CHAPTER-VI PRICING OF PUBLIC ISSUES
Transcript of CHAPTER-VI PRICING OF PUBLIC ISSUES
144
CHAPTER-VI
PRICING OF PUBLIC ISSUES
Pricing of public issues is the most contentious issue in the management of
public issues. In case of follow-on public offerings, the pricing of securities is known
to some extent from the prices quoted on the floor of the stock exchange. However, in
case of Initial Public Offerings (IPOs), the determination of offer price is more
complicated. The disclosures made in the offer documents are new to the investors
and the performance of the company is yet to be tested in the secondary market. The
role of the lead merchant banker acting as issue managers, thus, becomes more
important with respect to pricing of IPOs.
Lead merchant bankers play a decisive role in the determination of issue price
for public issues. Issue price of securities is determined by the issuing companies in
consultation with the merchant bankers, called issue managers. It is determined in the
light of legal and regulatory framework of a country. Till 1992, pricing of public
issues were regulated by Capital Issue (Control) Act, 1947 in the country. Now, with
the repeal of this Act, the issue price of securities is determined by the relevant
provision of Companies Act, 1956 and Securities and Exchange Board of India
(SEBI) Act, 1992.
During the era of Controller of Capital Issues (CCI), the task of issue
managers regarding determination of issue price of securities was limited, as the issue
price was strictly determined on the basis of formula provided by CCI. After the
liberalization of Indian economy in 1992, the concept of free pricing of public issues
was introduced. The issuing companies were made free to determine the issue price of
their securities. As the issuers are not well versed about the prevailing market
conditions, they are more dependent upon lead merchant bankers to determine the
issue price of shares. So, pricing of public issues has become a complex and
challenging job for merchant bankers which demands the best skill and expertise.
Disclosure and Investors Protection (DIP) Guidelines issued by SEBI provide
for the determination of issue price by issuer in consultation with the lead merchant
bankers. The issue price is based on certain parameters at the micro and macro level.
At the company level, issue price is determined on the basis of quantitative factors
like earning per share, price earnings ratio, net worth, net asset value, average return
145
on net worth, capital structure and track record of dividend payments by the company.
The qualitative factors at micro level which affect the determination of issue price
include the standing of the company, background of the promoters, their business
experience, market share of their product etc. Besides this, the major determinants of
issue price at macro level include the present condition of secondary market, market
interest rate, national and global economic conditions, and the rate of growth of GDP
and industrial production.
Fairness of issue price determined by the issuer in consultation with the lead
merchant banker is tested at the time when equity shares are listed on the recognized
stock exchange. It is measured by the degree of under pricing/overpricing from the
company’s point of view. Investors judge the fairness of issue price on the basis of
percentage of positive\negative return obtained on and after the listing day.
6.1 Methods of Pricing of Public Issues Various policies and methods used for pricing of equity issues followed during
the pre and post reforms periods are explained below:
6.1.1 Pricing Regulations during Pre Reforms Era Raising of capital by companies in India from securities market was free from
all controls until the Second World War. During the Second World War, the colonial
Government needed to raise funds in order to support the war efforts. Thus, under the
Defence of India Rules, it put restrictions requiring the issuer to obtain the prior
permission of the Govt. before going to the public. This was continued even after
independence and was formally incorporated in the Capital Issues (Control) Act,
1947.
The office of Controller of Capital Issues (CCI) in the Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, administered the Act. Under the Act, Central Government’s
permission was required with regard to (i) the timing of the issue (ii) the size of the
issue and (iii) the price at which securities were to be issued.
6.1.2 CCI Formula for Valuation of Equity Shares
Till mid 1992, Indian capital market was under the direct control of Central
Govt. through CCI. The new companies were allowed to issue shares at the face value
only and the existing companies with sound financial structure could issue shares at
premium. There were strict norms for the issue of rights shares and bonus shares. For
146
the pricing of equity issues by unlisted and listed companies, CCI provided a formula
for the ‘fair value’ of equity shares. This formula was based on the:
(i) Net Asset value ( NAV),
(ii) Profit Earning Capacity Value ( PECV), and
(iii) Market Value (MV), in case of listed companies.
The NAV, as at the latest audited balance sheet date was calculated on the
basis of the total assets of the company and deducting there from all debts, dues,
borrowings and liabilities including current and likely contingent liabilities and
preference capital, if any. This NAV calculated from the assets side of the balance
sheet in the above manner was cross checked with equity capital plus free reserves &
surpluses, less the likely contingent liabilities.
The Price Earning Capacity Value (PECV) was calculated by capitalizing the
average of the after tax profits at the following rates:
(i) 15% in the case of manufacturing companies.
(ii) 20% in the case of trading companies, and
(iii) 17.5 % in the case of ‘Intermediate companies’, that is to say, companies
whose turnover from trading activities was more than 40% but less than 60%
of their total turnover.
In case of listed companies, the market price of equity shares will be the
guiding force for determining the issue price of equity shares to be issued. In such
cases, the market price was taken cognizance of in the following manner:
(i) The average market price was determined taking into account the stock market
quotations in the preceding three years( after making appropriate adjustments
for bonus issues and dividend payments as under:
(a) The high and low of the preceding two years: and
(b) The high and low of each month in the preceding 12 months.
The conservative CCI formula, which used to calculate the ‘fair value’ on the
basis of accounting information, was critised on a number of counts. This often
resulted in extreme under pricing and heavy over subscription. The heavy under
pricing deterred the companies from going to public. Consequently, very few issuers
took initiative to issue equity shares to the public. Debt played a major role in
financing the projects and the primary equity market could not develop significantly.
The Capital Issues (Control) Act, 1947 and CCI was repealed in May 1992.
With this, Government’s control over issue of capital, pricing of the issues, fixing the
147
premium and rates of interest on debentures etc. ceased and the market was allowed to
allocate resources on competitive basis.
6.1.3 Pricing Methods of Public Issues during Post Reforms Period In 1991, Government of India ushered in reforms in the area of industrial and
trade policy. Liberalisation and privatization of economy required large funds to be
channelized from savings into investment. In 1992, Government of India decided to
have a separate statutory authority to regulate the Indian capital market. So, Securities
and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) Act was passed in Parliament and SEBI was
made a statutory authority.
After repeal of CCI, corporates were given freedom in terms of price, size and
timing of their public issues. SEBI guidelines have provided that the issuer company
in consultation with lead merchant banker shall decide the price. There is no price
formula stipulated by SEBI and it does not play any role in price fixation. However,
price of public issue of equity is to be determined on the basis of following points.1
a. EPS, pre-issue, for the last three years (as adjusted for changers in capital).
b. P/E pre-issue.
c. Average return on net-worth in the last three years.
d. Net Asset Value per share based on last balance sheet.
e. Comparison of all accounting ratios of the issuer company as mentioned
above with the industry average and with the accounting ratios of the peer
group.
f. The accounting ratios disclosed in the offer document shall be calculated after
giving effect to the consequent increase of capital on account of compulsory
conventions outstanding as well as on the assumption that the option
outstanding , if any, to subscribe for additional capital shall be exercised.
6.1.4 SEBI Guidelines for Pricing of Issues
SEBI (Disclosure and Investor Protection) Guidelines, 2000 as amended from
time to time have provided guidelines for the pricing of public as well as rights issues
of equity shares or any security convertible at later date into equity shares in the
following manner:
The companies (both listed and unlisted) , including the eligible infrastructure
companies, have the freedom to price their equity shares or any security convertible 1. DIP Guidelines, 2000, updated up to August 20, 2009.
148
into equity in public or rights issues as the case may be. The banks (both public and
private) can also freely price their shares subject to the approval by the Reserve Bank
of India. A company (listed or unlisted) may issue shares to applicants in the firm
allotment category at a different price from the one at which the net offer to the public
is made. That is, at a higher price than at which the securities are offered to the public.
However, the difference between the prices should not be more than 10% of the price
at which securities are offered to other categories of public.
Similarly SEBI guidelines provide that the company is free to determine the
denomination of shares for public/ rights issues and to change the standard
denomination. In case of initial public offerings by unlisted companies, if the issue
price is Rs. 500 or more, the issuer company shall have the discretion to fix the face
value below Rs. 10 per share, subject to the condition that the face value shall in no
case be less than Rs. 1 per share. However, in case the issue price is less than Rs. 500
per share, the face value shall be Rs 10 per share.
