Please wait a minute...
金融研究  2019, Vol. 467 Issue (5): 152-169    
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
个人大股东持股与股价暴跌风险
谭松涛, 黄俊凯, 杜安然
中国人民大学中国财政金融政策研究中心,北京 100872;
中国证券登记结算有限责任公司,北京 100033
Major Individual Shareholders and Stock Price Crash Risk
TAN Songtao, HUANG Junkai, DU Anran
China's Fiscal and Financial Policy Research Center, Renmin University of China;
China Securities Depository and Clearing Co., Ltd.
下载:  PDF (1335KB) 
输出:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 本文以2007至2016年中国A股上市公司为样本,考察了个人大股东持股与股价暴跌风险之间的关系。研究发现:第一,个人大股东持股比例的增加能够显著降低公司未来股价暴跌风险。这一结论在剔除了个人大股东中董监高持股数量、进行内生性处理、更换不同统计检验方法后依然成立。第二,个人大股东持股对公司管理层监督的效果并不明显,个人大股东持股比例的增加对于公司应计盈余管理、真实盈余管理、投资效率、过度投资等可能影响公司股价暴跌风险的经营指标并没有显著影响。第三,个人大股东的持股加强了公司股权制衡的力度,进而显著降低了公司股价暴跌风险。股权制衡机制解释了大股东持股对股价暴跌风险一半以上的影响。本文的研究对于全面认识个人大股东在资本市场中发挥的作用,促进股市平稳发展具有重要的理论和现实意义。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
谭松涛
黄俊凯
杜安然
关键词:  股价暴跌风险  个人大股东持股  股权制衡    
Summary:  Individual major shareholders (IMSs) are the natural shareholders in listed companies who hold a high proportion of shares but are not the actual controller or controlling shareholder of the company. People often regard IMSs and general minority shareholders as the same kind of investor. However, as IMSs hold a higher proportion of shares and a larger capital scale than general minority shareholders, they are more willing to spend time collecting information about the company's operation and supervising the behavior of the company's managers, rather than adopting the “free-rider” behavior of minority shareholders. Compared to institutional investors, they pay more attention to absolute returns than to short-term rankings of relative performance. Therefore, when asset prices overreact to negative information in the short term, their dominant strategy may be to hold shares to reduce short-term selling pressure. As Chinese institutional investors have developed recently and relatively slowly, IMSs have, for a long time, played an important role in the equity structure of listed companies, and they have important effects on asset price characteristics.
Based on data on China's A-share listed companies from the 2007 to 2016 period, this study investigates the relationship between IMSs' shareholdings and the risk of stock price crashes. Following Chen et al. (2001) and Kim et al. (2011a, 2011b), we construct two variables to measure a company's stock price crash risk in a specific year. The first measure is the negative conditional skewness, NCSKEW, calculated by taking the negative of the third central moment of the firm-specific weekly return scaled by the sample variance of firm-specific weekly return raised to 3/2. The second measure is the down-to-up volatility, DUVOL. In the first step, we calculate the standard deviations of firm-specific weekly returns during the up (down) weeks when the firm-specific weekly returns are above (below) the annual mean. DUVOL is defined as the log of the ratio of the standard deviation on down weeks to the standard deviation on up weeks. In this study, we regress these two variables on the shareholdings of a company's IMSs.
Our results are as follows. First, there is a significant negative correlation between IMS shareholdings and the future crash risk of stock prices. As the proportion of shares held by IMSs increase, the risk of stock price collapse decreases significantly. This conclusion remains valid after eliminating the shares held by the directors of the board, supervisors, and senior executives of the company, after endogenous treatment, and using several alternative statistical test methods. Second, the effect of IMSs' shareholding on the supervision of corporate management is not significant. Increases in the proportion of IMSs' shareholding has no significant impact on operating indicators that may affect the crash risk of stock price such as accrual earnings management, real earnings management, investment efficiency, or overinvestment of the company.Although IMSs' shareholding is positively related to management shareholding and management power, these two indicators do not significantly affect stock crash risk. Third, the influence of the IMSs on the stock price crash risk is mainly realized through strengthening the company's ownership balance mechanism. The mediating effect test shows that the ownership balance mechanism explains more than 50 percent of the effect of IMSs on crash risk.
The main contributions of this study are as follows: First, from the perspective of crash risk, this study examines the impact of IMSs, an important investment group in the stock market, on asset prices, and reveals their role as price “stabilizers.” This analysis helps us to fully understand the role of IMSs in China's stock market. Second, this study verifies the role of IMSs in corporate governance, that is, the role of IMSs in stabilizing the market by strengthening the company's ownership balance rather than supervising the managers. Third, from the perspective of shareholder structure, this study further enriches our understanding of stock price crash risk.
The IMSs are the kind of investors generated by a specific developmental stage in China's stock market. They play a unique role in the market, and will continue to exist for a long time. Therefore, their behavioral characteristics and effects on asset prices require careful study. This study shows that IMSs play an active role in reducing the crash risk of stock prices and stabilizing market prices. Future studies can explore the impact of IMSs on the stock market from other perspectives.
