close

Technology and Life Sciences IPO Survey - 2015, Full Year

中文

 

This report analyzes key aspects of initial public offerings (IPOs) for 94 technology and life sciences co​mpanies that went public in 2015. Our IPO Survey was developed for clients, friends and others interested in considering the data surrounding recent IPO activity. Downloading the full report will provide you access to a number of tables and charts that offer a graphical view of key parameters as well as a sense of recent trends.

Key Findings:

  • Overall IPO activity for technology and life sciences companies declined in 2015, with the number of deals down sequentially in each of the third and fourth quarters of 2015 after reaching a peak in the second quarter of 2015. A total of 94 technology and life sciences IPOs were completed in 2015, compared with 140 in the recent banner year of 2014.
  • There were 26 life sciences IPOs completed in the second half of 2015 (compared to 37 in the first half), while technology IPOs declined to a total of 13 in the second half of 2015 (from 18 in the first half). This reduced level of overall IPO activity preceded turbulence in worldwide equity markets in January 2016, a month in which no technology or life sciences IPOs were completed in the U.S.
  • While the number of life sciences IPOs declined in the second half of 2015, the size of the deals increased—approximately 50% of second-half life sciences deals raised over $100 million, while only approximately 32% of the first-half deals raised over $100 million.
  • Insider participation continues to be an important feature of life sciences IPOs, with 73% (first-half 2015) and 62% (second-half 2015) reporting insider participation, compared to 28% (first-half) and 31% (second-half) of the technology deals.
  • The decline in the number of technology IPOs in the second half of 2015 was accompanied by a tougher pricing environment. Approximately 38% of second-half IPOs priced below the bottom of their red herring ranges (compared with 17% pricing below the range in the first half).
  • There was an increasing number of IPOs completed at a price per share lower than the issuer’s last financing round, with the number of these “down-round IPOs” increasing in the second half. We might expect to see late round investors require further use of these “make-whole” provisions for IPOs.
​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​