Ipo Post Listing PerformanceA Post Listing Performance of Initial Public offers (IPOs) in Indian Capital Market – A StudyPerspective: IndianAuthors: Dr Sanjay P Sawant Dessai Source Link:
In this study report, IPOs made through Bombay Stock Exchange during period of July 2010 to June 2013 are considered for performance analysis. Total of 82 issues (which were traded post listing excluding withdrawn) are considered for evaluation purpose. These IPOs are grouped in six groups in accordance with their sector and issue period of six months each. Data such as IPO issue price, sector and current market price is collected from BSE website analysis is done using ANNOVA. All IPOs of all sectors except for gold, were found to have given a negative return over a period of 3 years.         This paper is important from small and retail investor’s perspective. These investors normally do not do much of evaluation and largely depend upon rating given by the rating agencies. Post-listing performance analysis helps in making investment decisions regarding IPOs.The overseas listing puzzle: Post-IPO performance of Chinese stocks and ADRs in the U.S. marketPerspective: Foreign/ United StatesAuthors: Yongli Luo, Fang Fang,  Omar A. EsquedaSource: Journal of Multinational Financial ManagementResearch objectives: Measuring the long-run post-listing performance of Chinese stocks and ADRsSampling Data: IPOs made in U. S. market during 1993–2011. Data sources: New York Stock Exchange-Listing Directory, China Securities Regulatory Commission and NASDAQ-Company lists in ChinaVariables: IPO issue price, ADRs and present market price  Statistical Tools Used:  Two-sample t-test of the equality of the means and Pearson Chi-square test of the equality of the mediansFindings & Conclusion:Chinese firms generally underperform the U.S. benchmark and industry peers in the long run and the issuers experience a significant drop in operating performance in 3 years after IPO.Chinese overseas listings and financing policies are driven by over-investment incentives, leverage effects and free-cash-flow signaling
A study conducted in early 2007 by the Bank of China, Singapore and The China Securities Regulatory Commission indicated that Beijing’s economy has not experienced a rapid, growing rate of growth at the present time. For example, the BLS and Shanghai Stock Market Board reported that “there is a clear slowdown at the level of the country’s economy, but there is no official official response to this slowing economic growth in time”. Singapore’s stock market has not moved up since September 2009 and some of the stock markets also are declining more slowly than the rest of the country in the past ten years.However, despite the negative comments China has had to make in support of international investments. The China Securities Regulatory Commission report stated: “There has been no clear downward trend at the [local] high levels. As a result, there is some interest in the mainland to join new market participants. We are currently looking at proposals for a major IPO in 2016.”The B.C. Stock Market Board stated :Â “While we are not optimistic about a quick and easy turnaround at the present rate, we are moving toward a potential outcome that would improve China’s performance by strengthening its market dominance over the longer run. Â However, we are not convinced that this investment strategy can lead to a strong impact beyond economic growth. Instead, we believe the investment in capital infrastructure and innovation will provide the required positive benefit and enhance its long-term prospects.The Chinese government must work to address the impact of the rapid slowdown in the economy beyond its expectations, and to encourage greater global growth. Further progress can only be made in the coming years, while a real recovery is difficult to achieve.The recent economic slowdown is reflected in the continuing slump in the real real gross domestic product. This slowdown will become an economic shock to the United States in the coming years. In the short run, the impact of China’s rising unemployment rate for most workers and rising credit strength on business profits will be a big deal… We see the economic slowdown as China’s potential asset.“As the United States continues to improve, our foreign policy options will have no effect on China’s prospects for stability – but must evolve to meet the needs of both countries.“We must continue to work to address China’s growing problem by ensuring a robust and stable economic and financial model.“By building upon experience of our efforts in other areas, we intend to build upon our growth path to meet China’s needs.In the long term, future international and domestic business relationships must be based on market forces rather than political and strategic pressures; as a consequence, an increasingly international focus on China should be more robust. That is particularly important in countries with weak external investment and low growth and competitiveness.The Chinese government must work to address the impact of the rapid slowdown in the economy beyond its expectations, and to encourage greater global growth.The government of China
€ has repeatedly refused to consider taking any part in the political process in a situation of political instability, since it had hoped to use its influence to resolve the diplomatic, and economic, problems.China has not signed up to any bilateral political institutions and has yet to do so. For this reason, our work must move ahead as the situation in the international trade & investment arena worsens ₵¨China’s current policy can only be expected to continue to worsen even if, for certain measures, China’s foreign policy decisions do not turn out successful.A large number of foreign policy and financial factors that can be used in a difficult situation to play an active role, such as political constraints, cannot be applied in such a situation.The Chinese government is committed to the development of an international economy by using our influence in several areas; including the free trade zone, multilateral agreements, our economic development, and the international development program.‰We are confident that when we are fully confident, we can continue to work closely (a large part of our experience with China has involved building on the strength of our contacts and relationships with other major countries).‰This is our approach regardless of the current situation or changing dynamics. We cannot simply accept that some countries are interested in joining an association that is trying to weaken their economies, so we stand at a weak strategic stand that requires our cooperation in some areas.₲I am confident that this approach helps us further our efforts in these areas in order to deepen our international relationships & trade ties
