This study investigates market price integration by testing per-share trade execution price or cost (TEP/C) differentials for matched intraday trades for a sample of Canadian shares cross-listed in the U.S. The TSE trade price advantage over the entire time period changed significantly after both the TSE's own minimum quotation increment reduction and that of its U.S. competitors. We show that the differential TEP/C is equivalent to the international effective spread differential and that market quality comparisons, which benchmark using the National instead of the International BBO, need to compare both national effective half-spread and midspread differences. Our cross-sectional regression results support our predictions that TEP/C differentials can be explained by differences in national midspreads and by ex ante proxies of national effective half-spreads. The TEP/C differentials vary inversely with increasing levels of our measure of signed market nonfragmentation.

This paper tests the overreaction hypothesis using monthly data for stocks listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange over the 1950–1988 period. Unlike De Bondt and Thaler (1985), (1987), it finds statistically significant continuation behavior for the next one (and two) year(s) for winners and losers, and insignificant reversal behavior for winners and losers over longer formation/test periods of up to ten years. While the systematic risks of the winners decrease significantly over all test periods, the systematic risks of the losers increase significantly for only the 12-month formation/test periods (unlike Chan (1988)). The only significant change in variance from the formation to test periods occurs for the losers for the 12-month formation/test periods. The findings are robust for January versus non-January and size-based portfolios (unlike Zarowin (1989), (1990)). The findings are robust for various performance measures (specifically, market-adjusted CAR, and the Jensen (1968) and Sharpe (1966) portfolio performance measures).

In this study we examine the relation between corporate governance and institutional ownership. Our empirical results show that the fraction of a company’s shares that are held by institutional investors increases with the quality of its governance structure. In a similar vein, we show that the proportion of institutions that hold a firm’s shares increases with its governance quality. Our results are robust to different estimation methods and alternative model specifications. These results are consistent with the conjecture that institutional investors gravitate to stocks of companies with good governance structure to meet fiduciary responsibility as well as to minimize monitoring and exit costs.

We find that firms headquartered in U.S. counties with higher levels of social capital incur lower bank loan spreads. This finding is robust to using organ donation as an alternative social capital measure and incremental to the effects of religiosity, corporate social responsibility, and tax avoidance. We identify the causal relation using companies with a social-capital-changing headquarters relocation. We also find that high-social-capital firms face loosened nonprice loan terms, incur lower at-issue bond spreads, and prefer public bonds over bank loans. We conclude that debt holders perceive social capital as providing environmental pressure that constrains opportunistic firm behaviors in debt contracting.