Pricing of Liquidity Risks in London Stock Exchange

This thesis aims to investigate pricing of liquidity risks in London Stock Exchange. Liquidity Adjusted Capital Asset Pricing Model i.e. LCAPM developed by Acharya and Pedersen (2005) is being applied to test the influence of various liquidity risks on stock returns in London Stock Exchange. The Liquidity Adjusted Capital Asset Pricing model provides a unified framework for the testing of liquidity risks. All the common stocks listed and delisted for the period of 2000 to 2014 are included in the data sample. The study has incorporated three different measures of liquidity – Percent Quoted Spread, Amihud (2002) and Turnover. The reason behind the application of three different liquidity measures is the multi-dimensional nature of liquidity. Firm fixed effects panel regression is applied for the estimation of LCAPM. However, the results are robust according to Fama-Macbeth regressions. The results of the study indicates that liquidity risks in the form of (i) level of liquidity, (ii) commonality in liquidity (iii) flight to liquidity, (iv) depressed wealth effect and market return as well as aggregate liquidity risk are priced at London Stock Exchange. However, the results are sensitive to the choice of liquidity measures.

Litteracitet i fem högstadieungdomars en-till-en-datorpraktiker

The study focuses on five lower secondary school pupils’ daily use of their one-toone computers, the overall aim being to investigate literacy in this form of computing. Theoretically, the study is rooted in the New Literacy tradition with an ecological perspective, in combination with socio-semiotic theory in a multimodal perspective. New Literacy in the ecological perspective focuses on literacy practices and place/space and on the links between them. Literacy is viewed as socially based, in specific situations and in recurring social practices. Socio-semiotic theory embodying the multimodal perspective is used for the text analysis. The methodology is known as socio-semiotic ethnography. The ethnographic methods encompass just over two years of fieldwork with participating observations of the five participants’ computing activities at home, at school and elsewhere. The participants, one boy and two girls from the Blue (Anemone) School and two girls from the White (Anemone) School, were chosen to reflect a broad spectrum in terms of sociocultural and socioeconomic background. The study shows the existence of a both broad and deep variation in the way digital literacy features in the participants’ one-to-one computing. These variations are associated with experience in relation to the home, the living environment, place, personal qualities and school. The more varied computer usage of the Blue School participants is connected with the interests they developed in their homes and living environments and in the computing practices undertaken in school. Their more varied usage of the computer is reflected in their broader digital literacy repertoires and their greater number and variety of digital literacy abilities. The Blue School participants’ text production is more multifaceted, covers a wider range of subjects and displays a broader palette of semiotic resources. It also combines more text types and the texts are generally longer than those of the White School participants. The Blue School girls have developed a text culture that is close to that of the school. In their case, there is clear linkage between school-initiated and self-initiated computing activities, while other participants do not have the same opportunities to link and integrate self-initiated computing activities into the school context. It also becomes clear that the Blue School girls can relate and adapt their texts to different communicative practices and recipients. In addition, the study shows that the Blue School girls have some degree of scope in their school practice as a result of incorporating into it certain communicative practices that they have developed in nonschool contexts. Quite contrary to the hopes expressed that one-to-one computing would reduce digital inequality, it has increased between these participants. Whether the same or similar results apply in a larger perspective, on a more structural level, is a question that this study cannot answer. It can only draw attention to the need to investigate the matter. The study shows in a variety of ways that the White School participants do not have the same opportunity to develop their digital literacy as the Blue School participants. In an equivalence perspective, schools have a compensational task to perform. It is abundantly clear from the study that investing in one-to-one projects is not enough to combat digital inequality and achieve the digitisation goals established for school education. Alongside their investments in technology, schools need to develop a didactic that legitimises and compensates for the different circumstances of different pupils. The compensational role of schools in this connection is important not only for the present participants but also for the community at large, in that it can help to secure a cohesive, open and democratic society.