IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/mfa/journl/v27y2019i2p89-102.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect of Standardization of Trading Board Lot on Abnormal Liquidity in Malaysian Stock Market

Author

Listed:
  • Nor Elliany Hawa Ibrahim

    (School of Economics, Finance and Banking, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia.)

  • Kamarun Nisham Taufil Mohd

    (School of Economics, Finance and Banking, Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia.)

  • Karren Lee-Hwei Khaw

    (Faculty of Business and Accountancy, University of Malaya, Malaysia.)

Abstract

Research question: This study examines the liquidity reaction surrounding the standardization of trading board lot (STBL) event that was announced and implemented in 2003. Motivation: The STBL event called for a reduction in the trading lot size from 1000 and 200 units per lot to a uniform size of 100 units per lot. The event that affected 98% of Malaysian listed firms is claimed to have improved the market liquidity and increased trading activities. Hence, this study is motivated to examine the claim. Idea: Specifically, this study examines the liquidity effect surrounding the event announcement and implementation dates. We hypothesize that the STBL event has significant impact on market liquidity. Data: We have a sample of 869 firms. February 5, 2013 is taken as the event announcement date. Since the STBL was implemented in three phases, we have three implementation dates that affected different groups of firms. Method/Tools: To begin with, this study examines the liquidity effect using an event study methodology, followed by cross-sectional regression analyses. Liquidity is measured by (1) volume turnover, (2) bid-ask spread, and (3) Amihud illiquidity ratio to gauge the impact of the new policy on the market. Findings: There is a significant liquidity deterioration following the announcement of STBL due to the lack of information content. However, the implementation leads to significantly higher volume turnover in the first stage, while the bid-ask spread is significantly narrower in the second stage. In the last stage, we find significant improvement in all three liquidity measures. This is driven by an optimistic market outlook inspired by the positive liquidity effects observed in the earlier stages. Contribution: The findings confirm the significantly higher trading activities after the implementations of STBL, which further contribute to the limited literature on the minimum trading unit. The reduction of trading lot size leads to greater trading volumes. Lastly, the outcome of this study can be used as a reference for the regulators in evaluating the effectiveness of current policies or formulating future regulations.

