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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

The Effect of Banking Relationships on the Firm's IPO Underpricing

This paper investigates the effects of pre‐IPO banking relationships on a firm's IPO. Using a new and unique data set, which compares the firm's pre‐IPO banking relationships to the underwriters managing the firm's new issue, I test whether banking relationships established before the firm's IPO ameliorate asymmetric informa tion problems behind high IPO underpricing. The results show that firms with a pre‐IPO banking relationship with a prospective underwriter face about 17% lower underpricing than firms without such banking relationships. These results are robust to controlling for the firm's endogenous selection of the pre‐IPO banking institution.     

Underwriter Reputation,Issuer Ownership,and Pre‐IPO Earnings Management: Evidence from China

This paper investigates the correlation between pre‐initial public offering (pre‐IPO) earnings management and underwriter reputation for issuers with different ownership structures in China. We document a significantly inverse relationship between underwriter reputation and pre‐IPO earnings management for non‐state‐owned enterprises (NSOE) issuers only, while no significant association is found for state‐owned enterprises (SOE) issuers. We also find that for the NSOE new issue market, underwriter reputation is positively correlated with issuer post‐IPO performance indicating that prestigious underwriters can incrementally improve issuer post‐IPO performance.     

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.     

An analysis of the liquidity benefits provided by secondary markets

Listing shares in liquid secondary markets either to facilitate acquisitions or to diversify owner’s personal wealth are among the most important reasons for firms to go public [Brau, J.C., Fawcett, S.E., 2006. Initial public offerings: An analysis of theory and practice. Journal of Finance 61, 399–436]. We contend that the expected benefits derived from the liquidity provided by secondary markets are relevant for understanding important decisions made in preparation for an IPO. We hypothesize that the potential losses caused by an IPO failure induce firms that benefit more from going public to hire more reputable underwriters and to adopt more conservative pricing policies. We use several proxies for the benefits firms derive from post-IPO liquidity. The results indicate that firms that benefited more from liquidity were taken public by more prestigious underwriters and exhibited substantially larger levels of price revisions and underpricing. Post-IPO liquidity is also important for understanding the decision to retain the lead underwriter in subsequent SEOs.     

Do Initial Public Offering Firms Purchase Analyst Coverage with Underpricing?

We report that initial public offering (IPO) underpricing is positively related to analyst coverage by the lead underwriter and to the presence of an all‐star analyst on the research staff of the lead underwriter. These findings are robust to controls for other determinants of underpricing and to controls for the endogeneity of underpricing and analyst coverage. In addition, we find that the probability of switching underwriters between IPO and seasoned equity offering is negatively related to the unexpected amount of post‐IPO analyst coverage. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that underpricing is, in part, compensation for expected post‐IPO analyst coverage from highly ranked analysts.     

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.     

Fixed price and book building methods in an exogenous environment: Evidence from Indonesia stock market

Book building has become a popular method of selling new shares. Although previous models suggest that book building is an efficient method for price discovery in initial public offering (IPO) issuance, empirical evidence provides mixed results. Previous empirical findings on IPO methods have been obtained from markets that allow issuers to choose the IPO method, and this setting is not free from endogeneity issues. We investigate the effect of IPO method (fixed price vs book building) in Indonesia, which is an emerging market that offers an exogenous setting for IPO methods. More specifically, Indonesia used the fixed price method for IPOs before October 2000 and used the book building method thereafter following the introduction of new IPO regulations. Using estimation methods that consider clustering phenomena, we find that book building yields larger underpricing and greater volatility than the fixed price method. Moreover, a positive relationship is observed between underpricing and aftermarket volatility for the book building method and book building IPOs underperform fixed price IPOs. No relationship was observed between underpricing and long-term performance for book building IPOs. Compared with previous models, our findings suggest that book building does not represent a quality IPO method and suffers from agency conflict; thus, this method needs improvement.     

Global trends in IPO methods: Book building versus auctions with endogenous entry

The U.S. book-building method has become increasingly popular for initial public offerings (IPOs) worldwide over the last decade, whereas sealed-bid IPO auctions have been abandoned in nearly all of the many countries in which they have been tried. I model book building, discriminatory auctions, and uniform price auctions in an environment in which the number of investors and the accuracy of investors’ information are endogenous. Book building lets underwriters manage investor access to shares, allowing them to reduce risk for both issuers and investors and to control spending on information acquisition, thereby limiting either underpricing or aftermarket volatility. Because more control and less risk are beneficial to all issuers, the advantages of book building's allocational flexibility could explain why global patterns of issuer choice are surprisingly consistent. My models also predict that offerings with higher expected underpricing have lower expected aftermarket volatility; that an auction open to large numbers of potential bidders is vulnerable to inaccurate pricing and to fluctuations in the number of bidders; and that both book-built and auctioned IPOs will exhibit partial adjustment to both private and public information.     

