Search results

This paper aims to investigate short selling and stock price crash risk. The authors find that short selling is positively associated with one-month-ahead stock price crash risk, consistent with the literature showing that short sellers are informed traders. The authors attribute this prediction ability to the information short sellers receive from foreign investors with high levels of ownership in a firm. The results shed light on policy issues regarding short selling regulation.

For Chinese companies that cross-list in Chinese A share and Hong Kong (H share) markets, the H share price has been consistently lower than the A share price by an average of 85% in recent years. This is puzzling because most institutional differences between the two markets have been eliminated since 2007. The purpose of this study is to explain the puzzle of the price difference of A+H companies.

Using all A and H share Chinese firms in the period 2007–2013 and a simultaneous equations approach, this study identifies three new explanations for the recent price difference.

First, utilizing a unique earning quality measure that is directly related to non-persistent components of fair value accounting under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), this study finds that the lower the earnings quality, the lower the H share price relative to the A share price, and hence the greater the price difference. Second, the higher the myopic investor ownership in A share firms, the larger the A share price relative to the H share price. Third, the short-selling mechanism introduced to the A share market since 2010 helps reduce the price difference.

First, this study identifies three new explanations for the puzzle of the AH price difference which remains substantial even after the institutional and accounting standards differences between the two markets were eliminated. Second, we examine the impact of the implementation of fair value accounting under IFRS in an emerging market on the pricing difference of cross-listed shares and reveal that it can induce an unintended negative consequence on the pricing difference of cross-listed shares. Third, this study contributes to the literature on short sales by providing its mitigating role in pricing differences across two different markets. Finally, this study makes improvements in research design, which utilizes a unique measure of earnings quality that is directly related to the implementation of IFRS and a simultaneous equations approach that minimizes endogeneity concern.

This study delves into the nuanced implications of short-sale constraints on stock prices within the context of stock market efficiency. While existing research has explored this relationship, inconsistencies persist in their findings. The purpose of this study is to conduct a comprehensive review of literature to elucidate the reasons behind these disparities.

A systematic review of existing theoretical and empirical studies was conducted following the PRISMA method. The analysis centered on discerning the factors contributing to the divergence in projected stock prices due to these constraints. Key areas explored included assumptions related to expectations homogeneity, revisions, information uncertainty, trading motivations and fluctuations in supply and demand of risky assets.

The review uncovered multifaceted reasons for the disparities in findings regarding the influence of short-sale constraints on stock prices. Variations in assumptions related to market expectations, coupled with fluctuations in perceived information uncertainty and trading motivations, were identified as pivotal factors contributing to differing projections. Empirical evidence disparities stemmed from the use of proxies for short-sale constraints, varied sample periods, market structure nuances, regulatory changes and the presence of option trading.

This study emphasizes the significance of not oversimplifying the impact of short-sale constraints on stock prices. It highlights the need to understand these effects within the broader context of market structure and methodological considerations. By delineating the intricate interplay of factors affecting stock prices under short-sale constraints, this review provides a nuanced perspective, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding in the field.

The recommendation of the analyst report is not only limited to a small number of ratings, but also biased toward a buy opinion with the absence of sell opinion. As an alternative to this, this paper aims to extract analysts' textual opinions embedded in the report body through text analysis and examine the profitability of investment strategies. Analyst opinion about a firm is measured by calculating the frequency of positive and negative words in the report text through the Korean sentiment lexicon for finance (KOSELF). To verify the usefulness of textual opinions, the author constructs a calendar-time based portfolios by the analysts' textual opinion variable of each stock. When opinion level is used, investment strategy has no significant hedged portfolio return. However, hedged portfolio constructed by opinion change shows significant return of 0.117% per day (2.57% per month). In addition, the hedged return increases to 0.163% per day (3.59% per month) when the opening price is used instead of closing price. This study show that the analysts’ opinion extracted from text analysis contains more detailed spectrum than recommendation and investment strategies using them give significant returns.

The authors examine the effect of split environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings on information asymmetry, corporate value and trading behavior. The authors test the risk-based hypothesis and the optimism-bias hypothesis on the relationship between diverging opinions and future stock prices. The authors results show that split ESG ratings is positively related to idiosyncratic volatility, an alternative measure for information asymmetry. Further, the negative effect of split ESG ratings on cumulative abnormal return under short-selling constraints is consistent with the optimism bias hypothesis. The authors find a negative relationship between split ESG ratings and the net purchase ratio (NPR) of pension funds. Considering that the NPR is a direct measure of net demand, ESG disagreement may hinder socially responsible investing (SRI) in a firm. This study directly demonstrates the negative effect of ESG disagreement on firm value and investment by Korea's National Pension Service (NPS). The results offer valuable insights into policymakers, as the wide divergence in ESG ratings requires urgent attention to expand SRI.

