When is an IPO considered failure?
Different stakeholders have different views of 'failure'. Maybe from Air Berlin's point of view it was a failure, but technically speaking it is not really possible to 'fail'. As long as all shares were purchased, which is a virtual guarantee since the investment banks who underwrite the IPO by and large must do to some extent, it will always be 'successful'. A decrease in value of shares immediately after IPO means that the investment bank who did the IPO for Air Berlin didn't match its IPO price with market expectations, causing shorts on the stock, and thus a decline. No failure per se. "Just skimming through the Wikipedia article on airberlin, I notice there is more to the story than simply ""airberlin's IPO failed, so they postponed it and did it anyways."" 3 points to keep in mind about IPOs:  1) An IPO is the mechanism for taking a private company and setting it up for shares to be owned by ""the public"".  2) The process of selling shares to the public often allows original owners and/or early investors to ""cash out"". Most countries (including member nations of the EU) limit some transactions like pre-IPO companies to ""accredited investors"".  3) Selling shares to the public also can allow the company to access more funds for growth. This is particularly important in a capital-intensive business like an airline; new B737-MAX costs >$110M. New A320neo costs >$105M USD.  Ultimately, the question of a successful IPO depends on how you define success. Initially, there was a lot of concern that the IPO was set up with too much focus on goal #2... allowing the management & owners to cash out.  It looks like the first approach was not meeting good opinions in the market during 2006. A major concern was that the initial approach focused on management only cashing out its shares and no money actually going to the company to support its future.  The investment bankers restructured the IPO, including the issuance of more new shares so that more $ could end up in the company's accounts, not just in the accounts of the management.  If anything, it's still a pretty successful IPO given that the shares were successfully listed, the company collected the money it needed to invest and grow, and the management still cashed out."
"Yes, you could buy a stock on the day of its IPO. I'm a college student, and I wonder if I can buy stock from a company   right after it finishes its IPO? Yes, you can. However, unless you are friends or family of an employee, chances are you'll be paying a higher price than you think as there is generally a fair bit of hype on most  IPOs that allows some people to ""flip them"" which means someone is buying at a higher price. If I am not allowed to buy its stocks immediately after they go on   sell, how long do I have to wait? Generally I'd wait until the hype dies down as if you look at most historical IPOs the stock could be bought cheaper later but that's just my perspective. And also who are allowed to buy the stocks at the first minute they   are on sell? Anyone but keep in mind that while an IPO may be priced at $x, the initial trades may be a few times that value and the stock may come down over time. Facebook could be an example to consider of a company that had an IPO at one price and then came down for a little while on its chart over the past couple of years." This is the interesting elephant in the room for the Ali IPO. A large component of Ali's revenue is derived from providing customers with access to manufacturers - these manufacturers derive their revenue from selling counterfeit products, internationally.   To allow Ali to go public, effectively legitimises their business activities and leaves you with an organisation that could be comparable to piratebay but for physicals that is considered far more official/legit (read: dangerous)..   Still, it doesn't seem to troubling for America's banking industry and thus - I'll be picking up a fair share of stock when this does happen (probably just for the short-term though, hey). Twitter is planning to go public on NYSE. You'll be able to start trading once the stock is listed for trading, which would be the day of the IPO.  Note that since you're trading on the secondary market, you won't be able to buy at the IPO prices, whatever the time is. You're buying from someone who bought at IPO price. "No you don't have to be super-rich.  But... the companies do not have to sell you shares, and as others mention the government actively restricts and regulates the advertising and sales of shares, so how do you invest?  The easiest way to obtain a stake is to work at a pre-IPO company, preferably at a high level (e.g. Director/VP of under water basket weaving, or whatever).    You might be offered shares or options as part of a compensation package.  There are exemptions to the accredited investor rule for employees and a general exemption for a small number of unsolicited investors.  Also, the accredited investor rule is enforced against companies, not investors, and the trend is for investors to self-certify. The ""crime"" being defined is not investing in things the government thinks are too risky for you.  Instead, the ""crime"" being defined is offering shares to the public in a small business that is probably going to fail and might even be a scam from the beginning.   To invest your money in pre-IPO shares is on average a losing adventure, and it is easy to become irrationally optimistic.  The problem with these shares is that you can't sell them, and may not be able to sell them immediately when the company does have an IPO on NASDAQ or another market.  Even the executive options can have lock up clauses and it may be that only the founders and a few early investors make money." Brokerage firms are required to report the number of shares being shorted.  This information is reported to the exchange (NYSE of NASDAQ) and is made public.  Most financial sites indicate the number of shares being shorted for a particular stock.  The image below from Yahoo finance shows 3.29 million shares of CMG were being shorted at the close of 9-28-2012.  This is over 12% of the total outstanding shares of CMG.  For naked short selling additional information is tracked.  If the brokerage is unable to borrow shares to deliver before the settlement date of a short sale then the transaction is recorded as fails-to-deliver.  No money or shares are exchanged since the brokerage is unable to deliver the shares that were agreed upon.  A large amount of fails-to-deliver transactions for a stock usually indicates an excessive amount of naked shorting.  When investors and brokerage firms start to aggressively short a stock they will do so without having borrowed the shares to sell.  This will result in a large amount of naked short selling.  When there are a large number of naked short sellers not all the sellers will be able to borrow the necessary shares before the settlement date and many fails-to-deliver transactions will be recorded. The SEC records the number of fails-to-deliver transactions. The table below summarizes the fails-to-deliver transactions from 1-1-2012 through 9-14-2012 (data obtained from here). The “Ext Amount” column shows the total dollar value of the transactions that failed ( i.e. Fail Qty * Share price ).  The “Volume” column is the total number of shares traded in the same time period.  The “% Volume” shows the percentage of shares that failed to deliver as a percentage of the total market volume. The table orders the data in descending order by the quantity of shares that were not delivered.  Most of the companies at the top of the list no longer exist.  For many of these companies, the quantity of shares that failed to deliver where many multiples of the number of shares traded during the same time period.  This indicates massive naked short selling as many brokerages where unable to find shares to borrow before the settlement date. More information here. Your observation is mostly right, that 1 is a the number around which this varies.  You are actually referencing PEG, P/E to Growth ratio, which is a common benchmark to use to evaluate a stock. The article I link to provides more discussion. Underwriters get blamed for underpriced IPOs, management for overpriced. People tend to target their opprobrium at whomever benefits the most, whether that opprobrium is fair or not. Kind of silly because the real discussion should be about how to find a new way of doing IPOs that actually works. The goal of a good IPO underwriter is to set the price such that it brings as much money as possible to the company.   * Too low: Early stock flippers get the money that should be going to the company.  * Too high: Not all the stock gets sold.  By that definition, **Facebook should be recorded as the most successful IPO of all time**.   The problem is investors have gotten used to incompetent and/or corrupt underwriters that set the price too low. The company gets screwed, but the underwriter’s buddies make some quick cash on the flip.