Does High Stock Return Synchronicity Indicate High or Low Price Informativeness? Evidence from a Regulatory Experiment

Abstract

We investigate the link between stock return synchronicity and price informativeness by exploiting the Regulation SHO pilot program, which removed short-selling price tests for randomly selected stocks ("pilot stocks") in May 2005. A difference-in-differences analysis reveals that relative to non-pilot stocks, pilot stocks saw a significantly larger increase in both price informativeness and return synchronicity when the pilot program started, but such difference disappeared when Regulation SHO removed the short-selling price tests for all stocks in July 2007. The results suggest that high return synchronicity reflects high, rather than low price informativeness.

Corporate governance and family firm performance during the Global Financial Crisis

“…By choosing an exogenous and largely unexpected event, we assess the governance–performance relationship before the performance can affect the composition of the board. That is, the research design controls for the implicit endogenous effect (Aldamen et al ., ; Gippel et al ., ; Aldamen and Duncan, ; Jiraporn et al ., ; Kan and Gong, ).…”

Price nonsynchronicity, idiosyncratic risk, and expected stock returns in China

“…4. See, e.g., for idiosyncratic risk: Ang, Chen, et al (2006) and Dasgupta et al (2010); for R 2 : Ferreira, Ferreira, and Raposo (2011) and Kan and Gong (2018). 5.…”

CEO characteristics, accounting opacity and stock price synchronicity: Empirical evidence from German listed firms

“…Following the prior literature (e.g., An & Zhang, ; Gul et al, ; Hutton et al, ; Kan & Gong, ), we use a set of control variables. These include firm size measured by the natural logarithm of the firm market value of equity (SIZE t − 1 ), the ratio of the market value of equity to the book value of equity (MTB t − 1 ), leverage measured by the ratio of the book value of all liabilities over the total assets (LEV i , t −1 ), return on assets measured by the income before extraordinary items divided by the book value of assets (ROA t −1 ), the volatility measured by the standard deviation of weekly industry return over the fiscal year (VOL t −1 ), the skewness measured by the skewness of firm specific weekly return over the fiscal year (SKEW t −1 ) and the kurtosis measured by the kurtosis of firm specific weekly return over the fiscal year (KURT t −1 ) and dummy variables for the years (YEAR t ) and for the industrial sector (SECTOR t ).Consistent with Hutton et al () and An and Zhang (), we expect a positive relationship between ROA t − 1 , MTB t − 1 , SIZE t − 1 , VOL t − 1 and SPS, and a negative relationship between LEV i , t − 1 , SKEW t − 1 , KURT t − 1 and SPS.…”