Does IPO Pricing Reflect Public Information? New Insights from Equity Carve‐Outs

We examine the efficiency of initial public offering (IPO) pricing using a sample of over 300 equity carve‐outs from 1985 to 2009. The partial adjustment theory posits that the initial return of IPOs is predictable based on private information, but public information is fully incorporated. Prospect theory is consistent with both private and public information not being fully incorporated in the offer price. Our analysis confirms that both price update and initial return of carve‐out IPOs can be predicted based on the parent firm's returns during the prepricing and preissuing periods. Further, postissue ownership of the parent firm is associated with significantly higher price update and initial return, while IPOs where the majority of the proceeds are paid out register lower initial return. The size of the subsidiary and relative size of the offering are also significantly related to price update and initial return. These findings are consistent with prospect theory.     

Partial Price Adjustments and Equity Carve‐Outs

We examine the extent to which market‐adjusted ex date returns reflect public information for 271 equity carve‐outs in 1988–2006. Although prior studies focus on ex post determinants of equity carve‐out and initial public offering returns, our study is the first to explore ex ante predictors of equity carve‐out returns. We use three primary variables: filing range adjustments, the percentage of the offering used to retire subsidiary debt or to pay dividends, and the CBOE Volatility Index (VXO) to predict initial returns. We show that 11–35% of the variation in market‐adjusted equity carve‐out returns can be predicted using public information known prior to the offer date.     

The Impact of the Corporate Control Market on IPO Decisions

Entrepreneurs who take their firm public during an active corporate control market face an increased risk of losing control through a takeover. I examine the extent to which the threat of takeover impacts IPO firms’ decisions and find that an active takeover market in an IPO firm's industry increases the probability that the firm incorporates in a state with state‐level antitakeover provisions. IPO firms backed by venture capital investors and reputable underwriters are less likely to incorporate in a state offering antitakeover provisions. A closer examination of equity carve‐outs suggests that control is not a first‐order consideration for some IPO firms.     

Deciphering the Motives for Equity Carve-Outs

I analyze 181 equity carve‐outs to determine whether the transactions are motivated by potential efficiency improvements or by an opportunity to sell overvalued equity. Carve‐out operating performance peaks at issue, declining significantly thereafter. Parents sell a greater percentage of shares when subsequent performance is poor. A negative relation also exists between long‐term excess returns and the percentage of shares sold. If subsequent performance is correlated with the degree to which parent managers believe carve‐out subsidiaries are over‐ or undervalued, results imply that many carve‐outs are conducted, not to improve efficiency, but to sell potentially overvalued equity.     

WHY ISSUE TRACKING STOCK? INSIGHTS FROM A COMPARISON WITH SPIN‐OFFS AND CARVE‐OUTS

In recent years, tracking stocks, which amount to a new form of corporate restructuring, have been gaining in popularity. In 1999 alone, 17 companies announced new tracking stock issues, and by February 2000 there were 40 tracking stocks trading in the U.S. equity markets. Why have tracking stocks become so popular in recent years? In this article, the authors present new evidence on the effectiveness of tracking stock issues in creating shareholder value as compared to the record of two other closely related forms of corporate restructuring—spin‐offs and equity carve‐outs. The authors find that the parents and subsidiaries of tracking‐stock firms are more “related” than those that undertake the other two forms of corporate restructuring, that there is a positive announcement effect (similar in size to that of spin‐offs but greater than that of equity carve‐outs) on stock prices, and that the number of analysts following the firm increases following the issuance of tracking stock. These findings are interpreted as suggesting that the main corporate motives for issuing tracking stock are the valuation benefits from providing investors with more information about the newly listed subsidiary, while at the same time preserving the existing synergies between the business units involved. This maintenance of existing synergies, however, appears to have come at a significant price. Under the tracking stock structure, there seem to be no benefits attributable, as in the case of spin‐offs, to improvements in corporate governance. While spinoffs significantly increase the probability that the parents or subsidiaries will later be taken over (with its disciplining effect on management), there is no such increase in takeover probability for firms issuing tracking stock. Consistent with this difference, the authors find that the market‐adjusted two‐year holding period return for tracking stock parents and subsidiaries is significantly lower than the corresponding return for spinoffs and their corporate parents.     

