Q4 & FY 2019 SPAC IPO Underwriting League Tables
Methodology:
In addition to the traditional methodology used whereby any bookrunner or lead manager gets full credit for IPO size to calculate deal volume, there are two additional rankings – volume by number of units sold and volume sold % market share (highlighted in green). For example, if SPAC-XYZ raised $500 million at IPO, and underwriter A sold $400 million of the same deal and underwriter B sold only $100 million, that’s how they will be credited. This methodology gives a more accurate window into the actual deal volume.
Below are the recently released Q4 & Full Year 2019 SPAC IPO Underwriting League Tables
This was an exciting and very busy year for SPACs and that carried over to the Underwriting League where we had a number of new entrants to the Tables and some surprising moves by more than a few underwriters. Additionally, since this year showed significant movement in rankings, the 2018 Full Year Table has also been provided below for comparison.
UNDERWRITING: Full Year and Q4
Ranked by Volume
(All data is sort-able using the arrow keys (?/?) located in the header cells)
FY 2019
| Rank | Underwriter | Volume ($mm) | Volume % Mkt Share | Volume Sold ($mm) | Volume Sold % Mkt Share | Deal Count | Average Deal Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cantor | 3,638.3 | 16.8% | 2,566.1 | 22.1% | 14 | 259.9 |
| 2 | Deutsche Bank | 2,541.8 | 11.7% | 1,270.0 | 10.9% | 8 | 317.7 |
| 3 | Credit Suisse | 2,491.6 | 11.5% | 1,286.2 | 11.1% | 9 | 276.8 |
| 4 | Goldman Sachs | 2,102.7 | 9.7% | 864.8 | 7.4% | 6 | 350.4 |
| 5 | BTIG | 1,600.8 | 7.4% | 729.9 | 6.3% | 7 | 228.7 |
| 6 | Citigroup | 1,529.1 | 7.1% | 960.0 | 8.3% | 4 | 382.3 |
| 7 | Earlybird | 969.5 | 4.5% | 587.0 | 5.0% | 6 | 161.6 |
| 8 | UBS | 951.8 | 4.4% | 498.8 | 4.3% | 4 | 237.9 |
| 9 | Barclays | 741.8 | 3.4% | 301.3 | 2.6% | 3 | 247.3 |
| 10 | Morgan Stanley | 645.0 | 3.0% | 241.7 | 2.1% | 2 | 322.5 |
| 11 | J.P. Morgan | 575.0 | 2.7% | 166.7 | 1.4% | 2 | 287.5 |
| 12 | B. Riley FBR | 546.3 | 2.5% | 475.0 | 4.1% | 3 | 182.1 |
| 13 | BofA | 537.5 | 2.5% | 194.0 | 1.7% | 2 | 268.8 |
| 14 | Stifel | 530.2 | 2.4% | 111.9 | 1.0% | 2 | 265.1 |
| 15 | Jefferies | 488.8 | 2.3% | 395.0 | 3.4% | 2 | 244.4 |
| 16 | Chardan | 446.9 | 2.1% | 238.1 | 2.0% | 5 | 89.4 |
| 17 | Nomura | 300.2 | 1.4% | 159.5 | 1.4% | 1 | 300.2 |
| 18 | Cowen | 280.5 | 1.3% | 190.0 | 1.6% | 2 | 140.3 |
| 19 | I-bankers | 172.5 | 0.8% | 94.5 | 0.8% | 2 | 86.3 |
| 20 | Northland | 172.5 | 0.8% | 74.1 | 0.6% | 1 | 172.5 |
| 21 | Craig-Hallum | 108.0 | 0.5% | 30.0 | 0.3% | 1 | 108.0 |
| 22 | Maxim | 103.5 | 0.5% | 90.0 | 0.8% | 2 | 51.8 |
| 23 | BMO | 100.0 | 0.5% | 55.0 | 0.5% | 1 | 100.0 |
| 24 | SVP Leerink Partners | 100.0 | 0.5% | 45.0 | 0.4% | 1 | 100.0 |
FY 2018
| Rank | Underwriter | Volume ($mm) | Volume % Mkt Share | Volume Sold ($mm) | Volume Sold % Mkt Share | Deal Count | Average Deal Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Credit Suisse | 2,212.0 | 12.2% | 913.9 | 10.2% | 5 | 442.4 |
| 2 | Chardan | 2,205.4 | 12.2% | 766.4 | 8.6% | 15 | 147.0 |
| 3 | BofA | 1,897.5 | 10.5% | 643.0 | 7.2% | 5 | 379.5 |
| 4 | Citigroup | 1,882.0 | 10.4% | 1,133.4 | 12.7% | 4 | 470.5 |
| 5 | Cantor | 1,668.0 | 9.2% | 1,204.0 | 13.5% | 8 | 208.5 |
| 6 | Earlybird | 1,527.9 | 8.5% | 843.5 | 9.4% | 9 | 169.8 |
| 7 | Deutsche Bank | 1,250.0 | 6.9% | 751.8 | 8.4% | 4 | 312.5 |
| 8 | Goldman Sachs | 1,215.0 | 6.7% | 711.3 | 8.0% | 3 | 405.0 |
| 9 | Oppenheimer | 657.8 | 3.6% | 235.4 | 2.6% | 2 | 328.9 |
| 10 | B. Riley FBR | 625.3 | 3.5% | 515.5 | 5.8% | 3 | 208.4 |
| 11 | Jefferies | 564.3 | 3.1% | 420.0 | 4.7% | 3 | 188.1 |
| 12 | UBS | 508.0 | 2.8% | 137.5 | 1.5% | 2 | 254.0 |
| 13 | BTIG | 299.3 | 1.7% | 55.0 | 0.6% | 2 | 149.6 |
| 14 | CLSA | 258.0 | 1.4% | 50.0 | 0.6% | 1 | 258.0 |
| 15 | Cowen | 230.0 | 1.3% | 165.0 | 1.8% | 1 | 230.0 |
| 16 | Macquarie | 200.0 | 1.1% | 59.0 | 0.7% | 1 | 200.0 |
| 17 | Morgan Stanley | 200.0 | 1.1% | 67.5 | 0.8% | 1 | 200.0 |
| 18 | Dowling & Partners | 172.5 | 1.0% | 42.0 | 0.5% | 1 | 172.5 |
| 19 | Raymond James | 155.3 | 0.9% | 44.6 | 0.5% | 1 | 155.3 |
| 20 | Ladenburg | 115.0 | 0.6% | 92.5 | 1.0% | 1 | 115.0 |
