Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
www.pwc.com/globaltechipo
Global TechnologyIPO ReviewQ1 2016
Technology Institute
A quarterly look at global trendsin the technology IPO marketMay 2016
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 1
A weak Q1 sets the tone for a lackluster first half of theyear*
Raman ChitkaraPartner and Global TechnologyIndustry LeaderPricewaterhouseCoopers [email protected]
Welcome to the first quarter 2016 issue of PwC’s Global Technology IPO Review. Asia maintained a steady course as the year began,
making it the bright spot in an otherwise weak quarter. Seven of the first quarter’s ten technology IPOs were in Asia, on par with
Asia’s eight tech IPOs in the fourth quarter and six in the third quarter of 2015. In the first quarter of 2016, China led with three
IPOs. India had two listings on the Bombay Stock Exchange—its first IPOs since the second quarter of 2013. There were also two
listings in Japan.
The overall global tech IPO market began 2016 by hitting its lowest point in recent years. The ten IPOs in the first quarter of 2016
garnered cumulative proceeds of US$769 million. The last time we reported fewer than ten tech IPOs was in the fourth quarter of
2012 when eight IPOs were issued. However, the proceeds were much higher at US$1.3 billion.
Fearing lower valuations due to market volatility, technology companies on both sides of the Atlantic shelved their IPO plans.
Neither the US nor the UK had a tech IPO. Since 2010, we have not had a quarter without a US domiciled tech IPO until now.
Several factors caused the IPO market to plummet from its performance in the fourth quarter of 2015 (22 tech IPOs with proceeds
of US$10.8 billion):
Slowdown in the Chinese economy; Depressed commodity prices, especially with oil at an historical low;
Uncertainty over Fed rates; and
The forthcoming referendum in the UK on whether to remain in the EU.
As suggested in our 2015 Annual Tech IPO report, the tech IPO market was not likely to continue last year’s pace in this first
quarter. In fact, the first quarter 2016 proceeds were the lowest of any quarter since the first quarter of 2010, with a sequential drop
of 93% and year-on-year decline of 87%. The number of IPOs issued was down 55% quarter on quarter and 57% year on year.
The Internet Software & Services subsector has retained the lead in number of IPOs for the last five consecutive quarters—since the
first quarter of 2015. It reported three of the ten IPOs in this quarter. After no IPOs in the fourth quarter, the Semiconductors
subsector bounced back with two listings. China’s Tongyu Communication Inc, in the Communications Equipment subsector, was
the biggest IPO with proceeds worth US$132.1 million.
When you add it all up—IPO numbers, total proceeds and lack of activity in the US and UK—the first quarter of 2016 goes in the
books as the worst three months for global tech IPOs since the recession in 2009. Further, there is uncertainty on the future course
of economic and monetary policies in the US and EU.
Sincerely,
* Issue size greater than US$40 million(includes overallotment) and based on tradedate; See Methodology
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 2
Table of contents
Executive summary 3
US, UK waiting on the sidelines 4
Asia stays a steady course 5
Most IPOs came from mature companies 6
Q1 2016 global tech IPO summary 7
Geographic IPO trends – Q1 2016 8
United States 10
China 11
The rest of Asia 12
Europe 13
Stock exchange distribution – Q1 2016 14
Subsector distribution – Q1 2016 15
Cross-border listings – Q1 2016 17
Key financials – Q1 2016 18
Q1 2016 Technology IPO listings: Valuation metrics 22
Top three subsectors in Q1 2016 24
Internet Software & Services 24
Software 28
Semiconductors 32
Methodology 36
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 3
Executive summary
In Q1 2016, proceeds from the global tech IPOmarket hit their lowest point since 2009. Variousheadwinds continue to discourage first-timeissuers. These include historically low oil prices, aslowdown in the Chinese economy, uncertaintyover US interest rates and the forthcoming UKreferendum on whether to leave the EU—calledBritain Exit (Brexit). Ten tech IPOs worth US$769million were launched, down 87% in proceeds and57% in number from Q1 2015. The average proceedof US$77 million, a year-over-year decline of 71%,was also the lowest. The market is expected to pickup its pace later this year because many companieswith private funding are waiting on the sidelines forthe recovery.
The US and UK markets were conspicuous by theirabsence during the quarter. Since 2010, we havenot seen a single quarter without a tech IPO fromthe US. Contributing to the uncertainty is lack ofclarity over US economic and foreign policies due tothe upcoming presidential election.
Figure 1: Q1 global technology IPO trends
;s
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
$4,029
$2,711$3,038
$1,718
$6,839
$6,063
$769$134 $129 $101 $172 $263 $264 $77
30
21
30
10
2623
10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Q1 2010 Q1 2011 Q1 2012 Q1 2013 Q1 2014 Q1 2015 Q1 20160
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
No. of IPOsUS$ millions
Total proceeds (US$mn) Average proceeds Total number of IPOs
“Despite a relative shutout for US technology IPOs in the first quarter of2016, there is no shortage of companies in the pipeline that are eager to testthe waters and pursue an IPO path to growth. With one technology IPOalready taking place in the second quarter, we are starting to see some lifereturn to the tech IPO market.”
– Raman Chitkara
Global Technology Industry Leader
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 4
US, UK waiting on the sidelines
For the first time since the 2008-09 financialcrisis, neither the US nor the UK issued a tech IPOin the reported quarter. The two markets on eachside of the Atlantic tend to move in tandem—apullback in the US significantly impacts the UK.Once before each had been missing from the techIPO market—the US in Q1 2009 and the UK in Q22013—but not together as in Q1 2016.