The Initial Public Offerings of Listed Firms

A number of firms in the United Kingdom list without issuing equity and then issue equity shortly thereafter. We argue that this two‐stage offering strategy is less costly than an initial public offering (IPO) because trading reduces the valuation uncertainty of these firms before they issue equity. We find that initial returns are 10% to 30% lower for these firms than for comparable IPOs, and we provide evidence that the market in the firm's shares lowers financing costs. We also show that these firms time the market both when they list and when they issue equity.     

The impacts of parent’s listing status on subsidiary’s financial constraint and cost of equity capital: the case of equity carve‐outs

We find that listed parents’ carve‐outs have investment‐cash‐flow sensitivities 70 per cent lower than unlisted parents’ carve‐outs, on average. Such a finding is stronger when we consider only equity carve‐outs in technological industries. The finding suggests that listed parents are more capable of alleviating the financial constraint of their carved‐out units than private parents. Our further analysis shows that listed parents’ carve‐outs also have a lower cost of equity than their counterparts, but such difference cannot be explained by corporate transparency, as implied by analyst coverage and analysts’ forecast dispersion. Therefore, we argue that the benefits from affiliation with a listed parent to the carve‐out come mainly from the parent’s financial support rather than an increase in corporate transparency.     

THE WEALTH EFFECTS OF TRACKING STOCK RESTRUCTURINGS

We provide a comprehensive examination of the post‐issue wealth effects of 29 completed tracking stock restructurings. We document that for the parent stock and for the combined firm, tracking stock restructurings lead to insignificant long‐term excess returns. However, we find that shareholders of tracking stocks realize significant post‐issue wealth losses. Unlike spin‐offs and carve‐outs, announcements of tracking stock restructurings are preceded by negative one‐year excess returns, and unlike the positive post‐issue long‐term excess returns to spin‐off stocks and the insignificant long‐term excess returns to carve‐out stocks, tracking stocks experience negative long‐term excess returns.     

Extrapolation Errors in IPOs

We demonstrate that relatively high revenue growth prior to an initial public offering (IPO) is associated with high IPO prices and poor returns. In particular, low‐growth IPO returns, ?1% on a three‐year annualized basis compared to ?12% (equal‐weighted) or ?29% (value‐weighted) for high‐growth new issues. There is no evidence that the performance differentials reflect risk premia. Rather, low‐growth firms’ returns are more stable over time. Finally, while analysts’ forecasts are upwardly biased for all firms, the magnitude of this bias is greatest for firms with rapid pre‐IPO revenue growth. Overall, these results are consistent with the extrapolation errors model suggested by Lakonishok, Shleifer, and Vishny (1994).     

How Persistent Is the Impact of Market Timing on Capital Structure?

This paper examines the capital structure implications of market timing. I isolate timing attempts in a single major financing event, the initial public offering, by identifying market timers as firms that go public in hot issue markets. I find that hot‐market IPO firms issue substantially more equity, and lower their leverage ratios by more, than cold‐market firms do. However, immediately after going public, hot‐market firms increase their leverage ratios by issuing more debt and less equity relative to cold‐market firms. At the end of the second year following the IPO, the impact of market timing on leverage completely vanishes.     

Cross‐sectional determinants of post‐IPO stock performance: evidence from China

This paper examines the cross‐sectional determinants of post‐IPO long‐term stock returns in China. We document that the aftermarket P/E ratio has the most robust negative association with post‐IPO stock returns. The negative relation indicates that the market corrects the aftermarket overvaluation of IPO firms in the long run. Underwriter reputation has a positive effect on post‐IPO stock returns, while board size has a negative impact, consistent with the views that reputable underwriters mitigate the information asymmetry in IPO pricing and over‐sized boards reduce the effectiveness of corporate governance. However, we find little evidence indicating that the equity ownership structure is significantly associated with post‐IPO stock returns.     