Suggested Citation

  • Nor Elliany Hawa Ibrahim & Kamarun Nisham Taufil Mohd & Karren Lee-Hwei Khaw, 2019. "Effect of Standardization of Trading Board Lot on Abnormal Liquidity in Malaysian Stock Market," Capital Markets Review, Malaysian Finance Association, vol. 27(2), pages 89-102.
    • Handle: RePEc:mfa:journl:v:27:y:2019:i:2:p:89-102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mfa.com.my/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/v27_i2_a5.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Acharya, Viral V. & Pedersen, Lasse Heje, 2005. "Asset pricing with liquidity risk," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 375-410, August.
    2. Chordia, Tarun & Subrahmanyam, Avanidhar & Anshuman, V. Ravi, 2001. "Trading activity and expected stock returns," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 3-32, January.
    3. Joon Chae, 2005. "Trading Volume, Information Asymmetry, and Timing Information," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(1), pages 413-442, February.
    4. Sheridan Titman & Naoto Isaka, 2014. "Long-run Effects of Minimum Trading Unit Reductions on Stock Prices," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 14(1), pages 75-103, March.
    5. Yakov Amihud & Haim Mendelson & Jun Uno, 1999. "Number of Shareholders and Stock Prices: Evidence from Japan," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(3), pages 1169-1184, June.
    6. Lesmond, David A., 2005. "Liquidity of emerging markets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 411-452, August.
    7. Hee-Joon Ahn, 2014. "Does Trading by Small Investors Improve or Deteriorate Price Efficiency? Evidence from the Minimum Trade Unit Changes on the Korea Exchange," IJFS, MDPI, vol. 2(2), pages 1-17, May.
    8. Thanos Verousis & Pietro Perotti & Georgios Sermpinis, 2018. "One size fits all? High frequency trading, tick size changes and the implications for exchanges: market quality and market structure considerations," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 353-392, February.
    9. Ahn, Hee-Joon & Cai, Jun & Hamao, Yasushi & Melvin, Michael, 2014. "Little guys, liquidity, and the informational efficiency of price: Evidence from the Tokyo Stock Exchange on the effects of small investor participation," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 163-181.
    10. Hauser, Shmuel & Lauterbach, Beni, 2003. "The Impact of Minimum Trading Units on Stock Value and Price Volatility," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(3), pages 575-589, September.
    11. Arie E. Gozluklu & Pietro Perotti & Barbara Rindi & Roberta Fredella, 2015. "Lot Size Constraints and Market Quality: Evidence from the Borsa Italiana," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 44(4), pages 905-945, October.
    12. Goyenko, Ruslan Y. & Holden, Craig W. & Trzcinka, Charles A., 2009. "Do liquidity measures measure liquidity?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 153-181, May.
    13. Yakov Amihud & Haim Mendelson, 2006. "Stock and Bond Liquidity and its Effect on Prices and Financial Policies," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 20(1), pages 19-32, April.
    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. Ramos, Henrique P. & Perlin, Marcelo S. & Righi, Marcelo B., 2017. "Mispricing in the odd lots market in Brazil," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 618-628.
    2. Daniel Chai & Robert Faff & Philip Gharghori, 2013. "Liquidity in asset pricing: New Australian evidence using low-frequency data," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 38(2), pages 375-400, August.
    3. Zhe An & Wenlian Gao & Donghui Li & Feifei Zhu, 2018. "The Impact of Firm‐Level Illiquidity on Crash Risk and the Role of Media Independence: International Evidence," International Review of Finance, International Review of Finance Ltd., vol. 18(4), pages 547-593, December.
    4. Anirban Banerjee & Ashok Banerjee, 2020. "Does trade size restriction affect trading behavior? Evidence from Indian single stock futures market," Journal of Futures Markets, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(3), pages 355-373, March.
    5. Lim, Kian-Ping & Thian, Tze-Chung & Hooy, Chee-Wooi, 2015. "Corporate Shareholdings and the Liquidity of Malaysian Stocks: Investor Heterogeneity, Trading Account Types and the Underlying Channels," MPRA Paper 67602, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Chia, Yee-Ee & Lim, Kian-Ping & Goh, Kim-Leng, 2020. "More shareholders, higher liquidity? Evidence from an emerging stock market," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    7. Stereńczak, Szymon & Zaremba, Adam & Umar, Zaghum, 2020. "Is there an illiquidity premium in frontier markets?," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    8. Joanna Olbry�, 2014. "Is illiquidity risk priced? The case of the Polish medium-size emerging stock market," Bank i Kredyt, Narodowy Bank Polski, vol. 45(6), pages 513�536-5.
    9. Chia, Yee-Ee & Lim, Kian-Ping & Goh, Kim-Leng, 2020. "Liquidity and firm value in an emerging market: Nonlinearity, political connections and corporate ownership," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    10. Lim, Kian-Ping & Thian, Tze-Chung & Hooy, Chee-Wooi, 2017. "Investor heterogeneity, trading account types and competing liquidity channels for Malaysian stocks," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 220-234.
    11. Díaz, Antonio & Escribano, Ana, 2020. "Measuring the multi-faceted dimension of liquidity in financial markets: A literature review," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    12. Liew, Ping-Xin & Lim, Kian-Ping & Goh, Kim-Leng, 2020. "Does proprietary day trading provide liquidity at a cost to investors?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    13. Huong Le & Andros Gregoriou, 2020. "How Do You Capture Liquidity? A Review Of The Literature On Low‐Frequency Stock Liquidity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(5), pages 1170-1186, December.
    14. Będowska-Sójka, Barbara, 2018. "The coherence of liquidity measures. The evidence from the emerging market," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 118-123.
    15. Jeong, Giho & Kang, Jangkoo & Kwon, Kyung Yoon, 2018. "Liquidity skewness premium," The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 130-150.
    16. Lof, Matthijs & van Bommel, Jos, 2023. "Asymmetric information and the distribution of trading volume," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    17. Vu, Van & Chai, Daniel & Do, Viet, 2015. "Empirical tests on the liquidity-adjusted capital asset pricing model," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 35(PA), pages 73-89.
    18. Lischewski, Judith & Voronkova, Svitlana, 2012. "Size, value and liquidity. Do They Really Matter on an Emerging Stock Market?," Emerging Markets Review, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 8-25.
    19. Karstanje, Dennis & Sojli, Elvira & Tham, Wing Wah & van der Wel, Michel, 2013. "Economic valuation of liquidity timing," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5073-5087.
    20. Arjoon, Vaalmikki, 2016. "Microstructures, financial reforms and informational efficiency in an emerging market," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 112-126.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Minimum trading unit; lot size reduction; market microstructure; liquidity; event study; regulation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G1 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets
    • G14 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies; Insider Trading
    • G18 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Government Policy and Regulation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:mfa:journl:v:27:y:2019:i:2:p:89-102. 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: Capital Market Review (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.