IPOs in China: when the norm is explosive and progress is straining to flourish

To understand the reasons behind a potential business loss, it’s necessary to rewind the tape of events in China.  Some companies have fixed the sale price of their stocks at too low a level.  The expectation of national investors created the imagination of more favorable initial public offerings (IPOs).  Therefore, they could have set prices higher than they effectively did.  Consequently, the fundraising would have been more conspicuous.  And yet these companies chose the opposite option, theoretically penalizing their own proceeds.  In reality, the China Securities Regulatory Commission’s (CSRS, equivalent to the Consob in Italy or the SEC in the US) directives imposed this auto-limitation with a series of rules that suggested more than demanded these decisions.  In fact, the powerful controlling organization issued some apparently neutral provisions that had a disruptive effect in the opaque Chinese financial system.  On the one hand, investors have resources to invest, but on the other they fear that the imposed rules will be effectively mandatory and will therefore limit the possibility of easy returns.  For this reason, they need—just like companies launching IPOs—more attractive securities prices to guarantee risk.  In fact, the CSRC only allowed IPO launches again after new regulations were approved.  After a 14-month suspension, the green light for the first IPOs under the new regulations was given on the last day of 2013.  There are approximately 700 companies on the waiting list, but only 50 are likely to obtain authorization.  The controlling body is afraid of a flux of capital from uncontrollable sources that could determine fast profits, undermining market credibility at the same time—a compromise they can’t make.  Evidently, memories of the worst global tumble of the past three years and the regrets from 2010 haven’t faded, when China was the biggest collector of IPO funds, estimated at USD$71 billion.  Now, the CSRC has mandated records must be more comprehensive and transparent, and the information more accurate.  Furthermore, it increased the criminal responsibilities of companies launching IPOs.  The attempt evidently aims to clean up a business instrument, trying to exert control over irregularities that have until now contradicted it.  The Chinese system needs to circulate financial resources in times of monetary restrictions, without allowing the flux to create private profits that would damage public accounts and faith in the country.  In re-launching IPOs, the CSRC is trying to compensate for the central bank’s policies, poised for the economy’s soft landing, while avoiding inflation and speculative bubbles.  In order to do this, it needs to go back a year to when it decided to suspend IPOs.  It was a maneuver to gain time in the face of a risky situation.  Politically, the recently elected Xi Jin Ping had opened the road; he hoped to combat inefficiencies, political avenues to the economy, and corruption.  The PCC’s third plenum last November sanctioned the market’s role, and therefore provided the strength to reauthorize IPOs based on more transparent rules.  As always, politics dictate decisions in China.  In any case, the road could prove to be more bumpy this time.  Imposing rigid regulations and transparency could make a system founded on other bastions tremble.  Putting these certainly laudable mechanisms in motion could, nonetheless, once again steer the market towards being a political instrument nullifying the reform efforts made over the last 14 moths.  This is probably the price to pay for aspiring toward normality until now precluded by the monolithic system.  A confused conjuncture has resulted, that frequently leads to paralysis or the fear of moving in a different direction with respect to tradition.  This is why IPOs are being affirmed cautiously with attention to every detail and why companies are offering shares at lower levels than they could obtain; they fear unfamiliar regulations that aren’t the norm in other markets, but that are decided by the market that remains the absolute arbitrator leaving politics at the margins.