Abstract
This paper analyses the valuation process of companies listed on the Italian Exchange in the period 2000–2009 at their initial public offering (IPO). One the most common valuation techniques declared in the IPO prospectus to determine the offer price is the discounted cash flow (DCF) method. We develop a ‘reverse engineering’ model to discover the short term profitability implied in the offer prices. We show that there is a significant optimistic bias in the estimation of future profitability compared to ex-post actual realization and the mean forecast error is substantially large. Yet we show that such error characterizes also the estimations carried out by analysts evaluating non-IPO companies. The forecast error is larger the faster has been the recent growth of the company, the higher is the leverage of the IPO firm, the more companies issued equity on the market. IPO companies generally exhibit better operating performance before the listing, with respect to comparable listed companies, while after the flotation they do not perform significantly different in term of return on invested capital. Pre-IPO book building activity plays a significant role in partially reducing the forecast error and revising expectations, while the market price of the first day of trading does not contain information for further reducing forecast errors.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Alternatively, we consider 4 years for robustness checks.
In fact, if h and ROIC are constant, each year the invested capital will increase for the ploughed back profits, that will be equal to h × ROIC × IC. The percentage increase is therefore equal to h × ROIC. This assumption is not a limitation for the model: h and ROIC can be interpreted as the mean values during the period considered.
We also assume that the leverage ratio is constant; this allows to keep constant the weighted average cost of capital.
We employ data from international datasets for unlevered beta and target leverage ratio, while information on 10-year Italian government bonds and historical risk premium are specific for Italy.
We find 12 IPO companies in this group; 11 have been taken over and delisted (among which 7 industrial firms and 4 financial companies), while 1 went default. In order to control for any survivorship bias, we compute the forecast errors also for this group based on the last available interim financial statement prior to the delisting date. We still find on average large and positive forecast errors.
As most of the firms cited as ‘comparable’ in the IPO prospectus belong to the same industry of the issuer, industry is implicitly considered as a matching criterion. We also control that each comparable belongs to the same 3 digit SIC industry.
References
Benveniste, L. M., Ljungqvist, A. P., Wilhelm, W. J., & Yu, X. (2003). Evidence of information spillovers in the production of investment banking services. The Journal of Finance, 58, 577–608.
Bradley, D. J., Bradford, D. J., & Jay, R. R. (2008). Analyst behavior following IPOs: the “bubble period” evidence. Review of Financial Studies, 21(1), 101–133.
Bradley, D., Clarke, J., & Cooney, J. (2012) The impact of reputation on analysts’ conflicts of interest: Hot versus cold markets. Journal of Banking & Finance, 36(8), 2190–2202.
Chemmanur, T. J., & Krishnan K. (2012). Heterogeneous beliefs, IPO valuation, and the economic role of the underwriter in IPOs. Financial Management, 41(4), 769–811.
Cogliati, G., Paleari, S., & Vismara, S. (2011). IPO pricing: growth rates implied in offer prices. Annals of Finance, 7(1), 53–82.
Colombo, M., Murtinu, S. (2016) Venture capital investments in Europe and portfolio firms’ economic performance: independent versus corporate investors. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, forthcoming.
Cumming, D., Grilli, L., Murtinu, S. (2014) Governmental and independent venture capital investments in Europe: a firm-level performance analysis. Journal of Corporate Finance, (in press).
Cumming, D., & Dai, N. (2011). Fund size, limited attention and valuation of venture capital backed firms. Journal of Empirical Finance, 18(1), 2–15.
Damodaran, A. (2001) Damodaran on valuation, Wiley Finance.
Dechow, P., Hutton, A., & Sloan, R. (2000). The relation between analysts’ forecasts of long-term rarnings growth and stock price performance following equity offerings. Contemporary Accounting Research, 17(1), 1–32.
Deloof, M., De Maeseneire, W., & Inghelbrecht, K. (2009). How do investment banks value initial public offerings (IPOs)? Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 36(1–2), 130–160.
Easton, P. (2006). Use of forecasts of earnings to estimate and compare cost of capital across regimes. Journal of Business Accounting and Reasearch, 33(3–4), 374–394.
Easton, P., & Somers, G. (2007). Effect of analysts’ optimism on estimates of the expected rate of return implied by earnings forecasts. Journal of Accounting Research, 45(5), 983–1015.
Fang, L., & Yasuda, A. (2009). The effectiveness of reputation as a disciplinary mechanism in sell-side research. Review of Financial Studies, 22(9), 3735–3777.
Gebhardt, W., Lee, C., & Swaminathan, B. (2001). Toward an implied cost of capital. Journal of Accounting Research, 39(1), 135–176.
Goedhart, M., Raj, R., Saxena, A. (2010) Equity analysts: still too bullish. McKinsey Quarterly, pp 14–17.
Gompers, P. A. (1996). Grandstanding in the venture capital industry. Journal of Financial Economics, 42(1), 133–156.
Houston, J., James, C., & Karceski, J. (2006). What a difference a month makes: Stock analyst valuations following initial public offerings. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 41(01), 111–138.
Ibbotson, R. G. (1975). Price performance of common stock new issues. Journal of Financial Economics, 2(3), 235–272.
Jain, B., & Kini, O. (1994). The post-issue operating performance of IPO firms. The Journal of Finance, 49(5), 1699–1726.
Jain, B. A., & Kini, O. (2008). The impact of strategic investment choices on post-issue operating performance and survival of US IPO firms. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 35(3–4), 459–490.
Jenkinson, T., & Ljungqvist, A. P. (2001). Going public: theory and evidence on how companies raise equity finance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kim, M., & Ritter, J. (1999). Valuing IPOs. Journal of Financial Economics, 53(3), 409–437.
Koller, T., Goedhart, M., & Wessels, D. (2011) Valuation: measuring and managing the value of companies. Wiley Finance.
Lakonishok, J., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1994). Contrarian investment, extrapolation and risk. The Journal of Finance, 49(5), 1541–1578.
Ljungqvist, A. (2008) IPO underpricing. In: E. Eckbo (Ed.), Handbook of Corporate Finance–Empirical Corporate Finance. North-Holland, pp 378–422.
Loughran, T., & Ritter, J. (1997). The operating performance of firms conducting seasoned equity offerings. The Journal of Finance, 52(5), 1823–1850.
Michaely, R., & Womack, K. L. (1999). Conflict of interest and the credibility of underwriter analyst recommendations. Review of Financial Studies, 12(4), 653–686.
Mikkelson, W., Partch, M., & Shah, K. (1997). Performance of companies around Initial Public Offering. Journal of Financial Economics, 44(3), 281–307.
Paleari, S., Signori, A., & Vismara, S. (2014). How do underwriters select peers when valuing IPOs? Financial Management, 43(4), 731–755.
Purnanandam, A., & Swaminathan, B. (2004). Are IPOs really underpriced? Review of Financial Studies, 17(3), 811–848.
Ritter, J. R., & Welch, I. (2002). A review of IPO activity, pricing, and allocations. The Journal of Finance, 57(4), 1795–1828.
Roosenboom, P. (2012). Valuing and pricing IPOs. Journal of Banking & Finance, 36(6), 1653–1664.
Roosenboom, P. G. J. (2007). How do underwriters value initial public offerings? An empirical analysis of the French IPO market. Contemporary Accounting Research, 24(4), 1217–1243.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bonaventura, M., Giudici, G. IPO valuation and profitability expectations: evidence from the Italian exchange. Eurasian Bus Rev 7, 247–266 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-016-0049-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40821-016-0049-1