Finance & Economics of Xinjiang >
Does Delisting Reform Reduce the Risk of Adding the "*ST" Mark to Stocks of Enterprises Again After They Removing It?
Received date: 2022-09-29
Online published: 2022-11-24
Will the risk of adding the "*ST" mark to stocks of enterprises again after they removing it be significantly weakened with the continuous improvement of the delisting system reform? It is crucial to investigate this theory to evaluate the effectiveness of delisting system reform. With intention of evaluating the effectiveness of the delisting system reform, this paper tests the risk of adding the "*ST" mark to stocks of enterprises again after they removing it and the dynamic change of risk with the delisting reform by means of the survival model. The results show that: (1) Although from the perspective of annual evolution, the risk of adding the "*ST" mark to stocks of enterprises again after they removing it has shown a certain growth trend, with the continuous promotion of the delisting reform, such risk has significantly decreased, which means that the stability of performance of decapitated enterprises has significantly improved; (2) in terms of heterogeneity, the longer an enterprise has experienced the special treatment, the lower its risk of adding the "*ST" mark to its stock again, and enterprises with regulatory inquiry experience has lower likelihood of adding the "*ST" mark to their stocks again; (3) as the delisting reform has tightened the conditions for removing special treatment, the influence of special treatment processing time and regulatory inquiry on the risk of adding the "*ST" mark to stocks of enterprises again has weakened, and the reform has a certain substitute significance for risk improvement; (4) it is further proved from the perspective of financial violation that the financial violation punishment experience of enterprises after removing the "*ST" mark will increase the risk of adding the "*ST" mark to their stocks again but with the promotion of delisting reform, such risk is gradually reducing, which means that the reform plays a positive role in mitigating the performance risk under the impact of punishment.
YU Bo , LIN Longbin . Does Delisting Reform Reduce the Risk of Adding the "*ST" Mark to Stocks of Enterprises Again After They Removing It?[J]. Finance & Economics of Xinjiang, 2022 , 0(5) : 24 -37 . DOI: 10.16716/j.cnki.65-1030/f.2022.05.005
| [1] | 杨建平, 李晓莉. 关于完善我国证券市场退市制度的分析[J]. 会计之友, 2013(20):92-95. |
| [2] | 彭志胜, 宋福铁. 主板市场退市制度与上市公司质量——基于政府目标分离视角的动态博弈分析[J]. 华东经济管理, 2015(1):95-102. |
| [3] | 冯芸, 刘艳琴. 上市公司退市制度实施效果的实证分析[J]. 财经研究, 2009(1):133-143. |
| [4] | Healy P M, Wahlen J M. A Review of the Earnings Management Literature and Its Implications for Standard Setting[J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 1999(4):365-383. |
| [5] | 张新民, 褚洪生. ST企业高管薪酬与企业业绩变化关系研究[J]. 中国软科学, 2016(5):79-92. |
| [6] | 冯科, 李钊. 我国退市制度实施效果的实证研究——基于ST板块“摘帽”现象的分析[J]. 北京工商大学学报(社会科学版), 2014(5):78-88. |
| [7] | 王乐, 田高良, 何畅. 政治关联、盈余管理方式选择对ST公司“摘帽”的影响[J]. 经济管理, 2019(4):23-39. |
| [8] | 张继德, 王嘉琦. 终止上市制度变化、问题及对策研究[J]. 北京工商大学学报(社会科学版), 2014(4):65-75. |
| [9] | 赵海云, 许可. 中国主板退市制度问题研究——基于ST制度存在的有效性分析[J]. 武汉金融, 2013(2):19-22. |
| [10] | 李有星, 侯凌霄. 注册制下重大违法强制退市制度的困境与破解[J]. 证券市场导报, 2021(10):71-79. |
| [11] | 张天舒, 黄俊, 崔鸷. 股权性质、市场化进程与政府补助——基于ST公司的经验证据[J]. 投资研究, 2014(1): 35-45. |
| [12] | 民生证券证券市场退市制度课题组, 周晓萍. 我国证券市场退市制度的潜在问题与完善路径研究[J]. 金融监管研究, 2018(4):1-20. |
| [13] | 陈见丽. 基于注册制视角的上市公司退市制度改革研究[J]. 学术交流, 2019(3):108-119. |
| [14] | 张跃文. 我国上市公司“退市难”的制度根源与现实对策[J]. 经济体制改革, 2020(3):116-122. |
| [15] | 程文莉, 何闻伟. 退市压力下ST公司摘帽绩效的实证研究[J]. 会计之友, 2014(2):53-59. |
| [16] | 吕长江, 赵宇恒. ST公司生命轨迹的实证分析[J]. 经济管理, 2006(4):44-51. |
| [17] | 许文静, 苏立, 吕鹏, 郝洪. 退市制度变革对上市公司盈余管理行为影响[J]. 会计研究, 2018(6):32-38. |
| [18] | 于鹏, 宋瑶, 樊益中. 退市制度与审计延迟[J]. 审计研究, 2019(6):96-104. |
| [19] | 廖敏伶. 政府补贴对上市公司退市影响分析[J]. 财会通讯, 2015(25):15-18. |
| [20] | 贾天明, 雷良海. 中国特殊性退市制度达到政策性效果了吗?——基于中国1998-2013年209家ST上市公司的实证分析[J]. 预测, 2016(1):62-67+74. |
| [21] | 谢柳芳, 朱荣, 何苦. 退市制度对创业板上市公司盈余管理行为的影响——基于应计与真实盈余管理的分析[J]. 审计研究, 2013(1):95-102. |
| [22] | Graham J R, Harvey C R, Rajgopal S. The Economic Implications of Corporate Financial Reporting[J]. Journal of Ac-counting and Economics, 2005(1-3):3-73. |
| [23] | 李梓, 成小雪. 上市公司“多次摘帽”的盈余管理行为研究[J]. 数字通信世界, 2021(3):47-48+64. |
| [24] | Ewert R, Wagenhofer A. Economic Effects of Tightening Accounting Standards to Restrict Earnings Management[J]. The Accounting Review, 2005(4):1101-1124. |
| [25] | Roychowdhury S. Earnings Management Through Real Activities Manipulation[J]. Journal of Accounting & Econo-mics, 2003(3):335-370. |
| [26] | Zang A Y. Evidence on the Trade-Off Between Real Activities Manipulation and Accrual-Based Earnings Manage-ment[J]. Accounting Review, 2012(2):675-703. |
| [27] | 李晓玲, 丁佳佳. 退市制度对上市公司盈余管理影响的实证研究[J]. 安徽大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2007(6):148-153. |
| [28] | 蒋大富, 熊剑. 非经常性损益、会计准则变更与ST公司盈余管理[J]. 南开管理评论, 2012(4):151-160. |
| [29] | 张妍妍. 上市公司重组对摘帽的影响分析——基于ST公司摘帽的证据[J]. 西南民族大学学报, 2018(5):133-136. |
| [30] | 于博, 林龙斌, 安邦. 证券市场监管处罚避免企业违规再犯了吗?[J]. 人文杂志, 2022(5):77-88. |
| [31] | 和丽芬, 朱学义, 王传彬. 内部控制质量与财务困境恢复——基于2007年-2011年沪深A股ST公司数据[J]. 经济经纬, 2014(1):118-123. |
| [32] | Faccio M, Masulis R W, Mcconnell J J. Political Connections and Corporate Bailouts[J]. Journal of Finance, 2006(6): 2597-2635. |
| [33] | 王小涵, 王育红. 上市公司财务造假与违规手段研究[J]. 财会通讯, 2021(6):126-129. |
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |