“Too‐Small‐To‐Survive” versus “Too‐Big‐To‐Fail” banks: The two sides of the same coin

In the recent crisis, the U.S. authorities bailed out numerous banks through TARP, whilst let many others to fail as going concern entities. Even though both interventions fully protect depositors, a bail out represents an implied subsidy to shareholders, which is not yet the case with closures where creditors are not subsidised. We investigate this non‐uniform policy, demonstrating that size and not performance is the decision variable that endogenously determines one threshold below which banks are treated as TSTS by regulators and another one above which are considered to be TBTF. We, hence, provide a pair of economic rather than regulatory cut‐offs for TBTF and TSTS banks. The shareholders and the other uninsured creditors of a distressed bank are not bailed out if the bank is considered to be TSTS. We further document that the less complex a bank is, the less likely is to be bailed out and, hence, to have all of its creditors protected.     

On the Publicity of Two‐Stage Spin‐Offs and Equity Carve‐Outs

We investigate the effect of pre‐offer publicity on ownership, pricing, and aftermarket performance for equity carve‐outs (ECOs) and two‐stage spin‐offs (COSOs). Contrary to ECOs, for COSOs the parent firm's shareholders end up with free shares in the subsidiary. As the value of large share blocks is likely to be negatively affected by the emergence of new blocks after the divestiture, we hypothesize that parent firms undertaking COSOs may conduct more pre‐offer publicity to attract more retail investors, keeping outside ownership diffuse and inflating aftermarket performance until the distribution of the free shares. We find empirical support for our hypotheses.     

Risk‐based explanation for the book‐to‐market effect

This paper proposes a risk‐based explanation for the book‐to‐market (B/M) effect. I decompose B/M into net operating asset‐to‐market (NOA/M) and net financing asset‐to‐market (NFA/M) components. Portfolio analysis shows that (i) positive B/M, NOA/M and NFA/M are positively related to future returns and (ii) negative B/M, NOA/M and NFA/M are negatively related to future returns. To the extent that positive B/M, NOA/M and NFA/M act as measures of asset risk and negative B/M, NOA/M and NFA/M act as inverse measures of borrowing risk, the nonlinear relations between B/M, NOA/M and NFA/M and future returns provide some evidence to support the risk‐based explanation for the book‐to‐market effect in stock returns.     

Return Characteristics of State‐Owned and Non‐State‐Owned Chinese A Shares

This study examines and compares stock returns and volatilities between state‐owned (SO) and non‐state‐owned (NSO) firms on the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges. Results vary significantly by exchange. Returns for both firm types, on both exchanges, exhibit negative skewness and high kurtosis inconsistent with a normal distribution. Returns display significant autocorrelation, even after the removal of lower‐order effects. Granger causality tests reveal that Shenzhen returns significantly lead Shanghai returns. Within both exchanges, SO firms lead NSO firms. Neither SO nor NSO firm shares are dominated in terms of second‐order stochastic dominance.     

The flight‐to‐quality effect: a copula‐based analysis

We derive and estimate a copula combining the features of the Frank and Gumbel copulas to analyse the relationship between equity and long‐term bond returns. Our analysis of quarterly returns from 1952 to 2003 finds that, in general, there is a positive relationship between equity returns and bond returns. In extreme situations, however, there is approximately a one‐in‐seven chance of a flight‐to‐quality effect where large negative equity returns are associated with large positive bond returns.     

A comparison of buy‐side and sell‐side analysts

There is very little research on the topic of buy-side analyst performance, and that which does exist yields mixed results. We use a large sample from both the buy-side and the sell-side and report several new results. First, while the contemporaneous returns to portfolios based on sell-side recommendations are positive, the returns for buy-side analysts, proxied by changes in institutional holdings, are negative. Second, the buy-side analysts' underperformance is accentuated when they trade against sell-side analysts' recommendations. Third, abnormal returns positively relate to both the portfolio size and the portfolio turnover of buy-side analysts' institutions, suggesting that large institutions employ superior analysts and that superior analysts frequently change their recommendations. Abnormal returns are also positively related to buy-side portfolios with stocks that have higher analyst coverage, greater institutional holding, and lower earnings forecast dispersion. Fourth, there is substantial persistence in buy-side performance, but even the top decile performs poorly. These findings suggest that sell-side analysts still outperform buy-side analysts despite the severe conflicts of interest documented in the literature.     

