Upcoming IPOs: Preliminary Valuations, Anchors, and Ranges
In an era where global markets are balancing between optimism and caution, initial public offerings (IPOs) continue to attract the attention of investors from all continents. The upcoming IPOs scheduled for the end of 2025 and the beginning of 2026 are not merely financial events; they serve as a barometer of economic health, reflecting how companies are adapting to inflation, technological shifts, and geopolitical challenges. For investors from Russia, the US, Europe, or Asia, understanding preliminary valuations, valuation anchors, and price ranges is critical: these tools help predict where real value lies and where expectations are overestimated. In this article, we will dissect how these parameters are formed, relying on fresh data and examples from the current cycle of offerings.
The IPO market in 2025 is evolving: according to forecasts from analytical firms such as PwC and Deloitte, the global volume may reach $250 billion, with growth in emerging sectors such as AI and sustainable energy. In Russia, despite sanction-related limitations, the Moscow Exchange is recording a revival—approximately 18-22 new listings by the end of the year. These offerings are attracting not only local players but also international investors through alternative channels, highlighting the universal relevance of the topic for a global audience.
Upcoming IPO Calendar: Tracking and Prospects
Global Landscape of Offerings: November-December 2025
Investors eager to catch the wave of offerings always start with the calendar—a dynamic tool that evolves as companies prepare. The global landscape looks promising for November-December 2025: an IPO of a biotechnology company from Silicon Valley specializing in cancer immunotherapy is expected on NASDAQ, with a proposed book-building date of November 15 and trading commencing in January 2026. This company, with several phase III clinical trials and partnerships with global pharmaceutical giants, exemplifies the high-risk yet promising offerings dominating the American market. Similarly, a European cloud service provider focused on small and medium-sized businesses, which emphasizes AI integration for process automation, is preparing for listing on Euronext Paris, potentially raising €700 million and becoming a bright example of post-pandemic recovery in the fintech sector, where demand from SMEs remains resilient despite macroeconomic volatility.
Russian Context and Planned Listings
In the Russian context, the Moscow Exchange publishes updates in the "Corporate Events" section, where upcoming IPOs include a major consumer goods manufacturer from St. Petersburg, slated for December 2025 with a volume of 12 billion rubles. This company, with a 25-year history and strong branding, represents a conservative choice in the current environment, attracting investors seeking stability. Another candidate is an IT company from Yekaterinburg developing software to optimize warehouse logistics using machine learning, which has applied for listing with expected trading to start in February 2026. This company, with an annual revenue growth of 35% and an EBITDA margin of 22%, attracts investors interested in high-growth IT assets, albeit with increased currency risks due to local macroeconomic conditions.
Asian Electric Vehicles and Commodity Supply Chains
Asian exchanges, such as Shanghai and Hong Kong, are leading in terms of volume: a series of listings in the electric vehicle sector is expected, including a battery supplier from South Korea with proprietary solid-state battery technology, with dates set for November and a potential raise of $1.5 billion. This IPO symbolizes a shift in the global supply chain, where Asian players are capturing market share from Western competitors by offering better value and speed to scale. The valuation of this company is adjusted based on strategic partnerships with Tesla and BMW, which ensure long-term contracts and reduce demand risks.
Tracking Tools and Seasonality
Tracking the calendar requires a combination of tools: official exchange resources provide initial data on applications, while platforms like IPO Central, Yahoo Finance, and Refinitiv Capital Connect aggregate global updates with detailed analysis. In the current market environment, where seasonality plays a critical role—the end of the year is often quiet due to holidays and limited active investor bases—January 2026 may see a peak in activity, especially if the European Central Bank and the US Federal Reserve continue to ease monetary policy. Historically, January-February records activity 40% higher compared to November-December, as seen in data from the past decade.
