Stupid share distribution? I think that was probably the only fair and equitable way to do it given how oversubscribed it was. Labcoin could have gone auction-style and they showed class and chose not to.
I think it didn't make much sense, because it was easily gamed if you had enough funds.
I want 100, there are 2x bids, I bid for 200 I get 100 anyway (and suckers who didn't have enough funds, got less).
I wouldn't call that fair.
Honestly I have no idea why didn't they just fill the higher bids, after all it was market price...
Since I've already read someone against this method, I'd like to know
why.
It was fair because the issuer gets to set the rules, they had a price they wanted to IPO at and they had a set amount of funds they wanted to raise.
"Real world" IPOs work in a similar fashion. Just because you wanted 200 shares, doesn't mean you get them - you bid for them and find out the day or so before the IPO whether or not you get your full allotment.