Initial Public Offerings Short and Long Term Performance of MENA Countries
European Scientific Journal April 2018 edition Vol.14
Initial Public Offerings Short and Long Term Performance of MENA Countries
Mohammad S. AlShiab 0
0 Higher Colleges of Technology, Al Ain Women's College, Business Faculty , Al Ain, UAE
This study examines a comprehensive set of 162 Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Initial Public Offerings (IPO's) for the period 20012015, considered the first and most comprehensive data set investigated to date. Results confirmed that IPO performances are mixed among MENA countries classified into three groups. The first group comprises countries whose IPOs over-performed the Benchmark portfolio over the short-run, but underperformed over the long-run. The second group comprises countries where IPOs underperformed the Benchmark portfolio over the following 60 months post-listing date where such underperformance became quite significant over the long-run in comparison to the short-run. The third group comprises countries whose IPOs experienced cyclical performance change from over-performance to under- performance and vice versa. Overall, the IPOs went through cycles of price corrections around the fundamental value over the long term when compared to the short term performance.
IPOs; Investment decision; Assets allocation
and less sensitive to the benchmark employed. Evidence of long-run returns
for IPOs is less extensive than that of short-run returns. Similarly, explanations
for poor abnormal post-listing returns are relatively less developed than those
for initial returns. Therefore, this study explores the short- and long-run
performance of IPOs in the Middle East and North African (MENA) region,
revealing new evidence on IPO activity.
This paper contributes to the IPO literature in three ways. First,
examining the short- and long-term IPO returns of companies located in the
MENA region is important because it will provide new and useful knowledge
for professionals and academics on the performance of IPOs, thus, providing
additional evidence of post-listing returns for IPO firms. To the best of the
author’s knowledge, no such studies have been conducted on this region.
Consequently, the results of this study will enhance decision-making on
investments in IPOs, as well as on the holding period for such investments.
The data set used in this study includes all floated companies in the MENA
region, and is the first and most comprehensive data set to be investigated to
Second, the long-term return performance of IPOs is important for
decisions on the asset allocation of a portfolio. It is also important in searches
across investment strategies that include anomalies, and have the potential to
produce excess returns. Hence, the findings of this study are important for
inferences on the efficiency of markets in the MENA countries. Moreover, it
may improve estimates of expected risk and return and, thus, help in portfolio
management and risk assessment. Third, this study employs a comprehensive
cross-country data set covering emerging and developing markets, which
generally lack regulation, transparency, and the adoption of international
standards (including financial reporting and corporate governance standards).
Therefore, by investigating the short and long run after IPO listings, this study
is able to lay to rest assumptions of previous empirical studies that are
constrained by the number and diversity of companies, timescales, and
investment levels dictated by varying levels of development.
The two approaches are applied: BHAR and CAR. The results are
consistent in all models. The first group of countries (Tunis, Morocco, Egypt,
and Oman) show average abnormal returns, indicating that the IPO portfolios
are underpriced relative to the benchmark portfolio over the short run, with
some diversity in this group. However, in the long run, the IPOs
underperformed relative to the benchmark. Furthermore, within this group,
Morocco is considered an extreme case, where the results show positive
cumulative excess returns for the firms for 12 months after the IPO date.
However, beginning in the second year after the IPO, companies in general
underwent significant price corrections that lasted approximately 18 months,
producing negative cumulative abnormal returns for up to five years,
postissue. The second group of countries represents Jordan, Qatar, and Bahrain,
where the IPO portfolios were overpriced (underperformed) relative to the
benchmark portfolio. However, such over-pricing is more severe and
significant in the long run than it is in the short run. The last group of countries
represents Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, where IPO portfolios
experienced cyclical price corrections, from positive to negative, and vice
versa, relative to the fundamental common stock value over time after an
The IPO portfolios in the MENA countries covered here are all going
through a process of price correction around the fundamental common stock
values, irrespective of whether the portfolios have over-performed or
underperformed relative to the benchmark portfolio in the short or long run.
Based on this study’s empirical findings, it is suggested that short-term and
long-term investors should be cautious when analysing IPO firms in the
MENA region, because IPO performance is country-dependent. Furthermore,
the over-performance of IPOs in the short-run could encourage management
to manipulate their company’s market value by underpricing publicly offered
stock. Such over-performance (or underpricing) will vanish over the long-run,
making the overall process a zero-sum game as soon as the stock market
realizes the common stock fundamental value. In conclusion, after an offering,
IPO portfolios experience cyclical price corrections over time, relative to the
fundamental common stock value.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The second section
discusses prior empirical studies on this topic. The third section describes the
data and research methods employed here, and the fourth section discusses the
results. The final section concludes the paper.
