Does Corporate Investment Improve Stock Liquidity?
|
|
- Brice Bryan
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Does Corporate Investment Improve Stock Liquidity? Moonsoo Kang 1 December 15, 2013 Moonsoo Kang is an assistant professor at the Hagan School of Business at Iona College. Mail: 715 North Avenue, Iona College, New Rochelle, NY 10801, Tel: (914) , mkang@iona.edu.
2 Does Corporate Investment Improve Stock Liquidity? Abstract Corporate investment affects the risk of a firm which, in turn, changes stock liquidity. Moreover, stock liquidity also influences corporate investment. This study analyzes the interaction between stock liquidity and corporate investment. We demonstrate that corporate investment improves stock liquidity even after controlling for the feedback effect. Moreover, stock liquidity improves more apparently for firms with financial constraints because those firms are more likely to experience great risk shift. Finally, the effect of corporate investment is robust to equity financing, confirming that the liquidity improvement is attributable to the risk shift from corporate investment. JEL Classification: G14, G31 Keywords: Stock Liquidity, Corporate Investment, Financial Constraints - 2 -
3 1. Introduction Corporate investment decision can affect stock liquidity. As Berk, Green, and Naik (1999) demonstrate, optimal corporate investment decision has an impact on the risk of a stock. Moreover, a change in the risk affects the behavior of traders, whether informed or not. Therefore, a change in the trading behavior can lead to a change in stock liquidity. On the other hand, the literature also addresses that stock liquidity influences corporate investment. As a determinant of required returns (Acharya and Pedersen, 2005), stock liquidity expands the set of profitable investment opportunities (Becker-Blease and Paul, 2006). In this study, we analyze the interaction between corporate investment and stock liquidity and provide empirical evidence on the role of corporate investment in stock liquidity. Conforming to the existing investment literature, our research frame follows a panel data analysis with both firm and year fixed effects. Moreover, to control for the feedback effect, we estimate the portion of corporate investment orthogonal to stock liquidity for all the companies on the COMPUSTA and CRSP data set over the period of 1962 to Our empirical analysis shows that corporate investment indeed improves stock liquidity and that this effect still holds even after controlling for the feedback effect of stock liquidity on corporate investment. Specifically, we find that an increase in corporate investment leads to an increase in stock liquidity. Moreover, high stock liquidity is associated with high corporate - 3 -
4 investment, consistent with the literature. Finally, we observe that corporate investment, orthogonal to stock liquidity, indeed contributes to stock liquidity, confirming that corporate investment plays an important role in improving stock liquidity despite the feedback effect. Moreover, we also find that the effect of corporate investment is stronger for firms with financial constraints. We use three variables as a measure of financial constraints: the Kaplan and Zinglales (1997; KZ) index, the Whited and Wu (2006; WW) index, and asset size. Following Baker, Stein, and Wurgler (2003), we use the revised KZ index, a composite index based on cash flow, cash dividend, cash balance, and leverage. The WW index is also a composite index, consisting of cash flow, dividend dummy, leverage, beginning-year-of book asset, industry sales growth, and firm sales growth. Specifically, we classify a universe of stocks into two groups every year: High and Low and compare two groups of stocks. Our empirical analysis shows that the improvement of stock liquidity is more apparent for financiallyconstrained firms such as high-kz/ww and small firms. In our robustness check, we explore an alternative explanation for the corporate investment-stock liquidity relation. That is, firms sometimes raise equity capital to meet the financing need for new investment opportunities. Thus, one can raise the possibility that improved stock liquidity is attributable to an increase in outstanding shares from new equity financing, not corporate investment. Therefore, we control net equity financing in a dollar - 4 -
5 amount to see whether equity financing improves stock liquidity and find that corporate investment improves stock liquidity, regardless of equity financing. This finding confirms that a change in stock liquidity comes from a risk shift due to corporate investment, consistent with our conjecture. Our study shares with Gopalan, Kadan, and Pevsner (2012) the notion that a firm s corporate investment decision is related to stock liquidity. While Gopalan, Kadan, and Pevsner (2012) focus on the role of asset liquidity associated with investment decision, the current study emphasizes the risk shift of corporate investment contributing to stock liquidity. This paper is also related to a line of recent researches explaining stock return behaviors based on a real-option or investment-based approach. This strand of literature stems from Berk, Green, and Naik (1999). They argue that optimal investment choices change a firm s assets and growth options in predictable ways and that a firm s book-to-market, determinant variable of corporate investment, serves as a state variable summarizing the firm s risk relative to the scale of its asset base. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 develops our testable hypotheses while Section 3 presents our research framework for the analysis and introduces a variety of stock liquidity measures. Section 4 discusses the data and presents our empirical analysis. Section 5 presents robust test results. Finally, Section 6 concludes the paper
6 2. Hypothesis Development We motivate the current research as follows. Stock liquidity is endogenously determined. That is, stock liquidity is governed by trade volume from different motives such as private information and liquidity. While both trade motives are influenced by the risk of underlying asset, the underlying risk is, on average, negatively associated with stock liquidity, as in Kyle (1985). In the meantime, corporate investment decreases the risk of a stock and therefore negatively relates to expected returns, producing the predictable relationship between book-to-market ratios and stock returns (Berk, Green, and Naik, 1999). 1 Thus, combining these two facts, we conjecture that corporate investment decision leads to a lower risk, which in turn improves stock liquidity. Moreover, this notion is also consistent with Eisfeldt (2004) suggesting that liquidity is pro-cycle. That is, high stock liquidity accompanies a positive economic condition which is characterized by a high marginal q, market-to-book ratio. In turn, a high marginal q leads to high corporate investment according to the corporate investment literature. 2 After all, corporate investment can contribute to stock liquidity. However, there is also the feedback effect of stock liquidity on corporate investment. When there is a positive shock on stock liquidity, the cost of equity decreases, which in turn expands the set of profitable investment opportunities (Becker-Blease and Paul, 2006). Stock 1 See Carlson, Fisher, and Giammarino (2004), Zhang (2005), and Liu, Whited, and Zhang (2009) for the literature. 2 See Hubbard (1998) for the classical corporate investment literature review
7 liquidity also affects the sensitivity of corporate investment to stock price through manager s information acquisition from stock price (Chen, Goldstein, and Jiang, 2007). Moreover, high stock liquidity reduces the cost of raising capital for investment through lower investment banker s fee for seasonal equity offerings (Butler, Grullon, and Weston, 2005). 3 Therefore, we empirically examine whether corporate investment indeed improves stock liquidity given the feedback effect of stock liquidity on corporate investment 4. Moreover, we also postulate that stock liquidity improves more apparently for firms with financial constraints. It is because those firms are more likely to experience apparent risk shift. As financial constraints prevent firms from financing all the desired investments, financiallyconstrained firms are less likely to respond to investment opportunities, as shown in Kaplan and Zinglales (1997) and Baker, Stein, and Wurgler (2003). Therefore, the fact that firms with financial constraints increase corporate investment suggests that those firms see value-enhancing investment opportunities. Accordingly, one can hypothesis that a given change in corporate investment leads to a greater change in the risk for firms with financial constraints (Li and Zhang, 2010). 3 The following is a partial list of studies linking corporate investment and stock markets: stock mispricing (Polk, Christopher, and Sapienza, 2009; Baker, Stein, and Wurgler, 2003), informative stock price (Foucault and Fresard, 2012; Bakke and Whited, 2010; Fang, Noe, and Tice, 2009; Khanna and Sonti, 2004; Subrahmanyam and Titman, 1999; Dow and Gorton, 1997). 4 Bond, Edmans, and Goldstein (2012) provide an excellent survey on the feedback effect of stock market to real economy
