research paper on ipo

A Study on Performance of Indian IPOs During 2012–2022

• First Online: 30 December 2023

Cite this chapter

• J. Edward Aloysius 4 &
• D. Joseph Charles Tamilmaran 4  

Part of the book series: Studies in Systems, Decision and Control ((SSDC,volume 440))

474 Accesses

The capital market investments are a great opportunity for the retail investors. Literature review reveals that the performance of IPO has been studied in depth across different markets and over a wider time period. The studies with respect to India on the IPO performance is have been done at various time period. The recent growing trend in IPO has necessitated an in-depth analysis of the IPO returns over a longer period of time. This study analyses the performance of IPOs listing gains and long-term gains across sectors and based on different IPO sizes. This study takes into consideration IPOs from 1st January 2012 to 31st October 2022. The study found that there is a signification relationship between short term gain and long-term gain and it is also found that the under/over pricing have significant association with the current gain/loss. The study suggests that investing in underpriced IPOs would result in long-term gains.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Performance and capital structure of IPOs in Pakistan from 2000 to 2015

The Effect of Initial Public Offerings on Financial Ratios—The Case of NewConnect

The market value of SMEs: a comparative study between private and listed firms in alternative stock markets

Aloysius, E.J.: A study on performance of Indian IPO’s during the financial year 2018–2019. Int. J. Adv. Innov. Res. 6 (2), XVI (2019)

Google Scholar  

Dutta, M.: Capital market reforms in India. J. Emerg. Technol. Innov. Res. 6 (6) (2019)

Khan, M.A., Zeeshan, K., Ahmad, M.F., Alakkas, A.A., Farooqi, M.R.: A study of stock performance of select IPOS in India. Acad. Account. Financ. Stud. J. 25 (6), 1–11 (2021)

Pandey, A., Kumar, G.A.: Relative effectiveness of signals in IPOs in Indian Capital markets. Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad. Working Paper (2001)

Ansari, A.V.: Further evidence on IPO underpricing in India. Pranjana J. Manag. Aware. 9 (2), 21–30 (2006)

Kumar, S.S.S.: Is book building an efficient IPO pricing mechanism? Indian Evid. Int. Res. J. Financ. Econ. 38 , 174–188 (2010)

Gadesurendar, Kamaleshwar Rao, S.: Retail investor’s perception towards initial public offers (IPO) in India—a study on selected cities. Int. J. Res. IT Manag. 1 (3) (2011)

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Management, Kristu Jayanti College (Autonomous), Bengaluru, India

J. Edward Aloysius & D. Joseph Charles Tamilmaran

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Edward Aloysius .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Middle East Technical University, Kalkanlı, Güzelyurt, KKTC, Türkiye

Bahaaeddin Alareeni

Faculty of Computer Science and Engineering, AlAlamein International University, Alexandria, Egypt

Islam Elgedawy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Aloysius, J.E., Tamilmaran, D.J.C. (2024). A Study on Performance of Indian IPOs During 2012–2022. In: Alareeni, B., Elgedawy, I. (eds) AI and Business, and Innovation Research: Understanding the Potential and Risks of AI for Modern Enterprises. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol 440. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42085-6_62

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42085-6_62

Published : 30 December 2023

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-42084-9

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-42085-6

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Effects of ipo offer price ranges on initial subscription, initial turnover and ownership structure—evidence from indian ipo market.

1. Introduction

2. literature review & hypotheses development, 2.1. literature review, 2.1.1. ipo subscription, 2.1.2. initial trading (listing day trading)—first day trading ratio (fdtr), 2.1.3. percentage ownership among individual and institutional investors post-ipo listing, 2.1.4. ipo offer prsice and pre ipo financial of a company, 2.2. hypotheses development, 2.2.1. ipo pre-listing stage—full subscription/oversubscription, 2.2.2. ipo post listing stage—initial trading and post-ipo ownership structure, 3. sample, research methodology, and models, 3.1. sample description, 3.2. research methodology and regression models, 3.2.1. investor demand at the pre-ipo listing stage—models, 3.2.2. investor participation after the ipo listing—models, 4. regression results and discussion, 4.1. regression results (firth logistic regression)—the effect of ipo offer price range and issue-specific characteristics on ipo full subscription or oversubscription among investor categories (for results, see appendix a ), 4.2. regression results (ols regression)—the effect of ipo offer price ranges and ipo issue characteristics on first-day trading ratio (fdtr) (for results, see appendix b ), 4.3. regression results—the effect of ipo offer price ranges, promotor holding and financial/non-financial controls on post-ipo ownership structure between individual and institutional investors (for results, see appendix c, 5. conclusions, author contributions, conflicts of interest.

• Agarwal, Sumit, Chunlin Liu, and S. Ghon Rhee. 2006. Investor demand for IPOs and after market performance: Evidence from the Hong Kong stock market. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money 18: 176–90. [ Google Scholar ]
• Aggarwal, Reena, and Pietra Rivoli. 1990. Fads in the initial public offering market? Financial Management 19: 45–57. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Aggarwal, Rajesh, Sanjai Bhagat, and Srinivasan Rangan. 2009. The Impact of Fundamentals on IPO Valuation. Financial Management 38: 253–84. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Bartov, Eli, Partha Mohanram, and Chandrakanth Seethamraju. 2002. Valuation of internet stocks. An IPO perspective. Journal of Accounting Research 40: 321–46. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Birru, Justin, and Baolian Wang. 2016. Nominal Price Illusion. Journal of Financial Economics 119: 578–98. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Black, Bernard S. 1992. Institutional investors and corporate governance: The case for institutional voice. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 5: 19–32. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Booth, James R., and Lena Chua. 1996. Ownership dispersion, costly information and IPO under-pricing. Journal of Financial Economics 41: 291–310. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Brennan, Michael J., and Julian Franks. 1997. Under-pricing, ownership and control in initial public offerings of equity securities in the UK. Journal of Financial Economics 45: 391–413. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chalk, Andrew J., and John W. Peavy III. 1987. Initial public offerings: Daily returns, offering types and the price effect. Financial Analysts Journal 43: 65–69. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chowdhry, Bhagwan, and Ann Sherman. 1996. International differences in oversubscription and underpricing of IPOs. Journal of Corporate Finance 2: 359–81. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Clarke, Jonathan, Arif Khurshed, Alok Pande, and Ajai K. Singh. 2016. Sentiment traders & IPO initial returns: The indian evidence. Journal of Corporate Finance 37: 24–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cotter, Julie, Michelle Goyen, and Sherryl Hegarty. 2005. Offer pricing in Australian industrial public offers. Accounting and Finance 45: 95–125. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Del Guercio, Diane. 1996. The distorting effect of the prudent-man laws on institutional equity investments. Journal of Financial Economics 40: 31–62. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Dyl, Edward A., and William B. Elliott. 2006. The Share Price Puzzle. The Journal of Business 79: 2045–66. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Falkenstein, Eric G. 1996. Preferences for stock characteristics as revealed by mutual fund portfolio holdings. Journal of Finance 51: 111–35. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fernando, Chitru S., Srinivasan Krishnamurthy, and Paul A. Spindt. 2004. Are share price levels informative? Evidence from the ownership, pricing, turnover, and performance of IPO firms. Journal of Financial Markets 7: 377–403. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Franks, Julian, and Colin Mayer. 1997. Corporate ownership and control in the UK, Germany and France. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 9: 30–45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fung, Joseph KW, Louis TW Cheng, and Kam C. Chan. 2005. The Impact of the costs of subscription on measured IPO returns: The Case of Asia. Journal of Corporate Finance 10: 45. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ghicas, Dimitrios C., Nikolaos Iriotis, Aphroditi Papadaki, and Martin Walker. 2000. Fundamental analysis and valuation of IPOs in the construction industry. International Journal of Accounting 35: 227–41. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gompers, Paul A., and Andrew Metrick. 2001. Institutional investors and equity prices. Quarterly Journal of Economics 116: 229–51. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ibbotson, Roger G., and Jay R. Ritter. 1995. Initial public offerings. In Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science . Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing, vol. 9, pp. 993–1016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, Econometric Society 47: 262–93. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist 39: 341–50. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, Moonchul, and Jay R. Ritter. 1999. Valuing IPOs. Journal of Financial Economics 53: 409–37. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kim, Jeong-Bon, Itzhak Krinsky, and Jason Lee. 1995. The role of financial variables in the pricing of Korean initial public offerings. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 3: 449–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Klein, April. 1996. The association between the information contained in the prospectus and the price of initial public offerings. Journal of Financial Statement Analysis 2: 23–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• Krigman, Laurie, Wayne H. Shaw, and Kent L. Womack. 1999. The persistence of IPO mispricing and the predictive power of flipping. Journal of Finance 54: 1015–44. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leland, Hayne E., and David H. Pyle. 1977. Informational Asymmetries. Financial Structure, and Financial Intermediation. The Journal of Finance 32: 371–87. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ljungqvist, Alexander, and William Wilhelm Jr. 2006. Does prospect theory explain IPO market behavior? Journal of Finance 60: 1759–90. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• McInish, Thomas H., and Robert A. Wood. 1992. An analysis of intraday patterns in bid/ask spreads for NYSE stocks. Journal of Finance 47: 753–76. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mello, Antonio S., and John E. Parsons. 1998. Going public and the ownership structure of the firm. Journal of Financial Economics 49: 79–10. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miller, Robert E., and Frank K. Reilly. 1987. An examination of mispricing, returns and uncertainty for initial public offerings. Financial Management 16: 33–38. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Neupane, Suman, and Sunil S. Poshakwale. 2012. Transparency in IPO mechanism: Retail investors’ participation, IPO pricing and returns. Journal of banking & Finance 36: 2064–76. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pelham, Brett W., Tin T. Sumarta, and Laura Myaskovsky. 1994. The easy path from many too much: The numerosity heuristic. Cognitive Psychology 26: 103–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Ritter, Jay R. 1984. Signalling and the valuation of unseasoned new issues: A Comment. Journal of Finance 39: 1231–33. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Rock, Kevin. 1986. Why new issues are under-priced. Journal of Financial Economics 15: 187–221. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Sahoo, Seshadev, and Prabina Rajib. 2012. Determinants of pricing IPOs: An empirical investigation. South Asian Journal of Management 19: 59–87. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schreiner, Andreas. 2007. Equity valuation using multiples: An empirical investigation, Deutsche Universitats-Verlag . Wiesbaden: GWV Fachverlage GmbH. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoll, Hans R., and Robert E. Whaley. 1983. Transactions costs and the small firm effect. Journal of Financial Economics 12: 57–80. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Stoughton, Neal M., and Josef Zechner. 1998. IPO mechanisms, monitoring, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics 49: 45–78. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Thaler, Richard. 1985. Mental Accounting and Consumer Choice. Marketing Science 4: 199–214. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Weld, William C., Roni Michaely, Richard H. Thaler, and Shlomo Benartzi. 2009. The nominal price puzzle. Journal of Economic Perspectives 23: 121–42. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ Green Version ]
• Yong, Othman, and Zaidi Isa. 2003. Initial performance of new issues of shares in Malaysia. Applied Economics 35: 919. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Sandhu, H.; Guhathakurta, K. Effects of IPO Offer Price Ranges on Initial Subscription, Initial Turnover and Ownership Structure—Evidence from Indian IPO Market. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2020 , 13 , 279. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13110279

