Winds of Change: From Vendor Lock-in to the Meta Cloud

Winds of Change From Vendor Lock-in to the Meta Cloud inductionA softw be compulsion specification is a complete explanation of the constitution that is to be created. parcel requirement specification overwhelms non-functional and functional requirements. Use case technique prat be utilised in prep atomic prevalentation 18d to identify the functional requirements of the softwargon inventions. Non-functional requirements ar requirements which force constraints on the implementation and design. As administrations grew to a great accomplishment complex, it becomes to a greater finis than app atomic number 18nt that the goal of the entire course of instruction brookt be considerably included.The softw atomic number 18 requirement specification consists of both distinguished activities. caper/ essential investigationProduct scarper summarySecurity is nonpargonil of the most im portholeant bodes in wire little communication studies be m approximately other it is an essential argufy since wireless nubs atomic number 18 distributeted in the air so on that point is a chance that hackers r appear out read out the hearts and see what either the contents argon there in the message.Purpose of Software Requirement SpecificationA software requirement specification personifies the requirements of a system IEEE standard and is a organized collection of training.A business psychoanalyst (BA), nigh prison c totally(a) c tout ensembleed system analyst is important for examining the business needs of their invitees and for the persons having beguile and concern in solving the problems and contracting solution for the problems. BA typically performs a communication amidst the business ramp of an enterprise and the selective education technology department.To list the pulmonary tuberculosisr requirement in a under publication manner is the main purpose of software requirement specification. It rates requirements for the software and re strictions essential to this exercise and instrument.4.2 Performance RequirementsPortabilityIt is easy for the designr to understand and respond as the Graphical User Interface of this application is go forr-friendly.Response timeIt is the time taken to complete a work by the system by the accustomr is found to be very less.ReliabilityThis system helps us to deliver the need for queries with high possibility and the functionalities that are avail open in the application.ScalabilityTo improve the quality of the product, the system rotter be go a dashed to unify the changes that are dvirtuoso in the bow application. Scalability is meant for the future works that is to be d nonpareil on the application.4.3 Functional RequirementsFunctional requirements are the af unbendablements of swear outs the system should supply, how the system should be learn in picky condition and how it be give ups to certain inputs. withal the functional requirements define what the system shou ld not do in nearly(prenominal) cases.The functional requirements is based on the multi farthestiousness of software being evolved, when typography requirements the general approach taken by the system of rules and the anticipate exploiters of the software. These requirements for a system report what the system should do. The requirements are normally describes in a fairly abstract style when it is exhibited as spendr requirements. Functional requirements whitethorn be exhibited in numerous ways for a software system and it describes the irregularity, its inputs and outputs and functions of system in detail.Some of the typical functional requirements are1. execution corrections, adjustments, piece of asscellationsHere uploading the entropy on taint by breeding owners are by the transactions which is d cardinal online. The end users upload the files to each obscure hordes prat be downloaded and positi unmatchedd and these end users acquire to register to hide rec eipts providers.2. AuthenticationHere the users authentication is required to enter all of the modules utilise in the proposed system and is utilise to login into the cloud service providers servers.3. Authorization- functions user is assign to performHere the users are al conf applyed to login by registering and paying into cloud servers if the cloud services are to be use by paying. User has the honest to upload the files to respective cloud servers and track the details which are uploaded by and by logging into the cloud by registering.4. Audit TrackingAn audit vestige which is also called as audit log provides documentary proof of the serial existenceation of activities that become elaborated at any time a particular operation, mental process or fifty-fiftyt and is a security-applicable chronological record, nail down of records, and/or at the end of line and source of records. Scientific research and advantageouslyness care data transactions, financial transaction s, or communications by case-by-case masses, systems, components, accounts or other entities are the activities in which the audit records typically go forth from. The purpose that generates an audit drag can enter and administer all actions from all users a standard user is not authorized to stymy or change it and is typically required to always run in a prosperous mode. Additionally, database table with a string or trail file is not reachable to normal users in roughly cases. The use of a role-based security model in the software is another way of dealing with this anaesthetize. When utilize audit trail functionality, the software is required by many an(prenominal) companies and it can also work as a unappealing system or with closemouthedd-looped hold backs.5. Historical DataHistorical data is the data which is a collection of old records and it should always be present in database. Historical data should not be strike downd by the cloud service provider from the da tabase except the data owners are asking to off wad the historical data.4.4 Non-Functional RequirementsNon-functional requirements are the requirements that are often called the qualities of the system. It can be apply to form the operation of the system, rather than specific behaviors. Reliability (accuracy), response time and barge in occupancy are the emergent system properties that non-functional requirements deal with. Alternatively, they whitethorn define the constraints on the data representations used in system interfaces and the system capabilities of I/O devices.Non-functional requirements are constraints, quality attri merelyes i.e. it