Regulatory underpricing: Determinants of Chinese extreme IPO returns

The Chinese stock market with its unique institutions is rather different from western stock markets. The average underpricing of Chinese IPOs is 247%, the highest of any major world market. We model this extreme underpricing with a supply-demand analytical framework that captures critical institutional features of China's primary market, and then empirically test this model using a sample of 1377 IPOs listed on the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchanges between 1992 and 2004. We find that Chinese IPO underpricing is principally caused by government intervention with IPO pricing regulations and the control of IPO share supplies. Besides the regulatory underpricing, this paper also documents some specific investment risks of IPOs in China's stock market.     

Information content of IPO grading

In the year 2007, Indian capital market regulator-SEBI, introduced a unique certification mechanism for IPOs whereby all IPOs have to undergo mandatory quality grading by independent rating agencies. In this paper we argue that such objective, independent and exogenous certifying mechanism provides a better opportunity to test the well established certification hypothesis, especially in the context of emerging markets with institutional voids. Using a sample of 163 Indian IPOs we test the efficacy of IPO grading mechanism. We find, grading decreases IPO underpricing and positively influences demand of retail investors. Grading reduces secondary market risk and improves liquidity. However, grading does not affect long run performance of the IPOs. IPO grading successfully capture firm size, business group affiliation and firm’s quality of corporate governance. Our findings imply that, in emerging markets, regulator’s role to signal the quality of an IPO contributes towards the market welfare.     

UNDERPRICING OF IPOS THAT FOLLOW PRIVATE PLACEMENT

In this study we examine the underpricing of initial public offerings (IPOs) by firms that have private placements of equity before their IPOs (PP IPO firms). We find that PP IPOs are associated with significantly less underpricing than their peers. Furthermore, PP IPOs are associated with lower underwriting spreads, more reputable underwriting syndicates, and greater postissue analyst coverage as compared to IPOs that are issued by their industry peers under similar market conditions. Consistent with the implications of the information asymmetry explanation for IPO underpricing, our findings suggest that companies could benefit by conveying their quality via successful pre‐IPO private placements that help reduce the cost of going public.     

The effect of language on IPO underpricing: Evidence from a multinational research

This paper examines how language characteristics affect initial public offerings (IPO) underpricing. We conjecture that Future-Tense Reference (FTR) language characteristics will informally influence human cognition of future rewards, raise their investment sentiment, and thus affect IPO underpricing. Using a sample of 33,414 IPOs in 30 countries, we find evidence that issuing firms operating in weak-FTR environments tend to experience a higher level of underpricing than those in strong-FTR settings. Our results remain robust after controlling for other linguistic and cultural characteristics, using various fixed-effect structures, and adopting the instrumental variable approach. The positive relationship between weak FTR and IPO underpricing is less pronounced in countries (regions) with higher education levels and higher institutional shareholding ratios, supporting the role of FTR on human cognition. Furthermore, our findings provide evidence supporting that the linguistic characteristic of FTR can impact firms' IPO decisions and the market's liquidity. Overall, the result highlights the importance of informal linguistic characteristics in explaining global IPO underpricing differences.     

THE PRICING OF EQUITY CARVE‐OUTS DURING THE 1990s

We examine the level of underpricing and characteristics of equity carveouts (ECOs) from 1990 to 1998 (the 1990s) and from 1999 to 2000 (the bubble period). For a sample of 458 ECOs, we find a mean initial return of 8.75% for the 1990s and 47.76% for the bubble period. The results suggest that, similar to other initial public offerings (IPOs), ECOs have been more willing to accept underpricing through time because of an increased importance in analyst coverage and the increased use of spinning, the practice where investment bankers allocate IPOs to high‐profile customers to garner potential future business.     

Auctioned IPOs: The US evidence

Between 1999 and 2007, WR Hambrecht completed 19 initial public offerings (IPOs) in the US using an auction mechanism. We analyze investor behavior and mechanism performance in these auctioned IPOs using detailed bidding data. The existence of some bids posted at high prices suggests that some investors (mostly retail) try to free-ride on the mechanism. But institutional demand in these auctions is very elastic, suggesting that institutional investors reveal information in the bidding process. Investor participation is largely predictable based on deal size, and demand is dominated by institutions. Flipping is at most as prevalent in auctions as in bookbuilt deals. But, unlike in bookbuilding, investors in auctions do not flip their shares more in “hot” deals. Finally, we find that institutional investors, who provide more information, are rewarded by obtaining a larger share of the deals that have higher 10-day underpricing. Our results therefore suggest that auctioned IPOs can be an effective alternative to traditional bookbuilding.     

