You are on page 1of 40

A Theory of IPO Underpricing, Issue Activity, and

Long-Run Underperformance
Ralph Bachmann

Nanyang Business School
Division of Banking and Finance
Nanyang Avenue, S3-B1A-14
Singapore 639798
ARBachmann@ntu.edu.sg
Phone: +65 6790 5000
Fax: +65 6794 6321
Comments welcome!
March 11, 2004

I wish to thank Vik Nanda, Jay Ritter, Masako Ueda, seminar participants at Nanyang Tech-
nological University, and participants of the 2003 Australasian Banking and Finance Conference
in Sydney for valuable comments.
A Theory of IPO Underpricing, Issue Activity, and
Long-Run Underperformance
Abstract
We present a dynamic model of an IPO market in which firms go public to raise capital
for investment. The original shareholders have inside information with respect to the quality of
their firm’s investment opportunities, and they decide whether to go public, how much capital
to raise and invest, and how to price the IPO. Outside investors are of one of two types: some
investors know and understand even the not directly observable economic incentives of the original
shareholders, whereas all other investors learn about the IPO market only from the publicly
observable IPO market data. Market participation by the latter investors can upset the stationary
rational equilibrium and give rise to a dynamic equilibrium that is characterized by: (1) IPO
underpricing, (2) underperformance of IPO shares in the long run, and (3) cyclical variations
in IPO volume. Learning investors upset the stationary equilibrium not because of ex ante
unreasonable beliefs, but because they fail to condition their beliefs on variables that convey only
redundant information in the stationary equilibrium. The model provides a joint explanation for
the three empirically documented IPO market “anomalies,” and it yields a number of new testable
empirical predictions.
JEL classification: D82, D83, G31, G32.
I Introduction
Financial economists have documented at least three puzzling empirical regularities in the market
for initial public offerings of common stock: IPO underpricing, i.e. positive excess returns in the
short run; strong concentration of IPO activity in certain periods; and underperformance of IPO
shares in the long run.
The first empirical evidence on IPO underpricing dates back to a study by the U.S. Securi-
ties and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1963. A large body of subsequent empirical research
has confirmed the finding that IPOs tend to be substantially underpriced in the U.S., as well as
internationally.
1
Ibbotson and Jaffe (1975) present evidence of the existence of “hot issue” mar-
kets, which they define as periods during which the initial performance of IPOs is exceptionally
high. Moreover, they find evidence of a strong concentration of IPO activity in certain periods.
Loughran, Ritter, and Rydqvist (1994) report that similar patterns can be observed internation-
ally. Evidence of long-run underperformance of IPO shares was first presented by Ritter (1991),
who also finds that underperformance was most severe for firms that went public during certain
years of high IPO activity. Further evidence on IPO underperformance in the long run is presented
by Loughran and Ritter (1995).
Much of the theoretical research on IPOs has focused on explaining IPO underpricing. Possible
reasons for underpricing include self-interested investment bankers (Baron and Holmstr¨om (1980)
and Baron (1982)), the “winner’s curse” (Rock (1986)), lawsuit avoidance (Tini¸c (1988) and
Hughes and Thakor (1992)), signaling (Allen and Faulhaber (1989), Grinblatt and Hwang (1989),
and Welch (1989)), market incompleteness (Mauer and Senbet (1992)), bookbuilding (Benveniste
and Spindt (1989)), and informational cascades (Welch (1992)). Evidence suggests also that in
some countries IPO underpricing may be due to the regulatory environment (see Loughran, Ritter,
and Rydqvist (1994)), or because the allocation of IPO shares can be used as a bribe.
One possible explanation for the strong fluctuations in IPO volume is that the cost of issuing
1
See Ibbotson and Ritter (1995) for a survey of the research on initial public offerings. Loughran, Ritter, and
Rydqvist (1994) focus on the international evidence.
1
equity varies across the business cycle. Choe, Masulis, and Nanda (1993) present a model in
which the business cycle causes adverse selection costs to vary over time. Adverse selection costs
are lower in periods of economic expansion which leads firms to issue equity primarily during
such times. Choe, Masulis, and Nanda also provide some evidence in support of their model.
Although their paper is about seasoned equity offerings, it is conceivable that varying degrees of
asymmetric information across the business cycle also affect the market for initial public offerings.
Chemmanur and Fulghieri (1999) point out another possible explanation for the strong clustering
of IPOs in certain periods, namely the existence of productivity shocks that are correlated across
firms. In Maug (2001) clustering of IPOs occurs because the first IPO(s) in a new industry
lead investors to developing a better understanding of this industry. This reduces their costs of
evaluating subsequent IPOs. Stoughton, Wong, and Zechner (2001) present a model in which the
market clearing price of an IPO conveys information with respect to the firm’s future prospects,
as well as with respect to the prospects of the entire industry. Clustering of IPOs can occur when
an IPO conveys very favorable information with respect to an industry’s growth opportunities.
Lowry (2003) investigates empirically whether the fluctuations in IPO volume can be explained
by the aggregate capital demands of private firms, by the adverse selection costs of issuing equity,
or by the level of investor optimism. She finds that all three factors are statistically significant, but
that only the firms’ aggregate capital demand and investor sentiment appear to be economically
significant determinants of IPO volume. Lowry and Schwert (2002) report a significant positive
lead-lag relation between initial returns and future IPO volume. They provide evidence suggesting
that this lead-lag relationship between initial returns an IPO volume may be driven by information
that is learned by the underwriter during the registration period, but that is not fully incorporated
into the offer price.
If one is willing to accept the view that IPO shares tend to underperform the market in the long
run then rational explanations of this phenomenon appear hard to come by.
2
Most of the literature
on this topic therefore empirical and points in the direction of limited investor rationality and
2
Whether IPO shares really underperform the market in the long run has recently been subject to some debate.
See Brav and Gompers (1997), Eckbo and Norly (2000), and Loughran and Ritter (2000).
2
psychological finance.
3
However, one possible rational explanation is that IPO underperformance
is due to investor learning. Morris (1996) presents a model in which investors share a common
prior belief with respect to the value of IPO firms, but in which they have different prior beliefs
with respect to the distribution of the firm values. In this setting, “speculative bubbles” can
occur, in which IPOs are sold at a price that is above each individual investor’s valuation. In such
a bubble each investor anticipates to be able to sell his shares in the aftermarket to an investor
with a higher valuation. IPOs underperform as investors learn about the true distribution of the
firm values in the long run.
The to our knowledge only theory that links all three IPO market anomalies to a single cause is
due to Ljungqvist, Nanda, and Singh (2001). They attribute all three phenomena to the existence
of a class of investors who are, at times, irrationally exuberant about the prospects of IPOs. In
their model the selling policy that is in the issuer’s best interest usually involves staggered sales.
Underpricing happens to compensate the regular (institutional) investors for the risk of losing
money on their inventory in the event that the hot issue market ends prematurely.
We propose an alternative theory that is also capable of jointly explaining IPO underpricing,
fluctuations in IPO volume, and long-run underperformance of IPO shares. In our model firms
go public to raise capital for investment. IPO underpricing is a rational equilibrium outcome that
obtains as a result of the original shareholders’ personal wealth maximization under asymmetric
information. Periods of high IPO activity and long-run underperformance are attributable to the
presence of investors who learn about the IPO market based on publicly observable performance
of past IPOs.
The structure of our model is quite simple. We assume universal risk neutrality and model
IPOs as direct transactions between entrepreneurs and investors. Nature randomly creates in-
vestment opportunities that are of one of two types (profitable or unprofitable). Each investment
opportunity is available to a single personal wealth maximizing entrepreneur who is privately in-
formed about its profitability. Undertaking the investment opportunity requires an IPO to raise
3
Hirshleifer (2001) provides a comprehensive overview of the various psychological biases and their common root
causes.
3
capital for investment. Depending on the terms at which equity can be sold the entrepreneurs
decide whether to go public, how much capital to raise and invest, and how to price an IPO.
Under plausible conditions some entrepreneurs find it optimal to augment the information that is
conveyed by their investment decisions to outsiders by underpricing their IPOs. In equilibrium,
the combination of IPO pricing and investment choice signals the quality of a firm’s investment
opportunities.
We then introduce a class of investors who learn about the IPO market only based on publicly
observable data, such as the performance of past IPOs. Intuitively, these investors are like sta-
tisticians who lack a structural model of the world, and who try to understand the IPO market
just from looking at the data. In the stationary equilibrium these investors can learn to infer the
value of an IPO from the issuing firm’s investment policy alone. The issue price of an IPO does
not convey any additional information.
Learning investors will eventually be able to infer which IPOs are underpriced, and also by
how much. However, while learning investors may eventually be able to forecast which IPOs are
underpriced, they cannot infer from the data why these IPOs are underpriced. It is consistent
with the beliefs of these investor to purchase any IPO that is issued at a price weakly below
its inferred expected value. This creates an opportunity for some issuing firms to sell equity at
a price closer to its fair value, but it also alters the incentives of those entrepreneurs that did
not previously find it profitable to go public. In our model even a slight increase in the price at
which firms can issue equity can alter the incentives of lower quality firms. This results in an
increase in IPO volume, and a sudden drop in the average IPO quality that leads to subsequent
IPO underperformance.
4
After a period of high IPO activity the IPO market reverts back to
the rational equilibrium as long-run underperformance leads the learning investors to revise their
beliefs downwards.
The main empirical implications of our model are as follows. (1) Consistent with the conven-
tional wisdom our model predicts that IPOs are, on average, underpriced, but that they under-
perform the market in the long run (if long run performance is measured based on the first market
4
This suggests that underpricing may be a necessary condition for the absence of underperformance.
4
clearing price). (2) Long-run underperformance is limited to IPOs that take place during periods
of high IPO volume. This prediction is consistent with the findings of Loughran and Ritter (2000)
and others. (3) IPOs that take place during periods of high IPO volume underperform the market
even if long run performance is measured based on the issue price. (4) Periods of exceptionally
high IPO volume are not a market wide phenomenon, but rather limited to certain industries.
This prediction is in line with existing evidence (see, e.g. Ritter (1984)). Moreover, our model
suggests that exceptionally high IPO volume is attributable to firms that go public specifically to
raise capital for investment. (5) Consistent with findings by Lowry and Schwert (2002) our model
predicts a positive lead-lag relationship between initial returns and IPO volume. In our model,
high initial returns attract unsophisticated investors to the IPO market. Their presence allows
firms to issue equity at a higher price, which results in a subsequent increase in IPO activity. (6)
Our model predicts that periods of exceptionally high IPO volume come to an end when investors
begin to learn about the true fundamental value of these firms. (7) Finally, our model suggests
that the variance of the long run performance of firms that go public during periods of high IPO
volume should be much large than that of firms that go public during periods of low IPO activity.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The model is set up in Section II.
Section III discusses the rational IPO market equilibrium in the absence of learning. Section IV
contains the analysis of investor learning and the dynamic IPO market equilibrium. Section V
summarizes the empirical implications, and Section VI concludes. All proofs are in the Appendix.
II The Model
A The Economy
Consider an economy with firms that are initially privately held by owner-managers (“entrepre-
neurs”). The distinctive feature of entrepreneurs is that they may have access to additional
physical investment opportunities, whereas the remaining agents in the economy (“investors”)
have only access to financial market investments. All agents in the economy are risk neutral
and maximize their respective personal wealth. There are no transaction costs or taxes, and the
5
interest rate is zero.
B Firms, Entrepreneurs, and IPOs
Nature creates investment opportunities in discrete time intervals, ∆t > 0. At each point in
time, t
j
= t
0
+ j∆t, j ∈ {0, 1, 2, . . .}, nature creates a physical investment opportunity with
probability λ ∈ (0, 1). Any such investment opportunity is available only to a single entrepreneur.
An investment opportunity that opens up has to be undertaken immediately, or it ceases to exist.
We assume that firms are all-equity financed, and that additional investment can only be
financed by means of an initial public offering (IPO) of common stock. This could be, for example,
because entrepreneurs do not have any own funds to pay for the additional investment, asymmetric
information or agency problems rule out debt financing, and the wealth of each individual investor
is too small to allow a private equity placement.
The value of any firm’s assets in place prior to (or without) an IPO is equal to A > 0.
5
An
investment opportunity is of one of two types that we refer to as type-G (“good”) and type-B
(“bad”) respectively.
6
Firms differ only in terms of their investment opportunities so that we will
refer to a firm with access to a type-G (type-B) project as a type-G (type-B) firm and to its
original shareholder as a type-G (type-B) entrepreneur.
The (expected) marginal profit function of a type-T project is denoted by π
T
(I). Marginal
profit functions are assumed to be continuously differentiable functions of investment with the
following properties:
7
(A1) A type-G project yields higher marginal returns on investment than a type-B project,
5
The assumption that firms do not differ in terms of the value of their assets in place is a simplifying assumption
that is not crucial for our results.
6
An extension of the model to more than two types is straightforward but tedious.
7
None of these assumptions is crucial for the main results of the model. The assumptions (A1), (A2), and (A4),
are merely technical assumptions that allow us to keep the analysis simple. Even if we relaxed assumption (A3) by
assuming that both types have a positive NPV project we could obtain IPO underpricing, long-run underperfor-
mance, and fluctuations in the amount of equity that is issued. However, we could not obtain fluctuations in the
number of IPOs that take place.
6
irrespective of the level of investment: π
B
(I) < π
G
(I) for all I ≥ 0.
(A2) Projects exhibit decreasing returns to scale: π

T
(I) < 0 for all I > 0, T ∈ {G, B}.
(A3) Only type-G projects have a positive expected NPV: π
G
(0) > 0, but π
B
(0) ≤ 0.
(A4) Marginal gross returns on investment are non-negative. This means that marginal losses
from inefficient investment never exceed the additional investment outlay: π
T
(I) > −1 for
all I > 0, T ∈ {G, B}.
The ex ante probability that an investment opportunity is type-G is equal to p ∈ (0, 1), and
the probability that it is type-B is equal to 1−p. The project type is initially private information
of the entrepreneur and it is not verifiable ex post.
We abstract from the existence of financial intermediaries and model IPOs as direct transac-
tions between entrepreneurs and investors. Our assumption of universal risk neutrality implies
that entrepreneurs have no incentive to sell equity for diversification purposes. The sole purpose
of the IPO in our model is to raise capital for investment, which means that the entire proceeds
from the issue will be invested in the firm.
8
We assume that a firm without access to a physical
investment opportunity cannot go public.
9
The value of a type-T firm that raises and invests I
dollars is equal to the expected value of its future cash flows:
V
T
(I) = A+