Sandhu H, Guhathakurta K. Effects of IPO Offer Price Ranges on Initial Subscription, Initial Turnover and Ownership Structure—Evidence from Indian IPO Market. Journal of Risk and Financial Management . 2020; 13(11):279. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13110279

Sandhu, Harsimran, and Kousik Guhathakurta. 2020. "Effects of IPO Offer Price Ranges on Initial Subscription, Initial Turnover and Ownership Structure—Evidence from Indian IPO Market" Journal of Risk and Financial Management 13, no. 11: 279. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm13110279

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, studies on indian ipo: systematic review and future research agenda.

Qualitative Research in Financial Markets

ISSN : 1755-4179

Article publication date: 15 September 2023

Issue publication date: 10 April 2024

This paper aims to review, discuss and synthesize the literature focusing on the Indian initial public offering (IPO) market. Understanding the Indian IPO market can help answer broader corporate finance questions. The growing number of IPOs in the Indian context, coupled with the increasing importance of the Indian economy in the global market, makes this review an essential topic.

Design/methodology/approach

The systematic literature review methodology was adopted to review 111 papers published between 2002 and 2021. The authors used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses approach during the review process. Additionally, the authors use a bibliometric review methodology to examine the pattern and trend of research in this area of interest. Furthermore, the authors conduct a critical review and synthesis of the top 20 papers based on citations. The authors also use a co-citation network and manual content analysis method to identify key research themes.

This review helps in identifying major themes of research in this area of interest. The authors find that majority of the research has focused on IPO performance whereas post-IPO performance needs critical attention as well. The authors develop a comprehensive framework and future research agenda based on their discussion.

Research limitations/implications

Meta-analysis of the literature can be conducted to gain better insights into the findings of prior studies.

Practical implications

This review paper develops a comprehensive overview on Indian IPO market which can be of interest not only to Indian scholarship. India as an economy is increasingly gaining attention at the global level. Hence, the future research objectives as illustrated in the study can be of interest for the global scholarship also.

Originality/value

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first comprehensive review paper that examines, synthesizes and outlines the future research agenda on Indian IPO studies. This review can be useful for researchers, business policymakers, finance professionals and anyone else interested in the Indian IPO market.

• Bibliometric analysis
• Systematic literature review

Acknowledgements

The first author is thankful to IIT Kharagpur and JAGSOM.

Chatterjee, M. , Bhattacharjee, T. and Chakraborty, B. (2024), "Studies on Indian IPO: systematic review and future research agenda", Qualitative Research in Financial Markets , Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 477-502. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-10-2021-0175

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2023, Emerald Publishing Limited

Related articles

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Paytm IPO: Case of Failure and the Behemoth

5 Pages Posted: 16 Jun 2022

Sarika Mahajan

Date Written: June 6, 2022

Paytm’s initial public offering is the biggest IPO that the country has ever seen. Yet, unlike the IPOs of other unicorns -- start-ups that are valued at more than a billion dollars -- investors somehow didn’t buy Paytm’s story. What went wrong with Paytm? Was the stock significantly overvalued at the issue price? How did so many people dupe themselves into thinking that Paytm was a sure bet? Why a loss making company is valued so much?

Keywords: IPO, valuation, Indian capital market

JEL Classification: G02, G32

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Sarika Mahajan (Contact Author)

Jbims ( email ).

No. 164, H. T Parekh Marg Maharashtra, 400020 India

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, corporate finance: capital structure & payout policies ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Emerging Markets: Finance eJournal

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

The aftermarket performance of initial public offerings: New evidence from an emerging market

Contributed equally to this work with: Dilesha Nawadali Rathnayake, Zhixin Zhang, Bai Yang, Pierre Axel Louembé

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation School of Economics, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo, PR of China

Roles Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Roles Funding acquisition, Investigation, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Business Achool, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo, PR of China

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft

Affiliation School of Accounting, Dongbei University of Finance & Economics, Dalian, PR of China

• Dilesha Nawadali Rathnayake, 
• Zhixin Zhang, 
• Bai Yang, 
• Pierre Axel Louembé

• Published: August 22, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272092
• Reader Comments

This paper presents new updated evidence on the initial public offering (IPO) aftermarket performance for 144 public listed firms on the Colombo Stock Exchange from 1991 to 2017. We found that average aftermarket returns are always lower than 1%. On average, buy and hold abnormal returns are negative in a short period, and abnormal returns gradually become positive over a longer period (12.46% in 3 years). Further, aftermarket returns are positively related to investor sentiment and the annual volume of listings while being negatively related to initial returns, which is consistent with the divergence of opinion hypothesis. We suggest that investors should hold their subscriptions of IPO shares for a prolonged time, usually exceeding two years, as the dynamic of shares rewards the investors with positive abnormal returns in the long run.

Citation: Rathnayake DN, Zhang Z, Yang B, Louembé PA (2022) The aftermarket performance of initial public offerings: New evidence from an emerging market. PLoS ONE 17(8): e0272092. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272092

Editor: Jianhong Zhou, UNITED STATES

Received: October 5, 2021; Accepted: July 12, 2022; Published: August 22, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Rathnayake et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the Colombo Stock Exchange official website at: https://www.cse.lk/pages/listed-company/listedcompany.component.html?status=1 after paying the subscription fees for a Platinum package." Further, All relevant data are available with the manuscript Supporting Information files.

Funding: This research was funded by the Shandong University of Technology Ph.D. Startup Foundation (Grant No. 719017) and National Social Science Foundation of China, Grant No. 21CGL050. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. No any authors received a salary from the above mentioned funder.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Share trading has been a part of Sri Lanka’s history since 1896, but it is only a few years later that an official Stock exchange was created, herein Colombo Stock Exchange (CSE) which has remained the main Stock market in the country. CSE is endowed with a fully automated trading platform and 20 business sectors listed. CSE witnessed an unprecedented expansion in 2009 to become the world’s best performing market of 2010, with a growth of 111.14%. Mainly due to the sound political improvements instigated since 2009 and a peaceful environment after the post-war period, CSE has considerably evolved and deserved additional attention from scholars and practitioners of finance. In fact, with a market capitalization of USD 16.07 billion in December 2018 and 202 IPOs launched between 1991 and 2017, the performance of such a developing market is worth being assessed.

Although the literature on IPO performance is rapidly growing, still there is a variety of results due to the different academic viewpoints applied, selection of determinants, measurement of performance and the contextual nature of individual firms. Despite the rather abundant empirical literature on IPO performance, the previous studies lead to a broad, diverse and multilateral set of findings due to the theoretical perspectives being adopted (determinants, performance measures, contextual nature of individual firms). Moreover, institutional, legal frameworks in emerging economies are not advanced compared to developed nations. Also, most research stressing the IPO performance are conducted in developed economies and large stock markets when emerging economies show substantial differences regarding economic growth, business environments, income levels, and management practices. Only a few studies evaluate the behavior of IPOs in developing nations such as Sri Lanka, which operate in challenging environments (civil war, political instabilities, Asian crisis, Tsunami devastation) and so far, manage to perform strongly in the corporate sector. Especially based on the challenging economic and political atmosphere where Sri Lankan companies perform comparatively strongly, research on the capital market is expected to give exciting outcomes and fill the existing gap in knowledge of the association between IPO performance in the long run.

Initial Public Offering (IPO) aftermarket performance is broadly documented and has been a subject of attention among scholars for decades [ 1 , 2 ]. Peter [ 3 ] investigated aftermarket returns of Sri Lankan IPOs in terms of privatized and non-privatized offerings using the market-adjusted buy and hold returns (BHRs). IPOs are initially underpriced, and those excess returns tend to decline by the end of three years. In contrast, privatized IPOs contribute higher returns than non-privatized IPOs in the Colombo Stock Exchange (CSE). The number of IPOs examined by Peter [ 3 ] was relatively small. Ediriwickrama and Azeez [ 4 ] studied aftermarket IPO underperformance in the CSE with calendar time techniques from 2000 to 2012 and identified several factor models to describe the return variation of IPO stocks in CSE. None of the studies have considered the determinants of aftermarket performance. This is the first study considering the wider time span and twelve determinants of IPO aftermarket performance in Sri Lanka.

