Illiquidity and Stock Returns II: Cross-Section and Time-Series Effects
Preprint
- 12 March 2018
- preprint
- Published by Elsevier in SSRN Electronic Journal
Abstract
Lou and Shu (Review of Financial Studies, 2017) decompose Amihud’s (2002) illiquidity measure (ILLIQ) into two terms and claim that the average of inverse dollar trading volume (IDVOL) is sufficient to explain the cross-section of expected returns. We show two problems with their analysis. First, it hinges on an error in decomposing ILLIQ. They omit a term related to the covariance between volatility and trading volume which we show has significant effects on both the cross-section of expected stock returns and on the time-series of realized market returns. Second, the market IDVOL performs much worse than market ILLIQ in explaining the effect of illiquidity shocks on the time-series of realized market returns. IDVOL is also shown to incorrectly depict the liquidity crises of 1987 and 2008 while ILLIQ depicts them correctly.Keywords
This publication has 13 references indexed in Scilit:
- An Analysis of the Amihud Illiquidity PremiumThe Review of Asset Pricing Studies, 2013
- Do liquidity measures measure liquidity?☆Journal of Financial Economics, 2009
- Why is PIN priced?Journal of Financial Economics, 2009
- Trading activity and expected stock returnsJournal of Financial Economics, 2001
- Conditioning Variables and the Cross Section of Stock ReturnsThe Journal of Finance, 1999
- Liquidity and stock returns: An alternative testJournal of Financial Markets, 1998
- Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bondsJournal of Financial Economics, 1993
- The Cross-Section of Expected Stock ReturnsThe Journal of Finance, 1992
- Capital Market Equilibrium with Transaction CostsJournal of Political Economy, 1986
- Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical TestsJournal of Political Economy, 1973