The divergence of liquidity commonality in the cross-section of stocks

This paper demonstrates that the cross-sectional variation of liquidity commonality has increased over the period 1963–2005. The divergence of systematic liquidity can be explained by patterns in institutional ownership over the sample period. We document that our findings are associated with similar patterns in systematic risk. Our analysis also indicates that the ability to diversify systematic risk and aggregate liquidity shocks by holding large-cap stocks has declined. The evidence suggests that the fragility of the US equity market to unanticipated events has increased over the past few decades.     

Do Low‐Priced Stocks Drive Long‐Term Contrarian Performance on the London Stock Exchange?

We investigate whether low‐priced stocks drive long‐term contrarian performance on the U.K. market. We find that contrarian performance at low, middle, and high price levels is positive. On the Fama‐French risk adjusted basis, we find both low‐priced and middle‐priced losers have significantly positive returns. When we adjust returns by market and liquidity risk, only middle‐priced losers maintain their positive returns. Our results reveal that low‐priced stocks are not fully responsible for contrarian performance. Our empirical evidence is generally consistent with the overreaction hypothesis and behavioral models of value investing.     

Liquidity risk of corporate bond returns: conditional approach

We study the exposure of the US corporate bond returns to liquidity shocks of stocks and Treasury bonds over the period 1973–2007 in a regime-switching model. In one regime, liquidity shocks have mostly insignificant effects on bond prices, whereas in another regime, a rise in illiquidity produces significant but conflicting effects: Prices of investment-grade bonds rise while prices of speculative-grade (junk) bonds fall substantially (relative to the market). Relating the probability of these regimes to macroeconomic conditions we find that the second regime can be predicted by economic conditions that are characterized as “stress.” These effects, which are robust to controlling for other systematic risks (term and default), suggest the existence of time-varying liquidity risk of corporate bond returns conditional on episodes of flight to liquidity. Our model can predict the out-of-sample bond returns for the stress years 2008–2009. We find a similar pattern for stocks classified by high or low book-to-market ratio, where again, liquidity shocks play a special role in periods characterized by adverse economic conditions.     

Liquidity shocks,size and the relative performance of hedge fund strategies

We examine whether the increase in the flow of capital to hedge funds over the period 1994–2005 had a negative impact on performance. More specifically, we study the relative performance of small versus large funds for each of the hedge fund strategies. Our results indicate that on an absolute return basis, small funds outperform large funds. On a risk-adjusted return basis, however, we find that large funds outperform small funds, and that large funds are also shown to hold less liquid assets and take on less systematic and idiosyncratic risk than small funds. Further, funds that experience positive liquidity shocks generally outperform those that experience negative liquidity shocks. We also find evidence that hedge fund managers that are aggressive in dealing with liquidity shocks perform better than hedge fund managers that are conservative in dealing with liquidity shocks.     

Stock Liquidity Risk and the Cross‐sectional Earnings‐Returns Relationship

We argue that a higher sensitivity to aggregate market‐wide liquidity shocks (i.e., a higher liquidity risk) implies a tendency for a stock's price to converge to fundamentals. We test this intuition within the framework of the earnings‐returns relationship. We find a positive liquidity risk effect on the relationship between return and expected change in earnings. This effect on the earnings‐returns relationship is distinct from the negative effect observed for stock illiquidity level. Notably, the liquidity risk effect is evident (absent) during periods of neutral/low (high) aggregate market liquidity. We also show that the liquidity risk effect is dominant in firms that: (a) are of intermediate size; (b) are of intermediate book‐to‐market; and (c) are profit making.     

The securitization of gold and its potential impact on gold stocks

We study the market impact of a very successful financial innovation – the SPDR Gold Trust exchange-traded fund (GLD). GLD holds physical gold, and provides traders with a convenient and cost-effective way to gain exposure to gold. We find that after the introduction of GLD, the liquidity of gold company stocks declined, and their adverse-selection risk increased. Over the two-month period after GLD’s introduction, the stocks’ relative effective bid-ask spreads increased by over 15%, while their adverse-selection cost, as measured by the price impact of trades, went up by more than 30%. Gold stocks also experienced significant negative abnormal returns (−12% on average) in the month after GLD started trading. Our findings suggest that GLD attracted traders, especially uninformed traders, away from gold company stocks, and that the resulting negative demand shocks and decrease in the stocks’ liquidity caused their prices to decline. Our results show that existing securities can be seriously adversely affected when a new security enters the market.     

