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

Fields:
5 results ✕ Clear filters

Risk-averse dealers in a risk-free market—The role of trading desk risk limits

Journal of Financial Economics 2026 181, 104290 open access
Self-imposed risk limits effectively limit dealers' appetite for risks and their capacity to intermediate in Treasury markets in times of market stress. Using granular and high frequency regulatory data on US dealers' Treasury securities trading desk positions and desk-level Value-at-Risk limits, we show that dealers are more inclined to reduce their positions as they get closer to their internal risk limit, consistent with such limit being meaningful and costly for traders to breach. Dealers actively manage their inventories away from their limits by selling longer-term securities and requiring higher compensation to take on additional risks. During the height of the Covid-crisis in 2020, dealer desks that were closer to their VaR limits sold more Treasury securities to the Fed and accepted lower prices in the emergency open market operations. Our findings complement studies that link post-GFC bank regulations to market liquidity by showing that self-imposed risk limits can explain the risk-averse behavior by dealers, and provide a micro-foundation for the link between market volatility and market liquidity in dealer-intermediated OTC markets. In times of crisis, policy prescriptions such as deregulation alone may not be sufficient to induce risk-taking by dealer intermediaries. Moreover, to address market functioning issues, policy actions that address the funding costs of intermediaries would not be as effective as policies that remove risks from intermediary balance sheets directly.

Stock liquidity and default risk

Journal of Financial Economics 2017 124(3), 486-502 open access
This paper examines the impact of stock liquidity on firm bankruptcy risk. Using the Securities and Exchange Commission decimalization regulation as a shock to stock liquidity, we establish that enhanced liquidity decreases default risk. Stocks with the highest default risk experience the largest improvements. We find two mechanisms through which stock liquidity reduces firm default risk: improving stock price informational efficiency and facilitating corporate governance by blockholders. Of the two mechanisms, the informational efficiency channel has higher explanatory power than the corporate governance channel.

Exchange trading rules and stock market liquidity☆

Journal of Financial Economics 2011 99(3), 651-671 open access
We examine stock exchange trading rules for market manipulation, insider trading, and broker–agency conflict, across countries and over time, in 42 stock exchanges around the world. Some stock exchanges have extremely detailed rules that explicitly prohibit specific manipulative practices, but others use less precise and broadly framed rules. We create new indices for market manipulation, insider trading, and broker–agency conflict based on the specific provisions in the trading rules of each stock exchange. We show that differences in exchange trading rules, over time and across markets, significantly affect liquidity.

When failure is an option: Fragile liquidity in over-the-counter markets

Journal of Financial Economics 2024 157, 103859 open access
Markets can give false impressions of liquidity and stability if failed attempts to trade are ignored. For collateralized loan obligations, we quantify this bias by estimating the total cost of immediacy (TCI) which incorporates failure rates and failure costs. TCI is substantially higher than the observed cost, 0.3–3.8% versus 0.04–0.12% across credit-quality tranches because trade failures are frequent, failure costs are large, and failure costs and rates are correlated. TCI is almost double the realized gains from trade for low-rated tranches. Overall, auction-based over-the-counter markets become illiquid and fragile, especially during stressful periods for low-rated assets.

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

Journal of Financial Economics 2019 131(1), 139-167 open access
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.