Refine
Document Type
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Report (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3) (remove)
Keywords
- Neuer Markt <Börse> (3) (remove)
Institute
- Wirtschaftswissenschaften (3) (remove)
Ja, der Ablauf der Lock-up-Frist ist ein kursrelevantes Ereignis. Wir untersuchen Kursreaktionen auf das Ende der Lock-up-Frist bei 142 Unternehmen des Neuen Marktes. Da der Ablauf der Sperrfrist bereits zum Zeitpunkt des Börsengangs bekannt ist, erwarten wir bei einem (semi-)informationseffizienten Kapitalmarkt durchschnittlich keine Kursreaktion. Im Rahmen einer Ereignisstudie zeigen wir aber, dass sich am Ende der Sperrfrist signifikant negative Überrenditen ergeben. Durch eine differenzierte Analyse stellen wir fest, dass firmenspezifische Faktoren (Volatilität, Performance, Free Float) die Kursreaktionen am Ende der Lock-up-Periode beeinflussen. Die Befunde unserer Untersuchung belegen die Notwendigkeit klarer Regeln für mehr Transparenz nach dem Börsengang. Bedeutsam sind die vorliegenden Ergebnisse vor allem vor dem Hintergrund der aktuellen Diskussion um eine Erweiterung der insiderrechtlichen Meldepflichen im Rahmen des 4. Finanzmarktförderungsgesetzes. This paper explores the materiality of expirations of lock-up provisions that prevent insiders from selling their shares after the initial public offering (IPO). We examine 172 lock-up agreements of 142 IPOs floated on Germany’s New Market. Since the date of the lock-up expiration is common knowledge at the IPO, we would not expect to find abnormal returns surrounding the event day, assuming that markets are informationally efficient. However, using an event-study methodology we detect statistically significant negative abnormal returns and a twenty-five percent increase in trading volume surrounding lock-up expiration. The negative abnormal returns are larger for firms with high volatility, superior performance after the IPO, and low free float. The results of our study raise important regulatory issues with respect to disclosure rules of firms going public. We argue that insiders should be legally required to disclose their sell transactions in order to protect new and less informed shareholders.
Over-allotment arrangements are nowadays part of almost any initial public offering. The underwriting banks borrow stocks from the previous shareholders to issue more than the initially announced number of shares. This is combined with the option to cover this short position at the issue price. We present empirical evidence on the value of these arrangements to the underwriters of initial public offerings on the Neuer Markt. The over-allotment arrangement is regarded as a portfolio of a long call option and a short position in a forward contract on the stock, which is different from other approaches presented in the literature.
Given the economically substantial values for these option-like claims we try to identify benefits to previous shareholders or new investors when the company is using this instrument in the process of going public. Although we carefully control for potential endogeneity problems, we find virtually no evidence for a reduction in underpricing for firms using over-allotment arrangements. Furthermore, we do not find evidence for more pronounced price stabilization activities or better aftermarket performance for firms granting an over-allotment arrangement to the underwriting banks.
Over-allotment arrangements are nowadays part of almost any initial public offering. The underwriting banks borrow stocks from the previous shareholders to issue more than the initially announced number of shares. This is combined with the option to cover this short position at the issue price. We present empirical evidence on the value of these arrangements to the underwriters of initial public offerings on the Neuer Markt. The over-allotment arrangement is regarded as a portfolio of a long call option and a short position in a forward contract on the stock, which is different from other approaches presented in the literature.
Given the economically substantial values for these option- like claims we try to identify benefits to previous shareholders or new investors when the company is using this instrument in the process of going public. Although we carefully control for potential endogeneity problems, we find virtually no evidence for a reduction in underpricing for firms using over-allotment arrangements. Furthermore, we do not find evidence for more pronounced price stabilization activities or better aftermarket performance for firms granting an over-allotment arrangement to the underwriting banks.
EFM Classification: 230, 410