|
|
|
| Industrial Policy and the Pricing Efficiency of Bond Issuance |
| LI Yudan, GUO Yating, LUO Wei
|
School of Economics and Management, South China Normal University;
Guanghua School of Management, Peking University;
HKU Business School, The University of Hong Kong |
|
|
|
Abstract Industrial policy has long been a crucial element of China's economic regulatory framework, guiding the optimal allocation of resources across industries and promoting sustainable economic development. The bond market, as a core component of the capital market, plays a vital role in connecting the supply and demand for funds in response to industrial policy objectives. As the market continues to expand, the Chinese bond market has become increasingly prominent in the economic system.
However, a persistent challenge in the bond primary market is the phenomenon of issuance overpricing, where the price of bonds in the secondary market on their first day of trading is often significantly lower than the initial offering price. This phenomenon mainly stems from non-market behaviors by issuers and underwriters who artificially lower interest rates. As the demand side of capital, firms typically aim to issue bonds at the lowest possible cost. However, investors' concerns about risks or unmet pricing expectations often compel issuers to adopt non-market strategies, such as offering artificially low interest rates, to attract investors and secure successful issuance. Underwriters, in their pursuit of market share, may also cater to the low-interest-rate preferences of high-quality bond issuers through fee rebates and self-purchase. These non-market behaviors result in issuance overpricing and undermine the efficiency of bond issuance. They distort price discovery, hamper effective resource allocation, and pose significant challenges to the stable and high-quality development of the bond market. Therefore, addressing the issuance overpricing and enhancing the alignment between primary and secondary market prices is essential for achieving the bond market's high-quality development. This paper explores the impact of industrial policy on the pricing efficiency of corporate bonds issuance and its underlying mechanisms from the perspective of government macroeconomic regulation.
Using a sample of credit bonds issued by non-financial firms from 2011 to 2020, this study finds that industrial policy decreases the issuance overpricing and improves pricing efficiency. The primary mechanism involves reducing credit and information risks faced by issuers, thereby discouraging artificially lowered coupon rates. However, underwriters' competitive incentives to secure issuance business undermine the policy's effectiveness. Heterogeneity tests reveal that the impact of industrial policy on pricing efficiency is more pronounced for bonds issued by non-state-owned firms and for long-term bonds, and when economic policy certainty is high and monetary policy is loose. Further analysis reveals that industrial policy also promotes subscription by primary market investors and enhances liquidity of bonds after listing.
This research contributes to the literature in three ways. First, it enriches research on industrial policy and capital market asset pricing, a field that has predominantly focused on stock markets while paying relatively little attention to bond markets. Within the context of the issuance overpricing phenomenon, this study highlights the impact of industrial policy on pricing efficiency and the rationality of asset prices, offering valuable insights into the effectiveness of industrial policy implementation. Second, it offers new theoretical insights and empirical evidence for debates on the role of industrial policy, underscoring its positive impact on pricing efficiency of corporate bonds. Third, it reveals how government actions reshape the motivations of bond market participants, opening new avenues for improving pricing efficiency and posing significant research potential for promoting the stability and prosperous development of the bond market.
This research offers important policy implications: First, when formulating industrial policies, the government should account not only for their impact on the real economy but also for their effects on the bond market, fostering a positive interaction between industry and capital markets. Second, the fundamental driver of the issuance overpricing lies in issuers' desire to raise funds at low interest rates. Policymakers should enhance disclosure requirements for firms to improve market recognition, while also strengthen regulations to curb non-market-oriented practices and raise the cost associated with rate manipulation. Finally, the coordination of industrial policy with other macroeconomic measures, such as policy certainty and monetary policy, is essential for improving bond pricing efficiency. Future research can explore the synergistic effects of other policies and offer theoretical insights for more effective macroeconomic policy coordination. Additionally, factors such as issuers' development stages, the credit rating agencies, and investor behavior warrant further exploration.