This study presents new findings on IPO aftermarket performance for 144 Sri Lankan IPOs that went public from January 1991 to December 2017. We measured the IPO aftermarket performance up to 36 trading months (720 trading days), including the listing day returns. Further, this study focuses on the importance of IPO issue characteristics at the time of going public to find interpretations for the IPO aftermarket performance. The key goal of this research paper is to present updated evidence by examining the amount of IPO aftermarket returns in CSE, focusing on the market-adjusted abnormal returns. This study contributes to the IPO literature by presenting new findings of IPO aftermarket performance in the CSE, using an inclusive sample and a complete analysis of IPO returns. Thus, we carry out critical analysis to determine whether our results about the IPO aftermarket performances in Sri Lanka are similar to those found in previous literature for other emerging countries. Generally, there are three ways in which the study contributes to the current literature. First, the most recent dataset is considered to uncover aftermarket performance. Previous studies have covered a shorter period and smaller samples. Second, both market-adjusted cumulative average returns (CAARs) and average market-adjusted BHRs have been employed in this study to assess the aftermarket performance of IPOs. The outcomes deliver significant information and understanding for stakeholders to invest in IPOs. Based on our results, we recommend that stakeholders should be careful while analyzing IPO returns in the long run.

This paper is ordered into six headings. Section 2 explains the literature review, and section 3 summarizes the data and research methodology. Section 4 includes the empirical results and analysis. Last, section 5 presents the conclusions of the research.

Literature review

The existing studies have presented numerous explanations for the behaviour of IPO aftermarket performance. However, there is a lack of observable variables that can describe aftermarket performance. To explore the determining factors of IPO aftermarket performance, several theories are considered in this study.

The divergence of opinion hypothesis suggests that the uncertainty about an IPO can attract overvaluation on a listing day, followed by underperformance in the long run. Miller [ 5 ] proposed that at first, investors lean towards being over-optimistic about the IPO value, which causes initial under-pricing and that later, as the differences of opinions reduce when information flows increase with time, the price of IPOs diminishes to the intrinsic value, producing low aftermarket performance. Gao et al. [ 6 ] provided further evidence for Miller’s [ 5 ] argument. The study which is based on 4,057 IPOs found that divergence of opinion, proxied by short-term stock return volatility (first 25 trading days after issuance), is negatively related to IPO long-term abnormal returns. In addition, the authors highlight the effect of market regulatory settings on assets early pricing. That is, the regulatory induced pricing bias and short-selling constraints could lead to inflated initial aftermarket IPO prices that autocorrect in the long run, resulting in aftermarket underperformance. As Short-selling is typically forbidden in CSM, investment opinion divergence, proxied by market volatility (first 40 trading days after IPO) throughout this investigation, shall also bear the negative sign reported in previous works. Following previous studies [ 6 , 7 ], ex-ante uncertainty is used as a proxy to analyze the relationship between the divergence of opinion and IPO aftermarket performance in CSE. Greater values of ex-ante uncertainty indicate a greater divergence of opinion for the IPOs. As such, the hypothesis predicts a positive relationship between the ex-ante uncertainty and the aftermarket performance.

The impresario hypothesis asserts that the IPO market is exposed to manipulations due to the presence of the investment banks, which are comparable to the ‘impresarios’ that would voluntarily under-price the new shares with the aim of attracting more investors to the securities’ markets Shiller [ 8 ]. Interestingly, this hypothesis points out the reliance on underwriters for certifying the quality of the new issue. Similarly, the impresario hypothesis is in line with the overreaction hypothesis [ 9 ]. The deliberate under-pricing of shares generates the appearance of an excess demand, which triggers investors’ optimism and channels an overreaction toward the stock. The misevaluation of shares in initial IPO markets will autocorrect over the medium run and the long run when extra information becomes accessible to the general public [ 10 ]. Both hypotheses predict IPO aftermarket performance to be negatively associated with the initial under-pricing. Conversely, signalling theory suggests that IPO under-pricing is positively related to IPO aftermarket performance in the long run [ 11 ]. During hot issue periods, high quality firms will issue IPOs and under-price the IPO shares to pass the signal of good quality to win the confidence of investors [ 12 ]. Loughran and Ritter [ 1 ] and Ritter [ 2 ] claimed that a firm that goes public in a hot issue period usually generates a high return in the short run and low returns in the long run.

Older firms perform better than are younger firms, as young firms generally have more ex-ante risk than do mature firms and mature firms have less information asymmetry with investors [ 2 , 16 , 17 ]. Thus, a positive relationship between firm age and aftermarket performance is expected. However, Brau, Couch, and Sutton [ 18 ] reported an insignificant negative relationship between issuer age and the long-term performance of IPOs. Belghitar and Dixon [ 16 ] and Ritter [ 2 ] documented a positive relationship between firm size and IPO aftermarket performance, as have other researchers who have used offer size as a proxy for ex-ante uncertainty [ 19 – 22 ]. Based on the divergence of opinion we expect a positive relationship between the offer size and aftermarket performance of IPOs. Board type is included in the study as a dummy variable, and we expect a positive relationship between Main Board listed companies and IPO long-term performance. Ritter [ 2 ], in the USA, and Levis [ 23 ], in the UK, for Main Board listings, found that IPOs with small size issues perform poorly in the long run. Following previous evidence, a positive coefficient is expected for Main Board listings in CSE. Following Thomadakis, Nounis and Gounopoulos [ 22 ], who found a significant negative relationship between IPO offer price and long-term market performance, we expected IPO price to be negatively related to aftermarket performance. Recently, Bhabra and Pettway [ 17 ] found a significant negative relationship, whereas while Mumtaz and Ahmed [ 24 ] found a positive but insignificant relationship, between long-term stock returns and the market volatility variable. We have computed market volatility as “the standard deviation of daily market returns over the first 40 trading days after the closing date of subscription” [ 25 ], and a negative relationship is expected.

We have included the hot dummy variable, which takes the value of 1 for the hot years, and 0 otherwise, to differentiate between hot and cold IPOs. Following the windows of opportunity hypothesis, a negative post-issue IPO performance [ 2 , 26 ] is expected. However, a positive relationship between the IPO volume in the market and aftermarket performance has been found by several prior studies [ 27 , 28 ].

Investor’s sentiment is found to be positively correlated to the IPO performance on the first trading day, and the observed share subsequently underperforms over the long run [ 10 , 29 ]. However, Khan, Ramakrishnan, Haq, Ahmad, and Alim [ 30 ], and Dimovski and Brooks [ 31 ] illustrated a significant positive relationship between market sentiment and aftermarket returns in a sample of Malaysian firms. Therefore, we predict that sentiment and aftermarket performance are negatively related. Nevertheless, Perotti and Oijen [ 32 ], and Rizwan and Khan [ 33 ] reported significant positive aftermarket returns of privatization IPOs in the long run. Thus, we expect a positive relationship between these two variables. IPO performance may differ significantly across the industries [ 2 , 19 , 27 ]. We include three industry dummies to control for the industry effect.

Methodology

Measures of aftermarket performance.

A positive value of BHR shows that IPOs outperform in the considered period, and a negative value of BHR shows that IPOs underperform in the same period.

Empirical m ethodology

The sample data for this study consist of 26 years of daily observations (total 97,125) from 1991 to 2017. Daily stock prices and market returns, were collected from the CSE data bank ( https://www.cse.lk/pages/listed-company/listedcompany.component.html?status=1 ), after paying the subscription fees for Platinum package. While firm-level data extracted from company annual reports, and the IPO prospectus of each firm. The sample is 144 IPO issues, which is more than 70% of the total of 200 IPOs, including a total of 11 delisted firms within 36 trading months from the first trading date.

We first analyze the aftermarket returns in calendar years and on an industry basis. Then, we use cross-sectional analyses to identify the determinants of IPO aftermarket performance, followed by multiple regression analyses at the final stage. The selection of explanatory variables is based on the previous studies.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272092.t001

Empirical results

Aftermarket performance measured by aars and bhrs.

