Multimarket trading and liquidity: a transaction data analysis of Canada–US interlistings

We use transaction data for Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE) listed stocks to examine the impact on trading costs of the decision to interlist on a US exchange. We measure trading costs using both ‘posted’ bid-ask spreads and ‘effective’ bid-ask spreads that measure actual transaction prices relative to standing bid-ask quotes. After controlling for price level, trade size and trading volume effects, we find that overall posted and effective spreads in the domestic (TSE) market decrease subsequent to the interlisting. However, the decrease in trading costs is concentrated in those TSE stocks that experience a significant shift of total trading volume (TSE and US) to the US exchange after listing. We interpret this result in the context of theories of multimarket trading as a competitive response by TSE market makers to the additional presence of US market makers.     

Booms, Busts, and Fraud

Firms sometimes commit fraud by altering publicly reported informationto be more favorable, and investors can monitor firms to obtainmore accurate information. We study equilibrium fraud and monitoringdecisions. Fraud is most likely to occur in relatively goodtimes, and the link between fraud and good times becomes strongeras monitoring costs decrease. Nevertheless, improving businessconditions may sometimes diminish fraud. We provide an explanationfor why fraud peaks towards the end of a boom and is then revealedin the ensuing bust. We also show that fraud can increase iffirms make more information available to the public.     

Inflation targeting and business cycle synchronization

Inflation targeting seems to have a small but positive effect on the synchronization of business cycles; countries that target inflation seem to have cycles that move slightly more closely with foreign cycles. Thus the advent of inflation targeting does not explain the decoupling of global business cycles, for two reasons. Indeed business cycles have not in fact become less synchronized across countries.     

Cross-border insolvency law in India: Are the principles of comity of courts and inherent common law jurisdiction relevant?

Deliberations are in the final stages for enacting a cross-border insolvency law in India based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency 1997 (‘Model Law’). The cross-border insolvency regime in India will provide an avenue for recognising foreign insolvency proceedings in India. Although it is a matter of time before India adopts the Model Law, it is important to examine whether there remains an independent basis in addition to the Model Law for recognising and providing assistance to cross-border insolvency proceedings in India. This is crucial on account of the following reasons: first, the Model Law does not provide that it is the exclusive pathway for foreign creditors to seek remedies under domestic law. The Model Law, as reflected in Article 7, was intended by its drafters to be an additional gateway to those provided under local laws. The proposed Indian law in Article 5 of Draft Part Z of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 also does not depart expressly from this principle. Second, there may be instances where neither the ‘Centre of Main Interests’ nor an establishment of a corporate debtor is situated in India; therefore, assistance and cooperation in respect of such cross-border insolvency proceeding can only be based on the inherent common law jurisdiction, if available. Third, the cross-border insolvency framework in India will be premised on the requirement for reciprocity and, therefore, countries that do not meet the reciprocity requirement may find it beneficial if such an independent basis for recognition exists in India. This article argues that foreign representatives should be encouraged to explore the possibility of seeking assistance from the commercial courts in India under the common law principles governing cross-border insolvency and that the courts in India should be open to this possibility.     

Seemingly inconsistent analyst revisions

In about 20%–30% of cases where an analyst revises two outputs (namely, earnings estimates, target prices, or stock recommendations) simultaneously, the two estimates are revised in opposite directions. Existing literature notes that these inconsistent outputs are widespread, and concludes that they are lower-quality, driven by strategic bias, and are viewed as less valid by investors. We find that these characterizations are generally inaccurate. Apparent inconsistency is largely driven by accounting and economic factors, with only limited evidence that investment banking-related conflicts play a role. Moreover, inconsistent outputs are neither less accurate than consistent outputs nor do they resolve less investor uncertainty upon their release. Overall, our results suggest that researchers should be cautious in interpreting the correlation between analyst outputs as a measure of bias or quality, and in using a single analyst output as a proxy for an analyst's overall views.