The Delisting Bias in CRSP's Nasdaq Data and Its Implications for the Size Effect

We investigate the bias in CRSP's Nasdaq data due to missing returns for delisted stocks. We find that the missing returns are large and negative on average, and that delisted stocks experience a substantial decrease in liquidity. We estimate that using a corrected return of −55 percent for missing performance-related delisting returns corrects the bias. We revisit previous work which finds a size effect among Nasdaq stocks. After correcting for the delisting bias, there is no evidence that there ever was a size effect on Nasdaq. Our results are inconsistent with most risk-based explanations of the size effect.     

The comovement of option listed stocks

This study examines the changes in return comovement around the listing and delisting of stock option contracts. We show that newly option listed stocks experience an increase in comovement with a portfolio of option listed stocks and a decrease in comovement with the portfolio of non-optioned stocks. Similarly, stocks that undergo option delisting exhibit a decrease in comovement with option listed stocks and an increase in comovement with non-optioned stocks. We verify the reliability of our findings in several ways. A matched sample analysis suggests that our results are not driven by factors other than option listing and we find similar results using a calendar-time approach. Further analysis reveals that commonalities in option trading may induce the comovement in the option listed stocks. Overall, our evidence is consistent with the predictions of the category or habitat view of comovement.     

The Delisting Bias in CRSP Data

I document a delisting bias in the stock return data base maintained by the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP). I find that delists for bankruptcy and other negative reasons are generally surprises and that correct delisting returns are not available for most of the stocks that have been delisted for negative reasons since 1962. Using over-the-counter price data, I show that the omitted delisting returns are large. Implications of the bias are discussed.     

Cross-listing and subsequent delisting in foreign markets

Employing a sample of stocks cross-listed and subsequently delisted from foreign markets, we examine the consequences of delisting to investors in terms of price, risk, and liquidity. We also provide a direct comparison between the firm's performance after a foreign cross-listing and after its subsequent delisting. We find a positive cross-listing and negative delisting effect on stock price, both of which dissipate in the long run. No significant changes in the market risk are found for either event. Foreign cross-listing and delisting are associated with increasing and decreasing long term trading volume respectively. Further analysis reveals that firms delist in response to low host market return and low firm trading volume in the host market. The changes in liquidity and market risk from delisting relate those from cross-listing. Finally, our results show that the bonding hypothesis fails to explain the listing premium and the delisting loss.     

A note on the impact of options on stock return volatility

This paper measures the impact of option introductions on the return variance of underlying stocks. Past research generally finds a significant reduction in stock return variance following the listing of options through 1986. Using a more extensive sample, I compare changes in the return variance of optioned stocks to changes in the return variance of a control group. Since the average change in the control group is statistically indistinguishable from the average change in the optioned stocks, I conclude that option introductions do not significantly affect stock return variance.     

Explaining Monday Returns

The Monday effect is reexamined using two stock indexes and a sample of 452 individual stocks that trade on the London Stock Exchange. The results based on conventional test methods reveal a negative average return on Monday. Extending the analysis to examine the effects of various possible influences simultaneously, the average Monday return becomes positive and does not differ significantly from the average returns of most other days of the week. Fortnight, ex‐dividend day, account period, (bad) news flow, trading activity, and bid‐ask spread effects are all controlled for. The results broadly support the trading time hypothesis.     

The information content of stock split announcements: Do options matter?

We provide a new test of the informational efficiency of trading in stock options in the context of stock split announcements. These announcements tend to be associated with positive abnormal returns. Our traditional event study results show abnormal returns that are significantly lower for optioned than non-optioned stocks, whether traded on the NYSE, Amex, or Nasdaq. After controlling for market returns, capitalization, book-to-market ratio, and trading volume, we find that the abnormal returns are significantly lower for NYSE/Amex optioned than non-optioned stocks. Although the results for Nasdaq stocks are not as clear, the overall effects tend to be lower after optioning. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the prices of optioned stocks embody more information, diminishing the impact of the stock split announcement. They provide new evidence of the beneficial effects of options on their underlying stocks.     

The Behavior of Option Price Around Large Block Transactions in the Underlying Security

This paper investigates the behavior of stock and option prices around block trades in stocks. The results indicate that for both up tick and downtick block trades the stock prices adjust within a fifteen minute period after the block trade. Moreover, for uptick blocks there is no evidence of any stock price reaction before the block trade. However, the adjustment of stock price for downtick blocks begins about fifteen minutes before the block trade. We also find that option price behavior differs considerably from stock price behavior. Specifically, our results suggest that options exhibit abnormal price behavior starting thirty minutes before the block and ending one hour after the block. The pattern is more pronounced for downtick blocks and for put options. We interpret this abnormal price behavior of options before the block trade as consistent with intermarket frontrunning.     

A test of the Investor's Daily stock ranking system

This paper examines the profitability of trading strategies derived from stock rankings published in Investor's Business Daily. The best system provides market-adjusted abnormal monthly returns of 1.81% from buying S&P 500 stocks, and a 3.18% abnormal return on an arbitrage portfolio. Stocks selected for trading have above average volatility, but a portion of abnormal return may be a reward for identifying stocks with short-run sustainable price momentum. Results seem indicative of market inefficiency, but the phenomena may be temporary since abnormal returns are lower during the second half of the data set.     

Firm life expectancy and the heterogeneity of the book-to-market effect

I argue that the reason the book-to-market effect is stronger in small stocks is because smaller stocks generally have shorter life expectancy and therefore shorter equity duration. I build a model in which the book-to-market effect is stronger in stocks with shorter life expectancy. Empirically, I use delisting probability as my proxy for life expectancy. The data support my model's central prediction and its additional implications for stock return and variance. My results provide a rational explanation for the heterogeneity of the book-to-market effect, evidence previously taken as support for behavioral explanations.     

S&P 500 Cash Stock Price Volatilities

S&P 500 stock return volatilities are compared to the volatilities of a matched set of stocks, after controlling for cross-sectional differences in firm attributes known to affect volatility. No significant difference in volatility is observed between 1975 and 1983—before the start of trade in index futures and index options. Since then, S&P 500 stocks have been relatively more volatile. The difference is statistically, but not economically, significant. The relative increase occurs primarily in daily returns and only to a lesser extent in longer interval returns. Other factors besides the start of derivative trade could be responsible for the small increase in volatility.     

Volatility spreads and earnings announcement returns

Prior research documents that volatility spreads predict stock returns. If the trading activity of informed investors is an important driver of volatility spreads, then the predictability of stock returns should be more pronounced during major information events. This paper investigates whether the predictability of equity returns by volatility spreads is stronger during earnings announcements. Volatility spreads are measured by the implied volatility differences between pairs of strike price and expiration date matched put and call options and capture price pressures in the option market. During a two-day earnings announcement window, the abnormal returns to the quintile that includes stocks with relatively expensive call options is more than 1.5% greater than the abnormal returns to the quintile that includes stocks with relatively expensive put options. This result is robust after measuring volatility spreads in alternative ways and controlling for firm characteristics and lagged equity returns. The degree of announcement return predictability is stronger when volatility spreads are measured using more liquid options, the information environment is more asymmetric, and stock liquidity is low.     

THE EFFECT OF TRADING IN EIGHTHS ON SECURITY RETURN BEHAVIOR

Currently the equity securities of most British, Canadian and US firms trade in eighths. However, this pricing system may soon be abandoned in the US. Specifically, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is currently studying the feasibility of changing the pricing of US securities to dollars and cents from dollars and eighths. 'SEC officials contend that moving to a system that quotes stock prices in dollars and cents would create efficiency in the stock market that eighths and sometimes sixteenths can't permit' (Torres and Salwen, 1991). This paper demonstrates the inefficiencies that result from constraining stocks to trade in eighths of a dollar. It describes the effects on returns and betas; then, it presents empirical evidence consistent with the effects. Systematic differences in the distributions of returns of low and high-priced stocks are documented. The covariance of returns with a market index is shown to vary systematically across stocks of different prices and to depend on the return interval used to estimate market model parameters. The variations are explainable by an observed lag between the returns of low-priced stocks relative to those of high-priced stocks. The lag is partially attributable to trading in eighths. A systematic relationship that varies with share price is observed between market model residual returns and unadjusted returns. This relationship is not eliminated by using longer return intervals alone. The extent of the relationship is reduced when longer return intervals are combined with the use of a market index composed of stocks that are priced similarly to those of the securities being tested. The implications of these results for capital market studies are discussed.     

