The Role of Stocks' Trading Characteristics in Stock Liquidity in Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Abstract

Journal of Accounting Advances (J.A.A)
Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring & Summer 2011, Ser. 60/3
 
 
Extended Abstract
 
The Role of Stocks' Trading Characteristics in Stock Liquidity in Tehran Stock Exchange (TSE)
 
         Dr. N. Izadinia                                  M. Ramsheh
       Isfahan University            Islamic Azad University, Fereydan Branch
 
Introduction
Liquidity is an important issue for securities traded in financial markets. A certain level of liquidity is necessary for securities to be traded in the quantites required in a timely fashion whithout any price discount. The goal of this paper is to examine the relationship between different liquidity proxies and stocks' trading characteristics for listed companies in Tehran Stock Exchange. In this paper, five different liquidity proxies are introduced. The proxies are stock turnover, the illiquidity ratio, zero return measure, proportional bid–ask spread and turnover adjusted number of zero daily volumes. Stocks' trading characteristics include stock price, trading volume, return volatility, absolute return, and Beedles' thin trading measure.
The efforts are significant as liquidity plays an important role in asset pricing, and the selection of liquidity proxies in a research design would have considerable influence on empirical results.
 
Research hypothesis
The underlying principle in the relationship between liquidity and stock characteristics is based on order execution and inventory control (Stoll, 2000). Large trading volume reduces the risk of carrying inventory for a period of time, which should increase stock liquidity. Higher return volatility increases the risk of holding inventory, and it should have a negative effect on stock liquidity. Stock price controls the effects of price discreteness and can be used as a proxy for risk, as low price stocks tend to be riskier. Absolute stock return can be treated as an alternative measure of volatility. The advantage of this measure is that it is simple to calculate, particularly in comparison to conventional volatility measures. Similar to volatility, absolute stock return should have a negative influence on liquidity. A thin trading measure proposed by Beedles, Dodd and Officer (1988) is used to create a crude proxy for the proportion of missing daily returns. Since the Beedles measure aims to capture the thin trading aspect of stock illiquidity, it should be negatively related with liquidity. Thus, out testable hypotheses are:
Hypothesis 1: Price per share is expected to be related to liquidity.
Hypothesis 2: Trading volume is expected to be related to liquidity.
Hypothesis 3: Return volatility is expected to be related to liquidity.
Hypothesis 4: Absolute return is expected to be related to liquidity.
Hypothesis 5: Beedles' thin trading measure is expected to be related to liquidity.
 
Methods
This research is of descriptive-correlative type. The study sample includes 38 companies listed in Tehran Stock Exchange. The analysis in this paper is carried out at the monthly level from January 2003 to September 2009. For hypothesis testing, this study uses multivariable regressiones for pooled data. The variables being considered are liquidity proxies as the dependent variable and Stocks' Trading Characteristics as independent variables.This paper employs five widely used liquidity proxies that are stock turnover (TO), the illiquidity ratio (ILLIQUID),  proportional spread (PBA), the zero return measure (ZERO) and turnover-adjusted number of zero daily volumes (LM). Each is discussed in turn below:
TOi,t = voli,t / sharei,t
Where voli,tis the total trading volume for stock i in month t and sharei,t, t is the number of shares outstanding for stock i in month t.
 
where  is the return for stock i on day d in month t, and vi,d,t is the trading volume for stock i on day d in month t and D is the number of daily observations for stock i in month t.
 
 
 
       Where  is the daily closing ask (bid) prices for stock i on day d in month t and D is the number of daily observations for stock i in month t.
ZEROi,t = zeroreturni,t / tradingdayi,t
Where zeroreturni,t is the number of zero daily return days for stock i in month t, and tradingdayi,t is the number of trading days for stock i in month t.
 
 
Where  is the number of zero daily trading volumes for stock i in month t;  is the stock turnover rate for stock i in month t.    is the total number of trading days in the market in month t.
The trading characteristics include PRICE (price per share at the end of each month), VARIANCE (return volatility of daily stock returns in each month), VOLUME (trading volume aggregated in each month), (ABSR) Absolute monthly stock return and Beedles that is defined as:
BEEDLES = {100 – [100/(n + 1)]}/100
Where n is the difference in time (measured in days) between the last price date and last trading date in each month.
 
Results
This paper examined the influences of trading characteristics on stock liquidity. Consistent with the literature, trading characteristics are important determinants of liquidity. In general the impact of the trading characteristics on PBA and LM is consistent with our hypotheses. However, their relationships with stock turnover exhibit a somewhat different pattern than the other liquidity proxies.This result suggests that the source of the stock turnover is not related to stock characteristics that are important for the other proxies. Notably, we have been silent on the question of what is the “best” liquidity proxy. This research issue is beyond the scope of the current study. However, as noted in Goyenko et al. (2009), the selection of liquidity proxies in an empirical design depends on what exactly one wants to capture. Our results support their assertion, as liquidity is multidimensional and can be captured by differentmeasures of trading activity. The current study shows that through firm trading characteristics, we can better understand the sources of liquidity.
 