Table 2 shows that the AARs and CAARs are always lower than 1% for the first 36 months after the listing day. The AARs vary between -0.15% and 0.15%. The CAARs for 144 IPOs are 0.54% over 36 months after listing. Furthermore, CAARs are all negative up to the twenty-sixth trading month and subsequently show positive returns. However, the t-statistics are not statistically significant. Moreover, both BHRs and CAARs are negative up to the twelfth trading month, and after that BHRs show positive returns, whereas CAARs show positive returns at the three-year holding period only ( Table 1 ). On a daily basis, there are many negative returns, so CAARs are lower than BHRs. BHRs are negative in the short run, and during the long run IPOs outperform them with positive BHRs. In particular, over three years, the average BHRs are 12.46% for the sample. However, skewness adjusted t-statistics are not statistically significant.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272092.t002

Aftermarket performance categorized by initial returns

Table 3 reveals a clear relationship between the initial returns and the aftermarket returns for both the short run and the long run. BHR20–BHR120 are negative in the short run and gradually give positive returns in the long run. Initial returns in the highest quintile ( MAAR/IR ≥ 120) have the worse BHRs. Nevertheless, in the short run, BHR20–BHR120 mostly appear to be negatively related to the IPO under-pricing. In contrast, in the long run, BHR240–BHR720 perform well for the lower initial return quintiles, whereas the higher initial returns quintile always has negative BHRs. When IPOs are initially either overpriced or underpriced, aftermarket IPO returns also underperform in the short run and then perform well in the market in the long run by generating positive BHRs and a similar pattern for both IR and MAAR . The results show that there is a considerable difference when initial IPOs are overpriced and that IPOs are more outperformed/underperformed in the aftermarket performance. However, between BHRs, only BHR720 returns have a significant difference at the 5% level.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272092.t003

Aftermarket performance categorized by individual measures

The complete breakdown of aftermarket returns considering different measures related to aftermarket performance are shown separately in Table 4 . The IPOs of firms aged 1–4 years have lower BHRs than returns of IPOs in 5–9 years in operation. The results specify that the aftermarket returns remain highest for the firms aged 10–19 years and tend to have positive returns with mature IPOs after one year. Firms aged more than 20 years have the worst performance in the short run, and this continues up to BHR480 . Interestingly, the positive BHRs recorded by firms aged 10–19 years are significant at the 10% level. Furthermore, following Loughran et al. [ 1 ] and Rathnayake et al. [ 15 ] firms aged less than 10 years are classified as young. Young vs. old illustrates a tendency for the age to be negatively related to the BHRs, i.e., younger firms underperform for BHR20–BHR120 and then perform well for BHR240–BHR720 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272092.t004

SIZE reveals the aftermarket returns grouped by the size of the IPO issue, and IPOs are separated into three subgroups with nearly equivalent numbers of IPOs. Our results show that in the long run, smaller issues perform better than do larger issues. Moreover, issues up to Rs. 200 million are categorized as small and those above this figure are categorized as large to investigate the size effect. The small vs. large category illustrates that small issues tend to outperform, except BHR60 returns, whereas large issues underperform all over the periods. The differences in the long run, including for BHR240 are significant at 5%.

The results show that the aftermarket returns of the Main Board listed firms were positive compared to those of the Secondary Board listed firms. BHR480 returns show poor performance for both Main and Secondary listed boards. Conversely, the BHR720 returns for three years show positive values. The long-term return differences between the two different boards are statistically significant up to BHR240 , whereas the BHR480 and BHR720 return differences are not significant. Table 4 shows that two subgroups where the IPO shares were priced either lower than or equal to Rs. 20 performed poorly in the long run.

We divided the sample into equal four subgroups with an equivalent number of observations of 36 firms in each subgroup based on MVL values. When the MVL is high ( MVL ≥116), BHRs are always negative. The other three subgroups tend to show lower aftermarket returns in the short run, and the returns increase gradually with the passage of trading time and end up being positive. Moreover, the results show that 28≤ MVL < 64 subgroup records outperformed stocks continuously throughout the three years, even though values were insignificant. VOL indicates the four equal-sized subgroups grounded on the number of IPOs that went to the public annually. The level of underperformance remains highest for the 14–15 issues that are significant at 5% and tends to decrease when the IPO volume increases. BHRs are positive when the volume is between 6–10, whereas the returns of the other three subgroups do not show a clear pattern.

Furthermore, in the short run, IPOs underperform in both negative SENT and positive SENT in the market condition. BHRs perform worse in the positive SENT than in the negative SENT . During BHR480 and BHR720 , performance shows positive returns for IPOs issued at the time of negative SENT and returns show an increasing trend over the long-term for the negative SENT category. Even though the differences between mean returns in the two groups are statistically insignificant, the findings reveal a negative relationship between positive SENT and long-term IPO performance. Privatization issues are likely to perform better than conventional issues in the long run, up to two years. Privatized IPO issues show a trend of gradually increasing performance during the short time horizon and produce maximum returns during the first trading year of stocks. Conversely, conventional issues performing worse during the first year of trading and stars showing positive returns after the second year. The differences in the BHR20–BHR240 during the first trading year after the IPO issue are statistically significant at the 5% level.

Furthermore, following Rathnayake et al. [ 15 ], Table 4 shows that the BHRs are segmented by hot and cold year issues. According to the results, hot issue period IPOs perform better in the long run than do cold year IPO issues. Over the short-term, both hot issue and cold issue IPOs show negative abnormal returns, with hot issues still performing better than do cold issues. The difference between the two is significant at the 5% level in the first trading month. Long-term hot issues perform well and generate positive abnormal returns throughout BHR240–BHR720 , with a positive trend of increasing returns over longer periods.

IPO performance categorized by industry

The plantation industry has the highest returns BHR20–BHR120 in the short run, and those returns are significantly different from the overall average at the 5% level ( Table 5 ). Interestingly throughout the three years, the plantation industry is the only industry that performs well and generates positive BHRs continuously. Health care, power and energy, services, and trading sector IPOs always underperform in the long run. The underperformance of the power and energy industry differs sharply from the average returns of the sample, and the difference is significant at the 1% level for less than twelve trading months. Interestingly, four industries the beverage, food and tobacco sector, the footwear and textiles sector, the hotels and travel sector, and the manufacturing sector show a similar tendency of BHRs that underperform in the short run and outperform in the long run.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272092.t005

Multiple regression analysis

First, the OLS assumptions are tested before running the multiple regressions. All the non-dummy variables are normally distributed ( Table 6 ). All the non-dummy variables are stationary at the level according to the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) unit root test results, which are given in Table 7 . As illustrated in the correlation matrix ( Table 8 ), independent variables do not appear to be substitutes of each other since the correlation between variables is less than 0.5. Only IR and MAAR are 94% positively correlated, but we do not consider IR and MAAR in the same regression model.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272092.t006

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272092.t007

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272092.t008

Table 9 shows OLS results for the aftermarket returns of six dependent variables, BHR20–BHR720 . We used Eqs 12 and 13 for each BHR, considering IR and MAAR , respectively. The multiple regression models explain approximately between 10%–22% of the overall variations of IPO aftermarket performance in the considered sample, which is measured by R 2 . According to our results, the BHR20 , BHR120 , BHR240 , and BHR720 regression models have significant F-statistic values.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272092.t009

IR and MAAR have a negative relationship with BHR20–BHR720 throughout all the periods. Even the short-term relationship is insignificant, and in the long run there is a significant relationship with BHRs. Our results are in line with the divergence of opinion hypothesis [ 2 , 10 , 13 ]. In the short run, the lnAGE coefficient has a negative sign, and it is statistically insignificant. For the BHR720 period, age and aftermarket returns have a significant positive relationship, which contradicts the previous findings [ 2 , 17 , 35 ] and the fundamentals of risk–return theory. The coefficient of the lnSIZE has a negative relationship with BHRs , and in the long run, including the BHR480 and BHR720 relationship, is significant at the 5% level, as supported by several studies [ 17 , 27 ].

The signs of the two BRD and lnPRI variables are not constant during the sample periods. Although the estimated coefficient on BRD has a positive sign in the short run, it is statistically significant at BHR60 and BHR120 aftermarket returns. BRD has an insignificant negative relationship with BHRs in the long run. lnPRI shows a significant negative relationship with BHR s in the short run and a positive relationship in the long run. MVL coefficient values are always negative and very low. Interestingly, BHR20 and BHR720 coefficients for MVL are statistically significant, thus supporting the hypothesis and previous studies [ 6 , 17 , 25 ]. Further, Wald test results indicate that five coefficients of ex-ante uncertainty are simultaneously equal to zero in all the models, and the results are not supported by the ex-ante uncertainty hypothesis. OLS results show an insignificant positive relationship between lnVOL and BHR20–BHR720 throughout the all periods, which is similar to the findings of Allen et al. [ 27 ] and Hensler et al. [ 28 ]. Also, BHR20–BHR720 are positively related with SENT across the all regression models, which is not consistent with the investor sentiment hypothesis. However, values are not statistically significant.

Consistent with previous studies [ 32 , 33 ], PRV record positive signs of the coefficients for the BHRs except for BHR720 returns, and the coefficient values are significant for BHR120 and BHR240 at the 5% level. The HOT dummy variable coefficients are negative in the short run, and the long-time horizon coefficient values are positive. Regression results indicate that PLNT , HTL , and BNK industries have a positive, though not statistically significant, relationship with short-term aftermarket returns. Over the longer time horizon, HTL coefficients are still positive, and the other two industry coefficients turn negative. For the HTL sector, the only coefficient of HTL is significant at the 5% level for BHR720 returns. Nevertheless, we used the Wald test to test for the joint hypothesis for industry effect ( Table 10 ) and found that the three coefficients of industries are simultaneously equal to zero.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272092.t010

In the final stage of multiple regression analysis, we checked for the heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation errors in the results ( Table 11 ). Using the Breusch–Pagan, autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity, and White’s heteroskedasticity tests, we obtained similar results showing that the model residuals do not consist of heteroscedasticity errors. Also, we conducted two autocorrelation tests, the Breusch–Godfrey and Durbin–Watson tests, and ensured that our multiple regression results were free from autocorrelation errors.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272092.t011

Robustness check

For the robustness check, we repeated our multiple regression analysis by removing 11 delisted firms which occurs during the 720 trading days from the IPO issue. Our overall results regarding the aftermarket performance of IPOs still hold, but there are very few changes ( Table 12 ). We have found the signs of all explanatory variables to be almost identical and unchanged from the results in Table 9 , except for two minor cases. First, the HOT coefficients are positive in all of BHR20–BHR720 in the new regression results. Second, HTL sector IPOs show a negative relationship in the BHR20 and BHR60 periods and later all show positive aftermarket returns. However, the new results have created some variations in the significance of the variables. Interestingly, all R 2 values are increased, and the significance of the F-statistic remains the same in the new results. Thus, we conclude that our results are robust.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272092.t012