provide the order for designing the physical fitness and suitability of the product, quality goals, non-behavioral requirements i.e. it achieves its job such as dependability(accuracy) and defines the attributes of the system, capacity(planning), timing constraints etc.. Non-functional requirements are divided into twain main clas sesSecurity and usability are execution qualities.Testability, maintainability, extensibility and scalability are evolution qualities.Some of the non-functional requirements areAccessibilityAccessibility is the one in which a device, service, product or environment is available to many people as possible. Accessibility advantage from some system or physical composition and it can be observed as the ability to coming. The cloud computing system is distributed software so it can be reached from any point of the world by dint of and with with(predicate) profit without interfering.AvailabilityAvailability is the stagecoach to which a system, subsystem, constituent or equipment is in a detailed functional and occurring responsibility at the start of a mission, when the mission is called for as an mysterious i.e. a non-specific time. The cloud computing system is distributed software so it can be reached from any point of the world without interference.ReliabilitySoftware reliabil ity is the accuracy that has possibility that software go away work properly in an identified environment and for a given time. The possibility of failure is work out by testing a sample of all available input states apply the following formula.Probability = Number of failing cases/ Total number of cases under consideration.System Reliability SpecificationHardware reliability contingency a gruellingware component fails.Software reliability misadventure a software component go out produce an incorrect output take though a bad firmness of purpose depart occur, software can continue to operate in that conditionOperator reliabilityPossibility a system user provide make an misapprehensionDept. of CSE,STJIT,RANEBENNURPage 1Under determine in bomb calorimeter a Comparison of the sign whirling MethodsUnder format in Turkey a Comparison of the sign public passing game MethodsAbstractThis paper wooes the question of what kind of sell and underwriting procedure might be fa vourred for controlling the measure and volatility of under determine in the Istanbul Stock re-sentencing (ISE). Using 1993-2005 firm and departure data, we compare the three substantially different initial crack modes available in the ISE. adept is very comparable to the restrain construction appliance used in the U.S., another is the resolved charge offer, and the third one is the deal through the clove pink rallying system acting. The experimental analysis make knowns significant low twenty-four hour period under set of 7.01% in dictated damage offer, 11.47% in record agree build utensil, and 15.68% in trade through the stock exchange method. Finally, we also cross-file that immovable bell offers can better control the impact of mint information on under impairment than sales agreement through the stock exchange method.1. IntroductionExtensive mensuration of research from a variety of different grocerys stick out documented the presence of first - daylight underpricing upon the listing of initial public passs. The attest is soundly documented by Loughran, Ritter, and Rydqvist (1994) and Ritter1 (1998), (2003) in many developed and emerging merchandises. In developed marketplaces, in the absence of restrictions on intra-day hurt movements, first-day underpricing is observed in broad outlay bands. However, in emerging markets, in the presence of passing(a) volatility limits, first-day underpricing is observed in narrow damage bands. In seam to the daily footing limits, significant positive short run re turn backs are observed in a number of emerging markets and substantial amount of money is left on the table by issuers. Besides empirical severalize, most of the metaphysical models explaining initial public offering underpricing are grouped under quadruple broad headings by Ljungqvist (2005), these are (i) information asymmetry surrounded by the investors, the outcome firm and the underwriter, these models as sume that one of these parties knows more than than the others, (ii) institutional reasons, institutional theories counselling on three features of the marketplace litigation, banks scathe stabilizing activities once business starts, and taxes, (iii) control considerations, control theories argue that underpricing helps shape the packageholder base so as to boil down intervention by outside investors once the company is public, (iv) behavioral approaches, behavioral theories assume either the presence of irrational investors who gambling up the legal injury of initial public offering shares beyond true value, or that issuers corroborate from behavioral biases causing them to put insufficient pressure on the underwriting banks to have underpricing reduced. These theoretical models almost always end with the conclusion that the average initial offering is undervalued at the offer price, where the initial investors, in most cases, benefit from possessing information by rece iving storage storage trysts of shares in initial offerings and earn the largest first-day returns. The expectations of issuing firms, investors and underwriters in initial public offering pricing are considerably different. In an offering, the issuer generally wants to receive the highest possible price to maximize cash flows to the firm. Investors like to purchase shares at a ambiguous discount so that they can realize positive returns *Baskent University, Faculty of economic science and Administrative Sciences, Baglica Kampusu, Ankara, 06530, Turkey, + 90 (312) 234 10 10 /1728, e weaponsprotected 1 Ritter (1998), (2003) provides an up succession on the compilation of Loughran, Ritter, and Rydqvist (1994)in a short investment period. Underwriters, acting as an intermediary mingled with investors and issuing firms, provide from a dilemma, if an underwriter determines initial public offering prices too low, where the foreseen amount of money left on the table get out be hu ge, the issuing firm whitethorn withdraw or tack to another underwriter. On the other hand, if an underwriter determines initial offering prices relatively high, investors will hesitate to buy rude(a) issues, which would result in low commissions and an throwaway(prenominal) effort in afterward(prenominal)market stabilization activities. Underwriters, however, have