基于主成分分析的IPO发行成本影响因素研究

在对IPO发行成本及其构成进行界定的基础上,对IPO发行成本影响因素展开分析,并采用主成分分析方法从原始变量中提取5个主成分因子,实证检验各主成分因子对中国证券市场IPO直接发行成本、间接发行成本和发行总成本的影响。研究结果表明,IPO发行成本受到规模、上市前股权结构和企业财务风险的影响;发行定价机制的变动显著影响直接发行成本,与间接发行成本和总成本的关系则不明显。     

超额配售选择权、承销商声誉对IPO定价效率的影响研究——基于承销商视角

IPO定价效率直接影响着股票市场资金融通和优化资源配置功能的发挥,以及资本市场的长期发展。本文从承销商视角出发,通过引入声誉成本因素,构建承销商IPO定价模型,模型实证分析显示:超额配售选择权和承销商声誉均能够提高IPO定价效率,但我国A股市场超额配售选择权对IPO定价效率的影响不显著,承销商声誉与IPO定价效率之间呈显著正相关关系,且影响系数较小。     

投资银行业务收费决定函数研究

本文建立了投资银行业务收费的决定函数,详细讨论了决定投资银行业务收费高低的六个主要因素:成本、风险、竞争、规模、服务、声誉(品牌).成本包括直接成本和间接成本;风险包括资本损失风险、信用等级风险和审批风险;竞争指各层次投资银行之间的业务竞争;规模指每一笔业务的金额;服务指投资银行的专业水平和提供服务的种类;声誉指投资银行的品牌价值.六因素分析框架可以解释美国投资银行业为什么具有相对较高的IPO承销费率.     

风险投资对创业板IPO折价影响的实证研究

本文以截至2011年6月30日在我国创业板上市的236家公司作为研究对象,研究风险投资对创业板IPO折价的影响。研究发现：（1）有风险投资参与的企业IPO折价显著高于无风险投资参与的企业,支持声誉效应假说,即风险投资机构以IPO折价来提早退出投资项目,以此来建立自己的声誉,从而吸引更多的资金流入;（2）在对有风投参股的投资公司做进一步分析后发现一一随着风投参与度的增大,IPO调整折价率并未出现明显的提升,创业板企业IPO时风险投资机构的数量、风险投资机构持股比例与调整折价率关系不显著。     

风险投资声誉对上市公司IPO抑价和长期业绩的影响

本文以2006-2010年深圳中小板上市的风险投资支持企业为样本,实证研究了风险投资机构的声誉对其支持企业的IPO抑价以及上市后长期业绩的影响。研究结果显示：风险投资声誉对IPO抑价无显著影响．低声誉的风险投资存在着过早将所支持企业推向IPO市场的动机;风险投资声誉与被投资企业的长期业绩具有显著的正相关关系;风险投资支持的企业上市后的经营业绩均出现了下滑,但是高声誉风险投资支持的企业业绩下滑程度更小。     

中小企业股权融资中投资银行市场竞争力构建与作用

本文以快速成长的中小企业板IPO市场为研究对象,检验了投行市场竞争力的决定因素,以及对新股盈余质量和发行折价的作用。研究结果表明:首先,分析师研究能力、承销历史上客户发行折价以及IPO后市场业绩等执业质量因素是投行市场竞争力的来源,而股权背景并不能帮助其获得更多客户;其次,投行市场竞争力与发行公司盈余管理程度以及发行折价显著负相关,说明投行能够在一定程度上有效鉴证IPO盈余质量,并由此降低因信息不对称而导致的融资成本。本研究为在中小企业市场上投行声誉机制有效性提供了全面的证据。     

承销商声誉、媒体关注与IPO首日抑价

本文以2006—2014年上市的1107家A股IPO公司为样本,研究了承销商声誉对公司媒体报道、进而对IPO首日抑价的影响。研究发现:(1)媒体关注与IPO首日抑价正相关;(2)承销商通过媒体报道这一中间传导环节提高新股首日抑价;(3)IPO承销商声誉有助于公司获得更高的媒体关注,特别是来自地方性媒体的关注,2009年6月IPO发行政策改革后,承销商声誉对媒体关注影响增强。本研究有助于进一步揭示并理解金融中介对资产定价影响的内在机理。     

承销商声誉能降低公司债券融资成本吗?

本文选取2011—2018年A股上市公司发行的公司债券作为样本,实证研究承销商声誉对公司债券融资成本的影响及其作用机理,并分析市场化程度在其中的调节作用。研究结果表明:(1)承销商声誉对公司债券融资成本有负向影响,高声誉承销商通过承销高评级公司债券降低债券融资成本。(2)承销商声誉对公司债券融资成本的影响存在异质性。承销商声誉对公募债券融资成本的影响更为显著,对私募债券融资成本无显著性影响。(3)市场化程度越低,承销商声誉对公司债券融资成本的负向影响越明显。     

国有股权与公司IPO中的审计师选择行为及动机

审计师选择是审计研究的核心问题。本文首次研究了国有股权在中国A股IPO市场对审计师选择的影响及其具体机制。我们发现,国有股比例越高,公司选择高质量的审计师的概率越低;当国有股权比例较低时,高质量的审计师能够降低IPO发行抑价,但是,国有股比例的提高会损害高质量审计师降低IPO抑价的作用,并且,国有股比例越高,IPO抑价越高。这说明国有股权对IPO中的审计师选择的影响既不是因为国有股比例的提高容易导致公司与低质量的审计师合谋,也不是因为国有股权可以代替高质量的审计师在降低IPO融资成本过程中的作用,而是因为国有股权会损害高质量审计师声誉机制的发挥,进而损害了其在降低IPO融资成本过程中的作用。本文对于丰富和深化我们关于中国A股市场审计师选择行为和审计师声誉机制作用发挥的认识,具有非常重要的作用。     

政府管制、中介机构声誉机制与IPO信息披露质量

本文从IPO信息披露角度分析了我国新股发行制度中存在的主要问题,指出过度管制和中介机构市场"劣币驱逐良币"是导致证券市场信息披露质量低下的重要原因。我国新股发行实行注册制改革,在放松管制的同时,需重视培育中介机构声誉机制建立的外部环境。在中国证券市场的现实条件下,通过建立中介机构信用信息的强制性披露制度,将中介机构及个人的信用信息纳入招股说明书的强制性披露内容,形成市场对发行人选择良好信用中介机构的倒逼机制。这既是完善以信息披露为中心的发行制度改革的现实选择,也是解决监管机构在注册制下审核边界问题的可行思路。     

Do more reputable financial institutions reduce earnings management by IPO issuers?

This study investigates whether financial intermediaries (FIs) participating in the IPO process play a significant role in restraining earnings management (EM). Specifically, we examine whether EM around IPOs is negatively related to investment banks (IBs) and venture capital (VC) investor reputations. In general, we do not find evidence that VCs as a group significantly restrain EM by IPO issuers. However, we uncover strong evidence that more reputable VCs and IBs are associated with significantly less EM, which is consistent with them implicitly certifying the quality of issuer financial reports. Moreover, a stronger reduction in EM is found when more reputable IBs are matched with more reputable VCs, which indicates that VC and IB reputation are complements rather than substitutes. These conclusions are invariant to adjustments for potential endogeneity of underwriter reputation and VC-backing or reputation.     

What Do Investment Banks Truly Bring to the Table?

This paper investigates the role of intermediaries in the initial public offering (IPO) process. In the U.S. market, investment banks have traditionally been involved in a firm‐commitment or best‐efforts underwriting capacity. However, in the Australian IPO market, investment banks are increasingly being named in association with new issues in diverse roles such as issue managers, sponsoring brokers and corporate advisers. Using a sample of 468 IPOs over the 1996 to mid‐2006 period, we examine the influence of investment banks across these different engagements. In support of the signalling and information production roles of intermediaries, we find that issuers choosing high intermediary involvement are typically older, retain more capital, seek to raise larger amounts of capital and are without independent expert certification. We find mixed support for the certification hypothesis when testing for the effect of intermediary reputation on IPO issuer wealth loss. Further, the impact of intermediary involvement on underpricing is not significantly different for the different levels of intermediary involvement once issue characteristics have been accounted for. This is puzzling since these different roles by definition do not provide the same level of issue quality assurance.     

审计师声誉影响股票定价吗——来自IPO定价市场化的证据

本文以IPO定价市场化为背景,研究实施询价后的审计师声誉对IPO定价的影响。文章以"四大"和国内排名前十大的会计师事务所来衡量审计师声誉,采用多元回归和两阶段回归方法对假设进行检验,结果发现审计师声誉与公司询价水平正相关,但在统计上并不显著;在对抑价率的检验中,我们发现审计师声誉显著降低股票抑价率。进一步地,我们发现在民营上市公司中,上述关系更为稳健。总体来看,审计师声誉已经初步影响了股票定价。     

我国A股市场IPO定价影响因素的实证分析

本文以实行询价制后沪深两市首次公开发行的A股为研究对象．选取2005年1月到2007年8月的144家发行新股的公司作为样本，搜集了它们新股上市前披露的公开信息、大盘运行状况以及行业特性等资料，建立起较为完整的指标体系，使用因子分析、逐步回归等方法构建了IPO定价的多因素模型，并据之判断IPO定价的影响因素。研究发现．财务状况、经营成果、新股发行数量、行业特性以及大盘风险等因素对IPO定价有较为重要的影响。     

Underwriter Reputation,Issuer Ownership,and Pre‐IPO Earnings Management: Evidence from China

This paper investigates the correlation between pre‐initial public offering (pre‐IPO) earnings management and underwriter reputation for issuers with different ownership structures in China. We document a significantly inverse relationship between underwriter reputation and pre‐IPO earnings management for non‐state‐owned enterprises (NSOE) issuers only, while no significant association is found for state‐owned enterprises (SOE) issuers. We also find that for the NSOE new issue market, underwriter reputation is positively correlated with issuer post‐IPO performance indicating that prestigious underwriters can incrementally improve issuer post‐IPO performance.     