8 3. A model for stock liquidity and its feedback effect Following Gopalan et al. (2012), we estimate stock liquidity using a panel model with both firm fixed effects and time effects as follows, LIQ i, t RET 5 INV i i, t 1 t Q 6 0 i, t 1 i, t CF 7 LIQ o i, t i, t 1 i, t SIZE 1 i, t 1 PRC 2 i, t 1 TNV 3 i, t 1 VOL 4 i, t 1 (1) where LIQ i, t is firm i s stock liquidity in year t, i and t represent year and firm-fixed effects. The equation includes well-known control variables, such as lagged LIQ, SIZE (firm s capitalization), PRC (stock s price), TNV (stock s turnover), and VOL (lagged return volatility). Moreover, we also add RET (lagged return), Q (market-to-book ratio), and CF (cash flow) to capture the effect of corporate investment orthogonal to these variables. We employ three different stock liquidity measures: the Amihud (2002; AMH) illiquidity ratio, the Hasbrouck (2009; GBS) Gibbs sampler estimate, and the Fong, Holden, and Trzcinka (2011; FHT) measure. The AMH ratio is a cost-to-volume measure for liquidity. While the GBS estimate is Gibbs sampler estimate of the Roll(1988) s measure for the implicit bid-ask spread, the FHT measure is a cost-to-price measure for liquidity. Specifically, the AMH ratio is the average of a square root of daily liquidity measure which is an absolute daily return scaled by daily dollar trade volume in year t. It is defined as follows
9 AMH i, t 1 D i, t D RET i, d VOLUME d 1 i, d (2) The GBS estimate is the implicit bid-ask spread, s, proposed in Roll (1984) and revised by Hasbrouck (2009). This measure is calculated as the square root of the negative daily autocorrelation of individual stock returns, that is, GBS COVR, R ) (3) i, t ( i, d i, d 1 Since the auto-covariance of stock returns is often positive, this measure is not well defined in many cases. To overcome this problem, Hasbrouck (2009) introduces a Gibbs sampler estimate of the Roll s measure. 5 On the other hand, the FHT measure combines two features of transaction costs: return volatility and the proportion of zero returns. 6 It is estimated as FHT i, t 2 i, t 1 1 Zerosi 2, t (4) 5 We obtain this measure from Joel Hasbrouck s Web site ( 6 For details, see Fong et al. (2011). The measure is similar to the LOT measure in Lesmond, Ogden, and Trzcinka (1999) and the LOT Y-split measure in Goyenko, Holden, and Trzcinka (2009). Recent studies such as Marshall, Nguyen, and Visaltanachoti (2012), and Edmans, Fang, and Zur (2013), have already used the FHT measure
10 where i, t is the standard deviation of firm i s daily returns in year t, 1 is a probit function, that is, the inverse cumulative distribution function, associated with the standard normal distribution and Zeros i,t is the proportion of firm i s zero returns, calculated as the number of zero-return days divided by the number of total trading days in year t. The use of Zeros i,t is based on the idea that a zero return arises because transactions costs deter marginal investors from trading, and thus the frequency of zero returns signals illiquidity. On the other hand, to address the feedback effect of stock liquidity on corporate investment (Becker-Blease and Paul, 2006; Chen et al., 2007), we employ the portion of corporate investment orthogonal to stock liquidity. That is, we model corporate investment and estimate the residuals of corporate investment based on Chen et al. (2007). Conforming to the existing corporate investment literature, Chen et al. (2007) uses the following baseline model, INV i, t i t 1Qi, t 1 2CFi, t 3LIQi, t 1 4Qi, t 1 LIQi, t 1 5CFi, t LIQi, t 1 i, t (5) where INV i, t is firm i s investment in year t, i and t represent year and firm-fixed effects. We use two different investment measures: capital expenditures (Compustat Annual Item 128) and the sum of capital expenditure and R&D expenses (Compustat Annual Item 46), both scaled by beginning-of-year book assets (Item 6)
11 Corporate investment increases with two economic fundamentals: investment opportunity, measured as Q, and financial constraints, measured as CF. Moreover, corporate investment is also affected by stock liquidity directly and indirectly. 7 As Eisfeldt (2004) argues, liquidity magnifies the effect of changes in productivity on corporate investment. Since higher liquidity makes long-term risky investment more attractive, corporate investment increases more when stock liquidity improves. 4. Corporate investment and stock liquidity 4.1 Data We use common stocks (share code of 10 or 11) on the COMPUSTAT and CRSP data set over the period of 1969 to Conforming to the investment literature (Bakke and Whited, 2010), the dataset excludes all the firms whose primary SIC classification is between 4900 and 4999 or between 6000 and 6999 because our corporate investment model is inappropriate for regulated or financial firms. We also include only those whose book equity is greater than 10million dollars. As a result, the sample contains total 107,528 firm-year observations. Table 1 reports descriptive statistics. AMH, the Amihud illiquidity ratio, varies from to While the GBS estimate is from to 0.049, FHT ranges from to While Chen et al. (2007) focus on information acquisition through a liquidity proxy, our study employs stock liquidity as a state variable affecting corporate investment
12 To minimize the effect of outliers, we winsorize corporate investment variables, CAP and CRD, values outside the and fractiles equal to these fractiles. Q is defined as the market value of equity plus book value of assets minus book value of equity, scaled by beginning-ofyear assets in year t-1. CF is the sum of net income before extraordinary item and depreciation and amortization expenses, scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t. We use several control variables. SIZE is the firm size defined as the logarithm of capitalization in year t-1. PRC is the logarithm of a stock price in year t-1. TNV is the average of the logarithm of daily turnover in year t-1. VOL is the standard deviation of daily stock return in year t-1. RET is a stock return over year t-1. Table 2 presents correlations among variables. We find that all the stock liquidity measures are highly correlated with each other (i.e. correlations of 0.662, 0.743, and 0.860). Moreover, consistent with the liquidity literature, stock liquidity measures are very persistent based on unreported results. For example, while AMH shows a serial correlation of 0.811, GBS and FHT exhibit a similar magnitude with correlations of and On the other hand, we observe that corporate investment variables are strongly related to each other (i.e. a correlation of 0.617) and that they are weakly related to stock liquidity, however. While a correlation between AMH and CAP (CRD) is (-0.106), a correlation with GBS (FHT) is (-0.017) for CAP and (-0.028) for CRD
13 4.2 The effect of corporate investment on stock liquidity Corporate investment decision is often evaluated in a real options context because the decision to invest changes the ratio of growth options to assets in place. Thus, option exercise can change the risk of a firm in various ways. As a result, the risk of a firm relates to current and historical investment decisions of the firm (Carlson et al., 2004). On the other hand, a change in the risk of a firm also affects the trade motive of investors, leading to a change in stock liquidity. In this section, we examine a direct relation between corporate investment and stock liquidity in a panel analysis after controlling for year and firm-fixed effects. Specifically, we analyze the relation based on three stock liquidity measures: AMH, GBS, and FHT. Moreover, confirming to the corporate investment literature, we also employ two corporate investment measures normalized by a firm s asset: CAP and CRD. Table 3 presents the empirical analysis based on nominal corporate investment. Our findings are summarized as follows. First, lagged stock liquidity is strongly related to current stock liquidity, which is not surprising. This result just confirms that stock liquidity is persistent. Second, large firms and high trade activity are associated with high stock liquidity while we find mixed results for stock price or return volatility. Third, both lagged returns and current cash flows positively relate to stock liquidity. Finally, we find that corporate investment positively affects stock liquidity. That is, both corporate investment measures, CAP and CRD, significantly
14 contribute to stock liquidity for all the three stock liquidity measures. Given the well-known determinants for stock liquidity and both year and firm-fixed effects, this finding is interesting. Overall, primary panel data analysis shows that corporate investment seems to decrease the risk of a firm which, in turn, increases stock liquidity. However, we need to control for the feedback effect of stock liquidity on corporate investment, as addressed shortly in the next analysis. 4.3 The feedback effect of stock liquidity on corporate investment The liquidity literature addresses that stock liquidity affects corporate investment through several channels. For example, Becker-Blease and Paul (2006) argue that exogenous stock liquidity shock leads to an increase in firms profitable investment opportunities by showing that addition to the Standard and Poor s 500 Index enhances firm s growth opportunities. On the other hand, Butler et al. (2005) find that high stock liquidity reduces the cost of raising capital for investment by demonstrating that SEO investment banks fees are significantly lower for firms with more liquid stock. Finally, Chen et al. (2007) also observe the information role of stock liquidity in determining corporate investment. In this section, we start by investigating the feedback effect of stock liquidity on corporate investment. Table 4 presents the panel data analysis on corporate investment using