IPOs of shares are frequently issued at prices substantially lower than
the market price on the first day of listing. This is based on the argument that
at the heart of every IPO process are informational issues between the various
actors, which potentially lead to IPO underpricing and, thus, to short-term
over-performance. However, empirical studies show that the long-term returns
for IPOs underperform, restoring equilibrium after the short-term IPO
underpricing subsequent to the listing date. These results have been found in
both developed and emerging stock markets, although much higher initial
returns have been found in emerging markets [Aggarwal et al. (1993);
Aggarwal and Rivoli (1990); An and Chan (2008); Baron and Holmstrom
(1980); Beatty and Ritter (1986); Beatty and Zajac (1994); Booth and Chua
(1996); Brau and Fawcett (2006); Chan and Lo (2011); Friesen and Swift
(2009); Grinblatt and Hwang (1989); Ibbotson (1975); Jelic and Briston
(2003); Jenkinson and Ljungqvist (1996); Jewartowski and Lizińska (2012);
Lee et al. (2011); Levis (1993); Lin et al. (2008); Ljungqvist (1997);
Ljungqvist (2007); Loughran et al. (1994); Loughran and Ritter (1995, 2000,
2002); Lyn and Zychowicz (2003); Purnanandam and Swaminathan (2004);
Rajan and Servaes (1997); Ritter and Welch (2002); Wu and Kwok (2003)].
In explaining underpricing over the long-term, the research on IPOs is
less conclusive on the reason behind the generally poor performance. Several
theories have been developed, including signalling theory [Leland and Pyle
(1977); Welch (1989); Datar and Mao (2006); Francis et al. (2010)], the
information asymmetry hypothesis [Beatty and Ritter (1986); Chan and Lo
(2011); Deb and Marisetty (2010); Ljungqvist et al. (2003); Rock (1986);
Schenone (2004)], the institutional explanation [Hensler (1995); Hughes and
Thakor (1992); Ruud (1993)], behavioural imperfection theory [Friesen and
Swift (2009); Ljungqvist et al. (2003); Loughran and Ritter (2002);
Purnanandam and Swaminathan (2004); Ritter and Welch (2002)], the
opportunity hypothesis [Loughran and Ritter (1995); Rajan and Servaes
(1997); Ritter (1991); Wu and Kwok (2003, 2007)], and the divergence of
opinion hypothesis [Jelic and Briston (2003); Jewartowski and Lizińska
(2012); Lyn and Zychowicz (2003)]. Therefore, while studies on US and
international IPO initial returns have been consistent, the nature and
underlying contributing factors of IPO long-term performance are still unclear.
Early studies focused on US firms, and reported positive initial returns
and negative returns in the long run. For example, Ibbotson (1975) revealed
average positive initial returns of 15.3 per cent and negative returns in the three
years after going public. Similar results in the US market confirmed that, in
general, IPOs tend to be underpriced in the short run, and then underperform
relative to the benchmark in the following three to five years [An and Chan
(2008); Chan and Lo (2011); Loughran and Ritter (1995); Philip et al. (1996);
Rajan and Servaes (1997); Ritter (1991)].
According to Ritter and Welch (2002), from 1980 to 2001, the average
IPO return is 18.8 per cent in the first day, and then -23.4 per cent over the
next three years. Investigating Polish IPOs for the period 1991–1999, Jelic and
Briston (2003) find that the mean market-adjusted initial return of the IPO
sample is 27.37%. However, in the three years after an offering, there is a
negative cumulative long-run adjusted mean return, ranging from -37.8 to
26.5%, for the buy-and-hold methodology. Jaskiewicz et al. (2005) find that
the underperformance usually persists for up to three to five years after a
listing. Examining IPO performance in the UK market, Levis (1993) reports
an average initial return of 14.5 per cent, and negative long-run performance
ranging from 8 per cent to 23 per cent, depending on the benchmark portfolio
constructed. The same scenario applies in Ljungqvist’s (1997; 2007) studies
of the German and US markets, respectively. Alvarez and Gonzalez (2005)
study the Spanish market, and document similar results, confirming that the
initial returns of IPOs are positive, but become negative in the long run.