|
|
Received: 29 April 2024
Published: 14 August 2025
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] |
毕晓方、张俊民和李海英,2015,《产业政策、管理者过度自信与企业流动性风险》,《会计研究》第3期,第57～63页。
|
| [2] |
陈冬华和姚振晔,2018,《政府行为必然会提高股价同步性吗？——基于我国产业政策的实证研究》,《经济研究》第12期,第112～128页。
|
| [3] |
方红星、施继坤和张广宝,2013,《产权性质、信息质量与公司债定价——来自中国资本市场的经验证据》,《金融研究》第4期,第170～182页。
|
| [4] |
郭杰、王宇澄和曾博涵,2019,《国家产业政策、地方政府行为与实际税率——理论分析和经验证据》,《金融研究》第4期,第56～74页。
|
| [5] |
韩乾和洪永淼,2014,《国家产业政策、资产价格与投资者行为》,《经济研究》第12期,第143～158页。
|
| [6] |
韩永辉、黄亮雄和王贤彬,2017,《产业政策推动地方产业结构升级了吗？——基于发展型地方政府的理论解释与实证检验》,《经济研究》第8期,第33～48页。
|
| [7] |
江飞涛和李晓萍,2010,《直接干预市场与限制竞争:中国产业政策的取向与根本缺陷》,《中国工业经济》第9期,第26～36页。
|
| [8] |
黎文靖和郑曼妮,2016,《实质性创新还是策略性创新？——宏观产业政策对微观企业创新的影响》,《经济研究》第4期,第60～73页。
|
| [9] |
李广子和刘力,2020,《产业政策与信贷资金配置效率》,《金融研究》第5期,第114～131页。
|
| [10] |
李文贵和邵毅平,2016,《产业政策与民营企业国有化》,《金融研究》第9期,第177～192页。
|
| [11] |
林晚发、赵仲匡、刘岩和方梅,2023,《银行承销商投资角色与债券定价效率——基于严控债券代持业务自然实验的分析》,《中国工业经济》第9期,第98～116页。
|
| [12] |
刘若鸿和黄玖立,2023,《地方产业政策与债券融资成本》,《中国工业经济》第6期,第118～136页。
|
| [13] |
马永波和郭牧炫,2016,《做市商制度、双边价差与市场稳定性——基于银行间债券市场做市行为的研究》,《金融研究》第4期,第50～65页。
|
| [14] |
钱雪松、康瑾、唐英伦和曹夏平,2018,《产业政策、资本配置效率与企业全要素生产率——基于中国2009年十大产业振兴规划自然实验的经验研究》,《中国工业经济》第8期,第42～59页。
|
| [15] |
宋凌云和王贤彬,2013,《重点产业政策、资源重置与产业生产率》,《管理世界》第12期,第63～77页。
|
| [16] |
孙刚和郑琦,2021,《多层次产业政策与企业IPO定价研究——基于政策文本的分析》,《投资研究》第11期,第59～90页。
|
| [17] |
王克敏、刘静和李晓溪,2017,《产业政策、政府支持与公司投资效率研究》,《管理世界》第3期,第113～124页。
|
| [18] |
巫岑、黎文飞和唐清泉,2019,《产业政策与企业资本结构调整速度》,《金融研究》第4期,第92～110页。
|
| [19] |
徐浩萍和罗炜,2007,《投资银行声誉机制有效性——执业质量与市场份额双重视角的研究》,《经济研究》第2期,第124～136页。
|
| [20] |
杨兴全、尹兴强和孟庆玺,2018,《谁更趋多元化经营:产业政策扶持企业抑或非扶持企业？》,《经济研究》第9期,第133～150页。
|
| [21] |
余明桂、范蕊和钟慧洁,2016,《中国产业政策与企业技术创新》,《中国工业经济》第12期,第5～22页。
|
| [22] |
张新民、张婷婷和陈德球,2017,《产业政策、融资约束与企业投资效率》,《会计研究》第4期,第12～18页。
|
| [23] |
张莉、朱光顺、李世刚和李夏洋,2019,《市场环境、重点产业政策与企业生产率差异》,《管理世界》第3期,第114～126页。
|
| [24] |
周亚虹、蒲余路、陈诗一和方芳,2015,《政府扶持与新型产业发展——以新能源为例》,《经济研究》第6期,第147～161页。
|
| [25] |
Altman, E. I., M. Iwanicz‐Drozdowska, E. K. Laitinen and A. Suvas. 2017. “Financial Distress Prediction in an International Context: A Review and Empirical Analysis of Altman's Z‐ Score Model”, Journal of International Financial Management ＆ Accounting, 28(2): pp.131～171.
|
| [26] |
Badertscher, B., N. Shroff and H. D. White. 2013. “Externalities of Public Firm Presence: Evidence from Private Firms' Investment Decisions”, Journal of Financial Economics, 109(3): pp.682～706.
|
| [27] |
Baker, S. R., N. Bloom and S. J. Davis. 2016. “Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(4): pp.1593～1636.
|
| [28] |
Chen, D., O. Z. Li and F. Xin. 2017. “Five-year Plans, China Finance and Their Consequences”, China Journal of Accounting Research, 10(3): pp.189～230.
|
| [29] |
Ding, Y., W. Xiong and J. Zhang. 2022. “Issuance Overpricing of China's Corporate Debt Securities”, Journal of Financial Economics, 144(1): pp.328～346.
|
| [30] |
Fernando, C. S., V. A. Gatchev and P. A. Spindt. 2005. “Wanna Dance？ How Firms and Underwriters Choose Each Other”, The Journal of Finance, 60(5): pp.2437～2469.
|
| [31] |
Han, S. and X. Zhou. 2014. “Informed Bond Trading, Corporate Yield Spreads, and Corporate Default Prediction”, Management Science, 60(3): pp.675～694.
|
| [32] |
Liu, X., W. L. Megginson and J. Xia. 2022. “Industrial Policy and Asset Prices: Evidence from the Made in China 2025 Policy”, Journal of Banking ＆ Finance, 142: pp.106554.
|
| [33] |
Liu, L. X., Q. Liu, X. Liu and N. Zhu. 2021. “Overpricing in Municipal Bond Markets and the Unintended Consequences of the Administrative Solutions: Evidence from China”, Working Paper.
|
| [34] |
Lu, Y., J. Wang and L. Zhu. 2019. “Place-Based Policies, Creation, and Agglomeration Economies: Evidence from China's Economic Zone Program”, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11(3): pp.325～360.
|
| [35] |
Stoll, H. R. and A. J. Curley. 1970. “Small Business and the New Issues Market for Equities”, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 5(3): pp.309～322.
|
|
|
|