发审委身份公开、会计师事务所声誉与IPO公司盈余质量

本文以我国2000至2007年期间IPO公司财务报告为样本,以2003年我国由证监会遴选执业会计师出任股票发行审核委员会(简称"发审委")委员的身份公开为背景,研究被证监会遴选执业会计师出任股票发审委委员的会计师事务所是否有动机提高审计质量,以维护来自政府认可的信任声誉。实证研究发现,这些会计师事务所审计的IPO公司财务报告的盈余质量,无论横向比较还是纵向比较均有显著提高。据此推论,来自政府认可的会计师事务所声誉与源于市场口碑的会计师事务所声誉一样,对享有这些声誉的会计师事务所提高审计质量有明显激励作用。     

Modifier effects of country-level transparency on global underpricing difference: New hierarchical evidence

Even though empirical evidence on IPO underpricing documents substantial variations across nations, existing literature primarily neglects the simultaneous direct and indirect influences of formal institutional quality. Here, we examine if the perceived differences in IPO underpricing in the global IPO market are due to: direct effect of inter-temporal changes in transparency across countries; indirect effect of inter-temporal changes in country-level transparency on IPO underpricing; or due to both. We employ 10,212 IPO-issuing firms over 22 years covering 12 advanced and 10 emerging countries with heterogeneous formal intuitional backgrounds. The findings demonstrate that differences in country-level characteristics account for 22%, 5%, and 25% of the deviations in IPO underpricing between all G20, developed and developing countries, respectively. By employing time-variant transparency proxies, we explain up to 34% of the variability in IPO underpricing across G20 countries. We observe conclusive evidence showing that country-level transparency indirectly influences underpricing variation by moderating the relationships between the incentive of IPO issuers, underwriter reputation, and the link between ex-ante uncertainty and underpricing. Both direct and indirect effects of formal institutional quality are important in explaining underpricing differences within developing equity markets compared to developed ones. We outline several policy-oriented contributions.     

The impact of reputation on analysts’ conflicts of interest: Hot versus cold markets

During periods of high IPO underpricing, unaffiliated all-star analysts from high reputation banks issue fewer strong-buy recommendations while unaffiliated all-star analysts from low reputation banks do not change their level of optimism. In contrast, unaffiliated non-star analysts from both high and low reputation banks issue more strong-buy recommendations. Consistent with the results on analyst optimism, the market reacts more favorably to strong-buy recommendations by unaffiliated all-star analysts from high reputation banks than other unaffiliated analysts during high IPO underpricing periods. Finally, we find that unaffiliated non-star analysts from low reputation banks reduce their coverage following an SEO if they are not selected as a part of the managing syndicate. Collectively, our results indicate that during periods of high IPO underpricing unaffiliated analysts face conflicts of interest, but personal-level reputation, and to a lesser extent bank-level reputation, plays a role in reducing this bias.     

Cross‐sectional determinants of post‐IPO stock performance: evidence from China

This paper examines the cross‐sectional determinants of post‐IPO long‐term stock returns in China. We document that the aftermarket P/E ratio has the most robust negative association with post‐IPO stock returns. The negative relation indicates that the market corrects the aftermarket overvaluation of IPO firms in the long run. Underwriter reputation has a positive effect on post‐IPO stock returns, while board size has a negative impact, consistent with the views that reputable underwriters mitigate the information asymmetry in IPO pricing and over‐sized boards reduce the effectiveness of corporate governance. However, we find little evidence indicating that the equity ownership structure is significantly associated with post‐IPO stock returns.     

Why Do European Firms Go Public?

We survey chief financial officers (CFOs) from 12 European countries regarding the determinants of going public and exchange listing decisions. Most CFOs identify enhanced visibility and financing for growth as the most important benefits of an IPO, but other motivations for IPOs differ significantly across firms, countries, and legal systems. We find strong support for the IPO theories that emphasise financial and strategic considerations, such as enhanced reputation and credibility, and financial flexibility as a major advantage of an IPO. At the same time, we find moderate support for theories that focus on exit strategy, balance of power with creditors, external monitoring, and merger and acquisition motivations. European CFOs' views on the major benefits of an IPO are generally similar to those of US managers as reported in Brau and Fawcett (2006) , but differ significantly on outside monitoring; outside monitoring is considered a major benefit by European CFOs but a major cost by US CFOs. Our evidence suggests that the decision to go public is a complex one, and cannot be explained by one single theory because firms seek multiple benefits in going public. These motivations are influenced by the firm's ownership structure, size and age as well as by the home country's institutional and regulatory environment.