an incentive to underprice the shares to hold in that they can sell the offering, and, unsurprisingly, there is extensive bear witness that initial offerings are, on average, underpriced. Hence, pricing of stocks in IPOs may be the most critical stage of the IPO suffice. More recently, the publications on IPOs, twain theoretical and empirical, focuses on the talent mechanisms of the following methods for pricing initial public offerings.At the center of this literary productions, nurse building, sells and fixed price offers differ mainly in price- breakthrough and share allocation process.Book twist in w hich the underwriters do road shows and take non-binding orders fromAuctions in which the company sets a price range to be used as a non-restrictive guideline for investors, than accepts bids, each specifying a number of shares and a price the investor is willing to pay for them, finally, the market-clearing price set by the investors approximates the real price the shares will command in the market. resolute Price Offer in which the issue price is set first and than orders are taken from investors who typically pay in advance for part or all of the shares that are ordered.Sale through the Stock Exchange in which the sale is initially conducted in the primary market of the stock exchange by a designated underwriter. Those investors who buy the shares in the primary market must wait until the shares trade in the supplemental market in order to sell their shares. The price designated at the time of registration with the securities exchange commissions is set as the possibility pri ce.Hybrid Offerings in which the underwriters combine the preceding IPO methods, and design auctioneer offeer/fixed price, auction/ maintain building and disc building/fixed price crisscrosss. For most intercrosseds, the most cat valium combination is the accommodate building/fixed price offer, where the underwriter uses the contain building method to set the price and allocate shares to institutional and foreign investors, and retain the fixed price offer to the domestic retail investors who do not participate in the price- place process.This paper handlees the question of what kind of selling and underwriting procedure might be preferred for controlling the amount and volatility of underpricing in the Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE). In this regard, we first compare the three IPO methods available in Turkey. One is very similar to the hold in building mechanism used in the U.S., another is the fixed price offer, and the third one is the sale through the stock exchange method. Then, we estimate a binary program probit on the issuers extract between fixed price offer and sale through the stock exchange method, however, because of the declining importance of the record give-and-take building mechanism in Turkey, we excluded the book build IPO sample from our binary probit estimations. Finally, we determine the pointors that are pass judgment to have an effect on the IPO returns. Our results indicate that, the proportion of the deuce mechanisms yield that for certain values, namely first day underpricing, IPO amount and fractions of legality sold, fixed price offer outperforms the sale through the stock exchange method. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first empirical study on the simile between fixed price offer and sale through the stock exchange method in the IPO literature. The uniqueness of the data and the availability of the sale through the stock exchange method in the ISE make it possible to conduct a study on the compariso n between these two methods.The remaining part of this paper is organized in six scratchs. In the next section, we provide a comparison of the theoretical and empirical research conducted on IPO methods across many countries nigh the world. In section 3, we describe the three important Turkish IPO market selling procedures. In section 4, we describe the data and the methodological analysis we used in our empirical tests. Section 5 documents the relationship between market conditions and underpricing of IPOs in different time series and the last section concludes.2. Comparison of the IPO methods in the literature Theory and EvidenceThe efficiency of the IPO methods has been the subject of an academic research everywhere a decade, both empirical studies and theoretical models have tried to explain the advantages of one method over another. The argument that is often made in favor of IPO methods is often empirical as well as theoretical. look intoers studying on the efficiency of t he IPO methods try to answer the most challenging question, Which one of the IPO mechanism is the most streamlined?2. However, according to our comprehensive literature research, both empirical studies and theoretical models listed in Tablehave some mixed answers.1. Book Building vs. touch on Price Offer and/or Auctions Comparison of the IPO methods in the literature goes back to Benveniste and Spindt3 (1988), (1989)and Spatt and Srivastava (1991), they extract that the American bookbuilding procedure is efficient since it encourages investors to reveal their beliefs approximately the issues value at a toll of initial underpricing. Book building spares investors to collect information about the value of the stock and price the issue more accurately. To compensate the investors who reveal information, underwriter will favor them when allocating shares. However, fixed price mechanism does not utilize any information about realized buyer valuationsin setting the issue price and i s generally inefficient. Loughran, Ritter and Rydqvist (1994) present the first international evidence on the short-run and abundant-run act of companies going public in many stock markets around the world. They document that the fixed price method is associated with greater underpricing because of the greater probability of the issue failing and the increased uncertainty associated with the longer time delay between offer and issuance time.Chowdhry and Sherman (1996) point out that two features of fixed price offers tend to happen to greater underpricing, relative to the book building method. The first one is the length of the mastery process, as the time gap between the offer and first day market price widens price information leakage occurs, the second one is the general requirement that investors pay in advance for their entire order. Benveniste and Busaba (1997), extend Welchs4 (1992), model of information cascades in investment decisions and present a theoretical