I
0
1 +π
T
(I) dI. (1)
Conditional on a physical investment opportunity being available, an entrepreneur can make
a take-it-or-leave-it offer I, α ∈ [0, ∞) ×[0, 1] to outside investors, where I denotes the amount
of capital raised and invested, and α denotes the fraction of equity retained by the entrepreneur.
The offer 0, 1 represents the special case that the entrepreneur does not raise any capital and
instead retains full ownership of her firm.
8
We rule out the possibility that a firm invests the proceeds from the equity issue in marketable securities or
just holds cash. Moreover, the original shareholder’s informational advantage implies that outsiders would view
any attempt to sell more equity than necessary to finance the intended investment policy as a negative signal of
the firm quality.
9
Hence, at most one IPO can take place at any given point in time.
7
By assumption, an entrepreneur chooses the IPO that maximizes her expected terminal wealth.
As a tie breaker we assume that an entrepreneur who is indifferent between her first-best IPO and
some alternative IPO will stick to her first-best IPO. The total wealth of a type-T entrepreneur
who manages to sell an IPO I, α is equal to the value of her retained equity,
W
T
(I, α) = αV
T
(I). (2)
An entrepreneur’s payoff from unsuccessfully attempting an IPO I, α is assumed to be equal to
zero. An entrepreneur whose IPO has failed cannot approach the market again.
10
For any IPO, I, α, we can calculate the firm valuation that is implicit in the terms of the
IPO as
V
i
(I, α) =
I
1 −α
. (3)
It is clear that V
i
(I, α) need not be identical to the true firm value. If V
i
(I, α) exceeds the true
firm value then the IPO is overpriced, and if V
i
(I, α) is smaller then the true firm value then the
IPO is underpriced. Outside investors just break even on purchasing (1 −α) of a firm’s equity for
I dollars whenever the true firm value is identical to (3).
For each IPO I, α we can now find an equivalent representation I, V
i
(I, α), where V
i
(I, α)
denotes the firm value that is implicit in the terms of the IPO. For convenience we will refer to
V
i
(I, α) in the following as “the issue price”.
Which of the two above IPO representations is going to be more convenient depends on
the questions that we will address. The representation I, α captures the entrepreneur’s trade-
off between raising more capital and retaining more equity. This representation will be very
intuitive when it comes to analyzing the decision problem of an entrepreneur. The representation
I, V
i
(I, α) emphasizes the link between investment policy and firm value. This representation
will be more intuitive when it comes to analyzing investor learning and the resulting IPO market
dynamics.
10
Neither of these assumptions is crucial for our model. Our main results would still hold if an entrepreneur could
approach the market again after a failed first attempt to sell an IPO, or if we assumed a different (fixed) payoff
from a failed IPO.
8
We assume that all uncertainty with respect to a firm’s cash flows is resolved exactly periods
after its IPO. At that time, the firm value is publicly revealed to be equal to V
T
(I) +
˜
δ
T
(I), where
˜
δ
T
(I) is a random variable with zero expected mean.
11
C Investors
Investors can either purchase stocks or hold cash, but they cannot short sell IPO shares.
12
Whether
an investor decides to participate in a particular IPO depends on the terms of the IPO, and on
his belief with respect to the value of the offering firm,
¯
V .
13
An investor will participate in an
IPO whenever he expects to at least break even, that is, whenever
V
i
(I, α) ≤
¯
V . (4)
A crucial assumption in our model is the existence of two types of investors that differ in terms
of their knowledge and their understanding of the IPO market.
C.1 R-Investors
The first group of investors, that we refer to as “R-investors”, are rational in the usual game
theoretic sense. These investors are assumed to have all the information about the firms with
the exception of the individual firm types. The R-investors can therefore infer each entrepreneur
type’s expected payoff from every feasible strategy, which means that they understand even the
not directly observable economic incentives of the entrepreneurs. They condition their beliefs with
respect to the firm value,
¯
V
R
, on the firm’s investment policy, as well as on the fraction of equity
retained by the entrepreneur. Following (4), R-investors demand shares in an IPO whenever
V
i
(I, α) ≤
¯
V
R
(I, α). (5)
11
The only purpose of this stochastic component is to ensure that the firm type is not verifiable ex post. To
account for limited liability we have to assume that
˜
δ
T
(I) is bounded from below by −V
T
(I).
12
This assumption is necessary to obtain long-run underperformance of IPO shares in our model.
13
It will be more convenient to specify the investors’ beliefs with respect to the firm value (
¯
V ), rather than with
respect to the probabilities that they assign to the event that the firm is of the high type (ˆ µ).
9
Note that R-investors may alternatively be viewed as conditioning their beliefs on I and
V
i
(I, α), so that (5) may be stated equivalently as
V
i
(I, α) ≤
¯
V
R
(I, V
i
(I, α)). (6)
C.2 L-Investors
The second group of investors, that we refer to as “L-investors”, are not irrational, but they learn
about the IPO market only from the publicly observable performance of past IPOs. Intuitively,
an L-investor is like a statistician who lacks a structural model of the world, and who tries to
understand the world just from looking at the data.
We will see that L-investors may learn to predict the value of an IPO based on the issuing
firm’s investment policy alone. We therefore assume that L-investors condition their beliefs,
¯
V
L
,
on the firm’s investment policy, and that they demand shares in an IPO as long as it is offered at
a price weakly below its inferred expected value,
V
i
(I, α) ≤
¯
V
L
(I). (7)
L-investors are not ignoring how much of the firm’s equity is offered in exchange for the capital
that is raised in the IPO, but they differ from R-investors in that they view the choice of α merely
as a pricing decision.
We will discuss the learning by L-investors in more detail in Subsection II.E, after the sequence
of events for an individual IPO has been specified.
C.3 IPO Market Regimes
We denote the number of R-investors and the number of L-investors in the economy by N
R
and
N
L
, respectively. It is crucial that we assume that N
R
and N
L
are sufficiently large so that each
group of investors by itself can purchase all IPOs in the economy. This assumption implies that
an entrepreneur may sell the IPO to the group of investors with the highest valuation for the
shares. Depending on whether IPOs are offered at a price (weakly) below or (strictly) above
the R-investors’ valuation we distinguish between two IPO market regimes that we refer to as
“regime-R” and “regime-L”, respectively.
10
. . .
t
j
+ t
j+1

. . .
t
j+f
. . .
V
j,j
V
j,j+1
V
j,j+f
IPO takes place. The first market clearing
price is determined in pub-
lic trading.
Nature reveals the
true firm value.
. .. .
Underpricing
. .. .
. .. .
Long run performance
Figure 1: Time line of events for an individual IPO
Definition 1 (Regime-R and Regime-L) At time-t
j
the IPO market is in regime-R if an
IPO is offered at a price weakly below the R-investors’ valuation. The market is in regime-L if
an IPO is offered at a price strictly above the R-investors’ valuation.
D Sequence of Events for an Individual IPO
Up to three events can take place in our model at any given point in time, t
j
: (1) there is a public
trading session in which the market clearing prices of all firms that previously issued equity are
determined, (2) if a firm issued equity at t
j−f
then the true value of this firm’s cash flows is
publicly revealed, and (3) a firm that is not yet publicly listed may undertake an IPO. To avoid
ambiguities we assume that these events take place in the aforementioned sequence. We may think
of the trading session, the revelation of the realized cash flows, and the IPO taking place at times
t
j
− , t
j
, and t
j
+ , respectively. This particular sequencing implies that no new information
becomes available between the time at which an IPO is sold to investors (t
j
+), and the trading
11
session in which its first market clearing price is determined (at t
j+1
−). Moreover, the time-t
j
market clearing prices of all publicly traded firms and the true fundamental value of any firm that
went public at t
j−f
are already common knowledge when the time-t
j
IPO is offered to the public.
The time line of events for an individual IPO firm is depicted in Figure 1.
Whenever we are primarily interested in the dynamic aspects of the IPO market we will denote
the time-t
j+k
price of the firm that went public at t
j
by V
j,j+k
. For a successful IPO that takes
place at t
j
a time series of firm prices, V
j,j+k
, k ∈ {0, 1, 2, 3, . . .}, is observed. The issue price, V
j,j
,
is set by the entrepreneur, and it is identical to (3). All subsequent prices are market clearing
prices that are determined by the investors with the highest valuation for the shares. At t
j+f
all
uncertainty with respect to the true firm value is resolved, and the true firm value is publicly
revealed. Hence, we have
V
j,j+k
=













V
i
(I, α) for k = 0,
max

¯
V
L
(I),
¯
V
R
(I, α)
¸
for 1 ≤ k < , and
V
T
(I) +
˜
δ
T
(I) for ≤ k.
(8)
We measure the abnormal initial performance (i.e. underpricing) of an IPO by its stock price
performance from t
j
to t
j+1
. The long run performance of IPO shares is measured either based on
the offer price (i.e. from time t
j
to t
j+f
), or based on the first market clearing price (i.e. from t
j+1
to t
j+f
), since our model yields separate predictions for the two time horizons.
E Learning by L-Investors
We denote the L-investors’ time-t
j
belief with respect to the value of a firm that raises and invests
I dollars by
¯
V
L
j
(I). No IPO took place before t
0
, so that
¯
V
L
0
(I) denotes the L-investors’ prior
belief with respect to the value of a firm that raises and invests I dollars. We assume that this
prior is distributed according to some probability density function, g(·), with compact support.
The probability density function is assumed to be common knowledge, but the prior itself is
private information of the L-investors. The (finite) weight that L-investors assign to their prior
12
is denoted by ω
0
(I).
14
For convenience we assume that ω
0
(I) is common knowledge.
15
To formalize the updating of beliefs by L-investors we define the indicator functions
φ
j
(I) =





1 if an IPO of size I took place at t
j
,
0 otherwise,
(9)
for each j ∈ {0, 1, 2, . . .}. In addition, we define
ω
j
(I) = ω
j−1
(I) +φ
j
(I) (10)
= ω
0
(I) +
j−1
¸
0
φ
j
(I), (11)
which is the sum of the weight of the L-investors’ t
0
-prior, and of the number of IPOs of size I
that took place prior to t
j
.
L-investors update their beliefs whenever the first market clearing price for an IPO is observed,
and whenever new information on a publicly listed firm becomes available. By assumption, the
latter is the case at t
j
if and only if a firm went public at t
j−f
. The expected development of the
L-investors’ beliefs at a given point in time therefore depends not only on the current IPO market
regime, but also on the IPO market regime periods ago.
Assuming Bayesian updating, the L-investors’ updated time-t
j
belief may be expressed as
¯
V
L
j
(I) =
ω
j−1
(I)
ω
j
(I)
·
¯
V
L
j−1
(I) +
φ
j−1
(I)
ω
j
(I)
· V
j−1,j
+
φ
j−f
(I)
ω
j
(I)
· (V
j−f,j
−V
j−f,j−1
) . (12)
The three terms in (12) represent the investors’ time-t
j−1
belief, the first market clearing price of
any time-t
j−1
IPO, and any change in the market value of a firm that issued equity at t
j−f
due
to the arrival of new public information. Note that (12) can alternatively be stated as
¯
V
L
j
(I) =
ω
0
(I)
ω
j
(I)
·
¯
V
L
0
(I) +
j−1
¸
k=0
φ
k
(I)
ω
j
(I)
· V
k,j
, (13)
14
A weight ω0(I) = k means that the weight that type-L investors assign to their prior is equivalent to the weight
that they would assign to k independent observations.
15
Assuming that only one of the parameters that determine the L-investors’ beliefs is private information implies
that all other agents in the economy fully understand the L-investors’ beliefs after observing only a single IPO in
regime-L. This limits the number of special cases that we have to consider (see Lemma 5) without affecting the
main insights that can be gained from our model.
13
which reveals that the type-L investors’ time-t
j
belief with respect to the value of a firm that
raises and invests I dollars is just a weighted average of their time-t
0
prior, and of the current
market values of all publicly listed firms that followed the same investment policy in the past.
III The Rational IPO Market Equilibrium in the Absence of
Learning: Regime-R
We begin our analysis by deriving the rational IPO market equilibrium that obtains in the absence
of learning. That is, we assume initially that the L-investors are not participating in the IPO
market. An in-depth analysis of this equilibrium can be found in a companion paper by the same
authors,
16
so that we will skip most of the technical details and some of the proofs in this section
and instead focus mainly on the intuition.
A The First-Best Outcome
In the absence of informational asymmetries a type-T entrepreneur can raise I dollars by offering
1 −α
F
T
(I) =
I
V
T
(I)
(14)
of her firm’s equity to outside investors. The IPO is priced correctly (i.e. V
i
(I, α
F
T
(I)) = V
T
(I)),
so that outside investors just break even on purchasing the issue.
Since the equity is sold at the fair price, a type-T entrepreneur has no incentive to deviate
from her first-best investment policy, denoted by I
F
T
. A type-B entrepreneur therefore does not
invest (I
F
B
= 0), and a type-G entrepreneur undertakes the NPV-maximizing investment level
that is implicitly defined by π
G
(I
F
G
) = 0.
The total payoff to a type-B entrepreneur is equal to W
B
(0, 1) = A, and the total payoff to a
type-G entrepreneur is equal to the sum of her project-NPV and the value of the assets in place:
W
G
(I
F
G
, α
F
G
(I
F
G
)) = A+

I
F
G
0
π
T
(I) dI. (15)
16
Available from the authors, or from the Social Science Research Network at http://www.ssrn.com.
14
Both the issue price and the first market clearing price are identical to the true (expected)
firm value. Hence, there is no underpricing, and no abnormal stock price performance is observed
in the long run.
B Equilibrium under Asymmetric Information
We assume that the first-best outcome is not feasible under asymmetric information. That is, we
assume that the bad type’s payoff from undertaking the good types’s first-best offer exceeds the
bad type’s payoff from her own first-best strategy:
W
B
(I
F
G
, α
F
G
(I
F
G
)) > W
B
(0, 1). (16)
The intuitive interpretation of (16) is that at the IPO I
F
G
, α
F
G
(I
F
G
) the bad type’s gain from
selling overvalued equity exceeds her imitation costs that arise from inefficient investment.
Whenever the first-best outcome is not feasible due to asymmetric information the good type
typically has an incentive to deviate from her first-best investment policy to signal her type.
Lemma 1 There exists an investment level
¯
I > I
F
G
at which the good type could issue equity at
the fair price.
Lemma 1 states that, in principle, the good type could always distinguish herself from the bad
type by overinvesting to such an extend that it becomes too costly for the bad type to mimic.
However, doing so would not necessarily be optimal from the point of view of a personal wealth
maximizing entrepreneur: while the fact that the good type earns higher marginal returns on
investment than the bad type creates an incentive to signal with overinvestment, the necessity to
finance this investment with outside equity creates a counteracting incentive to underinvest.
17
The direction in which the good type adjusts her investment policy can be determined by
looking at the two type’s respective marginal rates of substitution between the fraction of retained
17
For all I > 0 the equity of a type-G firm is more valuable than that of a type-B firm since type-G firms earn
higher returns on investment than type-B firms. Under asymmetric information type-G firms are therefore faced
with higher marginal financing costs than type-B firms.
15
equity, and the amount of capital that is raised and invested. From (2) we obtain
MRS
T
(I, α) =
∂W
T
(I, α)/∂I
∂W
T
(I, α)/∂α
(17)
= α
V

T
(I)
V
T
(I)
. (18)
Based on (17) it can be shown that the good type’s second-best strategy entails undertaking
only those investments for which its marginal gross return, V

G
(I) = 1 + π
G
(I), exceeds the bad
type’s marginal gross return, V

B
(I), by a factor greater than the ratio of the two types’ respective
marginal financing costs, V
G
(I)/V
B
(I).
18
That is, the good type will undertake only investments
for which her marginal return on investment is sufficiently higher than the bad type’s to compen-
sate her for her relatively higher marginal cost of outside equity capital. However, the good type
will not increase investment beyond
¯
I since this investment level is already sufficiently informa-
tive to allow an equity issue at the fair price. The good-type’s second-best investment policy can
therefore be identified as the investment policy, I
T
, that maximizes the ratio V
G
(I)/V
B
(I) on the
interval [0,
¯
I].
19
There exists a (unique) pure-strategy equilibrium in regime-R. To be able to fully characterize
this equilibrium we need to calculate the fraction of equity that the entrepreneurs could retain
in a pooling equilibrium candidate IPO of size I, in which both firm types issue equity at the
average fair price,
α
P
(I) = 1 −
I
(1 −p)V
B
(I) +pV
G
(I)
, (19)
and the fraction of equity that a type-G entrepreneur could retain in an IPO of the same size that
is priced to prevent the bad type from mimicking,
α
S
G
(I) =
A
V
B
(I)
. (20)
18
The ratio of the firm values may be interpreted as the ratio of the two type’s respective marginal financing
costs since both types have to give up the same fraction of equity to raise another dollar of capital.
19
Any equilibrium candidate in which the good type undertakes an investment policy I
I
= I
T
with strictly positive
probability fails the “Intuitive Criterion” of Cho and Kreps (1987): there exist an alternative IPO of size I
T
that
makes the good type strictly better but the bad type strictly worse off than the IPO of size I
I
. R-investors therefore
have to believe that a firm that offers the IPO of size I
T
is of the good type, and the good type has no incentive to
undertake an IPO of size I
I
in the first place.
16
Proposition 1 (Equilibrium in Regime-R) Regime-R is characterized by the existence of a
unique equilibrium in pure strategies. Depending on the location of I
T
on [0,
¯
I], and on the values
of α
P
(I
T
) and α
S
G
(I
T
), this equilibrium is of the following type:
20
a) If I
T
=
¯
I then the equilibrium is a separating equilibrium in which type-G signals with
overinvestment and issues equity at the fair price, I
e
G
, α
e
G
=
¯
I, α
F
G
(
¯
I), and in which the
bad type undertakes its first-best IPO, I
e
B
, α
e
B
= 0, 1.
b) If I
T
<
¯
I and α
S
G
(I
T
) < α
P
(I
T
) then the equilibrium is a pooling equilibrium in which both
types raise and invest I
T
, and in which equity is issued at the average value: I
e
G
, α
e
G
=
I
e
B
, α
e
B
= I
T
, α
P
(I
T
).
c) If I
T
<
¯
I and α
S
G
(I
T
) ≥ α
P
(I
T
) then the equilibrium is a separating equilibrium in which the
bad type undertakes its first-best IPO, I
e
B
, α
e
B
= 0, 1, and in which the good type signals
with a combination of investment choice and IPO underpricing, I
e
G
, α
e
G
= I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
).
The equilibrium can be supported by the R-investors’ beliefs that a firm that defects with an out-
of-equilibrium investment policy I

= I
T
is of the bad type with probability one, and that a firm
that defects with an out-of-equilibrium IPO I
T
, α