15 Equation (5). Consistent with the literature, stock liquidity positively affects corporate investment while the interaction with other variables shows mixed evidence. In the next step, we control the feedback effect. Specifically, we employ the portion of corporate investment orthogonal to stock liquidity. That is, we model corporate investment and estimate the residuals of corporate investment based on Chen et al. (2007). Table 5 exhibits our analysis based on corporate investment orthogonal to liquidity. Our findings are similar to those in Table 3. More importantly, we confirm that corporate investment indeed improves stock liquidity even after controlling for the feedback effect. Specifically, the coefficients for all the three liquidity measures are still significant for CAP or CRD. Taken together, empirical evidence in Table 5 leads us to conclude that corporate investment indeed contributes to stock liquidity significantly The interaction effect with financial constraints We also postulate that stock liquidity improves more apparently for firms with financial constraints. It is because those firms are more likely to experience apparent risk shift. As financial constraints prevent firms from financing all the desired investments, financiallyconstrained firms are less likely to respond to investment opportunities, as shown in Kaplan and Zinglales (1997) and Baker, Stein, and Wurgler (2003). Therefore, the fact that firms with
16 financial constraints increase corporate investment suggests that those firms see value-enhancing investment opportunities. Accordingly, one can hypothesis that a given change in corporate investment leads to a greater change in the risk for firms with financial constraints (Li and Zhang, 2010). We use three variables as a measure of financial constraints: the Kaplan and Zinglales (1997; KZ) index, the Whited and Wu (2006; WW) index, and asset size. Following Baker, Stein, and Wurgler (2003), we use the revised KZ index, a composite index based on cash flow (CF), cash dividend (DIV), cash balance (CB), and leverage (LEV), normalized by beginning-of-year book asset. It is defined as follows. KZ i, t 1.002CFi, t DIVi, t 1.315CBi, t LEVi, t (6) The WW index is also a composite index, consisting of cash flow (CF), dividend dummy (DDIV), leverage (LEV), logarithm of beginning-year-of book asset (LTA), industry sales growth (ISG), and firm sales growth (SG). It is estimated as follows. WW i, t 0.091CFi, t 0.062DDIVi, t 0.021LEVi, t 0.044LTAi, t 0.102ISGi, t SG i, t (7)
17 Specifically, we classify a universe of stocks into two groups every year based on financial constraints and compare the sensitivity of stock liquidity to corporate investment. Tables 6 to 8 present the analysis sorted on KZ, WW, and asset size, respectively. Indeed, our analysis shows that the effect of corporate investment is stronger for firms with financial constraints. 8 That is, stock liquidity improves more apparently for high-kz/ww index-scored and small firms. Taken together, along with the main hypothesis shown in Section 4.3, the current analysis strengthens our interpretation on the role of corporate investment. That is, corporate investment changes the risk of stocks. Moreover, when firm is financially constrained, a decrease in the risk is more apparent, which boosters the liquidity motive of traders and leads to a greater improvement in stock liquidity. 5. Robustness check In this section, we investigate whether the effect of corporate investment is explained by any alternative economic force. Specifically, we examine if equity financing accompanied by corporate investment decisions contributes to improved stock liquidity. The reason is as follows. Equity financing can often accompany corporate investment. Moreover, an increase in equity 8 The only exception is for asset size-based sorting with CRD measure in Table
18 capital itself can lead to an increase in stock liquidity, as shown in Eckbo, Masulis, and Norli (2000). Thus, someone might suspect that an increase in stock liquidity is attributable to equity financing, not corporate investment decision. To exclude this possibility, we conduct a robustness test by classifying stocks into two groups based on equity financing. Table 9 presents the analysis based on equity financing. Overall, we find that the effect of corporate investment is significant regardless of equity financing. For example, corporate investment improves stock liquidity for firms with no equity financing as well as firms with equity financing. Interestingly, if any, the effect of corporate investment is more apparent for the former, not the latter. Taken together, this analysis confirms that corporate investment indeed improves stock liquidity and that the effect is robust to equity financing. Thus, we can conclude that improved stock liquidity is attributable to the risk shift by corporate investment, not equity financing. 6. Conclusions Corporate investment has an impact on the risk of a stock which, in turn, affects stock liquidity. Moreover, stock liquidity also influences corporate investment. This study analyzes the interaction between stock liquidity and corporate investment. Using the panel data analysis with year and firm-fixed effects, we show that corporate
19 investment improves stock liquidity. Moreover, to control for the feedback effect, we employ the portion of corporate investment orthogonal to stock liqudity and still confirm the effect of corporate investment on stock liquidity even after controlling for the feedback effect. We also find the interaction of corporate investment with financial constraints by showing that stock liquidity improves more apparently for financially-constrained firms. This is because those firms are more likely to experience great risk shift. Finally, our analysis shows that the effect of corporate investment is robust to equity financing, suggesting that improved stock liquidity is attributable to the risk shift from corporate investment, not equity financing. On the other hand, we would like to point out the following. The effect of corporate investment on stock liquidity complicates managerial investment decision, since their investment decision is likely to affect future investment opportunities through stock liquidity. Therefore, when firm s managers make an investment decision, they need to consider not only the current investment opportunity but also how their investment decision changes future stock liquidity which in turn affects further investment opportunities. Thus, this dynamic relation between corporate investment and stock liquidity opens a fruitful venue for future research
20 7. References 1. Acharya, Viral and Lasse H. Pedersen, 2005, Asset pricing with liquidity risk, Journal of Financial Economics 77, Amihud, Yakov, 2002, Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects, Journal of Financial Markets 5, Baker, Malcolm, Jeremy Stein, and Jeffery Wurgler, 2003, When does the market matter? stock prices and the investment of equity dependent firms, Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, Bakke, T. and Toni Whited, 2010, Which firms follow the market? an analysis of corporate investment decisions. Review of Financial Studies 23, Berk, Jonathan, Richard C. Green, and Vasant Naik, 1999, Optimal investment, growth options, and security returns, Journal of Finance 54, Bond, Philip, Alex Edmans, and Itay Goldstein, 2012, The real effects of financial markets, Annual Review of Financial Economics 4, Becker-Blease, John and Donna Paul, 2006, Stock liquidity and investment opportunities: evidence from index additions, Financial Management 35, Butler, A., G. Grullon, and J. Weston, 2005, Stock market liquidity and the cost of issuing equity, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 40, Carlson, Murray, Adlai Fisher, and Ron Giammarino, 2004, Corporate investment and asset price dynamics: Implications for the cross-section of returns, Journal of Finance, Chen, Q., Itay Goldstein, and Jiang Wang, 2007, Price informativeness and investment sensitivity to stock price, Review of Financial Studies 20,