Studying 221 publicly traded firms in US stock markets over the period
1993–2000, Friesen and Swift (2009) find positive cumulative excess returns
for the firms for 12 months after an IPO date. However, beginning in the
second year after the IPO, the average firm in their sample undergoes a
significant price correction that lasts approximately 18 months, producing
negative cumulative abnormal returns for up to five years, post-issue. They
argue that the thrifts in their sample appear to go through a cycle of
overreaction and subsequent correction after the IPO. Such results are
consistent with the results of Purnanandam and Swaminathan (2004) and
Daniel et al. (1998), although different methods were applied in calculating
excess returns attributed to investor overreaction. In contrast to the above
results, Aussenegg (2000) reports positive initial returns and market-adjusted
three-year returns of 38.5% and 11.5%, respectively, for IPOs in the Polish
stock exchange. Furthermore, Lyn and Zychowics (2003) documents
significant first-day underpricing of 54.45%, but does not find significant
evidence of underperformance in the three years after an offering. Instead, the
results show values of -4.11%, 3.4%, and -24.44% after one, two, and three
Many other empirical studies covering emerging markets find similar
results, but with much higher values because of the level of risk in such
markets [Aggarwal et al. (1993); Aggarwal et al. (2008); Dawson (1987);
Ghosh (2005); Lee et al. (2011); Lin et al. (2008); Omran (2005); Seshadev
and Prabina (2010); Sohail and Nasr (2007)]. These studies conclude that the
more risky the market in terms of information asymmetry and transparency,
the more extreme positive/negative returns will be in the short and long run.
For example, Seshadev and Prabina (2010) investigated the IPO performance
(short-run underpricing and long-run underperformance) of 92 Indian IPOs
over the period 2002–2006. On average, the Indian IPOs are underpriced by
46.55 per cent on the listing day relative to the market index. The long-run
returns (up to a period of 36 months) are measured using the wealth relative
(WR) and buy-and-hold abnormal rate of return (BHAR), adjusted by the
market index. The results show that the underperformance is most pronounced
during the initial year of trading (i.e. up to 12 months after the listing date),
followed by over-performance in longer periods. The most recent study
conducted by Jewartowski and Lizińska (2012), on IPOs recorded by the
Warsaw Stock Exchange from 1998 to 2008, reports that the IPOs
overperformed in the short term by 13.95% and underperformed by 22.62% in the
three years after a listing, employing the buy-and-hold strategy.
Another stream of research on long-term IPO studies relates long-term
IPO performance to other factors, such as tax-efficient compensation
[Rydqvist (1997)], global versus domestic IPOs [Wu and Kwok (2003, 2007)],
prior debt offering [Cai and Lee (2005)], block sales on short-run trading days
[Pukthuanthong-Le and Varaiya (2007)], underwriter reputation [Beatty and
Ritter (1986); Carter et al. (1998); Chemmanur and Liu (2003); Maksimovi
and Unal (1993)], government penalty regulations [Kao and Yang (2009)],
public information versus negative information [Kutsuna et al. (2009)],
preIPO earnings management [Xiong et al. (2010)], credit rating [An and Chan
(2008); Chan and Lo (2011)], market feedback [Bommel and Vermaelen
The most recent studies focus on security grading by independent
rating agencies [Deb and Marisetty (2010)], the existence of IPO-related
competitive advantages over industry competitors [Hsu et al. (2010)],
countryspecific institutional characteristics in terms of legal framework quality
[Engelen and Essen (2010)], financial market integration [Francis et al.
(2010)], risk proxies [Sahoo and Rajib (2011)], transparency in IPO
mechanisms and retail investors’ participation [Neupane and Poshakwale
(2012)], and institutional development and IPOs underpricing performance
[Robinson and Robinson (2012)].
This study tests the implication of the asymmetry hypothesis by
employing a comprehensive cross-country sample of IPOs in the MENA
region, where the countries’ economies range from developing to emerging.
The study focuses on those IPOs of non-financial services companies to
measure their performance over the short and long run. Most empirical studies
reviewed on IPOs employ either the buy-and-hold abnormal return (BHARs)
and/or cumulative abnormal returns (CAR). This study employs the same
The IPO literature to date is unclear on the MENA markets. The
purpose of this study is to evaluate the post-issue share price performance of
IPOs issued and listed on the MENA stock exchanges for the period 2001–
2015. To the best of the author’s knowledge, this region has not yet been
examined in the literature.
Sample selection and research methodology
The data set includes a comprehensive sample of MENA IPOs from
June 2001 to June 2015. The sample is identified by examining common
equity offerings reported in Bureau van Dijk (Zepher Database). The selected
companies’ daily share prices were collected from the Bloomberg Database.
The following criteria were employed:
i. Firms are non-financial service companies.
ii. IPOs are common stock only, where firms have only one class of
common stock outstanding.
iii. The IPO completion price (offer price) and date are clearly identified.
iv. Firms are listed on stock exchanges, and daily prices over the study
period are available.
Methodology used to measure the short- and long-run IPO returns
The intention was to structure the IPO and benchmark portfolio returns
using the value-weighted and equal-weighted approaches. However, because
of the unavailability of the number of outstanding common shares of some
IPOs, the equal-weighted approach alone is used. Therefore, the IPOs
shortand long-run performance are evaluated by constructing the portfolio returns
on an equal-weighted basis. The abnormal return is derived as follows:
ARit = Rit – Rbt, (
where ARit is the abnormal return on the IPO, and t is the period of investment
(in days). A positive ARit for a specific day is interpreted as a better
performance for the IPO relative to the benchmark return on the same day.
