What's Market: A Mid-year Round-up of IPOs in 2015 | Practical Law

What's Market: A Mid-year Round-up of IPOs in 2015 | Practical Law

A review of trends in initial public offerings (IPOs) that emerged in the first half of 2015.

What's Market: A Mid-year Round-up of IPOs in 2015

Practical Law Article w-000-6141 (Approx. 9 pages)

What's Market: A Mid-year Round-up of IPOs in 2015

by Practical Law Corporate & Securities
Published on 29 Sep 2015USA (National/Federal)
A review of trends in initial public offerings (IPOs) that emerged in the first half of 2015.

Market Overview

Following an exceptional year in 2014, initial public offering (IPO) activity in the US slowed substantially in the first two quarters of 2015. There were 80 US IPOs in the first two quarters of 2015 by domestic and foreign private issuers (FPIs), raising more than $11.5 billion (see Figure A). By comparison, 135 IPOs priced during the same period in 2014, raising more than $26.6 billion. In 2014, there were 75 IPOs in the second quarter alone.
The slowdown was more pronounced in the first quarter, during which only 27 IPOs went to market. The first quarter of 2015 was the least active quarter by number of IPOs since the first quarter of 2013 and the smallest quarter by proceeds raised since the third quarter of 2011, according to Renaissance Capital - manager of IPO-focused ETFs.
In the second quarter of 2015, the number of IPOs rebounded to 53, nearly double that of the first quarter. Average deal size, however, remained significantly lower than in recent years. The average deal size for the first two quarters of 2015 was $144.3 million, down from $197.5 million for the first half of 2014 and $235.6 million for the first half of 2013. In the first half of 2015 there were no IPOs over $1 billion (the highest was Univar Inc.'s $770 million IPO), compared to five and two IPOs over $1 billion in the first half of 2014 and 2013, respectively.
Factors influencing the drop in the number of IPOs and average deal size in the first two quarters of 2015 include:
  • The ready availability of private financing from venture capital and private equity sponsors at high valuations, allowing companies to delay going public.
  • Fewer large-scale IPOs with private equity sponsors. There were fewer private equity IPO exits in the first quarter of 2015 than in any quarter since 2009, according to Renaissance Capital.
  • An active M&A market in the first half of 2015, offering an attractive alternative exit path for financial sponsors.

Q1 and Q2 US IPO Developments

A review of the first and second quarter IPO filings by all US domestic issuers (excluding real estate investment trusts (REITs), special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) and unit offerings) and FPIs that completed an IPO (or a first-time US issuance for an FPI on an F-series registration statement) revealed the following trends:
  • The vast majority of issuers confidentially submitted their draft registration statement to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) before making any public filing.
  • FPIs continued to exercise the flexibility permitted by SEC rules to use financial statements prepared under accounting principles other than US GAAP.
  • Underwriting discounts did not vary greatly, with 75% of all IPOs paying an underwriting discount of 7%.
  • 56 IPO issuers (70%) chose to list their securities on NASDAQ.
  • IPOs by companies in the services and pharmaceuticals/ biotechnology industries accounted for over 58% of all offerings.
  • 93.8% of IPO issuers had a lock-up period of 180 days for the company and 91.3% had a lock-up period of 180 days for their directors, officers and shareholders.

