A Pure Test for the Elasticity of Yield Spreads

The correlation between interest rates and corporate bond yield spreads is a well-known feature of structural bond pricing models. Duffee (1998) argues that this correlation is weak once the effects of call options are removed from the data; a conclusion that contradicts the negative correlation expected by Longstaff and Schwartz (1995). However, Elton et al. (2001) point out that Duffee's analysis ignores the effects of the tax differential between U.S. Treasury and corporate bonds. Canadian bonds have no such tax differential, yet, after controlling for callability, we find that the correlation between interest rates and corporate bond spreads remains negligible. We also find a significant negative relationship for callable bonds with this relationship increasing with the moneyness of the call provision. These results are robust under alternate empirical specifications.Bond Yield Spread, Default Risk, Callable Bonds, Corporate Bonds

Value investing or investing in illiquidity? The profitability of contrarian investment strategies, revisited

Abstract Background  We investigate whether the success of contrarian investment strategies can be attributed to differences in the relative illiquidity of stocks categorized as value investments versus those categorized as glamour portfolios. Methods Following Lakonishok et al. (J Financ 49:1541–1578, 1994), we assess the illiquidity characteristics of portfolios that underlie contrarian investment strategies that are based on the level of stock’s book to market. Results We find strong evidence that those portfolios characterized as value investments are associated with dramatically greater levels of illiquidity than glamour portfolios. We further demonstrate that strategies based on the illiquidity in the year prior to portfolio formation result in return characteristic of ostensibly contrarian strategies. Conclusions These results suggest that the higher returns associated with contrarian investment strategies are the result of the higher illiquidity associated with value portfolios and represent compensation that the investor receives for accepting illiquidity. They also suggest that researchers should be cautious before attributing apparent anomalies to behavior-driven expectational errors rather than to other attributes unrelated to behavior, such as illiquidity

Ownership dispersion and market liquidity

We revisit the relationship between ownership dispersion and market liquidity. For ownership dispersion, we consider two dimensions: number of shareholders and blockholder ownership. For market liquidity, we consider four categories of liquidity measures: spreads, probability of informed trading (PIN), depth, and volume. Our sample includes NASDAQ firms in addition to NYSE and AMEX firms. We find several relations that are not documented in the extant Finance literature. Overall, our test results are consistent with the idea that higher ownership dispersion improves market liquidity.Block ownership Bid-ask spread Quoted depth Information asymmetry PIN

Value investing or investing in illiquidity? The profitability of contrarian investment strategies, revisited

Abstract Background  We investigate whether the success of contrarian investment strategies can be attributed to differences in the relative illiquidity of stocks categorized as value investments versus those categorized as glamour portfolios. Methods Following Lakonishok et al. (J Financ 49:1541–1578, 1994), we assess the illiquidity characteristics of portfolios that underlie contrarian investment strategies that are based on the level of stock’s book to market. Results We find strong evidence that those portfolios characterized as value investments are associated with dramatically greater levels of illiquidity than glamour portfolios. We further demonstrate that strategies based on the illiquidity in the year prior to portfolio formation result in return characteristic of ostensibly contrarian strategies. Conclusions These results suggest that the higher returns associated with contrarian investment strategies are the result of the higher illiquidity associated with value portfolios and represent compensation that the investor receives for accepting illiquidity. They also suggest that researchers should be cautious before attributing apparent anomalies to behavior-driven expectational errors rather than to other attributes unrelated to behavior, such as illiquidity