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.     

Country-level Accounting Enforcement and IPO Underpricing

Using a sample of up to 2,503 initial public offerings (IPOs) in 32 countries from 2011–2017, we predict and find that higher levels of country-level accounting enforcement are associated with lower levels of IPO underpricing. IPOs in countries with a relatively low accounting enforcement score (second quintile) exhibit a mean underpricing of 19%, whereas the mean underpricing amounts to just 9% in countries with a relatively high score (fourth quintile). The results remain qualitatively the same when we employ a multi-level model or a difference-in-difference design. In countries that substantially strengthened their accounting enforcement in the 2003–2009 period, the level of IPO underpricing decreased significantly. We show that accounting enforcement matters for the cost of going public.     

A Comparison of Underwriting Costs of Initial Public Offerings by Investment and Commercial Banks

We examine differences in underwriting costs between commercial‐bank‐Section‐20‐underwritten initial public offerings (IPOs) and investment‐bank‐underwritten IPOs. Our results suggest that total underwriting costs (gross margin plus underpricing) are significantly lower for commercial bank IPOs. The lower cost for commercial bank IPOs is attributable to less severe underpricing for these issues. Gross margin costs generally do not differ between commercial bank and investment bank issues. Furthermore, we find that the long‐run stock price performance for commercial bank issues is superior to that of investment bank issues. That is, lower underpricing for Section 20 issues may not be a short‐run phenomenon. Rather, there appears to be a favorable outcome for investors in the long run for holding IPOs underwritten by Section 20 commercial banks. These results are inconsistent with the conflict of interest hypothesis often associated with merging commercial and investment bank functions in one organization.     

Underpricing of Chinese A-share IPOs and short-run underperformance under the approval system from 2001 to 2005

This paper analyses underpricing and short-run underperformance of the Chinese A-share IPOs from Mar, 2001 to 2005 when the new approval system was adopted. We find that the average market adjusted first-day return is 93.49% in this period, a more reasonable level when compared with those in previous periods in China. The findings show that underpricing in this period is significantly affected by offering mechanisms and inequality of demand and supply of IPOs. The effect of shareholder's structure is tested in the model and state-owned share's weight is shown to increase the degree of underpricing. Meanwhile, this paper analyses IPOs' short-run underpricing on their 10th, 20th, 30th trading days. It is found that most IPOs' underpricing shrinks and the degree of shrinking degrees is different across the groups categorized by offering mechanisms. Further, the underperformance of IPOs which are underwritten by more prestigious underwriters shows a comparatively lower range and is less severe in the short-run.     

Short selling in initial public offerings

Short sale constraints in the aftermarket of initial public offerings (IPOs) are often used to explain short-term underpricing that is subsequently reversed. This paper shows that short selling is integral to aftermarket trading and is higher in IPOs with greater underpricing. Perceived restrictions on borrowing shares are not systematically circumvented by “naked” short selling. Short sellers, on average, do not appear to earn abnormal profits in the near term and our findings are not driven by market makers. Short selling in IPOs is not as constrained as suggested by the literature, implying that other factors may be responsible for underpricing.     

Explaining underpricing of IPOs in frontier markets: Evidence from the Nigeria Stock Exchange

The paper provides empirical analyses of IPO underpricing on the Nigerian Stock Exchange, from the period 1990 to 2006. The results indicate an average abnormal initial day returns of 43.1%. There is evidence of long-run underperformance of 0.6%. Results from our regression model explaining initial abnormal returns for the IPOs of Nigeria show that size of firm and audit quality are important variables affecting underpricing. The results also show the presence of a non-linear relationship between the offer price and underpricing.     

Worldwide short selling regulations and IPO underpricing

We study the impact of country-level short selling constraints on IPO underpricing. Examining 17,151 IPOs from 36 countries, we find that IPO underpricing tends to be greater in countries that ban short selling or security lending and in countries where short selling is not practiced. Non-positive first-day returns are more common in countries where short selling is allowed, security lending is allowed, and short selling is commonly practiced. Short selling constraints exacerbate the positive relation between investor sentiment and underpricing. Additional evidence suggests that higher quality information environments may partially alleviate the effects of short sale constraints on underpricing.     

Cross-country IPOs: What explains differences in underpricing?

