IPO underpricing and ownership monitoring in Japan

Abstract

We examine how Japanese corporate governance characteristics affect IPO underpricing. The results show that parent ownership does not affect underpricing in IPO firms. We also find that greater CEO ownership is expected to cause principal–principal conflicts and to exacerbate underpricing in IPO firms. Our empirical results also reveal that bank ties mitigate underpricing and function as effective monitoring mechanisms. Furthermore, the positive correlation between CEO ownership and IPO firm underpricing is moderated by the parent–subsidiary relationship. Finally, independent venture capital firms do not mitigate underpricing of IPO firms with parent–subsidiary relationships.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    This study focuses on agency-related hypotheses because we concentrate on the IPO wealth retention effect in line with Certo et al. (2001a). Underpricing is examined from many theoretical perspectives, which are summarized in Certo et al. (2001b) and Ljungqvist (2007). Asymmetric information hypotheses are investigated by Rock (1986) and Beatty and Ritter (1986), while underwriter reputation is explained by Megginson and Weiss (1991). Information revelation motives are developed by Hanley (1993) and Hanley and Wilhelm (1995). The investment banker’s rent-seeking hypothesis is explained by Reuter (2006) and Liu and Ritter (2011), and behavioral explanations are implemented by Welch (1992) and Ljungqvist and Wilhelm (2005).

  2. 2.

    Under Japanese listing standards, when firms have more than 300 shareholders, there is a higher retail investor allocation ratio (Kutsuna et al. 2010). According to Kutsuna et al. (2010), annual average allocations to individuals ranged from 76.4 to 81.7% during 2002–2005. Thus, the implication of Stoughton and Zechner (1998) that managers of issuing firms could use underpricing to induce more institutional holdings is not applicable in Japanese IPO markets. Tatsumi (2011) explains that both book building and auction systems are adopted in Japanese IPO markets. Under a book building (BB) system, a lottery of new shares is used when oversubscription occurs. Kutsuna et al. (2010) also introduce major investment banks’ IPO share allocation policy. The largest investment bank, Nomura, allocates more than 70% of IPO shares to retail investors. In addition, Daiwa’s allocation policy also restricts allocation to institutional shareholders. The details are summarized in Kutsuna et al. (2010).

  3. 3.

    One important feature of Japanese parent–subsidiary relationships is Keiretsu (Hoshi et al. 1991). Previous studies of Keiretsu firms show that they receive several benefits from their membership (Kim et al. 2004; McGuire and Dow 2009). Keiretsu firms are centered on larger firms listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and other independent firms in Japan are regarded as non-Keiretsu (Choi and Han 2013). Although Keiretsu members have positive announcement returns for corporate restructuring, smaller non-Keiretsu firms cannot gain this positive return (Choi and Han 2013). On the other hand, there is a negative relationship between parent ownership and subsidiary performance in Japanese corporation spinoffs (Ito and Rose 1994; Sakawa and Watanabel 2018a). Parent firms tend to maintain controlling stakes in listed subsidiaries.

  4. 4.

    Principal–principal conflicts are the dominant problems. Increased family ownership might reinforce IPO underpricing as family owners tend to exploit firm wealth and neglect other minority shareholders. The family might pursue familial interests at the expense of firm value and the interests of minority shareholders, engendering principal–principal conflicts (Young et al. 2008). In addition, managers act as firm stewards and work for the long-term welfare of the firm under stewardship theory (Davis et al. 1997). Stewardship theory has been applied to family-controlled firms because family executives have close relationships with the firm. Thus, family shareholders have a positive incentive to seek long-term wealth instead of exploiting the other minority shareholders. On the other hand, Yoshikawa and Rasheed (2010) infer that principal–agent conflicts are dominant problems for firms and that principal–principal conflicts are less important in Japanese small- and medium-sized family-controlled firms.

  5. 5.

    In Japanese IPO markets, underwriter reputation is measured as a dummy for each of the three representative underwriters because their size or reputation is expected to be a signal of quality of investment and risk (Kaneko and Pettway 2003). Kaneko and Pettway (2003) adopted the Big 4 underwriters as reputational underwriters: Nomura, Daiwa, Nikko, and Yamaichi. Our sample period includes the period after the bankruptcy of Yamaichi Co. in 1997. Therefore, we use the Big 3 underwriters: Nomura, Daiwa, and Nikko as reputational underwriters. In addition, 54% of IPOs in our sample are issued by these three representative underwriters.