Keywords:  Crash Risk of Stock Price    Major Individual Shareholder    Ownership Balance
JEL分类号:  G14   G34  
基金资助: 本文为中国人民大学科学研究基金(中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助)项目成果。
作者简介:  谭松涛,经济学博士,教授,中国人民大学财政金融学院。E-mail:Tansongtao@126.com.
黄俊凯(通讯作者),博士研究生,中国人民大学财政金融学院。E-mail:jackhuang@ruc.edu.cn.
杜安然,硕士研究生,中国证券登记结算有限责任公司。
引用本文:    
谭松涛, 黄俊凯, 杜安然. 个人大股东持股与股价暴跌风险[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 467(5): 152-169.
TAN Songtao, HUANG Junkai, DU Anran. Major Individual Shareholders and Stock Price Crash Risk. Journal of Financial Research, 2019, 467(5): 152-169.
链接本文:  
http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/  或          http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/Y2019/V467/I5/152
[1]曹丰、鲁冰、李争光和徐凯,2015,《机构投资者降低了股价崩盘风险吗?》,《会计研究》第11期,第55~61页。
[2]陈国进、张贻军和刘淳,2010,《机构投资者是股市暴涨暴跌的助推器吗?——来自上海A股市场的经验证据》,《金融研究》第11期,第45~59页。
[3]王化成、曹丰和叶康涛,2015,《监督还是掏空:大股东持股比例与股价崩盘风险》,《管理世界》第2期,45~57页。
[4]许年行、江轩宇、伊志宏和徐信忠,2012,《分析师利益冲突、乐观偏差与股价崩盘风险》,《经济研究》第7期,127~140页。
[5]许年行、于上尧和伊志宏,2013,《机构投资者羊群行为与股价崩盘风险》,《管理世界》第7期,31~43页。
[6]叶康涛、刘芳和李帆,2018,《股指成份股调整与股价崩盘风险:基于一项准自然实验的证据》,《金融研究》第3期,172~189页。
[7]岳意定和周可峰,2009,《机构投资者对证券市场价格波动性的影响——基于Topview数据的实证研究》,《中国工业经济》第3期,140~148页。
[8]An, H. and T. Zhang, 2013, “Stock Price Synchronicity, Crash Risk, and Institutional Investors,” Journal of Corporate Finance, 21, 1~15.
[9]Anderson, Ronald, David Reeb, Arun Upadhyay, and Wanli Zhao, 2011, “The Economics of Director Heterogeneity,” Financial Management, 40(1), 5~38.
[10]Ball, R., 2009, “Market and Political Regulatory Perspectives on the Recent Accounting Scandals,” Journal of Accounting Research, 47, 277~323.
[11]Baron, R. M. and D. A. Kenny, 1986, “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations,” The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173~1182.
[12]Brown, N. C.,K. D. Wei, and R. Wermers, 2012, “Analyst Recommendations,Mutual Fund Herding and Overreaction in Stock Prices,” Working Paper,University of Maryland.
[13]Callen, J. L. and X. Fang, 2013, “Institutional Investor Stability and Crash Risk: Monitoring versus Short-Termism?,” Journal of Banking and Finance, 37, 3047~3063.
[14]Chen, J., H. Hong and J.C. Stein, 2001, “Forecasting Crashes: Trading Volume, Past Returns, and Conditional Skewness in Stock Prices,” Journal of Financial Economics, 61, 354~381.
[15]Fama, E. F. and J. D. MacBeth, 1973, “Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests,” Journal of Political Economy, 81, 607~636.
[16]Hong, H. and J. C. Stein, 2003, “Differences of Opinion, Short-Sales Constraints, and Market Crashes,” The Review of Financial Studies, 16, 487~525.
[17]Hutton, A. P., A. J. Marcus and H. Tehranian, 2009, “Opaque Financial Reports, R2, and Crash Risk,” Journal of Financial Economics, 94, 67~86.
[18]Jin, L. and S. C. Myers, 2006, “R2 Around the World: New Theory and New Tests,” Journal of Financial Economics, 79, 257~292.
[19]Khan, M. and R. L. Watts, 2009, “Estimation and Empirical Properties of a Firm-year Measure of Accounting Conservatism,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 48, 132~150.
[20]Kim, J. B., Y. Li and L. Zhang, 2011, “Corporate Tax Avoidance and Stock Price Crash Risk: Firm Level Analysis,” Journal of Financial Economics, 100, 639~662.
[21]Kim, Y., H. Li and S. Li, 2014, “Corporate Social Responsibility and Stock Price Crash Risk,” Journal of Banking and Finance, 43, 1~13.
[22]Kothari, S. P., S. Shu and P. Wysocki, 2009, “Do Managers Withhold Bad News?.” Journal of Accounting Research, 47, 241~276.
[23]LaFond, R., R. L. Watts, 2008, “The Information Role of Conservatism,” The Accounting Review, 83, 447~478.