The promising companies on the calendar are those whose business models demonstrate sustainable growth regardless of economic cycles: for instance, the aforementioned biotechnology firm with a 40% annual increase in its R&D portfolio and three approved products, or the Russian IT player exporting to Europe and Asia, thereby minimizing local currency risks. The risk of deferral depends on macroeconomics: about 25% of planned IPOs are postponed due to market conditions, but 75% proceed as scheduled if the issuer demonstrates financial sustainability in due diligence.
Preliminary Valuations: Metrics and Calculation Factors
Fundamental Approaches and Valuation Calculation
The preliminary valuation of an issuer is a fundamental step where abstract prospects are converted into concrete numbers, helping investors assess potential from the very start of the listing preparation process. For the planned biotechnology IPO in the US, this valuation may reach $4 billion, calculated based on current phase III clinical trials, successful partnerships with pharmaceutical giants like Pfizer and Moderna, and potential royalties from future products. The process begins with due diligence conducted by underwriters—investment banks such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, or Credit Suisse—which analyze the financial balance, cash flow, tangible assets, intellectual property, and predictions for 3-5 years into the future, including sensitivity analysis on various scenarios.
Key Metrics: EV/EBITDA, P/E, and P/S
Key metrics include EV/EBITDA (Enterprise Value to EBITDA) for capital-intensive industries like energy and industrials, and P/S (Price-to-Sales) for growing companies without stable profits, such as in IT and biotech. In the case of the Russian consumer goods manufacturer, the preliminary valuation of 40-60 billion rubles relies on a P/E (price-to-earnings) ratio of 12-15x, considering a stable 25% revenue growth over the last quarter, an 18% EBITDA margin, and a projected 20% growth over the next two years. By contrast, in the IT sector, P/S may range from 6-10x depending on growth and profitability, while for infrastructure projects related to the energy transition, it could be around 4-6x focused on DCF due to the long-term nature of the projects.
Adjustments for Risks and Specific Factors
Factors influencing the calculation and adding nuances vary and require careful analysis. The quality of assets, such as patents in biotech or software IP in IT, may add a premium of up to 20%, as they create moats against competition. Geographic diversification in IT services (revenue from the US, Europe, Asia) adds another 10% for resilience against local risks. Globally, for the Asian electric vehicle IPO, the valuation is adjusted for supply chain considerations and dependencies on scarce raw materials like lithium—high price volatility for lithium could lower the valuation by 10-15%, emphasizing the role of commodity risks in value. Macroeconomic factors—inflation, interest rates, exchange rates—also adjust models: a 50 basis point rise in interest rates typically reduces DCF valuation by 5-8% due to a higher discount rate.
Conservatism of Scenarios and Real vs. Preliminary Value
The real value often differs from the preliminary estimate: historically, 30% of IPOs adjust their valuation downwards at the book-building stage if the macroeconomic environment deteriorates or investor sentiment shifts sharply. Investors should check the conservatism of scenarios—for instance, in the aforementioned European cloud IPO, forecasts include three cases: a base case with 20% CAGR, an optimistic one with 30% CAGR, and a pessimistic case with 10% CAGR, where the EBITDA margin varies from 15% to 25% depending on the scenario. This approach allows one to understand how resilient the valuation is to shocks, such as recession, competitive pressures, or supply chain disruptions. The average probability-adjusted valuation is often 10-15% lower than the base case, which is more realistic.
The calculation also considers industry nuances: in energy, the focus is on sustainability, where ESG factors enhance valuation by 5-8%, as seen in recent European examples in renewable energy, where investors are willing to pay a premium for alignment with climate goals. For a global audience, it's essential to note that in emerging markets, including Russia, India, and Brazil, valuations are often more conservative due to currency risks, political uncertainty, and liquidity issues, but offer higher upside for patient investors willing to endure volatility. The difference between developed and emerging markets can be 2-3x, where one company might achieve a 10x P/E in the US and 6-7x in Russia despite identical fundamentals.