21 11. Dow, J. and G. Gorton, 1997, Stock market efficiency and economic efficiency: Is there a connection? Journal of Finance 52, Durnev, A., R. Morck, and B. Yeung, 2004, Value-enhancing capital budgeting and firmspecific stock return variation, Journal of Finance 59, Eckbo, B. E., R.W. Masulis, and O. Norli, 2000, Seasoned public offerings: resolution of the new issues puzzle, Journal of Financial Economics 56, Edmans, A., Vivian Fang, Emanuel Zur, 2013, The effect of liquidity on governance, Review of Financial Studies 26, Eisfeldt, L. Andrea, 2004, Endogenous liquidity in asset markets, Journal of Finance 59, Fang, V.W., Thomas Noe, and S. Tice S, Stock market liquidity and firm value. Journal of Financial Economics. 94, Fong, K., Craigh Holden, and Charles Trzcinka, 2013, What are the best liquidity proxies for global research? SSRN working paper. 18. Foucault, T. and L. Fresard, 2012, Cross-listing, investment sensitivity to stock price and the learning hypothesis, Review of Financial Studies 25, Gopalan, R., O. Kadan, and M. Pevzner, 2012, Asset liquidity and stock Liquidity, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 47, Goyenko, R., Craig Holden, and Charles Trzcinka, 2009, Do liquidity measures measure liquidity? Journal of Financial Economics 92, Hasbrouck, J., 2009, Trading costs and returns for U.S. equities: estimating effective costs from daily data, Journal of Finance 64, Hubbard, Glenn, 1998, Capital market imperfections and investment, Journal of Economic Literature 36, Kaplan, Steven and Luigi Zingales, 1997, Do investment-cash flow sensitivities provide - 2 -
22 useful measures of financing constraints? Quarterly Journal of Economics 112, Khanna, N. and R. Sonti, 2004, Value creating stock manipulation: feedback effect of stock prices on firm value, Journal of Financial Markets 7, Kyle, Albert, 1985, Continuous auctions and insider trading, Econometrica 53, Lesmond, David, Joseph Ogden, and Charles Trzcinka, 1999, A new estimate of transaction costs, Review of Financial Studies 12, Liu, Laura, Toni Whited, and Lu Zhang, 2009, Investment-based expected stock returns, Journal of Political Economy 117, Li, D., and L. Zhang, 2010, Does Q-theory with investment frictions explain anomalies in the cross-section of returns? Journal of Financial Economics 98, Livdan D., H. Sapriza, and L. Zhang, 2009, Financially constrained stock returns, Journal of Finance 64, Polk, Christopher, and Paola Sapienza, 2009, The stock market and corporate investment: a test of catering theory, Review of Financial Studies 22, Roll, Richard, 1988, R 2, Journal of Finance 43, Subrahmanyam A. and S. Titman, 1999, The going public decision and the development of financial markets, Journal of Finance 54, Zhang, Lu, 2005, The Value Premium, Journal of Finance 60,
23 Table 1. Descriptive Statistics This table presents descriptive statistics for the panel data set. AMH is the average of a square root of the Amihud s (2002) daily liquidity measure which is an absolute daily return scaled by daily dollar trade volume in year t. GBS is the Hasbrouck(2009) s Gibbs sampler estimate (divided by 100) of the Roll(1988) s measure for the implicit bid-ask spread in year t. FHT is the product of the standard deviation of daily stock return and the probit function of (1+the proportion of zero returns)/2 in year t, multiplied by two. CAP (or CRD) is capital expenditure (plus R&D) scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t. Q is the market value of equity plus book value of assets minus book value of equity, scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t-1. CF is the sum of net income before extraordinary item and depreciation and amortization expenses, scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t. SIZE is the firm size defined as the logarithm of capitalization in year t-1. PRC is the logarithm of a stock price in year t-1. TNV is the average of the logarithm of daily turnover in year t-1. VOL is the standard deviation of daily stock return in year t-1. RET is a stock return over year t-1. The sample spans 1962 to Mean Std. Dev. 1 percent Median 99 percent AMH GBS FHT CAP CRD Q CF SIZE PRC TNV VOL RET
24 Table 2. Correlations This table presents correlations among variables. AMH is the average of the square root of the Amihud s (2002) daily liquidity measure which is an absolute daily return scaled by daily dollar trade volume in year t. GBS is the Hasbrouck(2009) s Gibbs sampler estimate (divided by 100) of the Roll(1988) s measure for the implicit bid-ask spread in year t. FHT is the product of the standard deviation of daily stock return and the probit function of (1+the proportion of zero returns)/2 in year t, multiplied by two. CAP (or CRD) is the capital expenditure (plus R&D) scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t. Q is the market value of equity plus book value of assets minus book value of equity, scaled by book value of assets in year t-1. CF is the sum of net income before extraordinary item and depreciation and amortization expenses, scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t. SIZE is the firm size defined as the logarithm of capitalization in year t- 1. PRC is the logarithm of a stock price in year t-1. TNV is the average of the logarithm of daily turnover in year t-1. VOL is the standard deviation of daily stock return in year t-1. RET is a stock return over year t-1. The sample spans 1962 to FHT GBS CAP CRD Q CF SIZE PRC TNV VOL RET AMH GBS FHT CAP CRD Q CF SIZE PRC TNV VOL 0.031
25 Table 3. The Effect of Corporate Investment on Stock Liquidity This table presents the analysis for the panel data with both firm and year effects. The dependent variable is AMH/GBS/FHT. AMH is the average of the square root of the Amihud s (2002) daily liquidity measure which is an absolute daily return scaled by daily dollar trade volume in year t. GBS is the Hasbrouck(2009) s Gibbs sampler estimate (divided by 100) of the Roll(1988) s measure for the implicit bid-ask spread in year t. FHT is the product of the standard deviation of daily stock return and the probit function of (1+the proportion of zero returns)/2 in year t, multiplied by two in year t. INV is CAP (or CRD), capital expenditure (plus R&D) scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t. LLIQ is AMH/GBS/FHT in year t-1. SIZE is the firm size defined as the logarithm of capitalization in year t-1. PRC is the logarithm of a stock price in year t-1. TNV is the average of the logarithm of daily turnover in year t-1. VOL is the standard deviation of daily stock return in year t-1. RET is a stock return over year t-1. Q is the market value of equity plus book value of assets minus book value of equity, scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t-1. CF is the sum of net income before extraordinary item and depreciation and amortization expenses, scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t. The t-values are presented in parentheses. The sample spans 1962 to CAP CRD AMH GBS FHT AMH GBS FHT INV (-14.25) (-10.31) (-8.40) (-15.50) (-10.70) (-11.99) LLIQ (175.9) (135.51) (187.15) (175.34) (135.40) (186.61) SIZE (-27.03) (-11.52) (-26.25) (-26.34) (-10.89) (-26.16) PRC (5.11) (-9.40) (0.62) (3.37) (-10.89) (-0.31) TNV (-9.45) (-6.28) (-4.74) (-8.91) (-5.76) (-4.27) VOL (-1.14) (21.60) (-10.17) (-0.57) (21.95) (-9.70) RET (-45.80) (-39.69) (-52.46) (-46.07) (-39.94) (-52.58) Q (0.35) (2.35) (-0.78) (0.99) (2.83) (-0.19) CF Within R- Squared(%) (-22.50) (-26.51) (-25.42) (-25.33) (-28.25) (-27.41)
26 Table 4. The Effect of Stock Liquidity on Corporate Investment This table presents the analysis for the panel data with both firm and year effects. The dependent variable is INV, where INV is CAP (or CRD), capital expenditure (plus R&D) scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t. Q is the market value of equity plus book value of assets minus book value of equity, scaled by book value of assets in year t-1. CF is the sum of net income before extraordinary item and depreciation and amortization expenses, scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t. LLIQ is AMH/GBS/FHT in year t-1. AMH is the average of the square root of the Amihud s (2002) daily liquidity measure which is an absolute daily return scaled by daily dollar trade volume in year t. GBS is the Hasbrouck(2009) s Gibbs sampler estimate (divided by 100) of the Roll(1988) s measure for the implicit bid-ask spread in year t. FHT is the product of the standard deviation of daily stock return and the probit function of (1+the proportion of zero returns)/2 in year t, multiplied by two in year t. The t-values are presented in parentheses. The sample spans 1962 to CAP CRD AMH GBS FHT AMH GBS FHT Q (12.01) (9.70) (7.40) (24.23) (21.53) (21.94) CF (11.64) (12.88) (11.88) (-59.65) (-44.18) (-57.73) LLIQ (-10.87) (-14.64) (-13.84) (-17.76) (-2.20) (-16.08) Q*LLIQ (7.36) (-0.21) (14.71) (10.18) (-0.75) (12.42) CF*LLIQ (8.14) (-1.67) (7.13) (3.80) (-2.02) (2.41) Within R- Squared(%)
