Stock market reactions to changes in the FTSE SmallCap and S&P/TSX SmallCap indices

Stocks added to (deleted from) the Russell 2000 and the S&P 600 indexes experience positive (negative) abnormal returns following the announcement. However, researchers disagree on whether these abnormal returns are permanent or temporary and offer competing explanations. I address this controversy by examining market reactions for firms that are added to or deleted from the FTSE Small Cap index (the main testing sample) and the S&P/TSX SmallCap index (the comparison sample). For the main testing sample, all stocks except pure additions, experience a permanent price change that is accompanied by a permanent change in liquidity. However, for the comparison sample, abnormal returns over the announcement period fully reverted within 30 days. In further examination of stock liquidity for the main testing sample, sample stocks experience permanent change in liquidity. Taken together, the observed results support the price pressure and liquidity hypotheses.

Market reactions to changes in the Nasdaq-100 Index membership

We examine stock market reactions around the Nasdaq-100 Index reconstitutions. We find a symmetric and transitory price response accompanied by a significant increase in trading volume on the effective date. Firms added to the Nasdaq-100 Index experience significant increases in institutional ownership, the number of market makers, and the number of shareholders. In contrast, firms removed from the index show significant decreases in the number of institutional shareholders. Additions to the Nasdaq-100 Index also show significant increases in four liquidity measures, whereas deletions demonstrate significant decreases in two liquidity measures. These changes in liquidity are related to the abnormal return on the announcement day. Taken together, the results suggest support for the price pressure, liquidity, and investor awareness hypotheses.

Liquidity, institutional ownership and regulation fair disclosure

There is a body of academic literature addressing two issues of importance for leveling the playing field for all classes of investors: 1) the impact of institutional investors on liquidity; and 2) the impact of Regulation Fair Disclosure on institutional investors and liquidity. Our study addresses both issues with the purpose of attaining a better understanding and explanation of this relationship. We classify institutional ownership according to Bushee's (1998, 2001) methodology; transient institutions, dedicated institutions and quasi-indexers. Our results indicate that while transient institutions and quasi-indexers have a positive impact on liquidity, dedicated institutional ownership is negatively associated with liquidity. This result is consistent with prior theoretical studies. We also find that the effectiveness ofthe Regulation Fair Disclosure in improving liquidity is limited to firms with higher transient institutional ownership, whereas quasi-indexed institutions have not been significantly affected by the regulations. In fact, the liquidity of firms is lower for firms with higher dedicated institutional holdings, which is evidence of the "chilling effect".

Volume-Synchronized Probability of Informed Trading (VPIN), Market Volatility, and High-Frequency Liquidity

We assess the predictive ability of three VPIN metrics on the basis of two highly volatile market events of China, and examine the association between VPIN and toxic-induced volatility through conditional probability analysis and multiple regression. We examine the dynamic relationship on VPIN and high-frequency liquidity using Vector Auto-Regression models, Granger Causality tests, and impulse response analysis. Our results suggest that Bulk Volume VPIN has the best risk-warning effect among major VPIN metrics. VPIN has a positive association with market volatility induced by toxic information flow. Most importantly, we document a positive feedback effect between VPIN and high-frequency liquidity, where a negative liquidity shock boosts up VPIN, which, in turn, leads to further liquidity drain. Our study provides empirical evidence that reflects an intrinsic game between informed traders and market makers when facing toxic information in the high-frequency trading world.