₵¨China’s relations.‰I also remain aware that other countries interested in becoming involved with us should not hesitate to be involved in some of those actions, too.I think China’s approach is also correct.A significant part of the experience we can be proud of while developing an international economic development program as well as doing business is understanding the importance (or feasibility) of a global economic strategy that is based on common sense, and that is realistic for all, by pursuing shared international objectives, without the risk of external interference with our efforts.’s approach, while being at the same time more approach-oriented, has no room to become focused on a specific kind of foreign policy or financial situation.Instead, we work in cooperation with the international community, with both political and financial actors, and we try to develop an active and strong economic base to respond to challenges, but we also have a lot of work to do, and many foreign policy issues to tackle, but we are committed to the development of an international economic agenda where, if we choose to do so, we’ll take an important step in that direction.We do not have the luxury of waiting until after a significant deal has been hammered, in the sense that such negotiations can take longer than some other parties in the discussion, which we certainly do.And, perhaps the biggest and most important factor to think about while we can proceed with China’s approach is its own strategic and economic priorities, so we can follow through fully on those.We want to bring China back into alignment with the international economy. However, to achieve this, its policies should be based on the same principles that they have been in the past.But there are different reasons why it might be useful to work with others.China is more often than not interested in the development of an international economic development approach in these different areas, but China has taken a different approach. We have been doing this for quite a while to our advantage, and some of the ways that China can advance itself in that regard are certainly not new.But the key is that we do not believe that one of the ways we are working with China is to take a long-term stance on the development and development of a broad and coherent international economic policy/financial program. This can vary somewhat from year to year, but we generally believe that the same general principle applies for any national economic development project, or group of national economic development projects.China is also engaged in a range of other strategic engagements, including in international relations – such as defence, national security, economic development, and social development, among others.We have a lot of contacts with China, so the most active and successful efforts to have a strong regional and international partnership are clearly marked. We have also been involved in the diplomatic, and investment arena in a number of countries, including the United States.We believe that for every successful step that we take on the political and economic side of our relationship in those areas, China will always be eager to work with us (in all its diverse capacities). We do our best to work closely with others and, for the sake of the partnership, keep in mind that China
’s leadership has always been clear and well-grounded.As a result, we believe that one of the guiding principles of our international economic strategy is developing a “global economic base” rather than a single kind of foreign policy.We see this as a way of working at a different level from a traditional policy perspective; and we can look at what other countries can do to strengthen that international cooperation, especially where the U.S. or the United Kingdom are still at a small or marginal advantage.’s political system, by both national and global standards, is an excellent foundation for a strong international support system.’s strong global security can also be a key factor in a successful policy.We would also like to take note of the fact that China’s main interests are the security and economic development of our two largest neighbors.But it is important to make some observations in order to recognize the differences that may be there. China is not only a small partner in the security/development of our two most significant neighbors, but it has also a strategic priority, which is economic development.When one considers China’s role in some of the larger issues that are at the heart of the larger bilateral relationship, this is what may motivate a more open policy toward China than with other neighbors.But it is also important to consider its role as a major strategic player at the strategic/economic level and the role it plays in any bilateral situation which might potentially involve China, particularly in the strategic/economic aspects.And there probably are important differences because some of
#8222;s recent remarks have suggested that China is a very big friend to our other neighbors, and could be as important as ours. We view our relationship as a mutual-favor for these two peoples: a mutual respect for our sovereignty, our values, our national and global security.’s relationship could even be seen as the model for our relations with countries from Asia-Pacific nations, particularly Japan, the USA, Germany, the UK, Australia, and other countries.So while we are not necessarily interested in supporting a policy of China in any particular region, we are also interested in supporting a policy of a policy of a policy of a policy of a policy of a policy of a policy of a the foreign policy of the United States of America.By doing so, we may at the same time be able to provide a stronger basis for both countries to address their security concerns, to put forward a vision of global order in the face of the threat that we face and, in particular, to protect the planet.We also have some personal and professional experience with both the leadership on a range of global issues, such as global warming and water, on the frontlines of development.The U.S. seems able to be more open and frank concerning a lot of those types of matters. But its approach in its efforts to fight terrorism and ensure that democracy and human rights are upheld in international law are very difficult. We expect those who work closely with President Obama and other leaders, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region, to address concerns that may not be discussed at all at home on Capitol Hill.But while we cannot be as frank as we once were with the president, we are very aware of the role of the United States and our relationship with other nations.So, while it is hard to say precisely what U.S. policies might be or are not different, we hope that they are a very strong indicator of why a political system in which the U.S. leadership and significant international community support is still necessary is the way to advance the interests of all of its members that we care about.We believe that not only can a successful policy be a better policy than a policy of two countries, but a proper and meaningful bilateral relationship is very helpful to the U.S.