La Propriété de l’Entreprise Affecte-t-elle l’Évaluation de Son Cours d’Introduction en Bourse ? Le Cas de Deux Entreprises Tunisiennes
Abstract
L’article enquête sur la détermination des objectifs de l’introduction en bourse de l’Etat et de l’actionnaire privé, à travers le calcul de la sous évaluation initiale pour deux cas réalisés sur le parquet de la bourse des valeurs mobilières de Tunis. La Sous Evaluation Initiale (SEI) est un moyen d’attraction des nouveaux investisseurs, en vue de la restructuration du haut du bilan d’une entreprise. Une plus-value réalisée attire les actionnaires à la participation à une augmentation du capital et la diminution du taux d’endettement, alors qu’une moins-value constatée suite à une surévaluation de l’action entrave la croissance de l’entreprise et démystifie l’image de marque de la société. Les objectifs de la cotation en bourse influent la fixation du cours d’introduction. En visant la transparence, la pérennité et l’image de la société. L’initiateur de l’opération fixe la juste valeur de l’entreprise et attire les potentialités financières. En visant la réalisation d’une importante plus value, l’initiateur de l’offre publique de vente, risque de nuire à la croissance de la firme et échouer l’opération. Les résultats ont montré la divergence des objectifs de l’introduction en bourse. L’Etat cherche à dynamiser le marché financier, catalyser la finance directe, et appliquer la sous évaluation initiale alors que le privé cherche à maximiser le produit de cession, réaliser la plus importante plus value nette d’impôts, et appliquer une surévaluation initiale.
The article investigates the determination of the objectives of the IPO of the State and the private shareholder, through the calculation of the initial undervaluation for two cases carried out on the floor of the Tunis Stock Exchange. The Initial Under Valuation (IUV) is a means of attracting new investors, with a view to restructuring the top of a company's balance sheet. A realized capital gain attracts shareholders to participate in a capital increase and a reduction in the debt ratio, while a loss in value observed following an overvaluation of the action hinders the growth of the company and demystifies the brand image of the company. The objectives of the stock market listing influence the setting of the IPO price. By aiming for transparency, sustainability and the image of the company. The initiator of the operation fixes the fair value of the company and attracts financial potential. By targeting the realization of a significant capital gain, the initiator of the public offer of sale, risks harming the growth of the firm and failing the operation. The results showed the divergence of IPO goals. The State seeks to energize the financial market, catalyze direct finance, and apply the initial undervaluation while the private sector seeks to maximize the sale proceeds, achieve the largest net capital gain of taxes, and apply an initial overvaluation.
Downloads
Metrics
References
2. Aussenegg, W. (2000). Privatisation versus Private Sector Initial Public Offering in Poland. Multinational Finance Journal, 4(1/2), 69-97
3. Aussenegg, W., Jelic, K. (2007). Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms in Central European Transition Economies. European Financial Management, 13(5), 853-879.
4. Barber, B.M., Lyon, J.D. (1997). Detecting Long-Run Abnormal Stock Returns: The Empirical Power and Specification of Test Statistics. Journal of Financial Economics, 43(3), 341-372.
5. Baron, D.P. (1982). A Model of the Demand for Investment Banking Advising and Distribution Services for New Issues. Journal of Finance, 47, 955-976.
6. Belkasseh M. & , Sanae A.J (2022), Financial performance of Initial Public Offerings: Exploratory study. International Journal of Accounting, Finance, Auditing, Management and Economics.Volume 3, 210-230
7. Ben Ouali Tejeddine (2005), étude comparative rétrospective de l’introduction en bourse d’une entreprise publique et d’une entreprise privée. Mémoire d’expertise comptable. Institut supérieur de comptabilité et d’administration des entreprise (ISCAE Manouba).
8. Blume, M.E., Stambaugh, R.F. (1983). Biases in Computed Returns - an Application to the Size Effect. Journal of Financial Economics, 12, 387-404.
9. Bortolotti B., Milella V., (2008). Privatization in Western Europe: Stylized Facts, Outcomes, and Open Issues. In G. Roland (ed.) Privatization Successes and Failures, Columbia University Press.
