Magic Square Quantitative "IPO Subscription Tactics" Surface

In the recent allocation lists of hot STAR Market IPOs, Qianfang Quantitative has consistently appeared at the top.

Looking solely at the results, this is not surprising.

Quantitative institutions are naturally adept at seeking IPO opportunities, and familiar names appearing on IPO allocation lists seem entirely normal.

However, if you compare several rounds of results together, a detail that's easily overlooked emerges.

Not only does Qianfang's allocated amount consistently rank at the top, but in two "star new stocks," the number of shares they were allocated was significantly higher than some other quantitative peers with reportedly larger assets under management.

Is this just "good luck"?

Over the past two years, there have been repeated market rumors that Qianfang has actively reduced its assets under management in recent years.

Common sense suggests that shrinking scale typically means reduced participation capability, but from the latest IPO allocation results, the situation seems quite the opposite.

This raises a question that deserves serious discussion:

Why, in such highly institutionalized scenarios as IPO allocation, has scale not translated into an absolute advantage, but instead allowed Qianfang to continuously stay in front?

Behind the seemingly calm allocation lists, luck may not be the hidden factor. If we can dig deeper into this question, we can further understand the long-term strength of quantitative institutions at the A-share table.

Qianfang frequently "tops the charts"

Recently, Qianfang Quantitative has repeatedly appeared, and in very prominent positions, in the allocation lists of popular STAR Market companies.

Taking Moore Threads as an example, according to data disclosed by Simuwang, Qianfang Quantitative was allocated about 61,300 shares, Yanfu Investment about 60,000 shares, and Jiukun Investment about 39,700 shares.

In another semiconductor company, Muxi, the allocation results show Qianfang Quantitative received about 46,900 shares, Yanfu Investment about 44,700 shares, and Jiukun Investment about 30,400 shares.

Qianfang Quantitative, Yanfu Investment, and Jiukun Investment almost constitute the current "first tier" in quantitative IPO plays.

Why ahead of larger asset peers

But if you only consider asset scale labels, these results are not so intuitive.

Many investors perceive Qianfang as not the largest quantitative institution in terms of nominal assets under management, yet its allocation amounts in multiple IPOs remain at the top.

This raises some questions.

Since Moore Threads and Muxi are super popular stocks, using them as observation points carries weight. Among them, Qianfang's allocation amount not only leads Yanfu and Jiukun, but is also significantly higher than Minghong, Lingjun, Jinde, Shiji Qianyan and other quantitative institutions with nominally larger assets under management.

Furthermore, firms like Minghong Investment and Lingjun Investment are known in the industry for their size and comprehensive product lines, but in specific IPO results, they did not show allocation advantages matching their scale.

What’s more noteworthy is that the market has heard multiple times that Qianfang has actively cut back its assets under management in the past three years, holding its asset management products (mainly external client funds) in the 20–30 billion RMB range.

This move was interpreted by some as "slowing down," but recent IPO results suggest it has not diminished their presence in institutional opportunities.

This contrast makes the results appear as a series of coincidences.

First-day gains bring a direct comparison

Zooming back to the most intuitive financial results, the value behind these allocations becomes clearer.

Moore Threads had an issue price of 114.28 yuan per share, reaching an intraday high of 688 yuan on its listing day. That’s about 573.72 yuan per share in highest floating profit. Based on Qianfang’s allocation of 61,300 shares, only at the first day’s high, their book floating profit was about 35.17 million yuan.

Muxi was issued at 104.66 yuan per share, and soared at one point to 895 yuan on the opening day, showing a per share floating profit of about 790.34 yuan. According to Qianfang’s 46,900 shares, its book floating profit at maximum was about 37.06 million yuan.

Adding up both stocks, the floating profit at intraday highs on day one exceeded 72 million yuan.

For a quantitative institution, such outcomes are not decisive profits, but are enough to provide a visible cushion for the net value curve and account cash flow.

Is it really coincidence?

After talking with people in the quant community, it was found that the above phenomena cannot be simply attributed to luck.

A single account does have some randomness in allocation, but when the number of participating accounts is large enough, outcomes change.

According to industry insiders:

IPO allocation with a single account is more like a lottery; but with a multi-account system, IPO allocation is more like a predictable assembly line.

Simply put, not every new stock brings extreme returns, but when the sample size is large, the annual median result becomes very stable.

Downsizing and IPO efficiency

Going a step further, there may be a long-overlooked causal relationship between shrinking assets under management and IPO allocation efficiency.

Downsizing asset management does not necessarily mean diminished capability. For multi-account IPOs, the key is not the total funds but the structure of accounts, splitting efficiency, and execution consistency.

Insiders think that within a more manageable size range, the relative weight of low noise modules like IPO allocations becomes clearer in the overall assets.

It’s noteworthy that currently published allocation lists mainly reflect the participation at the asset management product level, without fully showing the proprietary positions of the big quant firms. Within the industry, proprietary funds often get higher strategy priority, and their real influence is not always visible in public market information.

One question worth pondering: Is downsizing assets under management not weakening IPO capability, but instead clearing more space for allocation efficiency?

Risk Warning and DisclaimerThe market involves risks, and investments require caution. This article does not constitute personal investment advice, nor does it take into account the specific investment objectives, financial conditions, or needs of any individual user. Users should consider whether any opinions, views, or conclusions in this article fit their particular circumstances. Investing accordingly is at your own risk. ```