Singapore IPOs Lag as Seven of 10 New Listings Trade Below Offer Prices

Singapore’s stock market can rise while its new listings struggle to hold their offer prices. That disconnect is the central challenge for a market seeking to attract more companies: recent IPO performance may weaken investor confidence even as established shares advance.

Only 10 companies had listed in Singapore so far this year at the time of recording, and seven were trading below their IPO prices. The contrast is especially visible against the Straits Times Index, which was still advancing. Mi Material, the latest entrant discussed, closed its first trading day just 1 per cent above its S$1.80 IPO price. That modest gain offers little evidence, on its own, that the broader listing pipeline has found durable demand.

Several pressures may be weighing on new listings

Ben Paul, a senior correspondent at The Business Times, points to a mix of possible explanations rather than a single cause. Some IPOs may be priced too richly for the market they enter. Higher global interest rates can also make investors more selective about risk and valuation. And a company’s story may fail to connect with local buyers, even when its business has a plausible growth case.

Those factors can reinforce one another. If the offer price leaves investors with limited room to see value, a less compelling local narrative or a more demanding rate environment may make demand harder to sustain. The available figures do not establish which factor has mattered most for each listing. They do, however, show why a strong performance in established shares cannot be treated as proof that newly listed companies will attract the same interest.

For companies and their existing shareholders, a weak aftermarket can shape how the listing is judged. For prospective issuers, the concern is whether recent results make a public listing look less appealing. For investors, the gap between an offer price and subsequent trading is a reminder that demand at the point of listing does not guarantee ongoing support.

Support at listing has limits

Jusco illustrates why visible backing may not be enough. The company had cornerstone support from funds that received money under the Equity Market Development Programme, yet its shares later traded at less than half their IPO price. That outcome complicates the idea that directing more support toward the market will, by itself, produce better post-listing performance.

The distinction matters: support can help an offering attract buyers, but it does not necessarily resolve questions about valuation, business prospects or the depth of demand after trading begins. Paul’s argument is that additional stimulus alone looks unsustainable. The episode raises a harder question for market participants: what kind of support gives companies a viable route to public markets while also encouraging investors to stay engaged once shares begin trading?

Issue managers and market anchors

Paul argues that the role of issue managers deserves scrutiny. Their fees are connected to bringing companies to market, while the longer-term outcome is borne by shareholders and affects the market’s reputation. He makes the case for the Monetary Authority of Singapore and Singapore Exchange to examine whether the pursuit of fees could be undermining investor confidence, and for issue managers’ interests to be tied more closely to post-listing performance.

That proposal focuses on incentives, not just the number of offerings. A market can attract listings and still struggle to build trust if investors repeatedly see shares fall below their offer prices. Any effort to improve outcomes therefore has to consider how companies are priced, how their prospects are presented, and what responsibilities intermediaries have after the listing process is complete.

Paul also points to Singapore’s real estate investment trust sector as an example of a market that developed around strong local sponsors. He suggests banks could play a comparable anchoring role for fintech listings. The idea is that established institutions could help create a stronger base for companies seeking public-market backing, though the source does not set out a specific structure or guarantee that such support would translate into stronger trading.

Mi Material may have a different potential source of support: Singapore’s semiconductor cluster. Paul argues that the existing industry ecosystem should help the company find its footing. That is a reason to watch how the business develops, rather than evidence that its shares will recover or that other technology listings will follow the same path.

The test for Singapore’s IPO market is whether it can connect companies with investors on terms that hold up after trading starts. More listings alone would not answer that question. Pricing discipline, credible business narratives, durable sources of support and incentives that account for post-listing performance will all shape whether the market’s broader advance reaches its newest entrants.