Trend in aggregate idiosyncratic volatility

We suggest that price interaction among stocks is an important determinant of idiosyncratic volatility. We demonstrate that as more (less) stocks are listed in the markets, price interaction among stocks increases (decreases), and hence stocks, on average, become more (less) volatile. Our results show that price interaction has a significant positive effect of idiosyncratic volatility. The results of various robustness checks indicate that the effect of price interaction is still significant to the presence of liquidity, newly listed firms, cash flow variables, business cycle variables, and market volatility. Once the price interaction effect is taken into account, no trend remains in idiosyncratic volatility. We conclude that there is no trend, but a reflection of the positive effect of price interaction on idiosyncratic volatility.     

Liquidity risk and stock performance during the financial crisis

We investigate whether and how ex-ante liquidity risk affects realized stock returns during the global financial crisis of 2008–2009 in international equity markets. We find that stocks with higher pre-crisis return exposure to global market liquidity shocks experience larger price reductions during the crisis period. Our findings provide further insight into the comprehensive picture of the effect of liquidity risk on asset prices, especially in an international context and under different market conditions.     

LIQUIDITY AND QUOTE CLUSTERING IN A MARKET WITH MULTIPLE TICK SIZES

We analyze market liquidity (i.e., spreads and depths) and quote clustering using data from the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange (KLSE), where the tick size increases with share price in a stepwise fashion. We find that stocks that are subject to larger mandatory tick sizes have wider spreads and less quote clustering. We also find that liquidity providers on the KLSE do not always quote larger depths for stocks with larger tick sizes. Overall, our results suggest that larger tick sizes for higher priced stocks are detrimental to market liquidity, although the adverse effect of larger tick sizes is mitigated by lower negotiation costs (i.e., less quote clustering).     

Inter-temporal variation in the illiquidity premium

We find evidence of a systematic link between monetary conditions and inter-temporal variation in the price of liquidity. Specifically, following an expansive monetary policy shift, funding conditions improve and market-wide liquidity increases, which is especially beneficial for illiquid securities. The improved liquidity and funding conditions reduce the returns required for holding illiquid securities. Consequently, illiquid stocks experience relatively large price increases when monetary conditions become expansive, and thus, the measured return spread between illiquid and liquid stocks expands substantially. Overall, our evidence supports the claim that the price of asset liquidity is dependent on monetary conditions.     

EX‐DIVIDEND DAY PRICE BEHAVIOR OF EXCHANGE‐TRADED FUNDS

We document that for exchange‐traded funds (ETFs), the price falls on average by the dividend amounts on the ex‐dividend day, and there are significantly positive abnormal volumes. This is because trading in ETFs entails lower transaction costs and lower risk than trading in equity closed‐end funds (CEFs) and individual stocks. Similar results are also found for equity CEFs. However, regression analyses indicate that transaction costs and risk are indeed negligible for ETFs but not for equity CEFs and that risk remains important for a sample of stocks matched based on transaction costs. Overall, the results support the short‐term traders hypothesis.     

Stock price synchronicity and liquidity

We argue and provide evidence that stock price synchronicity affects stock liquidity. Under the relative synchronicity hypothesis, higher return co-movement (i.e., higher systematic volatility relative to total volatility) improves liquidity. Under the absolute synchronicity hypothesis, stocks with higher systematic volatility or beta are more liquid. Our results support both hypotheses. We find all three illiquidity measures (effective proportional bid-ask spread, price impact measure, and Amihud's illiquidity measure) are negatively related to stock return co-movement and systematic volatility. Our analysis also shows that larger industry-wide component in returns improves liquidity. We find that improvement in liquidity following additions to the S&P 500 Index is related to the stock's increase in return co-movement.     

IPO Trading without Market Makers or Underwriter Price Support

We investigate the trading behavior and liquidity supply of Chinese initial public offerings (IPOs) that trade in an order‐driven market system with pure limit order books where no market makers or price support is allowed. We find large trades and quoted depths dominate the first day of trading, but this pattern quickly reverses as small trades and quoted depths are more prevalent on subsequent trading days. Quoted depths are positively related to the number of shares offered in the IPO and trade size, but are negatively related to underpricing. Trade size and transaction immediacy are positively related, and large and positive (negative) order imbalance is associated with more aggressive buys (sells). Finally, long‐run performance is not related to initial order imbalance. Overall, our results suggest that despite underwriters not participating in the IPO aftermarket, liquidity provision evolves very quickly and price discovery is immediately reflected in prices.     

Asymmetric risk premium in value and growth stocks

There are two competing explanations for the existence of a value premium, a rational market risk explanation, whereby value stocks are inherently more risky than growth stocks, and a market over-reaction hypothesis, where agents overstate future returns on growth stock. Using asymmetric GARCH-M models this paper tests the predictions of the two hypotheses. Specifically, examining whether returns exhibit a positive (negative) risk premium resulting from a negative (positive) shock and the relative size of any premium. The results of the paper suggest that following a shock, volatility and expected future volatility are heightened, leading to a rise in required rates of return which depresses current prices. Further, these effects are heightened for value stock over growth stock and for negative shocks over positive shocks. Thus, in support of the rational risk interpretation, with a volatility feedback explanation for predictive volatility asymmetry.     

Liquidity risk and stock returns around the world

The recent global financial crisis demonstrates that market liquidity is a prominent systematic risk globally. We find that local liquidity risk, in addition to the local market, value and size factors, demands a systematic premium across stocks in 11 developed markets. This local pricing premium is smaller in countries where the country-level corporate boards are more effective and where there are less insider trading activities. We also discover that global liquidity risk is a significant pricing factor across all developed country market portfolios after controlling for global market, value, and size factors. The contribution of this risk to the return on a country market portfolio is economically and statistically significant within and across regions.     

Commonality in Liquidity: Evidence from an Order-Driven Market Structure

Events such as the 1997 East Asian financial crisis indicate that individual firm liquidity is strongly influenced by marketwide factors. Previous market microstructure research, however, focuses almost exclusively on the firm‐specific attributes of liquidity. Our study follows the recent shift in emphasis toward commonality by examining systematic liquidity in an order‐driven market structure. Using data from the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong, we show that commonality in liquidity includes both market and industry components, and is pervasive across size‐sorted portfolios. We also find a significant market and industry component in individual firms' order flow. In contrast to quote‐driven results, we do not find a positive relation between firm size and sensitivity to changes in marketwide bid‐ask spreads.     

Stock price fragility

We study the relation between the ownership structure of financial assets and non-fundamental risk. We define an asset to be fragile if it is susceptible to non-fundamental shifts in demand. An asset can be fragile because of concentrated ownership, or because its owners face correlated or volatile liquidity shocks, i.e., they must buy or sell at the same time. We formalize this idea and apply it to mutual fund ownership of US stocks. Consistent with our predictions, fragility strongly predicts price volatility. We then extend the logic of fragility to investigate two natural extensions: (1) the forecast of stock return comovement and (2) the potentially destabilizing impact of arbitrageurs on stock prices.     

Are extreme returns priced in the stock market? European evidence

This paper revisits some recently found evidence in the literature on the cross-section of stock returns for a carefully constructed dataset of euro area stocks. First, we confirm recent results for US data and find evidence of a negative cross-sectional relation between extreme positive returns and average returns after controlling for characteristics such as momentum, book-to-market, size, liquidity and short term return reversal. We argue that this is the case because these stocks have lottery-like characteristics, which is attractive to certain investors. Also, these stocks tend to be very volatile so that arbitrageurs are discouraged from correcting potential mispricing. As a consequence, these stocks are often overpriced and hence face lower expected returns. Second, when we control for extreme returns, the recently found negative relationship between idiosyncratic risk and future returns is less robust. In our models, after adding maximum returns, the relationship is insignificant and sometimes even positive. We also find that idiosyncratic skewness and coskewness play an important role for asset pricing, as predicted by several theoretical models.     

On the Stability of the Cross‐Section of Expected Stock Returns in the Cross‐Section: Understanding the Curious Role of Share Turnover

In this paper, we shed further light on cross‐sectional predictors of stock return performance. Specifically, we explore whether the cross‐section of expected stock returns is robust within stock groups sorted by past monthly return. We find that the book/market and momentum effects are remarkably robust to sorting on past returns. However, share turnover is negatively related to future returns for stocks with abnormally low stock price performance in the recent past, but postively related to returns for well‐performing stocks. This casts doubt on the use of turnover as a liquidity proxy, but is consistent with turnover being a proxy for momentum trading which pushes prices in the direction of past price movements. Our results are robust to both NYSE/AMEX and Nasdaq stocks, and also robust to stratifying the sample by time period.     

DO TRACKING STOCKS REDUCE INFORMATION ASYMMETRIES? AN ANALYSIS OF LIQUIDITY AND ADVERSE SELECTION

A firm's announcement that it intends to restructure based on tracking stock is usually associated with a positive stock price reaction, at least in the short run. Typically, this reaction is attributed to expected reductions in a diversification discount, through reduced agency costs or information asymmetries. We reinvestigate this latter hypothesis by focusing on the liquidity provided by market makers before and after a firm issues a tracking stock. Our results suggest that such restructurings are not effective at reducing information asymmetries. Rather, firms that issue tracking stocks exhibit less liquidity and greater adverse selection than comparable control firms.