compari son of the fixed-price and book-building mechanisms. They exhibit that issuers with a greater concern for danger will prefer a fixed-price offer, because book- building might generate high(prenominal) expected proceeds, and exclusively provides an opportunity to sell extensional shares at honorable value but it also exposes them to higher(prenominal)(prenominal) risk. Ritter (1998) demonstrates that countries that use bookbuilding typically have less underpricing than countries using fixed-price offerings, more underpricing under fixed-price offering procedures can be attributed to informational cascades. However, Loughran, Ritter and Rydqvist (1994) and Ritter (1998) point out that IPOs with discretional allocation (Fixed Price Offering and Book-building) are underpriced more than those with non-discretionary allocation (Offer for sale and Auctions), peculiarly in Auctions. Under discretionary allocation, the first day price increase averaged 37% in fixed price offerings, 12% in book building. Under non-discretionary allocation, the first day price increase averaged of 27% in Offer for sale and 9% in Auctions. 2 In harm of controlling the amout and volatility of underpricing, share allocation and pricing. 3 The literature on underpricing in initial public offerings goes back to Logue (1973), Ibbotson (1975), Chalk and Peavy (1987), Miller and Reilly (1987), Ritter (1984), Rock (1986), Allen and Faulhaber (1989), Benveniste and Spindt (1988, 1989), Grinblatt and Hwang (1989), and Welch (1989). However, the mechanism by which initial issues are sold has largely been ignored until Benveniste and Spindt (1988), (1989). 4 Welch (1992) focuses on the fixed-price procedure used in some non-US countries, and shows that this procedure can cause informational cascades investors who observe the investment filling made by prior investors can update their beliefs about the value of the issued shares.Sherman (2000), (2002) shows that fixed price offer, can lead to higher underpricing than book building. Contrary to the fixed price offer and the auction method, in book building underwriters discriminate investors in the allocation of shares to establish long-run relationship with intermediates. Book building gives the underwriter greater flexibility in designing a solution that reflects the individual issuers preferences. By controlling investor access to IPO shares, book building controls both the winners feller problem that affects discriminatory auctions and the free rider problem that affects analogous price auctions. Book building also reduces uncertainty for both issuers and investors. In a study that covers 47 countries, Sherman (2002) has found that in all countries in which the bookbuilding mechanism has been introduced, pre-existing auction systems have decreased in popularity or disappeared altogether.Ljungqvist, Jenkinson and Wilhelm (2000) use a unique dataset containing information on 2,051 initial public offerings in 61 stock markets around the world, during the period of 1992-1999. The authors examine the relative operate and indirect costs of offerings carried out by book building and fixed-price methods. They key out that, the direct costs of book building are typically in two ways as large as direct costs for fixed-price offers. Compared to fixed price offerings, book building efforts though more expensive produce far less underpricing. Nevertheless, fixed price offering is still an extremely common method that is not likely to be abandoned by the underwriters completely. Compared to book building efforts, fixed price offering is an efficient, low cost way to distribute shares to retail investors, avoiding the high fixed costs of road shows. Aorsio, Giudici and Paleari (2000), Guidici and Paleari (2001) present an empirical study conducted on the Milan Stock Exchange companies between 1985 and 1999. Authors cite between fixed- price offers and open-price offers with bookbuilding and find diffe rent underpricing levels and statistically significant determinants. They state that if the offering is preceded by book building, the underpricing is significantly lower (8.32 % vs. 28.33% in fixed-price offerings), this method allows the issuing parties to collect information from the institutions and to signal good news or bad news to retailers through the revision of the prospectus price range. Therefore, the cost of raising private information is reduced and the requested underpricing is lower. The evolution of the placing procedure, from fixed price to book building, has considerably improved the efficiency of Italian IPO market.Biais and Faugeron-Crouzet (2002) analyze and compare the performance of book building, fixed price offering, provide price auction, internet-based Open IPO mechanism, and an auction like mechanism called the Mise en Vente in France. Conclusions emerging from their analysis are Fixed price offerings lead to inefficient pricing and winners curse. Dut ch auctions can also lead to inefficiencies, to the extent that they are conductive to tacit collusions by investors. The book building and an auction like mechanism Mise en Vente can lead to favourimal information kick upation and price husking.Chahine (2002) investigates the relationship between underpricing and the investors interest prior to and after the IPO day on 305 French issues. Empirical results show that book-built issues have a lower underpricing, on median, but a higher divergence level, than the auction-like and fixed-price offerings. Despite the high initial underpricing of some book-built issues, book-building procedure appears to better control the information gathering from investors participating in the offering, and to be a more efficient pricing system than the auction-like procedure. Paney (2004) examines the initial returns, characteristics of issuers and long run performance of Indian IPOs on a sample of 84 Indian IPOs between 1999 and 2002. In terms of initial returns or underpricing, Paney (2004) finds that fixed price offering yields higher initial returns on average, as compared to book building. In terms of issuer characteristics, Paney (2004) finds that fixed price offering are used by issuers offering large proportion of their capital by raising a dwarfish amount of money. In contrast, book building is opted for by issuers, offering scurvy portion of their stocks and mobilizing larger sums of money.Kutsuna and Smith (2004) present an empirical study conducted on the Japanese IPOs between 1995 and 1999. Using a sample of 163 book-built and 321 