27 Table 5. The Effect of Unexpected Corporate Investment on Stock Liquidity This table presents the analysis for the panel data with both firm and year effects. The dependent variable is AMH/GBS/FHT. AMH is the average of the square root of the Amihud s (2002) daily liquidity measure which is an absolute daily return scaled by daily dollar trade volume in year t. GBS is the Hasbrouck(2009) s Gibbs sampler estimate (divided by 100) of the Roll(1988) s measure for the implicit bid-ask spread in year t. FHT is the product of the standard deviation of daily stock return and the probit function of (1+the proportion of zero returns)/2 in year t, multiplied by two in year t. UINV or EINV is unexpected or expected CAP (or CRD), capital expenditure (plus R&D) scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t. LLIQ is AMH/GBS/FHT in year t-1. SIZE is the firm size defined as the logarithm of capitalization in year t-1. PRC is the logarithm of a stock price in year t-1. TNV is the average of the logarithm of daily turnover in year t-1. VOL is the standard deviation of daily stock return in year t-1. RET is a stock return over year t-1. Q is the market value of equity plus book value of assets minus book value of equity, scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t-1. CF is the sum of net income before extraordinary item and depreciation and amortization expenses, scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t. The t-values are presented in parentheses. The sample spans 1962 to Panel A: CAP AMH GBS FHT UINV (-12.29) (-13.20) (-10.47) (-10.25) (-7.19) (-7.42) EINV (-55.98) (27.14) (-23.24) LLIQ (176.13) (134.14) (135.78) (43.07) (187.16) (170.04) SIZE (-26.74) (-30.26) (-11.54) (-11.90) (-26.07) (-27.78) PRC (4.72) (5.84) (-9.37) (-10.33) (0.39) (0.01) TNV (-9.39) (-13.63) (-6.28) (-5.94) (-4.75) (-4.47) VOL (-1.18) (3.51) (21.6) (22.5) (-10.16) (-10.11) RET (-45.92) (-42.44) (-39.69) (-39.79) (-52.57) (-50.00) Q (-0.33) (45.33) (1.87) (-26.68) (-1.19) (15.09) CF Within R- Squared(%) (-23.16) (34.31) (-27.06) (-29.89) (-25.80) (-0.93)
28 Panel B: CRD AMH GBS FHT UINV (-13.92) (-14.39) (-10.93) (-11.06) (-11.14) (-11.32) EINV (-46.99) (30.68) (-21.54) LLIQ (176.08) (81.37) (135.50) (107.65) (187.04) (139.71) SIZE (-26.20) (-28.33) (-10.90) (-11.63) (-26.07) (-27.48) PRC (3.28) (2.31) (-10.88) (-11.82) (-0.35) (-0.75) TNV (-8.89) (-14.01) (-5.75) (-5.34) (-4.31) (-3.88) VOL (-0.67) (4.28) (21.96) (23.00) (-9.72) (-9.93) RET (-46.16) (-41.62) (-39.93) (-39.63) (-52.66) (-50.02) Q (-0.42) (43.94) (1.76) (-30.46) (-1.32) (19.32) CF Within R- Squared(%) (-22.70) (-50.14) (-26.64) (29.72) (-25.54) (-26.07)
29 Table 6. Financial Constraints and the Corporate Investment-Liquidity Pattern for KZ index This table presents the analysis for the panel data with both firm and year effects. The dependent variable is AMH/GBS/FHT. AMH is the average of the square root of the Amihud s (2002) daily liquidity measure which is an absolute daily return scaled by daily dollar trade volume in year t. GBS is the Hasbrouck(2009) s Gibbs sampler estimate (divided by 100) of the Roll(1988) s measure for the implicit bid-ask spread in year t. FHT is the product of the standard deviation of daily stock return and the probit function of (1+the proportion of zero returns)/2 in year t, multiplied by two in year t. UINV is unexpected CAP (or CRD), capital expenditure (plus R&D) scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t. LLIQ is lagged AMH/GBS/FHT in year t-1. SIZE is the firm size defined as the logarithm of capitalization in year t-1. PRC is the logarithm of a stock price in year t-1. TNV is the average of the logarithm of daily turnover in year t-1. VOL is the standard deviation of daily stock return in year t-1. RET is a stock return over year t-1. Q is the market value of equity plus book value of assets minus book value of equity, scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t-1. CF is the sum of net income before extraordinary item and depreciation and amortization expenses, scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t. The coefficients (excluding LGBS/LFHT) on Panel B/C are multiplied by The t-values are presented in parentheses. The sample spans 1962 to Panel A: AMH CAP CRD High Low Diff High Low Diff UINV (-8.87) (-6.68) (-3.45) (-9.99) (-7.63) (-4.94) LLIQ (117.03) (137.18) (-0.05) (117.10) (137.02) (0.07) SIZE (-15.84) (-24.36) (-1.36) (-15.51) (-24.11) (-1.21) PRC (2.16) (6.10) (-1.25) (1.36) (5.17) (-1.47) TNV (-5.93) (-8.77) (-0.37) (-5.46) (-8.57) (-0.09) VOL (-0.22) (-2.44) (1.06) (0.15) (-2.15) (1.23) RET (-32.45) (-34.18) (-10.66) (-32.53) (-34.37) (-10.62) Q (-0.95) (-1.80) (-0.28) (-0.69) (-1.93) (0.04) CF Within R- Squared(%) (-15.98) (-19.33) (-6.55) (-15.29) (-19.24) (-5.96) No. of Obs. 46,812 48,175 46,812 48,175 6
30 Panel B: GBS CAP CRD High Low Diff High Low Diff UINV (-8.71) (-3.32) (-4.62) (-9.57) (-2.78) (-6.45) LLIQ (88.13) (107.51) (-3.29) (87.93) (107.47) (-3.52) SIZE (-6.97) (-9.08) (-0.60) (-6.56) (-8.85) (-0.40) PRC (-7.63) (-4.84) (-3.49) (-8.59) (-5.47) (-3.92) TNV (-3.34) (-6.12) (0.92) (-2.80) (-5.98) (1.27) VOL (14.26) (16.16) (2.36) (14.60) (16.22) (2.58) RET (-28.03) (-28.46) (-7.22) (-28.13) (-28.57) (-7.23) Q (-0.36) (0.78) (-0.69) (-0.08) (0.72) (-0.39) CF Within R- Squared(%) (-20.06) (-19.46) (-8.12) (-19.39) (-19.37) (-7.59) No. of Obs. 41,534 42,529 41,534 42,529 7
31 Panel C: FHT CAP CRD High Low Diff High Low Diff UINV (-7.02) (0.99) (-6.23) (-9.48) (-1.84) (-7.57) LLIQ (116.51) (166.84) (-15.14) (116.47) (166.85) (-15.28) SIZE (-15.36) (-21.16) (-2.98) (-15.27) (-21.54) (-2.72) PRC (-5.27) (10.32) (-9.70) (-5.94) (10.79) (-10.52) TNV (-2.97) (-2.87) (-1.11) (-2.50) (-2.85) (-0.71) VOL (-5.03) (-13.90) (2.41) (-4.65) (-13.79) (2.70) RET (-34.97) (-42.19) (-10.01) (-34.96) (-42.19) (-9.99) Q (-3.54) (-2.15) (-2.91) (-3.28) (-2.23) (-2.60) CF Within R- Squared(%) (-18.72) (-21.08) (-9.03) (-18.08) (-21.26) (-8.35) No. of Obs. 46,800 48,166 46,800 48,166 8
32 Table 7. Financial Constraints and the Corporate Investment-Liquidity Pattern for WW index This table presents the analysis for the panel data with both firm and year effects. The dependent variable is AMH/GBS/FHT. AMH is the average of the square root of the Amihud s (2002) daily liquidity measure which is an absolute daily return scaled by daily dollar trade volume in year t. GBS is the Hasbrouck(2009) s Gibbs sampler estimate (divided by 100) of the Roll(1988) s measure for the implicit bid-ask spread in year t. FHT is the product of the standard deviation of daily stock return and the probit function of (1+the proportion of zero returns)/2 in year t, multiplied by two in year t. UINV is unexpected CAP (or CRD), capital expenditure (plus R&D) scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t. LLIQ is lagged AMH/GBS/FHT in year t-1. SIZE is the firm size defined as the logarithm of capitalization in year t-1. PRC is the logarithm of a stock price in year t-1. TNV is the average of the logarithm of daily turnover in year t-1. VOL is the standard deviation of daily stock return in year t-1. RET is a stock return over year t-1. Q is the market value of equity plus book value of assets minus book value of equity, scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t-1. CF is the sum of net income before extraordinary item and depreciation and amortization expenses, scaled by beginning-of-year assets in year t. The coefficients (excluding LGBS/LFHT) on Panel B/C are multiplied by The t-values are presented in parentheses. The sample spans 1962 to Panel A: AMH CAP CRD High Low Diff High Low Diff UINV LLIQ SIZE PRC TNV VOL RET Q CF Within R- Squared(%) No. of Obs. 46,402 47,393 46,402 47,393 9
33 Panel B: GBS CAP CRD High Low Diff High Low Diff UINV LLIQ SIZE PRC TNV VOL RET Q CF Within R- Squared(%) No. of Obs. 40,415 42,833 40,415 42,833 10
34 Panel C: FHT CAP CRD High Low Diff High Low Diff UINV LLIQ SIZE PRC TNV VOL RET Q CF Within R- Squared(%) No. of Obs. 46,398 47,381 46,398 47,381 11
Financial Constraints and the Risk-Return Relation. Abstract
Financial Constraints and the Risk-Return Relation Tao Wang Queens College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York Abstract Stock return volatilities are related to firms' financial
More informationDo Managers Learn from Short Sellers?
Do Managers Learn from Short Sellers? Liang Xu * This version: September 2016 Abstract This paper investigates whether short selling activities affect corporate decisions through an information channel.
More informationDeviations from Optimal Corporate Cash Holdings and the Valuation from a Shareholder s Perspective
Deviations from Optimal Corporate Cash Holdings and the Valuation from a Shareholder s Perspective Zhenxu Tong * University of Exeter Abstract The tradeoff theory of corporate cash holdings predicts that
More informationLiquidity skewness premium
Liquidity skewness premium Giho Jeong, Jangkoo Kang, and Kyung Yoon Kwon * Abstract Risk-averse investors may dislike decrease of liquidity rather than increase of liquidity, and thus there can be asymmetric
More informationLiquidity Variation and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns *
Liquidity Variation and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns * Fangjian Fu Singapore Management University Wenjin Kang National University of Singapore Yuping Shao National University of Singapore Abstract
More informationFurther Test on Stock Liquidity Risk With a Relative Measure
International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 3 March 2013 Further Test on Stock Liquidity Risk With a Relative Measure David Oima* David Sande** Benjamin Ombok*** Abstract Negative relationship
More informationSources of Financing in Different Forms of Corporate Liquidity and the Performance of M&As
Sources of Financing in Different Forms of Corporate Liquidity and the Performance of M&As Zhenxu Tong * University of Exeter Jian Liu ** University of Exeter This draft: August 2016 Abstract We examine
More informationCorporate savings and price informativeness *
Corporate savings and price informativeness * Laurent Frésard This version: October 2008 Abstract This paper examines the process whereby firms accumulate their cash reserves, i.e. their savings decisions.
