Arbitrage risk and the turnover anomaly

A strong turnover premium exists such that stocks with lower turnover have higher future returns in the 5 years following their formation than those with higher turnover. This turnover premium cannot be explained by existing asset-pricing models, a risk-based liquidity factor, or anomalies such as size, book-to-market ratio, or momentum. Further analysis indicates that the turnover premium is greater for stocks with higher idiosyncratic volatility, higher transaction costs, lower institutional ownership, and lower investor sophistication, which implies it is consistent with the mispricing explanation based on arbitrage risk.     

Passive Institutional Ownership,R2 Trends,and Price Informativeness

A distinctive trend in the capital markets over the past two decades is the rise in equity ownership of passive financial institutions. We propose that this rise has a negative effect on price informativeness. By not trading around firm‐specific news, passive investors reduce the firm‐specific component of total volatility and increase stock correlations. Consistent with this hypothesis, we find that the growth in passive institutional ownership is robustly associated with the growth in market model R²s of individual stocks since the early 1990s. Additionally, we find a negative relation between passive ownership and earnings predictability, an informativeness proxy.     

Does institutional ownership increase stock return volatility? Evidence from Vietnam

The literature on institutional ownership and stock return volatility often ignores small emerging countries. However, this issue is more profound, due to the large size of institutional investors and small stock market size, in emerging equity markets. This paper examines the effects of the institutional ownership on the firm-level volatility of stock returns in Vietnam. Our data cover most of non-financial firms listed on the Ho Chi Minh City stock exchange for the period 2006–2012. Employing different analysis techniques for panel data and controlling for possible endogeneity problems, our empirical results suggest that institutional investors stabilize the stock return volatility. Moreover, we document that: i) the stabilizing effect of institutional investor ownership is higher in dividend paying firms, and ii) if firms are paying out more dividends, this stabilizing effect is greater. Our results outline the important role of institutional investors in maintaining the stability in emerging stock markets.     

The Effect of Fiduciary Standards on Institutions' Preference for Dividend‐Paying Stocks

Many researchers apparently believe that some institutional investors prefer dividend‐paying stocks because they are subject to the “prudent man” (PM) standard of fiduciary responsibility, under which dividend payments provide prima facie evidence that an investment is prudent. Although this was once accurate for many institutions, during the 1990s most states replaced the PM standard with the less‐stringent “prudent investor” (PI) rule, which evaluates the appropriateness of each investment in a portfolio context. Controlling for the general decline in dividend‐paying stocks, we find that institutions reduced their holdings of dividend‐paying stocks by 2% to 3% as the PI standard spread during the 1990s. Studies of asset pricing and corporate governance should no longer consider dividend payments when evaluating the actions of institutional investors.     

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.     

Local institutional investors,information asymmetries,and equity returns

We examine the informational role of geographically proximate institutions in stock markets. We find that both the level of and change in local institutional ownership predict future stock returns, particularly for firms with high information asymmetry; in contrast, such predictive abilities are relatively weak for nonlocal institutional ownership. The local advantage is especially evident for local investment advisors, high local ownership institutions, and high local turnover institutions. We also find that the stocks that local institutional investors hold (trade) earn higher excess returns around future earnings announcements than those that nonlocal institutional investors hold (trade).     

Does foreign institutional ownership increase return volatility? Evidence from China

This paper investigates the impact of foreign institutional ownership on firm-level stock return volatility in China, based on our study of a sample of 1458 firms between 1998 and 2008. The empirical results show that share ownership by foreign institutions (both financial and non-financial) increases firm-level stock return volatility, even after controlling for a complete ownership structure, firm size, turnover, and leverage, and correcting for potential endogeneity problems. However, the results also show that foreign individual shareholdings reduce volatility. Furthermore, we document a positive relationship between domestic shareholdings (individual, institutional, and governmental) and firm-level stock return volatility. Empirical results with interaction terms show that foreign institutional ownership increases firm-level return volatility by strengthening the positive impact of liquidity on volatility. The volatility reduction effect of foreign individual ownership is attenuated by government ownership suggests a poor governance environment as a result of the involvement of the Chinese government.     