6.1.4 Pricing Methods of Equity Shares There are two methods which have been followed by the issuer companies for
the determination of issue price of public issues of equity shares in India. These are
Fixed Price method and Book Building method as discussed below:-
(i) Fixed Price Method
Under this method, price at which equity shares are to be issued to the public
is pre determined by the issuer company in consultation with the lead merchant
banker. Issue price is determined subject to compliance of the eligibility and
disclosure norms of SEBI and the relevant provisions of Companies Act, 1956. Issue
price is determined before the issue opens for subscription. The price at which the
securities are offered/ allotted is known in advance to the investors. The company also
knows in advance about the total funds which can be raised from the market.
Response of public to the issue is known by the company only after closure of the
issue.
After the introduction of fixed price method under free pricing policy in 1992,
there has been a sharp increase in the number of public and rights issues from the
primary market. As a result, the number of public issues rose sharply from 196 with
Rs. 1,711.36 crore in 1991-92 to 528 in 1992-93 for Rs. 6,060.83 crore and further to
1,343 public issues with Rs. 13,311.60 crore in 1994-95. The annual number of public
149
issues has been the highest at1428 raising an amount of Rs. 11,822.18 crore in 1995-
96. Similarly amount raised through rights issues was Rs. 12,629.81 crore from 488
issues in 1992-93 and Rs. 9,306.22 crore from 384 issues in 1993-94.
However, the issuer companies and the lead merchant bankers failed to justify
their issue price when the shares were traded on the stock exchange. The overpricing
of public issues following the introduction of free pricing and fixed price method and
decline in the market prices of those issues had an adverse effect on the capital
market. As per the Prime Database study, out of 3872 new issues listed during the
period of four years from April 1, 1992 to March 1996, 2987 issues were traded
below offer price and 205 issues were not traded at all while 118 issuing companies
even vanished. Only 562 issues were traded in the secondary market above the offer
price.
So, in fixed price method, issuing companies were the net gainers during the
public issue boom period. It resulted in the lack of investors’ confidence in the
market. A number of defects in fixed price method like delay in the IPO process, lack
of flexibility, risk of failure due to non receipt of minimum subscription etc. were
found to be limiting the development of capital market in the country. Although under
fixed method, the issuer is free to determine the offer price, but market forces of
demand and supply are not allowed to determine the offer price of equity shares under
this method. A need, therefore, was felt by SEBI to innovate in the pricing method of
public issues which led to the introduction of book building method.
(ii) Book Building Method
Book building is a method of price discovery. In this method, offer price of
securities is determined on the basis of real demand for the shares at various price
levels in the market.
As defined by SEBI guidelines, 1995, “book building is a process undertaken
by which a demand for the securities proposed to be issued by a body corporate is
elicited and built up and the price for such securities is assessed for the determination
of the quantum of such securities to be issued by means of a notice, circular,
advertisement, document or information memoranda of offer document.”
In book building method, the final issue price is not known in advance. Only a
price band is determined and made public before opening of the bidding process. The
spread of price between floor price and cap in the price band should not be more than
20%. It means that the cap should not be more than 120% of the floor price. The
150
issuer company appoints a merchant banker as book runner lead manager (BRLM),
who may be assisted by other co- managers and by a team of syndicate members
acting as underwriters to the issue. The BRLM sends copies of Red Herring
Prospectus to the Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs), large Investors, SEBI
registered Foreign Institutional Investors (FIIs) and to the syndicate members.
BRLM also appoints brokers of the stock exchanges, called bidding centres.
They accept the bids and application forms from the investors. These bidding centres
place the order of bidders with the company through BRLM. They are liable for any
default, if any, made by their clients, who have applied through them. Brokers/
Syndicate members collect money from clients/ investors. Money received by them at
the time of accepting bids is called margin money. Bids can be made through on-line
and transparent system of National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange
depending upon the agreement of the issuer with the stock exchange(s). An issue
through book building system remains open for 3 to 7 working days. In case of
revision of price band, it can be extended by 3 days. Rights issue remains open for at
least 30 days and not more than 60 days.
The BRLM, on receipt of the feedback from the syndicate members about the
bid price and the quantity of shares applied builds up an order book showing the
demand for the shares of the company at various prices. The syndicate members must
also maintain a record book for the orders received from institutional investors for
subscription to the issue out of placement portion.
On the completion of book building process, the final price is determined by
Issuer Company in consultation with the BRLM. Then the BRLM files final offer
document with the Registrar of Companies before allotment of shares. The final offer
document mentions the issue size and the offer price discovered through book
building process.
Book building method is a flexible method for the issuing company as well as
the bidders. The issuing company has the option to withdraw the offer from the
market if the demand for the securities does not exist. The bidders can revise their
bids before the closing of bidding process and offer different quantities at different
prices.
In Indian primary capital market, book building process was introduced in
1995 on the recommendations of an expert committee appointed by SEBI under the
151
Chairmanship of Y.H.Malegam to review the existing disclosure requirements in offer
documents and the basis of pricing the issue.
Initially, book building process was permitted for placement portion of the
issue and for the issues exceeding Rs. 100 crores. But no issuer company used this
process for pricing their issues till the end of 1998 due to stringent entry norms of
SEBI and the bearish conditions in the Indian capital market. In 1998-99, SEBI
reduced the issue size limit of Rs. 100 crore to 25 crore in order to encourage the use
of this method. On the suggestions of market intermediaries, SEBI issued modified
guidelines during the year 1999-2000, whereby the issuer company was given the
option to book build either 90% of the net public offer or 75% of the net public offer.
The balance of the issue was allowed to be offered to the public at fixed price,
determined through book building process. In 1999-2000, an IT company, Hughes
Software Systems Ltd. was the first company to use book building process for its
initial public issue of equity shares amounting to Rs.275.63 crore. The issue was
oversubscribed by 26 times and its books were built at the upper ceiling of the price.
In all, five IT companies brought their IPOs through this route in 1999-2000. During
the year 2000-01, both unlisted and listed companies were allowed to make public
offerings through book building route after satisfying the eligibility norms set by
SEBI. These norms required pre issue net worth of not less than one crore in three out
of five years and a track record of distributing profits for at least 3 out of preceding 5
years; and issue size not exceeding 5 times its pre issue net worth for unlisted
companies and not more than 5 times of pre issue net worth in case of listed
companies.
The minimum issue size limit of Rs. 25 crore was removed by SEBI in 2001 in
order to broaden the base of book building facility. Further, in August 2003, the new
criterion of net tangible assets was added besides appraisal route as an alternative to
the mandatory book building route. The new guidelines require that the issuer
company should have net tangible assets of at least 3 crore for 3 full years, of which
not more than 50% should be held in monetary assets. The SEBI has amended these
guidelines from time to time in order to make the price discovery process more
realistic.
Types of Book Building Process: Three types of options have been provided by
SEBI to the issuer companies under book building. These options are as follows:
152
(a) 75% Book Building, 25% Fixed Price Offer: In this type of offer, 75% of
the issue is offered to institutional investors who participated in the bidding
process. Balance 25% is offered to the public through prospectus and shall be
reserved for allocation to individual investors who had not participated in the
bidding process. The price for 25% offer is the price as determined through
book building. First, the book building portion remains open for 3 to 7 days
and on discovery of issue price after the completion of book building process,
the fixed price portion opens for subscription.
(b) 90% Book Building, 10% Fixed Price Offer: Here issuer company offers
90% of the issue through book building and the balance 10% through fixed
price offer at a price discovered through book building. This option was
available to the issuers during 1999-2000 and 2000-01 and later on
discontinued by SEBI.
(c) 100% Book Building Offer: In this type of offer, the whole issue is offered
through book building route. Issue opens and closes on the same dates for all
categories of investors. Different categories of bidders bid at the point of
time. This type of issue takes minimum number of days for the completion of
the process of issue and allotment of shares. Generally, the issue is listed on a
Recognised Stock Exchange after 3 weeks from the closure of the issue (2
weeks for completion of allotment +1 week for completion of listing
formalities).
Allocation/ Allotment Procedure in Book Building Issues In case of 100% one stage book building, the allocation to Retail Individual
Investors (RIIs), Non Institutional Investors (NIIs) and Qualified Institutional Buyers
(QIBs) is made in the ratio of 35:15:50 respectively. Retail Individual Investor (RII)
means an individual who offers for securities up to the value of Rs.2,00,000 and Non
Institutional Investor means an individual, who applies for securities for value
exceeding Rs.2,00,000 ( limit revised by SEBI from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 vide
circular no. SEBI/CFD/DIL/DIP/15/2005/29/3 dated March 29th 2005. In SEBI Board
meeting held on October 25, 2010 (PR No. 231/2010), this limit was further increased
to Rs. 2,00,000).