In Q1 2016, 15 companies from the US and onefrom Hong Kong either withdrew from the IPOmarket or delayed listing after filing their initialbid documentation. These decisions were drivenby market volatility and down rounds.Historically, sharp volatility has always been anegative for IPOs.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 3: UK technology IPOs since 2014;s
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
$500
$3,144
$75 $133
$2,358
$554$130
$4,768
$-1
6
11
1
1
25
00
2
4
6
8
10
12
Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 20160
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
No. of IPOsUS$ millions
UK total proceeds (US$mn) UK total number of IPOs
Figure 2: US technology IPOs since 2014
;s
$1,562
$4,048
$524
$1,715$1,421
$2,765
$168
$4,042
$-
1214
2
9
4
11
26
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q3 2014 Q4 2014 Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 20160
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
No. of IPOsUS$ millions
US total proceeds (US$mn) US total number of IPOs
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 5
Asia stays a steady course
Asia was the saving grace in the quarter. Seven ofthe ten tech IPOs (70%) were from Asia, withChina listing three and India and Japan two each.The Chinese government gave a boost to marketsentiment there by easing monetary policy and byannouncing plans with an undetermined start dateto minimize Beijing’s administrative interventionin the primary securities market. Asia contributed66% of the total proceeds. The largest and mostpopulous continent proved a better IPO marketcompared to the US or the UK, and maintained itssteady course of recent quarters—Asia had eightIPOs in Q4 and six in Q3 of 2015.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 4: Q1 2016 Asian technology IPOs
;s
$267
$133$111
3
2 2
35% 17% 14%
30%20% 20%
0
1
2
3
China India Japan0
50
100
150
200
250
300
No. of IPOsUS$ millions
Total proceeds (US$mn) Total number of IPOs % of proceeds % of IPOs
“India’s thriving technology start-ups and eCommerce sector, which has mainlygrown on the back of venture capital and private equity funding, saw two majorpublic listings this quarter. With strong government focus on start-ups in India andIndia's stock market regulator, SEBI, announcing a fresh set of norms to facilitateeasier listing, there is an expectation that more start-ups will list in the future—andwill do well."
– Sandeep Ladda
Technology & eCommerce Sector Leader, PwC India
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 6
Most IPOs came from maturecompanies
In the current volatile market, mostly relativelymature technology companies, with an average13.7 years in operation, issued IPOs. In thisquarter, only two companies of the ten were lessthan five years old. This indicates a shift awayfrom the trend in which younger start-upcompanies with good private funding, but no netincome yet, were listed, providing an early exitroute to private equity (PE) investors and venturecapitalists (VCs).
In recent quarters, revenue and revenue growthhave been the basis for valuations, with a majorityof IPO-bound technology companies reportingnegative net income. But in Q1 only two listedcompanies had reported net losses, suggesting thatnet income might be returning, even replacingrevenue and revenue growth, as the basis forvaluation. Investors have shown restraint andcompanies with net losses are postponing theirIPOs for a better time.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 6: Q1 2016 tech IPOs –Number of years in operation;s
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
48
23
8 6
48
20
106 4
LeoV
egas
AB
Cate
na
Media
plc
Quic
kH
eal
Tech
nolo
gie
sLim
ited
Eo
pto
link
Tech
nolo
gy
Inc
Ltd
Akats
uki
Inc
UM
CE
lectr
onic
sC
o.,
Ltd
.
Tongyu
Com
mun
Inc
Changsha
Jingjia
Mic
roC
oLtd
Infib
eam
Inc
Ltd
Onevi
ew
Healthca
reP
LC
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
No. of years inoperation
No. of years in operation
Figure 5: Q1 2016 tech IPOs – Revenue, net income
;s
$94
$17$43
$95
$39
$250
$205
$37 $44
3$- $9 $8 $15 $3 $14$38
$14$(1) -11
LeoV
egas
AB
Cate
na
Media
plc
Quic
kH
eal
Tech
nolo
gie
sLim
ited
Eo
pto
link
Technolo
gy
Inc
Ltd
Akats
uki
Inc
UM
CE
lectr
onic
sC
oLtd
Tongyu
Com
mun
Inc
Changsha
Jingjia
Mic
roC
oLtd
Infib
eam
Inc
Ltd
Onevi
ew
Healthca
reP
LC
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
US$ millions
Revenue Net income
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 7
Q1 2016 global tech IPO summary
Sequentially, the tech IPO market took a nosedivefrom 22 IPOs worth US$10.8 billion in Q4 2015 to10 IPOs worth US$769 million in Q1 2016—a 93%decline in proceeds and a 55% decline in number ofIPOs. Total Q1 proceeds for the technology sectorwere weaker than any of the previous five quarters.The second worst quarter in the previous five wasQ3 2015. It had one more IPO—11 total—than Q12016, but the proceeds were 533% greater atUS$4.1 billion.
Several macro-economic factors are acting inconcert to cause the overall sluggish start to 2016.In Europe, the refugee crisis and the forthcomingEU referendum in the UK are fueling doubts aboutthe stability of the Eurozone. In the US, with thepresidential election just months away, there isuncertainty about economic and foreign policiesbeyond 2016. There is also uncertainty overmonetary policy in many markets. The FederalReserve is expected to increase interest rates thisyear. The European Central Bank, on the otherhand, has kept interest rates negative. And there isa growing concern that the negative rates may leadto renewed crisis in the European banking system.
