This paper examines the impact of reducing the tick size on market-making behavior on The Toronto Stock Exchange. The results indicate a significant decrease in the percentage of trades of fewer than 10,000 shares involving the upstairs traders and a significant increase in the percentage of trades of fewer than 1,000 share involving the designated market makers. Consistent with this finding, the upstairs traders earn significantly lower returns on non-block trades and the designated market markers earn lower returns on trades smaller than 1,000 shares. We conclude the tick size reduction benefits the trading public.Journal of Economic LiteratureClassification Numbers, G20, G24.

In this paper, we propose that affective reactions are integral to accounting decision contexts like capital budgeting, and that researchers must jointly consider affect and cognition to better understand accounting decision makers' behavior. We argue that interpersonal relationships are characteristic of many capital‐budgeting contexts, and that these relationships can lead to emotional affective reactions. For example, reactions such as frustration and anger may result if a manager is treated unfairly by another individual involved in a capital project. Drawing on relevant work in neurobiology and psychology, we then predict that these affective reactions can influence managers' capital‐budgeting decisions. We report on four experimental scenarios that demonstrate the impact of affective reactions on capital‐budgeting decisions. Consistent with our predictions, the results indicate that managers consider both financial data and affective reactions when evaluating the utility of an investment alternative. Our results suggest that researchers should consider both affect and cognition to more fully understand decision making in accounting contexts.

This paper examines transactions data regarding the market's reaction to 258 takeover announcements on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSE) from 1977 to 1989. The study analyzes volatility and volume of target firm's stock during the first trading day following a takeover announcement. A cross-sectional analysis relates this intraday volatility and volume to various aspects of a takeover announcement that proxy for the certainty of payoff to shareholders. Post-announcement volatility is highest when takeover announcements involve share exchange bids which are contested. Trading volume is highest when bids are contested and involve a large initial price change.

ABSTRACT This paper directly tests the hypothesis that upstairs intermediation lowers adverse selection cost. We find upstairs market makers effectively screen out information‐motivated orders and execute large liquidity‐motivated orders at a lower cost than the downstairs market. Upstairs markets do not cannibalize or free ride off the downstairs market. In one‐quarter of the trades, the upstairs market offers price improvement over the limit orders available in the consolidated limit order book. Trades are more likely to be executed upstairs at times when liquidity is lower in the downstairs market.

ABSTRACT This paper shows that the results of variance‐bound tests depend on how cash distributions to shareholders are measured. As in prior studies, we find apparent evidence of excess volatility when a narrow definition of cash flow (dividends only) is applied. However, we are unable to reject the hypothesis of market efficiency when the cash flow measure also includes share repurchases and takeover distributions in addition to ordinary cash dividends.

This paper shows that the results of variance-bound tests depend on how cash distributions to shareholders are measured. As in prior studies, we find apparent evidence of excess volatility when a narrow definition of cash flow (dividends only) is applied. However, we are unable to reject the hypothesis of market efficiency when the cash flow measure also includes share repurchases and takeover distributions in addition to ordinary cash dividends.

In this paper, we propose that affective reactions are integral to accounting decision contexts like capital budgeting, and that researchers must jointly consider affect and cognition to better understand accounting decision makers' behavior. We argue that interpersonal relationships are characteristic of many capital-budgeting contexts, and that these relationships can lead to emotional affective reactions. For example, reactions such as frustration and anger may result if a manager is treated unfairly by another individual involved in a capital project. Drawing on relevant work in neurobiology and psychology, we then predict that these affective reactions can influence managers' capital-budgeting decisions. We report on four experimental scenarios that demonstrate the impact of affective reactions on capital-budgeting decisions. Consistent with our predictions, the results indicate that managers consider both financial data and affective reactions when evaluating the utility of an investment alternative. Our results suggest that researchers should consider both affect and cognition to more fully understand decision making in accounting contexts.