Confidential Submissions and Reduced Financial Disclosure

Since the passage of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (JOBS Act), one of the principal advantages for an emerging growth company (EGC) conducting an IPO is the ability to submit a draft registration statement and later amendments to the SEC for confidential nonpublic review prior to any public filing.
While an FPI can also qualify as an EGC, the SEC's Division of Corporation Finance has historically maintained a policy permitting certain FPIs to submit drafts of a first-time registration statement to the SEC for nonpublic review.
In the first half of 2015:
  • 73 IPO issuers (91.3%) identified themselves as EGCs, including all 27 issuers in the first quarter.
  • 68 IPO issuers (85%) confidentially submitted a draft registration statement to the SEC. On average, these issuers took 92 days from the first confidential filing to the first public filing of the draft registration statement.
  • Only five IPO issuers (6.8%) that identified themselves as EGCs opted not to confidentially submit their draft registration statement to the SEC.
A review of the first and second quarter IPO filings shows that 13 IPO issuers were FPIs. All 13 FPI issuers identified themselves as EGCs and confidentially submitted a draft registration statement to the SEC.
For more information on the process for confidentially submitting a draft registration statement (submission types "DRS" and "DRS/A") via EDGAR, see Practice Note, Filing Documents with the SEC.
The JOBS Act also permits EGCs to include in the IPO registration statement only:
  • Two years of audited financial statements (instead of the three years required for non-EGCs).
  • Two years of selected financial data (instead of the five years required for non-EGCs).
As a result, the MD&A (Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations) section in an EGC's IPO prospectus need only include a discussion of two years of financial information (instead of the three years required for non-EGCs).
Despite these accommodations, an EGC may elect to include three full years of audited financial statements in its IPO registration statement. Among other reasons, an EGC may include three years to:
  • Show medium- to long-term trends in the issuer's results of operations.
  • Make it easier for investors to compare the IPO issuer to its non-EGC peer companies.
  • Avoid potential claims that omitting the third year is a material omission under the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities laws, especially where the results for the third, oldest fiscal year are less favorable than the two most recent years.
In the first half of 2015:
  • 40 EGCs (54.8%) included two years of audited financial statements.
  • 27 EGCs (37%) chose not to take advantage of the accommodation and included three years of audited financial statements.
  • Six EGCs (8.2%) included just one year of audited financial statements.
(See Figure B.)

Presentation of Financial Statements by FPIs

SEC rules give FPIs more flexibility than US issuers when it comes to the accounting principles they can use to prepare the financial statements required in their SEC filings. While US domestic companies must use US GAAP, FPIs are permitted to use any of the following:
  • US GAAP.
  • IFRS (International Financial Reporting Standards) as issued by the IASB (International Accounting Standards Board).
  • Another comprehensive set of accounting principles, for example, their own country's GAAP, accompanied by a reconciliation to US GAAP.
In the first half of 2015, more FPIs chose IFRS over US GAAP, with nine FPIs (69.2%) opting to use IFRS and four FPIs (30.8%) choosing to use US GAAP. None of the FPIs prepared their financial statements under their home-country GAAP.
For more information on financial statement requirements for FPIs, see Practice Note, Annual Report on Form 20-F.

Underwriting Discounts

In a typical IPO, at the time of pricing the underwriters commit to purchase the offered securities for resale to investors (firm commitment basis). This is distinguished from conditional arrangements, such as best efforts (or agency) commitments. Historically, the underwriting discount for a firm commitment IPO typically ranges from 5% to 7% of the gross proceeds, although lower and higher underwriting discounts are not uncommon.
Unlike in recent years, IPO underwriting discounts did not vary widely in the first two quarters of 2015. Underwriting discounts generally ranged from 5% (in XBiotech, Inc.'s $76 million IPO) to 7.33% (in Viking Therapeutics' $24 million IPO) (see Figure C). In contrast, the underwriting discounts in the first two quarters of 2014 were spread across a wider range, from 0.75% to 8.42%.
In the first half of 2015, 60 IPOs (75%) featured an underwriting discount of 7%. This benchmark discount was particularly pronounced for pharmaceuticals/biotechnology IPOs, where over 90% of IPOs had a 7% discount.
One IPO featured an innovative bifurcated approach to the underwriting compensation. In its $40 million IPO, Wowo Limited, an FPI and EGC, offered the underwriters a:
  • 3.5% discount for sales to investors introduced by the issuer.
  • 6.5% discount for sales to investors introduced by the underwriters.

Choice of Securities Exchange

Of the 80 US IPOs in the first half of 2015, far more issuers chose to list their securities on NASDAQ (70%) than on the NYSE (27.5%) or NYSE MKT (2.5%):
  • 22 issuers (27.5%) listed on the NASDAQ Global Select Market.
  • 28 issuers (35%) listed on the NASDAQ Global Market.
  • 6 issuers (7.5%) listed on the NASDAQ Capital Market.
  • 22 issuers (27.5%) listed on the NYSE.
  • 2 issuers (2.5%) listed on the NYSE MKT.
Of the 32 pharmaceuticals/biotechnology companies that went public in the first half of 2015, 30 of them (93.8%) listed their securities on one of the NASDAQ exchanges. Similarly, of the seven retailers that went public in the first half of 2015, five of them (71.4%) listed on one of the NASDAQ exchanges. Services companies, on the other hand, were split fairly evenly between the NYSE and NASDAQ (eight versus seven companies).
For a discussion of the quantitative and qualitative listing requirements for the NYSE and NASDAQ and descriptions of other US securities exchanges, see Practice Note, Selecting a US Securities Exchange.
For a comparison of the corporate governance listing requirements of the NYSE and NASDAQ, see Comparative Corporate Governance Standards Chart: NYSE vs. NASDAQ.

