IPO定价:中庸思维还是团队极化被引量：11

IPO Pricing:Golden-mean Thinking or Group Polarization

导出

摘要 IPO定价不仅可能受到定价制度、承销商声誉、风险投资者参与的影响,还可能受到作为公司核心的董事会过往IPO定价经历的影响。本文以2004—2012年实施IPO的762家公司为样本,基于中庸思维和团队极化的视角,检验了董事过去的IPO定价经验对本次定价行为的影响。结果发现,当董事经历的平均IPO定价溢价较高时,本次IPO定价溢价会显著降低;当董事经历的平均IPO定价溢价较低时,本次IPO定价溢价会显著升高,从而证实了中庸思维在董事会IPO定价过程中的作用。研究还发现董事长两职合一、政治关联身份会削弱IPO定价决策过程中中庸思维的影响。本文从中国传统思维的视角对公司IPO定价行为进行了理论解释,对于理解IPO定价具有一定的价值。 IPO pricing is may not only affected by pricing system, underwriter reputation, venture investors＇ participation, but also influenced by the IPO pricing experience of the board of directors. Based on the perspective of golden-mean thinking and group polarization we test the effect of the IPO pricing experience by directors of board on the focal IPO pricing behavior by using data of the 742 corporate which going IPO during 2004--2012. And find that when the average IPO pricing premium experience by directors of board is high, the focal IPO pricing premium will be lower significantly. When the average IPO pricing premium experience by directors of board is low, the focal IPO pricing premium will be higher significantly, which proved the effect of golden-mean thinking in the process of IPO pricing of the board. Furthermore, the study proved that the duality and political association of the chairman of the board will decrease the effect of golden-mean thinking during the IPO pricing decision. In the perspectives of golden-mean thinking of China, the article provide theory explain for the IPO pricing behavior of corporate, which have certain meaning for understanding the IPO pricing.

作者李维安刘振杰顾亮

机构地区南开大学中国公司治理研究院南开大学商学院

出处《中国工业经济》 CSSCI 北大核心 2014年第5期96-108,共13页 China Industrial Economics

基金国家自然科学基金重点项目"我国集团企业跨国治理与评价研究"(批准号71132001) 国家社会科学基金项目"完善国有控股金融机构公司治理研究"(批准号10ZD&035)

关键词 IPO定价溢价董事经验中庸思维团队极化 IPO pricing premiums director experience golden-mean thinking group polarization

分类号 F276.6 [经济管理—企业管理]

引文网络
相关文献

参考文献30

1Bouhon, T.J., S.B. Smart, and C.J. Zutter. Earnings Quality and International IPO Underpficing [J]. The Accounting Review, 2011,86(2).
2Chahine, S., I. Filatotchev, and M. Wright. Venture Capitalists, Business Angels, and Performance of Entrepreneurial IPOs in the UK and France[J]. Joumal of Business Finance & Accounting, 2007,34(3).
3Stoner, J.A. A Comparison of Individual and Group Decisions Involving Risk [M]. Masters Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, 1961.
4Friedkin, N.E. Choice Shift and Group Polarization[J]. American Socidogical Review, 1999,64(6).
5Goethals, G. R., and M.P, Zanna. The Role of Social Comparison in Choice Shifts[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979,37(9).
6Echterhoff, G., E.T. Higgins, and S. Groll. Audience Tuning Effects on Memory: The Role of Shared Reality [J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2005,89(3).
7Zhu, D.H. Group Polarization on Corporate Boards: Theory and Evidence on Board Decisions about Acquisition Premiums[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2013,34(7).
8Hambrick, D.C., P.A. Mason. Upper Echelons: The Organization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers [J]. Academy of Management Review, 1984,9(2).
9Palmer, D.A., P.D. Jennings, and X.G. Zhou. Late Adoption of the Multidivisional Form by Large United States Corporations: Institutional, Political, and Economic Accounts[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1993,38(1).
10Westphal,J.D., and M.K. Bednar. Pluralistic Ignorance in Corporate Boards and Firms' Strategic Persistence in Response to Low Firm Performance[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2005,50(2).