Investment banks' entry into new IPO markets and IPO underpricing

We examine the relationship between investment banks' initial public offering (IPO) market shares and their prior IPO underpricing in the new IPO market for China-based companies on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. To gain expertise in Chinese business practices, investment banks have the incentive to obtain business in this new IPO market by providing high offer prices to the issuer, leading to less underpricing and less money on the table. We hypothesize and find that the less an investment bank underprices Chinabased company IPOs, the greater its subsequent market share of China-based company IPOs in the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. Furthermore, this relationship is driven by a bank's initial China-based company IPO deals. These results suggest that in new IPO markets, investment banks' initial market shares, obtained through lower underpricing, help them grow their market shares in later periods, possibly through the expertise gained in the initial business.

The underpricing of infrastructure IPOs: Evidence from China

This study investigates the underpricing of 135 infrastructure IPOs in China from 1996 to 2012. It follows infrastructure IPO studies in Australia and India which report average underpricing returns to subscribers of 3.5% and 25.4%, respectively. The average underpricing return for Chinese infrastructure IPOs is substantially higher at 86.3%, but interestingly substantially lower than the underpricing of Chinese IPOs generally. The issue size, government ownership and the pre-IPO earnings per share are helpful in explaining the underpricing of Chinese infrastructure IPOs while the underwriter reputation does not appear to have much explanatory power. In addition, we find the underpricing of infrastructure IPOs in China is also affected by its local GDP levels.

Differences in underpricing of A-REIT IPOs and Australian property company IPOs

Purpose – A variety of papers have analyzed the underpricing of REIT IPOs or property company IPOs. The purpose of this paper is to compare the two sectors and examines differences in the underpricing of the two types of IPOs. Design/methodology/approach – An OLS regression is used to identify factors influencing the underpricing of A-REIT and property company IPOs from 1994 until 2014. Findings – This study finds that A-REIT IPOs have a significantly lower underpricing on average than Australian property company IPOs. The time taken to list appears to influence the underpricing of both A-REIT IPOs and property company IPOs, in that issues that are filled more quickly have higher underpricing but with the magnitude of the impact being less for A-REITs. The sentiment toward the stock market also appears to impact on the underpricing of A-REIT and property company IPOs again with the magnitude of the impact being less for A-REITs. Practical implications – The paper provides information to new A-REIT and property company issuers, underwriters and investors. Originality/value – The study is the first to compare and examine the differences in the underpricing of both REITs and property companies in the one country over the same time period.

Underpricing of privatised IPOs: the Australian experience

We investigate the price performance of initial public offerings (IPOs) of formerly state-owned companies in Australia. On average, privatised IPOs in Australia are underpriced by about 11%, which is not significantly different from the magnitude of underpricing of the privately-owned IPOs and that of privatised share offerings in other OECD countries. While it appears that the magnitude of underpricing is correlated with the size of issues and the party affiliation of the presiding government, cross-sectional analysis of our sample does not support some traditional theoretical explanations of underpricing for privatised IPOs—only the market sentiment prior to the listing is identified as a significant factor in determining the degree of underpricing. We also investigate the impact of a two-tiered pricing structure on the performance of IPOs.

Financial characteristics of Australian initial public offerings from 1994 to 1999

A variety of financial characteristics of Australian initial public offerings (IPOs) for the period 1994-1999 are explored. A number of previous Australian studies have investigated the initial day underpricing and longer term underperformance of IPOs and this study updates those papers. This paper partitions the IPO data into no liability/limited liability; share option/no share option; underwriter option/no underwriter option and dividend reinvestment/no dividend reinvestment characteristics to better understand the types of IPOs that list on the Australian Stock Exchange. The data supports the findings of previous studies in that IPOs are underpriced at the time of listing and underperform the market in the first year following their listing.

The importance of audit committees in initial public offerings

This paper follows Balvers, McDonald and Miller (1988), and Beatty (1989), who find lower underpricing in Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) when prestigious auditors are used to attest to the IPO's financial statements. Australian IPOs are not obliged to nominate audit firms in the prospectus, but often identify that they will have audit committees so as to assist in more appropriate corporate governance. This paper analyzes if IPOs identifying the existence of audit committees in the prospectus have a lower underpricing return. While our findings are consistent with previous studies concluding that both the size of the new issue and the use of an underwriter are important ingredients in the level of underpricing return, the inclusion of an audit committee in the prospectuses has actually increased underpricing returns. The capital market may view the audit committee identification with some skepticism.

The importance of intangible assets in initial public offerings

This paper follows Beatty and Ritter (1986), who argue that lower uncertainty about the value of an initial public offering (IPO) reduces the 'need' for the underpricing of an IPo. Australian IPOs often identify the existence of intangible assets such as goodwill, licenses, brand names, trademarks, patents and capitalized research and development costs in the prospectus. This paper analyses if IPOs identifying the existence of such intangible assets in the prospectus might reduce uncertainty about their valuation and hence allow a lower underpricing return. While the reporting of intangible assets such as goodwill and license costs in the prospectus are not significant ingredients in the level of underpricing, the identification and valuation of intangible assets such as brand names, trademarks, patents and capitalized research and development costs is significant in reducing the level of underpricing return. Our findings are also consistent with previous studies concluding that both the size of the new issue and the use of an underwriter are important in the level of underpricing return.