Here, Rit is the equally weighted arithmetic average of the continuously
compounded return on the IPO, and Rbt is the equally weighted arithmetic
average of the continuously compounded return on the benchmark portfolio,
which contains all listed companies other than those included in the IPO
portfolio. Consequently, the Rit derived from these benchmarks represents the
daily abnormal return on the portfolio of IPOs. The following series of IPO
abnormal returns are constructed:
Short-term: 10, 30, 90, and 120 days.
Long-term: 12, 24, 36, and 60 months.
The Rit and Rbt are the arithmetic averages of the continuously compounded
returns on the specified portfolio, computed as follows:
where n ,t is the number of firms in the portfolio and rit is the return of firm
i , which is included in that day. A security i return on day t, computed as the
natural logarithm of one plus the realized daily return, is calculated as follows:
rit = LN(r− r ) / r
t t−1 t−1 * 100, (
where t is the closing price on day t, and t−1 is the previous day’s closing
price. Furthermore, the average ARit for the entire sample in each constructed
series is also calculated to find out the overall performance of the IPO
portfolios for a specific period. The ARit is computed as the arithmetic
average of abnormal returns on all IPOs in the sample of size N, as follows:
in=1,t AR it
A positive ARit for a specific time series is interpreted as a better
performance for the IPOs compared to the benchmark return for the same
Three measures are used to gauge the short- and long-run returns of
listed companies. The first is the IPO return in excess of the market returns
(i.e. BHAR), and the second is the CAR, measured as follows:
T 2 T 2
BHAR(T1,T 2) = (1 + Rit ) − (1 + Rbt )
t=T1 t=T1 (
CAR (T1,T 2) = (Rit − Rbt )
where Rit is the daily return for firm i on day t, and Rbt is the daily return on
the benchmark firm included in the benchmark portfolio measure, on an
equally weighted basis. The holding horizon begins on the first day (T1) after
the day on which an IPO is completed. If an issuing firm is delisted, the study
truncates its BHAR and CAR on that date. Both methods, BHAR and CAR,
have been commonly and extensively used in the literature [Fama (1998);
Mitchell and Stafford (2000); Wu and Kwok (2007)].
Empirical results and discussion
A total of 365 IPOs took place over the investigated period, and were
considered as the initial sample. Then, 89 were excluded from the sample
because they were identified as investment trust and financial firms, and a
further 114 IPOs were eliminated because of data unavailability. Thus, the
final sample comprised 162 IPOs of ordinary shares by firms on the MENA
stock exchanges (i.e. those in Tunis, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, and Kuwait).
) shows the distribution of the IPOs among the MENA
countries. The table reveals there is considerable variation in the number of
IPOs among the countries involved.
By applying the BHAR and CAR approaches, abnormal returns series
are generated for the IPOs in the MENA countries over periods of 10, 30, 90,
and 120 days, representing the short term, and 1, 2, 3, and 5 years, representing
the long term (see Table (
)). The average abnormal return for countries such
as Tunis, Morocco, Egypt, and Oman show that the IPO portfolios underpriced
the benchmark portfolio over the short run, with some diversity even among
this group (the IPO portfolios in Tunis, Egypt, Oman, and Morocco are
underpriced 10 days, 2 months, 3 months, and 12 months after the listing date,
respectively). However, in the long run, the IPOs underperformed relative to
the benchmark. These findings have strong support from previous empirical
studies on developed and developing countries [Aggarwal et al. (1993); An
and Chan (2008); Chan and Lo (2011); Friesen and Swift (2009); Ibbotson
(1975); Jelic and Briston (2003); Jewartowski and Lizińska (2012); Lee et al.
(2011); Levis (1993); Lin et al. (2008); Ljungqvist (2007); Loughran and
Ritter (1995); Philip et al. (1996); Purnanandam and Swaminathan (2004);
Rajan and Servaes (1997); Ritter (1991); Ritter and Welch (2002); Wu and
Kwok (2007)]. In the case of Morocco, within the first group, the results show
positive cumulative excess returns for the firms for 12 months after the IPO
date. However, beginning in the second year after the IPO, companies
underwent significant price corrections, in general, that lasted approximately
18 months, producing negative cumulative abnormal returns for up to five
years, post-issue. The thrifts in the sample appear to go through a cycle of
over-reaction and subsequent correction after an IPO. These results are largely
consistent with those of Daniel et al. (1998), Purnanandam and Swaminathan
(2004), and Friesen and Swift (2009).