This study focused on the evaluation of the performance of initial price offerings (IPOs) price performance up to 36 months including the listing day in terms of market-adjusted buy and hold returns (BHRs) and market-adjusted cumulative average returns (CAARs) and the practicality determinants at the time of IPO issues to find explanations for the IPO aftermarket performance. Average market-adjusted returns and CAARs are always lower than 1%. Averagely abnormal returns are negative in the short run, and abnormal returns gradually become positive in the long run. Over the three years, IPOs outperform with positive 12.46% BHRs. We found that initial returns have a long-term significant negative relationship with all BHRs and that the outcomes are consistent with the divergence of opinion hypothesis. Market volatility and aftermarket returns are negatively related throughout the all considered periods. Privatized IPOs show a significant positive relationship with one-year aftermarket returns. Hot issue period IPOs are positively related with first trading month aftermarket returns, while other periods are not significant. Similarly, plantation sector IPOs show a positive and significant relationship in short run BHRs. We do not accept the ex-ante hypothesis in aftermarket performance as five variables age of the firm, issue size, listed board effect, market volatility, and the IPO price are jointly not significant. Aftermarket returns are positively related with investor sentiment, and the annual volume of listings are based on the firm went to the public. For the robustness check, we re-estimated the multiple regressions by using the sample of 133 firms after removing delisted companies from the original sample. We found that the signs of most of the explanatory variables are unchanged and remained the same as the full sample results.

Consequently, we suggest that investors should hold their subscriptions of IPO shares for a prolonged time frame, usually exceeding two years, as the dynamic of shares rewards the investors with positive abnormal returns in the long run. Though intrinsic characteristics of IPO firms may constitute a bias to this pattern, it is still worthwhile for investors in emerging stock exchanges to monitor the performance of IPO firms over the long-run.

Supporting information

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272092.s001

Acknowledgments

We greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions given by the Journal Editor and anonymous referees.

• View Article
• Google Scholar

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

The aftermarket performance of initial public offerings: New evidence from an emerging market

Dilesha nawadali rathnayake.

1 School of Economics, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo, PR of China

Zhixin Zhang

2 Business Achool, Shandong University of Technology, Zibo, PR of China

Pierre Axel Louembé

3 School of Accounting, Dongbei University of Finance & Economics, Dalian, PR of China

Associated Data

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the Colombo Stock Exchange official website at: https://www.cse.lk/pages/listed-company/listedcompany.component.html?status=1 after paying the subscription fees for a Platinum package." Further, All relevant data are available with the manuscript Supporting Information files.

This paper presents new updated evidence on the initial public offering (IPO) aftermarket performance for 144 public listed firms on the Colombo Stock Exchange from 1991 to 2017. We found that average aftermarket returns are always lower than 1%. On average, buy and hold abnormal returns are negative in a short period, and abnormal returns gradually become positive over a longer period (12.46% in 3 years). Further, aftermarket returns are positively related to investor sentiment and the annual volume of listings while being negatively related to initial returns, which is consistent with the divergence of opinion hypothesis. We suggest that investors should hold their subscriptions of IPO shares for a prolonged time, usually exceeding two years, as the dynamic of shares rewards the investors with positive abnormal returns in the long run.

Introduction

Share trading has been a part of Sri Lanka’s history since 1896, but it is only a few years later that an official Stock exchange was created, herein Colombo Stock Exchange (CSE) which has remained the main Stock market in the country. CSE is endowed with a fully automated trading platform and 20 business sectors listed. CSE witnessed an unprecedented expansion in 2009 to become the world’s best performing market of 2010, with a growth of 111.14%. Mainly due to the sound political improvements instigated since 2009 and a peaceful environment after the post-war period, CSE has considerably evolved and deserved additional attention from scholars and practitioners of finance. In fact, with a market capitalization of USD 16.07 billion in December 2018 and 202 IPOs launched between 1991 and 2017, the performance of such a developing market is worth being assessed.

Although the literature on IPO performance is rapidly growing, still there is a variety of results due to the different academic viewpoints applied, selection of determinants, measurement of performance and the contextual nature of individual firms. Despite the rather abundant empirical literature on IPO performance, the previous studies lead to a broad, diverse and multilateral set of findings due to the theoretical perspectives being adopted (determinants, performance measures, contextual nature of individual firms). Moreover, institutional, legal frameworks in emerging economies are not advanced compared to developed nations. Also, most research stressing the IPO performance are conducted in developed economies and large stock markets when emerging economies show substantial differences regarding economic growth, business environments, income levels, and management practices. Only a few studies evaluate the behavior of IPOs in developing nations such as Sri Lanka, which operate in challenging environments (civil war, political instabilities, Asian crisis, Tsunami devastation) and so far, manage to perform strongly in the corporate sector. Especially based on the challenging economic and political atmosphere where Sri Lankan companies perform comparatively strongly, research on the capital market is expected to give exciting outcomes and fill the existing gap in knowledge of the association between IPO performance in the long run.

Initial Public Offering (IPO) aftermarket performance is broadly documented and has been a subject of attention among scholars for decades [ 1 , 2 ]. Peter [ 3 ] investigated aftermarket returns of Sri Lankan IPOs in terms of privatized and non-privatized offerings using the market-adjusted buy and hold returns (BHRs). IPOs are initially underpriced, and those excess returns tend to decline by the end of three years. In contrast, privatized IPOs contribute higher returns than non-privatized IPOs in the Colombo Stock Exchange (CSE). The number of IPOs examined by Peter [ 3 ] was relatively small. Ediriwickrama and Azeez [ 4 ] studied aftermarket IPO underperformance in the CSE with calendar time techniques from 2000 to 2012 and identified several factor models to describe the return variation of IPO stocks in CSE. None of the studies have considered the determinants of aftermarket performance. This is the first study considering the wider time span and twelve determinants of IPO aftermarket performance in Sri Lanka.

This study presents new findings on IPO aftermarket performance for 144 Sri Lankan IPOs that went public from January 1991 to December 2017. We measured the IPO aftermarket performance up to 36 trading months (720 trading days), including the listing day returns. Further, this study focuses on the importance of IPO issue characteristics at the time of going public to find interpretations for the IPO aftermarket performance. The key goal of this research paper is to present updated evidence by examining the amount of IPO aftermarket returns in CSE, focusing on the market-adjusted abnormal returns. This study contributes to the IPO literature by presenting new findings of IPO aftermarket performance in the CSE, using an inclusive sample and a complete analysis of IPO returns. Thus, we carry out critical analysis to determine whether our results about the IPO aftermarket performances in Sri Lanka are similar to those found in previous literature for other emerging countries. Generally, there are three ways in which the study contributes to the current literature. First, the most recent dataset is considered to uncover aftermarket performance. Previous studies have covered a shorter period and smaller samples. Second, both market-adjusted cumulative average returns (CAARs) and average market-adjusted BHRs have been employed in this study to assess the aftermarket performance of IPOs. The outcomes deliver significant information and understanding for stakeholders to invest in IPOs. Based on our results, we recommend that stakeholders should be careful while analyzing IPO returns in the long run.

This paper is ordered into six headings. Section 2 explains the literature review, and section 3 summarizes the data and research methodology. Section 4 includes the empirical results and analysis. Last, section 5 presents the conclusions of the research.

Literature review

The existing studies have presented numerous explanations for the behaviour of IPO aftermarket performance. However, there is a lack of observable variables that can describe aftermarket performance. To explore the determining factors of IPO aftermarket performance, several theories are considered in this study.

The divergence of opinion hypothesis suggests that the uncertainty about an IPO can attract overvaluation on a listing day, followed by underperformance in the long run. Miller [ 5 ] proposed that at first, investors lean towards being over-optimistic about the IPO value, which causes initial under-pricing and that later, as the differences of opinions reduce when information flows increase with time, the price of IPOs diminishes to the intrinsic value, producing low aftermarket performance. Gao et al. [ 6 ] provided further evidence for Miller’s [ 5 ] argument. The study which is based on 4,057 IPOs found that divergence of opinion, proxied by short-term stock return volatility (first 25 trading days after issuance), is negatively related to IPO long-term abnormal returns. In addition, the authors highlight the effect of market regulatory settings on assets early pricing. That is, the regulatory induced pricing bias and short-selling constraints could lead to inflated initial aftermarket IPO prices that autocorrect in the long run, resulting in aftermarket underperformance. As Short-selling is typically forbidden in CSM, investment opinion divergence, proxied by market volatility (first 40 trading days after IPO) throughout this investigation, shall also bear the negative sign reported in previous works. Following previous studies [ 6 , 7 ], ex-ante uncertainty is used as a proxy to analyze the relationship between the divergence of opinion and IPO aftermarket performance in CSE. Greater values of ex-ante uncertainty indicate a greater divergence of opinion for the IPOs. As such, the hypothesis predicts a positive relationship between the ex-ante uncertainty and the aftermarket performance.

The impresario hypothesis asserts that the IPO market is exposed to manipulations due to the presence of the investment banks, which are comparable to the ‘impresarios’ that would voluntarily under-price the new shares with the aim of attracting more investors to the securities’ markets Shiller [ 8 ]. Interestingly, this hypothesis points out the reliance on underwriters for certifying the quality of the new issue. Similarly, the impresario hypothesis is in line with the overreaction hypothesis [ 9 ]. The deliberate under-pricing of shares generates the appearance of an excess demand, which triggers investors’ optimism and channels an overreaction toward the stock. The misevaluation of shares in initial IPO markets will autocorrect over the medium run and the long run when extra information becomes accessible to the general public [ 10 ]. Both hypotheses predict IPO aftermarket performance to be negatively associated with the initial under-pricing. Conversely, signalling theory suggests that IPO under-pricing is positively related to IPO aftermarket performance in the long run [ 11 ]. During hot issue periods, high quality firms will issue IPOs and under-price the IPO shares to pass the signal of good quality to win the confidence of investors [ 12 ]. Loughran and Ritter [ 1 ] and Ritter [ 2 ] claimed that a firm that goes public in a hot issue period usually generates a high return in the short run and low returns in the long run.