[24]Lakonishok, J., A. Shleifer and R. W. Vishny, 1992, “The Impact of Institutional Trading on Stock Price,” Journal of Financial Economics, 32, 23~43.
[25]Miller, E., 1977, Risk, Uncertainty, and Divergence of Opinion, Journal of Finance, 32, 1151~1168.
[26]Pagano, M. and A. Röel, 1998, “The Choice of Stock Ownership Structure: Agency Costs, Monitoring and the Decision to Go Public,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(1), 187~225.
[27]Petersen, M. A., 2009, “Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Data Sets: Comparing Approaches,” The Review of Financial Studies, 22, 435~480.
[28]Verrecchia, R. E., 2001, “Essays On Disclosure,” Journal of Accounting and Economics, 32, 97~180.
[29]Wermers, R., 1999, “Mutual Fund Herding and the Impact on Stock Prices,” Journal of Finance, 2, 581~622.
[30]Xu, N., X. Li, Q. Yuan and K. C. Chan, 2014, “Excess Perks and Stock Price Crash Risk: Evidence from China,” Journal of Corporate Finance, 25, 419~434.
[1] 何顶, 罗炜. 风险投资声誉和股价“传染”效应——来自中国上市公司立案公告的证据[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 471(9): 169-187.
[2] 肖欣荣, 马梦璇. 信息共享还是利益冲突?——基于买方单独调研与买卖双方联合调研的实证检验[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 470(8): 171-188.
[3] 汝毅, 薛健, 张乾. 媒体新闻报道的声誉溢出效应[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 470(8): 189-206.
[4] 贾盾, 孙溪, 郭瑞. 货币政策公告、政策不确定性及股票市场的预公告溢价效应——来自中国市场的证据[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 469(7): 76-95.
[5] 张宗新, 张秀秀. 引入国债期货合约能否发挥现货市场稳定效应?——基于中国金融周期的研究视角[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 468(6): 58-75.
[6] 刘丽华, 徐艳萍, 饶品贵, 陈玥. 一损俱损:违规事件在企业集团内的传染效应研究[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 468(6): 113-131.
[7] 鄢伟波, 王小华, 温军. 分层制度提升新三板流动性了吗?——来自多维断点回归的经验证据[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 467(5): 170-189.
[8] 杨威, 赵仲匡, 宋敏. 多元化并购溢价与企业转型[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 467(5): 115-131.
[9] 梁上坤, 张宇, 王彦超. 内部薪酬差距与公司价值——基于生命周期理论的新探索[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 466(4): 188-206.
[10] 杨青, 吉赟, 王亚男. 高铁能提升分析师盈余预测的准确度吗?——来自上市公司的证据[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 465(3): 168-188.
[11] 谢谦, 唐国豪, 罗倩琳. 上市公司综合盈利水平与股票收益[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 465(3): 189-207.
[12] 王雄元, 曾敬. 年报风险信息披露与银行贷款利率[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 463(1): 54-71.
[13] 朱恩伟, 吴璟, 刘洪玉. 基于新闻文本共现性的银企关系分析——以房地产上市公司为例[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 464(2): 117-135.
[14] 张劲帆, 汤莹玮, 刚健华, 樊林立. 中国利率市场的价格发现 ——对国债现货、期货以及利率互换市场的研究[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 463(1): 19-34.
[15] 李春涛, 刘贝贝, 周鹏, 张璇. 它山之石:QFII与上市公司信息披露[J]. 金融研究, 2018, 462(12): 138-156.
[1] 王曦, 朱立挺, 王凯立. 我国货币政策是否关注资产价格?——基于马尔科夫区制转换BEKK多元GARCH模型[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 1 -17 .
[2] 刘勇政, 李岩. 中国的高速铁路建设与城市经济增长[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 18 -33 .
[3] 况伟大, 王琪琳. 房价波动、房贷规模与银行资本充足率[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 34 -48 .
[4] 祝树金, 赵玉龙. 资源错配与企业的出口行为——基于中国工业企业数据的经验研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 49 -64 .
[5] 陈德球, 陈运森, 董志勇. 政策不确定性、市场竞争与资本配置[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 65 -80 .
[6] 牟敦果, 王沛英. 中国能源价格内生性研究及货币政策选择分析[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 81 -95 .
[7] 高铭, 江嘉骏, 陈佳, 刘玉珍. 谁说女子不如儿郎?——P2P投资行为与过度自信[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 96 -111 .
[8] 吕若思, 刘青, 黄灿, 胡海燕, 卢进勇. 外资在华并购是否改善目标企业经营绩效?——基于企业层面的实证研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 112 -127 .
[9] 姜军, 申丹琳, 江轩宇, 伊志宏. 债权人保护与企业创新[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 128 -142 .
[10] 刘莎莎, 孔高文. 信息搜寻、个人投资者交易与股价联动异象——基于股票送转的研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 143 -157 .
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《金融研究》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发 技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn
京ICP备11029882号-1