Institutional ownership and commonality in liquidity

We investigate the relation between institutional ownership and commonality in liquidity and whether this relation differs across country-level institutional and information environments. Using a comprehensive dataset for firms across 40 countries for the period between 2000 and 2016, we find that institutional ownership is negatively associated with stock liquidity commonality. In addition, a firm’s information environment plays the moderating role in the relation between institutional ownership and commonality in stock liquidity. Importantly, we document that the negative association between institutional ownership and liquidity commonality is stronger for firms in countries with weak institutional characteristics or less transparent information environments. Our findings provide additional insights into the role of institutional investors as a demand-side factor of liquidity commonality in international financial markets.     

CORRELATED BEHAVIOR IN LIMIT ORDER CANCELLATIONS,COMOVEMENT IN ASSET RETURNS,AND COMMONALITY IN LIQUIDITY

We examine whether there is common behavior in limit order cancellation activity, that is, commonality in cancellation activity, on U.S. exchanges. We then examine whether this commonality in cancellation activity is associated with increased levels of return comovement and commonality in liquidity. We document strong evidence of limit order traders exhibiting exchange, industry, marketwide, and stock-level commonality with regard to cancellation activity, which is consistent with limit order traders exhibiting correlated trading behavior. We also find that this correlated behavior in cancellation activity is associated with increased levels of return comovement and commonality in liquidity.     

Government Intervention and Investment Comovement: Chinese Evidence

This study examines whether government intervention affects corporate investment comovement, and whether this impact varies across firms with different types of ownership. We use a large Chinese sample to investigate these questions, and perform a regional as well as firm‐level analysis. We show that government intervention is positively and significantly associated with investment comovement. We also find that the impact of government intervention on investment comovement is higher and more significant for state‐owned firms than for domestic private and foreign firms. Finally, we show that investment comovement hinders corporate performance for state‐owned and domestic private firms but not for foreign firms.     

Limit Order Book and Commonality in Liquidity

We show that the liquidity provided by an individual stock's limit order book comoves significantly with the market aggregate limit order book liquidity. A closer look at the inside and outside liquidity provided by different parts of limit order book suggests that inside liquidity is mainly influenced by market volatility, while idiosyncratic volatility has a larger impact on outside liquidity. Hence, limit order book inside liquidity exhibits higher commonality than outside liquidity. We also show that the comovement between the stock‐level and market‐aggregate limit order book liquidity measures is related to the commonality in the overall stock market liquidity.     

Firm size,ownership structure,and systematic liquidity risk: The case of an emerging market

Previous studies support the hypothesis that institutional ownership leads to an enhanced systematic liquidity risk by increasing the commonality in liquidity. By using a proprietary database of all incoming orders and ownership structure in an emerging stock market, we show that institutional ownership leads to an increase in commonality in liquidity for mid- to-large cap firms; however, only individual ownership can lead to such an increase for small cap firms, revealing a new source of systematic liquidity risk for a specific group of firms. We also reveal that commonality decreases with the increasing number of investors (for both individual and institutional) at any firm size level; suggesting that as the investor base gets larger, views of market participants become more heterogeneous, which provides an alternative way to decrease the systematic liquidity risk.     

Commonality in liquidity and multilateral trading facilities

We use the introduction of two multilateral trading facilities (MTFs) to examine the impact of market fragmentation on commonality in liquidity. We find that the introduction of MTFs following the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive increases the comovement of stocks’ liquidity with MTF liquidity, while the comovement with the home market liquidity generally decreases. We also find that the higher the MTF trading volume or the number of MTFs trading a stock, the stronger the effect. Further, we find that the commonality in liquidity remains unchanged for a matched control sample of stocks that do not trade on MTFs.     

Does Corporate Headquarters Location Matter for Stock Returns?

We document strong comovement in the stock returns of firms headquartered in the same geographic area. Moreover, stocks of companies that change their headquarters location experience a decrease in their comovement with stocks from the old location and an increase in their comovement with stocks from the new location. The local comovement of stock returns is not explained by economic fundamentals and is stronger for smaller firms with more individual investors and in regions with less financially sophisticated residents. We argue that price formation in equity markets has a significant geographic component linked to the trading patterns of local residents.     

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.     