In case the book built issue is made pursuant to the requirement of mandatory
allocation of 60% to QIBs in terms of Rule 19(2) (b) of Securities Contract
153
(Regulation) Rules (in case of big issues where issue size exceeds five times pre-issue
net worth of the issuer company), then allocation to RIIs, NIIs and QIBs is made in
the ratio of 30:10:60 respectively. When book building issue is made on ‘75% Book
Building and 25% fixed Price’ basis, the allotment to RIIs, NIIs and QIBs is made in
the ratio of 25:25:50 respectively. In case of 90% book built issues, a minimum of
15% of the offer size was reserved for individual investors who made bids through the
syndicate members and the balance of book built portion was available for allocation
to investors other than retail investors. The 10% fixed price portion was allotted to
individual investors who could not participate in book building process. All applicants
are allotted shares on a proportionate basis within their respective investor category.
Earlier, the applicants of QIBs category were allotted shares on discretionary basis
which was later on discontinued by SEBI in September, 2005.
6.2 Public Issues of Equity through Fixed Price and Book Building Method
Book building method of price discovery was introduced mainly to overcome
the limitations of price determination through fixed price method. Various studies on
the IPO pricing and on the extent of under pricing/overpricing of equity issues from
1992-93 to 1996-97 showed that the issuer companies in consultation with the lead
merchant bankers was not able to determine the fair price of equity issues, especially
in case of IPOs. So, after the introduction of book building process by Hughes
Software Systems Ltd. in 1999-2000 for their IPO of equity, book building route has
become the choice of a large number of companies for their issues of large size.
Table 6.1 shows the number and amount of public issues of equity floated
through fixed price method and book building method.
As depicted in the table, a total of 326 equity issues were floated though
fixed price method for an aggregate amount of Rs. 7781 crore (5.44%) during the
period of study. On the other hand, 292 issuer companies involving an aggregate
amount of Rs. 1,41,742 crore (94.56%), preferred book building route for price
discovery. However, fixed price method was most common till 2000-01, when equity
issues were of comparatively small size and book building route was in its
introductory stage. After 2002-03, trend shifted to book building route and majority of
equity issues during 2005-06 (71 out of 102) and 2006-07 (71 out of 85) were through
book building route.
154
Table 6.1
Fixed Price and Book Building Equity Issues (Rs. in crore)
Year Fixed Price equity Issues Book Building Issues % of amount No. Amount
Rs. Average
Size Rs.
No. Amount Rs
Average Size Rs.
FP BB
1997-98 58 1,132 19.51 - - - 100 - 1998-99 22 504 22.91 - - - 100 - 1999-00 50 1,475 29.5 5 1,500 300 49.6 50.4 2000-01 102 1,043 10.23 13 1,441 480.33 42 58 2001-02 05 248 49.6 01 834 834 23 77 2002-03 04 784 196 02 255 127.5 75 25 2003-04 14 1,045 74.64 15 16,776 1,118.4 06 94 2004-05 10 379 37.9 19 21,053 1,108.05 02 98 2005-06 31 787 25.39 71 22,889 322.38 03 97 2006-07 14 384 27.43 71 24,609 346.6 02 98 2007-08 12 294 24.5 78 51,925 665.71 01 99 2008-09 04 74 18.5 17 1,960 115.29 04 96
Total 326 8,149 25.0 292 1,41,742 485.42 5.44 94.56 Source:- Compiled from offer documents of companies, Prime Database, SEBI
Website. From the analysis of average size of issue, it comes to light that small
companies preferred fixed price method and the issuer companies with large issue size
floated their issues through book building method. Average size of issues floated
though fixed price method varied from Rs. 10.23 crore in 2000-01 to Rs. 196 crore in
2002-03. But, in case of book building method, its range varied much higher from Rs.
127.5 crore in 2002-2003 to Rs. 1118.40 core during the year 2003-04. All the mega
equity issues (size above Rs. 300 crore) and the offer for sale by Government of India
for their corporations were through book building route. This is also verified from the
percentage of amount of issues raised through both the methods. An aggregate of
94.56% of the total amount of equity was raised through book building method during
the period under review. Thus, the amount raised through fixed price method was
merely 5.44%. From 2003-04 onward, amount raised through book building route was
above 90% in each year, with the maximum of 99% during 2007-08.
6.3 IPOs Listed with NSE During the period from 1997-98 to 2006-07, a total of 441 IPOs of equity
share were floated in the primary market in India. Out of this, a total of 234 IPOs
155
were listed at National Stock Exchange (NSE). Table 6.2 presents the year wise total
number of IPOs and the IPOs listed at NSE.
Table 6.2
Total IPOs and IPOs Listed with NSE
Source: - Offer documents, Prime Database, SEBI website.
The table shows that the proportion of total IPOs getting listed at NSE has
been growing over the period. In 1997-98, only 9 (17.65%) IPOs out of total 51 issues
were listed with NSE. Similarly only 21 (18.42%) issuer companies preferred to list
their IPOs with NSE out of total 114 in 2000-01. This was the period, when large
number of small companies floated their equity issues and they could not meet the
criteria of NSE listing with respect to size of the issue. So they preferred regional
stock exchanges for listing. However, with the dominance of NSE in the secondary
market in India and the companies coming up with equity issues of large size, NSE
has become the final destination for majority of companies for listing of shares from
2002-03 onwards.
6.4 Number of IPOs Managed by Individual Lead Merchant Bankers
NSE listed initial public offerings of equity have been managed by lead
merchant bankers individually as well as jointly by two or more of them. Generally,
companies with small issue size appointed a single lead manager while more than one
merchant banker were appointed in case the IPO size was large. For the purpose of
Year Total IPOs NSE Listed IPOs % of IPOs listed at NSE
1997-98 51 9 17.65
1998-99 18 5 27.78
1999-00 52 18 34.61
2000-01 114 21 18.42
2001-02 6 2 33.33
2002-03 6 6 100
2003-04 19 15 78.95
2004-05 23 23 100
2005-06 76 68 89.47
2006-07 76 67 88.16
Total 441 234 53.06
156
analysis of price determination by lead managers, it is felt necessary to know the
number of NSE listed IPOs managed by different merchant bankers in their individual
capacity as well as jointly with other lead managers. Out of total 234 IPOs listed with
NSE during the period under review, the table below presents the number of IPOs
managed by top lead merchant bankers individually and jointly.
Table 6.3
NSE Listed IPOs Managed by Top Lead Merchant Bankers Individually and Jointly
S.No. Lead Merchant Bankers IPOs Managed Total % of Total NSE
Listed IPOs managed Individually Jointly IPOs
managed Individually Jointly
1. Enam Financial Consultants 11 39 50 4.47 16.67
2. Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. 7 39 46 2.95 16.67
3. SBI Capital Markets 7 37 44 2.95 15.81
4. JM Morgan Stanley 6 38 44 2.56 16.24
5. DSP Merrill Lynch 7 34 41 2.95 14.53
6. ICICI Securities 5 30 35 4.47 17.09
7. Karvy Investors 8 12 20 3.42 5.13
8. IL&FS Investsmart 5 12 17 2.14 5.13
9. UTI Securities Exchange 6 9 15 2.56 3.85
10. Anand Rathi Securities 6 5 11 2.56 2.14
11. Centrum Capital 6 4 10 2.56 1.71
12. Allianz Securities 6 3 9 2.56 1.28
13. Micro Securities 4 4 8 1.71 1.71
14. IDBI, IDBI Capital markets, IDBI Bank
1 6 7 - 2.56
15. Edelweiss 2 3 5 - 1.28
16. HSBC Securities & Capital Markets
2 3 5 - 1.28
17. Keynote Corporate Services 3 1 4 1.28 -
18. Khandwala Securities. 4 - 4 1.71 -
Source: - Compiled from offer documents of companies, Prime Database and SEBI Website.
The above table gives the picture of the top lead merchant bankers engaged in
the management of NSE listed IPO. As is clear from the table, Enam Financial
Consultants tops the list by managing the largest number of IPOs both individually
157
and jointly with other lead managers. It was able to manage total 50 NSE listed IPOs
including 11 IPOs managed in individual capacity. Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. was
the preferred choice of 46 issuing companies with 7 issuer companies appointing them
as sole lead manager for their initial public issues. Similarly, SBI Capital Markets and
JM Morgan Stanley have been able to secure the trust of 44 issuer companies each.
All these merchant bankers along with DSP Merrill Lynch and ICICI Securities acted
as lead managers for medium and large size issues. These lead managers were active
during the entire period under review.
The merchant banking companies engaged in the management of small and
medium size equity issues included Karvy Investor Services, IL&FS Investsmart,
Anand Rathi Securities and IDBI Capital Markets Ltd. Hyderabad based merchant
banker, Karvy Investor Services was able to secure the business of managing 20 IPOs
including 8 in their individual capacity during the last three years of study period.