10. Boubakri, N., Cosset, J.C. (1998). The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: Evidence from Developing Countries. Journal of Finance, 53(3), 1081-1110.
11. Boubakri, N., Cosset, J.C. (2000). The Aftermarket Performance of Privatization Offerings in Developing Countries. Working Paper, HEC Montreal.
12. Choi, S.D., Lee, I., Megginson, W.L. (2010). Do Privatization IPOs Outperform in the Long Run? Financial Management, 39(1), 153-185.
13. Choi, S-D., Nam, S-K., (1998). The Short Run Performance of Privately and Publicly-Owned Firms: International Evidence. Multinational Finance Journal, 2(3), 225-244.
14. Comstock, A., Kish, R., Vasconcellos, G. (2003). The Post-Privatization Performance of Former StateOwned Enterprises. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 13, 19-37.
15. Derrien, F. (2002). Trois essais sur les introductions en bourse. Thèsede doctorat, HEC PARIS.
16. Djumessi F., Gonne J & Wamba L.D (2020), L’introduction en bourse améliore-t-elle la performance financière de l’entreprise ? Une application au cas des entreprises cotées à la Douala Stock Exchange. Revue congolaise de gestion, numéro 29, 101-133.
17. Dufour D. & Molay E.(2008), Sous évaluation à l’introduction en bourse et valorisation : L’exemple d’ALTERNEXT Université de Nice-Sophia Antipolis – CRIFP – IAE de Nice
18. D’Souza J., Megginson, W.L., (1999). The Financial and Operating Performance of Privatized Firms during the 1990s. Journal of Finance, 4, 1397-1438.
19. D’Souza, J., Megginson, W.L., Nash, R.C. (2005). Effect of Institutional and Firm-specific Characteristics on Post-privatization Performance: Evidence from Developed Countries. Journal of Corporate Finance, 11, 747-766
20. D’Souza, J., Megginson, W.L., Nash, R.C. (2007). The Effects of Changes in Corporate Governance and Restructurings on Operating Performance: Evidence from Privatizations. Global Finance Journal, 18(2), 157-184.
21. Dewenter, K.L., Malatesta, P.H. (1997). Public Offerings of State-owned and Privately-owned Enterprises: An International Comparison. Journal of Finance, 52, 1659-1679.
22. Djoumessi F. Gonne J. et Wamba L.D. (2020), L’introduction en bourse améliore-telle la performance financière de l’entreprise ? Une application au cas des entreprises cotées à la Douala Stock Exchange (DSX), Revue congolaise de gestion, 1(25):101-133
23. Florio, M., Manzoni, K. (2004). Abnormal Returns of UK Privatizations: from Underpricing to Outperformance. Applied Economics, 36(2), 119-136.
24. Gajewski, J-F., Gresse, C. (2006). A survey of the European IPO market. European Capital Market Institute, Centre for European Policy Studies.
25. Grinblatt, M., Titman, S. (1998). Financial Market and Corporate Strategy. Irwin Professional Publishing.
26. Huang, Q., Levich, R.M. (2003). Underpricing of New Equity Offerings by Privatized Firms: An International Test. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Finance, 6(1), 1-30.
27. ( Ibbotson, R-G., Jaffe, J-F. (1975). Hot Issues Markets. The Journal of Finance 30(4), 1027–1042).
28. Jelic, R., Briston, R. (1999). Hungarian Privatization Strategy and Financial Performance of Privatized Companies. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, 26, 1319-1357.
29. Jelic, R., Briston, R. (2003). Privatisation Initial Public Offerings: The Polish Experience. European Financial Management, 9(4), 457-484.
30. Jenkinson, T., Mayer, C. (1988). The Privatization Process in France and the UK. European Economic Review, 32, 482-490.
31. Kikeri, S., Nellis, J., Shirley, M. (1992). Privatization: the Lessons of Experience. World Bank Publications, Washington, DC.
32. Levis, M. (1993). The Long-Run Performance of Initial Public Offerings: The U.K. Experience. Financial Management, 1, 28-41.
