Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 95–122 | Cite as

Asymmetric stock price and liquidity responses to changes in the FTSE SmallCap index

Original Research


We examine market reactions to changes in the FTSE SmallCap index membership, which are determined quarterly based on market capitalization and are free of information effects. Our main results are asymmetric price and liquidity responses between the firms that are shifted between FTSE indexes and the firms that are new to FTSE indexes. Firms promoted from a smaller-cap to a larger-cap FTSE index experience a permanent increase in stock price accompanied by improvements in liquidity. Similarly, firms demoted from a larger-cap to a smaller-cap FTSE index experience a permanent decrease in stock price accompanied by declines in liquidity. In contrast, firms added to the FTSE SmallCap index that were not previously in FTSE indexes show a transitory price gain and declines in liquidity. The results support the liquidity and price pressure hypotheses.


Event study FTSE SmallCap index Index changes Institutional ownership Liquidity Stock prices Trading volume 

JEL Classification

G12 G14 



The authors thank Cheng-Few Lee (Editor-in-Chief) and two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions. We also appreciate helpful comments from Anna Agapova, Don Cyr, Fayez Elayan, Robert Welch, and seminar participants at Brock University, the 2010 Financial Management Association European conference, and the 2010 Multinational Finance Society conference. Financial support from the Brock Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Institutional Grant is gratefully acknowledged.


  1. Ajinkya BB, Jain PC (1989) The behavior of daily stock market trading volume. J Account Econ 11:331–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amihud Y (2002) Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects. J Financ Mark 5:31–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amihud Y, Mendelson H (1986) Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread. J Financ Econ 17:223–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker-Blease JR, Paul DL (2010) Does inclusion in a smaller S&P index create value? Financ Rev 45:307–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biktimirov EN (2004) The effect of demand on stock prices: evidence from index fund rebalancing. Financ Rev 39:455–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biktimirov EN, Cowan AR, Jordan BD (2004) Do demand curves for small stocks slope down? J Financ Res 27:161–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown SJ, Warner JB (1980) Measuring security price performance. J Financ Econ 8:205–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cai J (2007) What’s in the news? Information content of S&P 500 additions. Financ Manag 36:113–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell CJ, Wasley CE (1996) Measuring abnormal daily trading volume for samples of NYSE/ASE and NASDAQ securities using parametric and nonparametric test statistics. Rev Quant Financ Account 6:309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chakrabarti R, Huang W, Jayaraman N, Lee J (2005) Price and volume effects of changes in MSCI indices–nature and causes. J Bank Financ 29:1237–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen H-L (2006) On Russell index reconstitution. Rev Quant Financ Account 26:409–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen H, Noronha G, Singal V (2004) The price response to S&P 500 index additions and deletions: evidence of asymmetry and a new explanation. J Financ 59:1901–1929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corrado CJ (1989) A nonparametric test for abnormal security-price performance in event studies. J Financ Econ 23:385–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Corrado CJ, Zivney TL (1992) The specification and power of the sign test in event study hypothesis tests using daily stock returns. J Financ Quant Anal 27:465–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cowan AR (1992) Nonparametric event study tests. Rev Quant Financ Account 2:343–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cready WM, Hurtt DN (2002) Assessing investor response to information events using return and volume metrics. Account Rev 77:891–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cready WM, Ramanan R (1991) The power of tests employing log-transformed volume in detecting abnormal trading. J Account Econ 14:203–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Denis DK, McConnell JJ, Ovtchinnikov AV, Yu Y (2003) S&P 500 Index additions and earnings expectations. J Financ 58:1821–1840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Docking DS, Dowen RJ (2006) Evidence on stock price effects associated with changes in the S&P 600 SmallCap index. Quart J Bus Econ 45:89–114Google Scholar
  20. Elliott WB, Warr RS (2003) Price pressure on the NYSE and Nasdaq: evidence from S&P 500 index changes. Financ Manag 32:85–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Erwin GR, Miller JM (1998) The liquidity effects associated with addition of a stock to the S&P 500 index: evidence from bid/ask spreads. Financ Rev 33:131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Geppert JM, Ivanov SI, Karels GV (2011) An analysis of the importance of S&P 500 discretionary constituent changes. Rev Quant Financ Account 37:21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harris L, Gurel E (1986) Price and volume effects associated with changes in the S&P 500 list: new evidence for the existence of price pressures. J Financ 41:815–829Google Scholar
  24. Jain PC (1987) The effect on stock price of inclusion in or exclusion from the S&P 500. Financ Anal J 43:58–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kappou K, Brooks C, Ward C (2010) The S&P500 index effect reconsidered: evidence from overnight and intraday stock price performance and volume. J Bank Financ 34(1):116–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaul A, Mehrotra V, Morck R (2000) Demand curves for stocks do slope down: new evidence from an index weights adjustment. J Financ 55:893–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lesmond DA, Ogden JP, Trzcinka CA (1999) A new estimate of transaction costs. Rev Financ Stud 12:1113–1141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loughran T, Ritter JR (2000) Uniformly least powerful tests of market efficiency. J Financ Econ 55:361–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Madhavan A (2003) The Russell reconstitution effect. Financ Anal J 59:51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mase B (2006) Investor awareness and the long-term impact of FTSE 100 index redefinitions. Appl Financ Econ 16:1113–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mase B (2007) The impact of changes in the FTSE 100 Index. Financ Rev 42:461–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mazouz K, Saadouni B (2007) The price effects of FTSE 100 index revision: what drives the long-term abnormal reversal? Appl Financ Econ 17:501–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Merton RC (1987) A simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information. J Financ 42:483–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Palmon D, Sudit EF, Yezegel A (2009) The value of columnists’ stock recommendations: an event study approach. Rev Quant Financ Account 33:209–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shankar SG, Miller JM (2006) Market reaction to changes in the S&P SmallCap 600 index. Financ Rev 41:339–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shleifer A (1986) Do demand curves for stocks slope down? J Financ 41:579–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shu P-G, Yeh Y-H, Huang Y-C (2004) Stock price and trading volume effects associated with changes in the MSCI free indices: evidence from Taiwanese firms added to and deleted from the indices. Rev Pac Basin Financ Mark Policies 7:471–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Singal V (2004) Beyond the random walk: a guide to stock market anomalies and low-risk investing. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Vespro C (2006) Stock price and volume effects associated with compositional changes in European stock indices. Eur Financ Manag 12:103–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wurgler J, Zhuravskaya E (2002) Does arbitrage flatten demand curves for stocks? J Bus 75:583–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhou H (2011) Asymmetric changes in stock prices and investor recognition around revisions to the S&P 500 index. Financ Anal J 67:72–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Goodman School of BusinessBrock UniversitySt. CatharinesCanada

Personalised recommendations