Advertisement

Eurasian Economic Review

, Volume 7, Issue 2, pp 255–275 | Cite as

Stock liquidity on China NEEQ exchange

  • Ning Liu
  • Wei Xu
Original Paper
  • 231 Downloads

Abstract

With the recent deregulation, the National Equities Exchange and Quotations (NEEQ) has become the fastest growing exchange in China. Despite its phenomenal growth, the NEEQ has an urgent need to improve its liquidity, as 70 % of the stocks listed are never traded and more than half of the stocks have an average daily price swing over 10 %. We study factors that affect the liquidity of the NEEQ-listed firms and provide evidence that large information asymmetry decreases liquidity on the NEEQ. Specifically, we find that informed ownership and concentrated ownership both have significantly negative influence on a stock’s liquidity, while institutional ownership and leverage have no impact. In addition, market makers do not alleviate the information asymmetry of firms listed on the NEEQ. However their involvement does improve firms’ liquidity by providing more efficient price discovery. We conclude that the information asymmetry in firms contributes to the extreme lacking of liquidity on the NEEQ. To improve their liquidity, firms can adopt more diffused ownership and/or reduce the informed ownership while the exchange needs to improve its institutional settings such as enforcing the market making transaction to all firms and strengthening its information releasing requirement to enforce more frequent information releasing and better releasing quality.

Keywords

Liquidity NEEQ Exchange Market making Information asymmetry 

References

  1. Admati, A. R., & Pfleiderer, P. (1988). A theory of intraday patterns: Volume and price variability. Review of Financial Studies, 1, 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akerlof, G. (1970). The market for "Lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84, 488–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amihud, Y. (2002). Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets, 5, 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amihud, Y., & Mendelson, H. (1986). Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread. Journal of Financial Economics, 17, 219–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ang, A., Shtauber, A., & Tetlock, P. (2013). Asset pricing in the dark: The cross section of OTC stocks. Review of Financial Studies, 26, 2985–3028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bagehot, W. (1971). The only game in town. Financial Analysts Journal, 27, 12–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bessembinder, H. (1999). Trade execution costs on NASDAQ and the NYSE: a post-reform comparison. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 34, 387–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bessembinder, H., & Kaufman, H. M. (1997). A comparison of trade execution costs for NYSE and NASDAQ-listed stocks. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 32, 287–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bettis, J., Coles, J., & Lemmon, M. L. (2000). Corporate policies restricting trading by insiders. Journal of Financial Economics, 57, 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bharath, S. T., Pasquariello, P., & Wu, G. (2009). Does asymmetric information drive capital structure decisions? The Review of Financial Studies, 22, 3211–3243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bhide, A. (1993). The hidden costs of stock market liquidity. Journal of Financial Economics, 34, 31–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, Y., Li, L., Wang, H., & Wang, P. (2015). Institutional investors and conservative financial reporting: Evidence from China. Eurasian Economic Review, 5, 161–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chiang, R., & Venkatesh, C. (1988). Insider holdings and perceptions of information asymmetry: A note. The Journal of Finance, 43, 1041–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chung, K. H., Van Ness, B. F., & Van Ness, R. A. (2001). Can the treatment of limit orders reconcile the differences in trading costs between the differences in trading costs between NYSE and Nasdaq issues? Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 36, 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Copeland, E., & Galai, D. (1983). Information effects on the bid-ask spread. The Journal of Finance, 38, 1457–1469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Demsetz, H. (1968). The cost of transacting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82, 33–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fang, V., Noe, T., Tice, S. (2009). Stock market liquidity and firm value. Journal of Financial Economics, 94, 150–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feng, C., & Tian, C. (2013). The Effect of ownership structure on bid-ask spread. Industrial Economic Review, 3, 129–140.Google Scholar
  19. Frieder, L., Martell, R. (2006). On capital structure and the liquidity of a firm’s stock, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  20. Glosten, R., & Milgrom, R. (1985). Bid ask and transaction prices in a specialist market with heterogeneously informed traders. Journal of Financial Economics, 14, 71–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heflin, F., & Shaw, W. (2000). blockholder ownership and market liquidity. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 35, 621–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holden, C. W., & Subrahmanyam, A. (1992). Long-lived private information and imperfect competition. Journal of Finance, 47, 247–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Huang, R. D., & Stoll, H. R. (1996). Dealer versus auction markets: A paired comparison of execution costs on NASDAQ and the NYSE. Journal of Financial economics, 41, 313–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lakonishok, J., & Lee, I. (2001). Are insiders’ trades informative? Review of Financial Studies, 14, 79–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lesmond, A., O’Connor, F., Senbet, L. W. (2008). Capital structure and equity liquidity, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  26. Liao, S. (2007). Firm size and liquidity—an empirical study based on shanghai exchange listed stocks. Contemporary Economy and Management, 6, 93–96.Google Scholar
  27. Lipson, L.M., Mortal, S. (2009). Liquidity and capital structure. Journal of Financial Markets, 12, 611–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liu, W. (2006). A liquidity-augmented capital asset pricing model. Journal of Financial Economics, 82, 631–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liu, S. (2013). Institutional ownership and stock liquidity. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 10, 18–26.Google Scholar
  30. Lu, J., & Yang, W. (2008). Ownership structure, information asymmetry and liquidity under continuous auction. Economy and Management, 8, 10–17.Google Scholar
  31. Martin, P. (1975). Analysis of the impact of competitive rates on the liquidity of NYSE stocks. Economic Staff Papers, 75–3. Securities and Exchange Commission.Google Scholar
  32. Merton, R. (1987). A simple model of capital market equilibrium with incomplete information. Journal of Finance, 42, 483–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Morck, R., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, W. (1988). Management ownership and market valuation. Journal of Financial Economics, 20, 293–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rubin, A. (2007). Ownership level, ownership concentration and liquidity. Journal of Financial Markets, 10, 219–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sarin, A., Shastri, K.A., Shastri, K. (2000). Ownership structure and stock market liquidity, Working Paper.Google Scholar
  36. Schwartz, R., Shapiro, J. (1992). The challenge of institutionalization of the equity market. In A. Saunders (Ed.), Recent developments in Finance. New York: New York Salomon Center.Google Scholar
  37. Taussig, R. D., & Akron, S. (2016). Returns to scale, operating leverage, and expected stock returns. Eurasian Business Review, 53, 1–15.Google Scholar
  38. Wu, W., Wang, X., & Cheng, G. (2004). Information asymmetry and ownership structure: An empirical analysis on Chinese public traded companies. System Engineering Theory and Practice, 11, 28–32.Google Scholar
  39. Xu, S., & Cheng, X. (2012). An empirical analysis of the impact of ownership structure on stock liquidity. Academic Forum, 8, 158–164.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Eurasia Business and Economics Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.HSBC Business SchoolPeking UniversityShenzhenChina

Personalised recommendations