Many studies have suggested that the initial returns and aftermarket performance have a negative association, in line with the overreaction hypothesis [ 2 , 8 , 13 ]. Further, Ritter [ 2 ] found that IPO aftermarket underperformance usually continues up to 3–5 years after listing. Nevertheless, the degree of IPO aftermarket underperformance is associated with whether the IPOs are either underpriced or overpriced on the first trading day. If the IPOs are underpriced on the first trading day, then initial returns would either not be related or be positively related to IPO aftermarket performance. However, if IPOs are overpriced on the initial trading day, then the initial returns will be negatively related to aftermarket performance because the initial overpricing will be corrected gradually by the post-IPO market. Subsequently, it is expected that IPOs with greater under-pricing will perform worse in the long run [ 8 ]. Following Chi and Padgett [ 14 ] and Rathnayake et al. [ 15 ] the raw initial returns (IR) and the market-adjusted abnormal return (MAAR) for each IPO on the first day of trading are calculated as Eqs 1 and 2 , respectively.

Where P i1 = the closing price on the first trading day and P i0 = the IPO offer price of the i th stock; IR i1 = the initial returns of the first trading day; Rm 1 = the first trading day market return using the Rm 1 = [(Rm 1 -Rm 0 )/ Rm 0 ] formula; Rm 1 = the closing market index value on the first trading day of the i th stock; and Rm 0 = the closing market index value on the offering day of the stock.

Older firms perform better than are younger firms, as young firms generally have more ex-ante risk than do mature firms and mature firms have less information asymmetry with investors [ 2 , 16 , 17 ]. Thus, a positive relationship between firm age and aftermarket performance is expected. However, Brau, Couch, and Sutton [ 18 ] reported an insignificant negative relationship between issuer age and the long-term performance of IPOs. Belghitar and Dixon [ 16 ] and Ritter [ 2 ] documented a positive relationship between firm size and IPO aftermarket performance, as have other researchers who have used offer size as a proxy for ex-ante uncertainty [ 19 – 22 ]. Based on the divergence of opinion we expect a positive relationship between the offer size and aftermarket performance of IPOs. Board type is included in the study as a dummy variable, and we expect a positive relationship between Main Board listed companies and IPO long-term performance. Ritter [ 2 ], in the USA, and Levis [ 23 ], in the UK, for Main Board listings, found that IPOs with small size issues perform poorly in the long run. Following previous evidence, a positive coefficient is expected for Main Board listings in CSE. Following Thomadakis, Nounis and Gounopoulos [ 22 ], who found a significant negative relationship between IPO offer price and long-term market performance, we expected IPO price to be negatively related to aftermarket performance. Recently, Bhabra and Pettway [ 17 ] found a significant negative relationship, whereas while Mumtaz and Ahmed [ 24 ] found a positive but insignificant relationship, between long-term stock returns and the market volatility variable. We have computed market volatility as “the standard deviation of daily market returns over the first 40 trading days after the closing date of subscription” [ 25 ], and a negative relationship is expected.

We have included the hot dummy variable, which takes the value of 1 for the hot years, and 0 otherwise, to differentiate between hot and cold IPOs. Following the windows of opportunity hypothesis, a negative post-issue IPO performance [ 2 , 26 ] is expected. However, a positive relationship between the IPO volume in the market and aftermarket performance has been found by several prior studies [ 27 , 28 ].

Investor’s sentiment is found to be positively correlated to the IPO performance on the first trading day, and the observed share subsequently underperforms over the long run [ 10 , 29 ]. However, Khan, Ramakrishnan, Haq, Ahmad, and Alim [ 30 ], and Dimovski and Brooks [ 31 ] illustrated a significant positive relationship between market sentiment and aftermarket returns in a sample of Malaysian firms. Therefore, we predict that sentiment and aftermarket performance are negatively related. Nevertheless, Perotti and Oijen [ 32 ], and Rizwan and Khan [ 33 ] reported significant positive aftermarket returns of privatization IPOs in the long run. Thus, we expect a positive relationship between these two variables. IPO performance may differ significantly across the industries [ 2 , 19 , 27 ]. We include three industry dummies to control for the industry effect.

Methodology

Measures of aftermarket performance.

The event–time portfolio approach method is used in this study to measure the abnormal aftermarket returns of IPO firms [ 14 , 19 , 34 ] by calculating CAARs and BHRs for 36 months following the first trading day. Initially, we calculate the daily stock returns and daily market returns. Following Allen et al. [ 27 ], the raw return for each firm, R i , is calculated as

where P it is the closing price of an IPO on a particular trading day, and (t-1 ) is the previous trading day. Similarly, for the market return, R mt , the return is calculated from the differences in the ASPI market index values for the same time interval as above on a firm basis.

Then, the market-adjusted return for stock i in the t th trading day is defined as

where r it is the return for stock, i in the t th trading day and r mt is the market return index during the corresponding day.

Following Ritter [ 2 ] the aftermarket period returns for 36 months are calculated after converting daily data into monthly data by grouping 720 days into 36 months, assuming that there are 20 trading days in each trading month. The average market-adjusted return (AAR) on a sample of n stocks for the T th event month is the equally weighted arithmetic average of the market-adjusted returns for each trading month, which is calculated as

The CAARs from trading month 1 to trading month T is the summation of the AARs ( AAR T ). In particular, the CAAR from event month q to event month s is the summation of AAR T over various intervals during the 36-month aftermarket period:

The calculation of t-statistics for the AR T series are as follows,

where n T is the number of firms trading in event month T, and sd T is the cross-sectional Standard Deviation for event month T.

The conventional t-statistic (8) is used to test the statistical significance of the CAARs [ 2 ].

where var is the average of the cross-sectional variations over T months of the AR i , T , , and cov is the first-order auto-covariance of the AR T series, which is calculated by the correlation coefficient * cross-sectional variance.

BHRs are calculated using daily returns from the beginning of the holding period until either the end of the holding period or the delisting date, whichever is earlier [ 1 , 2 ]. Following Ritter [ 2 ], we excluded the initial trading day from BHR calculations

where T is the trading month, r it is the raw return on firm i in the trading day t , and T is the trading months (1–36).

Therefore, the market adjusted BHR [ 34 ] is defined as

where T is the trading month, r it is the raw return for stock i in the t th trading day, and r mt is the return on the market during the corresponding period.

The average BHR for the period T , denoted as BHR iT , is the arithmetic mean abnormal return on all IPOs in the sample of size n :

where the BHR for stock i in the t th trading day, n, refers to the number of observations.

A positive value of BHR shows that IPOs outperform in the considered period, and a negative value of BHR shows that IPOs underperform in the same period.

Empirical m ethodology

The sample data for this study consist of 26 years of daily observations (total 97,125) from 1991 to 2017. Daily stock prices and market returns, were collected from the CSE data bank ( https://www.cse.lk/pages/listed-company/listedcompany.component.html?status=1 ), after paying the subscription fees for Platinum package. While firm-level data extracted from company annual reports, and the IPO prospectus of each firm. The sample is 144 IPO issues, which is more than 70% of the total of 200 IPOs, including a total of 11 delisted firms within 36 trading months from the first trading date.

We first analyze the aftermarket returns in calendar years and on an industry basis. Then, we use cross-sectional analyses to identify the determinants of IPO aftermarket performance, followed by multiple regression analyses at the final stage. The selection of explanatory variables is based on the previous studies.

The multiple regressions used are:

where the dependent variables are the BHR i for 20, 60, 120, 180, 240, 480, and 720 trading days; AGE denotes the firm age from its legal registration; SIZE denotes the gross amount of IPO proceeds; PRI represents the issue price of an IPO in Sri Lankan Rupees; SENT denotes the investor sentiment; VOL denotes the annual volume of IPO stock listings in the CSE; MVL refers to the standard deviation of daily market returns for the first 30 trading days; HOT denotes the hot-period issues; PRV denotes the privatization issues; BRD denotes the listed board types; and IND indicates three dummies for the main industries. The detailed descriptions and summary of variables are shown in Table 1 .

Empirical results

Aftermarket performance measured by aars and bhrs.

Table 2 shows that the AARs and CAARs are always lower than 1% for the first 36 months after the listing day. The AARs vary between -0.15% and 0.15%. The CAARs for 144 IPOs are 0.54% over 36 months after listing. Furthermore, CAARs are all negative up to the twenty-sixth trading month and subsequently show positive returns. However, the t-statistics are not statistically significant. Moreover, both BHRs and CAARs are negative up to the twelfth trading month, and after that BHRs show positive returns, whereas CAARs show positive returns at the three-year holding period only ( Table 1 ). On a daily basis, there are many negative returns, so CAARs are lower than BHRs. BHRs are negative in the short run, and during the long run IPOs outperform them with positive BHRs. In particular, over three years, the average BHRs are 12.46% for the sample. However, skewness adjusted t-statistics are not statistically significant.

This table indicates the average monthly market-adjusted returns (AARs), and cumulative average monthly market-adjusted returns (CAARs) for the 36 trading months of IPOs. Market-adjusted buy-and-hold returns ( BHR i ) are calculated for six periods namely BHR20 to BHR720 considering 20, 60, 120, 240, 480 and 720 trading days respectively.

