[We model a microstructure effect on daily security returns, embodied by zero returns and the bid-ask spread, and derive a closed-form solution for the resulting bias in the estimated idiosyncratic volatility. Our empirical tests show that controlling for the bias eliminates the ability of idiosyncratic volatility estimates to predict future returns. We also find a significant reduction in the pricing ability of idiosyncratic volatility after exogenous shocks to liquidity evidenced in the 1997 reduction in the quotes to sixteenths and the 2001 decimalization. Finally, minimizing liquidity's influence on the estimated idiosyncratic volatility, by orthogonalizing the percentage of zero-return and spread effects on the estimated idiosyncratic volatility, demonstrates that the resulting idiosyncratic volatility estimate has little pricing ability.]

Our paper re-examines the profitability of relative strength or momentum trading strategies (buying past strong performers and selling past weak performers). We find that standard relative strength strategies require frequent trading in disproportionately high cost securities such that trading costs prevent profitable strategy execution. In the cross-section, we find that those stocks that generate large momentum returns are precisely those stocks with high trading costs. We conclude that the magnitude of the abnormal returns associated with these trading strategies creates an illusion of profit opportunity when, in fact, none exists.

We model a microstructure effect on daily security returns, embodied by zero returns and the bid-ask spread, and derive a closed-form solution for the resulting bias in the estimated idiosyncratic volatility. Our empirical tests show that controlling for the bias eliminates the ability of idiosyncratic volatility estimates to predict future returns. We also find a significant reduction in the pricing ability of idiosyncratic volatility after exogenous shocks to liquidity evidenced in the 1997 reduction in the quotes to sixteenths and the 2001 decimalization. Finally, minimizing liquidity's influence on the estimated idiosyncratic volatility, by orthogonalizing the percentage of zero-return and spread effects on the estimated idiosyncratic volatility, demonstrates that the resulting idiosyncratic volatility estimate has little pricing ability.

[Transaction costs are important for a host of empirical analyses from market efficiency to international market research. But transaction costs estimates are not always available, or where available, are cumbersome to use and expensive to purchase. We present a model that requires only the time series of daily security returns to endogenously estimate the effective transaction costs for any firm, exchange, or time period. The feature of the data that allows for the estimation of transaction costs is the incidence of zero returns. Incorporating zero returns in the return-generating process, the model provides continuous estimates of average round-trip transaction costs from 1963 to 1990 that are 1.2% and 10.3% for large and small decile firms, respectively. These estimates are highly correlated (85%), with the most commonly used transaction cost estimators.]

Transaction costs are important for a host of empirical analyses from market efficiency to international market research. But transaction costs estimates are not always available, or where available, are cumbersome to use and expensive to purchase. We present a model that requires only the time series of daily security returns to endogenously estimate the effective transaction costs for any firm, exchange, or time period. The feature of the data that allows for the estimation of transaction costs is the incidence of zero returns. Incorporating zero returns in the return-generating process, the model provides continuous estimates of average round-trip transaction costs from 1963 to 1990 that are 1.2% and 10.3% for large and small decile firms, respectively. These estimates are highly correlated (85%), with the most commonly used transaction cost estimators.

Abstract This paper examines data from 45 world markets and shows that the previously documented relation between mean returns and idiosyncratic volatility arises because of biases in volatility estimates that we can attribute to the bid–ask bounce in trade prices. We show that no significant relation exists between mean returns and idiosyncratic volatility estimated from quote-midpoint returns. Further, there is no significant relation between mean returns and the portion of transaction-price-based idiosyncratic volatility that is orthogonal to bid–ask spreads. The pricing of idiosyncratic volatility is due to the negative pricing of the bid–ask spread.

ABSTRACT We find that liquidity is priced in corporate yield spreads. Using a battery of liquidity measures covering over 4,000 corporate bonds and spanning both investment grade and speculative categories, we find that more illiquid bonds earn higher yield spreads, and an improvement in liquidity causes a significant reduction in yield spreads. These results hold after controlling for common bond‐specific, firm‐specific, and macroeconomic variables, and are robust to issuers' fixed effect and potential endogeneity bias. Our findings justify the concern in the default risk literature that neither the level nor the dynamic of yield spreads can be fully explained by default risk determinants.