Factors Influencing IPOs Pricing and Performance in Saudi Arabia: A Halal and Haram Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the study is to determine the factors affecting underpricing behaviour of IPOs in Saudi stock market. A special interest is to study the effect of Shariah compliance of Saudi investors on the extent IPO underpricing. The paper uses multiple regression analysis on the IPOs data for Saudi Stock market from 2004 to 2017 with a total of 105 observations.The results show overwhelming evidence of underpricing of IPOs during the first day trading. The most important result of this piece of research is that investors positively respond to the IPOs with Shariah compliance and return is negatively affected by Shariah board. The results also show that the abnormal returns are driven by the demand side factors like oversubscription. Other findings of the study show that premium to face value, type of audit firms and underwriters, and Saudi stock market index are significant determinants of the underpricing of IPOs.The most important implication of this paper is that the existence of abnormal first day return in Saudi stock market shows the existence of market imperfections. By motivating the investors to invest in Shariah compliant IPOs, decreasing the element of uncertainty and ensuring information symmetry these abnormal returns can be normalized. The results show that Saudi society is partial towards Shariah compliant investment opportunities and the investors’ desire to avoid investments involving Haram activities can be used to reduce market imperfections.This paper identifies the important determinants of IPOs underpricing in Saudi stock market and sheds light on the effect of Shariah compliant firms on IPO underpricing. Keywords – IPOs, Underpricing, Shariah Compliance, Auditor, Stock Market, Saudi Arabia
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".