Which firms are more prone to stock market manipulation?
This study empirically investigates which firms are more susceptible to successful manipulation. For this purpose, a unique data set consisting of manipulation cases from 1998 to 2006 from the Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) was collected and firm-specific variables are used to explain these manipulations. Probit regression results show that small firms, firms with less free float rate and a higher leverage ratio are more prone to stock price manipulation. Dynamic probit analysis concludes that the probability of manipulation of a stock is significantly higher for stocks that have been previously manipulated.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Wiji Arulampalam & Mark B. Stewart, 2009.
"Simplified Implementation of the Heckman Estimator of the Dynamic Probit Model and a Comparison with Alternative Estimators,"
Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics,
Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 71(5), pages 659-681, October.
- Arulampalam, Wiji & Stewart, Mark, 2007. "Simplified Implementation of the Heckman Estimator of the Dynamic Probit Model and a Comparison with Alternative Estimators," IZA Discussion Papers 3039, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- Arulampalam, Wiji & Stewart, Mark B., 2008. "Simplified Implementation of the Heckman Estimator of the Dynamic Probit Model and a Comparison with Alternative Estimators," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 884, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
- Merrick, John Jr & Naik, Narayan Y. & Yadav, Pradeep K., 2005. "Strategic trading behavior and price distortion in a manipulated market: anatomy of a squeeze," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 171-218, July.
- Itay Goldstein & Alexander Guembel, 2008. "Manipulation and the Allocational Role of Prices," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(1), pages 133-164.
- Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2002.
"Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity,"
CeMMAP working papers
CWP18/02, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2005. "Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(1), pages 39-54.
- Comerton-Forde, Carole & Putnins, Talis J., 2011. "Measuring closing price manipulation," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 135-158, April.
- Alfonso Miranda, 2007. "Dynamic probit models for panel data: A comparison of three methods of estimation," United Kingdom Stata Users' Group Meetings 2007 11, Stata Users Group.
- Rajesh K. Aggarwal & Guojun Wu, 2006. "Stock Market Manipulations," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(4), pages 1915-1954, July.
- Jiang, Guolin & Mahoney, Paul G. & Mei, Jianping, 2005. "Market manipulation: A comprehensive study of stock pools," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 147-170, July.
- Franklin Allen & Lubomir Litov & Jianping Mei, 2006. "Large Investors, Price Manipulation, and Limits to Arbitrage: An Anatomy of Market Corners," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 10(4), pages 645-693, December.
- Allen, Franklin & Gale, Douglas, 1992. "Stock-Price Manipulation," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 5(3), pages 503-29.
- Mark Stewart, 2006. "Maximum simulated likelihood estimation of random-effects dynamic probit models with autocorrelated errors," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 6(2), pages 256-272, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ememar:v:16:y:2013:i:c:p:119-130. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.