Active Industry Sectors

In the first half of 2015, the services and pharmaceuticals/ biotechnology industries dominated the IPO markets in terms of the total number of IPOs (15 and 32, respectively). Offerings by these types of companies represented 58.8% of all IPOs and raised a total of over $6.3 billion (54.8% of the proceeds raised in all IPOs). The largest services company IPO was by TransUnion for $664.8 million. The largest pharmaceuticals/ biotechnology company IPO was by Axovant Sciences Ltd. for $315 million.
The services industry also achieved the highest average deal value in the first two quarters, with average proceeds of more than $232.8 million per IPO. The pharmaceuticals/biotechnology industry, by contrast, averaged just $88.6 million per IPO, while the retail industry averaged $147 million per IPO. The average deal value for all industry sectors was $144.3 million.
The retail industry represented 8.8% of all completed IPOs, raising a total of over $1 billion (8.9% of the proceeds raised in all IPOs). High-profile IPOs completed by retailers included offerings by:
  • Party City Holdco Inc. for $371.9 million.
  • Shake Shack Inc. for $105 million.
Other high-profile IPOs in the first half of 2015 included:
  • In the services industry:
    • Etsy, Inc. for $266.7 million;
    • GoDaddy Inc. for $410 million; and
    • Box, Inc. for $175 million.
  • In the computer and electronics industry, Fitbit, Inc. for $731.5 million.
Overall, there was a wide range of construction, consumer, technology, healthcare and banking IPOs throughout the first half of 2015. Figure D shows the number of completed IPOs broken down by the issuers' Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes, which are assigned to an issuer by the SEC based on the business activity that generates the most significant portion of its revenues.

Lock-up Agreements

Lock-up agreements in the first two quarters of 2015 showed little variation among issuers and industry sectors. Nearly all IPOs (93.8%) had a lock-up period of 180 days for the company. Similarly, 91.3% of IPOs had a lock-up period of 180 days for the company's directors, officers and shareholders.
Etsy, Inc. imposed a general lock-up period of 180 days for its directors, officers and shareholders, but also imposed lock-up periods of 270 days and 360 days for a portion of their shares. In addition, Viking Therapeutics, Inc. imposed a general lock-up period of 180 days for its directors, officers and shareholders, but also imposed a lock-up period of nine months for a specified significant shareholder that is also a key business partner.

What's Next

Following a record year for IPOs in 2014, the market started slowly in the first quarter of 2015 and rebounded in the second quarter.
While 2015 is not on pace to match 2014's results, the total number of IPOs in the first two quarters of 2015 did exceed the number of IPOs in the first two quarters of 2013, which was the second strongest year for IPOs since the 2008 financial crisis.
However, due to a substantially lower average deal size, total proceeds in the first half of 2015 were almost 25% lower than in the first half of 2013, despite there being 15 more offerings in the first half of 2015.
Extraordinary volatility in the global markets beginning in mid-August 2015 complicates any predictions about the IPO market for the remainder of 2015. Before the turmoil that hit the markets late this summer, the number of IPOs in the third quarter was on pace to meet or exceed the total for the second quarter, with 19 IPOs closing in July 2015 and 15 in August 2015.
Despite the recent turbulence, there are reasons to be cautiously optimistic. US economic fundamentals remain strong, the JOBS Act has brought needed improvements to the IPO process and the IPO pipeline appears to be recovering from the shock of recent volatility, all of which is good news for pre-IPO companies seeking to go public in the second half of 2015.

