we find that IPO firms with prestigious underwriters have lower market-adjusted initial returns on average. We further find that prestigious underwriters reduce IPO underpricing by minimizing the time gap between the offering and listing, choosing high-quality firms to underwrite, and reducing information asymmetry between issuers and investors. In the presence of institutional investors, however, we find that more underpricing occurs, as these investors tend to obtain access to IPO shares at a higher price discount via private placements. This new finding suggests that the institutional investors have a role to play in the case of high under-pricing, which partly gets corrected via underwriter reputation.     

Auctions versus bookbuilding: The effects of IPO regulation in Japan

We analyze a regulatory change in the Japanese IPO market that created an abrupt shift from hybrid price-discriminatory auctions to bookbuilding. We find that bookbuilding leads to higher underpricing than hybrid price-discriminatory auctions. Furthermore, we find evidence that price accuracy tends to be higher for auctions than for bookbuilding. The results hold under a variety of OLS specifications and with regression discontinuity designs exploiting the abrupt change of the regulation.     

What comprises IPO initial returns: Evidence from the Chinese market

We studied the IPO price and long-term performance in China after the adoption of the book-building pricing mechanism. Using comparable firm value, we separated the IPO initial returns into pre-market deliberate underpricing and aftermarket overpricing. This separation enables us to clearly test different theories regarding high IPO initial returns. We find little evidence supporting the classic information theory on IPO underpricing but strong evidence supporting the behavioral arguments regarding IPO overpricing. Even though the results are specific to the Chinese market, we find some general results on what composes and drives IPO initial returns that have been lacking in the IPO literature.     

Bookbuilding vs. fixed price revisited: The effect of aftermarket trading

Investors who possess information about the value of an IPO can participate in the offering as well as trade strategically in the aftermarket. Both the bookbuilding and the fixed price IPO selling methods require more underpricing when aftermarket trading by informed investors is considered. Bookbuilding becomes especially costly, since the potential for profit in the aftermarket adversely affects investors' bidding behavior in the premarket. Unless the underwriter can restrict its bookbuilding effort to a small enough subset of the informed investors, a fixed price strategy that allocates the issue to retail investors produces higher proceeds on average, contrary to the conventional wisdom in the literature. We therefore find a benefit to limiting access to the premarket and, hence, provide an efficiency rationale for the practice by American bankers of marketing IPOs to a select group of investors. We also provide unique policy and empirical implications.     

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.     

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.     

Valuing and pricing IPOs

This paper investigates how underwriters set the IPO firm’s fair value, an ex-ante estimate of the market value, using a unique dataset of 228 reports from French underwriters. These reports are issued before the IPO shares start trading on the stock market and detail how underwriters determined fair value. We document that underwriters often employ multiples valuation, dividend discount models and discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis to determine fair value but that all of these valuation methods suffer from a positive bias with respect to equilibrium market value. We also analyze how this fair value estimate is subsequently used as a basis for IPO pricing. We report that underwriters deliberately discount the fair value estimate when setting the preliminary offer price. Part of the intentional price discount can be recovered by higher price updates. We find that, controlling for other factors such as investor demand, part of underpricing stems from this intentional price discount.     

Are share price levels informative? Evidence from the ownership, pricing, turnover and performance of IPO firms

We ask whether a firm's choice of IPO price is informative in the sense that it relates systematically to the firm's other choices and characteristics. We find that both institutional ownership and underwriter reputation increases monotonically with the chosen IPO price level. We also find that the relationship between IPO price and underpricing is U-shaped. In contrast, post-IPO turnover displays an inverted U-shaped relation to IPO price. Moreover, firms choosing a higher (lower) stock price level experience lower (higher) mortality rates. Our results are robust to controls for market liquidity and firm size, and for partial adjustment of IPO prices based on pre-market information.     

Underwriter Spread, Underwriter Reputation, and IPO Underpricing: A Simultaneous Equation Analysis

This paper studies the relationships between underwriter reputation, underwriter spread, and IPO underpricing. We consider the information content of underwriter spread and find that it conveys information pertinent to IPO quality. Because underwriter spread is endogenous, underpricing and underwriter spread are jointly determined in a simultaneous equation system. Also, we examine the IPO market for evidence of segmentation, and our results suggest some market segmentation. Underwriter spread impacts initial underpricing for a group of medium-reputation underwriters, while underpricing affects underwriter spread for groups of low- and high-reputation underwriters. Consequently, high-risk IPOs may not be priced the same way as low-risk IPOs. We attribute this finding to regulation, competition, and/or market segmentation.     

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.     

双重上市、IPO抑价与大规模融资行为——来自中国公司IPO的证据

本文以中国1993～2009年期间的1158家IPO(其中A+H公司36家)为样本,实证检验了A+H双重上市与公司IPO行为之间的关系。研究发现:A+H双重上市与单位权益发行价、IPO定价效率、融资规模效率均显著负相关,表明A+H双重上市非但没有给公司带来IPO溢价,反而导致更高的IPO抑价。进一步分析表明,A+H公司的更高IPO抑价与其大规模的股票发行数量显著正相关,正是A+H公司的大规模股票发行迫使发行人和承销商采取低价策略以保证成功IP0,并导致A+H公司具有偏好在热市期上市的择时行为。     

Underwriter Compensation Structure: Can It Really Bond Underwriters?