This paper investigates the effect of the short sale ban by the Korean government on the relationship between the disagreement among investors and the future stock returns. Short selling in Korean stock market was banned twice in 2008 and 2011. The short sale ban provides a natural experiment environment to study the effect of the short sale constraints on the relationship between the disagreement among investors and the future stock returns. Furthermore, it is an exogenous shock in the point of individual stocks. Thus, this paper focus on short sale ban periods to analyzes the stock return predictability of the disagreement among investors’ opinions about analysts’ earnings forecasts. Main results of this paper are as follows: First, the portfolio within the top 30% of the disagreement among investors experiences the significantly higher returns than that within the bottom 30% of the disagreement only during short sale ban periods. However, the two portfolio returns are not significantly different during the other periods excluding the short sale ban periods. These results are robust even after controlling for firm sizes, boot to market ratios, and the momentum effects. Second, a portfolio with higher the disagreement among investors presents significantly positive abnormal returns estimated by Fama-French’s three factor model during short sale ban periods. On the other hand, the abnormal returns of the portfolio with lower the disagreement among investors are not significantly different from zero. Furthermore, those returns of the portfolio with lower disagreement are not affected by the short sale ban. Finally, our findings show that individual stock returns are positively related to disagreement after controlling for the characteristics of individual stocks. Consequentially, the stocks with higher disagreement are overvalued during the short sale ban periods according to our robust empirical analyses with various control variables. According to our findings, we conclude that the short sale constraints are important factors to determine the predictability of disagreement on future stock returns. These are consistent with the results of short sale ban on the U.S. stock market from Autore, Billingsley, and Kovacs (2011).

This paper investigates the role of economic disagreement in the cross-sectional pricing of individual stocks. Economic disagreement is quantified with ex ante measures of cross-sectional dispersion in economic forecasts from the Survey of Professional Forecasters (SPF), determining the degree of disagreement among professional forecasters over changes in economic fundamentals.

The authors introduce a broad index of economic disagreement based on the innovations in the cross-sectional dispersion of economic forecasts for output, inflation and unemployment so that the index is a shock measure that captures different aspects of disagreement over economic fundamentals and also reflects unexpected news or surprise about the state of the aggregate economy. After building the broad index of economic disagreement, the authors test out-of-sample performance of the index in predicting the cross-sectional variation in future stock returns.

Univariate portfolio analyses indicate that decile portfolios that are long in stocks with the lowest disagreement beta and short in stocks with the highest disagreement beta yield a risk-adjusted annual return of 7.2%. The results remain robust after controlling for well-known pricing effects. The results are consistent with a preference-based explanation that ambiguity-averse investors demand extra compensation to hold stocks with high disagreement risk and the investors are willing to pay high prices for stocks with large hedging benefits. The results also support the mispricing hypothesis that the high disagreement beta provides an indirect way to measure dispersed opinion and overpricing.

Most literature measures disagreement about individual stocks with the standard deviation of earnings forecasts made by financial analysts and examines the cross-sectional relation between this measure and individual stock returns. Unlike prior studies, the authors focus on disagreement about the economy instead of disagreement about earnings growth. The authors' argument is that disagreement about the economy is a major factor that would explain disagreement about stock fundamentals. The authors find that disagreement in economic forecasts does indeed have a significant impact on the cross-sectional pricing of individual stocks.

As of March 2021, the National Pension Service (NPS) is the world’s 3rd largest pension fund with 872.5tn won (KRW) in management. Recently, the NPS proposed a policy to gradually reduce the proportion of domestic stocks in the portfolio in the future. This change in the asset allocation strategy is related to the NPS’s exit strategy for domestic stocks. This study aims to examine the market impact cost asymmetry between buys and sells of the NPS and suggest a trading strategy for mitigating the market impact cost. The results are as follows. First, there is an asymmetry between buys and sells in the market impact cost of the NPS. The market impact cost of the NPS is gradually increasing over time. In particular, the market impact cost from selling has increased significantly in recent years. Second, past returns, volatility, liquidity and trading intensity can be found as external factors affecting the asymmetric market impact cost of the NPS. Although there is no difference between the buying and selling ratios of the NPS, the market impact cost from sells is relatively higher than that from buys. Third, after controlling for the order execution size of the NPS, the longer the trade execution period, the lower the market impact cost. This result implies that the strategy of splitting orders as a way to reduce the market impact cost is effective. The trading behavior of the NPS directly or indirectly affects other investors. If the sell of the NPS incurs excessive market impact cost, the negative impact on the stock price will be further exacerbated. Therefore, it is necessary for the NPS to reduce the market impact cost through split trading in executing orders in the domestic stock market. Findings of this study provide implications for countermeasures and long-term management strategies that can minimize the market impact cost of the NPS in the process of reducing the proportion of domestic stocks in the future.