Stock repurchases and treasury share sales: Do they stabilize price and enhance liquidity?

Can companies reduce the volatility and increase the liquidity of their stocks by trading them? In the context of the Italian stock market, where companies have far more leeway to sell as well as buy their own stocks than in the U.S., the answer is yes. We examine the effects of trading (open-market share repurchases and treasury shares sales) on liquidity (bid-ask spread) and volatility (return variance). Further, we examine the impact of shareholder approvals of repurchase programs on liquidity and volatility. We find clear evidence that trading increases liquidity and reduces volatility. These results are consistent with our analysis of the motives Italian companies give for making share repurchases.     

On the behavioral differences between professional and amateur investors after the weekend

This paper compares the trading patterns of amateur and professional investors during the days following the weekend. The comparison is based on all the daily transactions of a large sample of both amateurs and professionally managed investors in a major brokerage house in Israel from 1994 to 1998. We find that weekends influence both amateurs and professional investors; however they affect them in opposite directions. Individuals increase both their buy and sell activities, and their propensity to sell rises more than their propensity to buy. Professionals on the other hand tend to perform fewer buy as well as sell trades after the weekend, but unlike individuals, the drop in their activity is almost the same for buy trades and for sell trades.     

Small-cap equity mutual fund managers as liquidity providers

This paper examines the relation between the performance of small-cap equity mutual funds and the liquidity characteristics of their asset holdings. We study the trading behavior of fund managers and show that on average, they tend to buy less liquid stocks and sell more liquid stocks. We introduce the notion of net “liquidity creation” by fund managers and examine its role in explaining the cross section of small-cap equity mutual fund returns. Our empirical results show that on average, small-cap mutual fund managers are able to earn an additional 1.5% return per year as compensation for providing such liquidity services to the market.     

Stock price fragility

We study the relation between the ownership structure of financial assets and non-fundamental risk. We define an asset to be fragile if it is susceptible to non-fundamental shifts in demand. An asset can be fragile because of concentrated ownership, or because its owners face correlated or volatile liquidity shocks, i.e., they must buy or sell at the same time. We formalize this idea and apply it to mutual fund ownership of US stocks. Consistent with our predictions, fragility strongly predicts price volatility. We then extend the logic of fragility to investigate two natural extensions: (1) the forecast of stock return comovement and (2) the potentially destabilizing impact of arbitrageurs on stock prices.     

Modelling the buy and sell intensity in a limit order book market

In this paper, we model the buy and sell arrival process in the limit order book market at the Australian Stock Exchange. Using a bivariate autoregressive intensity model we analyze the contemporaneous buy and sell intensity as a function of the state of the market. We find evidence that trading decisions are both information as well as liquidity driven. Confirming predictions from market microstructure theory traders submit market orders by inferring from the recent order flow and the book with respect to upper and lower tail expectations as well as trading directions. However, traders also tend to take liquidity when the liquidity supply is high. Moreover, we find evidence that traders pay more attention to recent order arrivals and the current state of the order book than to the past order flow.     

Interaction of investor trades and market volatility: Evidence from the Tokyo Stock Exchange

This paper examines the relation between market volatility and investor trades by identifying who supplies and demands market liquidity on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Because the different trading patterns of various investor types such as individual investors, institutional investors, and foreign investors affect market liquidity differently, we find that market volatility fluctuates significantly depending on which investor types participate in trade. We show that market volatility increases by more than 50% from the average level when there are greater buy trades by momentum investors that demand liquidity and there are less sell trades by contrarian (or profit-taking) investors that supply liquidity. On the other hand, volatility dampens by more than 57% when there are greater sell trades by profit-taking investors, mostly by domestic investors, while there are less momentum buy trades.     

Limit Orders, Depth, and Volatility: Evidence from the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong

We investigate the role of limit orders in the liquidity provision in a pure order-driven market. Results show that market depth rises subsequent to an increase in transitory volatility, and transitory volatility declines subsequent to an increase in market depth. We also examine how transitory volatility affects the mix between limit orders and market orders. When transitory volatility arises from the ask (bid) side, investors will submit more limit sell (buy) orders than market sell (buy) orders. This result is consistent with the existence of limit-order traders who enter the market and place orders when liquidity is needed.     