Price Ranges: Formation and Adjustment Dynamics
Range Announcement and Structure
The price range is announced in the preliminary prospectus (red herring) and serves as a crucial reference point for demand indications, helping investors plan their participation and the size of bids. For the Russian IT IPO, the range may be set between 800-1200 rubles per share, implying a capitalization of 50-75 billion rubles and allowing organizers to test the market at various price levels. The formation of the range begins with the internal models of the organizers, where the lower boundary reflects conservative anchors and caution in risk management, while the upper boundary reflects optimistic growth projections and potential synergies from mergers or expansions.
Range Width and Market Signals
The width of the range—typically 20-30% between the minimum and maximum—balances risks and opportunities: a narrow range (15%) signals confidence and strong competitive positioning, as demonstrated by the American biotech IPO with scientific validation, while a broader range (35-40%) reflects caution amid volatility and macroeconomic uncertainty. Tight ranges often indicate a clear understanding of value by the issuer and organizers, whereas wide ones provide flexibility for adjustments. For example, a week before the book-building process, the range may narrow by 5-10% after the roadshow demonstrates strong investor interest at specific price points.
Adjustments and Offering Parameters
Adjustments occur based on preliminary indications of interest: if demand from institutional investors covers 200% of the volume at the lower level, the range is raised, as recently occurred for an Asian battery supplier, which expanded its range by 12% after the first three days of the roadshow. Offering parameters, such as the volume of shares and free float (the proportion of shares available for public trading), directly affect the final range: a larger free float (15-20%) typically demands a narrower range to attract wide ownership and avoid price manipulation. For global IPOs, the free float is typically 10-20% to mitigate manipulation risks, while in Russia it may range from 15-25% to enhance investor confidence and meet Moscow Exchange requirements for first-tier listings.
Investors use the range strategically when preparing bids: large investment funds often bid at the lower end of the range for bargain prices and maximum gains during a pop, while retail investors tend to bid at the upper end, anticipating a first-day pop of 10-20% as a historical average. In a global context, for a European fintech, a range of €12-16 was adjusted upwards after the roadshow, where management convinced investors of a 30% monthly user growth and 40% net profitability in the long term. Risks of exceeding the range are rare under normal conditions but can occur during hype, as seen in 2021 when 15% of IPOs exceeded the maximum by 30-50%, subsequently falling by 40-60% over 12 months, disappointing investors.
The dynamics of adjustments reflect market conditions and investor sentiment: during bullish periods, such as the current recovery in Asia, 40% of ranges are expanded upwards, raising the upper limit by 10-15%, whereas in downturns, ranges are narrowed to attract broader investor interest. This keeps the range a non-static parameter but a living indicator, where timely monitoring is key to success for investors from any jurisdiction. Some organizers publish weekly updates on the ranges during the roadshow, allowing investors to observe the evolution of demand.
Valuation Anchors: Selection and Role of Comparables
What Are Anchors and Their Fundamental Role
Valuation anchors are benchmarks that ground valuations in reality through comparisons with public comparables, ensuring objectivity in preliminary calculations and minimizing subjectivity. For an industrial IPO in Russia, an anchor might be set at an EV/EBITDA of 7x, calibrated against companies like Norilsk Nickel (traded PJSC GMKN), which has an EV/EBITDA of 4-5x, and international comparables like Rio Tinto (NYSE: RIO), trading at 6-7x, justifying our issuer's valuation at 30 billion rubles based on projected EBITDA of 4.5 billion rubles for the following year. The selection of comparables requires diligence: they must align in terms of size (revenue of at least $500 million), sector (industrials in this case), maturity stage (public companies for over 5 years), and exclude outliers such as loss-making firms or those with special circumstances (turnarounds, spinoffs).
