[1]丁 煜,陶长琪*,廖 军.中国式融资融券提升企业费用粘性了吗?[J].江西师范大学学报(自然科学版),2023,(03):255-268.[doi:10.16357/j.cnki.issn1000-5862.2023.03.06]
　DING Yu,TAO Changqi*,LIAO Jun.Does Chinese Style Margin Trading and Short Selling Enhance the Stickiness of Enterprise Cost?[J].Journal of Jiangxi Normal University:Natural Science Edition,2023,(03):255-268.[doi:10.16357/j.cnki.issn1000-5862.2023.03.06]
点击复制

中国式融资融券提升企业费用粘性了吗?()
分享到：

《江西师范大学学报》（自然科学版）[ISSN:1006-6977/CN:61-1281/TN]

卷:
期数:
2023年03期
页码:
255-268
栏目:
出版日期:
2023-05-25

文章信息/Info

Title:
Does Chinese Style Margin Trading and Short Selling Enhance the Stickiness of Enterprise Cost?
文章编号:
1000-5862(2023)03-0255-14
作者:
丁 煜1; 2; 陶长琪2*; 廖 军3
(1.招商银行博士后科研工作站,广东 深圳518040; 2.江西财经大学统计学院,江西 南昌,330013; 3.萍乡市湘东区荷尧中学,江西 萍乡337017)
Author(s):
DING Yu1; 2; TAO Changqi2*; LIAO Jun3
(1.Post-Doctoral Scientific Research Workstation, China Merchants Bank, Shenzhen Guangdong 518040,China; 2.School of Statistics,Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang Jiangxi 330013, China; 3.Heyao Middle School,Xiangdong District, Pingxiang Jiangxi 337017,China)
关键词:
中国式融资融券;  费用粘性;  管理层乐观预期;  调整成本;  管理层机会主义
Keywords:
Chinese style margin trading and short selling;  cost stickiness;  optimistic expectations of management;  adjustment cost;  management’s opportunism
分类号:
F 832.5; F 275.3
DOI:
10.16357/j.cnki.issn1000-5862.2023.03.06
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
该文运用2007—2014年上市公司数据,建立双重差分模型,探究融资融券对企业费用粘性的政策处理效应,在此基础上厘清融资交易与融券交易对费用粘性的不同影响,并进行一系列稳健性检验; 从管理层乐观预期、调整成本和管理层机会主义3个方面检验融资融券对试点企业费用粘性因果作用效应的影响渠道,并进一步从企业要素密集度视角探究融资融券对企业费用粘性的异质性影响.研究结果表明:在实施融资融券政策之后,试点企业费用粘性显著提升,且提升效应来自融资交易,融券交易抑制了企业费用粘性,但抑制效果微弱; 管理层乐观预期与管理层机会主义动机是融资融券政策促进企业费用粘性提升的重要渠道; 融资融券政策并未显著影响技术密集型企业的费用粘性,这可能是由于融资交易与潜在卖空压力对费用粘性的反向作用效应相互抵消所导致的.
Abstract:
Using the data of listed companies from 2007 to 2014,the difference-in-difference model is established to explore the policy processing effect of the margin trading and short selling pilot policy on corporate cost stickiness. On this basis, the different effects of margin trading and short selling are clarified.A series of robustness tests are carried out, from the three perspectives of optimistic expectations of corporate management, adjustment costs and management opportunism, the channel of the effect of margin trading and short selling pilot policy on the causal effect of the cost stickiness of the pilot enterprises is further verified, and from the perspective of enterprise factor intensity, the heterogeneous impact of margin trading and short selling pilot policy is explored on the stickiness of corporate cost. The results of the study show that after the implementation of the margin trading and short selling pilot policy, the pilot companies’ cost stickiness has increased significantly, and the effect of the increase comes from margin trading, the short selling has suppressed the corporate cost stickiness, but the suppression effect is weak. Corporate management’s optimistic expected increase and opportunistic motivation promotion is an important channel for margin trading and short selling pilot policy to promote enterprise cost stickiness. Margin trading and short selling pilot policy have not significantly affected the cost stickiness of technology-intensive enterprises, but this is because the reverse effect of margin trading and potential short selling pressure on cost stickiness are offset.

