We present a detailed view of market quality in the presence of preferencing arrangements. A unique dataset provides the opportunity to measure trading costs of marketable orders and fill rates and ex post costs of limit orders across trading venues. For market orders, we find the primary exchange provides the lowest execution costs. However, the preferencing exchanges are no worse than, and in most cases better than, the nonpreferencing regional exchanges. For limit orders, the regionals execute limit orders more frequently than the primary market and with an ex post execution cost that is not very different from the primary market.

We present a microstructure model of competition for order flow between exchanges based on liquidity provision. We find that neither a pure limit order market (PLM) nor a hybrid specialist/limit order market (HM) structure is competition-proof. A PLM can always be supported in equilibrium as the dominant market (i.e., where the hybrid limit book is empty), but an HM can also be supported, for some market parameterizations, as the dominant market. We also show the possible coexistence of competing markets. Order preferencing—that is, decisions about where orders are routed when investors are indifferent—is a key determinant of market viability. Welfare comparisons show that competition between exchanges can increase as well as reduce the cost of liquidity.

Indjejikian and Nanda (J. Accounting and Economics 27 (1999) 177) establish that “lack of commitment” results in an expected economic loss, relative to a long-term full-commitment contract, if there is inter-period correlation of performance measures. They attribute this loss to a “ratchet effect”. We demonstrate the following. First, their proposed equilibrium is not sustained unless there is some form of limited commitment. Second, these limited commitment assumptions need not induce a “ratchet effect”. Third, the “ratchet effect” is neither necessary nor sufficient for an expected economic loss to occur—the loss is due to the principal's inability to commit ex ante to the second-period incentive rate.

The paper examines the determinants and performance consequences of equity grants to senior-level executives, lower-level managers, and non-exempt employees of “new economy” firms. We find that the determinants of equity grants are significantly different in new versus old economy firms. We also find that employee retention objectives, which new economy firms rank as the most important goal of their equity grant programs, have a significant impact on new hire grants, but not subsequent grants. Our exploratory performance tests indicate that lower than expected grants and/or existing holdings of options are associated with poorer performance in subsequent years.

I test the hypothesis that short debt maturity attenuates the negative effect of growth opportunities on leverage. Using simultaneous equations with leverage and maturity endogenous, I find strong support for an economically significant attenuation effect. The negative effect of growth opportunities on leverage for firms with all shorter-term debt is less than one-sixth as large as the effect for firms with all longer-term debt. Short maturity also increases liquidity risk, however, which negatively affects leverage. The results suggest that firms trade off the cost of underinvestment problems against the cost of liquidity risk when choosing short maturity.

Journal Article Global Integration in Primary Equity Markets: The Role of U.S. Banks and U.S. Investors Get access Alexander P. Ljungqvist, Alexander P. Ljungqvist New York University and CEPR Address correspondence to Alexander Ljungqvist, New York University, Stern School of Business, 44 West Fourth Street, #9-190, New York, NY 10012-1126, or e-mail: [email protected]. Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar Tim Jenkinson, Tim Jenkinson Oxford University and CEPR Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar William J. Wilhelm, Jr. William J. Wilhelm, Jr. Oxford University Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Review of Financial Studies, Volume 16, Issue 1, January 2003, Pages 63–99, https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/16.1.0063 Published: 16 June 2015

We use a unique set of equities in the when-issued market to provide new tests of the law of one price in financial markets. We compare the prices of when-issued and regular-way shares of publicly-traded subsidiaries and their parents around the time the subsidiaries are fully divested. In contrast to prior analyses of when-issued trading in equity markets, we find that the when-issued shares of the subsidiary trade at a discount. Some of the pricing differences stem from measurement factors such as exchange location and bid-ask clustering that bias the observed when-issued pricing differential away from zero. The remaining difference between the when-issued and regular-way prices is due to asymmetric movements in bid and ask quotes in the two markets. We also find evidence of temporary price pressures on the date of execution of the spinoff of the subsidiary firms that bear resemblance to the pricing in the when-issued market. We interpret the evidence as consistent with the law of one price in the presence of transaction costs.

The trading volume channeled through off-market crossing networks is growing. Passive matching of orders outside the primary market lowers several components of execution costs compared to regular trading. On the other hand, the risk of non-execution imposes opportunity costs, and the inherent “free riding” on the price discovery process raises concerns that this eventually will lead to lower liquidity in the primary market. Using a detailed data set from a large investor in the US equity markets, we find evidence that competition from crossing networks is concentrated in the most liquid stocks in a sample of the largest companies in the US. Simulations of alternative trading strategies indicate that the investor’s strategy of initially trying to cross all stocks was cost effective: in spite of their high liquidity, the crossed stocks would have been unlikely to achieve at lower execution costs in the open market.

Abstract This paper examines the linkages between discretionary accruals (DAs), managerial share ownership, management compensation, and audit fees. It draws on the theory that managers of firms with high management ownership are likely to use DAs to communicate value‐relevant information, while managers of firms with high accounting‐based compensation are likely to use DAs opportunistically to manage earnings to improve their compensation. OLS regression results of 648 Australian firms show that (1) there is a positive association between DAs and audit fees; (2) managerial ownership negatively affects the positive relationship between DAs and audit fees; and (3) this negative impact is further found to be weaker for firms with high accounting‐based management compensation.

Recent advances in information technology allow firms to provide broader access to their disclosures. We examine the determinants and effects of the decision to provide unlimited real-time access to conference calls (i.e., “open” conference calls). Our evidence suggests that the decision to provide open calls is associated with the composition of a firm's investor base and, to some degree, the complexity of its financial information. We also find that open calls are associated with a greater increase in small trades (consistent with individuals trading on information released during the call) and higher price volatility during the call period.