The science and innovation board is ready to introduce the market maker system. The regulatory authorities recently announced the corresponding management system. It is expected that this trading mode will be officially implemented in the near future and play a positive role in promoting the stable and orderly development of China's capital market.
When it comes to the market maker system, many investors may be a little strange. Although it is a common trading system in overseas markets, it has been shelved in China's securities market for a long time.
Once upon a time, it was proposed to introduce the market maker system into Treasury bond trading, and corresponding research has been done. However, with the establishment and improvement of the primary underwriter and primary dealer system of treasury bonds, the market maker system of treasury bonds has not been mentioned. When the new third board was opened, the relevant departments listed the market maker system as one of the basic trading systems of the new third board and made every effort to promote its implementation.
Since 2015, the new third board has had a market maker trading system. Over the past seven years, the three trading systems of call auction, continuous bidding and market maker have been implemented simultaneously in the new third board, which has adapted to the actual needs of different types of listed companies and played a corresponding role in helping the sound operation of the new third board. The market maker system has had a positive impact on relevant companies in terms of reasonable pricing, maintaining necessary liquidity and attracting incremental funds, and has been widely praised.
Summarizing the practice of the new third board in market makers in recent years, there are three enlightenments.
First of all, in the choice of market making companies, we must adhere to high quality standards. The fundamental reason why the new third board wants to implement the market maker system is that some listed companies are not so mature, investors do not know much, and it is difficult to obtain more reasonable pricing in the market, which not only brings difficulties to refinancing, but also is not conducive to investors' trading. Obviously, market makers need to set a reasonable price for the company, but at the same time, they also require the company to have good development prospects and predictable growth potential. If market makers lack confidence in this aspect and only make the market for making the market, it will not form a benign price cycle in the transaction, and investors will not follow up. The market is naturally bleak, and the purpose of making the market will not be realized.
Secondly, for listed companies, there should not be too few market makers making for them. Conversely, for market makers, there should not be too many listed companies participating in market making. From the market making trading practice of the new third board, if only a few listed companies make the market, it is prone to obvious quotation convergence, which is not conducive to the formation of necessary price elasticity in the trading of stocks, thus affecting their price discovery. The resulting poor trading situation is inconsistent with the purpose of market maker trading to provide liquidity for stocks.
If the number of listed companies that market makers participate in market making is too large, it is likely that market makers do not have enough human and material resources for the research of listed companies. If this basic work is not done well, it is difficult to imagine how to promote the subsequent market making transactions rationally. In the management structure of some securities companies, market makers belong to the self operated Department, but there are still great differences between the two. In a sense, market makers are not only price discoverers, but also price determiners. Their counterparties are all non market making trading participants, which requires a deeper understanding of listed companies and a more reasonable basis for quotation, so as to be as fair as possible. In fact, under the current circumstances, if a market maker participates in market making of too many listed companies at the same time, it is difficult to ensure the quality of market making. Some market makers have losses in operation, which is also related to it to a certain extent.
Finally, the three trading modes of the current new third board are parallel, that is, they are carried out independently. If listed companies choose market maker trading, they cannot carry out competitive trading. Such institutional arrangement has its own logical basis, but objectively, it also makes the trading behavior more rigid and the protection of the interests of ordinary investors is not enough. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a more perfect mixed trading mode, namely "market making + bidding trading", and change the current single quotation driving into quotation and instruction driving. In this way, while continuing to reflect the dominant position of market makers in trading, it is better to give play to the enthusiasm of other investors, so as to further activate trading and improve the liquidity of the new third board.
Objectively speaking, the trading scale of market makers on the new third board is not very large, and the accumulated experience is preliminary, but after all, there is a corresponding practice, which has inspired the market a lot. In this regard, a careful summary will have a good reference for the implementation of market maker trading in the science and innovation boardtable width="580" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" align="center">
______