参考文献/References:

[1] ANDERSON M C,BANKER R D,JANAKIRAMAN S N.Are selling,general,and administrative costs “sticky”?[J].Journal of Accounting Research,2003,41(1):47-63.
[2] 孙铮,刘浩.中国上市公司费用“粘性”行为研究 [J].经济研究,2004,39(12):26-34,84.
[3] WEISS D. Cost behavior and analysts’ earnings forecasts [J].Accounting Review,2010,85(4):1441-1471.
[4] 孙林杰,彭丽霞,孙万君.研发成本粘性与技术创新绩效的关联性研究 [J].科学学研究,2022,40(4):695-703.
[5] KAMA I,WEISS D.Do earnings targets and managerial incentives affect sticky costs? [J]. Journal of Accounting Research,2013,51(1):201-224.
[6] 葛永盛,宋晓芳,雷英.国有企业混合所有制改革能降低费用粘性吗? [J].财贸研究,2022,33(2):97-110.
[7] 刘媛媛,刘斌.劳动保护、成本粘性与企业应对 [J].经济研究,2014,49(5):63-76.
[8] 陶长琪,丁煜.卖空压力与企业费用粘性:一项准自然实验 [J].管理学刊,2021,34(5):1-23.
[9] 褚剑,秦璇,方军雄.中国式融资融券制度安排与分析师盈利预测乐观偏差 [J].管理世界,2019,35(1):151-166,228.
[10] SAFFI P A C,SIGURDSSON K. Price efficiency and short selling [J].The Review of Financial Studies,2011,24(3):821-852.
[11] 杜勇,邓旭.中国式融资融券与企业金融化:基于分批扩容的准自然实验 [J].财贸经济,2020,41(2):69-83.
[12] 董卉宁,刘琦,阮宏勋.中国式卖空机制与高管减持:基于融资融券分步扩容的准自然实验 [J].金融研究,2022(1):167-184.
[13] MASSA M,ZHANG Bohui,ZHANG Hong.The invisible hand of short selling:does short selling discipline earnings management? [J].The Review of Financial Studies, 2015,28(6):1701-1736.
[14] 黄俊威,龚光明.融资融券制度与公司资本结构动态调整:基于“准自然实验”的经验证据 [J].管理世界,2019,35(10):64-81.
[15] 褚剑,方军雄.中国式融资融券制度安排与股价崩盘风险的恶化 [J].经济研究,2016,51(5):143-158.
[16] 田利辉,王可第.“罪魁祸首”还是“替罪羊”?:中国式融资融券与管理层短视 [J].经济评论,2019(1):106-120.
[17] 郝项超,梁琪,李政.融资融券与企业创新:基于数量与质量视角的分析 [J].经济研究,2018,53(6):127-141.
[18] 王燕妮.高管激励对研发投入的影响研究:基于我国制造业上市公司的实证检验 [J].科学学研究,2011,29(7):1071-1078.
[19] 周润辉,陶长琪.省际R&D溢出如何促进本地产业结构升级?:基于2阶段创新价值链的中介分析 [J].江西师范大学学报(自然科学版),2020,44(2):127-135.
[20] 陶长琪,冷琴.以创新驱动促进江西省制造业高质量发展的实证研究 [J].江西师范大学学报(自然科学版),2021,45(1):1-9.
[21] 刘惠好,冯永佳.卖空机制对公司创新投入的影响研究:基于高技术公司和非高技术公司异质性视角 [J].预测,2020,39(2):70-75.
[22] 佟爱琴,马惠娴.卖空的事前威慑、公司治理与高管隐性腐败 [J].财贸经济,2019,40(6):85-100.
[23] 权小锋,尹洪英.中国式卖空机制与公司创新:基于融资融券分步扩容的自然实验 [J].管理世界,2017,33(1):128-144,187-188.
[24] 梁上坤.媒体关注、信息环境与公司费用粘性 [J].中国工业经济,2017(2):154-173.
[25] SERFLING M.Firing costs and capital structure decisions [J].Journal of Finance,2016, 71(5):2239-2285.
[26] 赵璨,曹伟,姚振晔,等.“互联网+”有利于降低企业成本粘性吗? [J].财经研究,2020,46(4):33-47.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
收稿日期:2022-10-19
基金项目:国家自然科学基金(71773041,71973055)和国家社会科学基金重大招标课题(19ZDA121)资助项目.
通信作者:陶长琪(1967—),男,江西临川人,教授,博士,博士生导师,主要从事数量经济学研究.E-mail:tcq_822@163.com
更新日期/Last Update: 2023-05-25