Search

We examine insider selling for initial public offering (IPO) firms using a sample of 1868 IPOs between 1988 and 2012. We find that overvalued IPOs have higher probability of offering secondary shar...

We examine the valuation of ADR IPOs and find that they are valued similarly to U.S. domestic IPOs but significantly higher than U.S. seasoned firms. This higher valuation is not caused by differences in firm size, growth opportunity, profitability, listing exchange, diversification benefit, foreign exchange risk, investor protection, or market liquidity as suggested by previous studies. Moreover, they experience significant declines in earnings and their stocks underperform U.S. seasoned by more than 20% in the three years after IPO. We show that ADR IPOs are timed to take advantage of overoptimistic in U.S. equity markets, supporting windows of opportunity theory.

Using a sample of 4441 IPOs from the US, we find that IPO firms with larger proportional offering size have lower valuation. The sizes of both primary share offering and secondary share offering are negatively related to IPO firm valuation. The valuation measures are positively related to the levels of capital expenditure and R&D before IPO, lending support to explanations based on Jensen (JAMA 76:323–329, 1986)’s free cash flow hypothesis. We also find evidence consistent with negative signals from larger secondary share offering size. Results of tests about long-run IPO stock performance do not support the hypothesis that IPO stock demand curve is downward sloping.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to answer the following three questions about the new capital raised in initial public offerings (IPOs): why do some IPO companies raise a lot of new capital while some others do not? Where do the IPO companies use the new capital they raise in IPOs? How does the use of new capital affect the operating performance of IPO companies?Design/methodology/approachMatching firm approach, univariate and regression tests.FindingsThis paper finds that companies with higher research and development (R&D) spending, higher capital expenditure, lower working capital and more long-term debt tend to raise more capital in IPOs. These firms also spend more on R&D and capital expenditure. The results also suggest that the more the new capital firms raise in IPOs, the lower operating performance they have in subsequent years. However, firms spending more new capital on R&D and capital expenditure seem to perform better.Originality/valueThese results help us understand the behavior of IPO firms.

We examine the regression model used in the literature to test the signaling model in Leland and Pyle [7] and find that the model may produce positive and significant coefficients for the independent variables even when the inputs are randomly generated. The problem is illustrated by two examples: a theoretical proof based on a uniform distribution and a bootstrap simulation based on actual data. Our studies show that the misleading results are caused by some natural constraints in the regression model.

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.

Assuming that initial public offering (IPO) issuers can value their own firms more accurately, we test the hypothesis that the stock markets tend to overvalue IPOs. Using the lower limit of initial filing price range as issuers’ reservation price, we estimate the premiums of IPO first day closing price and first month closing price over the reservation price using 3,138 initial public offerings (IPOs) from 1983 to 2012. We find that the price premiums are positively related to proxies for market over-optimism and uncertainty. IPOs with higher price premiums have worse stock performance in the long run. The results are robust to various economic specifications. The findings are consistent with the argument that the stock markets get over- optimistic about IPOs from time to time.

We fi nd that IPO underpricing is positively related to post-IPO growth in sales and EBITDA, but is not signifi cantly related to growth in earnings. Our evidence suggests that accrual reversals or earnings management may cause this inconsistency. We interpret the growth rates of sales and EBITDA as measures of fi rm quality, and conclude that our evidence supports the notion that IPO fi rms with greater underpricing are of better quality. Our tests on analysts’ earnings forecast errors show that analysts are less positively biased in their earnings forecasts for IPO fi rms that have greater underpricing. In this paper we examine the relation between initial public offering (IPO) underpricing and postIPO growth rates of accounting performance variables. Previous research on IPOs suggests that IPO underpricing is related to the quality of the IPO fi rms (Allen and Faulhaber, 1989, Welch, 1989, Grinblatt and Hwang, 1989, and Rock, 1986). If we use growth rates of accounting performance variables (such as earnings) as measures of fi rm quality, then this suggestion implies a positive relation between IPO underpricing and growth rates. Our hypothesis is that IPO fi rms with greater underpricing should have higher post-IPO growth rates of accounting performance variables. However, rather than just concentrate on growth in earnings, we also include growth in EBITDA and growth in sales. Relative to earnings, these latter variables are more diffi cult for managers to manipulate. Thus, to reduce the possible contamination of our analysis by earnings management strategies, we consider the growth rates of earnings, EBITDA, and sales, and how they relate to IPO underpricing. Consistent with our hypothesis, we fi nd that underpricing is positively related to growth in sales and EBITDA in the fi ve years following an IPO. These results suggest that the IPOs with greater underpricing have higher quality. We also fi nd that IPO growth rates in earnings are much lower than the growth rates in sales and EBITDA. Further tests show that this inconsistency is likely caused by earnings management at the time of the IPO, which infl ates earnings initially and thus reduces earnings growth rates in subsequent years. This result suggests that earnings growth rates may not be accurate measures of IPO fi rm quality compared to sales and EBITDA growth rates. We fi nd that the fi rms with greater underpricing experience larger decreases in accruals after the fi rst year. This fi nding implies that earnings management may also reduce the correlation between IPO underpricing and earnings growth rates. We examine the accuracy of analysts’ earnings forecasts to determine how analysts react to the relation between IPO growth rates and IPO underpricing. If analysts are misled by earnings We thank Mark Huson, participants at the 2005 Northern Finance Association Conference, and, in particular, Bill Christie (the Editor) and an anonymous referee for helpful comments and suggestions. The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of Thompson Financial for providing earnings forecast data, available through I/B/E/S (Institutional Brokers Estimate System).

