REVISITING BOOKBUILDING VERSUS AUCTION IPOS: A PERSPECTIVE OF INFORMATIONALLY EFFICIENT PRICES IN THE AFTERMARKET

We compare price efficiency between auction and bookbuilding initial public offerings (IPOs). Our empirical results fail to support the prevailing conjecture that bookbuilding IPOs are more price efficient than auction IPOs. We find statistical insignificance between two IPO samples or weak evidence for the opposite hypothesis. We add to the evidence that auctions yield aftermarket price efficiency equal to that of bookbuilding or are statistically indifferent when measured by market microstructure and Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) data. We also examine whether underlying price efficiency forces reflect the relative presence of informed institutional and retail investors, aftermarket price support, and divergence of investor expectations.     

Another Look at Bookbuilding,Auctions, and the Future of the IPO Process

In an earlier series of articles published in this journal, one of the three authors of this article predicted the rise of auction IPOs, possibly to the point of displacing the traditional bookbuilding process for pricing and allocating IPOs, only to find himself forced to explain in later articles the continuing preference of issuers for the conventional IPO process. In a 1999 article, for example, this author cited WR Hambrecht as posing a serious challenge to bookbuilding. And in a 2005 article, shortly after Google used an auction for its IPO, he suggested that the time was ripe for change. In this article the authors revisit the debate, taken up most recently in a 2012 exchange between Congressman Darrell Issa and the SEC. They begin by discussing why bookbuilding persists before focusing on several recent developments that could undermine the case for bookbuilding. The authors point out that bookbuilding rests on banks' discretion in allocating IPO shares and, critically, on both issuers and investors trusting that it will be deployed appropriately. After discussing developments that have undermined trust in the financial markets, the authors suggest that, when combined with recent regulatory changes intended to streamline public offerings by small firms, such changes have created opportunities for auctions to gain traction in the U.S. IPO market.     

Reforming the Bookbuilding Process for IPOs

The controversy over IPOs has raised questions about whether retail investors are being unfairly denied access to shares in IPOs and whether the new Internet auction methods might provide a fairer and more efficient way to allocate shares. This article argues that much of the popular concern may be misdirected. By and large, bookbuilding is well designed to accomplish price discovery in a cost-effective way. And standard auctions, which have been all but abandoned in a number of countries, have generally proved disappointing for equity IPOs (although they have been successful for bond offerings). The authors propose a "hybrid" form of securities issuance that would retain the advantages of bookbuilding while incorporating a public offer "tranche" for retail investors and other measures designed to increase transparency.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Market conditions and the optimal IPO allocation mechanism in China

This paper investigates the impact of market conditions of market return and volatility on choosing an IPO mechanism, using data of 942 IPOs on either Shanghai or Shenzhen stock exchanges of China from 1994 to 2003. We find, on average, the issuers are more likely to have their IPOs offering and listing during times of high market return and low market volatility. The fixed price procedure of the secondary market proportional offering is optimal in minimising the underpricing and cross-sectional variation of the first day returns. The bookbuilding procedure is optimal in counteracting adverse conditions created by low market profitability, high market volatility and uncertainty induced by the time ‘gap’ from offering to listing. By comparing the advantages between the secondary market proportional offering and bookbuilding procedures, the latter is preferred.     

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.     

Bookbuilding with heterogeneous investors

Empirical evidence suggests that better-informed investors in bookbuilt IPOs submit more informative bids and receive better allocations than do investors with less precise information. While the traditional bookbuilding argument accounts for this evidence as better-informed investors being rewarded with more favorable allocations for providing more useful information, the present paper adopts the winner's curse argument and shows that better-informed investors get better allocations by being better able to pick underpriced issues, even though in equilibrium investors' bids fully reveal their information. The paper offers empirical implications that allow the two arguments to be separated.     

The strategic reallocation of IPO shares

In this work, we study the reallocation of shares to retail and institutional investors, measured as the difference between the allocation declared before the initial public offering (IPO) and the effective allotment decided by the underwriter after the bookbuilding process. The reallocation is disaggregated into three components, two of which are under the direct control of the underwriter: the initial allocation, and the demand satisfaction ratio. The empirical analysis is based on a sample of 193 hybrid IPOs issued in Italy between 1997 and 2012. Controlling for firm and IPO characteristics, we find that the IPO shares are typically shifted toward institutional investors when positive information is collected during the bookbuilding process. The IPO pricing and share reallocation are found to be interdependent, and reallocation is used in combination with partial adjustment to reward institutional investors.     

Price-Formation Process of an Emerging Futures Market: Call Auction Versus Continuous Auction

This study assesses the market qualities of alternative price-formation processes for an emerging futures market—the Taiwan futures market. In 2002, the price formation process in the market changed during the period of trade between call auction and continuous auction. The performances of call auction and continuous auction are compared using intraday data. Empirical results show that the market is more liquid, and volatility is slightly lower, under continuous auction than under call auction. Also, there is robust evidence that continuous auction improves informative efficiency. The study suggests that for an emerging futures market like that of Taiwan, continuous auction offers a better trading environment for futures trading. In addition to demonstrating the virtue of continuous auction, this study also finds that the asymmetry in volatility is related to the price formation process. The asymmetry effect exists under continuous auction, but not under call auction.     

