The Market Of A Shares Lame Is Hard To Go Far: The Trial System Has Many Disadvantages.

Recently, New shares The issue once again caused controversy among all parties in the market. In response to criticism that the issue of new shares was too fast, a newspaper continued to comment, calling on Shang Fulin to believe in the market, accusing the market of ageing and keeping pace with the marketization of IPO. Is this really the case?

Marketization refers to the mechanism of market demand oriented, survival of the fittest, and the goal of achieving full and rational allocation of resources and maximizing efficiency in open markets.

The current A share issue seems to have introduced the bidding mechanism, but there are not many fundamental institutional changes, which are far from the target of marketization. In other words, it is the following four major drawbacks. There has been little change over the years, which is enough to explain the current IPO. At best, it is a lame market.

First, the sponsor underwriters lack constraints.

In the past two years, under the banner of marketization, the issuance of "three high" has been popular for a while. Both sponsors and underwriters have made a lot of money. Some unscrupulous brokers, together with the listed companies, PE and other institutions, have been making a big difference in the company's fundamentals before they go public. In addition to being indifferent to verbal or written warnings, there is almost no loss in the company or personal pockets of what these people should do and what to do. A lot of people can not figure out, so the sponsor underwriting system with asymmetric power and responsibility has generated so many ugly phenomena. Why has management never produced a slightly more severe punishment method to restrain those unscrupulous institutions? Such a IPO system that has many bold shares is not a truly market-based issue. It should be measured by pseudo market.

Secondly, Issuance trial The system has many disadvantages.

Since the title of the market reform, then, to rely mainly on "paper operation" of the issuance examination committee, is not gild the lily? These members of the issuance examination committee can not inspect the company's operation on the spot. Two, they can not commit themselves to the future of the company. Three, they can not bear the risks brought by the examination and approval. If such a powerful power issuing committee decides whether the company can go public, it is not worth seeing. Because the so-called "check" of the issuing Committee, even the legal risks that sponsors and underwriters should bear easily become invisible. If the company is listed, even if it finds a fake listing, it will not be liable to find the main body if it wants to investigate the legal liability. In addition, the current audit process is not transparent and open, and some companies fail to pass the review, not necessarily because of the company itself. Therefore, the role of the Commission is hard to make clear. As a senior analyst in Hongkong said, "to put it bluntly, this is an administrative intervention, limiting the space for market reform, and making accountability to sponsors unrealistic." Therefore, as long as the IPO is subject to the examination by the issuance examination committee, it will not be able to talk about a real market-oriented issue.

Again, there is no lack of direct progress. Delisting Mechanism.

A truly market-based stock market is bound to have a retreat and a survival of the fittest. But look at the current A shares, the main board delisting can be described as the Long March, from ST to ST*, so three years, that two load, this is the end. Even though the gem that just started two years ago, though it claimed to be able to withdraw directly from the market at the very beginning, it has been almost 2 years since its opening. Many people still can not understand that, since we must adhere to market-oriented reforms, why are there even the most basic market systems that can not be established? This is a long time ago. How can people believe in the reform of management reform?

Finally, the effective investor protection system has not yet been established.

Over the years, the information disclosure of listed companies has been irregular or even fraudulent, which has caused many losses to A share investors. In the face of fraud, the current regulation is mostly a warning or a slight fine. There is neither a decisive measure for delisting, nor a severe restriction on the principal responsible person from the circulation of shares. The cost of A share crimes is so low that it is extremely rare in overseas stock markets. In addition, up to now, a sound investor protection system has not been established in China, especially the effective class action abroad. Even in the worst practices of counterfeiting, A share investors can only admit their bad luck. As we all know, the market economy is also a rule of law economy. How can the A stock market with such a sound legal system be reassured by the public?