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.

I examine the relation between initial public offering (IPO) long-run stock performance and the amount of cash raised by the firm in the offering. I find that IPOs raising more cash have poorer long-run performance. The result is robust to different measurement methods. The evidence suggests that the market underreacts to free cash flow related agency problems in IPOs. Consistent with this interpretation, I find that IPO long-run performance is more sensitive to the new cash raised in the offering if an IPO firm has lower capital expenditure or higher opening bid-ask spread.

We argue that in an initial public offering (IPO), pre-IPO owners make decisions regarding underpricing, share retention, and share lockup simultaneously and optimally to maximize aftermarket liquidity. We predict that underpricing fosters higher trading volume in both the short run and the long run. Also, liquidity is negatively related to the proportion of shares retained by pre-IPO owners, ceteris paribus, so IPO underpricing should be positively related to the proportion of shares retained, as an offset. We document evidence consistent with these predictions. In addition, we find that, for IPOs with a lockup restriction, underpricing is more substantial and the positive relation between share retention and underpricing is much stronger. We also find that the relationship between underpricing and trading volume is stronger for IPOs with lockup. IPOs with lockup have higher trading volume, and a significant portion of this difference is associated with the effect of underpricing.

PurposeTo test the effects of underpricing and share retention (i.e. the proportion of shares retained by the pre‐initial‐public‐offering (IPO) owners) on IPO aftermarket liquidity.Design/methodology/approachUses both percentage spread and turnover ratio to measure liquidity. The percentage spread is the quoted bid‐ask spread divided by the quoted midpoint and measures the trading cost relative to share price. Turnover ratio is the daily trading volume divided by the number of shares offered and measures the speed of transaction. Both non‐parametric analyses and multiple regressions are conducted to investigate the effects of underpricing and share retention on liquidity.FindingsResults indicate that initial return is positively related to turnover ratio and negatively related to percentage spread. These relations are significant even after controlling for other factors. Also finds that the pre‐IPO owners’ retention rate is positively related to turnover ratio and negatively related to percentage spread. High retention rates attract more trades, provide quality assurance, and improve IPO aftermarket liquidity.Originality/valueThis paper investigates the theoretical links between underpricing and liquidity and provides direct evidence on Booth and Chua's liquidity theory. In addition, this is one of the first empirical studies to analyze the effect of share retention on aftermarket liquidity.

In this paper, we examine how analysts react to IPO percentage offering size. We find that analysts predict lower long-term earnings growth rates for IPOs with larger percentage offering size. The sizes of both primary and secondary offering are negatively related to long-term growth rate forecasts. We find evidence that the free cash flow effect may be related to the negative relation between primary offering size and growth forecast.

Publisher Summary Downes and Heinkel and Ritter tested the signaling model in Leland and Pyle and found evidence supporting it. This chapter examines the regression model used by them to find a possible bias. Simulations show that their regression model leads to highly significant results even when randomly generated inputs are used. An alternative regression model is suggested. Using the alternative model, evidence supporting the Leland and Pyle signaling model was found. Additional tests also provide evidence favoring the signaling model. It was found that the regression model they use leads to significant results even when no theoretical relation exists. A new regression model is suggested to avoid the bias. The regression results show a positive relation between share retention and IPO firm valuation. This positive relation can be caused by a positive impact from share retention to firm valuation. It can also be caused by a positive impact from firm valuation to share retention. 2SLS estimates of simultaneous equations suggest that both of the two impacts exist. The evidence is most consistent with the signaling model in Leland and Pyle , but the agency hypothesis and the wealth hypothesis in Ritter cannot be ruled out.

In this paper we examine the relationship between IPO analyst forecasts and two key IPO characteristics: retention and underpricing. We find that analysts predict higher long-term growth rates for IPOs with higher retention and/or higher underpricing. Analysts revise their growth forecasts downward further for IPOs with higher underpricing. However, the annual earnings forecasts are less over-optimistic for these IPOs. Retention is positively related to actual growth in sales. Underpricing is positively related to actual growth rate in sales and EBITDA but not significantly related to actual growth in earnings.

This paper proposes that in an initial public offering (IPO), pre-IPO owners make decisions regarding share retention, share lockup, and underpricing to improve liquidity, which in turn increases the value of shares they retain. We suggest that underpricing will increase the number of investors following the stock and foster more trading in both the short run and the long run. Liquidity is negatively related to the proportion of shares retained by pre-IPO owners, ceteris paribus, so we predict that IPO underpricing is positively related to the proportion of shares retained, as an offset. Our predictions are supported by empirical evidence. In addition, we find that, for IPOs with a lockup restriction, underpricing is more substantial and the positive relation between share retention and underpricing is much stronger. We also explore the relation between underpricing and aftermarket trading volume. We find that the relationship between underpricing and trading volume is stronger for IPOs with lockup. IPOs with lockup have higher trading volume, and a significant part of this difference is associated with the effect of underpricing. The evidence supports the argument that for IPOs with lockup, underpricing improves liquidity more effectively; thus its use is more closely associated with share retention.