Regulatory Capital Charges for Too‐Connected‐to‐Fail Institutions: A Practical Proposal

The recent financial crisis has highlighted once more that interconnectedness in the financial system is a major source of systemic risk. I suggest a practical way to levy regulatory capital charges based on the degree of interconnectedness among financial institutions. Namely, the charges are based on the institution's incremental contribution to systemic risk based on a risk budgeting approach. The imposition of such capital charges could go a long way towards internalizing the negative externalities associated with too‐connected‐to‐fail institutions and providing managerial incentives to strengthen an institution's solvency position, and avoid too much homogeneity and excessive reliance on the same counterparties in the financial industry.     

Risk‐Adjusted Long‐Term Contrarian Profits: Evidence from Non‐S&P 500 High‐Volume Stocks

Can trading volume help unravel the long‐term overreaction puzzle? With portfolios of non‐S&P 500 NYSE stocks, we show that (1) both the high‐ and low‐volume (abnormal volume) contrarian portfolios earn a much higher market‐adjusted excess return than the normal‐volume contrarian portfolio, (2) however, when leverage‐induced risk is factored in, excess returns from contrarian portfolios with normal‐ and low‐volume stocks are insignificant, (3) only excess returns from high‐volume contrarian stocks are significant and cannot be explained by the time‐varying risk and return framework, and (4) such high‐volume, risk‐adjusted excess returns arise mainly from winner (glamour) stocks.     

Asymmetric news responses of high‐frequency and non‐high‐frequency traders

Using NASDAQ trade and Reuters news data, I show that the response of aggressive non‐high‐frequency traders (nHFTs) to news is stronger than that of aggressive high‐frequency traders (HFTs). Classifying news into quantitative (“hard”) and less quantitative (“softer”) news, the trading response of aggressive nHFTs to softer news exceeds HFTs’ response. Positive news elicits greater return and nHFT responses than negative news during the 2008 financial crisis period. As this phenomenon persists even after excluding the 2008 short‐sale ban, the results support the hypothesis of nHFTs exhibiting stronger asymmetric responses during crisis periods.     

Exchange‐Traded Fund Introductions and Closed‐End Fund Discounts and Volume

Exchange‐traded funds (ETFs), like closed‐end funds (CEFs), are managed portfolios traded like individual stocks. We hypothesize that the introduction of an ETF in an asset class similar to an existing CEF results in a substitution effect that reduces the value of the CEF's shares relative to that of its underlying assets. Our event studies show that upon the introduction of a similar ETF, CEF discounts widen significantly and relative volume declines significantly. Single‐equation and systems estimation models show that the widening in discounts and reduction in volume are related to returns‐based measures of the substitutability of ETFs for CEFs.     

The Long‐Term Effect of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act on Cross‐Listing Premia

This paper uses a triple difference approach to assess whether the adoption of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act predicts long‐term changes in cross‐listing premia of affected foreign firms. I measure cross‐listing premia as the difference between the Tobin's q of a cross‐listed company and a non‐cross‐listed company from the same country matched on propensity to cross‐list (first difference). I find that average premia for firms cross‐listed on levels 2 or 3 (subject to SOX) declined in the year of SOX adoption (2002) and remained significantly below their pre‐SOX level through year‐end 2005 (second difference). Firms listed on levels 2 or 3, which are subject to SOX, experienced larger declines in premia than firms listed on levels 1 or 4, which are not subject to SOX (third difference). The estimated decline is 0.15–0.20 depending on specification. Riskier firms and firms from high‐disclosing and high‐GDP countries suffered larger post‐SOX declines. Firm size predicts smaller declines in premia in well‐governed countries. Faster‐growing firms in poorly‐governed countries experienced smaller declines in premia. The results are robust to the use of different before‐and‐after periods; the use of annual, quarterly, or monthly data; the use of individual companies' Tobin's q's instead of matched pairs, and different regression specifications. The overall evidence is consistent with the view that SOX negatively affected cross‐listed premia, and particularly hurt riskier firms and firms from well‐governed countries, while perhaps helping high‐growth firms from poorly‐governed countries. At the same time, after‐SOX, level‐23 firms continue to enjoy a substantial premium, estimated at about 0.32.     