, α

> α
e
G
, is of the good type with probability
p, and of the bad type with probability 1 − p. These beliefs are admissible under the Intuitive
Criterion of Cho and Kreps (1987).
The intuition underlying these different types of equilibria is as follows. Case a) corresponds
to a setting in which for any level of investment the good type’s marginal return on investment
is sufficiently higher than the bad type’s to ensure that good type always prefers a marginal
increase in equity financed investment over issuing equity below the fair price. The cases b) and
c) correspond to a setting in which this is only initially so. The latter cases are plausible since any
investment that the good type chooses to undertake increases the ratio of the firm values, and,
hence, increases the ratio of the two types’ respective marginal financing costs. Once I
T
has been
reached the good type’s relative disadvantage on the financing side (vis-`a-vis the bad type) begins
20
The values of
¯
I, I
T
, and α
S
G
(I
T
), depend only on the two types’ respective marginal profit functions. The value
of αP (I
T
) depends additionally on the probability distribution of the firm types.
17
to outweigh its relative advantage on the investment side. At I
T
the good type therefore prefers
issuing undervalued equity over changing the investment policy in either direction. Whether the
equilibrium in this case is a pooling equilibrium or a separating equilibrium in which the good
type issues deliberately underpriced equity depends only on the probability distribution of good
and bad firms in the economy. The pooling equilibrium exists only if the ex ante probability of
a firm being type-G is so high that α
P
(I
T
) > α
S
G
(I
T
). Otherwise the bad type prefers her own
first-best payoff over the payoff from the pooling equilibrium candidate IPO. In the latter case
the good type can retain α
S
G
(I
T
) ≥ α
P
(I
T
) of the equity without being mimicked by the bad type.
Only Proposition 1.c)’s separating equilibrium with underpricing is of interest to us. We
therefore assume for the remainder of the paper that the model parameters are such that they
result in this type of equilibrium. Based on the equilibrium of Proposition 1.c) we obtain the
following properties of the IPO market in regime-R.
Proposition 2 (Issue Activity and IPO Performance in Regime-R) Suppose the equilib-
rium in regime-R is Proposition 1.c)’s separating equilibrium with underpricing. Then the IPO
market is characterized by the following properties:
(1) The ex-ante probability that an IPO takes place at any given time, t
j
, j ∈ {0, 1, 2, . . .} is
equal to λp.
(2) Any IPO that takes place is an issue I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
) that is offered by a type-G firm. The
abnormal initial performance of IPOs from the issue price to the first market clearing price
(i.e. from t
j
to t
j+1
) is equal to
V
j,j+1
V
j,j
−1 =
V
G
(I
T
)
V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
))
−1 (21)
=
α
F
G
(I
T
) −α
S
G
(I
T
)
1 −α
F
G
(I
T
)
> 0. (22)
(3) No abnormal stock price performance is observed after the first market clearing price. Hence,
there is no abnormal long run performance of IPO shares from t
j+1
to t
j+f
, but there is
positive abnormal long run performance from t
j
to t
j+f
.
18
The following subsection contains an example of Proposition 1.c)’s IPO market equilibrium
with underpricing. We will extend this example in Subsection IV.C, where we present results
from a simulation of the IPO market dynamics.
C An Example
Suppose the value of any firm’s asset in place prior to (or without) the IPO is equal to V
T
(0) = 100,
T ∈ {G, B}. The ex-ante probability that a new project is of type-G is equal to p = 0.3, and the
two types’ marginal net profit functions are given by (23) and (24), respectively.
21
π
G
(I) = 2 −
I
50
(23)
π
B
(I) = −
I
175
(24)
In a world of symmetric information the good type undertakes her first-best IPO, I
F
G
, α
F
G
(I
F
G
) =
100,
2
3
, and the bad type does not go public I
F
B
, α
F
B
(I
F
B
) = 0, 1. The corresponding first-best
payoffs to the entrepreneurs are equal to W
G
(100,
2
3
) = 200, and W
B
(0, 1) = 100.
The first-best outcome is not feasible under asymmetric information since the bad type’s
payoff from the good type’s first-best IPO exceeds her own first-best payoff:
2
3
V
B
(100) = 114
2
7
>
W
B
(0, 1) = 100. At the good type’s first-best investment level the good type’s marginal gross
return on investment exceeds the bad type’s by the factor (1 +π
G
(100)) / (1 +π
B
(100)) = 2
1
3
,
which is greater than the ratio of the two type’s marginal financing costs, V
G
(100)/V
B
(100) =
1.75.
22
Hence, the good type has an incentive to signal by increasing investment up to I
T
= 124.5,
at which point
V
G
(I
T
)
V
B
(I
T
)
=
1 +π
G
(I
T
)
1 +π
B
(I
T
)
=
357
202
≈ 1.767.
23
(25)
We obtain α
F
G
(I
T
) =
77,599
127,399
≈ 0.6091, α
S
G
(I
T
) =
1,400
2,523
≈ 0.4451, and α
P
(I
T
) =
129,599
295,599
≈ 0.4384.
21
Assuming linear marginal profit functions keeps the calculations tractable but also implies that we have to choose
marginal profit functions that violate the assumptions (A1) and (A4) for sufficiently high levels of investment. This
is not a problem, however, since neither assumption is necessary for the existence of the equilibrium of Proposition 1.
22
V
G
(100) = 300, V
B
(100) = 171
3
7
, 1 +π
G
(100) = 1, and 1 +π
B
(100) =
3
7
.
23
VG(I
T
) = 318
199
400
≈ 318.5, VB(I
T
) = 180
3
14
≈ 180.2, VP (I
T
) = 221
2797
4000
≈ 221.7, 1 + πG(I
T
) =
51
100
= 0.51, and
1 +π
B
(I
T
) =
101
350
≈ 0.2886.
19
This implies that the bad type would mimic an IPO in which the good type raises I
T
dollars by
issuing equity at the fair price, but at the same time prefers her own fist-best strategy over the
pooling candidate IPO:
α
P
(I
T
) V
B
(I
T
) ≈ 79.01 < 100 < α
F
G
(I
T
) V
B
(I
T
) ≈ 109.77. (26)
The pure-strategy equilibrium is consequently a separating equilibrium in which the bad type
does not go public, I
F
B
, α
F
B
(I
F
B
) = 0, 1, and in which the good type undertakes the IPO
I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
) = 124.5,
1,400
2,523
, that is just sufficiently underpriced to prevent the bad type from
mimicking. Outside investors obtain 1−α
S
G
(I
T
) of the good type’s equity in return for I
T
dollars.
This translates into an issue price of V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)) ≈ 279.7, compared to a true firm value of
V
G
(I
T
) ≈ 318.5. The good type’s IPO therefore experiences an abnormal initial return of +13.87%.
The equilibrium payoff to the good type’s original shareholders is equal to W
G
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)) ≈ 176.7,
and the total amount of “money left on the table” is equal to

1 −α
S
G
(I
T
)

V
G
(I
T
) −V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
))

≈ 17.3. (27)
Note that overinvesting up to
¯
I = 150 would enable the good type to issue equity at the
fair price: V
B
(
¯
I) = 185
5
7
, and V
G
(
¯
I) = 325, so that α
F
G
(
¯
I) =
7
13
, (1 − α
F
G
(
¯
I))V
G
(
¯
I) =
¯
I, and
α
F
G
(
¯
I)V
B
(
¯
I) = 100. However, the good type’s payoff from doing so would only be equal to
W
G
(
¯
I, α
S
G
(
¯
I)) = 175, which is less than its equilibrium payoff.
A graphic representation of the equilibrium is depicted in Figure 2. The three dotted curves
represent the (maximal) fraction of equity that the original shareholders can retain for a given
investment level for a good/bad/pooling IPO, so that outsiders still break even on purchasing
the offer. The solid black curve represents the bad type’s iso-payoff curve through her first-best
strategy, B = 0, 1. The solid grey curves are the good type’s iso-payoff curves through her
first-best IPO, G = I
F
G
, α
F
G
(I
F
G
), and through her equilibrium offer, U = I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
). At I
T
the
good type’s iso-payoff curves are tangent to the bad type’s iso-payoff curves from above. Hence,
the good type prefers retaining less than the fair amount of equity over changing her investment
policy in either direction.
20
I
α
B
G
F
U
P
1
0
α
F
G
(I
F
G
)
α
F
G
(I
T
)
α
S
G
(I
T
)
α
P
(I
T
)
I
F
B
= 0 I
F
G
I
T
α
F
B
(I)
α
P
(I)
α
F
G
(I)
Figure 2: The separating equilibrium of our example: type-G firms overinvest and issue under-
priced equity (U) and type-B firms do not go public (B).
21
IV Learning by L-Investors, and Regime-L
We begin investigating what effects the presence of L-investors can have on the IPO market
equilibrium by studying how their beliefs evolve as they learn about the IPO market in regime-R.
A Learning by L-Investors in Regime-R
Suppose, without loss of generality, that the IPO market starts at t
0
in regime-R. The L-investors
will then update their beliefs from t
0
to t
f−1
only based on the respective first market clearing
prices of any new IPOs. Beginning at t
f
, L-investors will also update their beliefs whenever the
realized cash flows of a firm that went public in the past are observed.
The only IPOs that take place in regime-R are IPOs I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
) that are undertaken by
good firms. Based on the first market clearing price, the market value of any such firm is equal
to V
G
(I
T
). Thereafter, the market value does not change until the uncertainty with respect to
the firm’s cash flows is resolved. Firms that go public in regime-R are valued correctly by the
market, so that the new “information” that is contained in the realized cash flows is just noise
with an expected value of zero. If the IPO market was exogenously fixed in regime-R it would
therefore only be a matter of time until the L-investors learn to predict the value of IPO firms
with arbitrary precision.
Lemma 2 (Learning by L-Investors in Regime-R) Suppose the IPO market is exogenously
fixed in regime-R. Then the L-investors’ belief with respect to the value of a firm that goes public
converges to the correct value:
¯
V
L
j
(I
T
)−→V
G
(I
T
). (28)
Lemma 2 could be generalized in a straightforward manner to a setting in which two or more
firm types issue equity in regime-R. In the latter setting an equilibrium investment policy would
either be undertaken by only a single firm type, in which case Lemma 2 applies accordingly, or it
would be undertaken by two or more firm types that pool and issue equity at the identical terms,
in which case L-investors would learn to forecast the average value of these firms. In any case,
22
L-investors would eventually be able to predict the value of a firm that goes public in regime-R
with the same accuracy as the R-investors.
Now recall that V
G
(I
T
) > V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)), so that Lemma 2 implies that the L-investors’
valuation for IPO shares will sooner or later exceed the issue price. By assumption, the L-
investors demand shares whenever they expect to at least break even on purchasing an IPO. It is
therefore only a matter of time until the L-investors begin to participate in the IPO market.
Lemma 3 (Demand for IPO Shares) The L-investors demand IPO shares as soon as their
beliefs with respect to the value of a firm that raises and invests I
T
exceeds V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)). At that
time the total demand for shares of IPOs I
T
, V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)) increases from N
R
to N
R
+N
L
.
The L-investors’ participation in the IPO market is publicly observable due to the publicly
observable increase in the demand for IPO shares. While there was already excess demand for
underpriced IPOs when L-investors were absent, excess demand is even more severe now. The
increase in the demand for IPO shares reveals to the entrepreneurs that it may now be possible
to issue equity at a higher price.
Lemma 4 (Expected Payoff from Raising the Issue Price) Suppose that the IPO market is
in regime-R, and suppose that the L-investors are demanding shares of IPOs I
T
, V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)).
Let V

be such that V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)) < V

< V
G
(I
T
). As time passes, the probability that an IPO
I
T
, V

would succeed converges to one. The good type’s expected payoff from offering I
T
, V

converges to the l.h.s. of (29), and the bad type’s expected payoff from offering I
T
, V

converges
to the l.h.s. of (30).
W
G
(I
T
, 1 −I
T
/V

) = V
G
(I
T
) −
V
G
(I
T
)
V

I
T
> W
G
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)) (29)
W
B
(I
T
, 1 −I
T
/V

) = V
B
(I
T
) −
V
B
(I
T
)
V

I
T
> W
B
(0, 1) (30)
It follows from Lemma 4 that it is only a matter of time until an entrepreneur will attempt
to sell an IPO of size I
T
at a price V

> V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)). The first such IPO(s) may fail since the
entrepreneurs do not know the L-investors’ t
0
-prior, so that they are uncertain with respect to
the L-investors’ exact willingness to pay. An IPO I
T
, V

that fails reveals that the L-investors’
23
valuation for an IPO of size I
T
is less that V

, but it does not lead to any updating of the L-
investors’ beliefs. The first successful IPO I
T
, V

with V

> V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)) marks the beginning
of regime-L.
B Regime-L
Lemma 5 (The First Successful IPO in Regime-L) Suppose the first IPO I
T
, V

that is
successfully offered at a price V

> V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)) takes place at t
k
. Then this IPO’s first market
clearing price, V
k,k+1
, is equal to
¯
V
L
k
(I
T
) ≥ V

, and it reveals the L-investors’ t
0
-prior,
¯
V
L
0
(I
T
).
The abnormal initial return of the IPO is non-negative, but strictly lower than the abnormal initial
return in regime-R:
V
k,k+1
V
k,k
−1 =
¯
V
L
k
(I
T
) −V