Underwriter compensation can be structured as all cash or a combination of cash and warrants. Using a sample of small initial public offerings (IPOs), we find that underwriter compensation contracts that include warrants in exchange for cash can serve as certification for IPO firms by substituting for reputation capital. When underwriters accept warrants when they could have received more cash compensation, the IPOs avoid the well documented long‐run underperformance. However, when underwriters receive warrants after maximizing cash compensation, the IPO experiences higher underpricing and poorer long‐run performance. The findings are consistent with a motivation by the underwriters to circumvent regulatory constraints.     

IPO underpricing and mutual fund allocation: New evidence from registration system

We study the effect of mutual fund allocation on China's IPO market under the new registration system. The introduction of mutual fund bids significantly increases the IPO offer price, resulting in a low initial short-term return and suppressed IPO underpricing. Those newly listed stocks witness lower volatility in the following weeks due to preferential allocation to the mutual fund at the primary market. Further analysis suggests that large investors' net purchase strengthens IPO after-market return and volatility. Besides, the effect of mutual fund participation on IPOs is stronger in places where the COVID-19 outbreak. This new evidence suggests that mutual fund allocation plays a critical role in IPO price discovery and decreases investor lottery trading.     

Credit ratings and IPO pricing

We examine the effects of credit ratings on IPO pricing. The evidence from U.S. common share IPOs during 1986–2004 shows that when firms go public, those with credit ratings are underpriced significantly less than firms without credit ratings. Credit rating levels, however, do not have a significant effect on IPO underpricing. The existence of credit rating reduces uncertainty about firm value. It is the value certainty that matters, not the value per se. Credit ratings also reduce the degree of price revision during the bookbuilding process and the aftermarket volatility in the post-IPO period. The evidence suggests that credit ratings convey useful information in reducing value uncertainty of the issuing firms as well as information asymmetry in the IPO markets.     

Bids and Allocations in European IPO Bookbuilding

This paper uses evidence from a data set of 27 European IPOs to analyze how investors bid and the factors that influence their allocations. We also make use of a unique ranking of investor quality, associated with the likelihood of flipping the IPO. We find that investors perceived to be long‐term holders of the stock are consistently favored in allocation and in out‐turn profits. In contrast to Cornelli and Goldreich (2001) , we find little evidence that more informative bids receive larger allocations or higher profits. Our results cast doubt upon the extent of information production during the bookbuilding period.     

Is Underwriter Retention of IPO Shares a Good Substitute for Underwriting Spreads?

In Taiwan, underwriters are required to retain at least 10 percent but no more than 25 percent of underwritten initial public offering (IPO) shares and sell the remainder to the public. We find that IPO underpricing causes underwriters to retain more shares to earn capital gains on retained shares and that underwriter retention is a signal of IPO underpricing. If underwriter retention is cancelled, underwriters need to be compensated through lottery draw processing fees or underwriting spreads. We show that issuers should compensate underwriters through underwriting spreads directly, rather than indirectly through underwriter retention or lottery draw processing fees.     

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.     

Underpricing and long-run performance of Chinese IPOs: the role of underwriter reputation

This study examines the impact of underwriter reputation on IPO underpricing and long-run performance in the China stock market over the period 2001 to 2006. This sample period is notable for the implementation of a verification and approval system that occurred during it, which provided underwriters more freedom to price IPOs. We develop two alternative proxies to measure underwriter reputation based on either the ratio of the total gross proceeds raised or the number of IPOs managed by each underwriter. We find that underwriter reputation does not affect the level of underpricing, but that the level of long-run underperformance is significantly mitigated when IPOs are managed by more prestigious underwriters.     

Who knows what when? The information content of pre-IPO market prices

To resolve the IPO underpricing puzzle it is essential to analyze who knows what when during the issuing process. In Germany, broker-dealers make a market in IPOs that starts as soon as the offer range is published. We examine these pre-IPO prices and find that they are highly informative. They are closer to the first price subsequently established on the exchange than both the midpoint of the offer range and the offer price. The pre-IPO prices explain a large part of the underpricing left unexplained by other variables. The results imply that information asymmetries are much lower than the observed variance of underpricing suggests. They cast doubt on the informational role of bookbuilding and the relevance of the winner's curse problem.     

Laddering IPO shares

Regulators, investors, and the financial media argue that underwriters tie Initial Public Offering (IPO) allocations to investor post-listing purchases in the issuer shares. Using unique data from the Oslo Stock Exchange (OSE) I investigate if these tie-in agreements are driven by price stabilization (reducing price falls below the offer price) or laddering (inflating prices above the offer price). I find that both stabilizing and laddering investors are rewarded with increased allocations for their service. However, only laddering investors increase allocations in very oversubscribed future issues. Secondary investors also lose from falling returns following laddering. I conclude that underwriters use both price stabilization and laddering across different IPOs. However, the rewards for cooperating investors and the economic consequences for secondary investors are much greater following laddering.