Mutual Fund Herding and the Impact on Stock Prices

We analyze the trading activity of the mutual fund industry from 1975 through 1994 to determine whether funds "herd" when they trade stocks and to investigate the impact of herding on stock prices. Although we find little herding by mutual funds in the average stock, we find much higher levels in trades of small stocks and in trading by growth-oriented funds. Stocks that herds buy outperform stocks that they sell by 4 percent during the following six months; this return difference is much more pronounced among small stocks. Our results are consistent with mutual fund herding speeding the price-adjustment process.     

Comparing the information in short sales and put options

Prior work shows that both short sales and put options contain information about future stock prices. In this study, we compare the return predictability in short sales to the return predictability in put options. The motivation for this comparison is based on the theoretical argument that informed traders can choose between short sales and put options when establishing short positions in a particular stocks. Results in this paper suggest that the underperformance of stocks with high short-selling activity is approximately four times larger than the underperformance of stocks with high put-option activity. While stocks that are most likely to face binding short-sale constraints drive the underperformance caused by put-option activity, we still find that short sales are generally more informative about future prices.     

A Re-Examination of Shareholder Wealth Effects of Calls of Convertible Preferred Stock

Common stock price reactions to announcements of 67 calls of in-the-money convertible preferred stocks are examined, and a significant average abnormal return of ?1.6 percent is documented. The finding is robust to the choice of estimation period and the assumed return-generating process. Annual dividend obligations for the called preferred issues in the sample typically are greater than the dividends for the common shares into which they are converted, and announcement-period abnormal returns are negatively correlated with changes in dividends. Moreover, calls that result in dilution of voting rights appear to have greater adverse valuation effects than calls that do not alter voting rights concentration.     

Trading Is Hazardous to Your Wealth: The Common Stock Investment Performance of Individual Investors

Individual investors who hold common stocks directly pay a tremendous performance penalty for active trading. Of 66,465 households with accounts at a large discount broker during 1991 to 1996, those that trade most earn an annual return of 11.4 percent, while the market returns 17.9 percent. The average household earns an annual return of 16.4 percent, tilts its common stock investment toward high-beta, small, value stocks, and turns over 75 percent of its portfolio annually. Overconfidence can explain high trading levels and the resulting poor performance of individual investors. Our central message is that trading is hazardous to your wealth.     

Do Mutual Funds Profit from the Accruals Anomaly?

Using data on both fund stockholdings and fund returns, we examine whether actively managed equity mutual funds trade on and profit from the accruals anomaly. We find that few, if any, mutual funds trade on the anomaly. The top 10% of mutual funds that have the highest portfolio weights in low‐accruals stocks have a greater, but still relatively small, exposure to low‐accruals stocks. Nonetheless, these funds make significant profit net of actual transaction costs, exhibiting an average Fama‐French three‐factor alpha of 2.83% per year. We also find that these funds are smaller, less diversified, and exhibit higher fund return volatility and higher fund flow volatility.     

RETURNS ON HIGH-QUALITY AND LOW-QUALITY PREFERRED STOCKS IN PERIODS OF COMMON-STOCK DIVIDEND REDUCTIONS

This study compares the pre-event return behavior of low-quality and high-quality nonconvertible preferred stocks in periods of common-stock dividend reductions. Using the single-index model to compute abnormal returns, the cumulative average residuals of low-quality preferred stocks are significantly negative while those of the high-quality group show a small, positive drift over the 12-month period preceding the announcement month.     

Economic value of analyst recommendations in Australia: an application of the Black–Litterman asset allocation model

This study empirically examines the investment value of security analyst recommendations on constituent stocks of the S&P/ASX 50 index. We find that stocks with favourable (unfavourable) recommendations on average outperformed (underperformed) the benchmark index. An investment strategy using the Black–Litterman asset allocation model that incorporates consensus analyst recommendations, in conjunction with daily rebalancing, outperforms the market in terms of return and risk‐adjusted performance measures. The investment strategy involves high levels of trading, and no significant abnormal returns are achieved after transaction costs. Less frequent rebalancing, under most situations, causes a decrease in both performance and turnover. Filtering of dated recommendations causes an increase in turnover, while having mixed effects on investment returns.