Equity issues when in distress

We investigate the role of financial distress in the seasoned equity market. We find that distressed firms comprise about 40% of SEOs and these distressed issuers have worse abnormal announcement returns than non‐distressed issuers. Stock return volatility is an important determinant for announcement returns for non‐distressed SEO issuers but not for distressed SEO issuers. Signals of firm quality are associated with better announcement returns, larger issues, increased investment, improved operating performance, and lower likelihood of delisting for distressed SEO firms as compared to non‐distressed firms. Our findings suggest equity finance is valuable for financially distressed firms with strong growth prospects.     

Exits,Performance, and Late Stage Private Equity: the Case of UK Management Buy‐outs

Using a hand‐collected dataset of 1,225 buy‐outs, we examine post buy‐out and post exit long term abnormal operating performance of UK management buy‐outs, during the period 1980–2009. Our univariate and panel data analysis of post buy‐out performance conclusively show positive changes in output. We also find strong evidence for improvements in employment and output and a lack of significant changes in efficiency and profitability following initial public offerings (IPO) exits. IPOs from the main London Stock Exchange (LSE) market outperform their counterparts from the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) only in terms of changes in output. For secondary management buy outs (SMBOs), performance declines during the first buy‐out but in the second buy‐out performance stabilises until year three, after which profitability and efficiency fall while employment increases. Although private equity (PE) backed buy‐outs do not exhibit either post buy‐out or post exit underperformance, they fail to over‐perform their non‐PE backed counterparts. In the subsample of buy‐outs exiting via IPOs on the AIM, PE firms do not outperform non‐PE buy‐outs. Our findings highlight the importance of tracing the overall performance of buy‐outs over a longer period and controlling for sample selection bias related to the provision of PE backing.     

PERFORMANCE LEVERAGE, AND OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE IN REVERSE LBOs

Previous studies have provided convincing evidence of improvements in the performance of companies that undergo leveraged buyouts (LBOs). This article presents evidence from the authors' recent study of the performance of 90 "reverse LBOs–LBO firms that go public again in an IPO—after they return to public ownership. The aim of the study was to track the performance of reverse LBOs and to reveal any association between operating performance and changes in leverage and equity ownership.
Among the principal findings of the study were the following: Despite a substantial decline in leverage ratios and equity ownership by insiders at the time of the IPOs, equity ownership of reverse LBOs remained more concentrated and leverage higher than that of public companies in the same industries.
The operating performance of reverse LBOs was significantly better than that of the median firm in their industries in the year prior to and in the year of the IPO. Although there is some evidence of a deterioration in the performance of the reverse-LBO firms, they continue to outperform their industry competitors for at least four full fiscal years after the IPO.
Greater reductions in the percentage equity owned by managers and other insiders at the time of the reverse LBO are associated with larger declines in operating performance.
The stock price performance of reverse LBOs after going public appears more "rational" than that of other IPOs—that is, there is less initial under pricing and no sign of the negative, longer-term abnormal returns reported by recent studies of IPOs.     

Liquidity risk,leverage and long-run IPO returns

We examine the risk-return characteristics of a rolling portfolio investment strategy where more than 6000 Nasdaq initial public offering (IPO) stocks are bought and held for up to 5 years. The average long-run portfolio return is low, but IPO stocks appear as “longshots”, as 5-year buy-and-hold returns of 1000% or more are somewhat more frequent than for non-issuing Nasdaq firms matched on size and book-to-market ratio. The typical IPO firm is of average Nasdaq market capitalization but has relatively low book-to-market ratio. We also show that IPO firms exhibit relatively high stock turnover and low leverage, which may lower systematic risk exposures. To examine this possibility, we launch an easily constructed “low-minus-high” (LMH) stock turnover portfolio as a liquidity risk factor. The LMH factor produces significant betas for broad-based stock portfolios, as well as for our IPO portfolio and a comparison portfolio of seasoned equity offerings. The factor-model estimation also includes standard characteristic-based risk factors, and we explore mimicking portfolios for leverage-related macroeconomic risks. Because they track macroeconomic aggregates, these mimicking portfolios are relatively immune to market sentiment effects. Overall, we cannot reject the hypothesis that the realized return on the IPO portfolio is commensurable with the portfolio's risk exposures, as defined here.     

