Disentangling the signalling and liquidity effects of stock splits

Sunil Mohanty, Doocheol Moon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

We examine, signalling-based versus liquidity-based explanations of stock splits using market data for both industrial firms and depository institutions for the period 1981 to 2000. While both groups react favourably to the announcements of stock splits, we find no significant difference in market responses between the two groups. We further divide the industrial sample firms into two sub-groups [research and development (R&D) firms and non R&D firms] using R&D activities as proxy for information asymmetry. We find no significant difference in abnormal returns between R&D firms and nonR&D firms, providing evidence against signalling effects of stock splits. We find that the average monthly trading volume following stock splits is significantly higher compared to the pre-split level for both industrial firms and depository institutions. We interpret these results as evidence in support of the liquidity hypothesis.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)979-987
Number of pages9
JournalApplied Financial Economics
Volume17
Issue number12
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2007 Aug 1

Fingerprint

Stock splits
Liquidity effect
Liquidity
Information asymmetry
Trading volume
Market data
Market response
Announcement
Abnormal returns

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Finance
  • Economics and Econometrics

Cite this

@article{6fe9ddffbc3645dc823f56b9680b0170,
title = "Disentangling the signalling and liquidity effects of stock splits",
abstract = "We examine, signalling-based versus liquidity-based explanations of stock splits using market data for both industrial firms and depository institutions for the period 1981 to 2000. While both groups react favourably to the announcements of stock splits, we find no significant difference in market responses between the two groups. We further divide the industrial sample firms into two sub-groups [research and development (R&D) firms and non R&D firms] using R&D activities as proxy for information asymmetry. We find no significant difference in abnormal returns between R&D firms and nonR&D firms, providing evidence against signalling effects of stock splits. We find that the average monthly trading volume following stock splits is significantly higher compared to the pre-split level for both industrial firms and depository institutions. We interpret these results as evidence in support of the liquidity hypothesis.",
author = "Sunil Mohanty and Doocheol Moon",
year = "2007",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/09603100600749295",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "979--987",
journal = "Applied Economics",
issn = "0003-6846",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "12",

}

Disentangling the signalling and liquidity effects of stock splits. / Mohanty, Sunil; Moon, Doocheol.

In: Applied Financial Economics, Vol. 17, No. 12, 01.08.2007, p. 979-987.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Disentangling the signalling and liquidity effects of stock splits

AU - Mohanty, Sunil

AU - Moon, Doocheol

PY - 2007/8/1

Y1 - 2007/8/1

N2 - We examine, signalling-based versus liquidity-based explanations of stock splits using market data for both industrial firms and depository institutions for the period 1981 to 2000. While both groups react favourably to the announcements of stock splits, we find no significant difference in market responses between the two groups. We further divide the industrial sample firms into two sub-groups [research and development (R&D) firms and non R&D firms] using R&D activities as proxy for information asymmetry. We find no significant difference in abnormal returns between R&D firms and nonR&D firms, providing evidence against signalling effects of stock splits. We find that the average monthly trading volume following stock splits is significantly higher compared to the pre-split level for both industrial firms and depository institutions. We interpret these results as evidence in support of the liquidity hypothesis.

AB - We examine, signalling-based versus liquidity-based explanations of stock splits using market data for both industrial firms and depository institutions for the period 1981 to 2000. While both groups react favourably to the announcements of stock splits, we find no significant difference in market responses between the two groups. We further divide the industrial sample firms into two sub-groups [research and development (R&D) firms and non R&D firms] using R&D activities as proxy for information asymmetry. We find no significant difference in abnormal returns between R&D firms and nonR&D firms, providing evidence against signalling effects of stock splits. We find that the average monthly trading volume following stock splits is significantly higher compared to the pre-split level for both industrial firms and depository institutions. We interpret these results as evidence in support of the liquidity hypothesis.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34548206468&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34548206468&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/09603100600749295

DO - 10.1080/09603100600749295

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:34548206468

VL - 17

SP - 979

EP - 987

JO - Applied Economics

JF - Applied Economics

SN - 0003-6846

IS - 12

ER -