Small merchant bankers having limited area of operation in the field of management
of public issues included Keynote Corporate Services, Micro Securities, Khandwala
Securities, Centrum Capital Edelweiss and Allianz Securities etc. These merchant
bankers were active during the period from 2004-05 to 2006-07 and their range of
IPOs managed varied from four to eight.
The table further presents the percentage of IPOs managed by individual
merchant bankers out of the total 234 NSE listed IPOs during the period of study. The
share of each merchant banker individually was less than 3% with the exception of
Enam Financial Consultants and Karvy Investors Services. While Enam Financial
Consultants was the only lead manager to manage 4.47% of total of 234 IPOs listed
with NSE, Karvy Investors Services managed 3.42% of total NSE Listed IPOs in their
individual capacity.
6.5 Performance of Individual Lead Merchant Bankers Another criteria for measuring the performance of lead managers is to
compare the offer price of the security (determined by the issuer company in
consultation with the lead manager) with the market price of the security at different
intervals of time. For this purpose closing market price of equity shares at the
following time intervals has been taken:
a. On the first trading day (Listing day).
b. After one week from the first trading day
158
c. After one month from the first trading day
d. After three month from the first trading day
e. After six month from the first trading day
f. After twelve months from the first trading day
The closing market price on the above time intervals has been compared with
the offer price and after dividing the difference with the offer price, return of
individual IPO has been calculated for each lead merchant banker individually.
Average return at different points of time has been calculated by dividing the result by
100. Average return at different points of time of all IPOs managed by individual
lead merchant banker has been calculated and compared with the average market
return of all IPOs listed on NSE during the period from 1997-98 to 2006-07.
6.5.1 Lead Merchant Bankers with More than Ten NSE Listed IPOs Table 6.4 depicts the performance of individual lead managers who managed
more than ten IPOs individually and jointly with others.
159
Table 6.4
Average Return from IPOs Managed by Different Merchant Bankers
(Lead Merchant Bankers Managing More than 10 NSE Listed IPOs)
S. No. Average Return
Average Return (in %age) at Different Points of Time
On First Trading
Day (FTD)
After One
Week from FTD
After One Month from FTD
After 3
months from FTD
After 6
months from FTD
After one
Year from FTD
Average Market Return from IPOs
40.73 39.85 43.36 43.33 79.84 79.10
i. Enam Financial Consultants. 44.40 16.36 43.73 65.85 39.47 56.85
ii. Kotak Mahindra Capital Co. Ltd. 37.54 35.47 40.95 58.51 62.80 95.57
iii. SBI Capital Markets. 26.61 21.29 30.21 37.14 41.74 99.89
iv. J.M. Morgan Stanley 18.19 14.32 13.73 17.90 14.39 30.02
v. DSP Merrill Lynch 39.64 42.47 46.41 64.72 137.57 97.57
vi. ICICI Securities Ltd. 56.59 68.58 65.58 78.15 158.67 122.99
vii. Karvy Investor Services 32.00 29.93 32.58 68.60 26.11 79.30
viii IL&FS Investsmart 45.94 40.63 53.03 70.87 134.44 262.72
ix. UTI Securities Exchange 19.93 16.66 11.96 1.19 23.29 74.17
x. Anand Rathi Securities 12.55 16.17 24.31 35.20 34.34 40.84
Source:- Compiled from offer documents, Economic Times, Bhav Copy of NSE, Prime Database.
(i) Enam Financial Consultants Ltd.
Enam Financial Consultants as lead manager to the public issues participated
in total 50 NSE listed IPOs including 13 IPOs in 2005-06 and 16 in 2006-07. It was
the preferred choice of issuer companies with medium and large sized IPOs. These
included large IPOs of NTPC, Suzlon Energy, Reliance Petroleum, Parsvnath
Developers and Power Finance Corporation Ltd Jointly with other lead managers.
Table 6.4 presents the average return to investors from the NSE listed IPOs managed
by Enam Financial Consultants Ltd.
160
The average returns from the NSE listed IPOs managed by Enam Financial
Consultants is shown in the table 6.4 along with the average market return at different
time intervals. On the first trading day, IPOs managed by Enam provided 44.40%
average return to the investors while average market return from NSE listed IPOs was
40.73%. However after one week from listing date, average return from Enam
managed IPOs fell sharply from 44.40% to merely 16.36%. At the interval of one
month, six months and twelve months after listing, the average return from IPOs
managed by Enam was much less than the average market returns. Only after three
months of listing, the IPOs managed by Enam outperformed the average market
return. At the end of 12 months after listing, IPOs managed by Enam could secure
56.85% average return for the investors, while IPOs listed with NSE provided 79.10
% average return to the investors.
Some of the IPOs managed by Enam Financial Consultants which showed
negative return after 12 months of first trading day included Geometric Software,
PNB Gilts, IT&T Ltd, Gujarat Mineral Development Corporation and Visa Steel Ltd.
etc.
The comparison between the average return of total IPOs and the IPOs
managed by Enam has also been shown in the chart 6.1
Chart 6.1
161
(ii) Kotak Mahindra Capital Company Ltd.
Kotak Mahindra Capital Company was one of the active merchant bankers in
the area of public issue management during the period under study. It participated in
most of the mega issues as lead manager and managed 46 issues by NSE listed
companies individually as well as jointly with other lead managers during the period
of study.
Chart 6.2
Table 6.4 and chart 6.2 shows the average return obtained by the investors
from the IPOs managed by Kotak Mahindra during the period covered by the study.
On comparison of the average return with NSE listed IPOs’ average market return, it
comes to light that investors obtained an average return of 37.54% on first trading
day, which was less than the market return of 40.73%. After one week from first
trading day, Kotak Mahindra managed IPOs provided an average return of 35.47% to
the investors, whereas NSE listed IPOs provided an average return of 39.85%. It is
revealed by the table that the IPOs managed by Kotak Mahindra provided an average
return of 40.95%, 58.51% and 95.57% after a period of one month, three months and
12 months respectively from first trading day, which was better than the average
market return from IPOs for the same time intervals. Thus, we can say that IPOs
managed by Kotak underperformed the market on 1st day, after one week and six
months but outperformed the market after one month, three months and twelve
months from 1st day of trading at stock exchange.
162
(iii) SBI Capital Markets Ltd. (SBI Caps.)
Among the subsidiaries of public sector banks, registered as merchant banker
with SEBI, SBI Capital Markets played the dominant role in public issue management
activities. It was the preferred issue manager of the public issues of almost all public
sector banks. During the period under review, it was able to manage 44 NSE listed
IPOs. Their average return over the period of study is presented in the table 6.4 and
chart 6.3.
Chart 6.3
Table 6.4 and chart 6.3 depict the performance of SBI Caps on the basis of
average return earned by investors at different points of time over the period of study.
It comes to light from the table that investors obtained an average return of 26.61%
from the IPOs managed by SBI Caps on the first day but NSE listed IPOs provided a
higher return of 40.73% on 1st day of trading. After a period of one week, one month,
three months and six months from 1st trading day, SBI Caps managed IPOs provided
an average return of 21.29%, 31.21%, 37.14% and 41.74% respectively to the
investors, whereas NSE listed IPOs provided a better average return of 39.85%,
43.36%, 43.33% and 79.84% to the investors at the same time intervals. However,
SBI Capital Markets managed IPOs provided average return of 99.89% over the
period of 12 months, which was higher than the NSE listed IPOs of 79.10%. Thus,
IPOs managed by SBI Capital Markets underperformed the market at five points of
163
time and provided better return than the market only at the end of twelve months from
the listing day.
(iv) JM Morgan Stanley
From 1997-98 to 2006-07, JM Morgan participated as lead manager in 44
NSE listed IPOs including 38 IPOs jointly managed with other merchant bankers. Its
major preference in the issue management function has been to participate in large
sized issues jointly with other lead managers. The average returns from NSE listed
IPOs managed by JM Morgan is shown in table 6.4.
It is revealed from the table that IPOs managed by JM Morgan Stanley
provided an average return of 18.19% on the first trading day and 14.32%, 13.73%,
17.90%, 14.39% and 30.02 % to the investors after first week, one month, three
months, six months and twelve months respectively from the first trading day. When
these return percentages are compared with the NSE listed market IPOs returns, it
comes to notice that NSE listed IPOs provided higher average returns than the return
provided by the IPOs managed by JM Morgan at all points of time covered by the
study. These return percentages lead to the conclusion that JM Morgan managed IPOs
underperformed the market at all points of time. Some of the IPOs managed by JM
Morgan which provided negative returns at all points of time included Cadila Health
Care, PNB Gilts, Pritish Nandly Communication, IT&T ltd, Visa Steels and House of
Pearls Ltd.
