June mustered only seven IPOs, down from 15 IPOs in May, and in sharp contrast to the preceding two years—in both 2014 and 2015, June produced the highest monthly IPO count of the year, with 30 and 33 IPOs, respectively. The June 2016 tally brings the number of IPOs over the first half of the year to 37—the fourth lowest half-year total in at least 20 years, trailing only 2003 (seven IPOs), 2009 (12 IPOs) and 2008 (21 IPOs).
Gross proceeds in June were $590.0 million, bringing the total for the first half of the year to $6.04 billion, 55% below the $13.41 billion raised over the first six months of 2015.
IPOs by life sciences companies accounted for four of the month’s new offerings. In the first half of the year, life sciences companies have produced 20 IPOs, or 54% of the year-to-date total, up from 40% and 47% in 2014 and 2015, respectively.
IPOs by emerging growth companies (EGCs) have accounted for 81% of the year’s IPOs, down from 93% of the total in 2015 and 85% of all IPOs in 2014.
The median IPO offering size over the first half of 2016 was $91.0 million, just shy of the $91.7 million for all IPOs in 2015, and 9% below the $101.0 million figure for the five-year period preceding 2015.
The median annual revenue of IPO companies through the first half of 2016 was $32.0 million, 15% below the $37.8 million median figure for 2015, and almost two-thirds below the $92.7 million median figure for the five-year period from 2010 to 2014.
The median annual revenue of life sciences IPO companies through the first half of 2016 was $0.9 million, compared to $435.7 million for all other companies. Over the five-year period preceding 2016, the median annual revenue of life sciences IPO companies was $1.5 million, while the median annual revenue of all other IPO companies was $154.0 million. The comparatively high figure for non-life sciences IPO companies in 2016 is partly attributable to the presence of large private equity–backed IPO companies within an overall small sample size of non-life sciences IPO companies.
None of June’s IPO companies were profitable. Over the first half of 2016, only a dozen IPO companies—or 32% of the total—were profitable. While the 2016 profitability figure falls between the 36% in 2014 and 30% in 2015, it remains well below the 54% that prevailed over the five-year period preceding 2014.
The lower profitability figures over the last three years have been largely driven by the large number of life sciences company IPOs. Over the first half of 2016, no life sciences IPO companies were profitable, compared to 71% of the 17 non-life sciences IPO companies being profitable.
Year to date, the average IPO has produced a first-day gain of 8%, with 30% of IPOs “broken” (IPOs whose stock closes below the offering price on their first day). In comparison, the average first-day gains in 2014 and 2015 were 14% and 16%, respectively, and broken IPOs represented 27% and 26% of those year’s tallies, respectively.
At June 30, the average IPO company was trading 19% above its offering price, having produced a gain of almost 10% from its first-day close. In contrast, while the average IPO company in 2015 produced a first-day gain double that of the average IPO company in the first half of 2016, by the end of 2015 that gain had been entirely erased, with the average 2015 IPO company ending the year down less than 1% from its offering price.
IPO activity in June consisted of offerings by the following companies listed in the order they came to market:
- Clearside Biomedical, a late-stage clinical biopharmaceutical company developing first in-class drug therapies to treat blinding diseases of the eye, priced at the expected price and ended its first day of trading with a gain of 4%.
- Nant Health, a leading next-generation, evidence-based, personalized healthcare company enabling improved patient outcomes and more effective treatment decisions for critical illnesses, priced at the midpoint of the range and produced a first-day gain of 33%.
- Sensus Healthcare, a medical device company specializing in the treatment of non melanoma skin cancers and other skin conditions, such as keloids, with superficial radiation therapy, priced an upsized IPO below the range and gained 17% in first-day trading.
- Atkore International Group, a leading manufacturer of electrical raceway products primarily for the non-residential construction and renovation markets and mechanical products and solutions for the construction and industrial markets, priced below the range and was flat in first-day trading.
- China Online Education Group, a leading online education platform in China, with core expertise in English education, priced at the midpoint of the range and ended its first day of trading down two cents from its offering price.
- Twilio, a developer of software that enables developers to embed voice, messaging, video and authentication capabilities into their applications via its simple-to-use application programming interfaces, priced above the range—the first company to do so since December—and jumped 92% in first-day trading.
- Syros Pharmaceuticals, a biopharmaceutical company pioneering an understanding of the region of the genome controlling the activation and repression of genes, priced below the range and gained 45% on its first day of trading.