Transparency,Liquidity, and Valuation: International Evidence on When Transparency Matters Most

We examine the relation between firm‐level transparency, stock market liquidity, and valuation across countries, focusing on whether the relation varies with a firm's characteristics and economic environment. We document lower transaction costs and greater liquidity (as measured by lower bid‐ask spreads and fewer zero‐return days) for firms with greater transparency (as measured by less evidence of earnings management, better accounting standards, higher quality auditors, more analyst following, and more accurate analyst forecasts). The relation between transparency and liquidity is more pronounced in periods of high volatility, when investor protection, disclosure requirements, and media penetration are poor, and when ownership is more concentrated, suggesting that firm‐level transparency matters more when overall investor uncertainty is greater. Increased liquidity is associated with lower implied cost of capital and with higher valuation as measured by Tobin's Q. Finally, a mediation analysis suggests that liquidity is a significant channel through which transparency affects firm valuation and equity cost of capital.     

Labor Unions and Forms of Corporate Liquidity

We examine how the presence of labor unions affects a firm's choice of corporate liquidity between bank lines of credit and corporate cash holdings. We find that firms in industries with higher unionization rates hold a higher fraction of corporate liquidity in the form of bank lines of credit. We divide the firms into sub‐groups and find that this positive relationship holds for firms that are not in a state with right‐to‐work legislation and for firms that are financially constrained. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that a firm chooses the forms of corporate liquidity to take advantage of the bargaining benefits associated with bank lines of credit.     

What is the After‐Tax Price of R&D? An Interstate Comparison*

As of 2005, 31 US states offered corporate income tax credits on research and development (R&D) expenses in order to encourage more in‐state innovation activities. Empirical questions about the efficacy of such tax breaks at the state level persist, in part because the complexity of the tax laws means that simple credit‐rate comparisons across states do not fully capture the differential variation in effective after‐tax price incentives firms face in choosing where to locate R&D activities. We are unaware of any research analysing and comparing the effective prices of R&D faced by firms, across all US states and utilising micro‐level data. Using data extracted from detailed reading of individual firms' 10‐K and S‐1 filings and of state‐level tax credit rules, we estimate the effective after‐tax price of basic and qualified research expenditure each firm would have faced in each of the 50 states had they been located there. Our methodology simulates the effective tax price of each firm's marginal dollar of research expenditure, assuming the firm chose to move all of its R&D operations to each of the 49 other states. Through Monte Carlo techniques, we consider the sensitivity of our interstate comparative results to several modelling assumptions. We find significant variation in after‐tax R&D prices across states with quite different R&D tax laws. Prices range from $0.176 to $0.520 on a marginal dollar of R&D in Virginia and Washington State, respectively. We also find that the interstate variability is generally more important – indeed, much wider than we had anticipated before investigating state‐by‐state regulations – than the inter‐firm variability within states.     

Market Liquidity and Ambiguity: The Certification Role of Corporate Governance

We investigate how firm‐specific certification practices through corporate governance can reduce perceived ambiguity and thus enhance liquidity of a firm in the stock market. We show that better corporate governance helps reduce ambiguity. In addition, a reduction in ambiguity is significantly related to higher liquidity of firms. Our results are robust to alternative model specifications and measures of ambiguity, and remain statistically significant after controlling for other known determinants of ambiguity and liquidity. Our results shed light on how ambiguity can be moderated through firm‐level certification practices and on the channel through which a moderation of ambiguity affects shareholder wealth.     

Shareholder Coordination,Information Diffusion and Stock Returns

We show that the quality of information‐sharing networks linking firms’ institutional investors has stock return predictability implications. We find that firms with high shareholder coordination experience less local comovement and less post‐earnings announcement drift, consistent with the notion that information‐sharing networks facilitate information diffusion and improve stock price efficiency. In support of the view that coordination acts as an information diffusion channel, we document that the stock return performance of firms with high shareholder coordination leads that of firms with low shareholder coordination.     

Adopting a Label: Heterogeneity in the Economic Consequences Around IAS/IFRS Adoptions

This study examines liquidity and cost of capital effects around voluntary and mandatory IAS/IFRS adoptions. In contrast to prior work, we focus on the firm‐level heterogeneity in the economic consequences, recognizing that firms have considerable discretion in how they implement the new standards. Some firms may make very few changes and adopt IAS/IFRS more in name, while for others the change in standards could be part of a strategy to increase their commitment to transparency. To test these predictions, we classify firms into “label” and “serious” adopters using firm‐level changes in reporting incentives, actual reporting behavior, and the external reporting environment around the switch to IAS/IFRS. We analyze whether capital‐market effects are different across “serious” and “label” firms. While on average liquidity and cost of capital often do not change around voluntary IAS/IFRS adoptions, we find considerable heterogeneity: “Serious” adoptions are associated with an increase in liquidity and a decline in cost of capital, whereas “label” adoptions are not. We obtain similar results when classifying firms around mandatory IFRS adoption. Our findings imply that we have to exercise caution when interpreting capital‐market effects around IAS/IFRS adoption as they also reflect changes in reporting incentives or in firms’ broader reporting strategies, and not just the standards.     