V

≥ 0. (31)
The first market clearing price of any IPO that takes place in regime-L is equal to the L-
investors’ valuation for the shares. Once the market has entered regime-L the market clearing
prices of any new IPOs will therefore just confirm the L-investors’ beliefs. Moreover, since the
IPOs that previously took place in regime-R were valued correctly by the market no new in-
formation is expected to be incorporated in the L-investors’ beliefs for the first − 1 periods.
Regime-L will consequently persist for a number of periods. The following proposition states the
entrepreneurs equilibrium strategies after the first successful IPO in regime-L.
Proposition 3 (Equilibrium in Regime-L) Suppose
¯
V
L
j
(I
T
) > V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)) at t
j
> t
k
. An
entrepreneur with access to an investment opportunity will then successfully undertake the IPO
I
T
,
¯
V
L
j
(I
T
), irrespective of her type. The IPO is undervalued if the issuing firm is type-G, but
overvalued if the issuing firm is type-B.
Based on Proposition 3 it is straightforward to derive the following properties of the IPO
market in regime-L.
Proposition 4 (Issue Activity and IPO Performance in Regime-L) The IPO market
exhibits the following characteristics in regime-L:
24
(1) The ex-ante probability that an IPO takes place at any given point in time, t
j
, is equal to λ.
(2) Any IPO that takes place is an issue I
T
,
¯
V
L
j
(I
T
), where
¯
V
L
j
(I
T
) > V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)). The
issuing firm is of type-G with probability p, and of type-B with probability 1 − p. The first
market clearing price of each IPO is equal to its issue price. Hence, there is no abnormal
initial performance (i.e. no underpricing) from t
j
to t
j+1
.
(3) The expected value of a firm that goes public is equal to V
P
(I
T
) < V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)). The
expected abnormal long run performance (from t
j
to t
j+f
, or from t
j+1
to t
j+f
) is negative:
V
j,j+f
V
j,j
−1 =
V
j,j+f
V
j,j+1
−1 =
V
P
(I
T
)
¯
V
L
j
(I
T
)
−1 < 0. (32)
A comparison of the IPO market characteristics in the two regimes reveals the following key
differences:
(1) The expected IPO volume in regime-L exceeds the expected IPO volume in regime-R by
the factor 1/p > 1.
(2) Issue prices are higher but the (first) market clearing prices are lower in regime-L than in
regime-R. Consequently there is less IPO underpricing in regime-L than in regime-R.
(3) On average, IPOs that take place in regime-L underperform in the long run. Based on
the first market clearing price there is no abnormal performance of IPOs that take place in
regime-R.
A remarkable feature of our model is that IPOs have to be underpriced to avoid under-
performance long run: just a small increase in the issue price changes the incentives of some
entrepreneurs and results in a (potentially dramatic) decline in the average IPO quality. It is this
poor performance of IPOs in the long run that eventually puts an end to regime-L.
Lemma 6 (Learning by L-Investors in Regime-L) Suppose the IPO market is exogenously
fixed in regime-L. Then the L-investors’ beliefs with respect to the value of an IPO firm converge
to the correct value:
¯
V
L
j
(I
T
)−→V
P
(I
T
). (33)
25
If regime-L persisted for long enough then the L-investors would again learn to predict the
value of IPO firms with the same precision as the R-investors. However, the IPO market will
revert to regime-R as soon as the L-investors’ willingness to pay for IPOs of size I
T
drops below
V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)). At that time entrepreneurs with access to bad projects find that it is no longer
profitable to issue equity, and there is a sudden decline in IPO volume that is accompanied by an
increase in IPO quality.
Proposition 5 (Lack of Convergence) The IPO market does not converge to the stationary
equilibrium that would obtain in the absence of L-investors. The IPO market is therefore charac-
terized by cyclical fluctuations in the IPO volume, in the degree of underpricing, and in the long
run performance of IPO shares.
That the IPO market in our model does not converge to the stationary (regime-R) equilibrium
may surprise somewhat. The reason for this lack of convergence lies in our assumptions that the
L-investors do not condition their beliefs with respect to the value of an IPO firm on the issue
price, and that they are willing to pay up to their full valuation for the shares of a new IPO.
However, for a number of reasons that are outside our model, we may not observe cyclical
variations in IPO volume within a single industry in the real world. One possibility is that investors
who do not understand the economic incentives of the entrepreneurs refrain from participating
in the IPO market after having lost a sufficient amount of money. Another possibility is that
investors may eventually learn that they have to condition their beliefs with respect to the value
of an IPO firm also on the issue price. In either case, no new period of high IPO volume will
be observed before a new generation of investors has entered the market. Finally, we may not
observe more than one period of high IPO activity in any single industry since the nature of the
physical investment opportunities in the economy changes over time.
C An Example (cont’d)
We now present the results from a simulation of the IPO market dynamics that was based on our
example from Subsection III.C. With respect to the parameters that have not been specified earlier
we make the following assumptions: (1) The probability that a new project becomes available at
26
any given point in time is equal to λ = 0.5. (2) The L-investors’ t
0
-prior with respect to the value
of a firm that raises and invests I
T
is equal to
¯
V
L
0
(I
T
) = I
T
. The weight that the investors assign
to this prior is equal to ω
0
(I
T
) = 30. (3) The probability distribution of the L-investors’ prior is
degenerate, with a single mass point at I
T
. This implies that the L-investors’ beliefs are common
knowledge already at t
0
. The IPO market therefore enters regime-L for the first time as soon
as
¯
V
L
j
(I
T
) exceeds V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)). (4) The true cash flow of a firm is revealed exactly = 240
periods after its IPO. (5) Finally, we assume that the probability distribution of the stochastic
component of a type-T firm’s cash flows (
˜
δ
T
(I
T
)) is degenerate with a single mass point at zero.
This implies that a firm’s realized cash flows are always equal to its ex ante expected cash flows.
We simulate the evolution of the IPO market over a total of T = 5, 000 points in time. It
may be intuitive to view each point in time as a business “day,” a 5-day period as a “week,” a
4-week period as a “month,” and a 12-month period as a “year.” With this interpretation, the
true cash flow of each firm is revealed exactly one year after its IPO, and the simulation period
corresponds to a time span of 20 years and 8 months. The probability that a good investment
opportunity opens up on any given day is equal to λp = 0.15, and the probability that a bad
investment opportunity opens up is equal to λ(1 −p) = 0.35.
Our simulation resulted in the creation of 2, 541 investment opportunities, 758 of which were
of the good type, and 1, 783 of which were of the bad type. A total of 1, 017 IPOs took place,
which translates into an overall average of approximately one IPO per week.
We report the evolution of L-investors’ beliefs (Figure 3), the monthly IPO volume (Figure 4),
the IPO prices and values (Figure 5), and the underpricing and the long run performance of IPOs
(Figure 6). While we have depicted the evolution of the L-investors’ beliefs and the monthly
IPO volume for the entire simulation period, we show the issue prices and values and the IPO
performance only for a 500-day window (from t
751
to t
1,250
) to improve the clarity of the figures.
The IPO market starts at t
0
by assumption in regime-R. The first market clearing price of
any firm that raises I
T
= 124.5 dollars in regime-R is equal to V
G
(I
T
) ≈ 318.5, so that initially
each IPO that takes place leads the L-investors to revise their beliefs upwards (Figure 3). As
soon as the L-investors’ beliefs exceed V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)) ≈ 279.7, firms with access to an investment
27
¯
V
L
j
(I
T
)
t
j
V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
))
≈ 279.7
240
t
1,000
t
2,000
t
3,000
t
4,000
t
5,000
Figure 3: The evolution of the L-investors’ beliefs over T = 5, 000 periods.
Number
of IPOs
t
j
20λ
= 10
20λp
= 3
0
Figure 4: The number of IPOs per “month” (i.e. per 20-day period).
28
IPO Price,
IPO Value
t
j
V
B
(I
T
)
≈ 180.2
V
P
(I
T
)
≈ 221.7
V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
))
≈ 279.7
V
G
(I
T
)
≈ 318.5
0
t
751
t
1,250
Regime-R Regime-L Regime-R
IPO Value
IPO Price
Expected IPO Value
Figure 5: Issue prices, values, and expected values for the 500-day period from t
751
to t
1,250
.
IPO Underpricing
Long Run Performance
tj
tj
t
751
t
1,250
+13.9%
0
+13.9%
0
−20.7%
−35.6%
Regime-R Regime-L Regime-R
Figure 6: IPO underpricing and long run performance for the 500-day period from t
751
to t
1,250
.
29
opportunity are able to issue equity at a higher price. In our simulation the IPO market enters
regime-L for the first time at t
800
. The regime shift is accompanied by a slight increase in the
issue price from 279.71 to 279.96. Even though this price increase is too small to be noticeable in
Figure 5, it implies that IPOs are now no longer significantly underpriced, but rather significantly
overpriced (Figure 5). The reason for this is that firms with access to a bad project now also
find it profitable to go public. The fundamental value of a bad firm that raises and invests I
T
is only V
B
(I
T
) ≈ 180.2, so that average IPO value drops from V
G
(I
T
) ≈ 318.5 in regime-R to
V
P
(I
T
) ≈ 221.7 in regime-L. However, the true fundamental firm value is not revealed until some
time after the IPO, so that the drop in the average IPO quality is not immediately noticed by the
L-investors. The market clearing prices of all IPOs that take place in regime-L are identical to
the L-investors’ beliefs. The L-investors’ beliefs therefore do not change until the first cash flows
of firms that went public in regime-L are observed (Figure 3). The cash flow realizations of the
good firms that went public in regime-L will be unexpectedly high, and the cash flow realizations
of the bad firms will be unexpectedly low. Based on the first market clearing price, the expected
long run performance of good and bad firms that go public in regime-L is given by (34) and (35),
respectively.
V
G
(I
T
)
¯
V
L
800
(I
T
)
−1 =
318.5
279.96
−1 = +13.76% (34)
V
B
(I
T
)
¯
V
L
800
(I
T
)
−1 =
180.2
279.96
−1 = −35.63%. (35)
The overall expected long run performance of IPOs that take place in regime-L is equal to −20.8%
(Figure 6), which leads L-investors to revise their beliefs downwards (Figure 3). The IPO mar-
ket reverts back to regime-R as soon as the L-investors’ valuation for IPO shares drops below
V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)).
The plot of the L-investors’ beliefs over time (Figure 3) reveals that the IPO market enters
regime-L at three distinct occasions, t
j
, j ∈ {800; 2, 294; 3, 831}, and reverts back to regime-R at
times t
j
, j ∈ {1, 043; 2, 536; 4, 074}. As we can see, a total of 1, 017 IPOs over a period of 5, 000
point in time does not result in convergence to a stationary equilibrium, even though there are
only two types of firms in our model.
30
V Implications
Our model applies only to firms that go public to raise capital for investment. Moreover, it
is crucial in our theory that the different firm types are outwardly identical so that they are
indistinguishable to outside investors. Our model should therefore not be viewed as a model of
the IPO market as a whole, but rather as a model of the IPO market in a particular industry.
The following empirical predictions follow readily from our results:
Implication 1 An increase in the IPO volume in an industry is observed after a period during
which firms in this industry issued underpriced equity to raise capital for investment.
Implication 2 The prices at which IPOs are issued are higher during periods of high IPO volume
than during periods of low IPO volume. The first market clearing prices of IPOs are lower during
periods of high IPO volume than during periods of low IPO volume. An increase in IPO volume
is accompanied by a reduction in underpricing.
Implication 3 Based on the first market clearing price, shares of IPOs that take place during
periods of low IPO volume show no systematic abnormal long run performance. Shares of IPOs
that take place during periods of high IPO volume underperform in the long run. Based on the
first market clearing price, the overall average long run performance of IPO shares is negative.
Note that our model does not yield any clear predictions with respect to the overall average
long run performance of IPOs if the latter is measured based on the issue price, rather than on
the first market clearing price. However, we obtain unambiguous predictions with respect to the
long run performance of IPOs in each of the two regimes.
Implication 4 The abnormal long run performance of IPOs that take place during periods of
high IPO volume is negative, even if long run performance is measured based on the issue price.
Based on the issue price the abnormal long run performance of IPOs that take place during periods
of low IPO volume is positive.
Implication 5 The variance of long run performance is higher among firms that go public during
periods of high IPO volume than for firms that go public during periods with low IPO volume.
31
Implication 6 After a period of high IPO volume issue activity decreases as a result of poor long
run performance.
Finally, our model also suggest that IPOs in periods of high and low IPO volume are bought
by different groups of investors. Our model predicts that IPOs that take place during periods of
high IPO volume are primarily purchased by investors who lack a deeper understanding of the
IPO market, and who invest in the IPOs only because they previously observed IPO underpricing.
However, this prediction may be difficult to test.
VI Conclusion
We have presented a stylized model of an IPO market in which firms go public to raise capital
for investment. The model is capable of jointly explaining three major IPO market “anomalies”
that have been empirically documented in the literature: IPO underpricing, underperformance of
IPO shares in the long run, and strong concentration of issue activity in certain periods. In our
model, underpricing is observed even in the rational IPO market equilibrium. Some firms will
optimally use underpricing to augment the information that is conveyed by the firm’s investment
decisions to outside investors. This enables the firm to signal the profitability of its investment
opportunities to outsiders, and thereby maximizes the original shareholders’ personal wealth.
Long-run underperformance and periods of increased IPO volume arise from the presence of
investors who learn about the IPO market from publicly observable IPO market data. The latter
investors upset the rational equilibrium not because of ex ante unreasonable beliefs, but rather
because they learn to forecast the value of IPO firms based on the firms’ investment policy alone,
and because they are willing to purchase any IPO that is offered at a price below its inferred
value.
While long-run underperformance may otherwise appear hard to reconcile with the abnor-
mal positive returns (“underpricing”) of IPOs in the short-run, the joint existence of these two
phenomena may be explained with relative ease if underpricing is indeed used to signal the prof-
itability of a firm’s investment opportunities. Even a minor increase in the price at which firms
32
can issue equity is sufficient to alter the incentives of firms with lower quality investment oppor-
tunities. This results in a sudden increase in IPO activity that is accompanied by a significant
drop in the average IPO quality that leads to subsequent IPO underperformance.
A Mathematical Appendix
Proof of Lemma 1: The good type earns higher marginal returns on investment than the bad
type. Moreover, for I > I
F
G
additional investment is unprofitable for either type. Hence, there
exists an investment level
¯
I > I
F
G
that the good type is still able to finance, but at which the bad
type no longer prefers the payoff from the good type’s correctly priced IPO over her own first-best
payoff.
Proof of Proposition 1: It is straightforward to verify for each part of Proposition 1 that the
proposed pure strategy combination represents a perfect Bayesian equilibrium. We omit this part
of the proof an show only that the proposed equilibrium is the unique pure strategy equilibrium
that passes the Intuitive Criterion (IC).
By construction of the good type’s equilibrium offer there exists no out-of-equilibrium IPO
(I

, α

), I

= I
T
, that would make the good type better off than its proposed equilibrium offer,
but that is not also strictly preferred by the bad type over its own equilibrium offer. The bad
type therefore cannot be ruled out a defector, and the belief that a firm that defects with (I

, α

)
is of the bad type with probability one is admissible under the IC.
Now consider an equilibrium in which the good type undertakes some IPO (I

, α

), with I

= I
T
.
No such equilibrium can pass the IC since we can construct an alternative IPO of size I
T
that
investors would be willing to purchase if it was offered by the good type, and that makes the good
type strictly better off but the bad type strictly worse off than (I

, α

). Hence, the bad type can
be ruled out as a defector for the IPO of size I
T
, and the good type has no incentive to stick to
its proposed equilibrium strategy in the first place.
We have now established that the good type must raise and invest I
T
in equilibrium. In each
case of Proposition 1 it is easy to see that the good type cannot raise the issue price, relative to
its proposed equilibrium IPO. Moreover, the bad type cannot make itself better off by defecting
33
from its first-best strategy. This concludes the proof.
Proof of Proposition 2: Proposition 2 follows jointly from our assumptions and Proposition 1.
Proof of Lemma 2: For each point in time t
k
in regime-R we have either φ
k
(I
T
) = 0, or
φ
k
(I
T
) = 1 and
V
k,j
=





V
G
(I
T
) if j − < k < j,
V
G
(I
T
) +δ
k
if 0 ≤ k ≤ j −.
(36)
Consequently, we can rewrite (13) as
¯
V
L
j
(I
T
) =
ω
0
(I
T
)
ω
j
(I
T
)
·
¯
V
L
0
(I
T
) +
j−1
¸
k=0
φ
k
(I
T
)
ω
j
(I
T
)
· V
G
(I
T
) +
j−f
¸
k=0
φ
k
(I
T
)
ω
j
(I
T
)
· δ
k,j
. (37)
As j → ∞ the first and the third term in (37) converge to zero, and the second term converges
to V
G
(I
T
). Hence, we obtain (28).
Proof of Lemma 3: Lemma 3 follows directly from our assumptions.
Proof of Lemma 4: The probability that an IPO I
T
, V

with V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)) < V

< V
G
(I
T
)
succeeds is equal to the probability that the L-investors’ valuation for an IPOs of size I
T
exceeds
V

. The latter probability converges to one since
¯
V
L
j
(I
T
) converges to V
G
(I
T
) > V

for j −→∞by
Lemma 6. The results regarding the expected payoffs from undertaking the offer I
T
, V

follow
immediately.
Proof of Lemma 5: The L-investors’ valuation for the IPO I
T
, V

exceeds the R-investors’
valuation for this IPO. No new information becomes available between the time of the IPO and
the time at which its first market clearing price is determined. The first market clearing price is
therefore equal to the L-investors’ valuation,
¯
V
L
k
(I
T
). The L-investors’ t
0
-prior can be inferred
using (13) based on this market clearing price and on the performance of past IPOs. Finally, that
the abnormal initial return of this IPO is smaller than the abnormal initial return in regime-R
follows from that facts that
¯
V
L
k
(I
T
) < V
G
(I
T
), and V

> V
i
(I
T
, α
S
G
(I
T
)).
Proof of Proposition 3: The proof is straightforward and therefore omitted.
Proof of Proposition 4: Proposition 4 follows directly from Proposition 3.
Proof of Lemma 6: The proof of Lemma 6 is analogous to the proof of Lemma 2.
Proof of Proposition 5: This proof is done by contradiction. Suppose the economy reaches
the stationary equilibrium of Proposition 1.c). Then it follows from Lemma 2, Lemma 3, and
34
Lemma 4 that sooner or later a firm will successfully attempt an IPO at a higher price.
References
[1] Allen, Franklin, and Gerald R. Faulhaber, 1989. Signaling by Underpricing in the IPO Mar-
ket, Journal of Financial Economics 23, 303—323.
[2] Baron, David P., 1982. A Model of the Demand for Investment Banking Advising and Dis-
tribution Services for New Issues, Journal of Finance 37, 955—976.
[3] Baron, David P., and Bengt Holmstr¨om, 1980. The Investment Banking Contract for New
Issues Under Asymmetric Information: Delegation and the Incentive Problem, Journal of
Finance 35, 1115—1138.
[4] Beatty, Randolph P., and Jay R. Ritter, 1986. Investment Banking, Reputation, and the
Underpricing of Initial Public Offerings, Journal of Financial Economics 15, 213—232.
[5] Benveniste, Lawrence M., and Paul A. Spindt, 1989. How Investment Bankers Determine the
Offer Price and Allocation of New Issues, Journal of Financial Economics 24, 343—361.
[6] Brav, Alon M., and Paul A. Gompers, 1997. Myth or Reality? The Long-Run Underperfor-
mance of Initial Public Offerings: Evidence from Venture and Nonventure Capital-Backed
Companies, Journal of Finance 52, 1791—1821.
[7] Chemmanur, Thomas J., and Paolo Fulghieri, 1999. A Theory of the Going-Public Decision,
Review of Financial Studies 12, 249—279.
[8] Cho, In-Koo, and David M. Kreps, 1987. Signaling Games and Stable Equilibria, Quarterly
Journal of Economics 102, 179—221.
[9] Choe, Hyuk, Ronald W. Masulis, and Vikram Nanda, 1993. Common Stock Offerings Across
the Business Cycle - Theory and Evidence, Journal of Empirical Finance 1, 3—31.
35
[10] Daniel, Kent, and Sheridan Titman, 1995. Financing Investment Under Asymmetric Informa-
tion, in: Finance (R.A. Jarrow, V. Maksimovi¸c, and W.T. Ziemba, Eds.) 721-766. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
[11] Eckbo, B. Espen, and Øyvind Norli, 2000. Leverage, Liquidity and Long-Run IPO Returns,
Working paper.
[12] Grinblatt, Mark, and Chuan Yang Hwang, 1989. Signalling and the Pricing of New Issues,
Journal of Finance 44, 393—420.
[13] Hirshleifer, David, 2001. Investor Psychology and Asset Pricing, Journal of Finance 56, 1533—
1594.
[14] Hughes, Patricia J., and Anjan V. Thakor, 1992. Litigation Risk, Intermediation, and the
Underpricing of Initial Public Offerings, Review of Financial Studies 5, 709—742.
[15] Ibbotson, Roger G., and Jeffrey F. Jaffe, 1975. “Hot Issue” Markets, Journal of Finance 30,
1027—1042.
[16] Ibbotson, Roger G., and Jay R. Ritter, 1995. Initial Public Offerings, in: Finance (R.A.
Jarrow, V. Maksimovi¸ c, and W.T. Ziemba, Eds.) pp. 993-1016. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
[17] Leland, Hayne E., and David H. Pyle, 1977. Informational Asymmetries, Financial Structure,
and Financial Intermediation, Journal of Finance 32, 371—387.
[18] Ljungqvist, Alexander, Vikram Nanda, and Rajdeep Singh, 2001. Hot Markets, Investor
Sentiment, and IPO Pricing, Working paper.
[19] Loughran, Tim, and Jay R. Ritter, 1995. The New Issues Puzzle, Journal of Finance 50,
23—51.
[20] Loughran, Tim, and Jay R. Ritter, 2000. Uniformly least powerful tests of market efficiency,
Journal of Financial Economics 55, 361—389.
[21] Loughran, Tim, Jay R. Ritter, and Kristian Rydqvist, 1994. Initial Public Offerings: Inter-
national Insights, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 2, 165—199.
36
[22] Lowry, Michelle, 2003. Why does IPO volume fluctuate so much?, Journal of Financial Eco-
nomics 67, 3—40.
[23] Lowry, Michelle, and G. William Schwert, 2002. IPO Market Cycles: Bubbles or Sequential
Learning?, Journal of Finance 57, 1171—1200.
[24] Mauer, David C., and Lemma W. Senbet, 1992. The Effect of the Secondary Market on the
Pricing of Initial Public Offerings: Theory and Evidence, Journal of Financial and Quanti-
tative Analysis 24, 55—79.
[25] Maug, Ernst, 2001. Ownership Structure and the Life-Cycle of the Firm: A Theory of the
Decision to Go Public, European Finance Review 5, 167—200.
[26] Michaely, Roni, and Wayne H. Shaw, 1994. The Pricing of Initial Public Offerings: Tests of
Adverse Selection and Signaling Theories, The Review of Financial Studies 7, 279—319.
[27] Morris, Stephen, 1996. Speculative Behavior and Learning, The Quarterly Journal of Eco-
nomics , 1111—1133.
[28] Myers, Stewart C., and Nicholas S. Majluf, 1984. Corporate Financing and Investment De-
cisions When Firms Have Information That Investors Do Not Have, Journal of Financial
Economics 13, 187—221.
[29] Nanda, Vikram, and Youngkeol Yun, 1995. Reputation and Financial Intermediation: An
Empirical Investigation of the Impact of IPO Mispricing on Underwriter Market Value, Jour-
nal of Financial Intermediation 6, 39—63.
[30] Pagano, Marco, Fabio Panetta, and Luigi Zingales, 1998. Why Do Companies Go Public?
An Empirical Analysis, Journal of Finance 53, 27—64.
[31] Ritter, Jay R., 1991. The Long-Run Performance of Initial Public Offerings, Journal of
Finance 46, 3—27.
[32] Ritter, Jay R., 1984. The ‘Hot Issue’ Market of 1980, Journal of Business 57, 215—240.
37
[33] Ritter, Jay R., 1984. Signaling and the Valuation of Unseasoned New Issues: A Comment,
Journal of Finance 39, 1231—1237.
[34] Rock, Kevin, 1986. Why New Issues are Underpriced, Journal of Financial Economics 15,
187—212.
[35] Securities and Exchange Commission, 1963. Report of Special Study on Security Markets,
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
[36] Stoughton, Neal M., Kit Pong Wong, and Josef Zechner, 2001. IPOs and Product Quality,
Journal of Business 74, 375—408.
[37] Tini¸ c, Seha M., 1988. Anatomy of Initial Public Offerings of Common Stock, Journal of
Finance 43, 789—822.
[38] Trueman, Brett, 1986. The Relationship between the Level of Capital Expenditures and Firm
Value, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 21, 115—129.
[39] Welch, Ivo, 1989. Seasoned Offerings, Imitation Costs, and the Underpricing of Initial Public
Offerings, Journal of Finance 44, 421—449.
[40] Welch, Ivo, 1991. An Empirical Examination of Models of Contract Choice in Initial Public
Offerings, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 26, 497—518.
[41] Welch, Ivo, 1992. Sequential Sales, Learning, and Cascades, Journal of Finance 47, 695—732.
38

