Costs of raising equity capital by renounceable rights issues in Australia

Rights issues remain a common method for raising equity capital in Australia for companies listed on me Australian Stock Exchange. This study investigates the capital raising costs of Anstralian renounceable equity rights issues from 2001 to 2006. Both direct and indirect costs are investigated and the explanatory power of potential influencing factors is analyzed. The total direct costs averaged nearly 4% of gross proceeds raised and the mean offer price was discounted around 17% from the current market price. Issue size, percentage underwritten, concentration of ownership and issuer risk significantly influence the percentage direct costs of the rights issue. The age of the issuer, the average historical volume of shares traded and the offer price appear to influence the percentage discount.

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 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 direct costs of raising external equity capital for US REIT IPOs

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate the total direct costs of raising external equity capital for US real estate investment trust (REIT) initial public offerings (IPOs).

Design/methodology/approach – The study provides recent evidence on total direct costs for a comprehensive dataset of 125 US REIT IPOs from 1996 until June 2010. A multivariate OLS regression is performed to determine significant factors influencing the level of total direct costs and also underwriting fees and non-underwriting direct expenses.

Findings – The study finds economies of scale in total direct costs, underwriting fees and non-underwriting expenses. The equally (value) weighted average total direct costs are 8.33 percent (7.52 percent), consisting of 6.49 percent (6.30 percent) underwriting fees and 1.87 percent (1.22 percent) non-underwriting direct expenses. The study finds a declining trend of total direct costs for post 2000 IPOs which is attributed to the declining trend in both underwriting fees and non-underwriting direct expenses. Offer size is a critical determinant for both total direct costs and their individual components and inversely affects these costs. The total direct costs are found significantly higher for equity REITs than for mortgage REITs and are also significantly higher for offers listed in New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Underwriting fees appear to be negatively influenced by the offer price, the number of representative underwriters involved in the issue, industry return volatility and the number of potential specific risk factors but positively influenced by prior quarter industry dividend yield and ownership limit identified in the prospectus. After controlling for time trend, the paper finds REIT IPOs incur higher non-underwriting direct expenses in response to higher industry return volatility prior to the offer.

Originality/value – This paper adds to the international REIT IPO literature by exploring a number of new influencing factors behind total direct costs, underwriting fees and non-underwriting direct expenses. The study includes data during the recent GFC period.

Costs of raising equity capital for U.S. REITs

The direct and indirect costs of raising equity capital by U.S. REITs through IPOs average 8.43% and 3.07%, respectively while these costs through SEOs average 4.63% and 1.18%, respectively. Ownership limit and the number of adverse risk factors identified in the IPO prospectus and underwriting syndicate structure determine such costs.

THE COSTS OF RAISING EQUITY RATIO FOR BANKS Evidence from publicly listed banks operating in Finland

The solvency rate of banks differs from the other corporations. The equity rate of a bank is lower than it is in corporations of other field of business. However, functional banking industry has huge impact on the whole society. The equity rate of a bank needs to be higher because that makes the banking industry more stable as the probability of the banks going under will decrease. If a bank goes belly up, the government will be compensating the deposits since it has granted the bank’s depositors a deposit insurance. This means that the payment comes from the tax payers in the last resort. Economic conversation has long concentrated on the costs of raising equity ratio. It has been a common belief that raising equity ratio also increases the banks’ funding costs in the same phase and these costs will be redistributed to the banks customers as higher service charges. Regardless of the common belief, the actual reaction of the funding costs to the higher equity ratio has been studied only a little in Europe and no study has been constructed in Finland. Before it can be calculated whether the higher stability of the banking industry that is caused by the raise in equity levels compensates the extra costs in funding costs, it must be calculated how much the actual increase in the funding costs is. Currently the banking industry is controlled by complex and heavy regulation. To maintain such a complex system inflicts major costs in itself. This research leans on the Modigliani and Miller theory, which shows that the finance structure of a firm is irrelevant to their funding costs. In addition, this research follows the calculations of Miller, Yang ja Marcheggianon (2012) and Vale (2011) where they calculate the funding costs after the doubling of specific banks’ equity ratios. The Finnish banks studied in this research are Nordea and Danske Bank because they are the two largest banks operating in Finland and they both also have the right company form to able the calculations. To calculate the costs of halving their leverages this study used the Capital Asset Pricing Model. The halving of the leverage of Danske Bank raised its funding costs for 16—257 basis points depending on the method of assessment. For Nordea the increase in funding costs was 11—186 basis points when its leverage was halved. On the behalf of the results found in this study it can be said that the doubling of an equity ratio does not increase the funding costs of a bank one by one. Actually the increase is quite modest. More solvent banks would increase the stability of the banking industry enormously while the increase in funding costs is low. If the costs of bank regulation exceeds the increase in funding costs after the higher equity ratio, it can be thought that this is the better way of stabilizing the banking industry rather than heavy regulation.

