The components of the illiquidity premium: An empirical analysis of US stocks 1927–2010

This paper implements a conditional version of the liquidity adjusted CAPM (LCAPM). The conditional LCAPM allows for a time-varying decomposition of the total illiquidity premium into a level component and three risk components. The estimated average annual total illiquidity premium for US stocks 1927–2010 is 1.74–2.08%, which is substantially lower than in most previous studies. The contributions from illiquidity level and illiquidity risk are 1.25–1.28% and 0.46–0.83%, respectively. Of the three illiquidity risk components, risk related to the hedging of wealth shocks is the most important, while commonality risk is the least important. The illiquidity premia are clearly time-varying, with peaks in downturns and crises, but with no general tendency to decrease over time. The level premium and the risk premium are significantly positively correlated, at around 0.35; indicating that in periods of turbulence both illiquidity cost and illiquidity risk premia tend to be high.     

Impact of liquidity on stock returns: an empirical investigation of the Tunisian stock market

This paper investigates the return–liquidity relationship on one Middle East and North Africa frontier market, the Tunisian Stock Exchange (TSE). The findings provide evidence that there is a significant and positive premium for companies with high price impact and low trading frequency. However, Tunisian investors appreciate more low spread stocks. We show, also, a non-linear relation between potential delays of execution and stock returns. In addition, we find that Tunisian investors require a premium to compensate past cumulative illiquidity risk (high price impact, low turnover and high potential delay of execution) over the prior three to 12 months and to compensate past cumulative spread over 12 months. We point out also that these effects are seasonal.     

Corporate bond liquidity and yield spreads: A review

Secondary market illiquidity is an important non-default factor affecting yield spreads. Yet, a review of the literature suggests the findings are mixed, both regarding the relative size of the default versus non-default components as well as the relative importance of liquidity premium for investment-grade and high-yield bonds. While in theory country and currency risk might affect international bonds' yield spreads, empirical findings show that international corporate bonds pricing and liquidity are generally affected by the same factors as the U.S. market. We identify several other areas of disagreement and challenges in the literature that warrant further research.     

Liquidity,implied volatility and tail risk: A comparison of liquidity measures

Liquidity is easily perceived but not easily measured in financial markets. Researchers and practitioners develop and test new measures of liquidity which may be good candidates for measuring this elusive concept. In this study, we present a comparison of variables within two empirical exercises using up to eight traditional liquidity proxies and two proposed proxies based on semi-deviations in a sample of NYSE-listed stocks. The first empirical exercise analyzes the relationship between liquidity and implied volatility, showing that increases in implied volatility impacts increases illiquidity. Using a decomposition of the squared VIX, we show that both conditional variance and variance premium components affects liquidity. Our second empirical exercise investigates the relationship between common factors in liquidity and tail risk. Common factors increase individual stocks' Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall, although the effect is not significant for market risk. In both applications, most of the studied proxies present results aligned with the body of literature.     

Liquidity and Credit Risk

We develop a structural bond valuation model to simultaneously capture liquidity and credit risk. Our model implies that renegotiation in financial distress is influenced by the illiquidity of the market for distressed debt. As default becomes more likely, the components of bond yield spreads attributable to illiquidity increase. When we consider finite maturity debt, we find decreasing and convex term structures of liquidity spreads. Using bond price data spanning 15 years, we find evidence of a positive correlation between the illiquidity and default components of yield spreads as well as support for downward‐sloping term structures of liquidity spreads.     

Market Illiquidity and Conditional Equity Premium

We examine the time‐series relation between aggregate bid‐ask spreads and conditional equity premium. We document that average marketwide relative effective bid‐ask spreads forecast aggregate market returns only when controlling for average idiosyncratic variance. This control allows us to document the otherwise elusive relation between illiquidity and returns. The reason is that idiosyncratic variance correlates positively with spreads but has a negative effect on conditional equity premium, causing an omitted variable bias. Our results are robust to standard return predictors, alternative illiquidity measures, and out‐of‐sample tests. These findings are important because they provide strong support for the literature's conjecture that marketwide liquidity is an important asset pricing risk factor.     

How is illiquidity priced in the Chinese stock market?

This study investigates the liquidity premium in the Chinese stock market. We found that the expected stock returns increase monotonically with the quintile sort on characteristic liquidity with descending patterns. The characteristic liquidity premium ranges from 0.82% to 1.28% per month, which is much higher than that of their US counterparts. Moreover, our multivariate decomposition approach highlights that characteristic illiquidity premiums can be explained mainly by size, idiosyncratic volatility and momentum. The net systematic liquidity premium reaches 0.84% per month, driven mainly by commonality beta. The finding shows that a liquidity-based strategy forecasts cross-section and time-series expected returns.     

The dynamics of hedge fund share restrictions

Nearly one in five hedge funds change their share restrictions (e.g., lockup) from 2007 to 2012. Using a large panel dataset, this paper is the first to empirically examine the incidence, determinants, and consequences of share restriction changes. We find that funds with high asset liquidity and low liquidity risk are more likely to decrease share restrictions and funds with good performance are more likely to increase share restrictions. A hazard model indicates that funds who actively manage liquidity concerns live longer by adjusting share restrictions. We examine whether changes in share restrictions create an endogeneity bias in the share illiquidity premium (Aragon, 2007) and find that 18% of the premium can be explained by the dynamic nature of contract changes.     

Modelling illiquidity spillovers with Hawkes processes: an application to the sovereign bond market

Modelling the dynamics of (il)liquidity across assets is an important yet complicated task, especially when considering significant deteriorations of liquidity conditions. Here, we propose a peak-over-threshold method to identify abrupt liquidity drops from limit order book data and we model the time-series of these illiquidity events across multiple assets as a multivariate Hawkes process. This allows us to quantify both the self-excitation of extreme changes of liquidity in the same asset (illiquidity spirals) and the cross-excitation across different assets (illiquidity spillovers). Applying the method to the MTS sovereign bond market, we find significant evidence for both illiquidity spillovers and spirals. The proportion of shocks explained by illiquidity spillovers roughly doubles from 2011 to 2015, suggesting an increased synchronization of extreme illiquidity across assets.     

A comparison among various dimensions of illiquidity effect: A case study of Finland

We study different dimensions of the illiquidity effect on asset returns in the Finnish market. The market illiquidity is measured as unexpected rises and falls in average monthly zero returns across all stocks. We find that for the returns on the specific class of assets, a flight to the liquidity effect is the most important systematic risk among all dimensions of the illiquidity effect. In other words, higher returns for illiquid assets in good times compensate for a pronounced drop in those returns in bad times and vice versa. Furthermore, only one illiquidity-related factor has a similar pricing capacity as Fama and French's (1993) three-factor model and Carhart's (1997) four-factor model in the context of this study.     

Time‐Varying Risk–Return Trade‐off in the Stock Market

We uncover a strong comovement of the stock market risk–return trade‐off with the consumption–wealth ratio (CAY). The finding reflects time‐varying investment opportunities rather than countercyclical aggregate relative risk aversion. Specifically, the partial risk–return trade‐off is positive and constant when we control for CAY as a proxy for investment opportunities. Moreover, conditional market variance scaled by CAY is negatively priced in the cross‐section of stock returns. Our results are consistent with a limited stock market participation model, in which shareholders require an illiquidity premium that increases with CAY, in addition to the risk premium that is proportional to conditional market variance.     

The pricing of systematic liquidity risk: Empirical evidence from the US stock market

In this study, we examine whether aggregate market liquidity risk is priced in the US stock market. We define a bivariate Garch (1,1)-in-mean specification for the market portfolio excess returns and the changes in the standardized number of shares in the S&P 500 Index, the aggregate market liquidity proxy. The findings, based on monthly data, suggest that systematic liquidity risk is priced in the US over the period January 1973–December 1997. The liquidity premium represents a non-negligible, negative and time-varying component of the total market risk premium whose magnitude is not influenced by the October’87 Crash.     

Sell-order liquidity and the cross-section of expected stock returns

We estimate buy- and sell-order illiquidity measures (lambdas) for a comprehensive sample of NYSE stocks. We show that sell-order liquidity is priced more strongly than buy-order liquidity in the cross-section of equity returns. Indeed, our analysis indicates that the liquidity premium in equities emanates predominantly from the sell-order side. We also find that the average difference between sell and buy lambdas is generally positive throughout our sample period. Both buy and sell lambdas are significantly positively correlated with measures of funding liquidity such as the TED spread as well option implied volatility.     

Incentive Effects of Stock and Option Holdings of Target and Acquirer CEOs

Acquisitions enable target chief executive officers (CEOs) to remove liquidity restrictions on stock and option holdings and diminish the illiquidity discount. Acquisitions also enable acquirer CEOs to improve the long‐term value of overvalued holdings. Examining all firms during 1993 to 2001, we show that CEOs with higher holdings (illiquidity discount) are more likely to make acquisitions (get acquired). Further, in 250 completed acquisitions, target CEOs with a higher illiquidity discount accept a lower premium, offer less resistance, and more often leave after acquisition. Similarly, acquirer CEOs with higher holdings pay a higher premium, expedite the process, and make diversifying acquisitions using stock payment.     

Performance of Thinly Traded Assets: A Case in Real Estate

Thinly traded private assets do not fit into the traditional finance paradigm of a liquid and well‐functioning market where trading is continuous and instantaneous. Since private assets cannot be bought and sold easily, they bear liquidity risk. Classical finance theories cannot properly gauge the performance of illiquid private assets because they implicitly assume such illiquidity is trivial. This paper proposes an alternative performance metric for the illiquid private asset, which explicitly captures liquidity risk in a formal analysis. Applying the new performance metric, we are able to explain the decades‐old “real estate risk premium puzzle.”     

Hedge fund liquidity and performance: Evidence from the financial crisis

We investigate how share restrictions affect hedge fund performance in crisis and non-crisis periods. Consistent with prior research, we find that in the pre-crisis period more illiquid funds generate a share illiquidity premium compensating investors for limited liquidity. In the crisis period, this share illiquidity premium turns into an illiquidity discount. Hedge funds with more stringent share restrictions invest more heavily in illiquid assets. While share restrictions enable funds to manage illiquid assets effectively in the pre-crisis period, they seem insufficient to ensure effective management of illiquid portfolios in the crisis. In a crisis period, funds holding illiquid portfolios experience lower returns and alphas, also when share restrictions are controlled for. Funds with an asset–liability mismatch perform particularly poorly and experience the strongest outflows. Share restrictions are also a proxy for incentives as investors cannot immediately withdraw their money after poor performance. We show that higher incentive fees can offset the share illiquidity discount in the crisis period.     

Arbitrage,Liquidity, and the Valuation of Exchange Traded Funds

This paper investigates the performance of U.S. and country exchange traded funds currently traded in the United States and provides new insight into their pricing. While the U.S. funds are priced closely to their net asset values, the country funds are not and can exhibit large, positive autocorrelations in fund premium. The mispricing of country funds is related to momentum, illiquidity, and size effects. We also find an inverted U‐shaped relationship between fund premium and market liquidity, which suggests that more active trading does lead to lower mispricing but only after a certain level of liquidity is reached.     

Corporate bond liquidity before and after the onset of the subprime crisis

We analyze liquidity components of corporate bond spreads during 2005-2009 using a new robust illiquidity measure. The spread contribution from illiquidity increases dramatically with the onset of the subprime crisis. The increase is slow and persistent for investment grade bonds while the effect is stronger but more short-lived for speculative grade bonds. Bonds become less liquid when financial distress hits a lead underwriter and the liquidity of bonds issued by financial firms dries up under crises. During the subprime crisis, flight-to-quality is confined to AAA-rated bonds.     

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.     

Illiquidity Premium in the MILA

This article analyzes the illiquidity premium in the MILA. Using seven proxies for illiquidity, we find a positive and significant illiquidity premium for our sample. A microstructure bias-free portfolio weighting based on past returns is critical in our finding of an illiquidity premium, which is robust to several methodological changes in our portfolio simulations. We also document that the premium is present only in small and high book-to-market stocks. Nonetheless, when we control for size and distress effects, the difference and significance in risk-adjusted returns between portfolios of high and low illiquidity stocks remains.