A Theory of IPO Underpricing, Issue Activity, and Long-Run Underperformance

Abstract We present a dynamic model of an IPO market in which firms go public to raise capital for investment. The original shareholders have inside information with respect to the quality of their firm’s investment opportunities, and they decide whether to go public, how much capital to raise and invest, and how to price the IPO. Outside investors are of one of two types: some investors know and understand even the not directly observable economic incentives of the original shareholders, whereas all other investors learn about the IPO market only from the publicly observable IPO market data. Market participation by the latter investors can upset the stationary rational equilibrium and give rise to a dynamic equilibrium that is characterized by: (1) IPO underpricing, (2) underperformance of IPO shares in the long run, and (3) cyclical variations in IPO volume. Learning investors upset the stationary equilibrium not because of ex ante unreasonable beliefs, but because they fail to condition their beliefs on variables that convey only redundant information in the stationary equilibrium. The model provides a joint explanation for the three empirically documented IPO market “anomalies,” and it yields a number of new testable empirical predictions. JEL classification: D82, D83, G31, G32.

I

Introduction

Financial economists have documented at least three puzzling empirical regularities in the market for initial public offerings of common stock: IPO underpricing, i.e. positive excess returns in the short run; strong concentration of IPO activity in certain periods; and underperformance of IPO shares in the long run. The first empirical evidence on IPO underpricing dates back to a study by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in 1963. A large body of subsequent empirical research has confirmed the finding that IPOs tend to be substantially underpriced in the U.S., as well as internationally.1 Ibbotson and Jaffe (1975) present evidence of the existence of “hot issue” markets, which they define as periods during which the initial performance of IPOs is exceptionally high. Moreover, they find evidence of a strong concentration of IPO activity in certain periods. Loughran, Ritter, and Rydqvist (1994) report that similar patterns can be observed internationally. Evidence of long-run underperformance of IPO shares was first presented by Ritter (1991), who also finds that underperformance was most severe for firms that went public during certain years of high IPO activity. Further evidence on IPO underperformance in the long run is presented by Loughran and Ritter (1995). Much of the theoretical research on IPOs has focused on explaining IPO underpricing. Possible reasons for underpricing include self-interested investment bankers (Baron and Holmstr¨m (1980) o and Baron (1982)), the “winner’s curse” (Rock (1986)), lawsuit avoidance (Tini¸ (1988) and c Hughes and Thakor (1992)), signaling (Allen and Faulhaber (1989), Grinblatt and Hwang (1989), and Welch (1989)), market incompleteness (Mauer and Senbet (1992)), bookbuilding (Benveniste and Spindt (1989)), and informational cascades (Welch (1992)). Evidence suggests also that in some countries IPO underpricing may be due to the regulatory environment (see Loughran, Ritter, and Rydqvist (1994)), or because the allocation of IPO shares can be used as a bribe. One possible explanation for the strong fluctuations in IPO volume is that the cost of issuing
1

See Ibbotson and Ritter (1995) for a survey of the research on initial public offerings. Loughran, Ritter, and

Rydqvist (1994) focus on the international evidence.

1

equity varies across the business cycle. Choe, Masulis, and Nanda (1993) present a model in which the business cycle causes adverse selection costs to vary over time. Adverse selection costs are lower in periods of economic expansion which leads firms to issue equity primarily during such times. Choe, Masulis, and Nanda also provide some evidence in support of their model. Although their paper is about seasoned equity offerings, it is conceivable that varying degrees of asymmetric information across the business cycle also affect the market for initial public offerings. Chemmanur and Fulghieri (1999) point out another possible explanation for the strong clustering of IPOs in certain periods, namely the existence of productivity shocks that are correlated across firms. In Maug (2001) clustering of IPOs occurs because the first IPO(s) in a new industry lead investors to developing a better understanding of this industry. This reduces their costs of evaluating subsequent IPOs. Stoughton, Wong, and Zechner (2001) present a model in which the market clearing price of an IPO conveys information with respect to the firm’s future prospects, as well as with respect to the prospects of the entire industry. Clustering of IPOs can occur when an IPO conveys very favorable information with respect to an industry’s growth opportunities. Lowry (2003) investigates empirically whether the fluctuations in IPO volume can be explained by the aggregate capital demands of private firms, by the adverse selection costs of issuing equity, or by the level of investor optimism. She finds that all three factors are statistically significant, but that only the firms’ aggregate capital demand and investor sentiment appear to be economically significant determinants of IPO volume. Lowry and Schwert (2002) report a significant positive lead-lag relation between initial returns and future IPO volume. They provide evidence suggesting that this lead-lag relationship between initial returns an IPO volume may be driven by information that is learned by the underwriter during the registration period, but that is not fully incorporated into the offer price. If one is willing to accept the view that IPO shares tend to underperform the market in the long run then rational explanations of this phenomenon appear hard to come by.2 Most of the literature on this topic therefore empirical and points in the direction of limited investor rationality and
2

Whether IPO shares really underperform the market in the long run has recently been subject to some debate.

See Brav and Gompers (1997), Eckbo and Norly (2000), and Loughran and Ritter (2000).

2

We propose an alternative theory that is also capable of jointly explaining IPO underpricing. and long-run underperformance of IPO shares. We assume universal risk neutrality and model IPOs as direct transactions between entrepreneurs and investors. at times. “speculative bubbles” can occur.psychological finance. and Singh (2001). Undertaking the investment opportunity requires an IPO to raise 3 Hirshleifer (2001) provides a comprehensive overview of the various psychological biases and their common root causes. IPOs underperform as investors learn about the true distribution of the firm values in the long run. In our model firms go public to raise capital for investment. but in which they have different prior beliefs with respect to the distribution of the firm values. They attribute all three phenomena to the existence of a class of investors who are. Nanda. The structure of our model is quite simple. IPO underpricing is a rational equilibrium outcome that obtains as a result of the original shareholders’ personal wealth maximization under asymmetric information. irrationally exuberant about the prospects of IPOs. Underpricing happens to compensate the regular (institutional) investors for the risk of losing money on their inventory in the event that the hot issue market ends prematurely. The to our knowledge only theory that links all three IPO market anomalies to a single cause is due to Ljungqvist. In such a bubble each investor anticipates to be able to sell his shares in the aftermarket to an investor with a higher valuation. in which IPOs are sold at a price that is above each individual investor’s valuation. Morris (1996) presents a model in which investors share a common prior belief with respect to the value of IPO firms. fluctuations in IPO volume. Each investment opportunity is available to a single personal wealth maximizing entrepreneur who is privately informed about its profitability. In their model the selling policy that is in the issuer’s best interest usually involves staggered sales. Periods of high IPO activity and long-run underperformance are attributable to the presence of investors who learn about the IPO market based on publicly observable performance of past IPOs. In this setting. one possible rational explanation is that IPO underperformance is due to investor learning.3 However. Nature randomly creates investment opportunities that are of one of two types (profitable or unprofitable). 3 .

Intuitively. It is consistent with the beliefs of these investor to purchase any IPO that is issued at a price weakly below its inferred expected value. how much capital to raise and invest. on average. underpriced. and how to price an IPO. but it also alters the incentives of those entrepreneurs that did not previously find it profitable to go public. while learning investors may eventually be able to forecast which IPOs are underpriced. Depending on the terms at which equity can be sold the entrepreneurs decide whether to go public. but that they underperform the market in the long run (if long run performance is measured based on the first market 4 This suggests that underpricing may be a necessary condition for the absence of underperformance. (1) Consistent with the conventional wisdom our model predicts that IPOs are. The main empirical implications of our model are as follows. However. and also by how much. Learning investors will eventually be able to infer which IPOs are underpriced. In equilibrium. these investors are like statisticians who lack a structural model of the world. We then introduce a class of investors who learn about the IPO market only based on publicly observable data.4 After a period of high IPO activity the IPO market reverts back to the rational equilibrium as long-run underperformance leads the learning investors to revise their beliefs downwards. and who try to understand the IPO market just from looking at the data.capital for investment. such as the performance of past IPOs. In our model even a slight increase in the price at which firms can issue equity can alter the incentives of lower quality firms. Under plausible conditions some entrepreneurs find it optimal to augment the information that is conveyed by their investment decisions to outsiders by underpricing their IPOs. and a sudden drop in the average IPO quality that leads to subsequent IPO underperformance. The issue price of an IPO does not convey any additional information. the combination of IPO pricing and investment choice signals the quality of a firm’s investment opportunities. 4 . they cannot infer from the data why these IPOs are underpriced. This results in an increase in IPO volume. In the stationary equilibrium these investors can learn to infer the value of an IPO from the issuing firm’s investment policy alone. This creates an opportunity for some issuing firms to sell equity at a price closer to its fair value.

This prediction is consistent with the findings of Loughran and Ritter (2000) and others. Section III discusses the rational IPO market equilibrium in the absence of learning. (6) Our model predicts that periods of exceptionally high IPO volume come to an end when investors begin to learn about the true fundamental value of these firms. (3) IPOs that take place during periods of high IPO volume underperform the market even if long run performance is measured based on the issue price. Their presence allows firms to issue equity at a higher price. All proofs are in the Appendix. The model is set up in Section II. Ritter (1984)). e. This prediction is in line with existing evidence (see. whereas the remaining agents in the economy (“investors”) have only access to financial market investments. All agents in the economy are risk neutral and maximize their respective personal wealth. Section IV contains the analysis of investor learning and the dynamic IPO market equilibrium. high initial returns attract unsophisticated investors to the IPO market. II A The Model The Economy Consider an economy with firms that are initially privately held by owner-managers (“entrepreneurs”).g. (7) Finally. Section V summarizes the empirical implications. Moreover. but rather limited to certain industries. our model suggests that exceptionally high IPO volume is attributable to firms that go public specifically to raise capital for investment. which results in a subsequent increase in IPO activity. (4) Periods of exceptionally high IPO volume are not a market wide phenomenon. (2) Long-run underperformance is limited to IPOs that take place during periods of high IPO volume. and Section VI concludes. There are no transaction costs or taxes. In our model. The distinctive feature of entrepreneurs is that they may have access to additional physical investment opportunities. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. (5) Consistent with findings by Lowry and Schwert (2002) our model predicts a positive lead-lag relationship between initial returns and IPO volume. and the 5 . our model suggests that the variance of the long run performance of firms that go public during periods of high IPO volume should be much large than that of firms that go public during periods of low IPO activity.clearing price).

and the wealth of each individual investor is too small to allow a private equity placement. 6 7 An extension of the model to more than two types is straightforward but tedious. Even if we relaxed assumption (A3) by assuming that both types have a positive NPV project we could obtain IPO underpricing. The value of any firm’s assets in place prior to (or without) an IPO is equal to A > 0. j ∈ {0. . B Firms. tj = t0 + j∆t. 1). and (A4). nature creates a physical investment opportunity with probability λ ∈ (0.interest rate is zero. The assumptions (A1). and IPOs Nature creates investment opportunities in discrete time intervals. Any such investment opportunity is available only to a single entrepreneur. Marginal profit functions are assumed to be continuously differentiable functions of investment with the following properties:7 (A1) A type-G project yields higher marginal returns on investment than a type-B project. 5 The assumption that firms do not differ in terms of the value of their assets in place is a simplifying assumption that is not crucial for our results. and that additional investment can only be financed by means of an initial public offering (IPO) of common stock. This could be. we could not obtain fluctuations in the number of IPOs that take place. 1.6 Firms differ only in terms of their investment opportunities so that we will refer to a firm with access to a type-G (type-B) project as a type-G (type-B) firm and to its original shareholder as a type-G (type-B) entrepreneur. long-run underperformance. are merely technical assumptions that allow us to keep the analysis simple. The (expected) marginal profit function of a type-T project is denoted by πT (I). However. . because entrepreneurs do not have any own funds to pay for the additional investment. An investment opportunity that opens up has to be undertaken immediately. asymmetric information or agency problems rule out debt financing. 6 . We assume that firms are all-equity financed. (A2). At each point in time. . for example. None of these assumptions is crucial for the main results of the model. ∆t > 0. and fluctuations in the amount of equity that is issued. or it ceases to exist. Entrepreneurs.5 An investment opportunity is of one of two types that we refer to as type-G (“good”) and type-B (“bad”) respectively. 2.}.

We abstract from the existence of financial intermediaries and model IPOs as direct transactions between entrepreneurs and investors. B}. ∞) × [0. and α denotes the fraction of equity retained by the entrepreneur.9 The value of a type-T firm that raises and invests I dollars is equal to the expected value of its future cash flows: I VT (I) = A + 0 1 + πT (I) dI. an entrepreneur can make a take-it-or-leave-it offer I. the original shareholder’s informational advantage implies that outsiders would view any attempt to sell more equity than necessary to finance the intended investment policy as a negative signal of the firm quality. and the probability that it is type-B is equal to 1 − p. The sole purpose of the IPO in our model is to raise capital for investment. The offer 0. 1] to outside investors. Moreover. T ∈ {G. B}. α ∈ [0.8 We assume that a firm without access to a physical investment opportunity cannot go public. The ex ante probability that an investment opportunity is type-G is equal to p ∈ (0. (A2) Projects exhibit decreasing returns to scale: πT (I) < 0 for all I > 0. at most one IPO can take place at any given point in time. 1). (A3) Only type-G projects have a positive expected NPV: πG (0) > 0. 7 . The project type is initially private information of the entrepreneur and it is not verifiable ex post. 1 represents the special case that the entrepreneur does not raise any capital and instead retains full ownership of her firm. which means that the entire proceeds from the issue will be invested in the firm. 9 Hence. (A4) Marginal gross returns on investment are non-negative. (1) Conditional on a physical investment opportunity being available. 8 We rule out the possibility that a firm invests the proceeds from the equity issue in marketable securities or just holds cash. but πB (0) ≤ 0. T ∈ {G.irrespective of the level of investment: πB (I) < πG (I) for all I ≥ 0. This means that marginal losses from inefficient investment never exceed the additional investment outlay: πT (I) > −1 for all I > 0. where I denotes the amount of capital raised and invested. Our assumption of universal risk neutrality implies that entrepreneurs have no incentive to sell equity for diversification purposes.