Multiples and Their Adaptation
Multiples such as P/E (Price-to-Earnings), P/S (Price-to-Sales), and EV/Revenue are adapted to specifics: in biotechnology, a P/S multiple of 12x is compared with public biotech companies like Gilead Sciences (NASDAQ: GILD, P/S ~3-4x) and Regeneron (NASDAQ: REGN, P/S ~8-12x), adding a premium for innovation and drug potential. In the cloud service sector, an EV/Revenue multiple of 6-8x is based on salesforce (NYSE: CRM, EV/Revenue ~6x) and ServiceNow (NYSE: NOW, EV/Revenue ~8-10x), ensuring a relevant framework. Adjustments for differences are standard in the industry and critical for accuracy: geographic factors (Europe vs. Asia) typically lower the anchor by 1-2x due to lower growth and regulatory complexity, while a strong moat (competitive advantage) can raise it by 1-3x for long-term cash flows.
ESG Factors and New Dimensions
In 2025, ESG anchors are gaining weight and becoming more mainstream: “green” comparables, such as Orsted in energy (CPSE: ORSTED, P/E ~15-18x with an ESG premium), add a 10-15% premium, influencing ranges and final valuations. Companies with strong ESG scores often trade at a 5-10% premium to their peer group, especially among European and Asian investors. This reflects the growing demand for sustainable investing and the willingness of investors to pay for reduced long-term risks. For a European green IPO, this adds €200-300 million to valuation compared to the base scenario.
Selection and Adjustment of Comparables
Comparisons with comparables minimize subjectivity in valuations, ensuring a market-based perspective: for the electric vehicle IPO, comparables like Tesla (NASDAQ: TSLA, EV/Revenue ~3-4x, but with a growth premium of ~50x P/E) and NIO (NYSE: NIO, EV/Revenue ~1-2x due to structural challenges) assist in adjusting for supply chain risks and production vulnerabilities, decreasing the EV/Revenue anchor from theoretical 10x to practical 7-8x. The number of comparables used in calculations is typically 5-10 benchmark companies to capture the inter-quartile range and avoid outlier biases. Data sources (Bloomberg, Capital IQ, Refinitiv) provide real-time multiples, updated daily, which are critical for accuracy.
The process of selecting anchors is not merely mechanical but also an art: weak anchors (inexact comparables, outdated data) signal risks and unreliability in valuations, as seen in overestimated 2022 IPOs where comparables ignored rising costs and falling margins. Globally, anchors are evolving: in Russia, there is a focus on local comparables for currency stability, while in the US, emphasis is placed on growth metrics and innovation premiums. Understanding this helps investors uncover undervalued opportunities where anchors underestimate expansion potential or structural shifts in the industry, creating asymmetrical risk-reward profiles.
Market Risks and Investor Expectations: Impact on Parameters
Macroeconomic Risks and Volatility
Market risks permeate the planning and execution of IPOs at every level, adjusting valuations and ranges through the lens of volatility and external shocks that are beyond the issuer's control. For the upcoming biotech IPO in the US, geopolitical factors (tensions in Taiwan, sanctions) may narrow the range by 10%, reflecting risks regarding the supply of equipment for clinical trials and manufacturing. Volatility measured by the VIX (the “fear index” of S&P 500) above 20 points often leads to a discount on anchors of 15% or more, as seen in recent Asian listings where commodity inflation (lithium, cobalt) undermined investor expectations and led to downward adjustments. Historically, high volatility (VIX >25) has been associated with delays or cancellations of 35-40% of planned IPOs.
Investor Expectations and Sentiment
Investor expectations shape sentiment and drive demand at various price points, often reflecting psychology more than fundamental factors. Surveys of analysts by organizations like CFA Institute and Morgan Stanley show that 60% of institutional investors expect 15-25% upside from tech IPOs in 2026 in the US, focusing on AI integration and automation potential. In the case of Russian retail IPOs, expectations are more conservative—10-15% capitalization growth due to local inflation (10-12% annually) and reduced consumer purchasing power—but strong domestic demand from retail investors often covers 150-200% of the offering volume. Implicit risks, such as regulatory delays (SEC approvals can take 4-6 months in the US, and the Bank of Russia may require 2-3 months), postpone about 25% of offerings, affecting timelines and causing frustration.