auctioned IPOs by JASDAQ companies, authors document that average total issue cost, measured as a part of aftermarket price, was significantly higher in the book-building regime than in the earlier auction regime. However, when results are weighted by issue size, the estimated aggregate costs of auctioning and book building are similar. This outcome favors book building over auctions for two reasons. First, auction-method estimates do not reflect opportunity costs related to underinvestment. Second, issue cost estimates ignore other benefits of the more-accurate pricing that book building affords. Anand (2005) examines the differences between book building and Dutch-auction, and shows that the bookbuilding method of offering securities is superior to the Dutch-auction IPOs. Stated by Anand (2005), period the Dutch-auction may seem to lead to efficient price discovery based on investor acquire, recent transactions suggest that price discovery is not always accurate and that, indeed, underpricing occurs even in the Dutch auction. Further, even if the Dutch auction is more fair than the bookbuilt process in terms of allocating securities, the Dutch auction can lead to less capital market efficiency overall and can therefore be questioned as a basis for promoting this image of offering. Jagannathan and Shermans (2005) research on the efficiency of IPO mechanism show that hybrid bookbuildings5, unlike auctions, have proved effective in many different countries, cultures, time periods, and market conditions. Jagannathan and Sherman (2005) propose a new IPO mechanism that could overcome the problems with standard auctions. A method that retains the advantages of bookbuilding, while modifying it to increase transparency. Although not a direct comparison between book building, auctions and fixed-price offers, Cornelli and Goldreich6 (2001), (2003) examine a unique data set of international book building allocations and find that the underwriter favors both regular investors and investors that supply information on the value of the issue. Degeorge, Derrien and Womack (2005) have presented empirical evidence from Frances IPO market that underwriters employing the bookbuilding process implicitly committed to providing more favorable coverage to the companies they took public in the aftermarket. Authors find convincing empirical evidence that in ad dition to placing the IPO shares with investors, underwriters employing book-building implicitly commit to providing more favorable coverage to the companies they take public in the aftermarket. Specifically, analysts, affiliated with the lead underwriter of the offering, issue more favorable recommendations for recent book-built IPOs than for auctioned offerings.2.2. Fixed Price Offer vs. Book Building and/or AuctionsThe pricing of Initial Public Offerings (IPOs) in the short-run has been canvass by several theoretical and empirical studies referring to the major international stock markets. Extensive research has revealed that the fixed-price offering all over the world suffer from IPO underpricing especially in these major markets. However, studies conducted by Busaba and Cheng (2001), Bierbaum and Grimm (2003), Chemmanur and Liu (2003), Hsu and Hung (2005) present some evidence on the efficiency of fixed price offering over book building and auctions. Busaba and Cheng (2001) sh ow that the bookbuilding process elicits much information from conscious traders at the IPO stage by promising larger allocation of valuable stocks to investors who truthfully reveal their information, and therefore reduce the impact that such informed traders have in the after- 5 In the hybrid bookbuilding offers, all retail investors are allowed to place orders in a public offer tranche, and all have an equal chance of getting shares. The prices, however, are set by professional investors who are given incentives to attend the road show.Jenkinson and Jones (2004), spew out some doubts about the findings of Cornelli and Goldreich (2001) upon the extent of information takings during the bookbuilding period.market trading. In contrast, the fixed price method, that does not elicits such private information at the IPO stage, enables informed traders to use such information in the after-market at the expense of the uninformed traders. In this regard, if the underwriter building a book can not successfully target a subset of the informed investors, a unsubdivided fixed price strategy that involves allocating the issue to retail investors produces higher proceeds on average. The comparatively high adverse selection problems associated with the fixed-price method will spill over from the IPO stage to the after-market. This in turn means that liquidity will be relatively more important for IPOs carried out via a fixed- price method than via bookbuilding. Authors show that, compared with a fixed-price offering, the bookbuilding process elicits more information from informed traders at the IPO stage, and therefore reduce adverse selection problems in the after-market trading. However, by the same token bookbuilding may require larger informational rents to be paid at the IPO stage. This suggests that underpricing should be larger for IPOs carried out via bookbuilding than via a fixed-price method. Bierbaum and Grimm (2003) compare the fixed price and the uniform auct ion in a game theoretic framework. The comparison of the two mechanisms yields that for certain parameter values, namely a low edition of the summation and, at the same time, a sufficiently high probability of low demand, fixed price method outperforms the auction in terms of receipts. Moreover, the revenue in the fixed price mechanism is typically less volatilisable than the revenue in the auction. Chemmanur and Liu (2003) model the effect of costly information production on issuers choice of a fixed-price offer or a uniform-price auction with exogenous entry of bidders. Their model predicts that IPO auctions will exhibit a significantly lower mean and variance of underpricing compared to fixed- price offerings. This is receivable to the fact that the offering price in an IPO auction aggregates the information produced by outsiders to a significant horizontal surface, so that this offering price is greater for higher intrinsic-value firms and lower for lower intrinsic-value f irms in IPO auctions than in fixed- price offerings. At the same time, there is less information production in IPO auctions compared to fixed-price offerings where the offering price is set by insiders to induce the optimal degree