Aftermarket performance categorized by initial returns

Table 3 reveals a clear relationship between the initial returns and the aftermarket returns for both the short run and the long run. BHR20–BHR120 are negative in the short run and gradually give positive returns in the long run. Initial returns in the highest quintile ( MAAR/IR ≥ 120) have the worse BHRs. Nevertheless, in the short run, BHR20–BHR120 mostly appear to be negatively related to the IPO under-pricing. In contrast, in the long run, BHR240–BHR720 perform well for the lower initial return quintiles, whereas the higher initial returns quintile always has negative BHRs. When IPOs are initially either overpriced or underpriced, aftermarket IPO returns also underperform in the short run and then perform well in the market in the long run by generating positive BHRs and a similar pattern for both IR and MAAR . The results show that there is a considerable difference when initial IPOs are overpriced and that IPOs are more outperformed/underperformed in the aftermarket performance. However, between BHRs, only BHR720 returns have a significant difference at the 5% level.

This table shows the aftermaret performnce categorized by initial returns. Market-adjusted buy-and-hold returns ( BHR ) are calculated for six periods namely BHR20 to BHR720 considering 20, 60, 120, 240, 480 and 720 trading days respectively. IR refers to the initial returns and MAAR refers to market adjusted abnormal returns. Sample t-statistics to test the difference between categories and the overall average returns are calculated. Two-tails sample t-statistics are used to test the difference in means (assuming unequal variances). ***, **, * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

Aftermarket performance categorized by individual measures

The complete breakdown of aftermarket returns considering different measures related to aftermarket performance are shown separately in Table 4 . The IPOs of firms aged 1–4 years have lower BHRs than returns of IPOs in 5–9 years in operation. The results specify that the aftermarket returns remain highest for the firms aged 10–19 years and tend to have positive returns with mature IPOs after one year. Firms aged more than 20 years have the worst performance in the short run, and this continues up to BHR480 . Interestingly, the positive BHRs recorded by firms aged 10–19 years are significant at the 10% level. Furthermore, following Loughran et al. [ 1 ] and Rathnayake et al. [ 15 ] firms aged less than 10 years are classified as young. Young vs. old illustrates a tendency for the age to be negatively related to the BHRs, i.e., younger firms underperform for BHR20–BHR120 and then perform well for BHR240–BHR720 .

This table shows the aftermarket performnace calculatons based on the individual measures. Market-adjusted buy-and-hold returns (BHRs) are calculated for six periods, namely BHR20 to BHR720 , considering 20, 60, 120, 240, 480, and 720 trading days, respectively. AGE denotes the history of the firm from its incorporation and classifies issues up to Rs. 200 million as being small and those above that figure as being large; SIZE denotes the gross proceeds from the IPO and classifies up to Rs. 200 million as being small and above Rs. 200 million as being large. Rs. is Sri Lankan Rupees; BRD denotes the listed board types; PRI denotes the offer price of the IPO; MVL denotes the standard deviation of the daily ASPI for the first 40 trading days prior to the IPO issue; VOL denotes the annual volume of listings in the stock market, and IPOs are categorized into four equal groups based on the number of IPOs went to the public annually; SENT is a proxy for investor sentiment; HOT denotes the hot-period issues and cold-period issues, respectively. Sample t-statistics are used to test the difference between categories, and the overall average BHR s are calculated. Two-tailed sample t-statistics are used to test the difference in mean BHR s (assuming unequal variances). ***, **, and * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% levels, respectively.

SIZE reveals the aftermarket returns grouped by the size of the IPO issue, and IPOs are separated into three subgroups with nearly equivalent numbers of IPOs. Our results show that in the long run, smaller issues perform better than do larger issues. Moreover, issues up to Rs. 200 million are categorized as small and those above this figure are categorized as large to investigate the size effect. The small vs. large category illustrates that small issues tend to outperform, except BHR60 returns, whereas large issues underperform all over the periods. The differences in the long run, including for BHR240 are significant at 5%.

The results show that the aftermarket returns of the Main Board listed firms were positive compared to those of the Secondary Board listed firms. BHR480 returns show poor performance for both Main and Secondary listed boards. Conversely, the BHR720 returns for three years show positive values. The long-term return differences between the two different boards are statistically significant up to BHR240 , whereas the BHR480 and BHR720 return differences are not significant. Table 4 shows that two subgroups where the IPO shares were priced either lower than or equal to Rs. 20 performed poorly in the long run.

We divided the sample into equal four subgroups with an equivalent number of observations of 36 firms in each subgroup based on MVL values. When the MVL is high ( MVL ≥116), BHRs are always negative. The other three subgroups tend to show lower aftermarket returns in the short run, and the returns increase gradually with the passage of trading time and end up being positive. Moreover, the results show that 28≤ MVL < 64 subgroup records outperformed stocks continuously throughout the three years, even though values were insignificant. VOL indicates the four equal-sized subgroups grounded on the number of IPOs that went to the public annually. The level of underperformance remains highest for the 14–15 issues that are significant at 5% and tends to decrease when the IPO volume increases. BHRs are positive when the volume is between 6–10, whereas the returns of the other three subgroups do not show a clear pattern.

Furthermore, in the short run, IPOs underperform in both negative SENT and positive SENT in the market condition. BHRs perform worse in the positive SENT than in the negative SENT . During BHR480 and BHR720 , performance shows positive returns for IPOs issued at the time of negative SENT and returns show an increasing trend over the long-term for the negative SENT category. Even though the differences between mean returns in the two groups are statistically insignificant, the findings reveal a negative relationship between positive SENT and long-term IPO performance. Privatization issues are likely to perform better than conventional issues in the long run, up to two years. Privatized IPO issues show a trend of gradually increasing performance during the short time horizon and produce maximum returns during the first trading year of stocks. Conversely, conventional issues performing worse during the first year of trading and stars showing positive returns after the second year. The differences in the BHR20–BHR240 during the first trading year after the IPO issue are statistically significant at the 5% level.

Furthermore, following Rathnayake et al. [ 15 ], Table 4 shows that the BHRs are segmented by hot and cold year issues. According to the results, hot issue period IPOs perform better in the long run than do cold year IPO issues. Over the short-term, both hot issue and cold issue IPOs show negative abnormal returns, with hot issues still performing better than do cold issues. The difference between the two is significant at the 5% level in the first trading month. Long-term hot issues perform well and generate positive abnormal returns throughout BHR240–BHR720 , with a positive trend of increasing returns over longer periods.

IPO performance categorized by industry

The plantation industry has the highest returns BHR20–BHR120 in the short run, and those returns are significantly different from the overall average at the 5% level ( Table 5 ). Interestingly throughout the three years, the plantation industry is the only industry that performs well and generates positive BHRs continuously. Health care, power and energy, services, and trading sector IPOs always underperform in the long run. The underperformance of the power and energy industry differs sharply from the average returns of the sample, and the difference is significant at the 1% level for less than twelve trading months. Interestingly, four industries the beverage, food and tobacco sector, the footwear and textiles sector, the hotels and travel sector, and the manufacturing sector show a similar tendency of BHRs that underperform in the short run and outperform in the long run.

This table gives the sample distribution by the industry; the number of firms and the average aftermarket returns. Market-adjusted buy-and-hold returns (BHR i ) are calculated for six periods namely BHR20 to BHR720 considering 20, 60, 120, 240, 480 and 720 trading days respectively. Two-tails sample t-statistics are used to test the difference in the average BHR s in each industry and the overall average BHR s in the sample (assuming unequal variances). ***, **, * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

Multiple regression analysis

First, the OLS assumptions are tested before running the multiple regressions. All the non-dummy variables are normally distributed ( Table 6 ). All the non-dummy variables are stationary at the level according to the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) unit root test results, which are given in Table 7 . As illustrated in the correlation matrix ( Table 8 ), independent variables do not appear to be substitutes of each other since the correlation between variables is less than 0.5. Only IR and MAAR are 94% positively correlated, but we do not consider IR and MAAR in the same regression model.

Note: Shapiro-Wilk Normality test statistic values are recorded in the table. Market-adjusted buy-and-hold returns (BHR i ) are calculated for six periods namely BHR20 to BHR720 considering 20, 60, 120, 240, 480 and 720 trading days respectively. IR denotes the initial returns; MAAR denotes the market adjusted abnormal return; AGE denotes the history of the firm from its incorporation; SIZE denotes the gross proceeds from the IPO; PRC denotes the issue price of an IPO in Sri Lankan Rupees; SENT is a proxy for investor sentiment; VOL denotes the annual volume of listings in the stock market; MVL refers to the standard deviation of daily market returns for the first 30 trading days after the IPO; HOT denotes the hot-period issues; PRIV denotes the privatization issues; BRD denotes the listed board types; and HTL, PLNT, and BNK are three dummies for the hotel, plantation, and banking industries, respectively. ***, **, * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

Note: Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic values are recorded in the table. Market-adjusted buy-and-hold returns (BHR i ) are calculated for six periods namely BHR20 to BHR720 considering 20, 60, 120, 240, 480 and 720 trading days respectively. IR denotes the initial returns; MAAR denotes the market adjusted abnormal return; AGE denotes the history of the firm from its incorporation; SIZE denotes the gross proceeds from the IPO; PRC denotes the issue price of an IPO in Sri Lankan Rupees; SENT is a proxy for investor sentiment; VOL denotes the annual volume of listings in the stock market; MVL refers to the standard deviation of daily market returns for the first 30 trading days after the IPO; HOT denotes the hot-period issues; PRIV denotes the privatization issues; BRD denotes the listed board types; and HTL, PLNT, and BNK are three dummies for the hotel, plantation, and banking industries, respectively. ***, **, * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

Note: This table presents the Pearson correlation coefficients for the variables considered in the study. IR denotes the initial returns; MAAR denotes the market adjusted abnormal return; AGE denotes the history of the firm from its incorporation; SIZE denotes the gross proceeds from the IPO; PRC denotes the issue price of an IPO in Sri Lankan Rupees; SENT is a proxy for investor sentiment; VOL denotes the annual volume of listings in the stock market; MVL refers to the standard deviation of daily market returns for the first 30 trading days after the IPO; HOT denotes the hot-period issues; PRIV denotes the privatization issues; BRD denotes the listed board types; and HTL, PLNT, and BNK are three dummies for the hotel, plantation, and banking industries, respectively. ***, **, * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

Table 9 shows OLS results for the aftermarket returns of six dependent variables, BHR20–BHR720 . We used Eqs 12 and 13 for each BHR, considering IR and MAAR , respectively. The multiple regression models explain approximately between 10%–22% of the overall variations of IPO aftermarket performance in the considered sample, which is measured by R 2 . According to our results, the BHR20 , BHR120 , BHR240 , and BHR720 regression models have significant F-statistic values.

