Quid Pro Quo in Ipos: Why Book-Building is Dominating Auctions

François Degeorge, F. Derrien, Kent L. Womack
{"title":"Quid Pro Quo in Ipos: Why Book-Building is Dominating Auctions","authors":"François Degeorge, F. Derrien, Kent L. Womack","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.668387","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The book-building procedure for selling initial public offerings to investors has captured significant market share from auction alternatives in recent years, despite significantly lower costs in both direct fees and initial underpricing when using the auction mechanism. This Paper shows that in the French market, where the frequency of book-building and auctions was about equal in the 1990s, the ostensible advantages to the issuer using book-building were advertising-related quid pro quo benefits. Specifically, we find that book-built issues were more likely to be followed and positively recommended by the lead underwriters and were also more likely to receive ‘booster shots’ post-issuance if the shares had fallen. Even non-underwriters’ analysts appear to promote book-built issues more, but only when their underwriters stood to gain from acquiring shares in future issues from the recommended firm’s lead underwriter. Book-built issues also appeared to garner more press in general (but only after they had chosen book-building, not before). Yet, we do not observe valuation or return differentials to suggest these types of promotion have any value to the issuing firm. We conclude that underwriters using the book-building procedure have convinced issuers of the questionable value of advertising and promotion of their shares.","PeriodicalId":9906,"journal":{"name":"CEPR: Financial Economics (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"38","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CEPR: Financial Economics (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.668387","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 38

Abstract

The book-building procedure for selling initial public offerings to investors has captured significant market share from auction alternatives in recent years, despite significantly lower costs in both direct fees and initial underpricing when using the auction mechanism. This Paper shows that in the French market, where the frequency of book-building and auctions was about equal in the 1990s, the ostensible advantages to the issuer using book-building were advertising-related quid pro quo benefits. Specifically, we find that book-built issues were more likely to be followed and positively recommended by the lead underwriters and were also more likely to receive ‘booster shots’ post-issuance if the shares had fallen. Even non-underwriters’ analysts appear to promote book-built issues more, but only when their underwriters stood to gain from acquiring shares in future issues from the recommended firm’s lead underwriter. Book-built issues also appeared to garner more press in general (but only after they had chosen book-building, not before). Yet, we do not observe valuation or return differentials to suggest these types of promotion have any value to the issuing firm. We conclude that underwriters using the book-building procedure have convinced issuers of the questionable value of advertising and promotion of their shares.
ipo中的交换条件:为何询价主导了拍卖
近年来,向投资者出售首次公开发行(ipo)的簿记程序从拍卖替代方案中占据了相当大的市场份额,尽管使用拍卖机制的直接费用和初始低价成本都要低得多。本文表明,在20世纪90年代的法国市场上,建书和拍卖的频率大致相当,发行人使用建书的表面优势是与广告相关的交换条件利益。具体来说,我们发现,认购发行更有可能得到主承销商的关注和积极推荐,而且如果股票下跌,发行后也更有可能获得“助推器”。即使是非承销商的分析师似乎也更倾向于认购新股,但前提是他们的承销商能够从被推荐公司的主承销商那里获得未来发行的股份。一般来说,“造书”的问题似乎也获得了更多的报道(但只有在他们选择了“造书”之后,而不是之前)。然而,我们没有观察到估值或回报差异,以表明这些类型的推广对发行公司有任何价值。我们的结论是,使用簿记程序的承销商已经使发行人相信其股票的广告和促销价值存在问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信