This paper examines the effects of stock splits on bid‐ask spreads for NYSE‐listed companies. Percentage spreads increase after splits, representing a liquidity cost to investors. These spread increases are directly related to decreases in share prices following splits and can explain part, but not all, of the observed increase in return variability after splits. The evidence thus suggests a liquidity cost of stock splits that must be weighed against any other perceived benefits of splits. Such a liquidity cost may validate that stock splits are a signal of favorable information about the firm.

This paper examines the effects of stock splits on bid-ask spreads for NYSE-listed companies. Percentage spreads increase after splits, representing a liquidity cost to investors. These spread increases are directly related to decreases in share prices following splits and can explain part, but not all, of the observed increase in return variability after splits. The evidence, thus, suggests a liquidity cost of stock splits that must be weighed against any other perceived benefits of splits. Such a liquidity cost may validate that stock splits are a signal of favorable information about the firm.

“Structured products” (SP) have recently been introduced onto organized markets in the United States. Payoffs for such financially-engineered securities typically combine stock, bond and contingent claims features. In this paper attention is focused upon reverse-exchangeable securities (RES), an important and rapidly growing segment of the American SP market. First we undertake a replication of RES payout with a linear portfolio of publicly traded securities in a simple no-arbitrage framework. It is thereby possible to estimate theoretically “fair” terms of issuance, and contrast these with actual terms. We conclude that there is a significant pricing bias in favor of the issuing financial institution. Credit enhancement resulting from observed positive correlation between the RES terminal payoff and issuer financial performance is proposed as explanation for the apparent pricing discrepancy. Market completeness and possible tax advantages may also play a role in SP demand and the rapid expansion of this new derivatives market.