Short sales,institutional investors and the cross-section of stock returns

Short-sale constraints are most likely to bind among stocks with low institutional ownership. Because of institutional constraints, most professional investors simply never sell short and hence cannot trade against overpricing of stocks they do not own. Furthermore, stock loan supply tends to be sparse and short selling more expensive when institutional ownership is low. Using institutional ownership as a proxy, I find that short-sale constraints help explain cross-sectional stock return anomalies. Specifically, holding size fixed, the under-performance of stocks with high market-to-book, analyst forecast dispersion, turnover, or volatility is most pronounced among stocks with low institutional ownership. Ownership by passive investors with large stock lending programs partly mitigates this under-performance, indicating some impact of stock loan supply. Prices of stocks with low institutional ownership also underreact to bad cash-flow news and overreact to good cash-flow news, consistent with the idea that short-sale constraints hold negative opinions off the market for these stocks.     

A comprehensive long-term analysis of S&P 500 index additions and deletions

We investigate the long-term effects of S&P 500 index additions and deletions on a sample of stocks from 1962 to 2003 and find a significant long-term price increase for both added and deleted stocks, with deleted stocks outperforming added stocks. The long-term price increase for added stocks can be attributed to increases in institutional ownership, liquidity, and analyst coverage, and a decrease in the shadow cost in the long-term. However, while deletion has no significant effect on analyst coverage and shadow cost, we find a rebound in the institutional ownership and liquidity of deleted stocks. The difference in the long-term price increase of added and deleted stocks can be explained by analyst coverage and operating performance.     

DO DIVIDEND FLOWS AFFECT STOCK RETURNS?

We examine price impacts from dividend flows. Event‐study estimates show that stocks experience abnormal returns on the dividend distribution day. Results also show a spillover effect to non‐dividend‐paying stocks that are likely to be part of the same benchmark portfolio as the dividend‐paying stocks. Regression results indicate that the effect is dependent on the ownership share by professional investors. The temporary nature of the effect on returns is in line with the literature's demand‐driven price pressure hypothesis.     

The return impact of realized and expected idiosyncratic volatility

We show that the negative relation between realized idiosyncratic volatility, measured over the prior month, and returns is robust in non-January months. Controlling for realized idiosyncratic volatility, we show that the relation between returns and expected idiosyncratic volatility is positive and robust. Realized and expected idiosyncratic volatility are separate and important effects describing the cross-section of returns. We find the negative return on a zero-investment portfolio that is long high realized idiosyncratic volatility stocks and short low realized idiosyncratic volatility stocks is dependent on aggregate investor sentiment. In cross-sectional tests, we find the negative relation is weaker for stocks with a large analyst following and stronger for stocks with high dispersion of analyst forecasts. The positive relation between expected idiosyncratic volatility and returns is not due to mispricing.     

Distribution of institutional ownership and corporate firm performance

We investigate the association between corporate firm performance and the level and stability of institutional ownership within a simultaneous equation model. Our main ownership stability measures include ownership persistence and the time-lengths over which investors hold non-zero shares or maintain their shareholding. We find that there is a positive relationship between firm performance and institutional ownership stability, accounting for the shareholding proportion. This relationship is robust to the employment of ownership turnover measures used in the literature and consistent with the view that stable institutional investors play an effective role in monitoring. When we disaggregate institutional investors into pressure-insensitive and pressure-sensitive categories, we find that stable shareholding of each group has a positive impact on performance, with the first group exerting a larger effect. The channels of the effect include, but are not limited to, decreased information asymmetry and increased incentive-based compensation.     

On the relationship between concentration of prospect theory/mental accounting investors,cointegration, and momentum

We examine the role of cointegration between stock prices and their estimated fundamental values in return momentum. We find that the positive relationship between capital gains overhang and future stock returns in Grinblatt and Han (2005) is significantly stronger among the “non-cointegrated” group of stocks as compared with the “cointegrated” group of stocks. Further, for the cointegrated stocks, the slower the speed of adjustment to the cointegrating equilibrium, the greater (smaller) is the future return of stocks with unrealized capital gains (losses). These findings are robust to various firm characteristics including firm size, book-to-market ratio, past returns, idiosyncratic volatility, dispersion in analysts’ earnings forecasts, turnover, individual investor ownership, and industry returns.     

Investor Sentiment and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns

We study how investor sentiment affects the cross‐section of stock returns. We predict that a wave of investor sentiment has larger effects on securities whose valuations are highly subjective and difficult to arbitrage. Consistent with this prediction, we find that when beginning‐of‐period proxies for sentiment are low, subsequent returns are relatively high for small stocks, young stocks, high volatility stocks, unprofitable stocks, non‐dividend‐paying stocks, extreme growth stocks, and distressed stocks. When sentiment is high, on the other hand, these categories of stock earn relatively low subsequent returns.     