Technology offerings, usually one of the mainstaysof US IPO activity, were absent in part becauseUnicorns (companies with US$1 billion or greatervaluations as of their most recent round of privatefunding) are waiting for better timing andimproved sentiment for their high valuations.
Figure 7: Q1 2015-Q1 2016 global tech IPO trends
;s
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
$6,063 $6,162
$4,093
$10,785
$769
23
36
11
22
10
0
7
14
21
28
35
42
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 20160
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
No. of IPOsUS$ millions
Total proceeds (US$mn) Number of IPOs
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 8
Geographic IPO trends – Q1 2016
As noted, the geographic distribution of tech IPOactivity shifted from its traditional markets in theUS, UK and Germany to Asia and smaller countriesin Europe. China led with three IPOs, raisingUS$267 million. The biggest IPO—TongyuCommunication Inc, with proceeds of US$132.1million—was listed on Shenzhen Stock Exchange.India had two IPOs, listed on the Bombay StockExchange. Japan issued two IPOs and Malta,Sweden and Ireland had one IPO each.
The US had no tech IPOs. Lower oil prices, USmonetary policies, negative Chinese macro-economic numbers and other factors are impactingthe market. Some US companies that were headedtoward the IPO market have taken a wait-and-seepolicy due to lower valuations in recent months.But going slow might not remain an option forsome technology companies that need cash becausethey are also seeing reduced VC and PE funding.
Figure 8: Geographic distribution of technology IPOs – Q1 2016
;s
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
$267
$133 $111 $101 $111$46
3
22
1 1 1
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
China India Japan Malta Sweden Ireland0
50
100
150
200
250
300No. of IPOsUS$ millions
Total proceeds (US$mn) Number of IPOs
Figure 9: Regional analysis of IPO proceeds
;s
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
$1,4
20.8
5 $3,0
14.0
0
$1,6
30.0
0
0
$3,0
30.0
0
$1,2
71.0
0
$1,8
61.0
0
0
$103.2
0 $1,6
26.2
8
$2,2
98.0
0
0
$103.2
0 $1,6
26.2
8
$2,2
98.0
0
0
$4,0
41.6
6
$5,0
74.9
8
$1,2
06.4
7
$462.0
0
$- $258.4
5
$51
0.9
3
0
North America Europe Asia RoW0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
US$ millions
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q3 20152 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 9
The UK, which had many tech IPOs in the last fewquarters, also drew a blank. Volume and value ofIPOs on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) isexpected to continue to fall as doubts rise overinterest rates in the UK. Elections in the US andFrance, and the possibility of the UK leaving theEU, are also dampening the market.
The New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ and theLSE did not list a single tech IPO in the period. Asialed the way with seven IPOs with proceeds ofUS$511 million. Europe had three IPOs fromSweden, Malta and Ireland, with proceeds ofUS$258 million.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 10: Regional analysis of number of IPOs
;s
45
14
0
13
5
18
01
3
6
0
67
8
10
3
7
0
North America Europe Asia RoW0
5
10
15
20
No. of IPOs
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
“The UK IPO market has experienced momentum in recent quarters, but is clearly paused for now. Many companies continueto evaluate their strategic options, including an IPO, but the market is currently challenging due to various uncertainties.Once these uncertainties are clarified, we expect positive sentiment to return and the pipeline to improve.”
– Jass Sarai
Technology Industry Leader, PwC UK
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 10
United States
The biggest setback for Q1 2016 was the fact thatUS tech companies avoided the IPO market. Itreminded investors of the collapse of LehmanBrothers in 2008 which was followed by no techIPOs in North America in Q1 2009. Compared tothe previous quarter, Q1 2016 was dismal. In Q42015, the US reported six IPOs with US$4.0billion in proceeds.
Through most of the first quarter, the VolatilityIndex (VIX) remained above 20 and hoveredaround 27-28. The fear index reflected the volatilesentiment prevailing in the US market. The VIXhit an intra-day high of 30.90 on February 11. Atsome point this year, the Federal Reserve is widelyexpected to raise interest rates for the first time innine years. There is no precedence for exiting azero-rate environment, and so it is not clear howthe Fed move, when it happens, will impactvolatility in equity markets.
An early warning of things to come were thenumber of IPOs that priced below the range in thefourth quarter, an increase of 60%1. That served asa deterrent for other tech companies planning toissue IPOs. About 22 Silicon Valley companies hadfiled to issue IPOs but then delayed registrationwhile waiting for markets to improve and stabilize.2
1 http://usblogs.pwc.com/deals/pwc-q4-2015-ipo-watch/
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
2 http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/05/03/bursting-tech-bubble-2-0/
Figure 11: US technology IPO trends
;s
$1,421
$2,765
$103
$4,041
4
11
1
6
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 20160
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
No. of IPOsUS$ millions
Total proceeds (US$mn) Number of IPOs
“With pent up demand, we expect the remainder of 2016 and 2017 to present moreopportunities for companies looking to go public. Companies focused on IPOreadiness, operational maturity and profitability will be best positioned when thewindow opens again. Finance effectiveness, tax, human resources, systems and SOXcompliance are just some examples of critical areas that need to be addressed inpreparation for an IPO.”
