On the surface, the attention is warranted. Some of the most well-known tech companies have built their profile by going public, including Facebook by raising $16 billion in 2012. But when you peel away the hype and examine investor returns from tech IPOs more closely, the reality can leave a lot to be desired.
The Hype in Numbers
When it comes to the IPOs of companies beginning to sell shares on public stock exchanges, tech offerings have become synonymous with billion-dollar launches. Given the sheer magnitude of IPOs based in the technology sector, it’s easy to understand why. Globally, the technology sector has regularly generated the most IPOs and highest proceeds, as shown in a recent report by Ernst & Young. In 2019 alone, the world’s public markets saw 263 IPOs in the tech sector with total proceeds of $62.8 billion. That’s far ahead of the second-place healthcare sector, which saw 174 IPOs generate proceeds of $22.5 billion. The discrepancy is more apparent in the U.S., according to data from Renaissance Capital. In fact, over the last five years, the tech sector has accounted for 23% of total U.S. IPOs and 34% of proceeds generated by U.S. IPOs.
The prevalence of tech is even more apparent when examining history’s largest IPOs. Of the 25 largest IPOs in U.S. history, 60% come from the technology and communication services sectors. That list includes last year’s well-publicized IPOs for Uber ($8.1 billion) and Lyft ($2.3 billion), as well as a direct public offering from Slack ($7.4 billion). Soon the list might include Airbnb, which plans to list within the communication services sector instead of tech.
The Reality in Returns
But the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Uber and Lyft were two of 2019’s largest U.S. IPOs, but they also saw some of the poorest returns. Uber fell 33.4% from its IPO price at year end, while Lyft was down 35.7%. And they were far from isolated incidents. Tech IPOs averaged a return of -4.6% last year, far behind the top sectors of consumer staples (led by Beyond Meat) and healthcare. While last year was the first time tech IPOs have averaged a negative return in four years, analysis of the last 10 years confirms that tech IPOs have underperformed over the last decade. A decade-long analysis from investment firm Janus Henderson demonstrated that U.S. tech IPOs start underperforming compared to the broad tech sector about 5-6 months after launching. This dip likely corresponds to the expiry of an IPO’s lock-up period—the time that a company’s pre-IPO investors are able to sell their stock. By cashing in on strong early performance, investors flood the market and bring share prices down. Interestingly, most gains for these IPOs tend to happen within the first day of trading. The median first-day performance for tech IPOs was a 21% increase over the offer price. That’s why the median first-year return for a tech IPO, excluding the first day of trading, is -19% when compared with the broader tech sector.
How to Make Money from Tech IPOs
So does that mean that investors should avoid tech IPOs? Not necessarily. Longer-term analysis from the University of Florida’s Warrington College of Business shows that U.S. tech IPOs offer better returns than other sectors as long as investors get in at the offer price.
U.S. Tech IPO Returns from Offer Price
Even when adjusting for the broader market performance, tech IPOs have been solid in comparison to the offer price. The challenge is that if investors are buying stock after that first day market bump, they may have already missed out on meaningful gains:
U.S. Tech IPO Returns from First Closing Price
So should investors shy away from tech IPOs unless they’re able to get in early? Generally speaking, the analysis holds that new tech companies perform relatively well, but not better than the broader market once they’ve started trading. However, in a world of billion-dollar unicorns, there are always exceptions to the rule. The University of Florida study found that tech companies with a base of over $100 million in sales before going public saw a market-adjusted three-year return of 24.4% from the first closing price. If you can sift through the hype and properly analyze the right tech IPO to support, the reality can be rewarding. on But fast forward to the end of last week, and SVB was shuttered by regulators after a panic-induced bank run. So, how exactly did this happen? We dig in below.
Road to a Bank Run
SVB and its customers generally thrived during the low interest rate era, but as rates rose, SVB found itself more exposed to risk than a typical bank. Even so, at the end of 2022, the bank’s balance sheet showed no cause for alarm.
As well, the bank was viewed positively in a number of places. Most Wall Street analyst ratings were overwhelmingly positive on the bank’s stock, and Forbes had just added the bank to its Financial All-Stars list. Outward signs of trouble emerged on Wednesday, March 8th, when SVB surprised investors with news that the bank needed to raise more than $2 billion to shore up its balance sheet. The reaction from prominent venture capitalists was not positive, with Coatue Management, Union Square Ventures, and Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund moving to limit exposure to the 40-year-old bank. The influence of these firms is believed to have added fuel to the fire, and a bank run ensued. Also influencing decision making was the fact that SVB had the highest percentage of uninsured domestic deposits of all big banks. These totaled nearly $152 billion, or about 97% of all deposits. By the end of the day, customers had tried to withdraw $42 billion in deposits.
What Triggered the SVB Collapse?
While the collapse of SVB took place over the course of 44 hours, its roots trace back to the early pandemic years. In 2021, U.S. venture capital-backed companies raised a record $330 billion—double the amount seen in 2020. At the time, interest rates were at rock-bottom levels to help buoy the economy. Matt Levine sums up the situation well: “When interest rates are low everywhere, a dollar in 20 years is about as good as a dollar today, so a startup whose business model is “we will lose money for a decade building artificial intelligence, and then rake in lots of money in the far future” sounds pretty good. When interest rates are higher, a dollar today is better than a dollar tomorrow, so investors want cash flows. When interest rates were low for a long time, and suddenly become high, all the money that was rushing to your customers is suddenly cut off.” Source: Pitchbook Why is this important? During this time, SVB received billions of dollars from these venture-backed clients. In one year alone, their deposits increased 100%. They took these funds and invested them in longer-term bonds. As a result, this created a dangerous trap as the company expected rates would remain low. During this time, SVB invested in bonds at the top of the market. As interest rates rose higher and bond prices declined, SVB started taking major losses on their long-term bond holdings.
Losses Fueling a Liquidity Crunch
When SVB reported its fourth quarter results in early 2023, Moody’s Investor Service, a credit rating agency took notice. In early March, it said that SVB was at high risk for a downgrade due to its significant unrealized losses. In response, SVB looked to sell $2 billion of its investments at a loss to help boost liquidity for its struggling balance sheet. Soon, more hedge funds and venture investors realized SVB could be on thin ice. Depositors withdrew funds in droves, spurring a liquidity squeeze and prompting California regulators and the FDIC to step in and shut down the bank.
What Happens Now?
While much of SVB’s activity was focused on the tech sector, the bank’s shocking collapse has rattled a financial sector that is already on edge.
The four biggest U.S. banks lost a combined $52 billion the day before the SVB collapse. On Friday, other banking stocks saw double-digit drops, including Signature Bank (-23%), First Republic (-15%), and Silvergate Capital (-11%).
Source: Morningstar Direct. *Represents March 9 data, trading halted on March 10.
When the dust settles, it’s hard to predict the ripple effects that will emerge from this dramatic event. For investors, the Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen announced confidence in the banking system remaining resilient, noting that regulators have the proper tools in response to the issue.
But others have seen trouble brewing as far back as 2020 (or earlier) when commercial banking assets were skyrocketing and banks were buying bonds when rates were low.