Jewartowski and Lizińska (2012) introduce two possible explanations
for positive initial abnormal returns. The first explanation for IPOs being
underpriced at the initial offering is highlighted in more detail by Ljungqvist
(2007). The second explanation could be that the IPOs are overvalued in the
early aftermarket trading because of stock market inefficiency, as suggested
by Aggarwal and Rivoli (1990). Miller (1977) discusses the divergence of
opinion hypothesis in the presence of short sale restrictions, stating that the
most optimistic investors determine the price in early aftermarket trading.
Because these restrictions characterize IPO markets, we should expect IPOs
to be overvalued in the early aftermarket. Since divergence of opinion should
decline over time, this may lead to long-run underperformance.
BHAR 0.027 - - 0.3150 0.2193 -0.0378 0.0087
7 0.098 0.0241 0.0472
SA CAR 0.027 7- 0.0269 0.2271 0.2075 0.0636 0.1353 0.0424
BHAR - - - - - -7.5855 -
0.178 0.796 2.8309 3.9500 4.3013 0.8771 0.2318
GCC CAR 8- 1- - - - -1.4193 -
0.142 0.715 1.1603 1.5627 1.1608 1.5013 2.3587
BHAR 0.151 0.063 - - - -3.3031 -
OTHE 7 7 0.1810 0.3083 1.1871 7.2296 7.3957
R CAR 0.166 0.078 - - - -2.4014 -
3 7 0.1227 0.3596 1.0707 2.8748 2.6870
BHAR - - - - - - -
0.000 0.799 3.8206 3.9944 9.0779 29.650 7.0705 1.6983
ALL CAR 0.0124 2- - - - -3.81207 -
0 0.637 1.2830 1.9223 2.2315 4.3761 5.1336
TN: Tunis; MA: Morocco; JO: Jordan; EG: Egypt; KW: Kuwait; QA: Qatar; BH: Bahrain;
OM: Oman; AE: the UAE; SA: Saudi Arabia; GCC: Gulf countries; OTH: TN, MA, JO, and
EG; ALL: all MENA countries included in the study. The second group of countries
includes Jordan, Qatar, and Bahrain, where the IPO portfolios overpriced (underperformed)
the benchmark portfolio. However, such overpricing is more severe and significant in the
long run than it is in the short run. Seshadev and Prabina (2010) document that IPOs are
underpriced by 46.55 per cent up to 12 months after the listing date, but report long-run
returns up to 36 months measured using WR and BHAR, adjusted using the market index. In
a recent study conducted by Jewartowski and Lizińska (2012), the results show that the IPOs
over-performed by 13.95% in the short term, and underperformed by 22.62% in the three
years after the listing date, employing the buy-and-hold strategy.
The last group of countries includes Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi
Arabia, where IPO portfolios experience cyclical price corrections from
positive to negative, and vice versa, relative to the fundamental common stock
value over time, after the offering date. Zychowics (2003) documents a similar
scenario, showing that IPO portfolio performance fluctuated over the first day,
one year, and two years after the listing date, reporting values of 54.45%,
4.11%, and -24.44%, respectively.
In conclusion, the IPO portfolios in all the covered MENA countries
are going through a process of price correction around the fundamental
common stock values, regardless of whether the portfolios have
overperformed or underperformed relative to the benchmark portfolios in the short
or long run. Friesen and Swift (2009) argue that negative long-run returns
relative to the first-day closing price indicate investor overreaction on the
initial trading day. On the other hand, if investors initially under-react to
information, long-term returns will be positive when measured relative to the
first closing price. Such results are consistent with those of the empirical study
by Purnanandam and Swaminathan (2004).
Chan and Lo (2011) examine the impact of credit ratings on IPO
longterm performance using a sample of 3941 IPOs and 130 firms with credit
ratings over the period 1986–2004. Their overall findings are consistent with
the asymmetry hypothesis, because reducing information asymmetry reduces
risk premiums and price discounts. Hence, improving disclosure increases the
speed of price discovery and improves market efficiency. Similar findings are
reported in the empirical study of Deb and Marisetty (2010). The findings in
this study appear to be consistent with the asymmetry hypothesis in an
environment characterized by a lack of transparency and timely disclosure.
As argued in the literature, negative long-run returns can be attributed
to investor overreaction only if we know that the IPO was not initially
overvalued. The study conducted by Purnanandam and Swaminathan (2004)
suggests that IPOs are actually overvalued at issue by as much as 50 per cent.
In light of these statistics, an investor cannot attribute negative long-run
returns to investors’ post-IPO overreaction, because the negative returns may
simply result from initial overpricing. Their results suggest that the widely
documented long-term IPO underperformance may be attributable to both an
initial overvaluation of the offering, followed by further post-issue price
increases that eventually reverse over the long run. This evidence is interpreted
as being consistent with investors’ initial reactions to information, followed
by subsequent overreactions and a long-term mean-reversion (i.e. long-term
underperformance). Their interpretation is consistent with the empirical
predictions of Daniel et al. (1998).