The pricing of property trust IPOs in Australia

Following Brounen and Eichholtz (2002) this paper adds to the international literature investigating the underpricing of REIT initial public offerings (IPOs), with a study into Australian property trusts. This study finds that initial day returns can in part be explained by forecast profit distributions (or dividends) and the market sentiment towards property trusts from the date of the prospectus to the date of listing. There is some support for the “winners curse” explanation of underpricing with evidence that large investor or institutional involvement at the outset of the IPO also has some explanatory power.

The costs of raising equity capital by Australian property trust initial public offerings

This paper reports some of the direct costs of raising equity capital by property trust initial public offerings (IPOs) in Australia from 1994 to 2004. It also documents the amount of underpricing by these IPOs. The results indicate the average fees paid to underwriters and/or stockbrokers in managing and marketing the issue was around 3.3% of the public equity capital raised. The average fees paid to legal firms, accounting firms and valuers for their professional involvement and expert reports were 0.4%, 0.2% and 0.1% respectively, totaling 0.7% of the equity raised. Other fees such as printing, listing fees, postage, distribution and advertising cost around 2.1%. The total average direct costs amounted to around 6.1% of the proceeds raised. The average underpricing by these property trust IPOs was 2.6%. This paper also investigates the hypotheses that the percentage direct capital raising costs are influenced by the size of the IPO and whether the IPO is underwritten. This study confirms that larger property trust equity capital raisings have lower percentage total direct cost;, however, it does not find that underwriting significantly influences the percentage of total direct costs for these property trust IPOs.

The characteristics of property trust IPOs in Australia

This paper follows Ling and Ryngaert (1997) and Brounen and Eichholtz (2001) who investigate the underpricing of REIT initial public offerings (lPOs) in the United States and Europe respectively. This study adds to the international literature by investigating Australian property trusts. It reports a variety of descriptive statistics on 37 Australian property trust IPOs from 1994 to 1999. What it also contributes is the finding that some IPOs have extremely low volumes of shares traded on the first day so the simple use of a closing price at the end of the first day to determine underpricing returns (without reference to the volume of trading) may not always be the optimum method of calculating these returns.

The costs of raising equity capital for closed-end fund IPOs

This article reports on some of the direct costs of raising equity capital by closed-end fund licensed investment company (LIC) initial public offerings (IPOs) in Australia from 1995 to 2005. The amount of underpricing by these IPOs is also identified. The average total direct costs amounted to a relatively low 3.4% of the capital raised, while fees paid to underwriters and/or stockbrokers was around 2.3%, to legal firms around 0.25% and to accounting firms around 0.07%. The average underpricing by these LIC IPOs was 1.3%. This article also confirms that the percentage total direct capital raising costs are inversely related to the size of the IPO and underwritten closed-end fund IPOs tend to have higher percentage total capital raising costs than those not underwritten.

The pricing and underwriting costs of Japanese REIT IPOs

This study investigates 40 Japanese REIT IPOs during 2001 to 2006 and finds evidence that higher final offer prices are reflected in higher underpricing levels by such IPOs. There is also some evidence that the engagement of one of the big three Japanese underwriting firms suggests less money is left on the table. Economies of scale in underwriting fees for Japanese REIT IPOs are also found. Specifically, the percentage underwriting fees decrease with higher amounts of equity capital sought but the percentage fee decreases at a diminishing rate.

The pricing of infrastructure initial public offerings : evidence from Australia

This paper explores first-day returns on infrastructure entity initial public offerings (IPOs) in Australia from 1996 to 2007. While a good deal has been written on the first-day returns of industrial and mining company IPOs and Real Estate Investment Trust IPOs, first-day returns of infrastructure entity IPOs have yet to be reported in the literature. The study uses ordinary least squares regression analysis to identify factors that might influence the percentage first-day returns theoretically available to investing subscribers and factors that might influence the aggregate amount of money left to subscribers by issuers. The study finds that first-day returns, on average, are not significantly different from zero. There is evidence, however, that suggests higher dividend yields and higher percentage direct costs of capital raising influence these first-day returns. The study also finds that infrastructure entity IPOs that seek to raise more equity capital leave less money on the table for subscribing investors.

A duration analysis of the time from prospectus to listing for A-REIT IPOs

Dimovski (2010) finds that the time from prospectus registration to listing is significantly positively related to the amount of underpricing amongst 45 Australian Real Estate Investment Trust (A-REIT) initial public offerings (IPOs) from 2002 to 2008. This makes the understanding of the time from prospectus registration to listing for A-REITs an important matter. This study analyses 82 A-REIT IPOs from 1994 to 2008 using a Cox proportional hazard model to analyse the duration from prospectus date to listing date. The study finds that A-REIT IPOs issued after 2000 listed more quickly, as did those A-REITs that were underwritten and also those that sought to raise larger amounts of equity capital. Those that proposed higher debt to assets ratios in their prospectuses listed more slowly. When the data is partitioned into 1994 to 1999 and 2002 to 2008 groupings, earlier A-REIT IPOs listed more quickly if they were larger while in the more recent group, those that had higher debt to asset ratios took longer to fill their subscriptions.