– Alan Jones
Deals Partner, PwC US
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 11
China
Asia’s performance in this quarter, especiallyChina’s, was much better compared to rest of theworld, evidence that investor risk and appetitevary across geographies. Chinese tech IPO activitydeclined in Q1. It led the quarter with three IPOsand US$267 million in proceeds, but that wasdown from six IPOs and US$551 million inproceeds in Q4 2015, or down 50% in number and52% in proceeds. Year over year, the proceedsdeclined by 75%, from US$1.1 billion and thenumber of IPOs dropped by 63% from eight.
To boost overall market sentiment, China haseased its monetary policies, with a further cut inreserve requirement ratios. It is expected tofurther support the IPO market through specificmeasures in times of economic downturn.
Mainland China’s primary securities market isexpected to gain momentum because Beijing isplanning to install a “registration-based” IPOsystem. The timing of the moves is uncertain asChina recently announced it would postpone therollout, but in time it plans to hand over IPOvetting duties to stock exchanges, and minimizeadministrative intervention.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 12: Chinese technology IPO trends
;s
$1,055
$1,002
$1,467
$551
$267
8
14
2
6
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 20160
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
No. of IPOsUS$ millions
Total proceeds (US$mn) Number of IPOs
“The uncertainties in the domestic stock market were fueled by the postponementof the launch of the new board of Strategic Emerging Industries and the newregistration-based system, together with the control of new share issuance.Establishment of a multi-layer capital market, especially the stratification of theNew Third Board in China, would be the next highlight of the China market.However, we anticipate the number of IPOs in China’s domestic capital marketcould reach a historical high given the significant pipeline."
– Jianbin Gao
Technology Industry Leader, PwC China
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 12
The rest of Asia
Elsewhere in Asia, Japan and India each issuedtwo IPOs with total proceeds of US$244 million. Itwas a 100% increase in IPO numbers compared tothe previous quarter, but a 63% decline inproceeds from the US$655 million in Q4 2015.Year over year, the proceeds declined 57% and thenumber of IPOs dropped 33%. India’s two IPOsraised US$133 million, and Japan’s two raisedproceeds of US$111 million.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 13: The rest of Asia technology IPO trends
;s
$575
$859 $831 $655
$244
6
4 4
2
4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 20160
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
No. of IPOsUS$ millions
Total proceeds (US$mn) Number of IPOs
“PwC’s Global Technology IPO Review includes IPOs that raise US$40 million ormore. In Q1 2016, two Japanese IPOs met that threshold—Akatsuki and UMCElectronics. Akatsuki provides social gaming app services for smartphones and UMCElectronics provides electronic manufacturing services. In all, there were eight techIPOs among the total of 22 IPOs in Japan during the quarter. The tech sectorproduced more IPOs than other sectors, and continues to lead the Japanese marketalong with the consumer service sector."
– Masaru Koshida
TMT Industry Leader, PwC Japan
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 13
Europe
As noted earlier, the LSE had no tech IPO in thequarter. From Europe overall, there were threeIPOs with proceeds of US$258 million—asequential 16% decline in proceeds but asequential 50% growth in number of IPOs.Compared to Q1 2015, the proceeds declined by61% from US$656 million and the number of IPOsdeclined by 25% from four. As challenging as thefirst quarter has been for IPO issuers in Europe,there is hope of recovery by late 2016 orearly 2017.
The UK’s referendum to remain in or leave the EU,scheduled for June 23, 2016, has cast a wideshadow. Britain’s exit from membership in theEuropean market would call into question theviability and future of the EU in general. Until thevote, and depending how it goes, the European IPOmarket is not likely to improve greatly, andcertainly not expected to reach the billion-dollar-plus mark in the near future.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 14: Europe (excluding UK) technology IPO trends
;s
Figure 15: UK tech IPO trends
;s
$656 $717
$1,497
$307 $258
44
1
2
3
0
1
2
3
4
5
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 20160
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
No. of IPOsUS$ millions
Total proceeds (US$mn) Number of IPOs
$2,358$554 $130
$4,768
1 1
2
5
00
1
2
3
4
5
6
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 20160
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
No. of IPOsUS$ millions
Total proceeds (US$mn) Number of IPOs
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 14
Stock exchange distribution – Q1 2016
In Q1 2016, the focus was on Asia, where seven often IPOs were listed. Shenzhen Stock Exchange ledthe way with three IPOs and proceeds of US$267million. Tokyo and Bombay Stock Exchangesreported two IPOs each with proceeds of US$111million and US$133 million, respectively. Asgauged by proceeds, Nordic Stock Exchange wassecond to Shenzhen with two IPOs raising US$212million. Major exchanges across the globe—LSE,NYSE, NASDAQ and Shanghai—did not issue a techIPO in this quarter.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 16: Q1 2016 stock exchange distribution
;s
$267
$133$111
$46
$212
3
2 2
1
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
SZSE BSE Tokyo SE ASX OMX Nordic ExchangeStockholm (OM)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
No. of IPOsUS$ millions
Total proceeds (US$mn) Number of IPOs
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 15
Subsector distribution – Q1 2016
In line with previous quarters, the InternetSoftware & Services subsector led Q1 2016 withthree IPOs and US$280 million in proceeds. TheSemiconductors and Software subsectors had twoIPOs each with proceeds of US$125 million andUS$103 million, respectively. CommunicationsEquipment had the second highest proceeds atUS$132 million—from one IPO. IT Consulting &Services and Electronics had one IPO each withproceeds of US$66 million and US$64million, respectively.
