IPO Pricing in Germany and Switzerland in the New Millennium: Tests on Underpricing and Long-Term Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We provide an updated analysis of initial public offerings (IPOs) by Swiss and German companies after the turn of the millennium up to 2020. We compare the characteristics of initial pricing to those observed in prior studies, test conventional hypotheses about underpricing cross-sectionally, and analyze the long-run performance of IPO firms. Our sample included 72 IPOs in Switzerland and 307 IPOs in Germany. We found an average (median) underpricing of 13.27% (7.19%) for Swiss IPOs and an average (median) of 21.50% (3.7%) for German IPOs; the averages dropped to 6.45% and 5.82%, respectively, after excluding the hot-issue market in 2000. Among the cross-sectional explanations, interesting effects can be observed with respect to the bookbuilding width and transparency standard of the listed market segment, as well as the reputation of the underwriter and the value of the greenshoe option. We documented strong post-issue underperformance for holding periods up to 120 months, which were, however, only present in the Swiss sample for median, not mean, returns.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".