10 Neither of these assumptions is crucial for our model. α) . Our main results would still hold if an entrepreneur could approach the market again after a failed first attempt to sell an IPO. This representation will be more intuitive when it comes to analyzing investor learning and the resulting IPO market dynamics. α is equal to the value of her retained equity. α) = I . As a tie breaker we assume that an entrepreneur who is indifferent between her first-best IPO and some alternative IPO will stick to her first-best IPO. α) exceeds the true firm value then the IPO is overpriced. WT (I. V i (I. α) in the following as “the issue price”. α captures the entrepreneur’s tradeoff between raising more capital and retaining more equity. For convenience we will refer to V i (I. where V i (I. α) denotes the firm value that is implicit in the terms of the IPO. The total wealth of a type-T entrepreneur who manages to sell an IPO I. 8 . α we can now find an equivalent representation I. The representation I.By assumption. α) is smaller then the true firm value then the IPO is underpriced. I. and if V i (I. If V i (I. α . 1−α (3) It is clear that V i (I. V i (I. For each IPO I. An entrepreneur whose IPO has failed cannot approach the market again. an entrepreneur chooses the IPO that maximizes her expected terminal wealth. Outside investors just break even on purchasing (1 − α) of a firm’s equity for I dollars whenever the true firm value is identical to (3). This representation will be very intuitive when it comes to analyzing the decision problem of an entrepreneur. we can calculate the firm valuation that is implicit in the terms of the IPO as V i (I. α is assumed to be equal to zero. (2) An entrepreneur’s payoff from unsuccessfully attempting an IPO I.10 For any IPO. α) need not be identical to the true firm value. or if we assumed a different (fixed) payoff from a failed IPO. Which of the two above IPO representations is going to be more convenient depends on the questions that we will address. α) emphasizes the link between investment policy and firm value. α) = αVT (I). The representation I.

α) ≤ V R (I. α) ≤ V .1 R-Investors The first group of investors. which means that they understand even the not directly observable economic incentives of the entrepreneurs. µ 9 .11 C Investors Investors can either purchase stocks or hold cash.We assume that all uncertainty with respect to a firm’s cash flows is resolved exactly periods ˜ after its IPO. whenever V i (I. where ˜ δT (I) is a random variable with zero expected mean. It will be more convenient to specify the investors’ beliefs with respect to the firm value (V ). and on his belief with respect to the value of the offering firm. the firm value is publicly revealed to be equal to VT (I) + δT (I). as well as on the fraction of equity retained by the entrepreneur. C. 12 13 This assumption is necessary to obtain long-run underperformance of IPO shares in our model.13 An investor will participate in an IPO whenever he expects to at least break even. (4) A crucial assumption in our model is the existence of two types of investors that differ in terms of their knowledge and their understanding of the IPO market.12 Whether an investor decides to participate in a particular IPO depends on the terms of the IPO. rather than with respect to the probabilities that they assign to the event that the firm is of the high type (ˆ). These investors are assumed to have all the information about the firms with the exception of the individual firm types. R-investors demand shares in an IPO whenever V i (I. V R . α). To ˜ account for limited liability we have to assume that δT (I) is bounded from below by −VT (I). that we refer to as “R-investors”. They condition their beliefs with respect to the firm value. At that time. but they cannot short sell IPO shares. V . 11 (5) The only purpose of this stochastic component is to ensure that the firm type is not verifiable ex post. The R-investors can therefore infer each entrepreneur type’s expected payoff from every feasible strategy. Following (4). on the firm’s investment policy. that is. are rational in the usual game theoretic sense.

respectively. We will see that L-investors may learn to predict the value of an IPO based on the issuing firm’s investment policy alone. This assumption implies that an entrepreneur may sell the IPO to the group of investors with the highest valuation for the shares. V i (I. C.2 L-Investors (6) The second group of investors. are not irrational. It is crucial that we assume that NR and NL are sufficiently large so that each group of investors by itself can purchase all IPOs in the economy. α) ≤ V L (I). Depending on whether IPOs are offered at a price (weakly) below or (strictly) above the R-investors’ valuation we distinguish between two IPO market regimes that we refer to as “regime-R” and “regime-L”.Note that R-investors may alternatively be viewed as conditioning their beliefs on I and V i (I. (7) L-investors are not ignoring how much of the firm’s equity is offered in exchange for the capital that is raised in the IPO.E. that we refer to as “L-investors”. C. and that they demand shares in an IPO as long as it is offered at a price weakly below its inferred expected value. but they differ from R-investors in that they view the choice of α merely as a pricing decision. an L-investor is like a statistician who lacks a structural model of the world. so that (5) may be stated equivalently as V i (I. We therefore assume that L-investors condition their beliefs. α). but they learn about the IPO market only from the publicly observable performance of past IPOs. 10 . α)). We will discuss the learning by L-investors in more detail in Subsection II. α) ≤ V R (I. and who tries to understand the world just from looking at the data. Intuitively. after the sequence of events for an individual IPO has been specified.3 IPO Market Regimes We denote the number of R-investors and the number of L-investors in the economy by NR and NL . V L . respectively. V i (I. on the firm’s investment policy.

. (2) if a firm issued equity at tj− then the true value of this firm’s cash flows is publicly revealed. and (3) a firm that is not yet publicly listed may undertake an IPO. Vj.j+1 The first market clearing price is determined in public trading... tj+ .j+ Nature reveals the true firm value. The market is in regime-L if an IPO is offered at a price strictly above the R-investors’ valuation. To avoid ambiguities we assume that these events take place in the aforementioned sequence. Underpricing Long run performance Figure 1: Time line of events for an individual IPO Definition 1 (Regime-R and Regime-L) At time-tj the IPO market is in regime-R if an IPO is offered at a price weakly below the R-investors’ valuation. tj + tj+1 − . Vj.j IPO takes place.. Vj... tj . D Sequence of Events for an Individual IPO Up to three events can take place in our model at any given point in time. and tj + . tj : (1) there is a public trading session in which the market clearing prices of all firms that previously issued equity are determined. respectively. This particular sequencing implies that no new information becomes available between the time at which an IPO is sold to investors (tj + ). We may think of the trading session. the revelation of the realized cash flows.. and the IPO taking place at times tj − . and the trading 11 .

Vj. The issue price. from tj+1 to tj+ ). V (I.j+k . Vj. . g(·). Whenever we are primarily interested in the dynamic aspects of the IPO market we will denote the time-tj+k price of the firm that went public at tj by Vj.}.j+k . and for ≤ k. k ∈ {0. Moreover. is observed. . we have ⎧ ⎪ i ⎪ V (I.e. 1. the time-tj market clearing prices of all publicly traded firms and the true fundamental value of any firm that went public at tj− are already common knowledge when the time-tj IPO is offered to the public. The time line of events for an individual IPO firm is depicted in Figure 1. and the true firm value is publicly revealed.e. α) ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎨ for k = 0. with compact support. Hence. from time tj to tj+ ).session in which its first market clearing price is determined (at tj+1 − ). We assume that this prior is distributed according to some probability density function. 3. (8) Vj.j .e. for 1 ≤ k < . At tj+ all uncertainty with respect to the true firm value is resolved. L R ⎪ max V (I). underpricing) of an IPO by its stock price performance from tj to tj+1 . The probability density function is assumed to be common knowledge. The (finite) weight that L-investors assign to their prior 12 . since our model yields separate predictions for the two time horizons. or based on the first market clearing price (i. and it is identical to (3). so that V0L (I) denotes the L-investors’ prior belief with respect to the value of a firm that raises and invests I dollars. For a successful IPO that takes place at tj a time series of firm prices.j+k = We measure the abnormal initial performance (i. The long run performance of IPO shares is measured either based on the offer price (i. . All subsequent prices are market clearing prices that are determined by the investors with the highest valuation for the shares. No IPO took place before t0 . α) ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ V (I) + δ (I) ˜T T E Learning by L-Investors We denote the L-investors’ time-tj belief with respect to the value of a firm that raises and invests I dollars by VjL (I). 2. but the prior itself is private information of the L-investors. is set by the entrepreneur.

L-investors update their beliefs whenever the first market clearing price for an IPO is observed. but also on the IPO market regime periods ago. The expected development of the L-investors’ beliefs at a given point in time therefore depends not only on the current IPO market regime.is denoted by ω0 (I). the L-investors’ updated time-tj belief may be expressed as VjL (I) = φj− (I) ωj−1 (I) φj−1 (I) L · Vj−1 (I) + · Vj−1. we define ωj (I) = ωj−1 (I) + φj (I) j−1 (10) (11) = ω0 (I) + 0 φj (I).j + · (Vj− ωj (I) ωj (I) ωj (I) . . 15 Assuming that only one of the parameters that determine the L-investors’ beliefs is private information implies that all other agents in the economy fully understand the L-investors’ beliefs after observing only a single IPO in regime-L. 1. This limits the number of special cases that we have to consider (see Lemma 5) without affecting the main insights that can be gained from our model.j . By assumption.j − Vj− . 13 . 2. Assuming Bayesian updating. and whenever new information on a publicly listed firm becomes available. ω (I) k=0 j j−1 (13) A weight ω0 (I) = k means that the weight that type-L investors assign to their prior is equivalent to the weight that they would assign to k independent observations. the first market clearing price of any time-tj−1 IPO. and of the number of IPOs of size I that took place prior to tj .15 To formalize the updating of beliefs by L-investors we define the indicator functions ⎧ ⎪ ⎨ 1 if an IPO of size I took place at tj . (12) The three terms in (12) represent the investors’ time-tj−1 belief.j−1 ) . ⎪ ⎩ 0 otherwise. Note that (12) can alternatively be stated as VjL (I) 14 = ω0 (I) · V L (I) + ωj (I) 0 φk (I) · Vk. the latter is the case at tj if and only if a firm went public at tj− .}. and any change in the market value of a firm that issued equity at tj− due to the arrival of new public information.14 For convenience we assume that ω0 (I) is common knowledge. In addition. φj (I) = (9) for each j ∈ {0. . . which is the sum of the weight of the L-investors’ t0 -prior.

and of the current market values of all publicly listed firms that followed the same investment policy in the past. III The Rational IPO Market Equilibrium in the Absence of Learning: Regime-R We begin our analysis by deriving the rational IPO market equilibrium that obtains in the absence of learning. That is. 14 . αG (IG )) = A + 16 F IG 0 πT (I) dI.16 so that we will skip most of the technical details and some of the proofs in this section and instead focus mainly on the intuition. (15) Available from the authors. αT (I)) = VT (I)). A type-B entrepreneur therefore does not F invest (IB = 0).com. so that outside investors just break even on purchasing the issue. we assume initially that the L-investors are not participating in the IPO market. or from the Social Science Research Network at http://www. The total payoff to a type-B entrepreneur is equal to WB (0. denoted by IT . A The First-Best Outcome In the absence of informational asymmetries a type-T entrepreneur can raise I dollars by offering F 1 − αT (I) = I VT (I) (14) F of her firm’s equity to outside investors. and a type-G entrepreneur undertakes the NPV-maximizing investment level F that is implicitly defined by πG (IG ) = 0. Since the equity is sold at the fair price. The IPO is priced correctly (i. An in-depth analysis of this equilibrium can be found in a companion paper by the same authors.which reveals that the type-L investors’ time-tj belief with respect to the value of a firm that raises and invests I dollars is just a weighted average of their time-t0 prior. 1) = A.ssrn. a type-T entrepreneur has no incentive to deviate F from her first-best investment policy. V i (I.e. and the total payoff to a type-G entrepreneur is equal to the sum of her project-NPV and the value of the assets in place: F F F WG (IG .

αG (IG ) the bad type’s gain from selling overvalued equity exceeds her imitation costs that arise from inefficient investment. F ¯ Lemma 1 There exists an investment level I > IG at which the good type could issue equity at the fair price. doing so would not necessarily be optimal from the point of view of a personal wealth maximizing entrepreneur: while the fact that the good type earns higher marginal returns on investment than the bad type creates an incentive to signal with overinvestment. the good type could always distinguish herself from the bad type by overinvesting to such an extend that it becomes too costly for the bad type to mimic. B Equilibrium under Asymmetric Information We assume that the first-best outcome is not feasible under asymmetric information. Whenever the first-best outcome is not feasible due to asymmetric information the good type typically has an incentive to deviate from her first-best investment policy to signal her type. 15 . Hence. 1). the necessity to finance this investment with outside equity creates a counteracting incentive to underinvest. and no abnormal stock price performance is observed in the long run. Under asymmetric information type-G firms are therefore faced with higher marginal financing costs than type-B firms. Lemma 1 states that. That is. we assume that the bad type’s payoff from undertaking the good types’s first-best offer exceeds the bad type’s payoff from her own first-best strategy: F F F WB (IG .Both the issue price and the first market clearing price are identical to the true (expected) firm value.17 The direction in which the good type adjusts her investment policy can be determined by looking at the two type’s respective marginal rates of substitution between the fraction of retained 17 For all I > 0 the equity of a type-G firm is more valuable than that of a type-B firm since type-G firms earn higher returns on investment than type-B firms. (16) F F F The intuitive interpretation of (16) is that at the IPO IG . in principle. αG (IG )) > WB (0. However. there is no underpricing.

S αG (I) = 18 A . I . 16 . VB (I) (20) The ratio of the firm values may be interpreted as the ratio of the two type’s respective marginal financing costs since both types have to give up the same fraction of equity to raise another dollar of capital.18 That is. α)/∂α V (I) = α T . VB (I). exceeds the bad type’s marginal gross return. From (2) we obtain MRS T (I. R-investors therefore have to believe that a firm that offers the IPO of size I is of the good type. and the amount of capital that is raised and invested. α) = ∂WT (I. the good type will undertake only investments for which her marginal return on investment is sufficiently higher than the bad type’s to compensate her for her relatively higher marginal cost of outside equity capital. and the good type has no incentive to undertake an IPO of size I in the first place. VT (I) (17) (18) Based on (17) it can be shown that the good type’s second-best strategy entails undertaking only those investments for which its marginal gross return. VG (I) = 1 + πG (I). the good type ¯ will not increase investment beyond I since this investment level is already sufficiently informative to allow an equity issue at the fair price. 19 Any equilibrium candidate in which the good type undertakes an investment policy I = I with strictly positive probability fails the “Intuitive Criterion” of Cho and Kreps (1987): there exist an alternative IPO of size I that makes the good type strictly better but the bad type strictly worse off than the IPO of size I . αP (I) = 1 − I .19 There exists a (unique) pure-strategy equilibrium in regime-R. The good-type’s second-best investment policy can therefore be identified as the investment policy.equity. To be able to fully characterize this equilibrium we need to calculate the fraction of equity that the entrepreneurs could retain in a pooling equilibrium candidate IPO of size I. (1 − p)VB (I) + pVG (I) (19) and the fraction of equity that a type-G entrepreneur could retain in an IPO of the same size that is priced to prevent the bad type from mimicking. VG (I)/VB (I). I]. However. in which both firm types issue equity at the average fair price. that maximizes the ratio VG (I)/VB (I) on the ¯ interval [0. by a factor greater than the ratio of the two types’ respective marginal financing costs. α)/∂I ∂WT (I.

αP (I ) . IG . α > αe . and in which the e bad type undertakes its first-best IPO. Case a) corresponds to a setting in which for any level of investment the good type’s marginal return on investment is sufficiently higher than the bad type’s to ensure that good type always prefers a marginal increase in equity financed investment over issuing equity below the fair price. 1 . α . hence. IB . and that a firm that defects with an out-of-equilibrium IPO I . 1 . G The equilibrium can be supported by the R-investors’ beliefs that a firm that defects with an outof-equilibrium investment policy I = I is of the bad type with probability one. αe = I . The value G of αP (I ) depends additionally on the probability distribution of the firm types. and. and αS (I ). IB . αG (I) . These beliefs are admissible under the Intuitive Criterion of Cho and Kreps (1987). αe = G S ¯ c) If I < I and αG (I ) ≥ αP (I ) then the equilibrium is a separating equilibrium in which the e bad type undertakes its first-best IPO. and in which the good type signals B e S with a combination of investment choice and IPO underpricing. αG (I ) . B S ¯ b) If I < I and αG (I ) < αP (I ) then the equilibrium is a pooling equilibrium in which both types raise and invest I . this equilibrium is of the following type:20 a) If I ¯ = I then the equilibrium is a separating equilibrium in which type-G signals with e e ¯ F ¯ overinvestment and issues equity at the fair price. αe = I . is of the good type with probability G p. Depending on the location of I on [0. B e IG . and of the bad type with probability 1 − p. αe = 0. The intuition underlying these different types of equilibria is as follows. increases the ratio of the two types’ respective marginal financing costs. I . The latter cases are plausible since any investment that the good type chooses to undertake increases the ratio of the firm values. depend only on the two types’ respective marginal profit functions. αe = 0. and in which equity is issued at the average value: e IB . 17 . I]. IG . The cases b) and c) correspond to a setting in which this is only initially so. αG = I.Proposition 1 (Equilibrium in Regime-R) Regime-R is characterized by the existence of a ¯ unique equilibrium in pure strategies. Once I has been reached the good type’s relative disadvantage on the financing side (vis-`-vis the bad type) begins a 20 ¯ The values of I. and on the values S of αP (I ) and αG (I ).