Except Software and Communications Equipment,all subsectors posted year-over-year declines innumbers of IPOs, with Internet Software & Servicesseeing the greatest drop at a 63% decline.
The analysis of subsector distribution of IPOsreflects stalled activities in the US and UK as well asrelatively less action in China. The overall weakperformance of the subsectors is a result of thechallenges discussed earlier in the report, primarilythe global macro-economic situation, uncertaintyover monetary policy in the US and Europe andfears of a British exit from the EU.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 17: Subsector distribution – Q1 2016
$280
$103$125 $132
$66 $64
3
22
1 1
1
0
1
2
3
4
Internet Software& Services
Software Semiconductors CommunicationsEquipment
IT Consulting &Services
Electronics$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
Total proceeds (US$mn) Number of IPOs
US$ millions No. of IPOs
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 16
Table 1: Q1 2016: Tech IPOs by region – Asia, including Australia
(Shanghai, Shenzhen, Tokyo Stock Exchange, Hong Kong Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange)*
Issue date Company Subsector Proceeds(in US$ millions)
Primary exchange Domicile nation
3/21/2016 Tongyu Communication Inc Communications Equipment 132.12 ShenzSME China
3/15/2016 Changsha Jingjia Micro Co Ltd Semiconductors 70.50 ShenzChNxt China
3/28/2016 Infibeam Inc Ltd Internet Software & Services 67.57 Mumbai Stock Exchange (BSE) India
2/18/2016 Quick Heal TechnologiesLimited
IT Consulting & Services 65.91 Mumbai Stock Exchange (BSE) India
3/3/2016 Eoptolink Technology Inc Ltd Electronics 63.88 Shenzhen StockExchange (SZSE)
China
3/17/2016 Akatsuki Inc Software 56.54 The Tokyo StockExchange (TSE)
Japan
3/15/2016 UMC Electronics Co Ltd Semiconductors 54.41 The Tokyo StockExchange (TSE)
Japan
3/16/2016 Oneview Healthcare Plc Software 46.45 Australian SecuritiesExchange (ASX)
Ireland
*IPOs have been classified based on the exchange where capital was raised.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC
Table 2: Q1 2016 IPOs by region – Europe (Nordic Exchange)*
Issue date Company Subsector Proceeds(in US$ millions)
Primary exchange Domicile nation
3/17/2016 LeoVegas AB Internet Software & Services 110.67 OMX Nordic ExchangeStockholm (OM)
Sweden
2/11/2016 Catena Media plc Internet Software & Services 101.33 OMX Nordic ExchangeStockholm (OM)
Malta
*IPOs have been classified based on the exchange where capital was raised.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 17
Cross-border listings – Q1 2016
Cross-border listings numbered two IPOs in thisquarter, down from four in the last quarter. CatenaMedia Plc is domiciled in Malta and was listed onthe OMX Nordic Exchange with proceeds ofUS$101.3 million. Oneview Healthcare Plc, anIreland-based company, was listed on theAustralian Securities Exchange. Higher volatility inthe US and UK markets is discouraging technologycompanies from other countries to list there.
The cross-border listing trends are in line with theprevious quarter, with 20% of tech IPOs listed in across-border exchange. Also, if the US and UKmarkets had participated in the IPOs in Q1 2016,there could have been more cross-border listings.Improved equity markets forecasted for the secondhalf of 2016 and early 2017 may help cross-borderIPOs gain momentum.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 18: Cross-border listings – Q1 2016
;s
3 40
4 2
20
32
11
18
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
Domestic deals Cross-border deals
13%
0%
11%
18%
20%
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 18
Key financials – Q1 2016
The number of tech IPOs in Q1 2016 decreased 55%quarter over quarter, with 10 deals compared to 22in Q4 2015. Year over year, the decline was 57%from the 23 IPOs listed in Q1 2015. Of the 10 techIPOs in Q1 2016, net income for one, LeoVegas AB,was not available. For the remaining nine IPOs, theaverage last twelve months’ (LTM) net income inQ1 2016 was US$10 million, with 78% (seven) ofthe companies reporting positive net income.
Tongyu Communication Inc, the only IPO from theCommunications Equipment subsector, reportedthe highest net income, at US$38 million, followedby Eoptolink Technology Inc from the Electronicssubsector with a net income of US$15 million.Oneview Healthcare Plc from the Softwaresubsector reported the highest net loss, at US$11million. The only other company to report anet loss was Infibeam Inc Ltd from the InternetSoftware & Services subsector, with a net loss ofUS$1 million.
The Software subsector, with two IPOs, reportedthe lowest average LTM net income for Q1 2016,with Oneview Healthcare PLC’s net loss of US$11million offsetting Akatsuki Inc’s net income ofUS$3 million by a huge margin.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Note: Net income for LeoVegas AB is not available and the percentages have been calculated on the basis of the other nine
companies that were listed.
Figure 19: Q1 2016 tech IPOs – Net income
;s
78%
22%
Q1 2016
Positive net incomeNegative net income
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 19
The Semiconductors subsector listed two IPOs andreported the highest average revenue of US$529million in this quarter. The CommunicationsEquipment and Electronics subsectors had onelisting each with revenues of US$205 and US$95million, respectively. The Internet Software &Services subsector had three listings and reportedaverage revenue of US$52 million, while the ITConsulting & Services subsector issued one IPOand posted revenue of US$43 million. TheSoftware subsector reported the lowest averagerevenue of US$21 million and two listings in Q12016.
