After Yan Bojin, Director of the Issuance Department of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, said at the first press conference of the Year of the Dragon of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, "We will also significantly increase the proportion of on-site inspections of companies planning to be listed." At this year's Two Sessions, Wu Qing, the new chairman of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, made public for the first time It also made it clear that "(currently) the coverage of on-site inspections and on-site supervision is still very limited. The next step is to increase the coverage exponentially." For this reason, IPO on-site inspections have become a topic of great concern in the current IPO review process. .
It is precisely because IPO on-site inspections have attracted attention from all parties that some media recently announced the status of IPO on-site inspections in the past three years. Since 2021, regulators have conducted 13 rounds of on-site inspections, and a total of 99 companies have been selected. Nearly 60% of these companies terminated the IPO process under high regulatory pressure. So far, only 15 of the "successful" companies have been successfully listed, with a customs clearance rate of 15.2%.
The specific situation is that in 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024, regulators conducted five, four, three and one rounds of on-site inspections, with 46, 34, 17 and 2 companies respectively " Winning the lottery". So far, among the "winning" companies from 2021 to 2023, there are 33 (30 withdrawn, 2 rejected, 1 terminated registration), 20 (withdrawn), and 4 (withdrawn) companies terminated. review. A total of 57 companies were terminated from review, accounting for 57.58%. The years with high withdrawal rates are mainly concentrated in 2021 and 2022, with the withdrawal rates as high as 71.74% and 58.82%.
Judging from the situation of IPO on-site inspections from 2021 to 2023, there is indeed the problem of "very limited coverage of on-site inspections" mentioned by Chairman Wu Qing. However, judging from the customs clearance rate of 15.2%, it can also illustrate some problems, and these problems also require the relevant parties to attach great importance to them.
First of all, the 15.2% clearance rate of IPO on-site inspections in recent years shows that on-site inspections are indeed an important means to strictly control IPO audits and improve the quality of IPO companies. After all, in the past three years, although the coverage of on-site inspections was very limited, and the total number of companies selected for on-site inspections was less than 100, 57 of the companies selected for on-site inspections terminated the review, and among them 54 companies voluntarily withdrew, which shows the deterrent effect of on-site inspections and is a sharp sword to strictly control IPO review.
Secondly, the 15.2% customs clearance rate of IPO on-site inspections in recent years also shows that the quality of IPO companies is difficult to be optimistic about, and companies that "sickly pass through the customs" are not an isolated phenomenon. In recent years, as the issuance of new shares has accelerated, a large number of companies have joined the queue for IPO companies. The number of companies queuing up for IPO ranges from more than 600 to 700 or 800 companies. It is normal for companies to queue up for IPO. However, many of these queuing companies are trying to get through with luck. Therefore, in the face of IPO on-site inspections, they "withdrawn as soon as the inspection was completed". Among the 99 companies selected since 2021, 54 companies "withdrew immediately after the inspection", which shows that the quality of these companies cannot be reassured. If there were no problems like this or that, why would these 54 companies take the initiative to withdraw their orders? What's more, only 15 companies have been successfully listed so far, which shows that among the 99 companies selected for on-site inspection, the number of problematic companies is actually more than the 54 companies that took the initiative to withdraw orders.
Third, the 15.2% clearance rate for IPO on-site inspections in recent years shows that the quality of many companies that have successfully passed or even been successfully listed without on-site inspections is still questionable. For example, most of the companies whose performance changes after going public are companies that have not undergone on-site inspections. Perhaps in future investments, companies that go public after on-site inspections are the ones worthy of investors' trust, while those companies that go public directly without on-site inspections should be carefully considered by investors.
Fourthly, the 15.2% customs clearance rate of IPO on-site inspections in recent years shows that in order to implement the regulatory requirement of "declaration means responsibility", companies with order cancellations are also the main targets of inspections. After all, the company that canceled the order is the main source of the problem. It is precisely because of various problems that the IPO company canceled the order. If there were no problems, the IPO company would not cancel the order. Therefore, it is necessary to implement the regulatory requirement of "declaration equals responsibility", not only for companies that join the meeting, but also for companies that withdraw orders.Only this kind of all-round accountability can allow companies planning to IPO to take the matter of submitting an IPO application seriously, instead of treating the matter as child's play, or even "getting through it with illness" in the hope of luck.
Fifth, the 15.2% customs clearance rate of IPO on-site inspections in recent years shows that on-site inspections are an effective means to strictly control IPO audits. Therefore, in order to strictly control IPO audits, it is necessary to increase the intensity of IPO on-site inspections. As Chairman Wu Qing emphasized, coverage must be greatly increased exponentially. The first step can increase the proportion of on-site inspections from 5% to 20%~30%; the second step can increase it to 50%; the third step can achieve full coverage, allowing on-site inspections to endorse new stock listings, so that every listed company can Become an honest company that reassures investors.