More informationStock Liquidity and Bankruptcy Risk
Dan Li School of Economics and Finance The University of Hong Kong Pokfulam Road, HK lidan@hku.hk Ying Xia School of Economics and Finance The University of Hong Kong Pokfulam Road, HK xiaying1102@hku.hk
More informationFeedback Effect and Capital Structure
Feedback Effect and Capital Structure Minh Vo Metropolitan State University Abstract This paper develops a model of financing with informational feedback effect that jointly determines a firm s capital
More informationCapital allocation in Indian business groups
Capital allocation in Indian business groups Remco van der Molen Department of Finance University of Groningen The Netherlands This version: June 2004 Abstract The within-group reallocation of capital
More informationTHE IMPACT OF STOCK MARKET LIQUIDITY ON CORPORATE FINANCE DECISIONS
THE IMPACT OF STOCK MARKET LIQUIDITY ON CORPORATE FINANCE DECISIONS By Mariana Khapko Submitted to Central European University Department of Economics In the partial fulfillment of the requirements for
More informationThe Effect of Financial Constraints, Investment Policy and Product Market Competition on the Value of Cash Holdings
The Effect of Financial Constraints, Investment Policy and Product Market Competition on the Value of Cash Holdings Abstract This paper empirically investigates the value shareholders place on excess cash
More informationThe Equity-Financing Channel, the Catering Channel, and Corporate Investment: International Evidence *
The Equity-Financing Channel, the Catering Channel, and Corporate Investment: International Evidence * Yuanto Kusnadi School of Accountancy Singapore Management University 60 Stamford Road, Singapore 178900
More informationStock price synchronicity and the role of analyst: Do analysts generate firm-specific vs. market-wide information?
Stock price synchronicity and the role of analyst: Do analysts generate firm-specific vs. market-wide information? Yongsik Kim * Abstract This paper provides empirical evidence that analysts generate firm-specific
More informationURL:
Cross-Delisting, Financial Constraints and Investment Sensitivities Gilberto Loureiro Sónia Silva NIPE WP 15/ 2015 Cross-Delisting, Financial Constraints and Investment Sensitivities Gilberto Loureiro
More informationMicrostructure: Theory and Empirics
Microstructure: Theory and Empirics Institute of Finance (IFin, USI), March 16 27, 2015 Instructors: Thierry Foucault and Albert J. Menkveld Course Outline Lecturers: Prof. Thierry Foucault (HEC Paris)
More informationDo Firms Choose Their Stock Liquidity? A Study of Innovative Firms and Their Stock Liquidity
Do Firms Choose Their Stock Liquidity? A Study of Innovative Firms and Their Stock Liquidity Nishant Dass, Vikram Nanda, Steven Chong Xiao August 9, 2012 Abstract We ask whether firms can choose, or at
More informationInvestment-Based Underperformance Following Seasoned Equity Offering. Evgeny Lyandres. Lu Zhang University of Rochester and NBER
Investment-Based Underperformance Following Seasoned Equity Offering Evgeny Lyandres Rice University Le Sun University of Rochester Lu Zhang University of Rochester and NBER University of Texas at Austin
More informationDoes The Market Matter for More Than Investment?
Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Plan B and other Reports Graduate Studies 5-2016 Does The Market Matter for More Than Investment? Yiwei Zhang Follow this and additional works at:
More informationPaper. Working. Unce. the. and Cash. Heungju. Park
Working Paper No. 2016009 Unce ertainty and Cash Holdings the Value of Hyun Joong Im Heungju Park Gege Zhao Copyright 2016 by Hyun Joong Im, Heungju Park andd Gege Zhao. All rights reserved. PHBS working
More informationCommitment to Overinvest and Price Informativeness
Commitment to Overinvest and Price Informativeness James Dow Itay Goldstein Alexander Guembel London Business University of University of Oxford School Pennsylvania European Central Bank, 15-16 May, 2006
More informationThe predictive power of investment and accruals
The predictive power of investment and accruals Jonathan Lewellen Dartmouth College and NBER jon.lewellen@dartmouth.edu Robert J. Resutek Dartmouth College robert.j.resutek@dartmouth.edu This version:
More informationThe Consistency between Analysts Earnings Forecast Errors and Recommendations
The Consistency between Analysts Earnings Forecast Errors and Recommendations by Lei Wang Applied Economics Bachelor, United International College (2013) and Yao Liu Bachelor of Business Administration,
More informationDo Investors Overvalue Firms With Bloated Balance Sheets?
2004 NBER BF Mtg, NOA Discussion, Kent Daniel p. 1/20 Discussion of: Do Investors Overvalue Firms With Bloated Balance Sheets? by Hirshleifer, Hou, Teoh, Zhang Kent Daniel Kellogg-Northwestern and NBER
More informationWhat Drives the Earnings Announcement Premium?
What Drives the Earnings Announcement Premium? Hae mi Choi Loyola University Chicago This study investigates what drives the earnings announcement premium. Prior studies have offered various explanations
More informationThe Impact of Institutional Investors on the Monday Seasonal*
Su Han Chan Department of Finance, California State University-Fullerton Wai-Kin Leung Faculty of Business Administration, Chinese University of Hong Kong Ko Wang Department of Finance, California State
More informationLiquidity Measurement in Frontier Markets
Liquidity Measurement in Frontier Markets Ben R. Marshall* Massey University b.marshall@massey.ac.nz Nhut H. Nguyen University of Auckland n.nguyen@auckland.ac.nz Nuttawat Visaltanachoti Massey University
More informationInvestment and Financing Constraints
Investment and Financing Constraints Nathalie Moyen University of Colorado at Boulder Stefan Platikanov Suffolk University We investigate whether the sensitivity of corporate investment to internal cash
More informationInternet Appendix to Leverage Constraints and Asset Prices: Insights from Mutual Fund Risk Taking
Internet Appendix to Leverage Constraints and Asset Prices: Insights from Mutual Fund Risk Taking In this Internet Appendix, we provide further discussion and additional empirical results to evaluate robustness
More informationLocal Culture and Dividends
Local Culture and Dividends Erdem Ucar I empirically investigate whether geographical variations in local culture, as proxied by local religion, affect dividend demand and corporate dividend policy for
More informationOnline Appendix to. The Value of Crowdsourced Earnings Forecasts
Online Appendix to The Value of Crowdsourced Earnings Forecasts This online appendix tabulates and discusses the results of robustness checks and supplementary analyses mentioned in the paper. A1. Estimating
More informationCash holdings determinants in the Portuguese economy 1
17 Cash holdings determinants in the Portuguese economy 1 Luísa Farinha Pedro Prego 2 Abstract The analysis of liquidity management decisions by firms has recently been used as a tool to investigate the
More informationR&D and Stock Returns: Is There a Spill-Over Effect?
R&D and Stock Returns: Is There a Spill-Over Effect? Yi Jiang Department of Finance, California State University, Fullerton SGMH 5160, Fullerton, CA 92831 (657)278-4363 yjiang@fullerton.edu Yiming Qian
More informationDo the LCAPM Predictions Hold? Replication and Extension Evidence
Do the LCAPM Predictions Hold? Replication and Extension Evidence Craig W. Holden 1 and Jayoung Nam 2 1 Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana 47405, cholden@indiana.edu 2
More informationCROSS-DELISTING, FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS AND INVESTMENT SENSITIVITIES
CROSS-DELISTING, FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS AND INVESTMENT SENSITIVITIES Gilberto Loureiro * and Sónia Silva March 2016 ABSTRACT We investigate the impact of cross-delisting on firms financial constraints and
More informationCorporate Risk Measures and Real Options Extended Abstract
Corporate Risk Measures and Real Options Extended Abstract Yuanshun Li Gordon Sick February 11, 2013 Rogers School of Business, Ryerson University Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary 1 Abstract
More informationCross-Listing, Investment Sensitivity to Stock Price and the Learning. Hypothesis
Cross-Listing, Investment Sensitivity to Stock Price and the Learning Hypothesis Thierry Foucault and Laurent Frésard This version: September 2010 Preliminary - Comments welcome Abstract Using a large
More informationCross-listings and corporate cash savings: International evidence
Cross-listings and corporate cash savings: International evidence Yuanto Kusnadi School of Accountancy, Singapore Management University 60 Stamford Road, Singapore 178900 This version: 21 July 2014 * Corresponding
More informationTurnover: Liquidity or Uncertainty?