The Communications Equipment subsectorreported the highest average LTM EBITDA, atUS$41 million, in Q1 2016, followed bySemiconductors (US$17 million), IT Consulting &Services (US$14 million) and Internet Software &Services (US$4 million). Software was the onlysubsector to report a negative LTM EBITDAaverage, at US$11 million, during the quarter. Theaverage LTM EBITDA of the Electronics subsectorwas not available.
The Communications Equipment subsector also ledin highest average enterprise value (EV), at US$1billion, followed by Internet Software & Services(US$351 million), Semiconductors (US$345million), Software (US$320 million) and ITConsulting & Services (US$221 million). Theaverage EV of the Electronics subsector wasnot available.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 20: Q1 2016 –Average LTM revenue
;s
$205
$95
$52 $43
$529
$21
$160
1 1
3
1
2 2
10
-
2
4
6
8
10
12
-
100
200
300
400
500
600
CommunicationsEquipment
Electronics Internet Software &Services
IT Consulting &Services
Semiconductors Software All sectors
No
.o
fIP
Os
LTM Revenue No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 20
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 21: Q1 2016 – Average LTM EBITDA;s
Figure 22: Q1 2016 – Average LTM net income;s
$41
$0$4
$14$17
-$11
$10
1 1
3
1 2 2
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
$(20)
$(10)
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
CommunicationsEquipment
Electronics Internet Software &Services
IT Consulting & Services Semiconductors Software All sectors
No
.o
fIP
Os
LTM EBITDA No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
$38
$15
$4$8
$14
-$4
$10
1 1
3
1
2 2
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
$(10)
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
CommunicationsEquipment
Electronics Internet Software &Services
IT Consulting & Services Semiconductors Software All sectors
No
.o
fIP
Os
LTM net income No. of deals
InU
S$
mn
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 21
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 23: Q1 2016 – Average total debt;s
Figure 24: Q1 2016 – Average enterprise value;s
$0 $0 $1 $0
$109
$2
$55
1 1
3
1 2 2
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
$-
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
CommunicationsEquipment
Electronics Internet Software &Services
IT Consulting & Services Semiconductors Software All sectors
No
.o
fIP
Os
Total debt No. of deals
InU
S$
mn
$1,017
$0
$351
$221
$345 $320$409
1 1
3
1
2 2
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
CommunicationsEquipment
Electronics Internet Software &Services
IT Consulting & Services Semiconductors Software All sectors
No
.o
fIP
Os
Enterprise value No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 22
Q1 2016 Technology IPO listings: Valuation metrics
The overall proceeds of the tech IPO segment declined significantly during the quarter due to lack of any big-ticket IPOs. Q1 2016 proceeds dipped 93% toUS$769 million, from US$10.8 billion in Q4 2015. Year over year, the Internet Software & Services (US$280 million) and Communications Equipment (US$132million) subsectors reported the highest valuations during the quarter. The US and the UK did not report any tech IPOs in Q1 2016.
In the US, Silicon Valley companies with Unicorn valuations have put their IPO listing plans on the slow track to avoid down rounds. They are awaiting thecurrent volatility to pass before taking a plunge in the IPO market. In the UK, VC activity was at its lowest level since Q4 2012.
In Asia, China led the way with three IPOs, raising US$267 million. However, proceeds and number of IPOs dipped more than 50% both sequentially and yearover year.
The average EV/LTM revenue for listed IPOs in Q1 2016 was 2.6x, down from 4.8x in Q4 2015. The Software subsector reported the highest revenue multiple of15.2x, followed by Internet Software & Services with a multiple of 6.8x. IT Consulting & Services subsector companies posted an average revenue multiple of5.1x, followed by Communications Equipment at 5.0x. Semiconductors came last at 0.7x.
Overall, the average EV/EBITDA multiple was 39.1x in Q1 2016 compared to 30.5x in Q1 2015. The Internet Software & Services subsector led with the highestaverage EV/EBITDA multiple of 85.5x, followed by Communications Equipment at 24.7x. Semiconductors posted an average EV/EBITDA multiple of 20.8x,followed by IT Consulting & Services at 15.8x. The average EV/EBITDA multiple of the Electronics subsector was not available.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 25: Q1 2016 EV/LTM revenue;s
5.0x
0.0x
6.8x
5.1x
0.7x
15.2x
2.6x
1
1
3
1 2
2
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
CommunicationsEquipment
Electronics Internet Software &Services
IT Consulting & Services Semiconductors Software All sectors
No
.o
fIP
Os
EV/LTM revenue No. of IPOs
Mu
ltip
les
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 23
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 26: Q1 2016 EV/LTM EBITDA;s
24.7x
0.0x
85.5x
15.8x20.8x
(29.1)x
39.2 x
1
1
3
12
2
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
(40.0)
(20.0)
0.0
20.0
40.0
60.0
80.0
100.0
CommunicationsEquipment
Electronics Internet Software &Services
IT Consulting & Services Semiconductors Software All sectors
No
.o
fIP
Os
EV/LTM EBITDA No. of deals
Mu
ltip
les
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 24
Top three subsectors in Q1 2016
Internet Software & Services
The Internet Software & Services subsector led the way in Q1 2016 with three IPOs raising proceeds worth US$280 million. This represented 30% of total dealsand 32% of total proceeds raised in the technology sector during the quarter.
