The Diversification Effects of Initial Public Offerings

Abstract:  A firm's stock becomes publicly tradable through an initial public offering (IPO). This study suggests a portfolio diversification perspective to explore IPOs. We examine whether investors can gain diversification benefits by adding an IPO portfolio to a set of benchmark portfolios sorted by firm size and book-to-market ratio. Using US IPOs from 1980-2002, we find that adding a value-weighted IPO portfolio does lead to a statistically and economically significant enlargement of the investment opportunity set for investors relative to investing solely in a set of benchmark portfolios. Specifically, the Sharpe ratio of the tangency portfolio increases by 5.50% on average after including IPO stocks. Furthermore, IPOs associated with prestigious lead underwriters are the main source of this augmentation of the mean-variance investment opportunity set. Finally, our study implies that issuing IPO exchange traded funds or similar products can provide diversification gains to investors.     

Why do Underwriters Charge Low Underwriting Fees for Initial Public Offerings in Taiwan?

Abstract:  In Taiwan, underwriting fees for initial public offerings (IPOs) are extremely low compared to fees in other countries. From 1989 to 1999, the average underwriting fee for IPOs in Taiwan is 0.99%—far below the regulatory limit. Although the Taiwanese underwriting industry is highly concentrated, underwriting fees do not cluster at any particular level. We examine the underwriting fee and income structure in Taiwan and find support for an incentive hypothesis. Underwriters have an incentive to charge lower underwriting fees when market demand for IPO shares increases and capital gains account for a larger portion of their total income.     

Revisiting the valuation of deposit insurance

This study proposes a framework for pricing deposit insurance that evaluates the effect of depositor preference laws and the issuance of contingent capital bonds. Four main findings emerge from this study. First, traditional option pricing models of deposit insurance overestimate insurance premiums. Second, only large issuances of contingent capital bonds decrease deposit insurance premiums under depositor preference. Third, the issuance of contingent capital bonds can partially offset banks' excessive risk-taking caused by regulatory forbearance. Finally, although large banks have implied too-big-to-fail risks, the deposit insurer's costs from large banks are not nearly as high as reported in previous studies.