Institutional herding and its price impact: Evidence from the corporate bond market

We examine the extent to which institutional investors herd in the U.S. corporate bond market and the price impact of their herding behavior. We find that the level of institutional herding in corporate bonds is substantially higher than what is documented for equities, and that sell herding is much stronger and more persistent than buy herding. The price impact of herding is also highly asymmetric. While buy herding facilitates price discovery, sell herding causes transitory yet large price distortions. Such price destabilizing effect of sell herding is particularly pronounced for speculative-grade, small, and illiquid bonds, and during the financial crisis.     

Technical Analysis,Investment Psychology,and Liquidity Provision: Evidence from the Taiwan Stock Market

We set out to empirically identify the effects on technical signals attributable to psychological biases, adopting a set of specific liquidity provision proxies for a sample of firms listed on the Taiwan Stock Exchange. The main findings of our empirical analysis are that the "disposition," "information cascade," and "anchoring" effects each have significant impacts on trading signals. Our results should help to shed further light on the asymmetric market responses to technical buy and sell signals, while also providing some potential clarification of the different attitudes of traders toward big-cap and small-cap firms.     

Banning short sales and market quality: The UK’s experience

We study the effects that the ban on short sales of shares in financial firms introduced in late 2008 and removed early 2009 had on the microstructure and the quality of UK equity markets. We show that the ban did nothing to affect order flows: financial stocks were being more aggressively sold off than their peers pre-ban and this situation persisted through the ban period. Trading volume in financials was massively reduced, however. The ban decimated order book liquidity for financials. The deterioration was symmetric, affecting the limit buy and limit sell side of the order book equally. Finally we show that, through the period of the ban, markets for financial stocks were substantially less efficient and that the role of the trading process in aiding price discovery was greatly reduced. The effects identified above were largely reversed once the ban was lifted. The persistence of the deterioration in market quality and liquidity though the relatively long-lasting UK ban on short selling suggests that other major market developments such as the TARP program were not responsible since these were concentrated in the early half of the ban. We thus argue that the short selling ban was responsible for detrimental effects on the quality of UK equity markets and that, far from being stabilising, the ban exacerbated problems in valuing UK financial stocks.     

Domestic liquidity and cross-listing in the United States

This study examines changes in domestic liquidity after cross-listing in the United States. Our liquidity measures are based on intraday data from domestic markets for a large sample of firms that cross-list in the United States and for a matched sample of firms that do not cross-list. We find that unadjusted liquidity significantly improves after cross-listing. However, after controlling for contemporaneous changes in liquidity for a matched sample of firms that do not cross-list, there is no evidence of improvements in domestic liquidity due to cross-listing. Our results offer no support for the bonding hypothesis, or for the hypothesis that cross-listing improves domestic liquidity because of increased intermarket competition and additional order flow.     

Intra-day market activity

This paper presents a study of intra-day patterns of stock market activity and introduces duration based activity measures for single stocks and multiple assets. The proposed measures involve weighted durations, i.e. times necessary to sell (buy) a predetermined volume or value of stocks. As such, they capture dependencies between intra-trade durations, transaction volumes and prices, and can be interpreted as liquidity measures. This approach allows us to highlight the intra-day variations of liquidity, its costs and volatility, and to develop a liquidity based asset ordering. The extension to a multivariate analysis yields new insights into the dynamics of portfolio liquidity by revealing various aspects of asset substitution, including the effects of correlated trade intensities of portfolio components. Several examples are used to show that in practice, the proposed liquidity measures become efficient instruments for strategic block trading and optimal portfolio adjustments. The paper also contains an empirical study of asset activity on the Paris Bourse. We examine the liquidity dynamics throughout the day and reveal the existence of periodic patterns resulting from world-wide interactions of major stock markets. In the multivariate setup, we report evidence on common patterns and correlations of trade intensities of selected stocks.     

Investor Sentiment,Trading Behavior and Informational Efficiency in Index Futures Markets

This paper shows that traders in index futures markets are positive feedback traders—they buy when prices increase and sell when prices decline. Positive feedback trading appears to be more active in periods of high investor sentiment. This finding is consistent with the notion that feedback trading is driven by expectations of noise traders. Consistent with the noise trading hypothesis, order flow in index futures markets is less informative when investors are optimistic. Transitory volatility measured at high frequencies also appears to decline in periods of bullish sentiment, suggesting that sentiment‐driven trading increases market liquidity.     

