IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cbu/jrnlec/y2020v6p17-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stock Market Reactions To Covid-19: The Case Of Nyse

Author

Listed:
  • BATRANCEA LARISSA

    (BABES-BOLYAI UNIVERSITY CLUJ-NAPOCA, FACULTY OF BUSINESS, ROMANIA)

Abstract

The present article reports on the analysis of the degree to whichthe current COVID-19 pandemic has impacted on the stock market pricesof the first 34 companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Despite the fact that the majority of finance professionals believe that the evolution of price-to-earnings, price-to-sales and price-to-book value depend heavily on psychological factors and not so much on financial results of a company, the study shows that these indicators of major importance for stock markets have been shaped by profitability and liquidity ratios. By running a panel data analysis on company financial indicators regarding the time span March-September 2020, the study shows that price-to-sales was significantly influenced by company profitability and liquidity. Moreover, price-to-earnings and price-to-book value were influenced solely by company profitability.

Suggested Citation

  • Batrancea Larissa, 2020. "Stock Market Reactions To Covid-19: The Case Of Nyse," Annals - Economy Series, Constantin Brancusi University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 6, pages 17-23, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:cbu:jrnlec:y:2020:v:6:p:17-23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.utgjiu.ro/revista/ec/pdf/2020-06/03_Batrancea.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chaiyuth Padungsaksawasdi & Sirimon Treepongkaruna & Robert Brooks, 2019. "Investor Attention and Stock Market Activities: New Evidence from Panel Data," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Chip Heath & Steven Huddart & Mark Lang, 1999. "Psychological Factors and Stock Option Exercise," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(2), pages 601-627.
    3. Aamir Sarwar & Ghadeer Afaf, 2016. "A comparison between psychological and economic factors affecting individual investor’s decision-making behavior," Cogent Business & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 1232907-123, December.
    4. Cedric Mbanga & Ali F. Darrat & Jung Chul Park, 2019. "Investor sentiment and aggregate stock returns: the role of investor attention," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 397-428, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tihana Škrinjarić, 2019. "Time Varying Spillovers between the Online Search Volume and Stock Returns: Case of CESEE Markets," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-30, October.
    2. Onishchenko, Olena & Zhao, Jing & Kongahawatte, Sampath & Kuruppuarachchi, Duminda, 2024. "Investor heterogeneity and anchoring-induced momentum," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    3. Brad M. Barber & Yi‐Tsung Lee & Yu‐Jane Liu & Terrance Odean, 2007. "Is the Aggregate Investor Reluctant to Realise Losses? Evidence from Taiwan," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 13(3), pages 423-447, June.
    4. Chorvat, Terrence, 2006. "Taxing utility," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 1-16, February.
    5. Hamza Bahaji, 2011. "Incentives from stock option grants: a behavioral approach," Post-Print halshs-00681607, HAL.
    6. Barberis, Nicholas & Xiong, Wei, 2012. "Realization utility," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(2), pages 251-271.
    7. repec:dau:papers:123456789/11681 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten, 2017. "On the applicability of maximum likelihood methods: From experimental to financial data," SAFE Working Paper Series 148, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2017.
    9. Mark Grinblatt & Matti Keloharju, 2000. "What Makes Investors Trade?," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm146, Yale School of Management, revised 01 Nov 2001.
    10. Steven Huddart & Ravi Jagannathan & Jane Saly, 1999. "Valuing the Reload Features of Executive Stock Options," NBER Working Papers 7020, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Edika Quispe-Torreblanca & David Hume & John Gathergood & George Loewenstein & Neil Stewart, 2023. "At the Top of the Mind: Peak Prices and the Disposition Effect," Discussion Papers 2023-09, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    12. Anastasia Stepanova & Vladislav Savelyev & Malika Shaikhutdinova, 2018. "The Anchoring Effect in Mergers and Acquisitions: Evidence from an Emerging Market," HSE Working papers WP BRP 63/FE/2018, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    13. Tang, Chun-Hua, 2012. "Revisiting the incentive effects of executive stock options," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 564-574.
    14. Compton, Ryan & Sandler, Daniel & Tedds, Lindsay M., 2010. "Backdating, tax evasion, and the unintended consequences of Canadian tax reform," MPRA Paper 39788, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. de Meza, David & Webb, David C., 2003. "Principal agent problems under loss aversion: an application to executive stock options," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 24676, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    16. Muurling, Rutger & Lehnert, Thorsten, 2004. "Option-based compensation: a survey," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 365-401.
    17. Li, Fengfei & Lin, Ji-Chai & Lin, Tse-Chun & Shang, Longfei, 2023. "Behavioral bias, distorted stock prices, and stock splits," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    18. He, Wen & Li, Yan, 2020. "Comparing with the average: Reference points and market reactions to above-average earnings surprises," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    19. Weber, Martin & Mueller-Dethard, Jan, 2020. "The Portfolio Composition Effect," CEPR Discussion Papers 15012, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Sumit Saurav & Sobhesh Kumar Agarwalla & Jayanth R. Varma, 2023. "Belief distortion near 52W high and low: Evidence from Indian equity options market," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(11), pages 1531-1558, November.
    21. Pendleton, Andrew & Robinson, Andrew, 2021. "Why walk away from an easy gain in wealth? Evidence from a UK stock option plan," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 31(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cbu:jrnlec:y:2020:v:6:p:17-23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Ecobici Nicolae (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fetgjro.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.