References

  1. Allen, F., & Faulhaber, G. R. (1989). Signaling by underpricing in the IPO market. Journal of Financial Economics, 23(2), 303–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aman, H., & Nguyen, P. (2012). The size and composition of corporate boards in Japan. Asian Business & Management, 11(4), 425–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aoki, M. (1990). Toward an economic model of the Japanese firm. Journal of Economic Literature, 28(1), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Aoki, M., Patrick, H., & Sheard, P. (1994). The Japanese main bank system: An introductory review. In M. Aoki & H. Patrick (Eds.), The Japanese main bank system: Its relevance for developing and transforming economies (pp. 1–50). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arthurs, J. D., Hoskisson, R. E., Busenitz, L. W., & Johnson, R. A. (2008). Managerial agents watching other agents: Multiple agency conflicts regarding underpricing in IPO firms. Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 277–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Beatty, R. P., & Ritter, J. R. (1986). Investment banking, reputation, and the underpricing of initial public offerings. Journal of Financial Economics, 15(1–2), 213–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bottazzi, L., Rin, M. D., & Hellmann, T. (2008). Who are the active investors?: Evidence from venture capital. Journal of Financial Economics, 89(3), 488–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Brennan, M. J., & Franks, J. (1997). Underpricing, ownership and control in initial public offerings of equity securities in the UK. Journal of Financial Economics, 45(3), 391–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Certo, T. S., Covin, J. G., Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2001a). Signaling firm value through board structure: An investigation of initial public offerings. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 26(2), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Certo, T. S., Covin, J. G., Daily, C. M., & Dalton, D. R. (2001b). Wealth and the effects of founder management among IPO-stage new ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 641–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Choi, Y. K., & Han, S. H. (2013). Corporate restructuring, financial deregulation, and firm value: Evidence from Japanese “spin-ins”. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 22, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., & Litz, R. A. (2004). Comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: Conceptual issues and exploratory evidence. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 335–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cliff, M. T., & Denis, D. J. (2004). Do IPO firms purchase analyst coverage with underpricing? Journal of Finance, 59(6), 2871–2901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Corbetta, G., & Salvato, C. (2004). Self-servicing or self-actualizing? Models of man and agency costs in different types of family firms: A commentary on “Comparing the agency costs of family and non-family firms: Conceptual issues and explanatory evidence”. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 28(4), 355–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Davis, J. H., Schoorman, D. F., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Toward a stewardship theory of management. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 20–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Deeds, D. L., DeCarolis, D., & Coombs, J. E. (1998). Firm specific resources and wealth creation in high technology ventures: Evidence from newly public biotechnology firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 22(3), 55–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Dewenter, K., Novaes, W., & Pettway, R. H. (2001). Visibility versus complexity in business groups: Evidence from Japanese Keiretsu. Journal of Business, 74(1), 79–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Filatotchev, I., Lien, Y.-C., & Piesse, J. (2005). Corporate governance and performance in publicly listed, family-controlled firms: Evidence from Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 22(3), 257–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Financial Times. (2007, August 16). Subsidiaries in Japan.