 
 
 

Keywords

References

منابع
الف. فارسی
ابزری، مهدی، صمدی، سعید و صفری، علی. (1386). بررسی تأثیر دوره سرمایه‌گذاری بر عملکرد شرکت‌های سرمایه‌گذاری شرکت‌های پذیرفته شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. بررسی‌های حسابداری و حسابرسی، 14 (50): 99-118.
احمدپور، احمد و رسائیان، امیر. (1385). رابطه اطلاعات مالی و اختلاف قیمت پیشنهادی خرید و فروش سهام. نامه اقتصادی مفید، 12 (57): 29-48.
احمدپور، احمد و رسائیان، امیر. (1385). رابطه بین معیارهای ریسک و اختلاف قیمت پیشنهادی خرید و فروش سهام در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. بررسی‌های حسابداری و حسابرسی، 13 (46): 37-60.
ایزدی نیا، ناصر و رسائیان، امیر. (1388). اختلاف قیمت پیشنهادی خرید و فروش سهام و کیفیت سود در ایران. مجله دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد دانشگاه اصفهان، 21 (51):
 127-154.
ایزدی نیا، ناصر و رسائیان، امیر. (1389). پراکندگی مالکیت و نقدشوندگی سهام. بررسی‌های حسابداری و حسابرسی، 17 (60): 3-22.
ستایش، محمدحسین و جمالیان‌پور، مظفر. (1388). بررسی عوامل مؤثر بر قدرت نقدشوندگی سهام شرکت‌ها در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. مجله دانشکده علوم اداری و اقتصاد، 21 (51): 215-240.
شیخ، محمدجواد و صفرپور، محمدحسن. (1386). بررسی تأثیر دوره سرمایه‌گذاری بر عملکرد شرکت‌های پذیرفته شده در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران. بررسی‌‌های حسابداری و حسابرسی، 14 (50): 99-118.
مومنی، منصور و فعال قیومی، علی. (1388). مقایسه انواع تحلیل‌‌های رگرسیونی برای داده‌‌‌های حسابداری، بررسی‌‌‌های حسابداری و حسابرسی، 16 (38): 93-119.
مهرانی، ساسان و رساییان، امیر. (1388). بررسی رابطه‌ی بین معیارهای نقدشوندگی سهام و بازده سالانه سهام در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران، پیشرفت‌های حسابداری، 2 (2): 217-230.
یحیی‌زاده‌فر، محمود و خرمدین، جواد. (1387). نقش عوامل نقدشوندگی و ریسک عدم نقدشوندگی بر مازاد بازده سهام در بورس اوراق بهادار تهران، بررسی‌‌های حسابداری و حسابرسی، 15 (53): 101-118.
ب. انگلیسی
Aitken, M., & Frino, A. (1996). The determinants of market bid ask spreads on the Australian stock exchange: Cross-sectional analysis. Accounting and Finance, 36(1): 51-64.
Amihud, Y. (2002). Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross section and time series effects. Journal of Financial Markets, 5(1): 31-56.
Atkins, A. B., & Dyl, E. A. (1997). Transactions costs and holding periods for common stocks. Journal of Finance, 52(1): 309-325.
Beedles, W., Dodd, P., & Officer, R. R. (1988). Regularities in Australian share returns. Australian Journal of Management, 13(1): 1-29.
Bekaert, G., Harvey, C. R., & Lundblad, C. (2007). Liquidity and expected returns: Lessons from emerging markets. Review of Financial Studies, 20(6): 1783-1831.
Benson, G. J., & Hagerman, R. L. (1974). Determinants of bid–asked spreads in the overthe-counter market. Journal of Financial Economics, 1(4): 353-364.
Black, F. (1971). Towards a fully automated exchange: Part 1. Financial Analyst Journal, 27(4): 29-34.
Branch, B., & Freed, W. (1977). Bid–asked spreads on the AMEX and the big board. Journal of Finance, 32(1): 159-163.
Chai, D., Faff, R., & Gharghori, P.(2010). New evidence on the relation between stock liquidity and measures oftrading activity. International Review of Financial Analysis, 19: 181-192.
Chan, H. W. H., & Faff, R. W. (2003). An investigation into the role of liquidity in asset pricing: Australian evidence. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 11(5): 555-572.
Chordia, T., Roll, R., & Subrahmanyam, A. (2000).Commonality in liquidity. Journal of Financial Economics, 56(1): 3-28.
Chordia, T., Shivakumar, L., & Subrahmanyam, A. (2004). Liquidity dynamics across small and large firms. Economic Notes, 33(1): 111-143.
Datar, V., Naik, N. Y., & Radcliffe, R. (1998). Liquidity and stock returns: An alternative test. Journal of Financial Markets, 1(2): 203-219.
Dey, M. (2005). Liquidity, turnover, and return in global stock markets. Emerging Markets Review, 6 (1): 45-67.
Fujimoto, A., & Masahiro W. (2006). Time-Varying Liquidity Risk and the Cross Section of Stock Returnd. Working Paper: http://papers. ssrn.com/id=906327.
Goyenko, R., Holden, G. W., & Trzcinka, C. A. (2009). Do liquidity measures measure liquidity? Journal of Financial Economics, 92(2): 153-181.
Kyle, A. (1985). Continuous auctions and insider trading. Econometrica, 53(6): 1315-1335.
Lesmond, D. A., Ogden, J. P., & Trzcinka, C. A. (1999). A new estimate of transaction costs. Review of Financial Studies, 12(5): 1113-1141.
Liu, W. (2006). A liquidity-augmented capital asset pricing model. Journal of Financial Economics, 82(3): 631-671.
Omri, A., Zayani, M., & Loukil, N. (2006). Impact of liquidity on Stock returns: An empirical investigation of the Tunis stock market, Finance and Business Strategies, Social Science Electronic Publishing.
Stoll, H. (1978). The pricing of security dealer services: An empirical study of NASDAQ stocks. Journal of Finance, 33(4): 1153-1172.
Stoll, H. (2000). Friction. Journal of Finance, 55(4): 1479-1514.
Stoll, H., & Whaley, R. (1983). Transaction costs and the size effect. Journal of Financial Economics, 12(1): 57-79.
Tinic, S. (1972). The economics of liquidity services. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 86(1): 79-93.
 
 

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 05 April 2011
  • Revise Date: 14 December 2015
  • Accept Date: 06 October 2011

Share

How to cite

Statistics