基于网下询价过程中发行人、投资者与承销商的策略选择，构建IPO定价演化博弈模型，分析中国询价制下IPO定价过程中发行人、投资者与承销商策略行为的演化均衡过程，结果表明不同策略下的收益差异决定了三者的演化稳定策略：1）如果发行人如实报告并不能得到相匹配的收益，那么之后的上市公司在披露信息时将选择粉饰业绩，进而导致IPO市场出现"逆向选择"问题；2）投资者是追求风险报价还是价值报价，取决于新股发行定价与上市后价格之间的净抑价，因而只有压缩风险报价下的净抑价空间，才可能使投资者回归价值报价；3）对于承销商来说，一方面承销收入激励其提高新股发行价，另一方面声誉约束其高定价，因而只有当掠夺的抑价利益不能够抵消声誉损失时，其才采取让渡定价策略，否则采取掠夺定价策略。
As an important part of IPO, IPO pricing has always been one of the concerns in the capital market. Book-building has been widely proved to be highly efficient in the United States and other developed countries, but it has costed problems frequently in the operation of the Chinese stock market. The classic theories in related filed usually assume that the interests of the issuer and the underwriter are unified, and only the game within the group of investors has been studied. Differently, it is believed that the IPO pricing under the book-building is the result of multi-parties game and it is necessary to study the IPO pricing problem with the strategic choices of the issuers, investors and underwriters in the process of book-building. Based on this new perspective, an evolutionary game model of IPO pricing is built. With the model, evolutionary equilibrium processes of strategic behaviors of issuers' information disclosure, investors' bids and underwriters' pricing ways during IPO pricing in Chinese book-building are analyzed. The results show that the different payoff determines evolutionary equilibrium strategies of participants. 1) If issuers could not get matched payoff when they truthfully report their information, the follow-up companies would choose the strategy of dressing up economic performance and further, adverse selection would occur in IPO market. 2) Whether investors chase risk bidding or value bidding depends on net underpricing between offering price and aftermarket price. Only when net underpricing is compressed, could investors bid in accordance with value. 3) Underwriter would raise the offering price to gain more income and meanwhile, reputation could restrict the behavior of asking a high price. Only when the predatory profit could not offset reputation losses, would underwriters adopt the strategy of delivered pricing. Otherwise, the strategy of predatory pricing would be adopted. The evolutionary equilibrium process of the strategy choices of the issuer, investor and underwriter in the IPO pricing process is simulated using MATLAB,and the consistent results have been obtained. This paper helps to understand the internal mechanism of the Chinese book-building in theory profoundly, and it can provide some reference for deepening the reform of the new issue and pricing system in practice, and also a positive supplement to the existing related research.
[1] Cornelli F, Goldreich D. Bookbuilding:How informative is the order book?[J]. The Journal of Finance, 2003, 58(4):1415-1443.
[2] Sherman A. Global trends in IPO methods:Book building versus auctions with endogenous entry[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2005, 78(3):615-649.
[3] 俞红海, 刘烨, 李心丹. 询价制度改革与中国股市IPO"三高"问题——基于网下机构投资者报价视角的研究[J]. 经济研究, 2013(10):167-180.
[4] Benveniste L M, Spindt P A. How investment bankers determine the offer price and allocation of new issues[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 1989, 24(2):343-361.
[5] Spatt C, Srivastava S. Prep lay communication, participation restrictions, and efficiency in initial public offerings[J]. Review of Financial Studies, 1991, 27(4):709-726.
[6] Bubna A, Prabhala N. IPOs with and without allocation discretion:Empirical evidence[J]. Journal of Financial Intermediation, 2011, 20(4):530-561.
[7] 邵新建, 薛熠, 江萍, 等. 投资者情绪、承销商定价与IPO新股回报率[J]. 金融研究, 2013(4):127-141.
[8] Sherman A, Titman S. Building the IPO order book:Underpricing and participation limits with costly information[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2002, 65(1):3-29.
[9] Aggarwal R K, Krigman L, Womack K L. Strategic IPO underpricing, information momentum, and lockup expiration selling[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 2002, 66(1):105-137.
[10] Chemmanur T J, Hu Gang, Huang J K. The role of institutional investors in public offering[J]. Review of Financial Economics, 2011, 23(12):4496-4540.
[11] Jenkinson T, Jones H. IPO pricing and allocation:A survey of the views of institutional investors[J]. Review of Financial Economics, 2009, 22(4):1477-1504.
[12] Liu Xiaoding, Ritter J R.The economic consequences of IPO spinning[J]. Review of Financial Economics, 2010, 23(5):2024-2059.
[13] Baisa B. Overbidding and inefficiencies in multi-unit Vickrey auctions for normal goods[J]. Games and Economic Behavior, 2016, 100(5):23-35.
[14] 李冬昕, 李心丹, 俞红海, 等. 询价机构报价中的意见分歧与IPO定价机制研究[J]. 经济研究, 2014,(7):151-164.
[15] 汪昌云, 武佳薇. 媒体语气、投资者情绪与IPO定价[J]. 金融研究, 2015,(9):174-189.
[16] 黄顺武,贾捷,汪文隽.基于双边随机边界模型的IPO抑价分解研究——来自中国创业板的证据[J]. 中国管理科学,2017,25(2):21-29.
[17] 阮永平,郑凯,何雨晴. 询价对象间关系网络的IPO定价后果研究[J].管理科学学报,2017,20(7):57-67.
[18] 周孝华, 姜婷, 董耀武. 两阶段询价制下的IPO价格形成与需求隐藏研究[J]. 系统工程学报, 2013, 28(2):187-193.
[19] 张学勇,张秋月,魏旭. 承销商变更对股权再融资的影响:理论与实证[J].管理科学学报,2017,20(9):85-101.
[20] 姜婷. 新股询价配给规则与IPO价格形成的进化博弈分析[J]. 中国管理科学, 2014, 22(6):10-16.
[21] 汪昌云, 武佳薇, 孙艳梅, 等. 公司的媒体信息管理行为与IPO定价效率[J]. 管理世界, 2015,(1):118-128.
[22] 邵新建, 何明燕, 江萍, 等. 媒体公关、投资者情绪与证券发行定价[J]. 金融研究, 2015,(9):190-206.
[23] 周孝华, 熊维勤, 孟卫东. IPO询价中的最优报价策略与净抑价[J]. 管理科学学报, 2009, 12(4):129-134.
[24] 张小成, 孟卫东, 熊维勤. 机构和潜在投资者行为对IPO抑价影响[J]. 系统工程理论与实践, 2010, 30(4):637-645.
[25] 姜婷, 周孝华. 询价对象报价行为与IPO价格形成的进化博弈[J]. 系统工程学报, 2015, 30(5):642-649.
[26] 郭海星, 万迪昉, 吴祖光. 承销商值得信任吗——来自创业板的证据[J]. 南开管理评论, 2011, 14(3):101-109.
[27] Fishmen M A. Asymmetric evolutionary games with non-linear pure strategy payoffs[J]. Games and Economics Behavior, 2008, 63(1):77-90.
[28] Cai Gangshu, Koh N. An evolutionary game theoretic perspective on e-collaboration:The collaboration effort and media relativeness[J]. European Journal of Operational Research, 2009, 194(3):821-833.
[29] Taylor P D, Jonker L B. Evolutionarily stable strategies and game dynamics[J]. Mathematical Biosciences, 1978, 40:145-156.
[30] Friedman D. Evolutionary games in economics[J].Econometrica, 1991, 59(3):637-666.