Factors Shaping Expectations
Expectations are measured through roadshow feedback, media sentiment, and pre-marketing indications: positive sentiment elevates the upper range by 5-15%, while pessimism constricts it. In a global context, for a European fintech, expectations regarding AI integration, machine learning capabilities, and expansion into adjacent markets added 20% to the preliminary valuation, however, concerns about cyberattacks and data privacy regulations led to a downward adjustment of 10%, creating a net increase of +10% compared to initial anchors. Factors such as Federal Reserve interest rates (a 50 basis point decrease typically stimulates demand for risk assets by an average of 5-8%), macroeconomic growth (GDP growth of +0.5% translates to a valuation premium of +2-3%), bolster optimism, while recessionary signals, wars, and trade tensions dampen confidence. For global audiences, this serves as a reminder that risks are universal, but local factors (sanctions in Russia, supply chain disruptions in Asia) add complexity, making investment diversification critical.
Structure and Volume of Offerings: Balancing Liquidity and Control
Primary vs. Secondary Shares and Their Roles
The structure of an offering dictates how an IPO integrates into the capital market, balancing capital attraction for growth with the diversification of ownership and liquidity for existing shareholders. Primary shares (new shares issued by the company) typically represent 60-80% of the offering and are intended to finance organic growth, as in the planned Russian industrial IPO, where 70% of new shares (volume of 8 billion rubles out of a total of 11.5 billion) are allocated for capacity expansion and internationalization. Secondary shares from founders, early investors, or venture capitalists account for 20-30% and serve as a partial exit mechanism, increasing the free float from 5% to 18%, which is critical for NYSE or NASDAQ listings, where regulators require at least 10% for adequate liquidity and to avoid concentrated ownership.
Volume, Liquidity, and Valuation Premiums
The offering volume influences valuation and post-IPO dynamics: large offerings (> $1 billion), such as an Asian electric vehicle IPO, receive a scale premium for market liquidity and inclusion in major indices but risk market flooding, potentially reducing the first-day pop by 5-10% due to large supply. The optimal size often hovers around $300-700 million in the current environment, balancing capital raising with investor demand. Lock-up periods (9-12 months) prevent existing shareholders from dumping shares: in a biotech IPO, a 12-month lock-up stabilizes the price, minimizing volatility in the first 2-3 quarters and limiting downside from insider selling. Conditions for allocation typically involve 70% for institutional investors and 30% for retail, ensuring a balance along with greenshoe options (an additional 15% of volume) for stability and flexibility.
Impact on Liquidity and Risks
The impact on liquidity is evident and critical: a higher free float accelerates trading volume, as shown in a European cloud IPO with a 20% float, where daily turnover reached 5% of capitalization in the first month, attracting algorithmic traders and creating healthy price discovery. Optimizing the structure is a strategic art: for small to midsize businesses, like the Russian IT company on the Moscow Exchange, a smaller volume (5 billion rubles) mitigates the dilution of the majority shareholder while maintaining control above 70%. Risks within the structure include over-allocation (allocating more shares than planned), leading to undervaluation and frustration, and under-allocation, resulting in excess demand and price surges beyond expectations. A properly designed structure, as seen in recent successful examples, enhances post-IPO performance by 15-20% within a year, creating a win-win for all stakeholders.
Underwriters and Regulatory Aspects: Roles in Shaping Parameters
The Role of Investment Banks as Underwriters
Underwriters—major investment banks such as Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase (in the US) or Sberbank, VEB.RF, and Alfa-Bank (in Russia)—lead the way in determining anchors, ranges, and offering parameters through expertise, investor networks, and data-driven models. In the US biotech IPO, JPMorgan performs extensive due diligence over 3-4 months, adjusting the valuation by 10-15% based on internal data regarding patents, regulatory risks, and competitive landscape, ensuring a realistic estimate. Their role in preliminary valuation involves scenario modeling, where anchors are calibrated against 8-10 comparable companies, ensuring conservatism and market acceptance.
