To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results ✕ Clear filters

Cross‐Border Listings and Price Discovery: Evidence from U.S.‐Listed Canadian Stocks

Journal of Finance 2003 58(2), 549-575
ABSTRACT We examine the contribution of cross‐listings to price discovery for a sample of Canadian stocks listed on both the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE) and a U.S. exchange. We find that prices on the TSE and U.S. exchange are cointegrated and mutually adjusting. The U.S. share of price discovery ranges from 0.2 percent to 98.2 percent, with an average of 38.1 percent. The U.S. share is directly related to the U.S. share of trading and to the ratio of proportions of informative trades on the U.S. exchange and the TSE, and inversely related to the ratio of bid‐ask spreads.

Does Shareholder Composition Matter? Evidence from the Market Reaction to Corporate Earnings Announcements

Journal of Finance 2003 58(4), 1469-1498
ABSTRACT We examine whether institutional ownership composition is related to parameters of the market reaction to negative earnings announcements. When firms report earnings below analysts' expectations, the stock price response is more negative for firms with higher levels of ownership by momentum or aggressive growth investors. There is no evidence, however, that these institutions cause an “overreaction” to earnings news. Ownership structure is also related to trading volume and to stock price volatility on days around earnings announcements. Our findings are consistent with the idea that the composition of institutional shareholders effects stock price behavior around the release of corporate information.

Long‐run Performance after Stock Splits: 1927 to 1996

Journal of Finance 2003 58(3), 1063-1085
Abstract We measure the postsplit performance of 12,747 stock splits from 1927 to 1996 using two methods to measure abnormal returns: size and book‐to‐market reference portfolios with bootstrapping, and calendar‐time abnormal returns combined with factor models. Between 1927 and 1996, neither method applied to splits 25 percent or larger finds performance significantly different from zero. Over selected subperiods, subsamples of 2–1 splits restricted by book‐to‐market availability requirements display positive abnormal returns using some methods. However, these samples show small or negligible abnormal returns using the calendar‐time method. Overall, the stock split evidence against market efficiency is neither pervasive nor compelling.