αS (I ) that is offered by a type-G firm.c)’s separating equilibrium with underpricing. αG (I )) F αG (I ) − αS (I ) G > 0. Otherwise the bad type prefers her own first-best payoff over the payoff from the pooling equilibrium candidate IPO. Based on the equilibrium of Proposition 1. 1. In the latter case the good type can retain αS (I ) ≥ αP (I ) of the equity without being mimicked by the bad type. . G Only Proposition 1. but there is positive abnormal long run performance from tj to tj+ . The G abnormal initial performance of IPOs from the issue price to the first market clearing price (i. tj . Proposition 2 (Issue Activity and IPO Performance in Regime-R) Suppose the equilibrium in regime-R is Proposition 1.to outweigh its relative advantage on the investment side. 1 − αF (I ) G (21) (22) (3) No abnormal stock price performance is observed after the first market clearing price. The pooling equilibrium exists only if the ex ante probability of S a firm being type-G is so high that αP (I ) > αG (I ).j+1 −1 = Vj. 18 . Whether the equilibrium in this case is a pooling equilibrium or a separating equilibrium in which the good type issues deliberately underpriced equity depends only on the probability distribution of good and bad firms in the economy. Then the IPO market is characterized by the following properties: (1) The ex-ante probability that an IPO takes place at any given time. from tj to tj+1 ) is equal to Vj.c)’s separating equilibrium with underpricing is of interest to us. 2. there is no abnormal long run performance of IPO shares from tj+1 to tj+ . (2) Any IPO that takes place is an issue I .j = VG (I ) −1 S V i (I . j ∈ {0. . Hence. At I the good type therefore prefers issuing undervalued equity over changing the investment policy in either direction. We therefore assume for the remainder of the paper that the model parameters are such that they result in this type of equilibrium.c) we obtain the following properties of the IPO market in regime-R.e. .} is equal to λp.

VG (100)/VB (100) = 1. αB (IB ) = 0. 1) = 100. 3 The first-best outcome is not feasible under asymmetric information since the bad type’s payoff from the good type’s first-best IPO exceeds her own first-best payoff: 2 3 VB (100) = 114 2 > 7 WB (0. B}. We will extend this example in Subsection IV. This is not a problem. αG (IG ) = F F F 100.The following subsection contains an example of Proposition 1. 1 .6091.599 127.400 2.5.51. and αP (I ) = ≈ 0.3. where we present results from a simulation of the IPO market dynamics. and the two types’ marginal net profit functions are given by (23) and (24).23 VB (I ) 1 + πB (I ) 202 F We obtain αG (I ) = 21 (25) 129. αG (I ) = 1. respectively. VB (100) = 171 3 . VP (I ) = 221 2797 ≈ 221. 1) = 100. IG . and 1 + πB (I ) = ≈ 0. C An Example Suppose the value of any firm’s asset in place prior to (or without) the IPO is equal to VT (0) = 100. At the good type’s first-best investment level the good type’s marginal gross return on investment exceeds the bad type’s by the factor (1 + πG (100)) / (1 + πB (100)) = 2 1 . and 1 + πB (100) = 3 . 7 7 3 VG (I ) = 318 199 ≈ 318.2886. T ∈ {G.399 S ≈ 0.4451.599 295.599 77. however. The ex-ante probability that a new project is of type-G is equal to p = 0. and the bad type does not go public IB . 2 ) = 200. since neither assumption is necessary for the existence of the equilibrium of Proposition 1.c)’s IPO market equilibrium with underpricing. 22 23 VG (100) = 300. The corresponding first-best 3 payoffs to the entrepreneurs are equal to WG (100.2.523 ≈ 0.21 πG (I) = 2 − πB (I) = − I 50 (23) (24) I 175 F F F In a world of symmetric information the good type undertakes her first-best IPO. 2 . 1 + πG (I ) = 400 4000 101 350 51 100 = 0. 3 which is greater than the ratio of the two type’s marginal financing costs.75. 1 + πG (100) = 1. the good type has an incentive to signal by increasing investment up to I = 124.4384.22 Hence.5.C.7. 19 . Assuming linear marginal profit functions keeps the calculations tractable but also implies that we have to choose marginal profit functions that violate the assumptions (A1) and (A4) for sufficiently high levels of investment.767. at which point 1 + πG (I ) 357 VG (I ) = = ≈ 1. VB (I ) = 180 14 ≈ 180. and WB (0.

and in which the good type undertakes the IPO B S I . and G F ¯ ¯ αG (I)VB (I) = 100. compared to a true firm value of G VG (I ) ≈ 318. αG (I ) = 124. αG (I)) = 175.3. which is less than its equilibrium payoff.400 . A graphic representation of the equilibrium is depicted in Figure 2. The three dotted curves represent the (maximal) fraction of equity that the original shareholders can retain for a given investment level for a good/bad/pooling IPO. so that αF (I) = G 7 7 13 .5. Outside investors obtain 1 − αG (I ) of the good type’s equity in return for I dollars. ¯ ¯ ¯ (1 − αF (I))VG (I) = I. αG (I ) .5. so that outsiders still break even on purchasing the offer. S The equilibrium payoff to the good type’s original shareholders is equal to WG (I . 1 . and through her equilibrium offer. but at the same time prefers her own fist-best strategy over the pooling candidate IPO: F αP (I ) VB (I ) ≈ 79. At I the good type’s iso-payoff curves are tangent to the bad type’s iso-payoff curves from above. The solid grey curves are the good type’s iso-payoff curves through her F F F S first-best IPO. The solid black curve represents the bad type’s iso-payoff curve through her first-best strategy. (27) ¯ Note that overinvesting up to I = 150 would enable the good type to issue equity at the ¯ ¯ ¯ fair price: VB (I) = 185 5 .This implies that the bad type would mimic an IPO in which the good type raises I dollars by issuing equity at the fair price. This translates into an issue price of V i (I . 20 . the good type’s payoff from doing so would only be equal to ¯ S ¯ WG (I. the good type prefers retaining less than the fair amount of equity over changing her investment policy in either direction.7.87%. (26) The pure-strategy equilibrium is consequently a separating equilibrium in which the bad type F F does not go public. Hence. However.523 S mimicking. that is just sufficiently underpriced to prevent the bad type from 2. U = I .01 < 100 < αG (I ) VB (I ) ≈ 109. IB . G = IG . 1.77.7. αG (IG ) . αG (I )) ≈ 176. αG (I )) ≈ 17. 1 . B = 0. αS (I )) ≈ 279. and the total amount of “money left on the table” is equal to S 1 − αG (I ) S VG (I ) − V i (I . and VG (I) = 325. The good type’s IPO therefore experiences an abnormal initial return of +13. αF (IB ) = 0.

21 .α 1 B F F αG (IG ) G F U F αG (I ) S αG (I ) αP (I ) P F αG (I) αP (I) αF (I) B 0 F IB = 0 I F IG I Figure 2: The separating equilibrium of our example: type-G firms overinvest and issue underpriced equity (U) and type-B firms do not go public (B).

so that the new “information” that is contained in the realized cash flows is just noise with an expected value of zero. the market value of any such firm is equal to VG (I ). and Regime-L We begin investigating what effects the presence of L-investors can have on the IPO market equilibrium by studying how their beliefs evolve as they learn about the IPO market in regime-R. or it would be undertaken by two or more firm types that pool and issue equity at the identical terms. In the latter setting an equilibrium investment policy would either be undertaken by only a single firm type. Lemma 2 (Learning by L-Investors in Regime-R) Suppose the IPO market is exogenously fixed in regime-R. Thereafter.IV Learning by L-Investors. αG (I ) that are undertaken by good firms. In any case. S The only IPOs that take place in regime-R are IPOs I . without loss of generality. If the IPO market was exogenously fixed in regime-R it would therefore only be a matter of time until the L-investors learn to predict the value of IPO firms with arbitrary precision. L-investors will also update their beliefs whenever the realized cash flows of a firm that went public in the past are observed. Firms that go public in regime-R are valued correctly by the market. Based on the first market clearing price. 22 . Beginning at t . that the IPO market starts at t0 in regime-R. Then the L-investors’ belief with respect to the value of a firm that goes public converges to the correct value: VjL (I )−→VG (I ). in which case Lemma 2 applies accordingly. (28) Lemma 2 could be generalized in a straightforward manner to a setting in which two or more firm types issue equity in regime-R. A Learning by L-Investors in Regime-R Suppose. the market value does not change until the uncertainty with respect to the firm’s cash flows is resolved. The L-investors will then update their beliefs from t0 to t −1 only based on the respective first market clearing prices of any new IPOs. in which case L-investors would learn to forecast the average value of these firms.

By assumption. 1 − I /V ) = VB (I ) − V WG (I . and suppose that the L-investors are demanding shares of IPOs I . the probability that an IPO I . excess demand is even more severe now. αS (I )).h. An IPO I . V i (I . Lemma 3 (Demand for IPO Shares) The L-investors demand IPO shares as soon as their beliefs with respect to the value of a firm that raises and invests I exceeds V i (I . The first such IPO(s) may fail since the G entrepreneurs do not know the L-investors’ t0 -prior. so that Lemma 2 implies that the L-investors’ G valuation for IPO shares will sooner or later exceed the issue price.L-investors would eventually be able to predict the value of a firm that goes public in regime-R with the same accuracy as the R-investors. At that G S time the total demand for shares of IPOs I . It is therefore only a matter of time until the L-investors begin to participate in the IPO market. of (30). V converges converges to the l. αG (I )) increases from NR to NR + NL . V to the l. 1 − I /V ) = VG (I ) − S > WG (I . The good type’s expected payoff from offering I . of (29). αG (I )) < V < VG (I ).V would succeed converges to one. αG (I )) . While there was already excess demand for underpriced IPOs when L-investors were absent. As time passes. V i (I . VG (I ) I V VB (I ) I WB (I . αS (I )). αS (I )).s. the Linvestors demand shares whenever they expect to at least break even on purchasing an IPO. Lemma 4 (Expected Payoff from Raising the Issue Price) Suppose that the IPO market is S in regime-R.h. Now recall that VG (I ) > V i (I . The increase in the demand for IPO shares reveals to the entrepreneurs that it may now be possible to issue equity at a higher price. 1) It follows from Lemma 4 that it is only a matter of time until an entrepreneur will attempt to sell an IPO of size I at a price V > V i (I .s. S Let V be such that V i (I . and the bad type’s expected payoff from offering I . The L-investors’ participation in the IPO market is publicly observable due to the publicly observable increase in the demand for IPO shares. so that they are uncertain with respect to the L-investors’ exact willingness to pay. αG (I )) (29) (30) > WB (0. V 23 that fails reveals that the L-investors’ .

V0L (I ). αS (I )) marks the beginning G B Regime-L that is Lemma 5 (The First Successful IPO in Regime-L) Suppose the first IPO I . since the IPOs that previously took place in regime-R were valued correctly by the market no new information is expected to be incorporated in the L-investors’ beliefs for the first − 1 periods. The IPO is undervalued if the issuing firm is type-G. Vk.k V ≥ 0.k+1 V L (I ) − V −1 = k Vk. The abnormal initial return of the IPO is non-negative. but it does not lead to any updating of the Linvestors’ beliefs. Then this IPO’s first market clearing price. is equal to VkL (I ) ≥ V . Once the market has entered regime-L the market clearing prices of any new IPOs will therefore just confirm the L-investors’ beliefs. but overvalued if the issuing firm is type-B. but strictly lower than the abnormal initial return in regime-R: Vk.valuation for an IPO of size I is less that V . Proposition 3 (Equilibrium in Regime-L) Suppose VjL (I ) > V i (I . The first successful IPO I . (31) The first market clearing price of any IPO that takes place in regime-L is equal to the Linvestors’ valuation for the shares. with V > V i (I . and it reveals the L-investors’ t0 -prior. V of regime-L.k+1 . VjL (I ) . Moreover. Proposition 4 (Issue Activity and IPO Performance in Regime-L) The IPO market exhibits the following characteristics in regime-L: 24 . αS (I )) at tj > tk . Based on Proposition 3 it is straightforward to derive the following properties of the IPO market in regime-L. αG (I )) takes place at tk . An G entrepreneur with access to an investment opportunity will then successfully undertake the IPO I . V S successfully offered at a price V > V i (I . Regime-L will consequently persist for a number of periods. The following proposition states the entrepreneurs equilibrium strategies after the first successful IPO in regime-L. irrespective of her type.

The G issuing firm is of type-G with probability p. there is no abnormal initial performance (i. (3) On average. is equal to λ. VjL (I ) . Hence. (3) The expected value of a firm that goes public is equal to VP (I ) < V i (I . and of type-B with probability 1 − p.(1) The ex-ante probability that an IPO takes place at any given point in time. It is this poor performance of IPOs in the long run that eventually puts an end to regime-L.j+1 VjL (I ) (32) A comparison of the IPO market characteristics in the two regimes reveals the following key differences: (1) The expected IPO volume in regime-L exceeds the expected IPO volume in regime-R by the factor 1/p > 1.e. Consequently there is less IPO underpricing in regime-L than in regime-R.j+ Vj. (2) Any IPO that takes place is an issue I . (2) Issue prices are higher but the (first) market clearing prices are lower in regime-L than in regime-R. IPOs that take place in regime-L underperform in the long run. tj . The first market clearing price of each IPO is equal to its issue price. 25 (33) . where VjL (I ) > V i (I .j+ VP (I ) − 1 < 0. or from tj+1 to tj+ ) is negative: Vj. A remarkable feature of our model is that IPOs have to be underpriced to avoid underperformance long run: just a small increase in the issue price changes the incentives of some entrepreneurs and results in a (potentially dramatic) decline in the average IPO quality. Lemma 6 (Learning by L-Investors in Regime-L) Suppose the IPO market is exogenously fixed in regime-L. Based on the first market clearing price there is no abnormal performance of IPOs that take place in regime-R.j Vj. αS (I )). Then the L-investors’ beliefs with respect to the value of an IPO firm converge to the correct value: VjL (I )−→VP (I ). αS (I )). no underpricing) from tj to tj+1 . −1 = −1 = Vj. The G expected abnormal long run performance (from tj to tj+ .

and in the long run performance of IPO shares. and that they are willing to pay up to their full valuation for the shares of a new IPO. Finally. we may not observe more than one period of high IPO activity in any single industry since the nature of the physical investment opportunities in the economy changes over time. no new period of high IPO volume will be observed before a new generation of investors has entered the market. the IPO market will revert to regime-R as soon as the L-investors’ willingness to pay for IPOs of size I drops below V i (I . With respect to the parameters that have not been specified earlier we make the following assumptions: (1) The probability that a new project becomes available at 26 . for a number of reasons that are outside our model. Another possibility is that investors may eventually learn that they have to condition their beliefs with respect to the value of an IPO firm also on the issue price. αS (I )). The IPO market is therefore characterized by cyclical fluctuations in the IPO volume. we may not observe cyclical variations in IPO volume within a single industry in the real world. The reason for this lack of convergence lies in our assumptions that the L-investors do not condition their beliefs with respect to the value of an IPO firm on the issue price. That the IPO market in our model does not converge to the stationary (regime-R) equilibrium may surprise somewhat. in the degree of underpricing. One possibility is that investors who do not understand the economic incentives of the entrepreneurs refrain from participating in the IPO market after having lost a sufficient amount of money. However. In either case. and there is a sudden decline in IPO volume that is accompanied by an increase in IPO quality. C An Example (cont’d) We now present the results from a simulation of the IPO market dynamics that was based on our example from Subsection III.If regime-L persisted for long enough then the L-investors would again learn to predict the value of IPO firms with the same precision as the R-investors. Proposition 5 (Lack of Convergence) The IPO market does not converge to the stationary equilibrium that would obtain in the absence of L-investors.C. At that time entrepreneurs with access to bad projects find that it is no longer G profitable to issue equity. However.

and the simulation period corresponds to a time span of 20 years and 8 months. 017 IPOs took place. We simulate the evolution of the IPO market over a total of T = 5. 758 of which were of the good type. We report the evolution of L-investors’ beliefs (Figure 3). the monthly IPO volume (Figure 4). αS (I )) ≈ 279.” a 4-week period as a “month. The weight that the investors assign to this prior is equal to ω0 (I ) = 30. 000 points in time. the IPO prices and values (Figure 5). It may be intuitive to view each point in time as a business “day. the true cash flow of each firm is revealed exactly one year after its IPO. (4) The true cash flow of a firm is revealed exactly = 240 periods after its IPO. and the probability that a bad investment opportunity opens up is equal to λ(1 − p) = 0. The IPO market therefore enters regime-L for the first time as soon S as VjL (I ) exceeds V i (I . The IPO market starts at t0 by assumption in regime-R. This implies that the L-investors’ beliefs are common knowledge already at t0 . firms with access to an investment G 27 . and 1.5.5. 541 investment opportunities. Our simulation resulted in the creation of 2. which translates into an overall average of approximately one IPO per week.7. While we have depicted the evolution of the L-investors’ beliefs and the monthly IPO volume for the entire simulation period. we assume that the probability distribution of the stochastic ˜ component of a type-T firm’s cash flows (δT (I )) is degenerate with a single mass point at zero.250 ) to improve the clarity of the figures. so that initially each IPO that takes place leads the L-investors to revise their beliefs upwards (Figure 3).” With this interpretation.” and a 12-month period as a “year. This implies that a firm’s realized cash flows are always equal to its ex ante expected cash flows. A total of 1.” a 5-day period as a “week. αG (I )).35. (3) The probability distribution of the L-investors’ prior is degenerate.any given point in time is equal to λ = 0. and the underpricing and the long run performance of IPOs (Figure 6).15. (5) Finally. As soon as the L-investors’ beliefs exceed V i (I . 783 of which were of the bad type. The first market clearing price of any firm that raises I = 124.5 dollars in regime-R is equal to VG (I ) ≈ 318. we show the issue prices and values and the IPO performance only for a 500-day window (from t751 to t1. with a single mass point at I . The probability that a good investment opportunity opens up on any given day is equal to λp = 0. (2) The L-investors’ t0 -prior with respect to the value of a firm that raises and invests I is equal to V0L (I ) = I .