The results are consistent with those of previous studies showing that
IPO portfolios go through cycles of corrections in the short and long term after
a listing. The significance of such corrections around the fair value depends
on the level of overreaction/under-reaction that the stock went through after
the IPO completion date (An and Chan (2008); Beatty and Ritter (1986); Chan
and Lo (2011)]. As is identified clearly in previous empirical studies on the
level of efficiency in the MENA stock markets in terms of the lack of
information transparency, such results confirm that the MENA stock
exchanges suffer from significant information efficiency problems.
The literature is extensive, and indicates that IPOs tend to be
underpriced in the short run, and then underperform relative to the benchmark
in the long run. This study examines the short- and long-term IPO returns of
companies located in the MENA region. It utilizes a comprehensive data set
and provides additional evidence of post-listing returns for IPO companies in
a region that lacks regulation, transparency, and international standards (i.e.
financial reporting and corporate governance standards).
On the basis of the empirical findings, it is suggested that short-term
and long-term investors should exercise caution when analysing IPO firms in
the MENA region, because IPO performance is country-dependent.
Furthermore, over-performing IPOs in the short-run could be manipulated by
companies to affect their market value by underpricing their publicly offered
stocks. Such over-performance (or underpricing) will vanish in the long-run,
making the process a zero-sum game as soon as the stock market realizes the
common stock fundamental value. Two approaches were employed:
buy-andhold abnormal return (BHARs) and cumulative abnormal returns (CAR).
These all confirmed that IPO performance is mixed among the MENA
countries, which were classified into three groups. The first group comprises
countries whose IPOs out-perform the benchmark portfolio in the short run,
but underperform in the long run. The second group comprises countries
whose IPOs underperform for 60 months after a listing date, where such
underperformance becomes more significant over the long run in comparison
to that in the short run. The third group comprises countries whose IPOs
experience cyclical performance changes, from over-performance to
underperformance, and vice versa. Overall, IPOs go through cyclical price
corrections around the fundamental value. These findings are supported by the
These findings suggest important implications by providing new
knowledge for professionals and academics on the performance of IPOs in the
MENA region, therefore, providing additional evidence of post-listing returns
for IPO companies. Consequently, these results help enhance decisions on
investments in IPOs, as well as those on the holding period of such
investments, based on the most comprehensive data set investigated to date.
Furthermore, the IPO performance among MENA countries over the long term
is important for asset allocation and portfolio diversification.
1. Aggarwal , R. , R. Leal and L. Hernandez , 1993 , The aftermarket performance of initial public offerings in Latin America , Financial Management, 22 , pp. 42 - 53 .
2. Aggarwal , S., C.L. Liu and S.G. Rhee , 2008 , Investor demand for IOPs and aftermarket performance: Evidence from the Hong Kong stock market , Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money , 18, pp. 176 - 190 .
3. Aggarwal , R. , P. Rivoli , 1990 , Fads in the initial public offering market? , Financial Management , 19 , pp. 45 - 57 .
4. Alvarez , S. and V. Gonzalez , 2005 , Long-run performance of initial public offering in the Spanish capital market , Journal of Business Finance & Accounting , 32, pp. 325 - 350 .
5. An , H. and K.C. Chan , 2008 . Credit ratings and IPO pricings , Journal of Applied Corporate Finance , 14 , pp. 584 - 595 .
6. Aussenegg , W. , 2000 , Privatization versus private sector initial public offerings in Poland , Multinational Finance Journal, 4 , pp. 69 - 99 .
7. Baron , D.P. and B.P. Holmstrom , 1980 , The investment banking contract for new issues under asymmetric information: Delegation and the incentive problem , Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , 4 , 851 .
8. Beatty , R.R. and J.R. Ritter , 1986 , Investment banking, reputation, and the underpricing of initial public offerings , Journal of Financial Economics , 15 , pp. 213 - 232 .
9. Beatty , R.P. and E.J. Zajac , 1994 , Managerial incentives, monitoring, and risk bearing: a study of executive compensation, ownership, and board structure in initial public offerings , Administrative Science Quarterly , 39 , pp. 315 - 335 .
10. Booth , J.R. and L. Chua , 1996 , Ownership dispersion, costly information, and IPO underpricing , Journal of Financial Economics , 41 , pp. 291 - 310 .
11. Brau , J.C. and S.E. Fawcett , 2006 , Initial public offerings: An analysis of theory and practice , The Journal of Finance , 61 , pp. 399 - 436 .