This table shows the regression results. Market-adjusted buy-and-hold returns (BHR i ) are calculated for six periods namely BHR20 to BHR720 considering 20, 60, 120, 240, 480 and 720 trading days respectively. IR denotes the initial returns; MAAR denotes the market adjusted abnormal return; AGE denotes the history of the firm from its incorporation; SIZE denotes the gross proceeds from the IPO; PRC denotes the issue price of an IPO in Sri Lankan Rupees; SENT is a proxy for investor sentiment; VOL denotes the annual volume of listings in the stock market; MVL refers to the standard deviation of daily market returns for the first 30 trading days after the IPO; HOT denotes the hot-period issues; PRIV denotes the privatization issues; BRD denotes the listed board types; and HTL, PLNT, and BNK are three dummies for the hotel, plantation, and banking industries, respectively. ***, **, * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

IR and MAAR have a negative relationship with BHR20–BHR720 throughout all the periods. Even the short-term relationship is insignificant, and in the long run there is a significant relationship with BHRs. Our results are in line with the divergence of opinion hypothesis [ 2 , 10 , 13 ]. In the short run, the lnAGE coefficient has a negative sign, and it is statistically insignificant. For the BHR720 period, age and aftermarket returns have a significant positive relationship, which contradicts the previous findings [ 2 , 17 , 35 ] and the fundamentals of risk–return theory. The coefficient of the lnSIZE has a negative relationship with BHRs , and in the long run, including the BHR480 and BHR720 relationship, is significant at the 5% level, as supported by several studies [ 17 , 27 ].

The signs of the two BRD and lnPRI variables are not constant during the sample periods. Although the estimated coefficient on BRD has a positive sign in the short run, it is statistically significant at BHR60 and BHR120 aftermarket returns. BRD has an insignificant negative relationship with BHRs in the long run. lnPRI shows a significant negative relationship with BHR s in the short run and a positive relationship in the long run. MVL coefficient values are always negative and very low. Interestingly, BHR20 and BHR720 coefficients for MVL are statistically significant, thus supporting the hypothesis and previous studies [ 6 , 17 , 25 ]. Further, Wald test results indicate that five coefficients of ex-ante uncertainty are simultaneously equal to zero in all the models, and the results are not supported by the ex-ante uncertainty hypothesis. OLS results show an insignificant positive relationship between lnVOL and BHR20–BHR720 throughout the all periods, which is similar to the findings of Allen et al. [ 27 ] and Hensler et al. [ 28 ]. Also, BHR20–BHR720 are positively related with SENT across the all regression models, which is not consistent with the investor sentiment hypothesis. However, values are not statistically significant.

Consistent with previous studies [ 32 , 33 ], PRV record positive signs of the coefficients for the BHRs except for BHR720 returns, and the coefficient values are significant for BHR120 and BHR240 at the 5% level. The HOT dummy variable coefficients are negative in the short run, and the long-time horizon coefficient values are positive. Regression results indicate that PLNT , HTL , and BNK industries have a positive, though not statistically significant, relationship with short-term aftermarket returns. Over the longer time horizon, HTL coefficients are still positive, and the other two industry coefficients turn negative. For the HTL sector, the only coefficient of HTL is significant at the 5% level for BHR720 returns. Nevertheless, we used the Wald test to test for the joint hypothesis for industry effect ( Table 10 ) and found that the three coefficients of industries are simultaneously equal to zero.

Note: This table presents the Wald joint hypothesis test results. Market-adjusted buy-and-hold returns (BHRi) are calculated for six periods namely BHR20 to BHR720 considering 20, 60, 120, 240, 480 and 720 trading days respectively. Chi-square test statistics values are given in the table, and the probability of chi-squared values are recorded in parenthesis. ***, **, * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

In the final stage of multiple regression analysis, we checked for the heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation errors in the results ( Table 11 ). Using the Breusch–Pagan, autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity, and White’s heteroskedasticity tests, we obtained similar results showing that the model residuals do not consist of heteroscedasticity errors. Also, we conducted two autocorrelation tests, the Breusch–Godfrey and Durbin–Watson tests, and ensured that our multiple regression results were free from autocorrelation errors.

Note: This table presents the heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation test results. Decision rule: dL < t statistic > dU = Zone of indecision, t statistic > dU = No autocorrelation, t statistic < dU = Positive autocorrelation. Market-adjusted buy-and-hold returns (BHRi) are calculated for six periods namely BHR20 to BHR720 considering 20, 60, 120, 240, 480 and 720 trading days respectively. Chi-square test statistics values are given in the table, and the probability of chi-squared values are recorded in parenthesis. ***, **, * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

Robustness check

For the robustness check, we repeated our multiple regression analysis by removing 11 delisted firms which occurs during the 720 trading days from the IPO issue. Our overall results regarding the aftermarket performance of IPOs still hold, but there are very few changes ( Table 12 ). We have found the signs of all explanatory variables to be almost identical and unchanged from the results in Table 9 , except for two minor cases. First, the HOT coefficients are positive in all of BHR20–BHR720 in the new regression results. Second, HTL sector IPOs show a negative relationship in the BHR20 and BHR60 periods and later all show positive aftermarket returns. However, the new results have created some variations in the significance of the variables. Interestingly, all R 2 values are increased, and the significance of the F-statistic remains the same in the new results. Thus, we conclude that our results are robust.

This table presents the robustness regression results after excluding 11 delisted firms from the sample. Market-adjusted buy-and-hold returns (BHR i ) are calculated for six periods namely BHR20 to BHR720 considering 20, 60, 120, 240, 480 and 720 trading days respectively. IR denotes the initial returns; MAAR denotes the market adjusted abnormal return; AGE denotes the history of the firm from its incorporation; SIZE denotes the gross proceeds from the IPO; PRC denotes the issue price of an IPO in Sri Lankan Rupees; SENT is a proxy for investor sentiment; VOL denotes the annual volume of listings in the stock market; MVL refers to the standard deviation of daily market returns for the first 30 trading days after the IPO; HOT denotes the hot-period issues; PRIV denotes the privatization issues; BRD denotes the listed board types; and HTL, PLNT, and BNK are three dummies for the hotel, plantation, and banking industries, respectively. ***, **, * denote significance at the 1%, 5%, and 10% level, respectively.

This study focused on the evaluation of the performance of initial price offerings (IPOs) price performance up to 36 months including the listing day in terms of market-adjusted buy and hold returns (BHRs) and market-adjusted cumulative average returns (CAARs) and the practicality determinants at the time of IPO issues to find explanations for the IPO aftermarket performance. Average market-adjusted returns and CAARs are always lower than 1%. Averagely abnormal returns are negative in the short run, and abnormal returns gradually become positive in the long run. Over the three years, IPOs outperform with positive 12.46% BHRs. We found that initial returns have a long-term significant negative relationship with all BHRs and that the outcomes are consistent with the divergence of opinion hypothesis. Market volatility and aftermarket returns are negatively related throughout the all considered periods. Privatized IPOs show a significant positive relationship with one-year aftermarket returns. Hot issue period IPOs are positively related with first trading month aftermarket returns, while other periods are not significant. Similarly, plantation sector IPOs show a positive and significant relationship in short run BHRs. We do not accept the ex-ante hypothesis in aftermarket performance as five variables age of the firm, issue size, listed board effect, market volatility, and the IPO price are jointly not significant. Aftermarket returns are positively related with investor sentiment, and the annual volume of listings are based on the firm went to the public. For the robustness check, we re-estimated the multiple regressions by using the sample of 133 firms after removing delisted companies from the original sample. We found that the signs of most of the explanatory variables are unchanged and remained the same as the full sample results.

Consequently, we suggest that investors should hold their subscriptions of IPO shares for a prolonged time frame, usually exceeding two years, as the dynamic of shares rewards the investors with positive abnormal returns in the long run. Though intrinsic characteristics of IPO firms may constitute a bias to this pattern, it is still worthwhile for investors in emerging stock exchanges to monitor the performance of IPO firms over the long-run.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments.

We greatly appreciate the comments and suggestions given by the Journal Editor and anonymous referees.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the Shandong University of Technology Ph.D. Startup Foundation (Grant No. 719017) and National Social Science Foundation of China, Grant No. 21CGL050. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. No any authors received a salary from the above mentioned funder.

Data Availability