Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 307

Is good IPO access worth the costs involved?

There is considerable drive by regulators towards the power of transparency, and that shining a light deep into superannuation funds is empowering to fund members.

In line with this key theme, we recently ‘lit up’ the world of large superannuation fund investing to test the power of transparency on one area of Australian equity portfolio management – participation in initial public offerings (IPOs). The headlines and hype around IPOs may lead a superannuation fund investor to think it is a brightly-lit area. But there is considerable murkiness in the way IPO results are calculated and, in particular, what it really costs a fund to have an equity manager chase extra returns through IPO participation.

Our study sought to isolate the value an equity manager could have added through institutional bookbuild IPO participation, net of costs, across 2011-2018. We created a hypothetical large-cap Australian equity portfolio which, as a base case, participated in every IPO in the Australian market between 2011 and 2018 and received a fair (rather than preferential) allocation. The results were underwhelming, adding on average around 3.5 basis points each year to investment performance, before costs.

Is there value in superior IPO selection or better access?

Australian equity managers can be quick to assert that they can beat this ‘base case’ market experience and add value to their clients’ equity portfolios by cultivating relationships with lead IPO managers (brokers). This can lead to two sources of value-add: superior selection of IPOs and a preferential (better than fair) allocation of IPO stocks. Without individual managers sharing their data with us, we could not test whether a specific Australian equity manager can really add value to large superannuation fund portfolios through IPO participation. But scenario testing our hypothetical large-cap portfolio led to some interesting observations.

A key finding is that IPO participation pay-offs have a hidden cost attached which are rarely included in calculations of IPO value-add.

The costs are in the form of directing trade volumes (‘flows’) to specific brokers and paying higher than execution-only brokerage rates on equity trades, day in and day out. This is a kind of investment to cultivate the manager’s relationship with the broker – using the client’s investment capital – with the hope that, amongst other things, the manager can benefit when IPO deals come along from superior selection (judging which IPOs to participate in) and from receiving a generous allocation of the IPO stocks pre-listing day from the broker.

The costs of buying favour with a broker

That daily favouring of particular brokers instead of simply pursuing lowest-cost best execution on every equity trade costs more than one might think. Over our analysis period, brokerage rates on large-cap equity trades averaged 10-20 basis points (0.1% to 0.2%), while execution-only brokerage was available at 5 basis points (0.05%). For a $1 billion actively-managed superannuation equity portfolio with modest 50% one-way turnover each year (100% two-way), the manager’s alpha-chasing ‘round trips’ cost the fund $1-2 million in brokerage instead of $500,000 each year. That difference is quite a ‘bogey’ for IPO participation to beat. At a minimum, it is essential to capture some of these higher trading costs in any calculation of IPO participation pay-off.

Capturing these costs, a manager who is twice as good at choosing IPOs or securing access as the market (our base case) is still, after costs, only able to advance the portfolio by about 5 basis points (0.05%) a year. The manager has to be at least four times better than the market to even get the performance contribution from IPO participation into double digits (10 basis points or 0.1%); five times better lifts the value of IPO participation only to 12.5 basis points (0.125%) annually.

While every basis point of return counts, shining a light on this aspect of equity investing suggests a reality quite different from the hype that surrounds IPOs.

Declining opportunity set

We are nervous about the value of IPOs as an opportunity set, given how seasonal and unpredictable it is, not to mention the interesting U.S. trend for companies to shun public markets for capital raisings. Industry predictions are for ‘slim pickings’ for IPO deals in 2019 in Australia. This means even a manager with the best IPO selection skills securing the best allocations simply cannot add value when there is little company appetite to raise public funds.

There is an alternative, solid path for managers to pursue on behalf of their large superannuation fund clients. They could adopt, as a default position, simple, nuts-and-bolts best execution and transactional efficiency, without favour or generosity to any particular broker, every day on every equity trade. This opportunity set is always available and has pay-offs that are transparent, measurable and consistent.

We do not rule out the prospect of some managers (especially in the small-caps space) harvesting sizeable returns through IPO participation. But we see IPOs as another area that needs to be brightly lit, to empower large superannuation funds and other investors to look behind the headlines and hype to determine where the true value lies.

 

Raewyn Williams is Managing Director of Research at Parametric Australia, a US-based investment advisor. This is general information only and does not consider the circumstances of any investor. Additional information is available at parametricportfolio.com.au.

RELATED ARTICLES

The biggest rort of all

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

The 'Contrast Principle' used by super fund test failures

Rather than compare results against APRA's benchmark, large super funds which failed the YFYS performance test are using another measure such as a CPI+ target, with more favourable results to show their members.

Property

RBA switched rate priority on house prices versus jobs

RBA Governor, Philip Lowe, says that surging house prices are not as important as full employment, but a previous Governor, Glenn Stevens, had other priorities, putting the "elevated level of house prices" first.

Investment strategies

Disruptive innovation and the Tesla valuation debate

Two prominent fund managers with strongly opposing views and techniques. Cathie Wood thinks Tesla is going to US$3,000, Rob Arnott says it's already a bubble at US$750. They debate valuing growth and disruption.

Shares

4 key materials for batteries and 9 companies that will benefit

Four key materials are required for battery production as we head towards 30X the number of electric cars. It opens exciting opportunities for Australian companies as the country aims to become a regional hub.

Shares

Why valuation multiples fail in an exponential world

Estimating the value of a company based on a multiple of earnings is a common investment analysis technique, but it is often useless. Multiples do a poor job of valuing the best growth businesses, like Microsoft.

Shares

Five value chains driving the ‘transition winners’

The ability to adapt to change makes a company more likely to sustain today’s profitability. There are five value chains plus a focus on cashflow and asset growth that the 'transition winners' are adopting.

Superannuation

Halving super drawdowns helps wealthy retirees most

At the start of COVID, the Government allowed early access to super, but in a strange twist, others were permitted to leave money in tax-advantaged super for another year. It helped the wealthy and should not be repeated.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.