Capacity constraints,investor information,and hedge fund returns

To identify capacity constraints in hedge funds and simultaneously gauge how well-informed hedge fund investors are, we need measures of investor demand that do not affect deployed hedge fund assets. Using new data on investor interest from a secondary market for hedge funds, this paper verifies the existence of capacity constraints in hedge funds. There is more mixed evidence on the information available to hedge fund investors. Buy and sell indications arrive following fund outperformance. While buy indications have little incremental power to predict hedge fund performance over and above well-known forecasting variables, sell indications do somewhat better.     

Liquidity shocks and intraday price reaction

Using a global sample of high-frequency data, I investigate how liquidity shocks affect intraday price movements. I find a negative association between liquidity shocks and price impact. This finding remains robust after considering the exogeneity of liquidity shocks, using alternative windows to measure liquidity shocks, and controlling for volume shocks and volatility shocks. Additional tests show that the documented relation stems from idiosyncratic shocks and sell-order shocks. Moreover, I find that liquidity shocks are likely driven by uninformed traders. My evidence suggests that the market requires 30 min to accomplish price adjustments when meeting liquidity shocks.     

Does cross-listing facilitate changes in corporate ownership and control?

This paper examines whether controlling shareholders of foreign firms use a US cross-listing to facilitate changes in ownership and control. Prior to listing, about three quarters of the firms in our sample have a controlling shareholder. After listing, about half of the controlling shareholders’ voting rights decrease, with an average decrease of 24% points that differs significantly from that of the controlling shareholders of benchmark firms that do not cross-list. Large decreases in voting rights are associated with controlling shareholder characteristics, domestic market constraints, and better stock market performance and liquidity. In addition, there is control change in 22% of the firms. Controlling shareholders are more likely to sell control, and are more likely to do so to a foreign buyer, than controlling shareholders of benchmark firms. The results suggest that controlling shareholders who want to sell shares or their control stake can use a US cross-listing to decrease the cost of transferring ownership.     

Momentum or contrarian investment strategies: Evidence from Dutch institutional investors

This paper analyses investment strategies of three types of Dutch institutional investors - pension funds, life insurers and non-life insurers - over the period 1999-2005. We use balance sheet and cash flow data, including purchases and sales of equity, fixed income and real estate. We trace asset reallocations back to both active trading and revaluations and link investment decisions to firm-specific characteristics and macroeconomic variables. Overall, our results indicate that all three investor types tend to be contrarian traders, i.e. they buy past losers and sell past winners. Especially pension funds showed this behaviour in the most turbulent part of the sample - the crash of 2002 and early 2003 - implying that these institutions have a stabilising impact on financial markets when this is needed most. Life insurers tend to be contrarian traders when they have a high proportion of unit-linked policies, while non-life insurers are contrarian when they have a more risky business model.     

Can hedge funds time market liquidity?

We explore a new dimension of fund managers' timing ability by examining whether they can time market liquidity through adjusting their portfolios' market exposure as aggregate liquidity conditions change. Using a large sample of hedge funds, we find strong evidence of liquidity timing. A bootstrap analysis suggests that top-ranked liquidity timers cannot be attributed to pure luck. In out-of-sample tests, top liquidity timers outperform bottom timers by 4.0–5.5% annually on a risk-adjusted basis. We also find that it is important to distinguish liquidity timing from liquidity reaction, which primarily relies on public information. Our results are robust to alternative explanations, hedge fund data biases, and the use of alternative timing models, risk factors, and liquidity measures. The findings highlight the importance of understanding and incorporating market liquidity conditions in investment decision making.     

On short-term institutional trading skill,behavioral biases,and liquidity need

Are portfolio managers skilled or do they trade too much? Using a marked-to-market based “fair-value” method for measuring fund manager skill, we find that institutional managers can potentially earn +42 (+33) basis points benchmark-adjusted return before transaction costs after a holding period of four weeks on their buy (sell) trades. After transaction costs, the benchmark-adjusted return for the buy (sell) trades is +1 (-8) basis points. Pension fund managers outperform money managers. We are unable to detect evidence for overconfidence among pension fund managers over this short-horizon. In addition, we are unable to find evidence of disposition effect among mutual fund managers. Institutions tend to engage in short-term trades with holding period of four weeks (or less) despite only breaking-even or making economically insignificant (modest) benchmark-adjusted losses after round-trip transaction costs for liquidity, risk-management, or tax-minimization reasons. Among these, evidence for liquidity trading motive is the strongest.