Search

Booth and Chua [Booth J., Chua L. Ownership dispersion, costly information, and IPO underpricing. Journal of Financial Economics 1996; 41; 291–310] hypothesize that IPOs are underpriced to promote ownership dispersion, which in turn increases aftermarket liquidity of IPO stocks. We examine a sample of 1179 Nasdaq IPOs and find that underpricing is positively correlated with the number of non-block institutional shareholders after IPO but negatively correlated with the changes in the total number of shareholders. Firms with many non-block institutional shareholders tend to have high liquidity in the secondary market. These results provide support to Booth and Chua's hypothesis. Underpricing also has direct effects on secondary market liquidity after controlling for ownership structure and other factors.

Purnanandam and Swaminathan [Purnanandam, A., Swaminathan, B. 2004. Are IPOs really underpriced? Review of Financial Studies, 17, 811–848.] find that IPOs are overvalued at the offer price relative to value metrics based on industry peer price multiples. I discuss some possible problems in their valuation methodology and find that IPOs are not overvalued after steps are taken to address the problems. More importantly, when I examine the long-run performance of IPO firms and their industry peers, I find that IPOs do not underperform their industry peers in the 5 years after IPO. This casts doubt to the argument that IPOs are overvalued.