| 21 | CIM Securities | 115.0 | 0.6% | 0.5 | 0.0% | 1 | 115.0 |
| 22 | Maxim | 63.3 | 0.4% | 55.0 | 0.6% | 1 | 63.3 |
| 23 | I-bankers | 63.3 | 0.4% | 27.5 | 0.3% | 1 | 63.3 |
Q4 2019
| Rank | Underwriter | Volume ($mm) | Volume % Mkt Share | Volume Sold ($mm) | Volume Sold % Mkt Share | Deal Count | Average Deal Size |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cantor | 1,045.0 | 21.9% | 780.0 | 27.3% | 5 | 209.0 |
| 2 | Credit Suisse | 616.3 | 12.9% | 358.4 | 12.5% | 2 | 308.1 |
| 3 | UBS | 603.8 | 12.7% | 435.0 | 15.2% | 2 | 301.9 |
| 4 | Barclays | 508.8 | 10.7% | 200.0 | 7.0% | 2 | 254.4 |
| 5 | BTIG | 460.0 | 9.7% | 261.3 | 9.1% | 2 | 230.0 |
| 6 | Earlybird | 348.5 | 7.3% | 240.0 | 8.4% | 3 | 116.2 |
| 7 | Morgan Stanley | 300.0 | 6.3% | 91.7 | 3.2% | 1 | 300.0 |
| 8 | J.P. Morgan | 300.0 | 6.3% | 91.7 | 3.2% | 1 | 300.0 |
| 9 | Jefferies | 172.5 | 3.6% | 120.0 | 4.2% | 1 | 172.5 |
| 10 | B. Riley FBR | 149.5 | 3.1% | 130.0 | 4.5% | 1 | 149.5 |
| 11 | Leerink Partners | 100.0 | 2.1% | 45.0 | 1.6% | 1 | 100.0 |
| 12 | BMO | 100.0 | 2.1% | 55.0 | 1.9% | 1 | 100.0 |
| 13 | I-Bankers | 57.5 | 1.2% | 49.5 | 1.7% | 1 | 57.5 |
Source: SPACInsider, Ranked by volume
Most notably, Cantor had an absolutely monster year leading all categories, with the exception of Average Deal Size ($259.9 million). Compared to 2018, Cantor more than doubled their Total Deal Volume and Total Volume Sold with $3.6 billion and $2.6 billion, in 2019, respectively. Additionally, Cantor underwrote a total of 14 SPACs in 2019, just one less than Chardan’s record of 15 SPACs in 2018. However, it’s going to be tough for any bank to beat those numbers in 2020 since the second half of 2019 saw a number of new underwriters enter the field. Competition should be fierce going forward.
However, Deutsche Bank ALSO doubled their total deal volume to $2.5 billion in SPAC underwritings, compared to 2018’s $1.25 billion, to take the number two spot. Additionally, Deutsche Bank doubled their deal count from four in 2018 to eight in 2019, with an average deal size of $317.7 million.
But the interesting story this year is about the new underwriters, of which we had quite a few in 2019. Both and Barclays and J.P. Morgan, which did not underwrite any SPACs in 2018, had three and two IPOs each, respectively, to rank #9 and #11. Technically, J.P. Morgan is not a “new” underwriter since we’ve seen them on SPAC covers before (most recently in 2017), but after taking a pause in 2018, they’re back. And given the sheer size and reputation of both of these banks, they could be strong competitors for 2020. Count Morgan Stanley and UBS in this group of “big banks to watch” too. UBS recorded four SPACs this year, while Morgan Stanley knocked out two. Both banks have made a renewed commitment to this asset class after key hires, so watch for them to make moves in the coming months.
However, BTIG made the biggest leap in 2019, up eight spots from 13 in 2018 to land at number five in 2019, with total deal volume of $1.6 billion and seven IPOs. Given that BTIG’s very first SPAC, ever, was only recorded as of August 2018, this is a strong showing.
Lastly, Chardan, which ranked second last year based on total deal volume, appears to have pivoted in 2019 to focus on the de-SPACs of their 2018 and 2019 deals. Notably, Chardan closed both Chardan Healthcare (PHGE) and Health Sciences (IMVT), both in less than one-year’s time, as well as Greenland Acquisition Corp. (GTEC), and is an advisor on the recently announced EdTechX transaction. It remains to be seen if they continue to focus on de-SPACs going into 2020 or head into a new cycle of IPOs, but given their past history in SPAC underwriting, it’s a good bet they’ll rank.
In summary, 2019 was a record year for SPACs and 2020 is expected to be just as busy, if not busier. However, with the addition of some new players, next year’s league tables should be especially competitive. We’ll have to see what shakes out, but a completely different looking set of rankings is not out of the question by the fourth quarter. Nevertheless, 2020 promises to be a very interesting year.
You can find all the League Tables by clicking here.