Price limit advocates claim that price limits decrease stock price volatility, counter overreaction, and do not interfere with trading activity. Conversely, price limit critics claim that price limits cause higher volatility levels on subsequent days (volatility spillover hypothesis), prevent prices from efficiently reaching their equilibrium level (delayed price discovery hypothesis), and interfere with trading due to limitations imposed by price limits (trading interference hypothesis). Empirical research does not provide conclusive support for either positions. The authors examine the Tokyo Stock Exchange price limit system to test these hypotheses. Their evidence supports all three hypotheses suggesting that price limits may be ineffective.

The authors have two primary objectives in this study. First, they examine the frequency of attaining simultaneous equilibrium on spot and forward foreign exchange markets and on domestic and foreign securities markets. Second, they measure the profitability of covered interest arbitrage and one-way arbitrage. The authors' empirical analysis has been conducted using real-time quotations. The empirical results indicate that the markets are efficient in the sense that profit opportunities from traditional covered interest arbitrage are rarely available and the frequency of attaining simultaneous market equilibrium is surprisingly low, thus opening the door for one-way arbitrage.

We have two primary objectives in this study. First, we examine the frequency of attaining simultaneous equilibrium on spot and forward foreign exchange markets and on domestic and foreign securities markets. Second, we measure the profitability of covered interest arbitrage and one-way arbitrage. Our empirical analysis has been conducted using real-time quotations. The empirical results indicate that: (a) the markets are efficient in the sense that profit opportunities from traditional covered interest arbitrage are rarely available; and (b) the frequency of attaining simultaneous market equilibrium is surprisingly low, thus opening the door for one-way arbitrage.

[The empirical evidence on the cross-sectional relation between idiosyncratic risk and expected stock returns is mixed. We demonstrate that the omission of the previous month's stock returns can lead to a negatively biased estimate of the relation. The magnitude of the omitted variable bias depends on the approach to estimating the conditional idiosyncratic volatility. Although a negative relation exists when the estimate is based on daily returns, it disappears after return reversals are controlled for. Return reversals can explain both the negative relation between value-weighted portfolio returns and idiosyncratic volatility and the insignificant relation between equal-weighted portfolio returns and idiosyncratic volatility. In contrast, there is a significantly positive relation between the conditional idiosyncratic volatility estimated from monthly data and expected returns. This relation remains robust after controlling for return reversals.]

Gershon N. Mandelker, S. Ghon Rhee, The Impact of the Degrees of Operating and Financial Leverage on Systematic Risk of Common Stock, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Mar., 1984), pp. 45-57

We present empirical evidence that short sales contribute to market efficiency by increasing the speed of price adjustment to not only private/public firm-specific information but also market-wide information. Shortable stocks are characterized by weaker trade continuity and stronger quote reversals. They adjust faster to new information than non-shortable counterparts. These findings remain robust even in an “up” market condition in which short sales are not binding. The amount of information incorporated in each trade is also significantly higher for shortable than non-shortable stocks in both “up” and “down” market conditions. After controlling for firm size, trading volume, liquidity, price and option trading, short sales stand out as one of the significant factors that speed up the price adjustment.

We have two primary objectives in this study. First, we examine the frequency of attaining simultaneous equilibrium on spot and forward foreign exchange markets and on domestic and foreign securities markets. Second, we measure the profitability of covered interest arbitrage and one‐way arbitrage. Our empirical analysis has been conducted using real‐time quotations. The empirical results indicate that: (a) the markets are efficient in the sense that profit opportunities from traditional covered interest arbitrage are rarely available; and (b) the frequency of attaining simultaneous market equilibrium is surprisingly low, thus opening the door for one‐way arbitrage.

From January 2002 to August 2007, foreign institutions held almost 70% of the free-float value of the Indonesian equity market, or 41% of the total market capitalization. Over the same period, liquidity on the Jakarta Stock Exchange improved substantially with the average bid–ask spread more than halved and the average depth more than doubled. In this study we examine the Granger causality between foreign institutional ownership and liquidity, while controlling for persistence in foreign ownership and liquidity measures. We find that foreign holdings have a negative impact on future liquidity: a 10% increase in foreign institutional ownership in the current month is associated with approximately 2% increase in the bid–ask spread, 3% decrease in depth, and 4% rise in price sensitivity in the next month, challenging the view that foreign institutions enhance liquidity in small emerging markets. Our findings are consistent with the negative liquidity impact of institutional investor ownership in developed markets.