Regulatory Requirements and Compliance
Regulatory aspects add a significant layer of complexity: the SEC in the US requires detailed disclosure of risks in the final prospectus, which often leads to expanded risk sections and a more conservative tone, impacting the width of ranges—noncompliance with requirements can delay the process by months. In Russia, the Central Bank focuses on localization and anti-money laundering compliance, where underwriters like VEB.RF adapt parameters to currency control and cross-border restrictions, approving the prospectus in 2-3 months compared to 6+ months in the US. A syndicate of 3-5 major banks distributes the offering volume, minimizing the systematic risk of concentration.
Legal and Compliance Factors
Legal factors, including compliance with GDPR in Europe, SOX in the US, and the tax codes of local jurisdictions, adjust valuations and parameters: privacy risks (customer data leaks) can lower anchors by 5-10%, as seen in fintech and IT firms. The final parameters are determined by organizers in collaboration with the issuer's CFO and board of directors, but regulators hold veto power over parameters deemed non-compliant. On a global scale, this instills trust among investors and markets: Russian IPOs under the Central Bank have stricter transparency reporting requirements, while US offerings are more flexible in structure but face higher litigation risks for organizers. The evolution of regulations, such as MiFID II in Europe, intensifies the focus on investor protection and best execution, impacting the design of IPO processes.
Forecasts and Adjustments: Path to Final Valuation
Forecasting Scenarios and Long-Term Prospects
Post-IPO forecasts focus on a 12-24 month horizon, linking preliminary parameters with expected secondary market performance and the long-term prospects of the company. For a Russian retail IPO preparing for launch, a 25-30% growth in market capitalization is anticipated over the year, based on strong e-commerce trends, SKU expansion (product lines), and improved logistics efficiency through AI. The base scenario anticipates a 20% revenue growth, maintaining an 18% EBITDA margin, and a multiple re-rating from 8x to 10x EV/EBITDA due to growth acceleration and operational improvements. The downside scenario (15% probability) includes a macroeconomic downturn, cuts in consumer discretionary spending, and margin compression to 15%, leading to a 15% drop in market capitalization. The upside scenario (20% probability) involves an IPO pop, institutional demand for inclusion in funds, and growth re-rating to 12x, potentially resulting in a 35-40% increase.
Building Dynamics and Range Adjustments
Adjustments during the book-building process are dynamic and reflect real market interest: strong demand (300% coverage at the lower level) boosts the price by 15-20%, as seen in an Asian fintech, where the final valuation exceeded the preliminary estimate by 12-15% due to robust institutional allocations. Weaker demand (only 80% coverage) necessitates a price cut of 10-15% or postponements for better timing. Changes in anchors occur iteratively: market declines over consecutive weeks can adjust the P/E down by 2x, updating the range downward. The potential for oversubscription serves as a strong indicator: a 4x subscription in biotech signifies significant hype and potential bubble risks but, if managed correctly through sizing and pricing, can lead to healthy first-day performance.
Final Valuation vs. Preliminary and Investor Value
The final valuation as compared to the preliminary estimate is often 7-12% higher in the presence of positive sentiment and a strong roadshow, but 25-30% downward adjustments are observed during negative macro events or sentiment reversals. For investors, timely tracking of all updated parameters is key; platforms like Seeking Alpha, Morningstar, and local resources (RBC, Banki.ru for Russia) provide real-time updates, aiding in capturing value in a volatile and fast-moving IPO cycle. In 2025, with global macro shifts, rate changes, and geopolitical dynamics, these forecasts are not guesswork but a data-driven guide for strategic investment decisions. Successful IPO investors are those who combine deep fundamental analysis with macro understanding and risk management, creating resilient portfolios capable of achieving outperformance even in challenging markets.