Turnover: Liquidity or Uncertainty? Alexander Barinov Terry College of Business University of Georgia E-mail: abarinov@terry.uga.edu http://abarinov.myweb.uga.edu/ This version: July 2009 Abstract The
More informationCauses and consequences of Cash Flow Sensitivity: Empirical Tests of the US Lodging Industry
Journal of Hospitality Financial Management The Professional Refereed Journal of the International Association of Hospitality Financial Management Educators Volume 15 Issue 1 Article 11 2007 Causes and
More informationHedge Funds as International Liquidity Providers: Evidence from Convertible Bond Arbitrage in Canada
Hedge Funds as International Liquidity Providers: Evidence from Convertible Bond Arbitrage in Canada Evan Gatev Simon Fraser University Mingxin Li Simon Fraser University AUGUST 2012 Abstract We examine
More informationThe Role of Credit Ratings in the. Dynamic Tradeoff Model. Viktoriya Staneva*
The Role of Credit Ratings in the Dynamic Tradeoff Model Viktoriya Staneva* This study examines what costs and benefits of debt are most important to the determination of the optimal capital structure.
More informationFinancial Market Feedback:
Financial Market Feedback: New Perspective from Commodities Financialization Itay Goldstein Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania Information in prices A basic premise in financial economics: market
More informationForeign Fund Flows and Asset Prices: Evidence from the Indian Stock Market
Foreign Fund Flows and Asset Prices: Evidence from the Indian Stock Market ONLINE APPENDIX Viral V. Acharya ** New York University Stern School of Business, CEPR and NBER V. Ravi Anshuman *** Indian Institute
More informationAnother Look at Market Responses to Tangible and Intangible Information
Critical Finance Review, 2016, 5: 165 175 Another Look at Market Responses to Tangible and Intangible Information Kent Daniel Sheridan Titman 1 Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York,
More informationVariation in Liquidity, Costly Arbitrage, and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns
Variation in Liquidity, Costly Arbitrage, and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns Badrinath Kottimukkalur * January 2018 Abstract This paper provides an arbitrage based explanation for the puzzling negative
More informationCash Flow Sensitivity of Investment: Firm-Level Analysis
Cash Flow Sensitivity of Investment: Firm-Level Analysis Armen Hovakimian Baruch College and Gayane Hovakimian * Fordham University May 12, 2005 ABSTRACT Using firm level estimates of investment-cash flow
More informationInvestor Sentiment, Chairman-CEO Duality and R&D Investment
Investor Sentiment, Chairman-CEO Duality and R&D Investment Zhaohui Zhu 1, WenSheng Huang 2 1 School of Accounting, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China 2 Hangzhou College of Commerce, Zhejiang
More informationDo Value-added Real Estate Investments Add Value? * September 1, Abstract
Do Value-added Real Estate Investments Add Value? * Liang Peng and Thomas G. Thibodeau September 1, 2013 Abstract Not really. This paper compares the unlevered returns on value added and core investments
More informationExamining the relationship between growth and value stock and liquidity in Tehran Stock Exchange
www.engineerspress.com ISSN: 2307-3071 Year: 2013 Volume: 01 Issue: 13 Pages: 193-205 Examining the relationship between growth and value stock and liquidity in Tehran Stock Exchange Mehdi Meshki 1, Mahmoud
More informationFirm Diversification and the Value of Corporate Cash Holdings
Firm Diversification and the Value of Corporate Cash Holdings Zhenxu Tong University of Exeter* Paper Number: 08/03 First Draft: June 2007 This Draft: February 2008 Abstract This paper studies how firm
More informationStock Liquidity and Corporate Tax Avoidance: The Tale of Two. Tails
Stock Liquidity and Corporate Tax Avoidance: The Tale of Two Tails Yangyang Chen Department of Banking and Finance Monash University Leon Zolotoy* Melbourne Business School University of Melbourne First
More informationDay-of-the-Week Trading Patterns of Individual and Institutional Investors
Day-of-the-Week Trading Patterns of Individual and Instutional Investors Hoang H. Nguyen, Universy of Baltimore Joel N. Morse, Universy of Baltimore 1 Keywords: Day-of-the-week effect; Trading volume-instutional
More informationDo VCs Provide More Than Money? Venture Capital Backing & Future Access to Capital
LV11066 Do VCs Provide More Than Money? Venture Capital Backing & Future Access to Capital Donald Flagg University of Tampa John H. Sykes College of Business Speros Margetis University of Tampa John H.
More informationDoes Stock Price Informativeness Affect Labor Investment Efficiency?*
Does Stock Price Informativeness Affect Labor Investment Efficiency?* Hamdi Ben-Nasr College of Business Administration, King Saud University, KSA Email: hbennasr@ksu.edu.sa Abdullah A. Alshwer College
More informationThe Impact of Uncertainty on Investment: Empirical Evidence from Manufacturing Firms in Korea
The Impact of Uncertainty on Investment: Empirical Evidence from Manufacturing Firms in Korea Hangyong Lee Korea development Institute December 2005 Abstract This paper investigates the empirical relationship
More informationARTICLE IN PRESS. Journal of Financial Economics
Journal of Financial Economics 94 (2009) 150 169 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Financial Economics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfec Stock market liquidity and firm
More informationStock liquidity and CEO equity-based incentive compensation: Feedback effect of CEO on the. market. Harry(Hongrui) Feng
Stock liquidity and CEO equity-based incentive compensation: Feedback effect of CEO on the market Harry(Hongrui) Feng Department of Finance, Spears School of Business, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,
More informationDo Firms Choose Their Stock Liquidity? A Study of Innovative Firms and Their Stock Liquidity. Nishant Dass Vikram Nanda Steven C.
Do Firms Choose Their Stock Liquidity? A Study of Innovative Firms and Their Stock Liquidity Nishant Dass Vikram Nanda Steven C. Xiao Motivation Stock liquidity is a desirable feature for some firms Higher
More informationDividend Changes and Stock Price Informativeness
Dividend Changes and Stock Price Informativeness Amedeo De Cesari and Winifred Huang-Meier * First version: January 13, 2014 This version: August 18, 2014 Abstract We investigate how private information
More informationDOES INDEX INCLUSION IMPROVE FIRM VISIBILITY AND TRANSPARENCY? *
DOES INDEX INCLUSION IMPROVE FIRM VISIBILITY AND TRANSPARENCY? * John R. Becker-Blease Whittemore School of Business and Economics University of New Hampshire 15 College Road Durham, NH 03824-3593 jblease@cisunix.unh.edu
More informationCorporate Strategy, Conformism, and the Stock Market
Corporate Strategy, Conformism, and the Stock Market Thierry Foucault (HEC) Laurent Frésard (Maryland) November 20, 2015 Corporate Strategy, Conformism, and the Stock Market Thierry Foucault (HEC) Laurent
More informationTobin's Q and the Gains from Takeovers
THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LXVI, NO. 1 MARCH 1991 Tobin's Q and the Gains from Takeovers HENRI SERVAES* ABSTRACT This paper analyzes the relation between takeover gains and the q ratios of targets and
More informationA Lottery Demand-Based Explanation of the Beta Anomaly. Online Appendix
A Lottery Demand-Based Explanation of the Beta Anomaly Online Appendix Section I provides details of the calculation of the variables used in the paper. Section II examines the robustness of the beta anomaly.
More informationCORPORATE CASH HOLDING AND FIRM VALUE
CORPORATE CASH HOLDING AND FIRM VALUE Cristina Martínez-Sola Dep. Business Administration, Accounting and Sociology University of Jaén Jaén (SPAIN) E-mail: mmsola@ujaen.es Pedro J. García-Teruel Dep. Management
More informationA Replication Study of Ball and Brown (1968): Comparative Analysis of China and the US *
DOI 10.7603/s40570-014-0007-1 66 2014 年 6 月第 16 卷第 2 期 中国会计与财务研究 C h i n a A c c o u n t i n g a n d F i n a n c e R e v i e w Volume 16, Number 2 June 2014 A Replication Study of Ball and Brown (1968):
More informationInvestment Opportunities & Liquidity Constraints: Evidence from Two Emerging Markets, India and Pakistan
ABSTRACT Investment Opportunities & Liquidity Constraints: Evidence from Two Emerging Markets, India and Pakistan This paper examines the relationship between the investment opportunities and liquidity
More informationVariation in Liquidity and Costly Arbitrage
and Costly Arbitrage Badrinath Kottimukkalur * December 2018 Abstract This paper explores the relationship between the variation in liquidity and arbitrage activity. A model shows that arbitrageurs will
More informationInvestment and internal funds of distressed firms
Journal of Corporate Finance 11 (2005) 449 472 www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase Investment and internal funds of distressed firms Sanjai Bhagat a, T, Nathalie Moyen a, Inchul Suh b a Leeds School of Business,
More informationCost Structure and Payout Policy
Cost Structure and Payout Policy Manoj Kulchania a,* a School of Business Administration, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 48202 This draft: February 18, 2015 Keywords: Payout; Cost Structure, Repurchases;
More informationSize Matters, if You Control Your Junk
Discussion of: Size Matters, if You Control Your Junk by: Cliff Asness, Andrea Frazzini, Ronen Israel, Tobias Moskowitz, and Lasse H. Pedersen Kent Daniel Columbia Business School & NBER AFA Meetings 7
More informationApril 13, Abstract
R 2 and Momentum Kewei Hou, Lin Peng, and Wei Xiong April 13, 2005 Abstract This paper examines the relationship between price momentum and investors private information, using R 2 -based information measures.