Investor Conferences,Firm Visibility,and Stock Liquidity

We examine the influence of investor conferences on firms’ stock liquidity. We find that firms participating in conferences experience a 1.4% to 2.8% increase in stock liquidity compared to nonconference firms. Consistent with investor conferences improving firm visibility, the increase in liquidity is larger for firms with low pre‐conference visibility and varies predictably with conference characteristics that affect the ability of investors to revise their beliefs about the firm. However, for firms with a large investor base and high visibility, conference participation is associated with a decline in stock liquidity, consistent with investor conferences exacerbating the information asymmetry among investors.     

Risk factor and industry effects in the cross-country comovement of momentum returns

This paper examines the sources of cross-country comovement of momentum returns over the 1975–2004 period. Using data on more than 17,000 individual firms across 100 industries from 40 countries, we document the profitability of country-neutral individual firm, industry, and industry-adjusted return momentum. We show that country-neutral momentum returns are significantly correlated across countries, the correlation is time-varying, and that comovement among industries cannot explain the comovement of country-neutral momentum returns. However, we find that standard risk factor models do explain a significant portion of the cross-country comovement of momentum returns, even though they do not explain average momentum returns.     

Commonality on Euronext: Do location and account type matter?

Using a rich dataset of orders and trades for a sample of stocks listed on four Euronext markets, we apply principal component analysis and provide evidence on the existence and magnitude of commonality in returns, order flow and liquidity. We show that commonality in order flow mainly comes from foreign market members acting for their own account. Proprietary trading is a major driver in trade imbalance and return commonality. Next, we provide evidence on commonality in hidden liquidity. In contrast to commonality in visible depth that is the strongest for large firms, comovements in hidden depth seem to be stronger for small caps. We also show that commonality in returns, order flow and liquidity is not constant throughout the day. The opening of US markets is a key moment where commonality often reaches its maximum level. These findings suggest that most of the commonality is driven by foreigners, generating an increase in systematic liquidity risk, due to foreigners' similar trading behaviors, whose importance evolves throughout the day.     

Does lending relationship help or alleviate the transmission of liquidity shocks? Evidence from a liquidity crunch in China

We examine China’s June 2013 liquidity crunch as a negative shock to banks and analyze the wealth effects on exchange-listed firms. Our findings suggest that liquidity shocks to financial institutions negatively impact borrower performance, particularly borrowers reporting outstanding loans at the end of 2012. Stock valuations of firms with long-term bank relationships, however, outperform the market and experience smaller subsequent declines in investment than peers lacking solid banking relationships. This effect is the strongest for firms that enjoy good relations with China’s large state-owned banks or foreign banks, and weakest for firms whose connections are solely with local banks. We document a positive correlation between the stock performances of firms and the stock performances of lender banks and the likelihood of lender banks operating as net lenders in the interbank market. These results suggest that banks transmit liquidity shocks to their borrowing firms and that a long-term bank-firm relationship may mitigate the negative effects of a liquidity shock.     

Does Stock Liquidity Enhance or Impede Firm Innovation?

We aim to tackle the longstanding debate on whether stock liquidity enhances or impedes firm innovation. This topic is of interest because innovation is crucial for firm‐ and national‐level competitiveness and stock liquidity can be altered by financial market regulations. Using a difference‐in‐differences approach that relies on the exogenous variation in liquidity generated by regulatory changes, we find that an increase in liquidity causes a reduction in future innovation. We identify two possible mechanisms through which liquidity impedes innovation: increased exposure to hostile takeovers and higher presence of institutional investors who do not actively gather information or monitor.     

Asymmetric information consolidation and price discovery: Inferring bad news from insider sales

Due to the paucity of sources of negative firm‐specific information, US capital markets have more difficulty identifying and incorporating bad news into stock prices than they do good news. Even though insider selling is a potentially important proxy for undisclosed bad news, researchers have difficulty ex ante identifying information‐based sales due to an inability to separate liquidity‐motivated from information‐based insider trades. We hypothesize that when insiders in multiple firms sell shares of one firm in which they are insiders and at the same time buy shares of other insider portfolio firms, the sale is more likely to be information‐based, since the proceeds are reinvested. Conversely, when an insider sells one firm without purchasing others or sells multiple insider firms the sale is likely liquidity‐motivated. We find that insider sales identified as information‐based using this algorithm are followed by significant negative abnormal returns. Information‐based sales are also more likely to be associated with delistings, earnings declines and earnings restatements. Analysts are also more likely to revise their earnings forecasts downwards for these firms. It is thus possible to ex ante identify insider sales with information content. Our results will be of interest to investors and also to regulators designing insider trading rules.