33. jungqvist, A. (2004). Handbooks in Finance: Empirical Corporate Finance Chapter III IPO
34. underpricing. New York University and CEPR, Stern School of Business
35. Kooli, M. (2000). La sous évaluation des émissions initiales: le cas du Canada. Gestion 25,78-91
36. Ljungqvist, A. (2007). IPO Underpricing. In B. Espen Eckbo (ed.) Handbook of Empirical Corporate Fnance, Elsevier/North-Holland), pp. 375-422.
37. Loughran, T., Ritter, J.R., Rydqvist, K. (1994). Initial Public Offerings: International Insights. PacificBasin Finance Journal, 2, 165-199.
38. Lyon, J.D., Barber, B.M., Tsai, C.-L. (1999). Improved Methods for Tests of Long-Run Abnormal Stock Returns. Journal of Finance, 54(1), 165-201.
39. Megginson, W.L., Nash, R.C., Netter, J.M., Schwartz, A.L. (2000). The Long-run Return to Investors in Share Issue Privatizations. Financial Management, 29(1), 67-77.
40. Megginson, W.L., Nash, R.C., Van Randenborgh, M. (1994). The Financial and Operating Performance of Newly Privatized Firms: an International Empirical Analysis. Journal of Finance, 69(2), 403-452.
41. Megginson, W.L., Netter, J.M. (2001). From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization. Journal of Economic Literature, 39(2), 321-389.
42. Menyah, K., Paudyal, K., Inyangete, C.G. (1995). Subscriber Return, Underpricing, and Long-term Performance of U.K. Privatization Initial Public Offers. Journal of Economics and Business, 47, 473-495.
43. Mezui .C.A (2014). Approfondir les marchés africains des capitaux pour le financement des infrastructures. Revue d’économie financière, numéro 116, 165-176
44. Mrissa Bouden Habiba (2015), THE IMPACT OF RISK ON THREE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERINGS MARKET ANOMALIES: HOT-ISSUE MARKET, UNDERPRICING, AND LONG-RUN UNDERPERFORMANCE. Thèse de doctorat, université Laval, Québec.
45. Nguimeya Z. F. (2014). Revisiting IPO underpricing and underperformance: Evidence from West Africa. International Journal of Business and Social Science Vol. 5, No.
46. OUATTARA D. & al. (2020) « Sous-évaluation à l’introduction en bourse : cas des entreprises cotées sur le marché de la BRVM » Revue Internationale du Chercheur «Volume 1 : Numéro 3» pp : 19 – 40
47. Oussama ABDALLAH et Luc MARCO (2016), Centre d’économie de l’université Paris Nord CEPN n° 2016-05
48. Perera, W., & Kulendran, N. (2012). New evidence of short-run underpricing in Australian
49. IPOs. In 2012 Financial Markets & Corporate Governance Conference
50. Paudyal, K., Saadouni, B., Briston, R. (1998). Privatization Initial Public Offering in Malaysia: Initial Premium and Long-Term Performance. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 6, 427-451.
51. Perera, W., & Kulendran, N. (2012). New evidence of short-run underpricing in Australian
52. IPOs. In 2012 Financial Markets & Corporate Governance Conference
53. Perotti, E.C. (1995). Credible Privatization. American Economic Review, 85, 847-859.
54. Perotti, E.C., Guney, S.E. (1993). The Structure of Privatization Plans. Financial Management, 22, 84-98.
55. Ritter, J.R. (1987). The Costs of Going Public. Journal of Financial Economics, 19, 269-282.
56. Ritter, J.R. (1991), " The long-run performance of initial public offerings", Journal of Finance, vol. 46, 1991, p. 3-27.
57. Rock, K. (1986). Why New Issues are Underpriced. Journal of Financial Economics, 15, 187-212.
58. Roberto Maglio, Maria Rosaria Petraglia, Francesco Agliata (2018), IFRS and IPO underpricing: evidence from Italy, International Journal of Managerial and Financial Accounting (IJMFA), Vol. 10, No. 3.
59. Vieira, C., Serra, A.P. (2006). Abnormal Returns in Privatization Public Offerings: The Case of Portuguese Firms. Notas Económicas, 22, 22-135.
Copyright (c) 2023 Tejeddine Ben Ouali
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
.jpg)