More informationLocal Business Cycles and Local Liquidity *
Local Business Cycles and Local Liquidity * Gennaro Bernile George Korniotis Alok Kumar University of Miami Qin Wang University of Michigan at Dearborn July 1, 2012 Abstract This paper shows that the geographical
More informationOptions Trading Activity and Firm Valuation. Richard Roll, Eduardo Schwartz, and Avanidhar Subrahmanyam. August 18, Abstract
Options Trading Activity and Firm Valuation by Richard Roll, Eduardo Schwartz, and Avanidhar Subrahmanyam August 18, 2007 Abstract We study the effect of options trading volume on the value of the underlying
More informationLiquidity Premium and Consumption
Liquidity Premium and Consumption January 2011 Abstract This paper studies the relationship between the liquidity premium and risk exposure to the shocks that influence consumption in the long run. We
More informationLiquidity and IPO performance in the last decade
Liquidity and IPO performance in the last decade Saurav Roychoudhury Associate Professor School of Management and Leadership Capital University Abstract It is well documented by that if long run IPO underperformance
More informationThe Effects of Capital Infusions after IPO on Diversification and Cash Holdings
The Effects of Capital Infusions after IPO on Diversification and Cash Holdings Soohyung Kim University of Wisconsin La Crosse Hoontaek Seo Niagara University Daniel L. Tompkins Niagara University This
More informationThe Debt-Equity Choice of Japanese Firms
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive The Debt-Equity Choice of Japanese Firms Terence Tai Leung Chong and Daniel Tak Yan Law and Feng Yao The Chinese University of Hong Kong, The Chinese University of Hong
More informationShareholder-Level Capitalization of Dividend Taxes: Additional Evidence from Earnings Announcement Period Returns
Shareholder-Level Capitalization of Dividend Taxes: Additional Evidence from Earnings Announcement Period Returns John D. Schatzberg * University of New Mexico Craig G. White University of New Mexico Robert
More informationIlliquidity and Stock Returns: Cross-Section and Time-Series Effects: A Replication. Larry Harris * Andrea Amato ** January 21, 2018.
Illiquidity and Stock Returns: Cross-Section and Time-Series Effects: A Replication Larry Harris * Andrea Amato ** January 21, 2018 Abstract This paper replicates and extends the Amihud (2002) study that
More informationStructural Cointegration Analysis of Private and Public Investment
International Journal of Business and Economics, 2002, Vol. 1, No. 1, 59-67 Structural Cointegration Analysis of Private and Public Investment Rosemary Rossiter * Department of Economics, Ohio University,
More informationPrices and Volatilities in the Corporate Bond Market
Prices and Volatilities in the Corporate Bond Market Jack Bao, Jia Chen, Kewei Hou, and Lei Lu March 13, 2014 Abstract We document a strong cross-sectional positive relation between corporate bond yield
More informationDaily Data is Bad for Beta: Opacity and Frequency-Dependent Betas Online Appendix
Daily Data is Bad for Beta: Opacity and Frequency-Dependent Betas Online Appendix Thomas Gilbert Christopher Hrdlicka Jonathan Kalodimos Stephan Siegel December 17, 2013 Abstract In this Online Appendix,
More informationSeminar HWS 2012: Hedge Funds and Liquidity
Universität Mannheim 68131 Mannheim 25.11.200925.11.2009 Besucheradresse: L9, 1-2 68161 Mannheim Telefon 0621/181-3755 Telefax 0621/181-1664 Nic Schaub schaub@bwl.uni-mannheim.de http://intfin.bwl.uni-mannheim.de
More informationOptions Trading Activity and Firm Valuation. Richard Roll, Eduardo Schwartz, and Avanidhar Subrahmanyam. July 5, Abstract
Options Trading Activity and Firm Valuation by Richard Roll, Eduardo Schwartz, and Avanidhar Subrahmanyam July 5, 2007 Abstract We study the effect of options trading volume on the value of the underlying
More informationFinancial Constraints and U.S. Recessions: How Constrained Firms Invest Differently
International Journal of Economics and Finance; Vol. 7, No. 1; 2015 ISSN 1916-971X E-ISSN 1916-9728 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Financial Constraints and U.S. Recessions: How
More informationCan Hedge Funds Time the Market?
International Review of Finance, 2017 Can Hedge Funds Time the Market? MICHAEL W. BRANDT,FEDERICO NUCERA AND GIORGIO VALENTE Duke University, The Fuqua School of Business, Durham, NC LUISS Guido Carli
More informationDISCRETIONARY DELETIONS FROM THE S&P 500 INDEX: EVIDENCE ON FORECASTED AND REALIZED EARNINGS Stoyu I. Ivanov, San Jose State University
DISCRETIONARY DELETIONS FROM THE S&P 500 INDEX: EVIDENCE ON FORECASTED AND REALIZED EARNINGS Stoyu I. Ivanov, San Jose State University ABSTRACT The literature in the area of index changes finds evidence
More informationMacroeconomic Uncertainty and Credit Default Swap Spreads
Macroeconomic Uncertainty and Credit Default Swap Spreads Christopher F Baum Boston College and DIW Berlin Chi Wan Carleton University November 3, 2009 Abstract This paper empirically investigates the
More informationThe Value of True Liquidity
The Value of True Liquidity Working Paper This version: December 2016 Abstract This study uncovers the ability of liquid stocks to generate significant higher riskadjusted portfolio returns than their
More informationMarketability, Control, and the Pricing of Block Shares
Marketability, Control, and the Pricing of Block Shares Zhangkai Huang * and Xingzhong Xu Guanghua School of Management Peking University Abstract Unlike in other countries, negotiated block shares have
More informationLiquidity, Leverage Deviation, Target Change and the Speed of Leverage Adjustment
Liquidity, Leverage Deviation, Target Change and the Speed of Leverage Adjustment 1. Introduction The capital structure decision, which relates to how firms are financed, is one of the most debated topics
More informationCash Flow Multipliers and Optimal Investment Decisions
Cash Flow Multipliers and Optimal Investment Decisions Holger Kraft 1 Eduardo S. Schwartz 2 1 Goethe University Frankfurt 2 UCLA Anderson School Kraft, Schwartz Cash Flow Multipliers 1/51 Agenda 1 Contributions
More informationThe Effect of Matching on Firm Earnings Components
Scientific Annals of Economics and Business 64 (4), 2017, 513-524 DOI: 10.1515/saeb-2017-0033 The Effect of Matching on Firm Earnings Components Joong-Seok Cho *, Hyung Ju Park ** Abstract Using a sample
More informationOwnership Structure and Capital Structure Decision
Modern Applied Science; Vol. 9, No. 4; 2015 ISSN 1913-1844 E-ISSN 1913-1852 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Ownership Structure and Capital Structure Decision Seok Weon Lee 1 1 Division
More informationCorporate Investment and Institutional Investors. Author. Published. Journal Title. Copyright Statement. Downloaded from. Link to published version
Corporate Investment and Institutional Investors Author Chung, Richard Yiu-Ming Published 2013 Journal Title Corporate Ownership & Control Copyright Statement 2013 VirtusInterpress. The attached file is
More informationCorporate Liquidity Management and Financial Constraints
Corporate Liquidity Management and Financial Constraints Zhonghua Wu Yongqiang Chu This Draft: June 2007 Abstract This paper examines the effect of financial constraints on corporate liquidity management
More informationThe Role of APIs in the Economy
The Role of APIs in the Economy Seth G. Benzell, Guillermo Lagarda, Marshall Van Allstyne June 2, 2016 Abstract Using proprietary information from a large percentage of the API-tool provision and API-Management
More informationInvestment-Based Underperformance Following Seasoned Equity Offerings
Investment-Based Underperformance Following Seasoned Equity Offerings Evgeny Lyandres Jones School of Management Rice University Le Sun Simon School University of Rochester Lu Zhang Simon School University
More information