BioWorld ranked the underwriters of 1998¿s public offerings, both initial and follow-on, in two basic ways.
First, BioWorld ranked the underwriters based on the total amount of gross proceeds raised in both initial and follow-on public offerings combined.
In 1995, a new variant on a public offering became popular. This category, institutional offering of registered stock, is detailed separately in the financing chart that can be found on p. x of this report. However, BioWorld has considered these offerings to be equivalent to normal follow-on public offerings for the purposes of calculating underwriters¿ performance. If an underwriting firm acted as the sole placement agent for the offering, then that firm was credited as ¿lead¿ underwriter. If more than one firm acted as placement agent, then each was considered to be a co-manager, and credited as such for the purpose of calculating underwriters¿ performance.
For analysis on a ¿Full Credit To Lead¿ basis, BioWorld applied the total gross proceeds raised in all three types of offerings (IPO, follow-on and institutional) to the lead underwriter for those offerings. For each underwriter cited, the graphs also indicate the total number of public offerings in which a particular underwriter acted as the lead underwriter, as well as the total number of public offerings in which that same underwriter acted as either lead or co-manager.
For analysis on a ¿Full Credit To All¿ basis, BioWorld applied the total gross proceeds raised in all three types of public offerings to each and every major underwriter of that offering (whether the underwriter acted as lead or as co-manager).
Secondly, BioWorld singled out the initial public offerings only and then analyzed underwriter performance. The underwriters were again ranked on both a ¿Full Credit To Lead¿ basis and a ¿Full Credit To All¿ basis (as described above). The graphs also indicate the total number of IPOs in which a particular underwriter acted as the lead underwriter, as well as the total number of IPOs in which that same underwriter acted as either lead or co-manager.
In addition, BioWorld then analyzed the after-market performance of the IPOs, and ranked the underwriters accordingly. Here, again, underwriters were ranked on both a ¿Full Credit To Lead¿ basis and a ¿Full Credit To All¿ basis. The after market performance compared the share (or unit) price at the IPO with the share (or unit) price at the end of the calendar year (12/31/98), expressed as percent change. If one particular underwriter acted as either lead or co-manager in more than one IPO, BioWorld calculated the average percent change for those offerings.
Data pertaining to the public offerings per se the offering price, the gross proceeds, the number of shares outstanding, the post-offering market capitalization, the lead underwriter and the co-managing underwriters were obtained from the public offerings charts found on pp. 49-51 in this report.
Because detailed information on public offerings that took place on Le Nouveau Marche, EASDAQ and the Canadian exchanges was not universally available, the calculations for underwriters¿ performance have been restricted to only those offerings that were completed on U.S. stock exchanges (NASDAQ, AMEX or NYSE) and the London Stock Exchange (LSE).
Over the course of 1998, Robertson Stephens was affiliated first with BancAmerica and then with BancBoston. The entries in the graphs are intended to include both.
The graphs on the following pages depict only the top 10 underwriters for each category. However, a full 46 different underwriting firms participated in 1998¿s public offerings, of which 34 have been included in the calculations on underwriters¿ performance (for the reasons stated above). The ranking of those firms is depicted in chart form on the following pages.
- Jennifer Van Brunt