IPOs and Investor Sentiment
The transcript warns investors about the historically poor performance of IPOs, noting that newly public companies have underperformed peers by 3.3% annually over their first five years from 1980–2024. The speaker argues that IPOs often come to market under conditions that favor issuers rather than investors, particularly late in market cycles. Market reception of major IPOs is presented as a useful sentiment indicator for where we are in the broader cycle.
Summary
The transcript opens with a tongue-in-cheek reframing of the IPO acronym — 'It's Probably Overpriced' — setting a cautious tone toward the renewed excitement around initial public offerings. The speaker notes that several high-profile companies are reportedly considering going public, which is drawing significant investor attention and speculation about finding the next big winner.
The core of the argument rests on historical data: from 1980 through 2024, newly public companies underperformed similarly-sized peers by an average of 3.3% annually over their first five years. The speaker uses this statistic to argue that IPO investing is inherently speculative, with a small number of high-profile successes masking a much larger pool of underperformers — a classic survivorship bias concern.
The speaker also highlights a structural disadvantage for retail and institutional investors in IPOs: companies tend to go public when market conditions favor the issuer, not when valuations are most attractive to buyers. This timing dynamic often places IPOs late in market cycles, when optimism and expectations are already elevated. The speaker directly connects this to the current wave of technology and AI-related IPO candidates.
Finally, the speaker suggests that beyond the deals themselves, how investors receive major IPOs — the enthusiasm or skepticism with which the market greets them — can serve as a meaningful gauge of overall investor sentiment and where the market cycle currently stands.
Key Insights
- The speaker cites data showing that from 1980 through 2024, newly public companies underperformed similarly-sized peers by an average of 3.3% annually over their first five years, framing IPO investing as broadly speculative.
- The speaker argues that a small number of IPO standouts creates a misleading impression that obscures how many newly public companies actually underperform.
- The speaker contends that companies typically time their IPOs to favor the issuer rather than investors, and that this often occurs late in market cycles when optimism and valuations are already high.
- The speaker explicitly connects the current IPO environment to the technology and AI sector, suggesting today's conditions mirror the late-cycle optimism pattern that historically disadvantages IPO investors.
- The speaker argues that investor reception of major IPOs — not just whether they occur, but how enthusiastically the market embraces them — can serve as a signal for where the broader market cycle stands.
Topics
Transcript
[0:00] As we like to say, IPO can just as easily stand for it's probably overpriced. Initial public offerings are back in the spotlight with several high-profile firms reportedly considering public debuts. That kind of activity naturally draws investor attention, especially from those hoping to find the next big winner, but we think it's important to keep expectations grounded, and history gives us good reason for caution. From 1980 through 2024, newly public companies underperformed similarly-sized peers by [0:32] an average of 3.3% annually over the first 5 years. To us, that highlights the speculative nature of IPO investing, where a small number of standouts can obscure a much larger group of underperformers. Many IPOs come to market when conditions…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to AccessMore from Fisher Investments
This Week in Review | S&P 500 Record High, Fed Minutes, Spain Election (Oct. 9, 2026)
This Week in Review covers three major market developments: the S&P 500 reaching a new all-time high, the Federal Reserve's September meeting minutes indicating potential rate hikes ahead, and Spain's snap election scheduled for November 29th. The segment emphasizes that record highs are typically milestones in bull markets rather than peak signals, cautions against overweighting Fed guidance, and argues that political uncertainty in Spain may be less disruptive than headlines suggest.
What Causes a Deep Recession?
Ken Fisher distinguishes between what triggers recessions (dislocations like regulatory changes) and what makes them deep (accumulated economic excesses). He notes that the U.S. hasn't experienced a traditional business cycle recession in 17 years, which may have allowed significant unrecognized risks and inefficient investments to build up globally.
Ken Fisher: A Candid Take on US-Canada Tariffs
Ken Fisher argues that President Trump's tariffs on Canada have been ineffective at reducing the trade deficit, noting that the deficit actually grew following the April 2nd, 2025 tariff announcement. Fisher expresses a fundamental bias against tariffs, characterizing them as a negative economic tool that fails to accomplish stated policy goals.
Today’s IPO Market vs. the Dot-Com Bubble
Fisher Investments analyzes the current IPO market, political landscape, inflation, and corporate earnings, concluding that while elevated IPO activity signals budding optimism, the market environment remains healthy with strong fundamentals, gridlock-driven stability post-midterms, and broad-based earnings growth supporting continued bullish positioning.
Ken Fisher: Are Major Market Crashes Less Likely Today?
Ken Fisher discusses whether major market crashes and recessions are becoming less likely in modern times, acknowledging that while increased information access and computerization could enable faster responses and better problem prevention, there is insufficient empirical evidence to firmly support this hypothesis.