企业可以在主板上市,为何青睐AIM ?

John A. Doukas, Hafiz Hoque
{"title":"企业可以在主板上市,为何青睐AIM ?","authors":"John A. Doukas, Hafiz Hoque","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2656806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is often argued that the popularity of Alternative Investment Market (AIM) in terms of higher number of listings relative to the Main Market (MM) is mainly due to the strict listing requirements in the MM. During the 1995 to 2014 period, 577 out of 1143 AIM listed firms did not qualify for MM listing, but the rest (566) that raised equity in AIM could have joined the MM. This raises the question why firms that meet the heavier regulatory environment of the MM choose the AIM, a lighter regulatory environment. This paper subjects this question to a comprehensive investigation and finds that the market choice is a self-selection decision. The two markets attract companies with different characteristics, and dissimilar post-listing investment and financing priorities. The evidence also shows that smaller and younger companies choose to be listed on the AIM due to lower listing and on-going costs. Heckman Selection models addressing the important question of what would have been the operating performance if AIM companies joined MM indicate that AIM companies would not perform better had they selected to go public in the MM.","PeriodicalId":414741,"journal":{"name":"Econometric Modeling: Financial Markets Regulation eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Firms Favour the AIM When They Can List on Main Market?\",\"authors\":\"John A. Doukas, Hafiz Hoque\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2656806\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It is often argued that the popularity of Alternative Investment Market (AIM) in terms of higher number of listings relative to the Main Market (MM) is mainly due to the strict listing requirements in the MM. During the 1995 to 2014 period, 577 out of 1143 AIM listed firms did not qualify for MM listing, but the rest (566) that raised equity in AIM could have joined the MM. This raises the question why firms that meet the heavier regulatory environment of the MM choose the AIM, a lighter regulatory environment. This paper subjects this question to a comprehensive investigation and finds that the market choice is a self-selection decision. The two markets attract companies with different characteristics, and dissimilar post-listing investment and financing priorities. The evidence also shows that smaller and younger companies choose to be listed on the AIM due to lower listing and on-going costs. Heckman Selection models addressing the important question of what would have been the operating performance if AIM companies joined MM indicate that AIM companies would not perform better had they selected to go public in the MM.\",\"PeriodicalId\":414741,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Econometric Modeling: Financial Markets Regulation eJournal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-08-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Econometric Modeling: Financial Markets Regulation eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2656806\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Econometric Modeling: Financial Markets Regulation eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2656806","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

通常认为另类投资市场(AIM)的普及方面更多的上市公司相对于主要市场(MM)主要是由于严格的上市要求在毫米。在1995年到2014年期间,577年的1143个目标上市公司不符合MM清单,但其余目标(566),提高股本可能加入了毫米。这就提出了一个问题,为什么公司满足MM选择重监管环境的目的,宽松的监管环境。本文对这一问题进行了全面考察,发现市场选择是一种自我选择决策。这两个市场吸引的公司具有不同的特点,上市后的投融资重点也不同。证据还表明,较小和较年轻的公司选择在AIM上市是由于较低的上市和持续成本。赫克曼选择模型解决了一个重要的问题,即如果AIM公司加入MM会有什么样的经营业绩,表明AIM公司如果选择在MM中上市,业绩不会更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why Firms Favour the AIM When They Can List on Main Market?
It is often argued that the popularity of Alternative Investment Market (AIM) in terms of higher number of listings relative to the Main Market (MM) is mainly due to the strict listing requirements in the MM. During the 1995 to 2014 period, 577 out of 1143 AIM listed firms did not qualify for MM listing, but the rest (566) that raised equity in AIM could have joined the MM. This raises the question why firms that meet the heavier regulatory environment of the MM choose the AIM, a lighter regulatory environment. This paper subjects this question to a comprehensive investigation and finds that the market choice is a self-selection decision. The two markets attract companies with different characteristics, and dissimilar post-listing investment and financing priorities. The evidence also shows that smaller and younger companies choose to be listed on the AIM due to lower listing and on-going costs. Heckman Selection models addressing the important question of what would have been the operating performance if AIM companies joined MM indicate that AIM companies would not perform better had they selected to go public in the MM.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信