Average market return from IPOs and average return from IPOs managed by
JM Morgan is also presented in the chart 6.4.
164
Chart 6.4
(v) DSP Merrill Lynch Ltd
DSP Merrill Lynch Ltd is a foreign based merchant banker registered with
SEBI. During the period under review, it acted as issue manager in 41 NSE listed
IPOs including lead manager individually to seven IPOs. It has participated as lead
manager with other lead managers in top ranking large sized IPOs including IPO of
Jet Airways, Reliance Petroleum, Parsvnath Developers, Cairn India and Idea Cellular
etc.
Table 6.4 and chart 6.5 shows the performance of DSP Merrill Lynch on the
basis of average return to investors from the NSE listed IPOs managed by it at
different points of time covered by the study. On comparison between average return
and IPO market return, it comes to light that the investors obtained 39.64% average
return from The DSP Merrill managed IPOs on the date of listing, while the average
market return from NSE listed IPOs stood at 40.73% on that day. Average return from
IPOs managed by this lead manager was 42.47%, 46.41%, 64.72%, 137.57% and
97.57 % after one week, one month, three months, six months and twelve months
respectively from the listing day. On comparison of this average return with average
market return, it was found that the average return from IPOs managed by DSP
Merrill outperformed at all points of time except on the 1st day of trading.
After six months from listing, DSP Merrill managed IPOs reaped the highest
average return of 137.57%, while the average market return from IPOs was 79.84%.
165
This was due to the highest average positive return from the IPO of Sonata Software
Ltd in 1998-99 and the better performance of the IPOs of Canara Bank and Indian
Bulls Financial Services Ltd at 169% and 410.52% respectively. The comparison of
average market return of IPOs and average return of DSP Merrill managed IPOs has
also been shown in chart 6.5
Chart 6.5
(vi) ICICI Securities Ltd.
A subsidiary of Indian private bank, ICICI Securities acted as lead manager
individually and jointly in 35 NSE listed IPOs. It has wide network of operations with
respect to issue management activities. Issuer companies with large size of IPOs
preferred ICICI Securities as lead manager to their issues. Performance of this
merchant banker with regard to average return from equity IPOs managed by it has
been shown in table 6.4 and presented in chart6.6.
166
Chart 6.6
ICICI Securities managed a total of 35 IPOs during the period from 1997-98
to 2006-07. It has been depicted in the table that average return from IPOs managed
by ICICI Securities outperformed the average market return from IPOs at all points of
time under study. It was the highest to the tune of 158.67% and 122.99% after six
months and twelve months respectively from the time of closing of first trading day.
The average market returns from the NSE listed IPOs was 79.84% and 79.10%
respectively at these points of time.
Some of the IPOs managed by ICICI Securities which contributed to the
higher average return included again Sonata Software Ltd, Television Eighteen Ltd,
Canara Bank, Ifo Edge (India) Ltd and Global Broadcast News Ltd. Similarly, some
IPOs managed by ICICI Ltd which showed negative return at the end of six months
and twelve months from listing included South India Bank, Ajanta Pharma, Nector
Life Sciences and Melstar Information Technology Ltd. etc.
(vii) Karvy Investor Services Ltd.
Karvy Investors Services Ltd. managed 20 NSE listed IPOs and has been
active during the last three years of period under review. It is engaged in the
management of small size IPOs. The issue size of IPOs managed by Karvy varied
from Rs. 12.25 crore of Rama Krishna Forging Ltd. in 2004-05 to Rs. 168 crore of
NITCO Tiles in 2005-06.
167
The average returns of NSE listed IPOs managed by Karvy is shown in the
table 6.4. The chart 6.7 compares the NSE IPO market returns and the average return
earned by investors from the IPOs managed by Karvy Investor Services.
Chart 6.7
It is highlighted in the table that IPOs managed by Karvy provided an average
return of 32.00% to the investors, while NSE listed IPOs provided 40.73% average
return to the investors on the 1st trading day. Similarly, IPOs managed by Karvy
underperformed the market after one week, one month and six months from the date
of listing. After six months from listing, investors could fetch only 26.11% average
return from the Karvy managed IPOs, whereas the NSE listed IPOs provided 79.84%
average return to investors.
On the other hand, Karvy managed IPOs provided an average return to
investors at the higher rate than the average market return of IPOs after three months
and 12 months from the date of first trading day. It was 68.60% and 79.30 % after
three month and twelve months respectively from the first trading day, while the
market secured an average return of 43.33% and 79.10% at these points of time.
Some of the fixed price IPOs managed by Karvy did not perform well at the
floor of the stock exchange. These included Vishal Exports, Sah Petroleum in 2004-
05 and Compulink Systems Ltd. in 2005-06. So average return from Karvy managed
168
IPOs outperformed the market at two intervals of time only while it underperformed
the average market return at four intervals of time.
(viii) IL&FS Investsmart
IL&FS Investsmart started its operations in the field of management of NSE
listed IPOs from 2000-01. It managed a total of 17 NSE listed IPOs including five in
their individual capacity. Table 6.4 presents the average return from IPOs managed
by IL&FS Investsmart and the market average return from NSE listed IPOs at
different points of time. On comparison of both these returns, it is found that the
average return from IPOs lead managed by IL&FS Investsmart has been higher than
the average market return from NSE listed IPOs at all points of time right from the
first trading day.
The average return from the IPOs managed by IL&FS Investsmart showed
exceptionally higher return as compared to average market return from IPOs at the
time interval of six months (134.44%) and 12 months (262.72%) from 1st trading day.
The average market return at these points of time was 79.84% and 79.10%
respectively..
The NSE listed IPOs managed by IL&FS Investsmart, which contributed to
higher average return at different intervals of time included IPOs of Balaji Telefilms,
Divi Laboratories, Dishman Pharma, Gateway Distriparks, and All Sec. Technologies
Ltd. IPO of Divi Laboratories provided a positive return of 521.35% and 1096.75%
after the period of six months and 12 months from 1st trading day. Some of its IPOs
which showed negative return at most of the time intervals included IPOs of Celebrity
Fashions, Uttam Sugars, R.Systems and FIEM Industries.
The average return of IPOs managed by IL&FS Investsmart along with
average market return from IPOs is also presented in chart 6.8
169
Chart 6.8
(ix) UTI Securities Exchange Ltd.
UTI Securities Exchange is engaged in the management of public issues from
the year 1997-98 and was engaged in the IPOs of comparatively small size. It
managed 15 NSE listed IPOs individually and jointly with other lead managers during
the period under review. The range of size of IPOs managed by UTI Securities varied
from Rs. 5.79 crore to Rs. 576 crore. Six of the IPOs managed by it were below the
size of Rs. 50 crore each. The average returns provided to the investors from the IPOs
managed by this merchant banker are shown in table 6.4 and chart 6.9.
Chart 6.9
170
As is shown in the table and chart, the average return from the IPOs managed
by this merchant banker has been far below than the average market return from NSE
listed IPOs at all intervals of time. On the 1st trading day, it provided 19.93% average
return to investors while the average market return stood at 40.73%. The worst
position occurred after three months of listing day, when the IPOs managed by UTI
securities could fetch only 1.19% average return in comparison to 43.33% average
market return. The gap between both types of returns was less at the end of 12 months
after 1st trading day.
Overall, the IPOs managed by UTI Securities did not perform well at the floor
of the stock exchange at different time intervals covered under study.
(x) Anand Rathi Securities Ltd.
Anand Rathi Securities as lead manager in primary capital market was active
for the last three years during the period under review. It managed a total of 11 NSE
listed IPOs including individually managed 6 initial public offerings. This merchant
banker was also involved in the management of comparatively small sized IPOs
ranging from Rs. 35.76 crore to 135.99 crore. However, these IPOs did not perform
well in the secondary market after listing as is clear from the table and chart.
Chart 6.10
The table shows the dismal picture of NSE listed IPOs managed by Anand
Rathi Securities on the basis of average return obtained by investors. On the listing
day itself, the IPOs managed by this merchant banker provided 12.55% average return
171
as compared to 40.73% average return from NSE listed IPOs. The situation remained
same after one week of listing also. At all other points of time, that is, after one
month, three months, six months and twelve months from the 1st trading day, the
average return from IPOs managed by Anand Rathi was much less than the average
return obtained from the IPO market at NSE.
Negative returns from the IPOs of Tips Industries, XL Telecom, Technocrat
Industries and Indus Fila Ltd and marginally positive return from other IPOs managed
by this lead manager were responsible for comparatively lower average return of IPOs
than average market return.