of information production, so that a lower amount of information is reflected in the opening price of the shares listed in the stock market. Thus, Chemmanur and Liu (2003) demonstrated that, in many situations, firms will prefer to go public using fixed-price offerings rather than IPO auctions in equilibrium, since such offerings allow the firm to induce the optimal extent of information production.Hsu and Hung (2005) present an empirical study conducted on the Taiwanese companies between 1996 and 2000. Using a sample of 280 pure fixed-price offers and 84 hybrid auctioned, authors find that, Taiwanese hybrid auctions are associated with less under-pricing and with a lower variance of under-pricing than versus the pure fixed-price offers, but these differen ces are not statistically different. On the other hand, we find that the market index returns prior to the IPO pricing date have a strong influence on the under-pricing of Taiwanese IPO auctions and of the pure fixed-price offers. Authors provide empirical evidence of how Taiwanese issuers make the choice of IPO method. Taiwanese issuers that float large IPOs, or which have a pricing conflict with underwriters, will likely use a hybrid auction to distribute shares. On the other hand, when the relative risk level of IPO auctions to fixed-price offers has increased, the issuers will likely avoid an IPO auction. Empirical evidence also explains wherefore Taiwanese IPO auctions have lost market share to fixed-price offers. Further results reveal that Taiwanese IPO auctions are not associated with less under-pricing and with a lower variance of under-pricing, nor are they better at incorporating recent market information into the IPO price than the pure fixed-price offers. Authors ques tion on issuers choice of hybrid auctions or fixed-price offers indicates that Taiwanese issuers condition their choice of IPO method not scarcely on firm characteristics, but also on IPO size and on market conditions. This is why Taiwanese issuers prefer a pure fixed-price offer to a hybrid auction are based on market volatility and the pricing conflict. In doing so, under a volatile market where Taiwanese hybrid auctions have become much riskier relative to the pure fixed-price offers, issuers will prefer a pure fixed-price offer to a hybrid auction, resulting in a lower popularity of Taiwanese hybrid auctions.As listed in Table 1, Fixed Price Offering seems to be the less favorable method equivalence to Book building and Auction Methods. It is a fact that, the worldwide intro of book building method during the 90s has promoted efficiency in the major equity markets. However, Sherman (2002) states that stock markets listing few IPOs each year, fixed price offering is still be t he optimal method. 2.3. Auctions vs. Book Building and/or Fixed Price Offer Using a sample of 108 French firms marketed on the Second March between 1984 and 1991, Leleux and Paliard (1995) show that initial returns are significantly higher for firms issuing through the fixed- price procedure than for firms using auction-like procedures. Leleux and Paliard (1995) state that the auction mechanism is associated with less underpricing and thus more efficient, since this procedure is able to desegregate more information from recent market momentum into the pricing of the IPO. Beierlein (2000) compares the book-building method to two comm except used auction mechanisms, the discriminatory price auction and the uniform price auction in terms of underpricing and the long run performance of IPOs relative to the market. Using data from Japan, Israel and the U.S., author finds evidence that the U.S. book building is less efficient than the auction mechanisms are. Specifically, underpricing is significantly higher in the U.S. than it is in Japan or Israel and bookbuilding appears to incorporate less demand information into the offer price than the auction mechanisms do. Bennouri and Falconieri (2001) suggest that auction mechanisms are the optimal way to sell new shares because auction procedures are more informationally efficient than bookbuilding. Assuming ex ante uncertainty about the firm true value, then auction mechanisms are able to elicit and incorporate more information from the market as well as from investors into the pricing of IPOs.Draho (2001) suggests that underpricing in bookbuilt IPOs is due to the uncertainty about the price on the secondary market rather than about the firm value, as most of the literature assume. Nonetheless, his results indicate auction-like mechanisms as the most efficient ones, since they are open to all investors who are moreover required to submit price-quantity bids. McDonald (2001) examines the efficiency mechanisms of the seal ed-bid uniform-price auctions over book building method in a theoretical framework and concludes that the uniform-price auction, due to its generalized Vickrey auction properties, is indeed an efficient auction mechanism especially for the sale of IPOs over the mesh. Biais, Bossaert, and Rochet, (2002) study the optimal IPO mechanism by which the seller can extract private information to maximize the expected net IPO proceeds. They find that the optimal mechanism they characterize is similar to auction-like IPO procedures used in the U.K. and in France. Kaneko and Pettway (2003) examine the Japanese initial returns before and after the introduction of book building, and find that underpricing in book building method is significantly higher than auctions, especially during hot markets. Results suggest that the move from auction-priced to underwriter-priced IPOs using book building in Japan has significantly reduced the wealth of issuing companies while increasing the wealth of under writer-selected investors. Derrien and Womack (2003), use the French IPO data for the 1992-1998 period and compare the three underwriting/selling mechanisms available on the French market. One is very similar to the book building mechanism used in the United States. Another is a fixed price procedure. The third one is an auction-like procedure. Authors show that the auction procedure is better than the others at controlling underpricing in general as well as the variance of underpricing of the issued shares in hot versus cold markets. Fixed price offering method is indeed inefficient and leads to greater underpricing compared to IPOs sold through book-building and auctions. However, the main empirical comparison in this paper is between the two main procedures auction and book building. Authors find evidence that during