THE COSTS OF RAISING EQUITY RATIO FOR BANKS Evidence from publicly listed banks operating in Finland

The solvency rate of banks differs from the other corporations. The equity rate of a bank is lower than it is in corporations of other field of business. However, functional banking industry has huge impact on the whole society. The equity rate of a bank needs to be higher because that makes the banking industry more stable as the probability of the banks going under will decrease. If a bank goes belly up, the government will be compensating the deposits since it has granted the bank’s depositors a deposit insurance. This means that the payment comes from the tax payers in the last resort. Economic conversation has long concentrated on the costs of raising equity ratio. It has been a common belief that raising equity ratio also increases the banks’ funding costs in the same phase and these costs will be redistributed to the banks customers as higher service charges. Regardless of the common belief, the actual reaction of the funding costs to the higher equity ratio has been studied only a little in Europe and no study has been constructed in Finland. Before it can be calculated whether the higher stability of the banking industry that is caused by the raise in equity levels compensates the extra costs in funding costs, it must be calculated how much the actual increase in the funding costs is. Currently the banking industry is controlled by complex and heavy regulation. To maintain such a complex system inflicts major costs in itself. This research leans on the Modigliani and Miller theory, which shows that the finance structure of a firm is irrelevant to their funding costs. In addition, this research follows the calculations of Miller, Yang ja Marcheggianon (2012) and Vale (2011) where they calculate the funding costs after the doubling of specific banks’ equity ratios. The Finnish banks studied in this research are Nordea and Danske Bank because they are the two largest banks operating in Finland and they both also have the right company form to able the calculations. To calculate the costs of halving their leverages this study used the Capital Asset Pricing Model. The halving of the leverage of Danske Bank raised its funding costs for 16—257 basis points depending on the method of assessment. For Nordea the increase in funding costs was 11—186 basis points when its leverage was halved. On the behalf of the results found in this study it can be said that the doubling of an equity ratio does not increase the funding costs of a bank one by one. Actually the increase is quite modest. More solvent banks would increase the stability of the banking industry enormously while the increase in funding costs is low. If the costs of bank regulation exceeds the increase in funding costs after the higher equity ratio, it can be thought that this is the better way of stabilizing the banking industry rather than heavy regulation.

Reducing costs of raising dairy heifer replacements /

Mode of access: Internet.

Factors influencing the direct costs of property trust IPOs

Underwriting, legal, accounting and valuation costs average around 3.3%, 0.39%, 0.23% and 0.12% of proceeds raised and are substantial costs to property trust initial public offering (IPO) issuers. As such, identifYing factors that influence these costs is important. This paper investigates factors influencing these costs as well as the total direct costs of raising equity capital by property trust IPOs in Australia from 1994 to 2004. The results suggest clear economies of scale in direct costs. In addition, IPOs that employ more debt are likely to have higher capital raising costs while those that have proportionally higher net asset values and offer stapled securities (and likely to be engaged in property development activities) have lower capital raising costs.

The level of representative underwriting and the underwriting costs of REIT SEOs

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate factors influencing the underwriting discount for US Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) Seasoned Equity Offerings (SEOs).

Design/methodology/approach – The study provides new evidence on determinants of underwriting discounts with a comprehensive dataset of 783 US REIT SEOs from 1996 until June 2010. Ordinary least squares regressions are performed to estimate the effect of the level of representative underwriting along with other potential factors on underwriting discounts.

Findings – The study complements the well-documented notion of the economies of scale in SEO underwriting discounts. The equally (value) weighted underwriting discounts averaged 4.21 per cent (4.10 per cent) with a declining trend over time. The findings of this study show the statistically and economically significant negative effect of the level of representative underwriting on the underwriting discounts, as well as the significance of the structure of underwriting syndicate in determining the underwriting discounts. The findings suggest that issuers can minimize the costs of raising secondary equity capital by optimally allocating the underwriting business among the underwriters.

Originality/value – This paper adds to the international REIT SEO literature by exploring new evidence behind underwriting discounts. The study includes data before and after the REIT Modernization Act 1999 and during the recent global financial crisis period.