However, on a comparative basis, the number of deals declined 63% year over year (8 IPOs in Q1 2015) and 77% quarter over quarter (13 IPOs in Q4 2015).
For average revenue, the Internet Software & Services subsector recorded a significant decline in Q1 2016, both year over year (85%) and quarter overquarter (95%).
Average LTM EBITDA in Q1 2016 was just US$4 million, an 88% decline year over year from the US$34 million in Q1 2015 and a 99% decline quarter overquarter from the US$309 million in Q4 2015.
On the upside, average net income in Q1 2016 was US$4 million, breaking the string of negative average net incomes of the past five quarters.
Average debt in Q1 2016 was US$1 million, a sharp decline of 100% both year over year and quarter over quarter.
EV/LTM revenue (6.8x) grew 74% compared to Q1 2015, but declined 89% on a quarter-over-quarter basis. EV/LTM EBITDA grew 122% compared to Q1 2015,but declined 101% on a quarter-over-quarter basis.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 27: Internet Software & Services – LTM revenue;s
$339
$118 $143
$1,082
$52
8
16
3
13
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
LTM revenue No. of IPOs
InU
S$
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 25
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 28: Internet Software & Services – LTM EBITDA;s
Figure 29: Internet Software & Services – LTM net income;s
$34
-$3
$44
$309
$4
8
16
3
13
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
$(50)
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
LTM EBITDA No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
-$19 -$20
-$7
-$26
$4
8
16
3
13
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
$(30)
$(25)
$(20)
$(15)
$(10)
$(5)
$-
$5
$10
$15
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
LTM net income No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 26
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 30: Internet Software & Services – Enterprise value;s
Figure 31: Internet Software & Services – Total debt;s
$1,319$769
$1,569
$5,286
$351
8
16
3
13
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
$0
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
$8,000
$9,000
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
Enterprise value No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
$363$72
$235
$2,390
$1
8
16
3
13
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
Total debt No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 27
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 32: Internet Software & Services – EV/LTM revenue;s
Figure 33: Internet Software & Services – EV/LTM EBITDA;s
3.9x
6.5x
11.0x
4.9x
6.8x8
16
3
13
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0.0x
2.0x
4.0x
6.0x
8.0x
10.0x
12.0x
14.0x
16.0x
18.0x
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
EVM/LTM revenue No. of IPOs
Mu
ltip
les
38.5x
-222.9x
35.4x17.1x
85.5x
8
16
3
13
3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
-250.0x
-200.0x
-150.0x
-100.0x
-50.0x
0.0x
50.0x
100.0x
150.0x
200.0x
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
EVM/LTM EBITDA No. of IPOs
Mu
ltip
les
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 28
Software
The subsector recorded average revenue of US$21 million in Q1 2016, a year-over-year decline of 89% and a quarter-over-quarter decline of 91%.
Average LTM EBITDA in Q1 2016 was negative at US$11 million. LTM EBITDA was positive in both Q4 2015 (US$31 million) and Q1 2015 (US$36 million).
Software’s average EV declined 88% on a quarter-over-quarter basis from US$2.7 billion in Q4 2015 to US$320 million in Q1 2016. Compared to the US$2.0billion in Q1 2015, average EV declined 84% year over year.
In Q1 2016, the subsector had a total debt of US$2 million compared to zero debt in both Q4 2015 and Q1 2015. The valuation multiple of EV/LTM revenue Can(15.2x) increased 43% and 27% compared to last year and sequentially, respectively.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 34: Software – LTM revenue;s
$185
$263
$64
$223
$21
2
6
4 4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
LTM revenue No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 29
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 35: Software – LTM EBITDA;s
Figure 36: Software – LTM net income;s
$36
$71
-$17
$31
-$11
2
6
4 4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
($20)
($10)
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
LTM EBITDA No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
$34
-$29
-$13
-$4 -$4
2
6
4 4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
($40)
($30)
($20)
($10)
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
LTM net income No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 30
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 37: Software – Enterprise value;s
Figure 38: Software – Total debt;s
$1,965$2,152
$351
$2,675
$320
2
6
4 4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
Enterprise value No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
$0
$593
$6 $0 $2
2
6
4 4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
Total debt No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 31
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 39: Software – EV/LTM revenue;s
Figure 40: Software – EV/LTM EBITDA;s
10.6x
8.2x
5.5x
12.0x
15.2x
2
6
4 4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.0x
2.0x
4.0x
6.0x
8.0x
10.0x
12.0x
14.0x
16.0x
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
EVM/LTM revenue No. of IPOs
Mu
ltip
les
54.5x
30.2x
-21.3x
85.3x
-29.1x
2
6
4
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-40.0x
-20.0x
0.0x
20.0x
40.0x
60.0x
80.0x
100.0x
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
EVM/LTM EBITDA No. of IPOs
Mu
ltip
les
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 32
Semiconductors
Among the few bright spots in Q1 2016 was this subsector. It made a comeback with two IPOs after a hiatus in the previous quarter. However, on a year-over-year basis, this was less than the five IPOs in Q1 2015.
Average LTM revenue in Q1 2016 was US$529 million, a significant improvement of 247% over the US$152 million in Q1 2015. On the other hand, average LTMEBITDA, at US$17 million, was down 27% over the US$23 million in Q1 2015. Consequently, average LTM net income, at US$14 million, was down 14% over theUS$16 million in Q1 2015.