Overreaction in the thrift IPO aftermarket

We study the initial returns and long-run performance of a unique sample of thrifts that have recently converted from mutual to stock form. In addition to a full claim on all IPO proceeds, new investors in a converted thrift also receive a claim on all pre-conversion market value at no cost. Thus, the average firm in our sample has a degree of underpricing automatically built into its offer price. We find that after removing the large initial returns, cumulative excess returns for the firms in our sample are positive for 12 months after the IPO. Beginning in the second year after the IPO, the average firm in our sample undergoes a significant price correction that lasts approximately 18 months and which produces negative cumulative abnormal returns for up to 5 years post-issue. Differences in risk-adjusted returns also indicate negative long-run returns, with poor performance concentrated in the second and third years following the IPO. The return differences are most pronounced among the small thrifts in our sample, and are broadly consistent with investor overreaction at the time of the IPO that continues for 6–12 months before prices begin reverting back to fundamental value.     

Myth or Reality? The Long-Run Underperformance of Initial Public Offerings: Evidence from Venture and Nonventure Capital-Backed Companies

We investigate the long-run underperformance of recent initial public offering (IPO) firms in a sample of 934 venture-backed IPOs from 1972–1992 and 3,407 nonventure-backed IPOs from 1975–1992. We find that venture-backed IPOs outperform non-venture-backed IPOs using equal weighted returns. Value weighting significantly reduces performance differences and substantially reduces underperformance for nonventure-backed IPOs. In tests using several comparable benchmarks and the Fama-French (1993) three factor asset pricing model, venture-backed companies do not significantly underperform, while the smallest nonventure-backed firms do. Underperformance, however, is not an IPO effect. Similar size and book-to-market firms that have not issued equity perform as poorly as IPOs.     

Seasoned equity offerings and the short- and long-run performance of initial public offerings in the UK

In contrast to the US practice, rights issues is the predominant method of raising additional equity capital in the London market. the UK evidence for the period 1980-1991 provides no support to the hypothesis that IPO firms deliberately underprice to signal their quality and facilitate subsequent seasoned equity offerings. the level of initial returns is related neither to the size of the issue nor to the price response at the announcement of a rights issue. the results demonstrate, however, that firms with higher first day returns are quicker in returning to the market for additional equity capital. There is also strong evidence to suggest that the announcement of a seasoned equity offering follows a period of significant rises in the stock prices of reissuing firms. Such gains are, however, dissipated quickly in the 18 months after the announcement of the seasoned equity offering. the level of underperformance is particularly pronounced for firms that raised relatively small subsequent amounts of capital in relation to funds raised at the initial offering. Thus, the paper documents a pattern of post-issue behaviour which is fundamentally similar for both unseasoned and seasoned equity offerings.     

Decisions of Initial Public Offering Review Committees: Causes and Consequences

We investigate the causes and consequences of the decisions made by an initial public offering (IPO) reviewing committee using a unique data set from Taiwan. Firms that were approved for listing are associated with better financial performance measures and are larger in equity size. Whether the committee unanimously approves an IPO firm depends on whether the firm's associated auditor changes or gives a nonunqualified report. The voting outcome has a discernable effect in the sense that unanimously approved firms are associated with higher financial performance measures (returns on equity, returns on assets, earnings per share, and the price-to-earnings ratio) than are nonunanimously approved firms, with the differences being more significant in the two years after the IPO.     

IPO initial returns in China: Underpricing or overvaluation?

This paper separates the amount of IPO underpricing(primary market underpricing) and overvaluation(secondary market overvaluation) from the value of an IPO's initial return to evaluate the relative importance of these two factors and their main determinants. Using data on the IPOs of 948 Chinese firms, we find that average initial returns are 66% and that underpricing and overvaluation are between 14–22% and 44–53%, respectively, depending on the method used to assess firms' intrinsic values. In addition, while both the value of the initial return and the extent of overvaluation are significantly negatively related to post-IPO long-run stock performance, overvaluation can predict post-IPO performance better than the value of the initial return. Value uncertainty in IPOs is positively related to both underpricing and overvaluation, and both the underwriter's reputation and the existence of pricing regulation are positively related to underpricing. Investor sentiment has a positive effect on overvaluation but has no effect or a negative effect on underpricing. Overall, our results suggest that in China overvaluation accounts for a larger proportion of the initial return than underpricing,and that underpricing and overvaluation have different determinants.