Research on the Factors Affecting the Delisting of Chinese Listed Companies

  • Yanyan ZhangEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 1002)


This paper focus on the main factors affecting the uncap-listed companies, thus determining the influencing factors of the delisting companies and the overall implementation effect of the delisting system. Based on the data of 391 companies in China’s A-share listed companies from 1989 to 2016, the Logistic model was used to study the factors affecting the delisting of listed companies. The results show that the proportion of state-owned shares, the proportion of tradable shares, the degree of loss and the age of listing are the main influencing factors of the delisting of listed companies, but have no significant relationship with the profitability, growth ability and solvency indicators on behalf of the company’s comprehensive operational capabilities, which means the current delisting system of Chinese stock market was ineffective.


Listed companies Delisting Factors Factors analysis 



The periodical results of national social science foundation: “The development and optimization research of the delisting system of listed companies under the background of registration system reform (17BJL093)”. This paper is also funded by fundamental research funds for the central universities of Sichuan University, “Research on the fluctuation of market prices of agricultural products (selfresearch in 2019 - Economic 016)”.


  1. 1.
    Martinez, I., Serve, S.: Reasons for delisting and consequences: a literature review and research agenda: reasons for delisting and consequences. J. Econ. Surv. 31(3), 733–770 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Konno, Y., Itoh, Y.: Why do listed companies delist themselves voluntarily? J. Financ. Manag. Prop. Constr. 23(2), 152–169 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Charitou, A., Louca, C., Vafeas, N.: Boards, ownership structure, and involuntary delisting from the new york stock exchange. J. Account. Public Policy 26(2), 249–262 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhou, Y.: A comparative study of china and the us delisting system. Am. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 10, 855–863 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    García, H.: Financial performance and stock prices into delisting companies in MSE. Innovaciones de negocios 19, 85–105 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hwang, I.T., Sun, M.K., Jin, S.J.: A delisting prediction model based on nonfinancial information. Asia-Pac. J. Account. Econ. 21(3), 328–347 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shanshan, Y.: Government subsidies and corporate financial distress recovery - an empirical analysis based on “uncapped caps” of ST listed companies. Econ. Res. Ref. 28, 69–76 (2015). (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheng, W., He, W.: An empirical study on the performance of st companies’ cap removal under delisting pressure. Friends Account. 02, 53–59 (2014). (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ke, F., Li, W.: Empirical research on the implementation effect of china’s delisting system. J. Beijing Technol. Bus. Univ. (Social Science Edition), 78–88 (in Chinese) (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yun, F., Liu, Y.: Empirical analysis of the implementation effect of the delisting system of listed companies. J. Financ. Econ. 02, 133–143 (2009). (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ramanujam, V.: Environment context, organizational context, strategy and corpomte turn around. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh (1984)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Witmer, J.: Why do firms cross-delist? an examination of the determinants and effects of cross-delisting. Financial Markets Department, Bank of Canada, Working Paper (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stein, V., Wiedemann, A.: Risk governance: conceptualization, tasks, and research agenda. J. Bus. Econ. 86(8), 813–836 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Xia, H.: Internal audit quality, enterprise scale and corporate performance: empirical study of listed companies based on panel data. J. Cent. Univ. Financ. Econ. 6, 71–78 (2016). (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fei, X., Wang, H.: Firm size, market competition and implementation performance of r&d subsidy. Sci. Res. Manag. 39(7), 43–49 (2018). (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fama, E.F., French, K.R.: The cross-section expected stock returns. Finance 47(2), 427–465 (1992)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    He, Y.: Corporate liabilities, social responsibility and corporate performance. Account. Mon. 06, 3–10 (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guo, M.: Industrial agglomeration, enterprise age and government subsidies. Finance 36, 52–56 (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Audretsch, D.B., Elston, J.A.: Can institutional change impact high-technology firm growth?: evidence from germanys neuer markt. J. Prod. Anal. 25(1), 9–23 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yasuda, T.: Firm growth, size, age and behavior in Japanese manufacturing. Small Bus. Econ. 24(1), 1–15 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Berle, A.A., Means, G.C.: The Modern Corporation and Private Property: A Reappraisal. Macmillan, New York (1932)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu, W.: Ownership structure, diversification and corporate performance. Discuss. Mod. Econ. 7, 99–109 (2018). (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thomsen, S.: Ownership structure and economic performance in the largest european companies. Strateg. Manag. J. 21(6), 689–705 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hui, C.: Optimized allocation method of service elements based on fuzzy evaluation information. Stat. Decis.-Mak. 2, 176–180 (2018). (in Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EconomicsSichuan UniversityChengduPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations