中國互聯網企業赴海外上市之探討

Study on Overseas Listing of Chinese Internet Companies

王安妮(An-Ni Wang)

指導教授 ： 段昌文

淡江大學/商管學院/財務金融學系碩士班/碩士(2017年)

https://doi.org/10.6846/TKU.2017.00044

摘要

本文主要探討的是中國互聯網企業赴境外上市動因是否會受流動性亦或知名度所影響，我們以中國互聯網企業於2014年7月1日至2016年6月30日間於美國、中國與香港上市之118家企業為研究樣本。研究期間因中國企業在境外有上市和退市情況，為了讓研究結果具有精確性與穩健性，我們除了將研究期間分期外，並利用非互聯網企業做為對照樣本，以進行比較。
我們透過估計Amihud反流動性與價差比視為流動性代理變數，與統計Google搜尋量指數(search volume index, SVI)與轉換和訊熱度為SVI等視為知名度代理變數後，進一步建立了以設定交易所為虛擬變數來解釋各代理變數的簡單迴歸模型，來鑑別中國互聯網企業在中國、美國、香港三個上市市場的流動性以及知名度指標之差異。
實證結果除了引用阿里巴巴的啟示外，我們發現中國互聯網與非互聯網企業在不同期間的代理變數是呈現有差異性的，顯示區分研究期間是有效的，且互聯網與非互聯網企業在估計的代理變數間是存在明顯差異的。
從流動性觀察，雖然週轉率與反流動性是有不同的表現，但是在高度資本化的市場中，企業在乎的確是反流動性，主因在於退市的潛在風險。據此，雖然在美國上市的中國互聯網企業之週轉率優於其他市場，但就反流動性指標而言，在香港交易所上市的中國互聯網企業之流動性是最佳的，這反映了一個交易單位可推動的報酬率最小，顯示香港交易所股票不易被操控。從價差比指標判斷，以在美國交易所的中國互聯網企業之流動性最高，這導因於美國市場之委託單是報價驅動有關，市場交易效率高，價差低流動性高。最後，關注度指標亦以美國是上市的中國互聯網企業為最高，顯示赴美國上市的中國互聯網企業知名度是度較高的。
綜上結論，本研究結果顯示赴海外上市的中國互聯網企業，若以流動性與知名度來觀察，建議中國的互聯網企業赴海外融資，可獲得較佳的流動性與知名度。

關鍵字

阿里巴巴 ； 互聯網企業 ； 海外上市 ； 流動性 ； 關注度 ； 虛擬變數

並列摘要

This study mainly explores whether the reason of the listed on overseas for China's Internet companies will be affected by liquidity or attention. We use 118 China's internet companies listed on the United States (US), China and Hong Kong for research samples, the period from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016. In order to ensure the accuracy and robustness of our empirical results. Furthermore, we use the non-Internet companies as the control samples to compare them in addition to the period of the study period.
We estimate Illiquidity Index (ILLI) proposed by Amihud’s approach and High-low spread as liquidity proxy variables, use search volume index (SVI) of Google and transform Hexun stock trends to SVI, it‘s considered as attention proxy variables. And further establish a simple linear regression model for explaining the proxy variables by setting up exchange as dummy variables, then identify the difference in liquidity and attention index of China's internet companies between stock exchange of China, the United States and Hong Kong.
In addition to quoting our case study of Alibaba's lesson, we find that the difference in China's Internet companies and non-Internet companies of the proxy variables in different periods. The empirical results show that the separation of the study period is importantly in the study, and there is a significant difference between the Internet companies and the non-Internet companies in the estimated proxy variables.
From observing liquidity, we finding results that turnover and illiquidity are different. but in a highly capitalized market, It's indeed that companies concerned with illiquidity, mainly because of the potential risk of delisting. Based on our results，although the turnover of Chinese Internet companies listed in the United States is better than other markets, However, in terms of illiquidity index, the liquidity of Chinese Internet companies listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange (HKeX) is the best, this reflects the minimum rate of return that a trading unit can drive, this reflects a trading unit can drive the lowest return, indicating that the HKeX is not easily manipulated. In terms of High-Low Spread, the liquidity of China's Internet companies list on the US stock exchange is the highest. This is due to the orders in the US stock exchange are quote driven. The market transaction efficiency is high, spreads are low and liquidity is high. Therefore, the market has high trading efficiency, and the low spreads lead to high liquidity. Finally, the attention index (SVI) is also the highest in China's Internet companies listed on the US, shows that the China’s Internet companies listed on the US have higher attention.
Finally, the results of the study show that the listed overseas of China's Internet companies, in terms of liquidity and attention to observe, we recommend that China’s Internet companies be listed overseas, that will lead to better liquidity and attention.

並列關鍵字

Alibaba ； Attention ； Dummy variable ； Internet company ； Liquidity ； Overseas listing

參考文獻

1. Amihud, Y., and H. Mendelson. (1986). “Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread.” Journal of financial Economics, 17, 223-249.

2. Amihud, Y., and H. Mendelson. (1988). “Liquidity and asset prices: financial management implications.” Financial Management, 5-15.

3. Amihud, Y., and H. Mendelson. (1989). “The effects of beta, bid‐ask spread, residual risk, and size on stock returns”. Journal of Finance, 44, 479-486.

4. Amihud, Y. (2002). “Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects.” Journal of financial markets, 5, 31-56.

6. Brennan, M. J., and A. Subrahmanyam. (1996). “Market microstructure and asset pricing: On the compensation for illiquidity in stock returns.” Journal of financial economics, 41, 441-464.