28 .VjL (I ) S V i (I .e. 000 periods.000 240 t2. per 20-day period).7 t1.000 t4. Number of IPOs 20λ = 10 20λp =3 0 tj Figure 4: The number of IPOs per “month” (i. αG (I )) ≈ 279.000 t3.000 tj Figure 3: The evolution of the L-investors’ beliefs over T = 5.000 t5.

6% Regime-R Regime-L Regime-R Figure 6: IPO underpricing and long run performance for the 500-day period from t751 to t1. and expected values for the 500-day period from t751 to t1. IPO Underpricing +13.IPO Price.2 IPO Value IPO Price Expected IPO Value 0 t751 Regime-R t1.250 tj −20. αS (I )) G ≈ 279. 29 .5 V i (I .250 .9% 0 t751 Long Run Performance +13.7 VB (I ) ≈ 180.9% 0 tj t1.250 Regime-L Regime-R tj Figure 5: Issue prices. values. IPO Value VG (I ) ≈ 318.250 .7% −35.7 VP (I ) ≈ 221.

96.7 in regime-L.5 in regime-R to VP (I ) ≈ 221. αS (I )). even though there are only two types of firms in our model.71 to 279.63%. The fundamental value of a bad firm that raises and invests I is only VB (I ) ≈ 180. so that average IPO value drops from VG (I ) ≈ 318. 831}. 2. Even though this price increase is too small to be noticeable in Figure 5.opportunity are able to issue equity at a higher price. the true fundamental firm value is not revealed until some time after the IPO. VG (I ) −1 = L V800 (I ) VB (I ) −1 = L V800 (I ) 318. 017 IPOs over a period of 5. which leads L-investors to revise their beliefs downwards (Figure 3). As we can see. j ∈ {1. Based on the first market clearing price. 043. it implies that IPOs are now no longer significantly underpriced. and reverts back to regime-R at times tj . However.8% (Figure 6). but rather significantly overpriced (Figure 5). The market clearing prices of all IPOs that take place in regime-L are identical to the L-investors’ beliefs. 2. The reason for this is that firms with access to a bad project now also find it profitable to go public. 3. tj . 4. 074}. The IPO market reverts back to regime-R as soon as the L-investors’ valuation for IPO shares drops below V i (I . the expected long run performance of good and bad firms that go public in regime-L is given by (34) and (35). 294. 000 point in time does not result in convergence to a stationary equilibrium.2 − 1 = −35. 536. 279. The cash flow realizations of the good firms that went public in regime-L will be unexpectedly high. The L-investors’ beliefs therefore do not change until the first cash flows of firms that went public in regime-L are observed (Figure 3). j ∈ {800.2. G The plot of the L-investors’ beliefs over time (Figure 3) reveals that the IPO market enters regime-L at three distinct occasions.5 − 1 = +13. The regime shift is accompanied by a slight increase in the issue price from 279. so that the drop in the average IPO quality is not immediately noticed by the L-investors. In our simulation the IPO market enters regime-L for the first time at t800 . a total of 1. and the cash flow realizations of the bad firms will be unexpectedly low.96 (34) (35) The overall expected long run performance of IPOs that take place in regime-L is equal to −20.76% 279.96 180. 30 . respectively.

However. 31 . Shares of IPOs that take place during periods of high IPO volume underperform in the long run. but rather as a model of the IPO market in a particular industry. The following empirical predictions follow readily from our results: Implication 1 An increase in the IPO volume in an industry is observed after a period during which firms in this industry issued underpriced equity to raise capital for investment. we obtain unambiguous predictions with respect to the long run performance of IPOs in each of the two regimes. Implication 3 Based on the first market clearing price. The first market clearing prices of IPOs are lower during periods of high IPO volume than during periods of low IPO volume. the overall average long run performance of IPO shares is negative. shares of IPOs that take place during periods of low IPO volume show no systematic abnormal long run performance. Implication 4 The abnormal long run performance of IPOs that take place during periods of high IPO volume is negative. Note that our model does not yield any clear predictions with respect to the overall average long run performance of IPOs if the latter is measured based on the issue price.V Implications Our model applies only to firms that go public to raise capital for investment. even if long run performance is measured based on the issue price. rather than on the first market clearing price. Based on the first market clearing price. Implication 2 The prices at which IPOs are issued are higher during periods of high IPO volume than during periods of low IPO volume. Moreover. it is crucial in our theory that the different firm types are outwardly identical so that they are indistinguishable to outside investors. Implication 5 The variance of long run performance is higher among firms that go public during periods of high IPO volume than for firms that go public during periods with low IPO volume. Based on the issue price the abnormal long run performance of IPOs that take place during periods of low IPO volume is positive. An increase in IPO volume is accompanied by a reduction in underpricing. Our model should therefore not be viewed as a model of the IPO market as a whole.

and because they are willing to purchase any IPO that is offered at a price below its inferred value. Long-run underperformance and periods of increased IPO volume arise from the presence of investors who learn about the IPO market from publicly observable IPO market data. This enables the firm to signal the profitability of its investment opportunities to outsiders. underperformance of IPO shares in the long run. However. our model also suggest that IPOs in periods of high and low IPO volume are bought by different groups of investors. VI Conclusion We have presented a stylized model of an IPO market in which firms go public to raise capital for investment. While long-run underperformance may otherwise appear hard to reconcile with the abnormal positive returns (“underpricing”) of IPOs in the short-run. The latter investors upset the rational equilibrium not because of ex ante unreasonable beliefs. Even a minor increase in the price at which firms 32 . the joint existence of these two phenomena may be explained with relative ease if underpricing is indeed used to signal the profitability of a firm’s investment opportunities. underpricing is observed even in the rational IPO market equilibrium. and who invest in the IPOs only because they previously observed IPO underpricing. and strong concentration of issue activity in certain periods. Some firms will optimally use underpricing to augment the information that is conveyed by the firm’s investment decisions to outside investors. In our model. The model is capable of jointly explaining three major IPO market “anomalies” that have been empirically documented in the literature: IPO underpricing. Finally. but rather because they learn to forecast the value of IPO firms based on the firms’ investment policy alone. and thereby maximizes the original shareholders’ personal wealth. this prediction may be difficult to test. Our model predicts that IPOs that take place during periods of high IPO volume are primarily purchased by investors who lack a deeper understanding of the IPO market.Implication 6 After a period of high IPO volume issue activity decreases as a result of poor long run performance.

α ). and that makes the good type strictly better off but the bad type strictly worse off than (I . Hence. The bad type therefore cannot be ruled out a defector. This results in a sudden increase in IPO activity that is accompanied by a significant drop in the average IPO quality that leads to subsequent IPO underperformance. but that is not also strictly preferred by the bad type over its own equilibrium offer. and the good type has no incentive to stick to its proposed equilibrium strategy in the first place. that would make the good type better off than its proposed equilibrium offer. the bad type can be ruled out as a defector for the IPO of size I .can issue equity is sufficient to alter the incentives of firms with lower quality investment opportunities. A Mathematical Appendix Proof of Lemma 1: The good type earns higher marginal returns on investment than the bad F type. there F ¯ exists an investment level I > IG that the good type is still able to finance. I = I . In each case of Proposition 1 it is easy to see that the good type cannot raise the issue price. α ). We have now established that the good type must raise and invest I in equilibrium. Moreover. Moreover. α ) is of the bad type with probability one is admissible under the IC. but at which the bad type no longer prefers the payoff from the good type’s correctly priced IPO over her own first-best payoff. Now consider an equilibrium in which the good type undertakes some IPO (I . with I = I . for I > IG additional investment is unprofitable for either type. α ). Proof of Proposition 1: It is straightforward to verify for each part of Proposition 1 that the proposed pure strategy combination represents a perfect Bayesian equilibrium. No such equilibrium can pass the IC since we can construct an alternative IPO of size I that investors would be willing to purchase if it was offered by the good type. relative to its proposed equilibrium IPO. the bad type cannot make itself better off by defecting 33 . By construction of the good type’s equilibrium offer there exists no out-of-equilibrium IPO (I . and the belief that a firm that defects with (I . We omit this part of the proof an show only that the proposed equilibrium is the unique pure strategy equilibrium that passes the Intuitive Criterion (IC). Hence.

This concludes the proof. Finally. αG (I )). and the second term converges to VG (I ). Proof of Lemma 2: For each point in time tk in regime-R we have either φk (I ) = 0. Proof of Proposition 4: Proposition 4 follows directly from Proposition 3. Proof of Lemma 6: The proof of Lemma 6 is analogous to the proof of Lemma 2. The results regarding the expected payoffs from undertaking the offer I . Then it follows from Lemma 2. Proof of Lemma 5: The L-investors’ valuation for the IPO I . Proof of Lemma 3: Lemma 3 follows directly from our assumptions. Proof of Proposition 2: Proposition 2 follows jointly from our assumptions and Proposition 1. we can rewrite (13) as VjL (I ) = ⎪ ⎩ V (I ) + δ G k j−1 if j − < k < j.c). or φk (I ) = 1 and Vk. αG (I )) < V < VG (I ) succeeds is equal to the probability that the L-investors’ valuation for an IPOs of size I exceeds V . The L-investors’ t0 -prior can be inferred using (13) based on this market clearing price and on the performance of past IPOs. we obtain (28). Suppose the economy reaches the stationary equilibrium of Proposition 1. Proof of Proposition 5: This proof is done by contradiction. ω (I ) k=0 j (37) As j → ∞ the first and the third term in (37) converge to zero.j . Proof of Lemma 4: The probability that an IPO I . V immediately.j = ⎧ ⎪ ⎨ VG (I ) Consequently. Hence. and 34 . if 0 ≤ k ≤ j − . VkL (I ). Lemma 3. that the abnormal initial return of this IPO is smaller than the abnormal initial return in regime-R S follows from that facts that VkL (I ) < VG (I ). No new information becomes available between the time of the IPO and the time at which its first market clearing price is determined. Proof of Proposition 3: The proof is straightforward and therefore omitted. and V > V i (I . V exceeds the R-investors’ follow valuation for this IPO. The latter probability converges to one since VjL (I ) converges to VG (I ) > V for j −→ ∞ by Lemma 6.from its first-best strategy. The first market clearing price is therefore equal to the L-investors’ valuation. V S with V i (I . j− (36) ω0 (I ) · V L (I ) + ωj (I ) 0 φk (I ) · VG (I ) + ω (I ) k=0 j φk (I ) · δk.

Lemma 4 that sooner or later a firm will successfully attempt an IPO at a higher price. A Model of the Demand for Investment Banking Advising and Distribution Services for New Issues.. Lawrence M. 1791—1821. Reputation. Journal of Empirical Finance 1. Quarterly Journal of Economics 102. 1982. 3—31. and the Underpricing of Initial Public Offerings. Common Stock Offerings Across the Business Cycle . 1997. Spindt. and David M. [3] Baron.. [4] Beatty. Journal of Financial Economics 24. 35 . Hyuk. Gompers. David P.Theory and Evidence. [5] Benveniste. Signaling by Underpricing in the IPO Market. 343—361. [6] Brav. and Bengt Holmstr¨m. 1989. [9] Choe. Myth or Reality? The Long-Run Underperformance of Initial Public Offerings: Evidence from Venture and Nonventure Capital-Backed Companies. 1115—1138. References [1] Allen.. Kreps. 1999. Journal of Finance 35. 179—221. [8] Cho. Journal of Financial Economics 23. 303—323. Thomas J. [2] Baron.. Alon M. Review of Financial Studies 12. Randolph P. 1989. 1980. The Investment Banking Contract for New o Issues Under Asymmetric Information: Delegation and the Incentive Problem. and Paolo Fulghieri. Ronald W. 1986. and Paul A. Ritter. David P. 1987.. In-Koo.. Faulhaber. Signaling Games and Stable Equilibria. Journal of Finance 37. A Theory of the Going-Public Decision. How Investment Bankers Determine the Offer Price and Allocation of New Issues. and Vikram Nanda. and Gerald R. Franklin. 213—232. 955—976. Journal of Financial Economics 15. Masulis. Investment Banking. [7] Chemmanur. and Jay R. 249—279. and Paul A. Journal of Finance 52. 1993.

Maksimovi¸. V. Jarrow.[10] Daniel.T. “Hot Issue” Markets. and Chuan Yang Hwang. and Jeffrey F. Elsevier. Journal of Finance 56. and Financial Intermediation. Roger G. and the Underpricing of Initial Public Offerings. 1995.) pp. Eds. 2001. Uniformly least powerful tests of market efficiency. and Øyvind Norli. Journal of Finance 30. Amsterdam. and Sheridan Titman. and Jay R. Ziemba. Jarrow. Mark. [12] Grinblatt. Tim. Vikram Nanda. Ritter. Intermediation. [11] Eckbo. and Rajdeep Singh. Review of Financial Studies 5. Journal of Financial Economics 55. and W. Roger G. Signalling and the Pricing of New Issues. and Jay R. Hayne E. [16] Ibbotson. 23—51. c [17] Leland. 361—389.. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 2. 1977.T. [19] Loughran. V.A. B. and W. Patricia J. Leverage. in: Finance (R. Ritter. 1989. 993-1016. Journal of Finance 32. Maksimovi¸. Elsevier. 1995. 2001. 371—387. and Jay R. Eds. 1975. The New Issues Puzzle. 709—742. Journal of Finance 50.. 1994. 2000. and IPO Pricing. Journal of Finance 44. Jaffe. Ritter. Hot Markets. and David H. c Amsterdam. Initial Public Offerings. [15] Ibbotson. Ziemba. Litigation Risk. and Kristian Rydqvist. Working paper. David. Ritter. Tim. Tim. [14] Hughes. Working paper. 1533— 1594. [18] Ljungqvist. 1992. [21] Loughran. [13] Hirshleifer. Initial Public Offerings: International Insights.A. [20] Loughran.. Alexander.. Espen. 1995. Jay R. 2000. Informational Asymmetries. Pyle. 393—420. Thakor. Financial Structure. and Anjan V. Kent.) 721-766. in: Finance (R. 1027—1042. Investor Sentiment. 36 . Investor Psychology and Asset Pricing. Liquidity and Long-Run IPO Returns. Financing Investment Under Asymmetric Information. 165—199.

[24] Mauer. [28] Myers. Journal of Financial Intermediation 6. Majluf. [27] Morris. Shaw. Stewart C. Journal of Finance 53. [30] Pagano. Journal of Finance 46. Corporate Financing and Investment Decisions When Firms Have Information That Investors Do Not Have. Jay R. 1111—1133. William Schwert. 167—200. Ownership Structure and the Life-Cycle of the Firm: A Theory of the Decision to Go Public. 55—79. and Lemma W. 3—40. 1995. Michelle. [29] Nanda. [31] Ritter. and G. Marco.. Journal of Financial Economics 67. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 24. Jay R. The ‘Hot Issue’ Market of 1980. and Luigi Zingales. [26] Michaely. [32] Ritter. 279—319. The Review of Financial Studies 7. The Long-Run Performance of Initial Public Offerings. 39—63. 1996. Journal of Financial Economics 13. IPO Market Cycles: Bubbles or Sequential Learning?. 1998. Why Do Companies Go Public? An Empirical Analysis. and Youngkeol Yun. Journal of Business 57. and Wayne H. and Nicholas S. [25] Maug. Reputation and Financial Intermediation: An Empirical Investigation of the Impact of IPO Mispricing on Underwriter Market Value. Roni. Speculative Behavior and Learning. 3—27. Senbet. 1991. European Finance Review 5.. 187—221. Why does IPO volume fluctuate so much?. 37 . The Effect of the Secondary Market on the Pricing of Initial Public Offerings: Theory and Evidence.. 2002. David C. Ernst.. Stephen. 2001. Journal of Finance 57. 2003. Fabio Panetta. Michelle. 1171—1200. 27—64.[22] Lowry. The Pricing of Initial Public Offerings: Tests of Adverse Selection and Signaling Theories. Vikram. 1984. 1992. 1994. [23] Lowry. The Quarterly Journal of Economics . 215—240. 1984.

1988. 115—129. 1986. [37] Tini¸. and Josef Zechner.[33] Ritter. The Relationship between the Level of Capital Expenditures and Firm Value. Why New Issues are Underpriced. 1986. Washington. Ivo. U. 789—822. 695—732.. Kevin. Sequential Sales. Brett. [35] Securities and Exchange Commission. Government Printing Office. D. Kit Pong Wong. [34] Rock. Imitation Costs. [38] Trueman. Journal of Finance 39. Learning. 187—212. Ivo. 497—518. Seha M. 1989. 2001. Journal of c Finance 43.C. Signaling and the Valuation of Unseasoned New Issues: A Comment.. Report of Special Study on Security Markets. Anatomy of Initial Public Offerings of Common Stock. Journal of Financial Economics 15. 1991. [40] Welch. 1963. 375—408. Seasoned Offerings.. 1231—1237. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 26. and Cascades. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 21. Neal M. Ivo. Journal of Finance 44. [36] Stoughton. 421—449. 1984. 1992. An Empirical Examination of Models of Contract Choice in Initial Public Offerings. Journal of Business 74. 38 . [39] Welch. Journal of Finance 47. IPOs and Product Quality. and the Underpricing of Initial Public Offerings. [41] Welch. Jay R.S.