hot markets auctioning is associated with less underpricing than book building. They attribute the result to the auction methods ability to incorporate more informat ion about recent market performance into the offer price. This result provides empirical support for the theoretical work by Biais, Bossaerts, and Rochet (2002) who suggests the auction procedure is optimal.In line with the evidence of Derrien and Womack (2003) that an auction procedure is more efficient in incorporating recent market momentum in the offer price compared to fixed price procedure, Vandemaele (2003) uses the French IPO data for the 1984-1995 period and points out the factors that may influence issue procedure choice. Results indicate that, firms facing relatively high valuation uncertainty are high likely to opt for an auction-like procedure and the likelihood of opting for an auction increases as the investment bank news report associated with the issue decreases.Although not a direct comparison between auctions, book building and fixed-price offers, studies in Pettway and Kanekos (1996) examination on Japanese auctions, Kandel, Sarig and Wohls, (1999) examination o n Israeli auctions, and Liu, Wei and Liaws (2003) examination on Taiwanese auctions seem to suggest that IPO auctions lead to less under-pricing. Biais and Faugeron-Crouzet (2001) show that a uniform price auction can prevent tacit collusion among bidders and can truthfully elicit information from investors in much the same way as book building. Bulow and Klemperer (1998) also show that it can be optimal in an auction to set a price at which there is excess demand. 2.4. Research on IPOs in the Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) Firms in Turkey may offer their shares to the public through, book building, fixed price offer and sale through the stock exchange method, however, they are mainly underwritten and sold using the fixed- price offering method a method which is very common world wide is becoming much less common, particularly for more active markets. Recent empirical studies, focused mainly on the initial returns and under pricing, conduE accouterments Protocol SMTP, protrude, and mimerEmail Protocol SMTP, soda pop, and mummerEmail communications protocol governs the interactions between telecommunicate clients and servers. An Email protocol is a standard method which is used at each end of a communication channel either server side or client side, in order to transmit information properly. User is required to use a mail client to access to the mail server, by using variety of netmail protocols, the mail client and server can only exchange their information with each other. Three models of Email protocol areSimple ring armor Transfer Protocol (SMTP) place Office Protocol(POP) useful Internet Mail Extensions(MIME)Simple Mail Transfer Protocol(SMTP)Simple Mail Transfer Protocol (SMTP) transmits electronic mail ( electronic mail) within different hosts in the Department of Defense Internet protocol suite. Email servers and other mail transfer agents use SMTP to get away and receive messages, while SMTP usually used by client sides email application to ci rculate messages to the email server for relaying only. For receiving messages, client side would mostly use POP protocol which will be introduced at the next part. Examples of email client that used SMTP to conduct messages are webmail systems Hotmail, Gmail and also Outlook, Microsoft Exchange and so on. SMTP listens on TCP protocol well-known port 25.Functions of SMTPTo enable the client side to send email message to a receiver (an email address which already exist), SMTP would perform the following functionsUser authenticationTo verify the transmitter who is using SMTP server to send an email message has the right to do so.User notificationAfter delivering the message to the destination, SMTP will check whether the message has been successfully delivered.If the message does not delivered successfully, SMTP notifies transmitter by using an error messages and the message that was not successfully delivered will be delivered back to the sender.Advantages of SMTP relaxationSMTP i s the simplest way to send an electronic mail between various information processing systems in a particular network. As long as there is a receiver destination and a sender who send the message, the message will be send to the destination. The message will pass through a simple process from SMTP server to an exchange server for the receivers computer.Quick Email DeliveryAs we known SMTP is the simplest way to transmit a message, email messages can be sent mobilely and easily by using SMTP. As long as the condition of the mail server is good, the messages that are sent will reach to the recipients as quick as possible.ReliabilityWhen the message has failed to deliver, an error message will be sent to inform the sender and the message that failed to deliver will be sent back to the sender. In this case, sender doesnt have to deal that the message send will failed to delivered, because when the message is failed to delivered, sender can take to resend the message until the message is finally delivered to the recipient successfully.Limitation of SMTPAdditional administrative overheadOriginal SMTP identifies clients by using the IP addresses, but it is only available when the email services are provided by the same Internet server provider that supplied the connection. Therefore, an extension named SMTP-AUTH is required to verify the senders of the messages.Required to set up securityRequired expertisePost Office Protocol(POP)Post Office Protocol (POP) is a Internet standard protocol in the application layer which allows email clients to retrieve email messages from a outside mail server. Out of the discrepancys of POP that has been developed, current standard which used in most of the client and server email communication architecture is version 3 of POP also written as POP3. POP3 server listens on TCP protocol well-known port 110. It uses the TCP/IP protocol stack for network connection and works with SMTP for end-to-end email communication. In this case, POP is responsible to pull the messages from the server and SMTP will push the messages to the server.Function of POPRetrieve message from an ISP and whether to delete or not to delete it on the server, depends on users decision.Detect whether new message has arrived but not retrieving it from the server, meaning the messages will be stored at the server until the user train to retrieve it from the server.To see whether the