6.5.2 Lead Merchant Bankers Managing 4 to 10 NSE Listed IPOs IPO pricing performance of small lead merchant bankers, who managed 4 to
10 NSE listed IPOs during the period under review has been analysed in table 6.5
172
Table 6.5
Average Return from IPOs Managed by Different Merchant Bankers
(Lead Merchant Bankers Managing 4 to 10 NSE Listed IPOs)
S. No.
Average Return
Average Return at Different Points of Time (in %age)
At First Trading
Day (FTD)
After One
Week from FTD
After One Month from FTD
After 3 months
from FTD
After 6
months from FTD
After one
Year from FTD
Average Market Return from IPOs
40.73 39.85 43.36 43.33 79.84 79.10
i. Centrum Capital 102.76 114.05 141.10 108.69 67.10 123.31
ii. Allianz Securities 30.08 43.41 22.90 18.42 61.88 64.82
iii. Micro Securities 46.26 - 0.20 -11.09 -7.22 38.94 131.51
iv. IDBI, IDBI Capital Markets.
-7.70 -20.36 -5.56 25.94 -32.94 -39.62
v. Edelweiss Capital 16.17 19.07 20.28 23.22 15.78 18.78
vi HSBC Securities & Capital Markets
34.20 21.41 15.60 15.83 5.58 20.69
vii. Keynote Corporate. 73.74 64.32 100.70 82.82 93.37 149.36
viii. Khandwala Securities 12.21 29.48 11.42 5.12 -26.67 -58.91
Source:- Compiled from offer documents, Economic Times, Bhav Copy of NSE, Prime Database.
The performance of individual lead merchant bankers has been examined as follows:
(i) Centrum Capital Ltd.
As lead manager to the NSE listed IPOs, Centrum Capital entered in the
primary market in 2004-05 by managing the IPO of Saksoft Ltd. It was the lead
manager with other merchant bankers for four IPOs and individually managed six
IPOs listed at NSE. The issue size of all IPOs except one managed by it was less than
Rs. 100 crore.
173
Chart 6.11
Table 6.4 and chart 6.11 presents the average return obtained by investors
from the IPOs managed by Centrum Capital at different time intervals. It is
highlighted in the table that on the first trading day, Centrum Capital managed IPOs
secured 102.76% average return which was much higher than the average market
return of 40.73% at this point of time. Similarly after one week, one month, three
months and 12 months from 1st trading day, the average return obtained by investors
from Centrum Capital managed IPOs outperformed the average market return from
NSE listed IPOs. It was only after six months from 1st trading day that the average
return from Centrum Capital managed IPOs was less than the average market return.
After twelve months from the 1st trading day, IPOs managed by Centrum Capital
secured 123.31% average return as compared to average market return of 79.10 %.
From the analysis of returns from individual IPOs managed by this merchant
banker, it is noted that the exceptionally higher average return from its IPOs has been
due to the higher positive return of IPO of Saksoft Ltd. in 2004-05, Auriopro
Solutions in 2005-06 and Cambridge Technology Ltd in 2006-07.
(ii) Allianz Securities Ltd.
This lead manager managed one NSE listed IPO in 2002-03 and four each in
the year 2005-06 and 2006-07. It managed a total of six small sized IPOs in its
individual capacity. It is found that on the first trading day, IPOs managed by Allianz
Securities provided 30.08% average return to the investors whereas the average
market return from NSE listed IPOs was 40.73%. After one week from 1st trading
174
day, its IPOs secured a higher average return of 43.41% in comparison to average
market return of 39.85%. At all other points of time, average return from Allianz
Securities managed IPOs was less than the average market return from NSE listed
IPOs. After three months from 1st trading day, the average return from the IPOs
managed by this merchant banker was much less at 18.42% than the average market
returns of 43.33% at that point of time.
Comparison between average market return and average return from IPOs
managed by Allianz Securities has also been made in chart 5.12.
Chart- 6.12
Individually, IPO of Allahabad Bank, FCS Software Solutions, Amar
Remedies and Shri Ashtavinavak Vision Ltd showed positive return at all points of
time. However, the IPOs responsible for lower average return than average market
return included the IPO of Shivalik Global, Broadcast Initiative and Oreintal Trimex
Ltd.
(iii) Micro Securities India Ltd.
Micro Securities India Ltd managed eight NSE listed IPOs during the period
from 2003-04 to 2006-07. Issue size of small IPOs managed by it was in the range of
Rs. 10.00 crore to 70.43 crore. Individually, it managed five IPOs of small size
through fixed price method. The performance of this lead merchant banker with
respect to average return received by investors from the IPOs managed by it is shown
in the table 6.5.
175
On the 1st trading day, IPOs managed by Micro Securities provided higher
average return of 46.26% as compared to average market return of 40.73%. However,
after one week, one month and three months from 1st trading day, IPOs managed by
this merchant banker lost money in the form of negative return of 0.20%, 11.09%, and
7.22% respectively. In comparison to this, average market return at this interval of
time was 39.85%, 43.36% and 43.33% respectively.
However, twelve months after 1st trading day, IPOs managed by Micro
Securities provided 131.51% average return to investors in comparison to 79.10%
average market return from NSE listed IPOs. High returns of 203.50% and 196%
from Jai Balaji Sponge and Rama Krishna Forging respectively contributed to high
positive average return at this point of time.
However, average return from Micro Securities was less than the average
market return from NSE listed IPOs at all time intervals except the 12 months after 1st
trading day,. The chart 6.13 depicts the performance of Micro Securities with respect
to average IPO returns at different points of time.
Chart – 6.13
(iv) IDBI, IDBI Bank and IDBI Capital Markets Ltd
Industrial Development Bank of India and now IDBI Bank and its subsidiary,
IDBI Capital Market Ltd. have been acting as lead managers from the very beginning
of the period under review. But they performed the public issue management services
176
occasionally, managing just one NSE listed issue in a year. In all, they managed seven
NSE listed IPOs during the period under study. IPOs managed by this group
performed very poorly on the floor of the stock exchange on account of average return
obtained by investors.
The table 6.5 shows the poor picture of average return obtained by investors
from the IPOs managed by IDBI group in comparison to average market return. On
the 1st trading day, investors lost money in these IPO as it obtained negative return of
7.70% while the average market return from IPOs stood at 40.73%. Out of six time
intervals, the investors lost money due to negative average return at five points of
time. It was only after three months of 1st trading day that it secured positive average
return of 25.94% as compared to average market return of 43.33% at this point of
time. Further, all IPOs except one managed by IDBI gave negative return to investors
within the period of twelve months after 1st trading day. One of its IPO of Corporation
Bank secured marginally positive return at all points of time under review. Chart 6.14
also shows the overall performance of this lead manager with respect to average
returns at different points of time.
Chart 6.14
(v) Edelweiss Capital Ltd.
As lead manager to the NSE listed IPOs, this merchant banker came late on
the scene. It managed three NSE listed IPOs in 2005-06 and two in 2006-07. On
comparison of average return with the average market return from NSE listed IPOs
177
(table 6.5), it was found that the offer price determined by this merchant banker did
not match the market price of IPOs at stock exchange at different intervals of time. On
the day of listing itself, IPOs managed by Edelweiss could secure an average return of
16.17% in comparison to average market return of 40.73% at this point of time.
Similarly, average return earned by investors from the IPOs managed by this lead
manager was much lower than the average market return from IPOs listed at NSE for
all other time intervals as well.
Two of its managed IPOs, that is, Cinema India Ltd and C&C Construction
(in 2006-07) were responsible for lower average return as both of these showed
negative return at various points of time under review. However, two other IPOs
managed by it in 2005-06, viz, Sadbhav Engineering and B.L. Kashyap & Sons Ltd
performed well on floor of the stock exchange.
Low average return from IPOs managed by Edelweiss as compared to average
market return from IPOs is visible in the chart 6.15 also.
Chart 6.15
(vi) HSBC Securities & Capital (India) Ltd
A foreign based SEBI registered merchant banker, HSBC Securities & Capital
(India) Ltd which started operations from 2000-01, acted as lead manager for five
NSE listed IPOs jointly with other merchant bankers. It acted as lead manager of large
sized IPOs namely, Jet Airways, Gujarat State Petronet and Reliance Petroleum.
178
Table 6.5 and chart 6.16 exhibit the average return from IPOs reaped by
investors from the IPOs managed by HSBC Securities and the average market return
from IPOs listed at NSE.