12. Cai , N. and H.W. Lee , 2005 , The long-run post-offer performance of subsequent IPOs . Working paper, The University of MichiganDearborn.
13. Carter , R.B., F.H. Dark and A.K. Singh , 1998 , Underwriter reputation, initial returns, and the long run performance of initial public offering stocks , The Journal of Finance , 53 , pp. 285 - 311 .
14. Chan , K. and Y. Lo , 2011 , Credit ratings and long-term IPO performance , Journal of Economics and Finance , 35 , pp. 473 - 483 .
15. Chemmanur , T.J. and H. Liu , 2003 , How should a firm go public? A dynamic model of the choice between fixed-price offerings and auctions in IPOs and privatizations , Working paper, Boston College.
16. Daniel , K. , D. Hirshleifer , and A. Subrahmanyam , 1998 , Investor psychology and security market under- and overreactions , The Journal of Finance , 53 , pp. 1839 - 1885 .
17. Datar , V. and D.Z. Mao , 2006 , Deep underpricing of China's IPOs: Sources and implications , International Journal of Financial Services Management , 1 , pp. 345 - 362 .
18. Dawson , S. , 1987 , Secondary stock market performance of initial public offers, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia: 1978 - 1984 , Journal of Business Finance & Accounting , 14, pp. 65 - 76 .
19. Deb , S.S. and V.B. Marisetty , 2010 , Information content of IPO grading , Journal of Banking & Finance , 34, pp. 2294 - 2305 .
20. Espenlaub , S. , A. Gregory , I. Tonks , 2000 , Re-assessing the long-term underperformance of UK initial public offerings , European Financial Management , 6 , pp. 319 - 342 .
21. Fama , E.F. , 1998 , Market efficiency, long-term returns, and behavioural finance , Journal of Financial Economics , 49 , pp. 283 - 306 .
22. Francis , B. , I. Hasan, J. Lothian and X. Sun , 2010 , The signalling hypothesis revisited: evidence from foreign IPOs , Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , 45 , pp. 81 - 106 .
23. Friesen , G. and C. Swift , 2009 , Overreaction in the thrift IPO aftermarket , Journal of Banking & Finance , 33, pp. 1285 - 1298 .
24. Ghosh , S. , 2005 , Underpricing of initial public offerings: The Indian experience , Emerging Markets Finance and Trade , 14 , pp. 45 - 57 .
25. Grinblatt , R. and C. Hwang , 1989 , Signalling and the pricing of new issues , The Journal of Finance , 45 , pp. 393 - 420 .
26. Hensler , D.A. , 1995 , Litigation cost and underpricing of initial public offerings , Managerial and Decision Economics , 16 , pp. 111 - 128 .
27. Hughes , P. and A.A. Thakor , 1992 , Litigation risk, intermediation, and the underpricing of initial public offerings , The Review of Financial Studies , 54 , pp. 709 - 742 .
28. Ibbotson , R.G. , 1975 , Price performance of common stock new issues , Journal of Financial Economics , 2 , pp. 235 - 272 .
29. Jaskiewicz , P. , V.M. Gonzalez , S. Menendez and D. Schierech , 2005 , Long-run IPO performance analysis of German and Spanish familyowned businesses , Family Business Review , 18 , pp. 179 - 2002 .
30. Jelic , R. and R. Briston , 2003 , Privatization initial public offerings: The Polish experience , European Financial Management , 9 , pp. 457 - 484 .
31. Jenkinson , T.J. and A. Ljungqvist , 1996 , Going Public: Theory and Evidence on how Companies Raise Equity Finance , Oxford University Press, Oxford.
32. Jewartowski , T. and J. Lizińska , 2012 , Short- and long-term performance of Polish IPOs . Emerging Markets Finance and Trade , 48 , 59 - 75 .
33. Keloharju , M. , 1993 , The winner's curse, legal liability, and the longrun price performance of initial public offerings in Finland , Journal of Financial Economics , 34 , 251 - 277 .
34. Kutsuna , K. , J. Smith and R. Smith , R. , 2009 , Public information, IPO price formation, and long-run returns: Japanese evidence , The Journal of Finance , LXIV, 505 - 545 .
35. Lee , J.S. , C.T. Kuo and P.H. Yen , 2011 , Market states and initial returns: Evidence from Taiwanese IPOs , Emerging Markets Finance and Trade , 47 , 6 - 20 .
36. Leland , H.E. and D.H. Pyle , 1977 , Information asymmetries, financial structure, and financial intermediaries , The Journal of Finance , 32 , 317 - 387 .
37. Levis , M. , 1993 , the long-run performance of initial public offerings: The UK experience 1980 -1988, Financial Management, 22 , 28 - 41 .
