Stock liquidity on China NEEQ exchange

被引:9
作者
Liu N. [1 ]
Xu W. [1 ]
机构
[1] HSBC Business School, Peking University, University Town, Nanshan District, Shenzhen
关键词
Exchange; Information asymmetry; Liquidity; Market making; NEEQ;
D O I
10.1007/s40822-016-0057-6
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
With the recent deregulation, the National Equities Exchange and Quotations (NEEQ) has become the fastest growing exchange in China. Despite its phenomenal growth, the NEEQ has an urgent need to improve its liquidity, as 70 % of the stocks listed are never traded and more than half of the stocks have an average daily price swing over 10 %. We study factors that affect the liquidity of the NEEQ-listed firms and provide evidence that large information asymmetry decreases liquidity on the NEEQ. Specifically, we find that informed ownership and concentrated ownership both have significantly negative influence on a stock’s liquidity, while institutional ownership and leverage have no impact. In addition, market makers do not alleviate the information asymmetry of firms listed on the NEEQ. However their involvement does improve firms’ liquidity by providing more efficient price discovery. We conclude that the information asymmetry in firms contributes to the extreme lacking of liquidity on the NEEQ. To improve their liquidity, firms can adopt more diffused ownership and/or reduce the informed ownership while the exchange needs to improve its institutional settings such as enforcing the market making transaction to all firms and strengthening its information releasing requirement to enforce more frequent information releasing and better releasing quality. © 2016, Eurasia Business and Economics Society.
引用
收藏
页码:255 / 275
页数:20
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]  
Admati A.R., Pfleiderer P., A theory of intraday patterns: Volume and price variability, Review of Financial Studies, 1, pp. 3-40, (1988)
[2]  
Akerlof G., The market for "Lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, pp. 488-500, (1970)
[3]  
Amihud Y., Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-section and time-series effects, Journal of Financial Markets, 5, pp. 31-56, (2002)
[4]  
Amihud Y., Mendelson H., Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread, Journal of Financial Economics, 17, pp. 219-223, (1986)
[5]  
Ang A., Shtauber A., Tetlock P., Asset pricing in the dark: The cross section of OTC stocks, Review of Financial Studies, 26, pp. 2985-3028, (2013)
[6]  
Bagehot W., The only game in town, Financial Analysts Journal, 27, pp. 12-14, (1971)
[7]  
Bessembinder H., Trade execution costs on NASDAQ and the NYSE: a post-reform comparison, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 34, pp. 387-407, (1999)
[8]  
Bessembinder H., Kaufman H.M., A comparison of trade execution costs for NYSE and NASDAQ-listed stocks, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 32, pp. 287-310, (1997)
[9]  
Bettis J., Coles J., Lemmon M.L., Corporate policies restricting trading by insiders, Journal of Financial Economics, 57, pp. 191-220, (2000)
[10]  
Bharath S.T., Pasquariello P., Wu G., Does asymmetric information drive capital structure decisions?, The Review of Financial Studies, 22, pp. 3211-3243, (2009)