Chart 6.16
On analysis of the table, it was found that on the first trading day itself, the
average return from IPOs managed by HSBC Securities was less than the average
market return of NSE listed IPOs. This trend continued for all time intervals from the
1st trading day itself. IPOs managed by it could secure only 5.58% average return in
comparison to market average return of 79.84% at the end of six months from listing
day. Analysis of return from IPOs managed by HSBC Securities revealed that the
large sized IPOs stated above provided moderate positive return to investors but the
IPOs of Mukta Art Ltd and Creative Eye Ltd ( 2000-01) were responsible for the low
rate of average return from HSBC Securities managed IPOs.
Chart 6.16 also highlights the comparative low average return from IPOs
managed by HSBC Securities than the market average return of IPOs.
(vii) Keynote Corporate Services Ltd.
Keynote Corporate Services as lead managers to the NSE listed IPOs
participated in primary market in 2005-06 and 2006-07. It managed only four NSE
listed IPOs- three in their individual capacity and one jointly with ICICI Securities.
As visible from table 6.5, the average return from IPOs managed by Keynote
was higher than the average market return of IPOs at all points of time during the
period under review. On the listing day, investors obtained 73.74% average return
179
from Keynote managed IPOs while the average market return stood at 40.73%. It
was almost double than the average market return at the end of first and third month
from first trading day. Investors secured an average return to the tune of 149.36%
from the IPOs managed by Keynote Corporate Services at the end of twelve months
from first trading day in comparison to the average market return from IPOs was
79.10%. Overall, all the IPOs, except one, managed by Keynote obtained a
favourable response in the secondary market. This is also presented in the chart 6.17.
Chart – 6.17
(viii) Khandwala Securities Ltd.
Khandwala Securities managed four NSE listed IPOs, one in 2000-01 and
three in the year 2005-06. They were the sole lead managers in all the four IPOs.
However, on an average, investors could not gain much from these IPOs.
As depicted in the table 6.5, four IPOs managed by this lead manager could
secure 12.21% average return on the first day of trading itself, which was much below
the average market return from IPOs. Average return to investors turned to be
negative at the end of six months and twelve months from first trading day at the rate
of 26.67% and 58.91 respectively, while the average market return was 79.84% and
79.10% respectively.
Two of the IPOs, namely, Softpro Systems in 2000-01 and Sakuma Exports in
2005-06 showed negative return at all time intervals. On the other hand, Cyber Media
(India) floated in 2005-06 showed comparatively high return at all time intervals.
180
Overall, as shown in chart 6.18, Khandwala Securities as lead managers failed to
provide reasonable return to investors on the IPOs managed by it.
Chart- 6.18
6.6 Year Wise Average Return from IPOs Managed by Different
Merchant Bankers A summary of the annual average return from sample IPOs managed by top
merchant bankers during the period under review has been presented in table 6.6.
Along with it Average Index return based on S&P CNX NIFTY and average market
return from IPOs listed with NSE during the period under review has also been shown
in the table.
It is revealed from the table that the average market return of IPOs showed
negative average return in the years 1997-98, 1999-00 and 2000-01. A high average
market return of IPOs was found in the years 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 with as
high as 297.69% average return from the NSE listed IPOs. The year 2005-06 and
2006-07 provided comparatively stable market average return of 50.32% and 58.80%
respectively.
On comparison of average market return of IPOs with the average index
return, a lot of variation has been noted. Further, in line with negative average market
return in the initial years of study period, a majority of IPOs managed by individual
merchant bankers also showed negative average return. After 2000-01, however, the
181
majority of IPOs managed by individual merchant bankers showed positive average
return along with positive average market return.
During the period of ten years, an average market return of 79.10% is found
from the IPOs listed with NSE. Overall average return provided to investors by the
IPOs managed by individual merchant bankers showed that the IPOs managed by
Kotak Mahindra, SBI Capital Markets, DSP Merrill, ICICI Securities, IL&FS
Investsmart, Micro Securities and Keynote Corporate Services produced returns
higher than average market return. On the other hand, JM Morgan, Allianz Sec.,
Anand Rathi, Edelweiss, HSBC Securities showed below average market return of
79.10% to investors from the IPOs managed by them. IDBI group and Khandwala
Securities showed negative average return from the IPOs managed by them.
182
Table - 6.6 Year Wise Average Return from IPOs Managed by Different Merchant Bankers.
(Figures in percentage) S.No Merchant Bankers 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 Total Average
Average Index (NIFTY) Return 19.84 -3.5 41.18 -24.89 -1.62 13.42 81.29 14.91 67.13 12.29 22 Average Market Return of IPOs -29.97 102.14 -19.26 -30.53 99.02 297.69 105.89 156.87 50.32 58.8 79.1
Average Return by Merchant Bankers 1. Kotak Mahindra -11.25 -25.23 -0.57 -38.51 235.16 414.7 92.31 117.74 56.53 114.83 95.57 2. SBI Capital Markets -29.31 -41.34 -23.32 -31.04 235.16 187.35 123.49 350.45 202.85 24.59 99.89 3. JM Morgan Stanley -11.26 -26.32 -55.94 -27.58 -37.11 161.41 81.58 77.45 73.71 64.27 30.02 4. DSP Merrill 3.6 317.91 -56.74 -36.98 99.03 220.78 87.81 280.68 14.61 42.87 97.57 5. Enam Financial -52.26 - 4.84 -65.72 - 161.55 142.73 87.69 68.1 105.89 56.85 6. ICICI Securities 0.9 307.88 -5.42 - 235.16 220.77 102.66 82.73 22.21 140 122.99 7. Karvy Investors Services - - - - - - - 48.81 114.21 74.87 79.3 8. IL&FS Investsmart - - - 21.71 - 1096.75 288.68 146.42 2.16 20.56 262.72 9. UTI Securities -33.33 - - -9.5 - - 63 225.97 102.31 96.59 74.17
10. Centrum Capital - - - - - - - 290.5 -2.57 82.01 123.31 11. allianz Securities - - - - - 120.5 - - 52.4 21.57 64.82 12. Anand Rathi Securities - - - -24.99 - - - - 82.14 65.38 40.84 13. Micro Securities - - - - - - - 203.5 196 -4.95 131.51 14. Edelweiss Capital - - - - - - - - 52.45 -14.9 18.78 15. HSBC Securities - - - -47.13 - - - 12.84 73.14 43.92 20.69 16. IDBI, IDBI Capital. -26.21 -25.23 -68.29 -9.50 - - - - -61.35 -47.11 -39.62 17. Khandwala Securities - - - -87.17 - - - - -30.64 - -58.91 18. Keynote Corporate Services - - - - - - - - 61.57 237.15 149.36
Source: - Data compiled from offer documents, Economic Times, Bhav copy of NSE and Prime Database.
183
6.7 Impact of Annual Average Index (NIFTY) Return on the Annual Average Return of IPOs Managed by Different Merchant bankers
This section of the chapter analyses the impact of the average index return of
NIFTY on the average return of IPOs managed by different merchant bankers (as lead
managers) during the period under review. This analysis has been carried on with the
help of simple linear regression.
The results of simple linear regression analysis have been presented in the
table 6.7, which shows that R-square of the fitted regression explained 84.70%,
81.10%, 78.10%, 48%, 36.10%, 30.60%, 25.90%, 19.70% and 12.60% variation in
average return due to index return in relation to the IPOs managed by HSBC
securities, Karvy Investors, Anand Rathi Securities, Centrum Capital, ICICI
Securities, Micro Securities, Enam and JM Morgan Stanley respectively. This
variation is non significant from statistical angle because calculated F-values were
less than the critical values.
Further, index return failed to establish a statistically significant impact on
average return of IPOs managed by Kotak Mahindra, SBI Caps., DSP Merrill Lynch,
UTI Securities, IL&FS Investsmart, and Allianz Securities because R-Square
explained a very small percentage of variation in IPOs average return due to index
return. The co-efficient of Index return in case of JM Morgan, SBI Capital Markets,
Enam, IDBI Capital Markets, UTI Securities, Karvy, Anand Rathi, HSBC Securities
and Micro Securities were positive at 0.775, 0.91, 1.12, 0.61, 0.453, 0.96, 1.10, 1.25
and 1.95, but these are statistically non significant because calculated‘t’ values are
less than the table values at 1% and 5% level of significance. In case of other
merchant bankers, the co-efficients of index return were not only negative but non
significant also.