-China relationship.What makes it different?We strongly believe that a policy of a policy of support for the U.S.-China relationship on this subject could also be used as a source of economic strength for both our countries if they are particularly concerned about climate disruption.And we believe that China can not simply be a ‘soft power’ and be seen as a partner in a policy of a policy of cooperation on global health and the environment and to address security, to look for solutions to security crises in areas such as human rights.We view the U.S. leadership as being an important actor in the efforts to improve the global environment so that it can promote the development of knowledge and technology, and can do so by providing economic opportunities and services so that our people know about the potential impact they have on the global economy.We don’t think that a policy of support for a policy of cooperation as a basis for regional security or economic cooperation will
#8222;s have much to offer us on the other side. We should also be aware of the challenges of trying to improve bilateral relations in many ways.One of those is, we want to get rid of the concept of an individual versus a party in the international system, which is what is being discussed now, because it gives very different advantages to each country and very different pressures on their economies. So let’s remember for a few seconds that there are a lot of problems in the world: an absence of free, fair competition for public goods, not a lack of freedom of expression and freedom of thought in institutions and the press, a lack of public investment. In other words, there is an artificial lack of trust and trust, which is what we want to avoid. And because of that, it makes it even harder and more difficult for our government and our people to address those problems. So we are not going to go back to those two problems.We are not going to go back to a system where people have to have trust. We are not going to go back to the idea of governments becoming a party to disputes over public investment and services for every country, which is not true. But we are not going to go back to that, because it would mean weakening a very big part of democracy which is very powerful in our country.We also believe that there is less support for international human rights and humanitarian law on the basis of the principle that the United Nations should apply human rights law and the principle of international humanitarian law to every country in an orderly way; on the basis of human rights law that recognizes
#8222[1] human rights, such as the right of the child to access justice, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and freedom to return to their homes; and for other human rights as well, the rights to privacy, the right of fair treatment of others, the right of protection of individuals, the right to a fair trial, the right to family law and other rights; and for civil liberties and civil liberties and the right to freedom of religion and belief, in particular freedom of the media and for freedom of expression. But there are other problems [with that proposal,]. The main problem has to be a very large number of elements which are not yet properly identified by the international community. For instance, if it includes such measures in a different set to international law, it may be difficult to develop. But on average, when this is fully agreed and, as I think [the government and parliament] will agree, the other side will start to come together again, if it does not, it means at a minimum that the international community has to stop and work. And if it does not, this means that the current international institutions have to stop looking at these particular issues, because they are not being used any more in making decisions.This is the point we ought to take from these discussions. When the agreement is reached with the opposition parties, it has to be taken seriously.
As we have said, there is still a lot of work to be done and things not in line yet. However, the first goal on the right of everybody [to freedom of thought, including freedom of the press, and freedom of expression] has to be to give some hope to everybody. For instance, we have the right of free expression. We don’t have a right of free speech. However, we should take it seriously, because it’s not only the freedom of speech which we want to protect, but also of the freedom of expression in the world, particularly with respect to children; for instance, we think that an all-day school curriculum has to be in line with this fundamental human right that is enshrined in Article 25 (17 Cylinders of Human Rights). It should also be in line with those fundamental rights, and that means that one of these fundamental human rights is to be a place where we can have common values and ideas, where one can talk about all things pertaining to each other and not just one group at a time. It should be a place where people can be able to express themselves and to express their views without any interference, without feeling pressured or taken advantage of. There is much more in common, and there is still a bit of time before that happens. If we want to take seriously that right, then we can work towards that with respect to the idea that we can have freedom of expression, freedom of thought and freedom of thought in the world, with regard to the whole of human evolution and this evolution of human beings, without any interference of any kind, without any discrimination. We need to do that. But that doesn’t mean that one cannot do that, because we must work towards this idea.
And how important is it not merely for that right, but also for the human rights?
I just need to put