A-REIT rights issues

Purpose – This is the first REIT paper to seek to empirically examine potential influencing factors on the discounts and underwriting fees of Australian REIT rights issues.

Design/methodology/approach – Using a methodology similar to Owen and Suchard, and Armitage, a sample of 62 A-REIT rights issues during 2001-2009 is analyzed. A variety of potential factors influencing discounts and underwriting fees are explored.

Findings – Over A$20 billion was raised by A-REIT rights issues during 2001-2009 (this around three times that raised through A-REIT initial public offerings during the same period). The mean offer price was discounted around 9.5 percent from the current market price and underwriting fees averaged 2.9 percent of gross proceeds raised – both substantially less than for industrial rights issues. The standard deviation of daily returns for the past year appears to influence the percentage discount offered to subscribers. This volatility was particularly noticeable in 2008 and 2009, during the global financial crisis, where new issues were discounted substantially so as to raise equity to repay debt. This historical risk variable appears paramount in determining the discounts to subscribers and fees to underwriters.

Practical implications – A-REITs seeking to minimize the discounts offered to subscribers and to minimize their underwriting costs with rights issue equity capital raisings must first minimize their share price volatility.

Originality/value – This paper adds to the international costs of capital raising literature of REITs by examining such costs with A-REIT rights issues and is the first paper to examine factors influencing these costs.

"Call for prices": Strategic implications of raising consumers' costs

Many consumer durable retailers often do not advertise their prices and instead ask consumers to call them for prices. It is easy to see that this practice increases the consumers' cost of learning the prices of products they are considering, yet firms commonly use such practices. Not advertising prices may reduce the firm's advertising costs, but the strategic effects of doing so are not clear. Our objective is to examine the strategic effects of this practice. In particular, how does making price discovery more difficult for consumers affect competing retailers' price, service decisions, and profits? We develop a model in which a manufacturer sells its product through a high-service retailer and a low-service retailer. Consumers can purchase the retail service at the high-end retailer and purchase the product at the competing low-end retailer. Therefore, the high-end retailer faces a free-riding problem. A retailer first chooses its optimal service levels. Then, it chooses its optimal price levels. Finally, a retailer decides whether to advertise its prices. The model results in four structures: (1) both retailers advertise prices, (2) only the low-service retailer advertises price, (3) only the high-service retailer advertises price, and (4) neither retailer advertises price. We find that when a retailer does not advertise its price and makes price discovery more difficult for consumers, the competition between the retailers is less intense. However, the retailer is forced to charge a lower price. In addition, if the competing retailer does advertise its prices, then the competing retailer enjoys higher profit margins. We identify conditions under which each of the above four structures is an equilibrium and show that a low-service retailer not advertising its price is a more likely outcome than a high-service retailer doing so. We then solve the manufacturer's problem and find that there are several instances when a retailer's advertising decisions are different from what the manufacturer would want. We describe the nature of this channel coordination problem and identify some solutions. © 2010 INFORMS.

Measuring costs of sustainability issues in highway infrastructure : perception of stakeholders in Australia

With increasing pressure to deliver environmentally friendly and socially responsible highway infrastructure projects, stakeholders are also putting significant focus on the early identification of financial viability and outcomes for these projects. Infrastructure development typically requires major capital input, which may cause serious financial constraints for investors. The push for sustainability has added new dimensions to the evaluation of highway projects, particularly on the cost front. Comprehensive analysis of the cost implications of implementing place sustainable measures in highway infrastructure throughout its lifespan is highly desirable and will become an essential part of the highway development process and a primary concern for decision makers. This paper discusses an ongoing research which seeks to identify cost elements and issues related to sustainable measures for highway infrastructure projects. Through life-cycle costing analysis (LCCA), financial implications of pursuing sustainability, which are highly concerned by the construction stakeholders, have been assessed to aid the decision making when contemplating the design, development and operation of highway infrastructure. An extensive literature review and evaluation of project reports from previous Australian highway projects was first conducted to reveal all potential cost elements. This provided the foundation for a questionnaire survey, which helped identify those specific issues and related costs that project stakeholders consider to be most critical in the Australian industry context. Through the survey, three key stakeholders in highway infrastructure development, namely consultants, contractors and government agencies, provided their views on the specific selection and priority ranking of the various categories. Findings of the survey are being integrated into proven LCCA models for further enhancement. A new LCCA model will be developed to assist the stakeholders to evaluate costs and investment decisions and reach optimum balance between financial viability and sustainability deliverables.