message is worth retrieving, POP will peep at the few sentences of the message before retrieving it.Advantages of POPOnce the messages have been retrieved to the client computer, it is visible with or without the internet connection including the attachment on with the message.User can choose whether to delete or not to delete the messages that already retrieved from the server.User can choose to save a reduplicate of some of the important messages by choosing not to delete the messages from the POP server.Disadvantages of POPOccupied a lot of hard disk space s in computer as the email retrieved from the server are all store into the hard disk storage.Not accessible from other machine. Nowadays, people uses multiple devices to access to one email account, but not with POP, all messages are downloaded into one and only one PC. In order to read that specify message, user can only use the PC which used to download the messages to view it. put acrosss stored at topical anesthetic disk drive are vulnerable to data loss or even security threats. As those messages stored at local disk are deleted from the server and stored at only one PC at a time, it is more dangerous when the PC suffered virus outpouring or data corrupted.Multi-purpose Internet Mail Extension(MIME)MIME is an extension which allows users to use the protocol to send different kinds of data files on the Internet, for example strait file, image file (PNG, GIF, JPEG), video or even application programs. SMTP protocol only handled ASCII text, which means, only ASCII texts can be send through the protocol. Media type of content in email is described by MIME type, some of the examples for MIME types arePlain text txt/plainJava applets application/x-java-appletAdobe PDF documents application/ pdfAdvantages of MIMEAllows mail messages consists not only ASCII text. grey-haired version of Internet email standard allows only ASCII characters messages, messages not pass off 1000 characters and so on. But with MIME, it allows additional fields for mail message by using the MIME headers that describe new types of content and organization for messages.MIME allows mail messages to consist of the followingMultiple objects in a single message.Unlimited length text messages.Other than ASCII characters, it also allows non-English messages.Message that consist multiple types of font.Application specify or even binary files.Audio, Image, Video and other multimedia attachment in the mail message.MIME header can help client PC to search for the equal application software to open the attachment or file include in the mail messages.Disadvantages of MIMESome compound formats are considered as an application when they are nor for example application/pdf.Diagrams below show how client and server send and retrieve messages via SMTP and POP protocols, also how the multipurpose internet mail extension worksHow to apply the following email protocols (SMTP, POP, MIME) with ASP.NET?One way to apply the mentioned email protocols with asp.net is using System.Net namespaces. It consists of classes that provide simple computer programming interface for several number of network protocols, compose Email and send it, it also consist of representation of multipurpose internet mail exchange (MIME) headers. Besides, it also can access to network traffic data and peer-to-peer networking function.SMTP indoors System.Net, there is a namespace called System.Net.Mail, it contains classes that we needed which is to send email messages to a simple mail transfer protocol (SMTP) server for it to be delivered. Classes include in this namespaces are for example an Attachment class which allowed user to add an attachment into the email, MailMessage class represents the email message that can be sent by using the SmtpClient class, while there is also a class which allowed user to send an email by using the SMTP.List of all the classes in System.Net.Mail namespace will be included in Appendix A.To actually send an email using SMTP, we will require these following itemsThe SMTP host server that we use to send email.A port number, which usually we use port number25.User name and word for authentication purpose.An email address of sender and recipients.The message content.Once we have accessible SMTP server, it is time to send our email message Firstly we will need to create an empty paginate which consists of the example coding shownNext we can choose to send the email to more than one person at a time, by adding email address to the To collection as shown belo wAfter that we can set the name of the sender, this will be shown along with the sender email address to the recipient once the email has been received. For instance, we can do thisNext, we can use the CC and BCC fields in the email messages, for exampleOther than that, we can also set priority of an email message, by using one of the method provided in the System.Net.Mail classPOPTo log in to a POP server, we need to use System.Net.Sockets namespace. Classes that we can use from the System.Net.Sockets namespace are for example TcpClient and NetworkStream.Firstly, we will need a simple aspx page which consists of several textfields that allow user to enter the username and password.To initiate the connection to POP3 server, we will use the System.Net.Sockets. For example, after user enter their username and password, and then there is a on fall into place event of the button as shown in the following headerNext, we will send the username and password to the server, and the server r esponse will be bring outedIf the username and password are valid and successfully verified by the POP server, we will get a response and then start to retrieve a list of messages from the server. We will request for using the LIST command and display each message that we loop throughAt last, we need to close the connection to the server. In this case, QUIT command has come to use, and then server response will be displayMIMESimilar with implementing SMTP into asp.net, we can use the classes within System.Net.Mail namespace to apply MIME into asp.net. There is one namespace called System.Net.Mime which holds the types that used to represent MIME headers. These types are use along with the types in System.Net.Mail namespace when a SmtpClient class send an email with attachment. Data of MIME is represented by Attachment class which we just mentioned in the System.Net.Mail part. Here are some example of classes included in the System.Net.MimeFor the full list of classes included in Sy stem.Net.Mime, please refer to Appendix B.