An Expert's View: Recent Trends in IPOs

Deanna L. Kirkpatrick of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP reviews recent trends in IPOs, including the impact of the JOBS Act on emerging growth companies (EGCs) and activity in the pharmaceuticals and biotechnology sector:
Title I of the JOBS Act, often referred to as the "IPO onramp," was intended to reinvigorate the US IPO market by easing the costs and burdens of going public and becoming a reporting company. Do you think it has achieved this goal? Based on your experience, what is the single most effective reform introduced by the JOBS Act?
The JOBS Act has changed the IPO landscape dramatically for EGCs, with a number of accommodations designed to both facilitate the process of going public and ease the burden of becoming a reporting company. These accommodations include confidential SEC review, the ability to "test the waters" with prospective investors and scaled financial and executive compensation disclosure requirements, which allow these smaller companies to access the US capital markets in a more cost-effective manner.
Possibly the most significant JOBS Act reforms are the ability of EGCs to submit IPO registration statements confidentially, which has become a nearly universal practice, and the ability to test the waters with prospective investors, which has gained momentum across all industries. Testing the waters has become particularly prevalent in certain sectors, such as biotechnology, where companies tend to have shorter operating histories, face unique funding, regulatory and clinical development challenges, and often need to communicate highly complex scientific or technical information to potential investors. In this sector, in particular, it is often critical for a company to engage with prospective investors as early as possible in the IPO process.
Together, the ability to file confidentially and to test the waters enables companies to educate, and gain useful feedback from, prospective investors while maintaining confidentiality as they await both clearance from industry regulators and market conditions that are favorable to the offering. These reforms can also facilitate dual-track IPO/M&A discussions as well.
Permitting EGCs to submit a draft registration statement to the SEC confidentially allows the company to delay the public spotlight while fine-tuning its prospectus disclosure and preparing for its IPO and public listing. Yet some companies issue a press release to announce they have made a confidential filing with the SEC. What is the thinking behind a press release like this and what are the pros and cons of this approach?
While the ability to submit an IPO registration statement confidentially offers many benefits to EGCs, situations arise from time to time where an EGC may choose to issue a press release announcing its confidential submission. However, this practice remains infrequent, and any such press release must comply with the limitations imposed by the Securities Act on "gun-jumping."
An EGC may elect to publicly announce its confidential submission for strategic reasons, particularly if it is engaged in a dual-track IPO/M&A process. This is a process where a company pursues an IPO while simultaneously running a confidential private auction to look for interested acquirers. To create leverage in the M&A context, an EGC may seek to attract bidders by signaling to the market the potential for an IPO. The press release enables an EGC to announce the fact of a proposed IPO without having to file publicly, and therefore without prematurely revealing potentially sensitive financial or competitive information.
In addition, an EGC may be required to issue a press release announcing its confidential submission or publicly file its registration statement as a way to cleanse existing securityholders of material non-public information (MNPI). This situation may arise where existing investors are wall-crossed so that they may participate in the company's testing the waters presentations. A company can obtain valuable feedback from its existing investors as they are already familiar with the company's business and industry. In order to permit those investors to subsequently trade in the company's securities, however, a press release or public filing is required to cleanse them of any MNPI disclosed to them during the testing the waters process, which may include the fact that the company is contemplating a potential IPO.
Pharmaceuticals and biotechnology IPOs have been at or near the top of the IPO market in recent periods both in number of completed IPOs and in total proceeds raised. What is behind this trend and do you expect it to continue in the near term? What do you see in the future for other key industry sectors?
It would be difficult to argue that the rise in the number of pharmaceuticals and biotechnology IPOs is not in some way tied to the implementation of the JOBS Act, which has lessened regulatory burdens and eased access to important public growth capital for smaller companies. In the first half of this year, companies in the healthcare sector represented more than half of all EGC IPOs we have worked on at Davis Polk, and we have seen an overall upward trend in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology EGC clients looking to the public markets since 2012, the year the JOBS Act was enacted.
In the near term, it is likely that the prominence of these sectors in the IPO market will continue. There is intense competition and innovation at work in this industry, and cost-effective access to public capital (which offers the potential for far greater returns than the private markets) is critical to support the significant costs of research and clinical development needed to bring new drugs to market. Biotechnology is becoming a more stable and mature industry, and the strong pipeline of drugs in late-stage trials should continue to drive investor interest and help sustain high-quality deal flow.
Regarding other sectors, recently we have seen an increase in retail and restaurant chain IPOs. Following several successful IPOs in this industry and in light of a gradual increase and stability associated with consumer spending in general, we expect to see more retail and restaurant chains accessing the public markets.