184
Table 6.7
Impact of Index (Nifty) Return on Average Return of IPOs Managed by
Different Merchant Bankers Results of Simple Linear Regression Analysis
S.No. Lead Managers co-efficient of constant ( t-Value)
Regression co-efficient ( t-value)
R2 %
Adj. R2 %
F value
N
i. J.M.Morgan 12.98 NS
(0.48) 0.775 NS
(1.08) 12.60NS
1.7 1.16 10
ii. Kotak Mahindra 96.91NS
( 1.68) -0.061NS
(-0.04) 00NS 00 00 10
iii. SBI Caps. 79.88NS
(1.43) 0.91NS
(0.62) 4.5N
S 00 0.38 10
iv. DSP Merrill Lynch 116.37** (2.31)
-0.864NS
(-0.61 4.5N
S 00 0.38 10
v. Enam Financial Consultants.
25.39NS
(0.65) 1.12NS
( 1.21) 19.7
NS 6.3 1.47 08
vi. ICICI Securities. 184.40** ( 4.16)
-2.26NS
(-1.99) 36.1 27 3.96 09
vii. IDBI, IDBI Bank, IDBI Capital Markets.
19.56NS
(1.22) 0.61NS
(1.33) 30.60NS
13.3 1.77 06
viii. UTI Securities Exchange
61.29NS
(1.15) 0.453NS
(0.39) 3.7N
S 00 0.15 06
ix. Karvy Investors Services
49.15NS
(2.64) 0.96NS
( 2.07) 81.10NS
62.3 4.3 03
x. IL&FS Investsmart 272.9NS
( 1.13) -0.37NS
(-0.07) 0.10
NS 00 00 06
xi. Centrum Capiatal 229.5NS
(1.62) -3.38NS
(-0.96) 48NS 0 .92 03
xii. Allianz Securirities 74.56NS
(1.17) -0.315NS
(-0.20) 3.80
NS 00 0.04 03
xiii. Anand Rathi Securities
20.91NS
(0.86) 1.10NS
(1.89) 78.10NS
56.20 3.56 03
xiv. HSBC Securities & Capital Market.
-1.05NS
(-0.08) 1.25NS
(3.33) 84.70NS
77.00 11.06 04
xv. Micro Securities 70.3NS
( 0.53) 1.95NS
0.59 25.90NS
00 0.35 03
Notes: - 1. ** denotes significance at 5% level for t-values of regression co-efficient and for F-Value of co -efficient of determinants.
2. NS Stands for not significant. 3. N stands for number of years for which average return has been
regressed. The value of constants in case of DSP Merrill and ICICI Securities are 116.37
and 184.40 respectively and are significant at 5% level which shows that the factors
not covered by the study have larger impact on IPOs average return during the period
under study.
185
From the values of co-efficient of determination (R-square) and regression co-
efficient of index return, it appears that IPOs average return has been influenced by
the factors other than the index return during the period covered under study.
The results of simple linear regression analysis as depicted by the table 6.7
lead to the conclusion that investors obtained average return which was independent
of Index return in case of all merchant bankers managing the NSE listed IPOs
covered by the study. Index return failed to influence the IPOs average return of all
the IPOs managed by various merchant bankers. This type of situation arises due to
imperfections in the capital market. As already explained Indian capital market is
largely influenced by qualitative factors not covered by the study.
6.8 Impact of Annual Average Market Return of IPOs on the Annual Average Return of IPOs Managed by Different Merchant bankers
A number of merchant bankers are active in the primary market in the role of
‘issue managers’ to the IPOs and FPOs. Top lead managers have an important role in
the primary market with respect to the number of IPOs managed and the average
return obtained by investors from these IPOs. It is, therefore, important to examine the
impact of the average market return of IPOs on the average return of IPOs managed
by individual merchant bankers. The table 6.8 exhibits the position about the impact
of average market return of IPOs on the average return of IPOs managed by different
merchant bankers.
186
Table 6.8
Impact of Average Market Return of IPOs on the Average Return of IPOs
Managed by Different Merchant Bankers
S.No. Lead Managers co-efficient of Constant ( t-Value)
Regression co-efficient ( t-value)
R2 ( %)
Adj. R2
(%) F- value
N
i. J.M.Morgan -12.44 (-0.61)
0.536** (3.28)
57.4**
52.10 10.77
10
ii. Kotak Mahindra 1.03 (0.03)
1.195* (4.64)
72.9*
69.5 21.50
10
iii. SBI Caps. 31.77 (0.67)
0.86 NS
( 2.23) 38.4
NS 30.7 4.99 10
iv. DSP Merrill Lynch
18.81 (0.49)
0.99 ** (3.22)
56.4 **
50.9 10.34
10
v. Enam 10.12 (0.47)
0.64* (3.76)
70.2*
65.2 14.18
08
vi. ICICI Securities 60.48 (1.35)
0.68 NS
(1.98) 36.0
NS 26.9 3.94 09
vii. IDBI, IDBI Bank, IDBI Capital Mark
25.93 (1.57)
0.23 NS
(0.76) 12.70 NS
00 0.58 06
viii. UTI Securities Exchange
15.37 (0.68)
1.13** (4.27)
82.0**
77.5 18.25
06
ix. Karvy 120.83 (4.00)
-0.47 NS
(-1.56) 71.0
NS 42 2.45 03
x. IL&FS Investsmart
-95.3 (-0.77)
3.36** (4.0)
80.0**
75 15.98
06
xi. Centrum -97.44 (-1.80)
2.49 NS
(4.63) 95.6
NS 91.10 21.4
8 03
xii. Allianz Securities 18.74 (0.88)
0.34 NS
(2.83) 88.9
NS 77.8 8.01 03
xiii. Anand Rathi Securities
11.05 (0.86)
1.14 NS
(4.23) 94.7
NS 89.4 17.9
1 03
xiv HSBC Securities -8.31 (-0.43)
1.21NS
(3.01) 90.0
NS 80.1 9.04 04
xv. Micro Securities 49.2 (0.28)
0.93 NS
(0.53) 21.6
NS 00 0.28 03
Notes: - 1. * and ** denotes significance at 1% and 5% level respectively for t-values of regression co-efficient and for F-Value of co efficient of determination.
2. NS Stands for not significant. 3. N stands for number of years for which average return has been
regressed. It is revealed from the table that co-efficient of determination (R2) explained
72.9% and 70.2% variation in average return of IPOs managed by Kotak Mahindra
and Enam Financial due to market return of IPOs. This variation is not only high but
significant at 1% level. On the other hand, the average returns of IPOs managed by
187
JM Morgan, DSP Merrill and UTI Securities Ltd have been found to be influenced by
market return of IPOs because value of R-square (R2) is found to be significant at
5% level. Except this, no other merchant bankers’ managed IPOs return was
influenced due to market return of IPOs during the period of study because
corresponding values of R-square are not significant at 1% and 5% levels.
The regression co-efficient of market return of IPOs in case of Kotak
Mahindra and Enam are 1.19 and 0.64 respectively. These co-efficients have been
found positive and significant at 1% level. Further, in case of JM Morgan, DSP
Merrill, UTI Securities and IL&FS Investsmart, the regression co-efficient have been
found positive and significant at 5% level. It shows that market return of IPOs during
the particular year under study have influenced the average return from IPOs managed
by these merchant bankers. Except this, no other merchant banker managed IPOs have
been influenced by market return of IPOs because the regression coefficients are
statistically non significant at 1% and 5% levels.
Conclusion With the repeal of Capital Issues (Control) Act, 1947 in May 1992, the era of
free pricing of issues has started in the primary market in India. This has made the
role of merchant bankers much more dynamic and challenging with respect to pricing
of issues. Over the time, pricing of capital issues has passed through many stages
from ‘CCI formula’ to fixed price method and book-building method. Book building
process aims at fair pricing of the issue and during the latter period of study under
review, this method has become the preferred route for the pricing of public issues.
Free pricing has induced only genuine companies to raise funds from the market with
lesser restriction. This has made the merchant bankers more professional as SEBI
guidelines state that issue price is to be determined by Issuer Company in consultation
with the lead merchant banker
It has been found that issuer companies with small issue size preferred only
single merchant banker as lead manager. The issuer companies with comparatively
large issue size appointed a group of merchant bankers as lead managers.
The average return of the IPOs managed by well known merchant bankers like
Kotak, SBI Caps, DSP Merrill, ICICI Securities, IL&FS Investmart and Centrum
have been found to be higher than average market return at various points of time. A
reasonable average return has been provided to investors by JM Morgan, Enam and
188
Karvy Investor Services. In the initial years of period under review, the average
annual return from IPOs in the secondary market was negative, but in the latter years,
average annual return has been positive and stable.
The impact of annual average index (NIFTY) return and average market return
on IPOs managed by individual merchant bankers examined with the help of simple
linear regression showed that the average index return failed to establish a statistically
significant impact on the average return of IPOs managed by different merchant
bankers. However, the average annual return of IPOs managed by different merchant
bankers has been influenced by the annual average market return of IPOs listed with
NSE.