  20. Gompers, P. A., & Lerner, J. (2000). The determinants of corporate venture capital successes: Organizational structure, incentives, and complementarities. In R. K. Morck (Ed.), Concentrated corporate ownership (pp. 17–53). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hamao, Y., Packer, F., & Ritter, J. R. (2000). Institutional affiliation and the role of venture capital: Evidence from initial public offerings in Japan. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 8(5), 529–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hanley, K. W. (1993). Underpricing of initial public offerings and the partial adjustment phenomenon. Journal of Financial Economics, 34(2), 231–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hanley, K. W., & Wilhelm, W. J. (1995). Evidence on the strategic allocation of initial public offerings. Journal of Financial Economics, 37(2), 239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hiraki, T., Inoue, H., Ito, A., Kuroki, F., & Masuda, H. (2003). Corporate governance and firm value in Japan: Evidence from 1985 to 1998. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 11(3), 239–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hoshi, T., Kashyap, A., & Scharfstein, D. (1991). Corporate structure, liquidity, and investment: Evidence from Japanese industrial groups. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(1), 33–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ito, K., & Rose, E. L. (1994). The genealogical structure of Japanese firms: Parent–subsidiary relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 35–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs, and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Joh, S. W., & Kim, Y.-H. (2017). Effects of institutional investors’ bidding information on offer prices and initial returns of IPOs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Financial Studies, 46(1), 116–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kaneko, T., & Pettway, R. (2003). Auctions versus book building of Japanese IPOs. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 11(1), 439–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kaplan, S., & Stromberg, P. (2004). Characteristics, contracts, and actions: Evidence from venture capitalist analyses. Journal of Finance, 59(5), 2177–2210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kerins, F., Kutsuna, K., & Smith, R. (2007). Why IPOs are underpriced? Evidence from Japan’s hybrid auction-method offerings. Journal of Financial Economics, 85(3), 637–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim, H., Hoskisson, R. E., & Wan, W. P. (2004). Power dependence, diversification strategy and performance in keiretsu member firms. Strategic Management Journal, 25(7), 613–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kirkulak, B., & Davis, C. (2005). Underwriter reputation and underpricing: Evidence from the Japanese IPO market. Pacific Basin Finance Journal, 13(4), 451–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Kroll, M., & Le, S. A. (2007). The impact of board composition and top management team ownership structure on post-IPO performance in young entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50(5), 1198–1216.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kutsuna, K., & Smith, R. L. (2004). Why does book building drive out auction methods of IPO issuance? Evidence from Japan, Review of Financial Studies, 17(4), 1129–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kutsuna, K., Smith, J. K., & Smith, R. (2010). Public information, IPO price formation, and long-run returns: Japanese evidence. Journal of Finance, 64(1), 505–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lewis, L. (2019, January 24) Off topix: Tokyo eyes shake-up to kick out losers. Financial Times.

  38. Lin, Y.-H., Chen, C.-J., & Lin, B.-W. (2014). The roles of political and business ties in new ventures: Evidence from China. Asian Business & Management, 13(5), 411–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lin, C.-P., & Chuang, C.-M. (2011). Principal–principal conflicts and IPO pricing in an emerging economy. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(6), 585–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Liu, X., & Ritter, J. R. (2011). Local underwriter oligopolies and IPO underpricing. Journal of Financial Economics, 102(3), 579–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Ljungqvist, A. (2007). IPO underpricing: A survey. In E. B. Eckbo (Ed.), Handbook of corporate finance (pp. 375–422). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ljungqvist, A., & Wilhelm, W. J. (2003). IPO pricing in the dot-com bubble. Journal of Finance, 58(2), 723–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ljungqvist, A., & Wilhelm, W. J. (2005). Does prospect theory explain IPO market behavior? Journal of Finance, 60(4), 1759–1790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Loughran, T., & Ritter, J. (2004). Why has IPO underpricing changed over time? Financial Management, 33(3), 5–37.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mayer, C., Schoors, K., & Yafeh, Y. (2005). Sources of funds and investment activities of venture capital funds: evidence from Germany, Israel, Japan and the United Kingdom. Journal of Corporate Finance, 11(3), 586–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. McGough, R., & Smith, R. (1999). IPO issuers don’t mind money left on the table. Wall Street Journal, 3, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  47. McGuire, J., & Dow, S. (2009). Japanese keiretsu: Past, present, future. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 26(2), 333–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Megginson, W., & Weiss, K. (1991). Venture capitalist certification in initial public offerings. Journal of Finance, 46(3), 879–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Morck, R., & Nakamura, M. (1999). Banks and corporate control in Japan. Journal of Finance, 54(1), 319–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pollock, T. G., Porac, J. G., & Wade, J. B. (2004). Constructing deal networks: Brokers as network “architects” in the U.S. IPO market and other examples. Academy of Management Review, 29(1), 50–72.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Prowse, S. D. (1990). Institutional investment patterns and corporate financial behavior in the United States and Japan. Journal of Financial Economics, 27(1), 43–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Reuter, J. (2006). Are IPO allocations for sale? Evidence from mutual funds. Journal of Finance, 61(5), 2289–2324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ritter, J. (1991). The long-run performance of initial public offerings. Journal of Finance, 46(1), 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rock, K. (1986). Why new issues are underpriced. Journal of Financial Economics, 15(1–2), 187–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Sakawa, H., Moriyama, K., & Watanabel, N. (2012). Relation between top executive compensation structure and corporate governance: Evidence from Japanese public disclosed data. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 20(6), 593–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Sakawa, H., Ubukata, M., & Watanabel, N. (2014). Market liquidity and bank-dominated corporate governance: Evidence from Japan. International Review of Economics & Finance, 31, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sakawa, H., & Watanabel, N. (2012). Corporate governance and initial public offerings in Japan. In A. Zattoni & W. Judge (Eds.), Corporate governance and initial public offerings: An international perspective (pp. 238–261). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Sakawa, H., & Watanabel, N. (2018a). Parent control and ownership monitoring in publicly listed subsidiaries in Japan. Research in International Business and Finance, 45, 7–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Sakawa, H., & Watanabel, N. (2018b). Board structures and performance in the banking industry: Evidence from Japan. International Review of Economics & Finance, 56, 308–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sakawa, H., & Watanabel, N. (2018c). Family control and ownership monitoring in stakeholder-oriented corporate governance. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-04-2018-0480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sakawa, H., & Watanabel, N. (2018d). Main bank relationship and accounting conservatism: Evidence from Japan. In Proceedings of annual conference of Association of Japanese Business Studies.