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。     

Stabilization and the aftermarket prices of initial public offerings

The paper examines the determinants of stabilization and its impact on the aftermarket prices. We use a unique dataset to relax several assumptions in the stabilization literature. We find that underwriters support IPO prices shortly after listing, particularly in cold markets and when demand is weak. We also show that stabilized IPOs are more common amongst reputable underwriters. This finding suggests that stabilization may be used as a mechanism to protect the underwriter’s reputation. It also implies that reputable underwriters may possess private information and price IPOs closer to their true values (i.e., higher than those indicated by the weak premarket demand). Consistent with the latter view, we show that stabilized IPOs are offered at higher prices and suffer less underpricing than those indicated by the premarket demand, firm characteristics and market-wide conditions. The post-IPO performance results indicate that stabilized IPOs are unlikely to be mispriced as their prices do not exhibit any significant reversal after the initial stabilization period. We conclude that stabilization may be superior to underpricing as it protects investors from purchasing overpriced IPOs, benefits issuers by reducing the total money “left on the table” and enhances the overall profitability of underwriters.     

Evidence on What CFOs Think About the IPO Process: Practice,Theory, and Managerial Implications

Many privately held companies aspire to go public through an initial public offering. But the IPO process is time‐consuming, expensive, and fraught with uncertainty. With the aim of shedding light on the process and reducing at least some of the uncertainty, the authors asked several hundred CFOs to share their experiences and perceptions with regard to six specific aspects of the IPO process: (1) motives for going public; (2) the timing of IPOs; (3) criteria for choosing an underwriter; (4) cause of IPO underpricing; (5) IPO signaling; and (6) reasons to stay private. The main findings from the survey are summarized below:

• ? The primary motive for going public is to create a currency‐publicly traded shares‐that can be used to fund acquisitions.
• ? CFOs strongly base the timing of their IPOs on overall stock market conditions, while paying relatively little attention to IPO market conditions.
• ? CFOs choose underwriters based on their overall reputation and industry expertise. Somewhat surprisingly, issuers did not express much concern about the underwriter fee structure.
• ? CFOs view underpricing mainly as a means of compensating investors for taking on the risk of IPOs in the after‐market.
• ? The two strongest perceived positive signals for issuer quality are a history of strong earnings and the use of a reputable investment bank. The strongest negative signal is the sale of insider shares in the IPO.
• ? The primary reason for staying private cited by the CFOs of private companies is the desire to maintain decision‐making control.

     

Underwriter reputation and underpricing: evidence from the Australian IPO market

Dimovski and Brooks (J Intern Financ Mark Inst Money 14:267–280, 2004b) examined 358 Australian industrial and mining company initial public offerings (IPOs) from 1994 to 1999 to report that more money was left on the table by IPOs that engaged underwriters than those that did not engage underwriters. Loughran and Ritter (Autumn 5–37, 2004) suggested that the negative relation between underwriter reputation and underpricing has reversed in the 1990s with U.S. IPOs. The main purpose of this paper is to study the relationship between underwriter reputation and underpricing in terms of Australian IPO data. In this paper, we use 380 Australian industrial company IPOs from 1994 to 2004 to perform the empirical study. Our results suggest that more prestigious underwriters are associated with a higher level of underpricing. Other variables that are found to be significant in explaining the level of IPO underpricing are market sentiment, share options, total capital raised and underwriter options.     

IPOs with and without allocation discretion: Empirical evidence

Bookbuilding, the dominant offering mechanism for IPOs, is controversial because of the power it gives underwriters over IPO allocations. Critics argue that allocations could be abused to generate kickbacks for underwriters while proponents hold that allocation power could improve pre-market price discovery. We examine underpricing, bidding, and allocations from two regimes in the Indian IPO market with varying underwriter allocation power. When underwriters control allocations, bookbuilding is associated with lesser underpricing, but the effect quickly dissipates when regulations withdraw allocation powers. Using proprietary datasets of IPO books in both regimes, we find that allocation powers are used quite extensively. Identical bids can receive significantly different allocations, which depend not only on the bid but also on the bidder identity. When allocation powers are withdrawn, we find evidence of bidder exit, new bidder entry, and altered bidding strategies with exit by both favored and unfavored bidders. Our evidence supports bookbuilding theories in which giving underwriters allocation powers assists in pre-market price discovery.     

Underwriter reputation,earnings management and the long‐run performance of initial public offerings

This study contributes to the extant literature on the nature of earnings management surrounding initial public offerings (IPOs) by investigating the role of underwriter reputation. We argue that prestigious underwriters will protect their reputation by carefully monitoring and certifying financial information on IPO firms, thereby limiting any potential earnings manipulation. As a result, those IPO firms that are associated with more prestigious underwriters are likely to exhibit substantially less‐aggressive earnings management. Conversely, we find the existence of a negative relationship between earnings management and the post‐offer performance of an IPO firm’s stocks only for those firms associated with less‐prestigious underwriters.     

Insider trading law enforcement and gross spreads of ADR IPOs

Using American Depositary Receipt (ADR) IPOs from 34 countries during 1980-2004, we find that, on average, the enforcement of insider trading laws reduces the underwriter gross spread by 49-61 basis points, which is about 10-12% of the average gross spread for ADR IPOs. This relation is present regardless of whether issuers have a prior listing or whether issuers are from developed or emerging markets. The association becomes stronger for ADRs underwritten by less prestigious underwriters and for issuers that are involved in privatization. The political institutions in the issuers’ home markets also affect gross spreads.     

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.