Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T11:47:06.754Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Efficient IPO Market Hypothesis: Theory and Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2020

Kevin R. James*
Affiliation:
James, k.james1@lse.ac.uk, Systemic Risk Centre (SRC), London School of Economics (LSE)
Marcela Valenzuela
Affiliation:
Valenzuela, mavalenb@uc.cl, Universidad de Chile (DII) and Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
*
James (corresponding author), k.james1@lse.ac.uk

Abstract

We derive the optimal underwriting method and the quantitative initial public offering (IPO) pricing rule that this method implies in a market with informational frictions consisting of fully rational banks, issuers, and investors. In an efficient IPO market, an issuer’s expected initial return will be determined entirely by the combination of this pricing rule and issuer fundamentals. Applying this rule, we find that we can explain the quantitative magnitude of the principal aspects of the time-series and cross-sectional variation in IPO average initial returns. We conclude that the IPO market is efficient.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Michael G. Foster School of Business, University of Washington 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

We thank Cindy Alexander, Jon Danielsson, Giulia Fantini, Charles Goodhart, Robert Macrae, David Reiffen, Claudia Robles-Garcia, Peter Sinclair, Redis Zaliauskas, and seminar participants at the LSE, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the University of Swansea for helpful comments and discussions. We thank Evgeny Lyandres (the referee) and Jarrad Harford (the editor) for suggestions that enabled us to improve our analysis and exposition substantially. We thank Katerina Karamani for research assistance. The support of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) in funding the SRC is gratefully acknowledged (Grant No. ES/R009724/1). Valenzuela acknowledges the support of Fondecyt Project No. 1190477 and Instituto Milenio ICM IS130002. The views in this article are solely the responsibility of the authors.

References

Benveniste, L., and Spindt, P.. “How Investment Bankers Determine the Offer Price and Allocation of New Issues.” Journal of Financial Economics, 24 (1989), 343361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, L., and Wilhelm, W.. “A Comparative Analysis of IPO Proceeds under Alternative Regulatory Environments.” Journal of Financial Economics, 28 (1990), 173207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, F.Noise.” Journal of Finance, 41 (1986), 528543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D., and Kovbasyuk, S.. “Key Investors in IPOs.” Paris December 2015 Finance Meeting EUROFIDAI - AFFI (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, A. W.; Keefe, M.; and Kieschnick, R.. “Robust Determinants of IPO Underpricing and Their Implications for IPO Research.” Journal of Corporate Finance, 27 (2014), 367383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. B.; Dark, F. H.; and Singh, A. K.. “Underwriter Reputation, Initial Returns, and the Long-Run Performance of IPO Stocks.” Journal of Finance, 53 (1998), 285311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. B., and Manaster, S.. “Initial Public Offerings and Underwriter Reputation.” Journal of Finance, 45 (1990), 10451067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cornelli, F., and Goldreich, D.. “Bookbuilding and Strategic Allocation.” Journal of Finance, 56 (2001), 23372369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, M.; Irvine, P.; and Puckett, A.. “Purchasing IPOs with Commissions.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 46 (2011), 11931225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gondat-Larralde, C., and James, K.. “IPO Pricing and Share Allocation: The Importance of Being Ignorant.” Journal of Finance, 63 (2008), 449478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grullon, G.; Underwood, S.; and Weston, J.. “Comovement and Investment Banking Networks.” Journal of Financial Economics, 113 (2014), 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanley, K. W.The Underpricing of Initial Public Offerings and the Partial Adjustment Phenomenon.” Journal of Financial Economics, 34 (1993), 231250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jagannathan, R.; Jirnyi, A.; and Sherman, A.. “Share Auctions of Initial Public Offerings: Global Evidence.” Journal of Financial Intermediation, 24 (2015), 283311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkinson, T.; Jones, H.; and Suntheim, F.. “Quid Pro Quo? What Factors Influence IPO Allocations to Investors?Journal of Finance, 73 (2018), 23032341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, A., and Lowery, R.. “The Pricing of IPO Services and Issues: Theory and Estimation.” Review of Corporate Finance Studies, 2 (2014), 188234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, R., and Klein, B.. “The Economics of Block Booking.” Journal of Law and Economics, 26 (1983), 497540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krigman, L., and Jeffus, W.. “IPO Pricing as a Function of Your Investment Banks’ Past Mistakes: The Case of Facebook.” Journal of Corporate Finance, 38 (2016), 335344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ljungqvist, A., and Wilhelm, W.. “IPO Pricing in the Dot-Com Bubble.” Journal of Finance, 58 (2003), 723752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loughran, T., and Ritter, J.. “Why Don’t Issuers Get Upset about Leaving Money on the Table in IPOs?Review of Financial Studies, 15 (2002), 413444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loughran, T., and Ritter, J.. “Why Has IPO Underpricing Changed over Time?Financial Management, 33 (2004), 537.Google Scholar
Nimalendran, M.; Ritter, J. R.; and Zhang, D.. “Do Today’s Trades Affect Tomorrow’s IPO Allocations?Journal of Financial Economics, 84 (2007), 87109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuter, J.Are IPO Allocations for Sale? Evidence from Mutual Funds.” Journal of Finance, 61 (2006), 22892324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, J., and Welch, I.. “A Review of IPO Activity, Pricing and Allocations.” Journal of Finance, 57 (2002), 17951827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thaler, R. H.Behavioral Economics: Past, Present, and Future.” American Economic Review, 106 (2016), 15771600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar