TRADING COSTS OF NON‐U.S. STOCKS ON THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE: THE EFFECT OF INSTITUTIONAL OWNERSHIP,ANALYST FOLLOWING,AND MARKET REGULATION

We investigate the differences in market microstructure between U.S. and non‐U.S. stocks cross‐listed on the New York Stock Exchange using a sample of 316 pairs of matched stocks. We find that non‐U.S. stocks have wider spreads and larger adverse‐selection costs than U.S. stocks even after controlling for macro‐level institutional differences. Regression analysis shows that spreads and adverse‐selection costs are negatively correlated with institutional ownership and analyst followings. Thus, the higher spreads and adverse‐selection costs for non‐U.S. stocks can be partly explained by the lower institutional ownership and analyst following of non‐U.S. stocks. In addition, we find that although the spreads and adverse‐selection costs for non‐U.S. stocks are significantly higher before the implementation of Regulation Fair Disclosure (FD), the differences become even greater after Regulation FD, suggesting that Regulation FD has improved the information environment for U.S. stocks.     

Is Gold a Hedge or a Safe Haven? An Analysis of Stocks,Bonds and Gold

Is gold a hedge, defined as a security that is uncorrelated with stocks or bonds on average, or is it a safe haven, defined as a security that is uncorrelated with stocks and bonds in a market crash? We study constant and time‐varying relations between U.S., U.K. and German stock and bond returns and gold returns to investigate gold as a hedge and a safe haven. We find that gold is a hedge against stocks on average and a safe haven in extreme stock market conditions. A portfolio analysis further shows that the safe haven property is short‐lived.     

END‐OF‐DAY PRICING IN THE U.S. TREASURY MARKET: A COMPARISON OF GovPX AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK

We compare end‐of‐day indicative U.S. Treasury prices from GovPX and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY). We find that the two sources rarely quote identical prices, and differences are not simply due to noise or rounding. The average bid price differential is 2 cents for notes and bonds, but it is only ¹/₁₀ of 1 cent for bills. Bid‐ask spreads in both sources appear to be largely artificial and contain limited information. Finally, we find that the end‐of‐day indicative FRBNY bid prices are closer to true intraday GovPX market quotes than end‐of‐day indicative quotes provided by GovPX itself.     

The Impact of Cross‐Listing on the Home Market's Information Environment and Stock Price Efficiency

We empirically examine changes in information asymmetry and informational efficiency of cross‐listed stocks in their home market around a cross‐listing in the United States. We estimate intraday market microstructure measures of information asymmetry and price efficiency, and find that a U.S. cross‐listing significantly improves the quality of a firm's information environment and stock price efficiency in the home market. This improvement is stronger for cross‐listings that take place after the adoption of Sarbanes‐Oxley Act. Our results demonstrate that stricter disclosure from a U.S. cross‐listing is beneficial, in line with the legal and reputational bonding hypotheses.     

Determinants of Investor Demand for Cross‐Listed Firms

By focusing on the decisions of investors to invest in cross‐listed stocks, this paper presents new evidence on why we observe striking differences in the percentage of trade in foreign markets for cross‐listed stocks. With a large sample of Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) stocks cross‐listed in the U.S. and Canada, we document the effect of investor recognition and risk characteristics on the distribution of trading volume. Firms that are more visible to American investors are traded more heavily in the U.S. At the same time, firms that offer diverse risk characteristics are attractive to Americans. While investors understand the benefits of international diversification, as they are attracted to stocks that are different (e.g., the stock of small firms with few assets in the U.S.), they also seek stocks that provide them with high returns.     

Share issuance and cross-sectional returns: International evidence

Share issuance predicts cross-sectional returns in a non-U.S. sample of stocks from 41 different countries. Issuance predictability has greater statistical significance than either size or momentum, and is similar to book-to-market. As in the U.S., the international issuance effect is robust across both small and large firms. Unlike the U.S., the effect is driven more by low returns after share creation rather than positive returns following share repurchases. Issuance return predictability is stronger in countries with greater issuance activity, greater stock market development, and stronger investor protection. The results suggest that the share issuance effect is related to the ease with which firms can issue and repurchase their shares.     

The Costs of Issuing Preferred Stock

U.S. firms commonly use preferred stocks to raise external capital. Yet this hybrid security's issuance costs and offer yields have not been previously examined in a systematic manner. We analyze a sample of 3,042 U.S. preferred stocks issued between 1980 and 1999. We find that convertible issues, which are riskier than straight issues, entail higher gross spreads and other direct expenses. Scale, credit rating, and industry effects influence gross spreads and issuance costs. We also compare preferred stocks yields with various bellwether bond yields. Our results support the tax‐based argument that suggests that yields on preferred stocks should be lower than comparable risky bonds.     

ARE PAIRS TRADING PROFITS ROBUST TO TRADING COSTS?

We examine the impact of trading costs on pairs trading profitability in the U.S. equity market, 1963 to 2009. After controlling for commissions, market impact, and short selling fees, pairs trading remains profitable, albeit at much more modest levels. Specifically, we document a risk‐adjusted return of about 30 basis points per month among portfolios of well‐matched pairs that are formed within refined industry groups. Pairs trading exhibits a lower risk and lower return profile than a short‐term reversal strategy that sorts stocks relative to their industry peers. Notably, both these types of contrarian investing are largely unprofitable after 2002.     

Local investors,price discovery,and market efficiency

This study examines the effect of locally informed investors on market efficiency and stock prices using large power outages, which are exogenous events that constrain trading. Turnover in stocks headquartered in an outage area with 0.5% of U.S. electrical customers drops by 3–7% on the first full day of the outage, and bid–ask spreads narrow by 2.5%. Firm-specific price volatility is 2.3% lower on blackout dates. This effect is larger for smaller, lesser-known stocks and in higher income areas. Consistent with a valuation discount and higher expected returns for stocks with more informed traders, firms with a one-standard-deviation higher local trading propensity have market-to-book values that are 5% lower, Tobin's Q that is 6% lower, annualized four-factor alphas that are 1.2% higher, and average spreads that are 6.5% higher. Together, the evidence suggests that informed investors contribute disproportionately to both liquidity and price discovery, and that these contributions are reflected in valuations and expected returns.     

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.     

Multimarket Trading and Liquidity: Theory and Evidence

We develop a new model of multimarket trading to explain the differences in the foreign share of trading volume of internationally cross‐listed stocks. The model predicts that the trading volume of a cross‐listed stock is proportionally higher on the exchange in which the cross‐listed asset returns have greater correlation with returns of other assets traded on that market. We find robust empirical support for this prediction using stock return and volume data on 251 non‐U.S. stocks cross‐listed on major U.S. exchanges.     

Oil Risk Exposure: The Case of the U.S. Oil and Gas Sector

We estimate oil price risk exposures of the U.S. oil and gas sector using the Fama‐French‐Carhart's four‐factor asset pricing model augmented with oil price and interest rate factors. Results show that the market, book‐to‐market, and size factors, as well as momentum characteristics of stocks and changes in oil prices are significant determinants of returns for the sector. Oil price risk exposures of U.S. oil and gas companies in the oil and gas sector are generally positive and significant. Our study also finds that oil price risk exposures vary considerably over time, and across firms and industry subsectors.     

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.     

Predicting bear and bull stock markets with dynamic binary time series models

Despite the voluminous empirical research on the potential predictability of stock returns, much less attention has been paid to the predictability of bear and bull stock markets. In this study, the aim is to predict U.S. bear and bull stock markets with dynamic binary time series models. Based on the analysis of the monthly U.S. data set, bear and bull markets are predictable in and out of sample. In particular, substantial additional predictive power can be obtained by allowing for a dynamic structure in the binary response model. Probability forecasts of the state of the stock market can also be utilized to obtain optimal asset allocation decisions between stocks and bonds. It turns out that the dynamic probit models yield much higher portfolio returns than the buy-and-hold trading strategy in a small-scale market timing experiment.     

The Determinants of Conditional Autocorrelation in Stock Returns

We investigate whether return volatility, trading volume, return asymmetry, business cycles, and day‐of‐the‐week are potential determinants of conditional autocorrelation in stock returns. Our primary focus is on the role of feedback trading and the interplay of return volatility. We present empirical evidence using conditional autocorrelation estimates generated from multivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (M‐GARCH) models for individual U.S. stock and index data. In addition to return volatility, we find that trading volume and market returns are important in explaining the time‐varying patterns of return autocorrelation.     

Diversification Benefits of iShares and Closed-End Country Funds

We study the performance and diversification of iShares and their rival closed‐end country funds from April 1996 to December 1999. International iShares are country‐specific series of securities that track the price and yield of a specific Morgan Stanley Capital Internation (MSCI) country index and, presumably, should provide diversification benefits. Our single‐index model demonstrates that iShares replicate the home index, showing some potential for diversification. However, our two‐factor model, which isolates the “true” diversification virtues, documents that both iShares and closed‐end country fund market prices maintain considerable exposure to the U.S. market. Furthermore, the net asset value returns of the closed‐end funds demonstrate a strong home country exposure, suggesting there is no substitute for direct foreign investment.     

The asset growth effect: Insights from international equity markets

Firms with higher asset growth rates subsequently experience lower stock returns in international equity markets, consistent with the U.S. evidence. This negative effect of asset growth on returns is stronger in more developed capital markets and markets where stocks are more efficiently priced, but is unrelated to country characteristics representing limits to arbitrage, investor protection, and accounting quality. The evidence suggests that the cross-sectional relation between asset growth and stock return is more likely due to an optimal investment effect than due to overinvestment, market timing, or other forms of mispricing.     

New Evidence on Sources of Leverage Effects in Individual Stocks

I test Black's leverage effect hypothesis on a panel of U.S. stocks from 1997 to 2012. I find that negative stock return innovations increase the future volatility of equity returns by about 36% more than positive ones. There is a strong and positive relation between variation in the size of these leverage effects and variation in the firm's use of debt. I uncover this relation by applying the Fama/French/Carhart 4‐factor asset pricing model in the exponential generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity mean equation and by using panel data to control for firm‐ and time‐invariant unobservables via first differences and two‐way fixed effects.     

Order Flows and Stock Returns: Compensation for Market Makers with Inventory Concerns

We investigate whether market makers with inventory concerns are compensated with subsequent monthly returns in the cross‐section. We find a significant negative relation between order flows and monthly returns, “the order flow effect,” suggesting that market makers lower prices for stocks with sell order flows and demand a reward in the form of higher expected returns. Further, the order flow effect is stronger for high‐volatility or high‐volume stocks for which market makers have serious inventory concerns. Funding liquidity of market makers also affects the order flow effect. Finally, our finding is independent of existing regularities and robust to the decimalization.