Liquidity, governance and adverse selection in asset pricing

A plethora of recent literature on asset pricing provides plenty of empirical evidence on the importance of liquidity, governance and adverse selection of equity on pricing of assets together with more traditional factors such as market beta and the Fama-French factors. However, literature has usually stressed that these factors are priced individually. In this dissertation we argue that these factors may be related to each other, hence not only individual but also joint tests of their significance is called for. ^ In the three related essays, we examine the liquidity premium in the context of the finer three-digit SIC industry classification, joint importance of liquidity and governance factors as well as governance and adverse selection. Recent studies by Core, Guay and Rusticus (2006) and Ben-Rephael, Kadan and Wohl (2010) find that governance and liquidity premiums are dwindling in the last few years. One reason could be that liquidity is very unevenly distributed across industries. This could affect the interpretation of prior liquidity studies. Thus, in the first chapter we analyze the relation of industry clustering and liquidity risk following a finer industry classification suggested by Johnson, Moorman and Sorescu (2009). In the second chapter, we examine the dwindling influence of the governance factor if taken simultaneously with liquidity. We argue that this happens since governance characteristics are potentially a proxy for information asymmetry that may be better captured by market liquidity of a company's shares. Hence, we jointly examine both the factors, namely, governance and liquidity - in a series of standard asset pricing tests. Our results reconfirm the importance of governance and liquidity in explaining stock returns thus independently corroborating the findings of Amihud (2002) and Gompers, Ishii and Metrick (2003). Moreover, governance is not subsumed by liquidity. Lastly, we analyze the relation of governance and adverse selection, and again corroborate previous findings of a priced governance factor. Furthermore, we ascertain the importance of microstructure measures in asset pricing by employing Huang and Stoll's (1997) method to extract an adverse selection variable and finding evidence for its explanatory power in four-factor regressions.^

Liquidity, Governance and Adverse Selection in Asset Pricing

A plethora of recent literature on asset pricing provides plenty of empirical evidence on the importance of liquidity, governance and adverse selection of equity on pricing of assets together with more traditional factors such as market beta and the Fama-French factors. However, literature has usually stressed that these factors are priced individually. In this dissertation we argue that these factors may be related to each other, hence not only individual but also joint tests of their significance is called for. In the three related essays, we examine the liquidity premium in the context of the finer three-digit SIC industry classification, joint importance of liquidity and governance factors as well as governance and adverse selection. Recent studies by Core, Guay and Rusticus (2006) and Ben-Rephael, Kadan and Wohl (2010) find that governance and liquidity premiums are dwindling in the last few years. One reason could be that liquidity is very unevenly distributed across industries. This could affect the interpretation of prior liquidity studies. Thus, in the first chapter we analyze the relation of industry clustering and liquidity risk following a finer industry classification suggested by Johnson, Moorman and Sorescu (2009). In the second chapter, we examine the dwindling influence of the governance factor if taken simultaneously with liquidity. We argue that this happens since governance characteristics are potentially a proxy for information asymmetry that may be better captured by market liquidity of a company’s shares. Hence, we jointly examine both the factors, namely, governance and liquidity – in a series of standard asset pricing tests. Our results reconfirm the importance of governance and liquidity in explaining stock returns thus independently corroborating the findings of Amihud (2002) and Gompers, Ishii and Metrick (2003). Moreover, governance is not subsumed by liquidity. Lastly, we analyze the relation of governance and adverse selection, and again corroborate previous findings of a priced governance factor. Furthermore, we ascertain the importance of microstructure measures in asset pricing by employing Huang and Stoll’s (1997) method to extract an adverse selection variable and finding evidence for its explanatory power in four-factor regressions.

Liquidity and asset pricing: A comparison between three-factor and three-moment capital asset pricing models

Liquidity is an important attribute of an asset that investors would like to take into consideration when making investment decisions. However, the previous empirical evidence whether liquidity is a determinant of stock return is not unanimous. This dissertation provides a very comprehensive study about the role of liquidity in asset pricing using the Fama-French (1993) three-factor and Kraus and Litzenberger (1976) three-moment CAPM as models for risk adjustment. The relationship between liquidity and well-known determinants of stock returns such as size and book-to-market are also investigated. This study examines the liquidity and asset pricing issues for both intertemporal as well as cross-sectional data. ^ The results indicate an existence of a liquidity premium, i.e., less liquid stocks would demand higher rate of return than more liquid stocks. More specifically, a drop of 1 percent in liquidity is associated with a higher rate of return of about 2 to 3 basis points per month. Further investigation reveals that neither the Fama-French three-factor model nor the three-moment CAPM captures the liquidity premium. Finally, the results show that well-known determinants of stock return such as size and book-to-market do not serve as proxy for liquidity. ^ Overall, this dissertation shows that a liquidity premium exists in the stock market and that liquidity is a distinct effect, and is not influenced by the presence of non-market factors, market factors and other stock characteristics.^

Three essays on market depth in futures markets

Liquidity is an important market characteristic for participants in every financial market. One of the three components of liquidity is market depth. Prior literature lacks a comprehensive analysis of depth in U.S. futures markets due to past limitations on the availability of data. However, recent innovations in data collection and dissemination provide new opportunities to investigate the depth dimension of liquidity. In this dissertation, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Group proprietary database on depth is employed to study the dynamics of depth in the U.S. futures markets. This database allows for the analysis of depth along the entire limit order book rather than just at the first level. The first essay examines the characteristics of depth within the context of the five-deep limit order book. Results show that a large amount of depth is present in the book beyond the best level. Furthermore, the findings show that the characteristics of five-deep depth between day and night trading vary and that depth is unequal across levels within the limit order book. The second essay examines the link between the five-deep market depth and the bid-ask spread. The results suggest an inverse relation between the spread and the depth after adjusting for control factors. The third essay explores transitory volatility in relation to depth in the limit order book. Evidence supports the relation between an increase in volatility and a subsequent decrease in market depth. Overall, the results of this dissertation are consistent with limit order traders actively managing depth along the limit order book in electronic U.S. futures markets.

Three Essays on Market Depth in Futures Markets

Liquidity is an important market characteristic for participants in every financial market. One of the three components of liquidity is market depth. Prior literature lacks a comprehensive analysis of depth in U.S. futures markets due to past limitations on the availability of data. However, recent innovations in data collection and dissemination provide new opportunities to investigate the depth dimension of liquidity. In this dissertation, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) Group proprietary database on depth is employed to study the dynamics of depth in the U.S. futures markets. This database allows for the analysis of depth along the entire limit order book rather than just at the first level. The first essay examines the characteristics of depth within the context of the five-deep limit order book. Results show that a large amount of depth is present in the book beyond the best level. Furthermore, the findings show that the characteristics of five-deep depth between day and night trading vary and that depth is unequal across levels within the limit order book. The second essay examines the link between the five-deep market depth and the bid-ask spread. The results suggest an inverse relation between the spread and the depth after adjusting for control factors. The third essay explores transitory volatility in relation to depth in the limit order book. Evidence supports the relation between an increase in volatility and a subsequent decrease in market depth. Overall, the results of this dissertation are consistent with limit order traders actively managing depth along the limit order book in electronic U.S. futures markets.