The SFC Strengthens Supervision Over The "High Pfer" Behavior Of Listed Companies

Since Liu Shiyu, chairman of the securities and Futures Commission, bombed the listed companies' "high pfer" in April 8th at the second member congress of the association of listed companies, "high delivery and pfer" has become the focus of recent market attention.

Not only in the April 10th market, the "high pfer" theme stocks fell sharply, but from April 10th onwards, the early launch of the "high pfer" plan listed companies have revised the plan.

Among them, the company was the first company to modify the "high pfer" plan. As of April 14th, Jinli Technology was the largest company with the largest revision of the "high delivery" plan. It was adjusted from 10 shares to 30 shares for every 10 shares.

It should be said that it is necessary to strengthen supervision over the "high pfer" behavior of listed companies.

After all, in recent years, the "high pfer" of listed companies has increasingly deviated from the original intention of the return investors.

The most common way is to use high delivery to match the speculative speculation in the market, with "high pfer" with the reduction of important shareholders, and "high pfer" with the refinancing of listed companies.

In particular, some major shareholders of listed companies, on the one hand, proposed "high delivery and pfer", while holding shares reduction.

Therefore, strengthening the supervision of the "high pfer" behavior of listed companies is in line with the needs of market development, and is also a popular aspiration.

However, from the point of view of the supervisor's supervision of the "high pfer" behavior, it fully exposes the immaturity of the regulator himself.

Originally, the regulation of "high pfer" behavior is not to crack down on the "high pfer" behavior itself, but to combat the problems arising from the "high pfer" behavior and purify the "high pfer" behavior of listed companies.

However, from the point of view of regulators' supervision of "high pfer" behavior, the spearhead of supervision is obviously pointing to the "high delivery and pfer" itself.

As president Liu Shiyu said, "what 10 sends 10, 10 turns 10, and 10 sends 30, the whole world does not have.

In fact, the claim that "10 send 30 and the whole world does not exist" is obviously inconsistent with the facts.

In fact, the way of equity expansion is not uncommon in the global stock market.

For example, in the US listed Baidu, in May 2010, the share was split at 1:10.

Tencent listed in Hongkong also split shares in 1:5 ratio in May 2014.

This kind of equity splitting is equivalent to the high pfer of the A share market. It is only a different way of calling, not "the whole world does not exist".

To put it another way, even if it is really "the whole world does not exist", it can not constitute.

The reason for "high pfer" is regulated.

The fact that "the whole world does not exist" appears in the A share market, and there is nothing wrong with it.

For example, the issue of new shares in the A share market is up to a dozen or so per week. This is also "the whole world does not have", but is our supervision department not vigorously implementing it?

What is more, the Shanghai and Shenzhen Stock Exchange's supervision of the "high pfer" of listed companies can be said to be "marking defense".

As long as any company launches a "high delivery and pfer" plan, even if it sends 10 or 10 shares or 10 shares to 10 shares, it will receive "attention" or "inquiry".

As a matter of fact, the practice of such a system is not only overregulated, but also a kind of injury to the listed companies which have their own actual business expansion needs, and to some extent hurt the interests of investors. At the same time, this "concern" and "inquiry" result in the waste of regulatory resources, which is also an immature regulatory area.

In fact, for the high pfer of listed companies, it is more meaningful for the SFC to come up with a normative guidance than such a regulation.

For example, we can make some compliance indicators in the high delivery and equity swap of listed companies, such as the proportion of listed companies' performance growth, the minimum earnings per share, the maximum proportion of listed companies' annual pfer to equity swap and so on.

At the same time, the profit distribution window period should be set up in the profit distribution window period.

Important shareholders shall not be introduced or implemented.

。

Through these agreements, the behavior of listed companies can be standardized.

But unfortunately, there is no such standard of behavior.

Therefore, the emergence of chaos is not the responsibility of listed companies, but on the regulators.

As a regulator, when supervising the "high pfer" behavior of listed companies, they should also reflect on their own problems.

Of course, profit distribution is a matter for listed companies to decide independently.

However, it is entirely feasible for the SFC to give guidance.

For those who do not have profit distribution according to the guiding opinions, regulators can be included in the ranks of key supervision.

In this way, there will not be such a situation that "one pole overturns a ship", which is also a protection for the interests of the vast number of investors.

For more information, please pay attention to the world clothing shoes and hats and Internet cafes.