Fails‐to‐Deliver before and after the Implementation of Rule 203 and Rule 204

We study the determinants of fails‐to‐deliver in the period before and after the implementation of Rule 203 (elimination of option market maker exception from the locate and close‐out requirement) and Rule 204 (t+3 close‐out rule) in September 2008. We find a positive relation between short selling and fails‐to‐deliver that weakens after the implementation of these rules. Fails‐to‐deliver are higher for stocks with low institutional ownership, low book‐to‐market, small market capitalization, high turnover, and put option availability. The relation between short selling and these measures of borrowing costs is also weaker after the implementation of these rules.     

Price Performance Following Share‐Repurchase Announcements by Closed‐End Funds

We investigate the price performance of closed‐end funds that announce share‐repurchase programs. Closed‐end funds experience positive average stock‐price reactions to the announcements. The long‐run buy‐and‐hold abnormal returns of repurchasing funds over the subsequent three years are significantly higher than a nonrepurchasing control sample matched by size, type, investment style and geographic diversification. Funds with larger discounts, international funds, equity funds, and funds that announce larger repurchases or frequently announce repurchases, experience more positive stock‐price reactions. Except for larger repurchases, the same characteristics are associated with more positive long‐run buy‐and‐hold returns.     

International Cross‐Listings and Subsequent Security‐Market Choices: Evidence from ADRs

We study the link between the attributes of American depositary receipt (ADR)‐listed firms and their post‐listing security‐market choices. We find that developed market firms are more likely to issue equity and debt than their emerging market counterparts. Furthermore, we find that large firms are more likely to issue debt and less likely to issue equity. When we examine locations where ADR firms raise their capital, we find that firms originating from countries where the protection of minority shareholders is weak are more likely to issue debt on their home markets and less likely to issue debt on international markets (excluding U.S. markets). Furthermore, ADR firms originating from developed (emerging market) countries are more (less) likely to issue their equity on their domestic markets and less (more) likely to issue equity on international markets (excluding U.S. markets).     

Partial Price Adjustments and Equity Carve‐Outs

We examine the extent to which market‐adjusted ex date returns reflect public information for 271 equity carve‐outs in 1988–2006. Although prior studies focus on ex post determinants of equity carve‐out and initial public offering returns, our study is the first to explore ex ante predictors of equity carve‐out returns. We use three primary variables: filing range adjustments, the percentage of the offering used to retire subsidiary debt or to pay dividends, and the CBOE Volatility Index (VXO) to predict initial returns. We show that 11–35% of the variation in market‐adjusted equity carve‐out returns can be predicted using public information known prior to the offer date.     

Two Extensive Margins of Credit and Loan‐to‐Value Policies

We analyze a model of mortgage markets, housing tenure choice, heterogeneous agents, and default with closed form solutions. We uncover new insights which may inspire empirical work, and we ground already established insights in a series of tractable expressions. Then we study optimal loan‐to‐value (LTV) regulation and show that the choice of an LTV cap should balance the opposing forces of access to homeownership and the negative externalities associated with default. Homeownership affordability concerns induce procyclical elements into optimal regulation which attenuate the countercyclical regulation justified by the negative default externalities.     

Interaction of size,book‐to‐market and momentum effects in Australia

This study seeks to disentangle the effects of size, book‐to‐market and momentum on returns. Initial results show that each characteristic has a role in explaining returns, but that there is interaction between size and momentum, as well as between size and book‐to‐market. Three key findings emerge. First, the size premium is the strongest, particularly in the loser portfolios. Second, the value premium is generally limited to the smallest portfolios. Third, the momentum premium is evident for the large‐ and middle‐sized portfolios, but loser stocks significantly outperform winner stocks in the smallest size portfolio. When these interactions are controlled with multivariate regression, we find a significant negative average relation between size and returns, a significant positive average relation between book‐to‐market and returns, and a significant positive average relation between momentum and returns.     

Price Discovery in the Treasury‐Bill When‐Issued Market

When‐issued (i.e., forward) trading in T‐bills yet to be auctioned provides a unique environment for examining price discovery. Because T‐bills are auctioned in a sealed‐bid process, when‐issued traders cannot observe the spot market price. Yet the forward price must ultimately converge on the auction outcome price. Our results indicate that traders in the when‐issued market “discover” the ultimate auction price. Little evidence is found that standard order flow variables contribute to price discovery. Instead, the ability to observe a few trades with relatively small volume in the when‐issued market is sufficient to discover the auction price resulting from the sealed‐bid process.