Is There One Best Way to Sell a Company? Auctions Versus Negotiations and Controlled Sales1

For managements and boards that have decided that the value‐maximizing choice is to sell their companies, the board must then address another important question: what is the best way to sell the company? Should they use a wide‐ranging auction that seeks to attract the largest number of bidders, exclusive negotiation with a single bidder, or a “controlled sale” with a limited group of potential buyers? In a much cited 1996 article in the American Economic Review called “Auctions Versus Negotiations,” economists Jeremy Bulow and Paul Klemperer argued that there is “no merit in arguments that negotiation should be restricted to one or a few bidders to allow the seller to maintain control of the negotiating process.” But in their series of studies of the corporate M&A sales process over the past five years, the authors of this article have come to a very different conclusion. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, wide‐ranging auctions that seek the greatest number of bidders are far from the dominant approach. Roughly half of the large M&A deals investigated by the authors were accomplished through negotiations with single bidders. At the same time, full‐fledged auctions accounted for only about half of the deals involving multiple bidders, while the other half were classified as controlled sales aimed at a small number of carefully selected potential buyers. In their attempt to explain this preference for negotiations and controlled sales over auctions in M&A sales, the authors draw extensive parallels with the market for initial public offerings. As in the “bookbuilding” approach that now dominates the IPO process in virtually all global capital markets, the decision to limit the number of bidders through either negotiations or controlled sales appears to have the advantage of eliciting more aggressive bids from the “most qualified” buyers. Or, to put this another way, auctions appear to have the effect of discouraging such buyers from participating in the process.     

Bookbuilding and Strategic Allocation

In the bookbuilding procedure, an investment banker solicits bids for shares from institutional investors prior to pricing an equity issue. The banker then prices the issue and allocates shares at his discretion to the investors. We examine the books for 39 international equity issues. We find that the investment banker awards more shares to bidders who provide information in their bids. Regular investors receive favorable allocations, especially when the issue is heavily oversubscribed. The investment banker also favors revised bids and domestic investors.     

Call auction algorithm design and market manipulation

It is commonly accepted that closing call auctions provide investors with access to closing prices, reduce volatility and reduce price manipulation. This paper argues that call auction design may influence the achievement of these objectives. The paper focuses on one aspect of call auction design, namely the matching algorithm used to set auction prices. Analysis of two real market cases indicates that different algorithms set different prices. The results also indicate that manipulation has a significant impact on call auction prices, with some algorithm designs more effective than others at reducing the impact of manipulation. Alternate call auction design features, such as volatility extensions, may be necessary to more effectively reduce closing price manipulation.     

The Distribution of Information among Institutional and Retail Investors in IPOs

This study examines investor performance in IPOs using a unique database comprising 85,384 investors and 29 offerings from Finland. The evidence indicates that on average institutional investors do not obtain larger initial returns than retail investors, as the incentive to acquire information is limited by allocation rules which favour small orders. This result is in contrast to findings by Aggarwal et al . (2002), who show that institutional investors perform better in a bookbuilding environment. Within each investor category, however, large orders are associated with the best performance, suggesting that information differences figure more importantly within rather than between categories.     

The Effects of Trading Methods on Volatility and Liquidity: Evidence from the Taiwan Stock Exchange

This study contrasts the call and continuous auction methods using Taiwan Stock Exchange data. Volatility under the call market method is approximately one-half of that under the continuous auction method. The call market method is more effective in reducing the volatility of high-volume stocks than low-volume stocks. This contradicts conventional wisdom which suggests that the call market method is superior for thinly traded stocks, while the continuous auction method is preferred for heavily traded stocks. The call market method does not impair liquidity and price discovery. The call market appears more efficient than in the continuous auction market.     

Market Sentiments,Winner’s Curse and Bidding Outcome in Land Auctions

This paper empirically tests auction theory by examining how the stock market evaluates the outcome of open-bid English auctions of rights to develop residential real estate projects in Hong Kong. To do so, we deconstruct the complexity surrounding actual auction events, and empirically isolate the influence of conflicting auction theory predictions using data from expert opinion around auction events, actual auction event and outcome data, and stock market data. The empirical findings include (1) with increasing uncertainty bidders reduce bids, thus confirming predictions following the winner’s curse thesis; (2) joint bidding does not lead to increased bids based on pooled (“better”) information, but instead leads to reduced competition; while increased competition leads to increased prices at auction, as expected; (3) the market interprets auction outcomes as information events which function to signal developers’ expectations about future market prospects; but if the winning bid is considered too high, this interpretation is revised to that of the winner’s curse; (4) with joint bidding and winning, the market’s response to joint winners is better explained by concern for winner’s curse (despite supposed better informed bids) than the acquisition of a below cost development project following reduced competition at auction; and (5) the market interprets increased competition at auction as indicator of the future direction of property price movements in the secondary market—the more intense the competition, the more positive the future prospect of the property market are seen to be.