Liberty Street Economics

« | Main | »

October 29, 2012

Weakness in the U.S. IPO Market

Stavros Peristiani

The high valuations achieved by recent social-media- and Internet-related initial public offerings (IPOs) and their disappointing aftermarket performance have rekindled the specter of the dot-com boom and bust of the late 1990s. This post extends the analysis of my 2004 Current Issues article (with Gijoon Hong) that documents a gradual but significant deterioration in the quality of issuing companies since the 1980s, a trend that reached a low point with the bursting
of the Internet bubble in 2000. Despite considerable investor interest in
recent web startups, the volume of IPO proceeds has remained weak since the
2000 Internet collapse. An important lesson of the boom-and-bust episode is
that a viable and well-functioning IPO market must be based on companies with
sound fundamentals and business plans. Although there are no signs of another
tech bubble, my post shows that IPO companies have remained, on average, weak
financially over the 2001-11 period.

IPO Issuance Since 2000

IPO activity in the United States has fluctuated over the past three decades, influenced by the strength of the economy, technological and financial innovations, and other company- and industry-specific factors. The number and nominal volume of IPO proceeds surged in the 1990s, especially during the Internet boom period between 1995 and 2000, but plummeted after the collapse of the high-tech bubble in 2000 (see chart below).


Another way to measure the drop-off in IPO activity is relative to the total stock market capitalization in the United States (see chart below). Historically, the IPO market has rebounded from adversity, recovering after recessions in the early 1980s and 1990s. However, the number of priced offerings and volume of proceeds have remained very low throughout the 2000s.


Researchers have offered several explanations for the reluctance of private companies to sell shares to the public in the United States: a stricter regulatory environment (owing to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Fair Disclosure rules), greater threat of litigation by investors, the loss of confidence resulting from the disastrous Internet bubble experience, decimalization reforms, stronger competition from overseas stock markets, and declining analyst coverage.

Deteriorating Quality

It’s widely acknowledged that a key reason for the Internet debacle was the deteriorating quality of businesses that decided to go public. To analyze the financial strength of IPO companies, I compare their profitability (measured by the return-on-assets ratio) with a cohort of nonissuing firms over the past three decades. IPO firms were, on average, more profitable than their nonissuing peers during the 1980s. However, as the chart below shows, there was a noticeable deterioration in the profitability of offering firms during the 1990s and 2000s, while the cohort of non-IPO firms remained profitable.


Another important indicator of financial soundness is capital adequacy (or equity measured by total assets minus total liabilities). The chart below shows the average
equity-to-assets ratio of issuers and their nonissuing peers from 1980 to
2011. IPO companies exhibit a dramatic deterioration in their preissue capitalization relative to their peers. The widening gap in net worth between issuing companies and their peers is discernible as far back as the early 1980s and continues to this year.


IPO firms continued to underperform their peers from 2001 to 2011. (One explanation for the weakened financial condition of IPO issuers over this period is the strategic decision of profitable private firms to merge with public firms in a similar industry that can introduce their products to the market more quickly. See Gao-Ritter-Zhu

The continued underperformance of IPO companies serves as a warning sign to investors. My 2004 Current Issues article shows that, when other factors are held constant, investors who bet on more speculative, unprofitable IPO firms from 1980 to 2000 faced roughly three times the risk of losing their money than those who invested in profitable firms.

A Threatened Growth Outlook?

Although IPO flows represent a relatively small share of total stock market capitalization, they’re a vital source of organic growth for equity markets. As such, newly listed companies have to be financially strong and possess the capacity to develop and flourish. As this post suggests, the relatively few
IPOs that occurred between 2001 and 2011, many of which had lackluster
fundamentals, could be the harbinger of a more challenging growth outlook for
U.S. equity markets.

The views expressed in this post are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors.


Stavros Peristiani is an assistant vice president in the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s Research and Statistics Group.

About the Blog

Liberty Street Economics features insight and analysis from New York Fed economists working at the intersection of research and policy. Launched in 2011, the blog takes its name from the Bank’s headquarters at 33 Liberty Street in Manhattan’s Financial District.

The editors are Michael Fleming, Andrew Haughwout, Thomas Klitgaard, and Asani Sarkar, all economists in the Bank’s Research Group.

Liberty Street Economics does not publish new posts during the blackout periods surrounding Federal Open Market Committee meetings.

The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the position of the New York Fed or the Federal Reserve System.

Economic Research Tracker

Image of NYFED Economic Research Tracker Icon Liberty Street Economics is available on the iPhone® and iPad® and can be customized by economic research topic or economist.

Economic Inequality

image of inequality icons for the Economic Inequality: A Research Series

This ongoing Liberty Street Economics series analyzes disparities in economic and policy outcomes by race, gender, age, region, income, and other factors.

Most Read this Year

Comment Guidelines


We encourage your comments and queries on our posts and will publish them (below the post) subject to the following guidelines:

Please be brief: Comments are limited to 1,500 characters.

Please be aware: Comments submitted shortly before or during the FOMC blackout may not be published until after the blackout.

Please be relevant: Comments are moderated and will not appear until they have been reviewed to ensure that they are substantive and clearly related to the topic of the post.

Please be respectful: We reserve the right not to post any comment, and will not post comments that are abusive, harassing, obscene, or commercial in nature. No notice will be given regarding whether a submission will or will
not be posted.‎

Comments with links: Please do not include any links in your comment, even if you feel the links will contribute to the discussion. Comments with links will not be posted.

Send Us Feedback

Disclosure Policy

The LSE editors ask authors submitting a post to the blog to confirm that they have no conflicts of interest as defined by the American Economic Association in its Disclosure Policy. If an author has sources of financial support or other interests that could be perceived as influencing the research presented in the post, we disclose that fact in a statement prepared by the author and appended to the author information at the end of the post. If the author has no such interests to disclose, no statement is provided. Note, however, that we do indicate in all cases if a data vendor or other party has a right to review a post.