  62. Sanchanta, M. (2005, May 22). Shareholders wary of contrived defences. Financial Times.

  63. Schultz, P. H., & Zaman, M. A. (1994). Aftermarket support and underpricing of initial public offerings. Journal of Financial Economics, 35(2), 199–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Smart, S. B., & Zutter, C. J. (2003). Control as a motivation for underpricing: A comparison of dual and single-class IPOs. Journal of Financial Economics, 69(1), 85–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Stoughton, N. M., & Zechner, J. (1998). IPO-mechanisms, monitoring and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 49(1), 45–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Sun, Y., & Uchida, K. (2016). The role of bank-affiliated venture capital for parent banks in Japan: New evidence. Asia Pacific Journal of Financial Studies, 45(6), 864–885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Takahashi, H. (2015). Dynamics of bank relationships in entrepreneurial finance. Journal of Corporate Finance, 34, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Tanaka, A., & Kurata, H. (2011). Listed upstart ventures and the Corporate Governance: Consideration from venture company of listed owner. Sanno University Bulletin, 32(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Tatsumi, K. (2011). Why book building in IPO is dominant? A survey and critical comments. Gakushuin Economic Papers, 48(1), 23–44.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Tinic, S. M. (1988). Anatomy of initial public offerings of common stock. Journal of Finance, 43(4), 789–822.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Tykvová, T., & Walz, U. (2007). How important is participation of different venture capitalists in German IPOs? Global Finance Journal, 17(3), 350–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Van Osnabrugge, M., & Robinson, R. J. (2001). The influence of a venture capitalist’s source of funds. Venture Capital, 3(1), 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Wang, K., Wang, C. K., & Lu, Q. (2002). Differences in performance of independent and finance-affiliated venture capital firms. Journal of Financial Research, 25(1), 59–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Welch, I. (1992). Sequential sales, learning, and cascades. Journal of Finance, 47(2), 695–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica, 48(4), 817–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Yoshikawa, T., Phan, P. H., & Linton, J. (2004). The relation between governance structure and risk management approaches in Japanese venture capital firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(6), 831–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Yoshikawa, T., & Rasheed, A. A. (2010). Family control and ownership monitoring in family-controlled firms in Japan. Journal of Management Studies, 47(2), 274–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Young, M. N., Peng, M. W., Ahlstrom, D., Bruton, G. D., & Jiang, Y. (2008). Corporate governance in emerging economies: A review of the principal–principal perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 196–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Zahra, S. A., & Filatotchev, I. (2004). Governance of the entrepreneurial threshold firm: A knowledge-based perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 41(5), 885–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Zattoni, A., & Judge, W. (2012). Introduction. In A. Zattoni & W. Judge (Eds.), Corporate governance and initial public offerings: An international perspective (pp. 1–36). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Zhou, J., Tam, O. K., & Lan, W. (2016). Solving agency problems in Chinese family firms—A law and finance perspective. Asian Business & Management, 15(1), 57–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Allan Bird, Kiyohiko Ito, Tom Roehl, Elizabeth Rose, and Yoshiro Tsutsui for their valuable comments on earlier drafts, which helped improve this article. This study is financially supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (A) (MEXT/JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17H04784), the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) (MEXT/JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17K03695), and the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (B) (MEXT/JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17KT0036). All remaining errors are solely our owns.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hideaki Sakawa.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sakawa, H., Watanabel, N. IPO underpricing and ownership monitoring in Japan. Asian Bus Manage (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-019-00067-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Agency theory
  • Initial public offerings
  • Principal–principal conflicts
  • Underpricing