The subsector’s EV dropped 73% in Q1 2016 to US$345 million from US$1.3 billion in Q1 2015. Total debt for the quarter stood at US$109 million. This was thesecond highest since it recorded a debt of US$186 million in Q4 2014. On a year-over-year basis, total debt was up 265% compared to the US$30 million inQ1 2015.
The EV/LTM revenue multiple for the subsector declined 92% from 8.43x in Q1 2015 to 0.7x in Q1 2016. EV/LTM EBITDA also declined 63%, from 56.44x in Q12015 to 20.8x in Q1 2016.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 41: Semiconductors – LTM revenue;s
$152$186
$135
$529
5
2
1
0
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
LTM revenue No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 33
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 42: Semiconductors – LTM EBITDA;s
Figure 43: Semiconductors – LTM net income;s
$23
$16
$10
$17
5
2
1
0
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
LTM EBITDA No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
$16$18
$9
$14
5
2
1
0
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
LTM net income No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 34
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 44: Semiconductors – Enterprise value;s
Figure 45: Semiconductors – Total debt;s
$1,284
$1,811
$263$345
5
2
1
0
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
Enterprise value No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
$30
$0
$17
$109
5
2
1
0
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
Total debt No. of IPOs
InU
S$
mn
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 35
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Source: S&P Capital IQ with analysis by PwC.
Figure 46: Semiconductors – EV/LTM revenue;s
Figure 47: Semiconductors – EV/LTM EBITDA;s
8.4x
9.8x
2.0x
0.7x
5
2
1
0x
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0x
2.0x
4.0x
6.0x
8.0x
10.0x
12.0x
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
EVM/LTM revenue No. of IPOs
Mu
ltip
les
56.4x
112.5x
27.7x20.8x
5
2
1
0
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0.0x
20.0x
40.0x
60.0x
80.0x
100.0x
120.0x
Q1 2015 Q2 2015 Q3 2015 Q4 2015 Q1 2016
No
.o
fIP
Os
EVM/LTM EBITDA No. of IPOs
Mu
ltip
les
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 36
Methodology
The Global Technology IPO Review for Q1 2016 is based on PwC’s analysis of transaction data extracted from S&P Capital IQ. The analysis considers IPOsacross all countries during the period 1 January 2016 to 31 March 2016 (Q1), and from 2010-2014. Financial data was also obtained from S&P Capital IQ.
The definition of the Technology sector is based on the S&P Capital IQ database industry classifications and includes the following subsectors:
Internet Software & Services IT Consulting & Services Professional Services (e.g., Application Software, Software Solutions) Semiconductors Software Computers & Peripherals
– Computers, Computers Peripheral Equipment– Computers, Storage Device Manufacturing
Electronic Computers Manufacturing (“Electronics”) Communications Equipment
Only IPOs with issue size greater than US$40 million were included in the analysis.
All monetary amounts are in US dollars unless otherwise indicated.
LTM – Last twelve months
Figures are rounded to one decimal.
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 37
For more information
If you would like to discuss how these findings might impact your business or your future strategy, please reach out to any of our technology industry leaderslisted below.
Raman ChitkaraGlobal Technology LeaderPhone: 1 408 817 3746Email: [email protected]
Rod Dring – AustraliaPhone: 61 2 8266 7865Email: [email protected]
Estela Vieira – BrazilPhone: 55 1 3674 3802Email: [email protected]
Christopher Dulny – CanadaPhone: 1 416 869 2355Email: [email protected]
Jianbin Gao – ChinaPhone: 86 21 2323 3362Email: [email protected]
Pierre Marty – FrancePhone: 33 1 5657 58 15Email: [email protected]
Werner Ballhaus – GermanyPhone: 49 211 981 5848Email: [email protected]
Sandeep Ladda – IndiaPhone: 91 22 6689 1444Email: [email protected]
Masaru Koshida – JapanPhone: 81 90 9971 9116Email: [email protected]
Hoonsoo Yoon – KoreaPhone: 82 2 709 0201Email: [email protected]
Ilja Linnemeijer – The NetherlandsPhone: 31 88 792 4956Email: [email protected]
Yury Pukha – RussiaPhone: 7 495 223 5177Email: [email protected]
Mark Jansen – SingaporePhone: 65 6236 7388Email: [email protected]
Philip Shepherd – UAEPhone: 97 1 43043501Email: [email protected]
Jass Sarai – UKPhone: 44 0 1895 52 2206Email: [email protected]
Pierre-Alain Sur – USPhone: 1 646 471 6973Email: [email protected]
Alan Jones – US (Deals Partner)Phone: 1 415 498 7398Email: [email protected]
Global Technology IPO Review Q1 2016 38
About PwC’s Technology Institute
The Technology Institute is PwC’s global research network that studies the business of technology and the technology of business with the purpose of creatingthought leadership that offers both fact-based analysis and experience-based perspectives. Technology Institute insights and viewpoints originate from activecollaboration between our professionals across the globe and their first-hand experiences working in and with the technology industry.
About PwC
At PwC, our purpose is to build trust in society and solve important problems. We’re a network of firms in 157 countries with more than 208,000 people who arecommitted to delivering quality in assurance, advisory and tax services. Find out more and tell us what matters to you by visiting us at http://www.pwc.com/
This content is for general information purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors.
© 2016 PwC. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the US member firm or one of its subsidiaries or affiliates, and may sometimes refer to the PwC network. Eachmember firm is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.