38. Lin , C.Y. , H.T. Lee and C.L. Lee , 2008 , one more step, some more performance? An empirical study on initial public offerings in the Taiwan emerging stock market , Emerging Markets Finance and Trade , 44 , 6 - 18 .
39. Ljungqvist , A.P. , 1997 , pricing initial public offerings: Further evidence from Germany , European Economic Review , 41 , 1309 - 1320 .
40. Ljungqvist , A.P. , 2007 , IPO Underpricing : A Survey, Handbook of Corporate Finance: Empirical Corporate Finance , North-Holland, 378 - 422 .
41. Ljungqvist , A.P. , T.J. Jenkinson , W.J. Wilhelm , 2003 , Global integration in primary equity markets: The role of U.S. banks and U.S. investors , The Review of Financial Studies , 16 , 63 - 99 .
42. Loughran , T. , R.R. Jay and R. Kristian , 1994 , Initial public offerings: International insights, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal , 2 , 165 - 199 .
43. Loughran , T. and J.R. Ritter , 1995 , the new issues puzzle , The Journal of Finance , 50 , 23 - 51 .
44. Loughran , T. and J.R. Ritter , 2002 , Why do not issuers get upset about leaving money on the table in IPOs? The Review of Financial Studies , 15 , 413 - 444 .
45. Lyn , E.O. and E.L. Zychowicz , 2003 , the performance of new equity offerings in Hungary and Poland , Global Finance Journal , 14 , 181 - 195 .
46. Maksimovi , V. and H. Unal , 1993 , Issue size choice and underpricing in thrift mutual-to-stock conversions , The Journal of Finance , 48 , 1659 - 1692 .
47. Mitchell, M.L. and E. Stafford , 2000 , Managerial decisions and longterm stock price performance , The Journal of Business , 73 , 287 - 329 .
48. Neupane , S. and S. Poshakwale , 2012 , Transparency in IPO mechanism: Retail investors' participation, IPO pricing and returns , Journal of Banking & Finance 36 , 2064 - 2076 .
49. Omran , M. , 2005 , Underpricing and long-run performance of share issue privatization in the Egyptian stock market , The Journal of Financial Services Research , 28 , 215 - 234 .
50. Philip , J.L. , L.T. Stephen and S.W. Terry , 1996 , Australian IPO pricing in the short and long run , Journal of Banking & Finance , 20 , 1189 - 1210 .
51. Pukthuanthong-Le , K. and N. Varaiya , 2007 , IPO pricing, block sales, and long-term performance , Financial Review , 42 , 319 - 348 .
52. Purnanandam , A. and B. Swaminathan , 2004 , Are IPOs really underpriced? The Review of Financial Studies , 17 , 811 - 848 .
53. Rajan , R. and H. Servaes , 1997 , Analyst following of initial public offerings , The Journal of Finance , 52 , 507 - 529 .
54. Ritter , J.R. , 1991 , the long-run performance of initial public offerings , The Journal of Finance , 46 , 3 - 27 .
55. Ritter , J.R. and I. Welch , 2002 , A review of IPO activity, pricing, and allocations , The Journal of Finance , 57 , 1795 - 1828 .
56. Robinson , M. and R. Robinson , 2012 , Dutch-auction IPOs: institutional development and underpricing performance , Journal of Economics and Finance , 36 , 521 - 554 .
57. Rock , K. , 1986 , Why new issues are underpriced , Journal of Financial Economics , 15 , 187 - 212 .
58. Ruud , J.R. , 1993 , Underwriter price support and the IPO underpricing puzzle , Journal of Financial Economics , 34 , 135 - 152 .
59. Schenone , C. , 2004 , the effect of banking relationships on the firm's IPO underpricing , The Journal of Finance , 59 , 2903 - 2958 .
60. Schultz , P. , 2003 , Pseudo market timing and the long-run underperformance of IPOs , The Journal of Finance , 58 , 483 - 518 .
61. Seshadev , S. and R. Prabina , 2010 , After market pricing performance of initial public offerings (IPOs): Indian IPO market 2002-2006 . VIKALPA 35, 27 - 43 .
62. Sohail , M. and M. Nasr , 2007 , Performance of initial public offerings in Pakistan , International Review of Business Research Papers , 3 , 420 - 441 .
63. Tomasz , J. and L. Joanna 2012 , Short- and long-term performance of Polish IPOs , Emerging Markets Finance and Trade , 48 , 59 - 75 .
64. Welch , I. , 1989 , Seasoned offerings, imitation costs, and the underpricing of initial public offering , The Journal of Finance , 44 , 421 - 449 .
65. Wu , C. and C. Kwok , 2003 , the pricing of global and domestic initial public offerings by US companies , Journal of Banking & Finance , 27 , 1167 - 1184 .