We study the impacts of country-level information asymmetry, investors' home-country bias, effectiveness of contract enforcement mechanisms, and accessibility of legal recourse on IPO underpricing in 36 countries around the globe. We find evidence consistent with all four of our hypotheses. First, we find a positive and significant effect of country-level information asymmetry on IPO underpricing. Second, our empirical evidence is consistent with the agency-cost-based explanation of IPO underpricing. We find that lower cost to entice the block holders, measured by domestic investors' home-country bias, reduces IPO underpricing. Third, we find that effective contract enforcement mechanisms help to reduce IPO underpricing. Finally, we find a positive relation between the accessibility of legal recourse and IPO underpricing.     

The JOBS Act and the Costs of Going Public

We examine the effects of Title I of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act for a sample of 312 emerging growth companies (EGCs) that filed for an initial public offering (IPO) from April 5, 2012 through April 30, 2015. We find no reduction in the direct costs of issuance, accounting, legal, or underwriting fees for EGC IPOs. Underpricing, an indirect cost of issuance that increases an issuer's cost of capital, is significantly higher for EGCs compared to other IPOs. More importantly, greater underpricing is present only for larger firms that are newly eligible for scaled disclosure under the Act. Overall, we find little evidence that the Act in its first three years has reduced the measurable costs of going public. Although there are benefits of the Act that issuers appear to value, they should be balanced against the higher costs of capital that can occur after its enactment.     

Modifier effects of country-level transparency on global underpricing difference: New hierarchical evidence

Even though empirical evidence on IPO underpricing documents substantial variations across nations, existing literature primarily neglects the simultaneous direct and indirect influences of formal institutional quality. Here, we examine if the perceived differences in IPO underpricing in the global IPO market are due to: direct effect of inter-temporal changes in transparency across countries; indirect effect of inter-temporal changes in country-level transparency on IPO underpricing; or due to both. We employ 10,212 IPO-issuing firms over 22 years covering 12 advanced and 10 emerging countries with heterogeneous formal intuitional backgrounds. The findings demonstrate that differences in country-level characteristics account for 22%, 5%, and 25% of the deviations in IPO underpricing between all G20, developed and developing countries, respectively. By employing time-variant transparency proxies, we explain up to 34% of the variability in IPO underpricing across G20 countries. We observe conclusive evidence showing that country-level transparency indirectly influences underpricing variation by moderating the relationships between the incentive of IPO issuers, underwriter reputation, and the link between ex-ante uncertainty and underpricing. Both direct and indirect effects of formal institutional quality are important in explaining underpricing differences within developing equity markets compared to developed ones. We outline several policy-oriented contributions.     

An empirical analysis of Mexican and US closed-end mutual fund IPOs

We examine 135 Mexican closed-end fund IPOs and 370 Mexican non-fund IPOs that issued between 1994 and 2003 along with 217 contemporaneous US fund IPOs and document three primary results. First, we find that Mexican IPOs in the aggregate experience no significant underpricing, unlike their US IPO counterparts. Both Mexican and US IPOs experience significantly negative long-run performance. Second, Mexican closed-end fund IPOs experience positive long-run performance, significantly better than Mexican non-fund IPOs which experience negative long-run performance. Unlike Mexican fund IPOs, US fund IPOs experience negative long-run performance. Third, we find that both Mexican and US debt-backed closed-end fund IPOs significantly outperform equity-backed closed-end IPOs. In Mexico, debt-backed funds experience positive abnormal returns, compared to negative abnormal returns for Mexican equity-backed funds, US debt-backed funds, and US equity-backed funds.     

REGULATORY AND PROCEDURAL EFFECTS ON THE UNDERPRICING OF INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERINGS

In this paper, the pricing of initial public offerings (IPOs) is examined from the underwriter's point of view. It is shown that because of the regulations and procedures governing the underwriting and pricing of IPOs, underwriters can maximize expected income by underpricing IPOs. Thus, it is argued that in addition to other feasible explanations of the underpricing phenomenon (e.g., compensation to uninformed investors, insurance against legal liability, etc.), regulatory and procedural factors contribute to the underpricing of IPOs. This is shown to be true both when uninformed investors are present and absent from the market for IPOs.     

Australian IPO pricing in the short and long run

We analyse both initial underpricing and post-listing returns for Australian IPOs. Our results are consistent with the view that unique institutional characteristics may have overwhelmed previous Australian tests of equilibrium models of IPO underpricing. The results also show that Australian IPOs significantly underperform market movements in the three-year period subsequent to listing. Further investigation of these anomalous post-listing returns lead us to reject various ‘speculative bubble’ explanations. Rather, the evidence suggests a curvilinear relationship between initial and subsequent returns, although the economic significance of the relationship is low.