基金经理更换、股票联动与股票价格

基金经理更换打破了基金共同持股投资组合中股票的关联性,降低了股票收益率相关性,进而影响了股票价格。本文基于基金共同持股和基金经理更换构建了对冲投资组合,获得0.1%的日超额收益率。基金投资组合中股票收益率相关性能够解释这种超额收益率,本文发现基金更换经理后,新基金经理重建投资组合,打破了原投资组合中股票间的关联,股票收益率相关性减弱,基金共同持股程度高的股票价格受到了更大影响。基金的被动流动性冲击不能解释本文的发现。本文的研究表明基金经理变更等基金管理行为通过股票收益率相关性对股票价格产生了重要影响。     

Lead-lag relationships in an embryonic stock market: Exploring the role of institutional ownership and liquidity

This paper investigates the influence of institutional ownership and liquidity on stock return relationships for an embryonic and relatively illiquid stock market. Using daily, individual stock data for Trinidad and Tobago from 2001 to 2015 and a VAR modelling approach, we find for firms of all sizes and levels of analyst coverage that the returns of more institutionally favoured stocks lead those with less institutional ownership. Distinctively, greater institutional coverage is shown not to be associated with greater liquidity, though liquidity levels do condition the influence of institutional ownership. This indicates that institutional owners have information advantages relative to other stock owners.     

How cross-listings from an emerging economy affect the host market?

We study the impact of mainland Chinese listings in Hong Kong on the quality and development of the Hong Kong equity market. At the macro-level, we find that the increasing presence of mainland Chinese stocks in Hong Kong increases the size, trading volume, and its link with the China and world markets but reduces the overall volatility of the Hong Kong stock market. At the firm level, the increase affects the market quality, resulting in lower turnover rate, higher Amihud illiquidity ratio, and higher spread for non-mainland Chinese firms. Furthermore, such an increase in presence causes Hong Kong stocks to move in a more synchronized way and reduces these firms investment sensitivity to stock price movement, implying deterioration in the information environment. As a whole, the increasing presence of Chinese companies in Hong Kong brings benefits to the Hong Kong market, yet not without cost.     

Connecting two markets: An equilibrium framework for shorts,longs, and stock loans

We analyze a reduced-form framework for understanding the equity loan market's impact on share prices. We show that hard-to-borrow stocks will have distinct return patterns, responding more to shocks in the supply of shares available, and to changes in the heterogeneity of investor beliefs, than other stocks. We conduct two empirical tests in which we find strong support for these equilibrium predictions. In our first test, we take advantage of a tax-driven exogenous shock to share loan supply and find that when supply is reduced around dividend record dates, prices of hard-to-borrow stocks increase 1.1% while prices of easy-to-borrow stocks are unaffected. In our second test, we find that hard-to-borrow stocks have 4.8% lower three-month returns than other stocks, with negative returns concentrated in stocks with high heterogeneity in investor beliefs. Thus, we extend the Diether, Malloy, and Scherbina (2002) result that stocks with a greater dispersion of investor beliefs have lower returns.     

Liquidity, analysts, and institutional ownership

In this paper, we investigate the empirical relationship between institutional ownership, number of analysts following and stock market liquidity. We find that firms with larger number of financial analysts following have wider spreads, lower market quality index, and larger price impact of trades. However, we find that firms with higher institutional ownership have narrower spreads, higher market quality index, and smaller price impact of trades. In addition, we show that changes in our liquidity measures are significantly related to changes in institutional ownership over time. These results suggest that firms may alleviate information asymmetry and improve stock market liquidity by increasing institutional ownership. Our results are remarkably robust to different measures of liquidity and measures of information asymmetry.     

Why do CEOs agree to the discipline of dividends?

This study investigates dividend initiation as the product of the imbalance of power between shareholders and management in U.S. firms from 2003 to 2012. We find that dividend initiation is associated with a stronger governance structure (strong shareholders' rights and board independence), in accordance with the outcome model. We do not identify a single motivation for dividend initiation. Dividend-initiating firms tend to rely on various forms of governance balanced by the interests and ownership of CEOs and directors. Firms with institutional owners are more likely to initiate dividends concurrent with the turnover of the CEO. Dual CEOs initiate dividends when they own more shares, and boards of directors initiate dividends with a higher personal ownership stake when shareholders' rights are weak. We also find that when initiation is due to stronger governance, it is significantly related to the firm's investment opportunities, while for weak governance firms, that relationship is not observed. We interpret this as evidence that, under weaker governance, the decision to initiate dividends is motivated by agency conflicts rather than investment or capital structure considerations.