数据显示，日本今年规模在5000万美元以下的IPO交易共有43笔，为2013年以来最少的一年。相比之 下，IPO筹资规模创下七年新高，凸显出诸如JX金属和SBI新生银行等几宗巨型上市交易。 由于东京证券交易所的改革推动促使私营公司重新思考是否快速上市，今年日本小型首次公开募股 （IPO）的数量降至十多年来的最低水平。 过去，日本IPO市场由小型交易主导。根据汇编的2015年至2024年数据的平均值，过去十年间小型IPO 约占日本IPO总数的82%。相比之下，小型交易在印度IPO中所占比例为76%，在中国香港为55%。 过去，日本IPO市场由小型交易主导。根据汇编的2015年至2024年数据的平均值，过去十年间小型IPO 约占日本IPO总数的82%。相比之下，小型交易在印度IPO中所占比例为76%，在中国香港为55%。 "对于新上市的公司来说，在IPO后继续增长至关重要，而市场在对那些无法实现可持续增长的公司 说'不'，"三菱日联资产管理的执行基金经理Hiroaki Tomori表示。他说，小型IPO的股价表现通常较为落 后。 20多位参与小型IPO的银行家、会计师、投资者和企业高管称，小公司通常盈利波动较大， ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. and South Korea are accelerating negotiations on a $350 billion investment agreement, shifting focus from currency swap concerns to investment structure design, with a potential finalization during the APEC summit next week [1][2]. Investment Structure - The South Korean government is prioritizing a balanced investment scheme that may include direct investments, loans, and guarantees, with the necessity and scale of currency swaps depending on the final agreement structure [2][3]. - South Korea aims to finalize the agreement during the APEC summit, with the government committed to achieving this goal [2][3]. Tariff Disadvantages - Ongoing negotiations have been slow, with South Korea facing a 25% tariff on automobiles compared to Japan's 15%, putting Korean automakers at a competitive disadvantage [3][4]. - The potential loss of zero-tariff status for South Korean automotive exports to the U.S. raises concerns, as both countries may be subjected to a new 15% tariff framework [3][4]. Feasibility Concerns - The scale of the investment commitments from both the U.S. and Japan raises questions about feasibility, with the $350 billion commitment equating to 6.5% of South Korea's GDP, needing to be completed within three years [5][6]. - The investment model, which allows the U.S. government to control funds without congressional oversight, has sparked concerns about resource misallocation and corruption opportunities [6]. Governance Risks - The investment funds may lead to significant resource misallocation and potential corruption, as political pressures could influence funding decisions towards enterprises aligned with presidential and Republican interests [6]. - The lack of precedent for allowing a president to freely allocate billions in investments raises governance concerns, especially given the political accountability of Japanese and South Korean officials [6].