IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/pacfin/v17y2009i1p28-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are magnet effects caused by uninformed traders? Evidence from Taiwan Stock Exchange

Author

Listed:
  • Wong, Woon K.
  • Chang, Matthew C.
  • Tu, Anthony H.

Abstract

Using transactions and quotes data, we find significant magnet effects of price limit rules in Taiwan Stock Exchange (TSEC). Consistent with Subrahmanyam [Subrahmanyam, A., 1994. Circuit breakers and market volatility: a theoretical perspective. Journal of Finance 49, 237-254], we find that when limit hits are imminent, trading activities intensify with higher volume and volatility. More importantly, our transactions data allows us to examine the roles of institutions and individuals in the magnet effects in TSEC. There is strong evidence that magnet effects are caused by uninformed individuals, whereas if trade volumes are dominated by institutions, no significant magnet effect is found. The policy implication of our findings is that transparency and institutional participation can help to reduce the frequency of magnet effects.

Suggested Citation

  • Wong, Woon K. & Chang, Matthew C. & Tu, Anthony H., 2009. "Are magnet effects caused by uninformed traders? Evidence from Taiwan Stock Exchange," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 28-40, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:pacfin:v:17:y:2009:i:1:p:28-40
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927-538X(08)00018-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lee, Charles M C & Ready, Mark J & Seguin, Paul J, 1994. " Volume, Volatility, and New York Stock Exchange Trading Halts," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(1), pages 183-214, March.
    2. Madhavan, Ananth, 2000. "Market microstructure: A survey," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 205-258, August.
    3. Subrahmanyam, Avanidhar, 1994. " Circuit Breakers and Market Volatility: A Theoretical Perspective," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(1), pages 237-254, March.
    4. Chakravarty, Sugato, 2001. "Stealth-trading: Which traders' trades move stock prices?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 289-307, August.
    5. Marcelle Arak & Richard Cook, 1997. "Do Daily Price Limits Act as Magnets? The Case of Treasury Bond Futures," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 12(1), pages 5-20, August.
    6. White, Halbert, 1980. "A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(4), pages 817-838, May.
    7. Berkman, Henk & Lee, John Byong Tek, 2002. "The effectiveness of price limits in an emerging market: Evidence from the Korean Stock Exchange," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 517-530, November.
    8. Hasbrouck, Joel, 1991. "The Summary Informativeness of Stock Trades: An Econometric Analysis," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 4(3), pages 571-595.
    9. Marcelo Fernandes & Marco Aurélio Dos Santos Rocha, 0. "Are price limits on futures markets that cool? Evidence from the Brazilian Mercantile and Futures Exchange," Journal of Financial Econometrics, Society for Financial Econometrics, vol. 5(2), pages 219-242.
    10. Kim, Kenneth A., 2001. "Price limits and stock market volatility," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 131-136, April.
    11. Goldstein, Michael A. & Kavajecz, Kenneth A., 2004. "Trading strategies during circuit breakers and extreme market movements," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 301-333, June.
    12. Anand, Amber & Chakravarty, Sugato & Martell, Terrence, 2005. "Empirical evidence on the evolution of liquidity: Choice of market versus limit orders by informed and uninformed traders," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 288-308, August.
    13. Richard W. Sias, 2004. "Institutional Herding," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 17(1), pages 165-206.
    14. Kim, Kenneth & Rhee, S Ghon, 1997. " Price Limit Performance: Evidence from the Tokyo Stock Exchange," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(2), pages 885-899, June.
    15. Lehmann, B.N., 1989. "Commentary: Volatility, Price Resolution, And The Effectiveness Of Price Limits," Papers t9, Columbia - Center for Futures Markets.
    16. Chan, Louis K C & Lakonishok, Josef, 1995. " The Behavior of Stock Prices around Institutional Trades," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 50(4), pages 1147-1174, September.
    17. Chan, Soon Huat & Kim, Kenneth A. & Rhee, S. Ghon, 2005. "Price limit performance: evidence from transactions data and the limit order book," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 269-290, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Li, Huimin & Zheng, Dazhi & Chen, Jun, 2014. "Effectiveness, cause and impact of price limit—Evidence from China's cross-listed stocks," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 217-241.
    2. Wong, Woon K. & Tu, Anthony H., 2009. "Market imperfections and the information content of implied and realized volatility," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 58-79, January.
    3. Shiu, Yih-Wen & Lee, Chun I. & Gleason, Kimberly C., 2014. "Institutional shareholdings and the January effects in Taiwan," Journal of Multinational Financial Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 49-66.
    4. Hsieh, Ping-Hung & Kim, Yong H. & Yang, J. Jimmy, 2009. "The magnet effect of price limits: A logit approach," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(5), pages 830-837, December.

    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:eee:pacfin:v:17:y:2009:i:1:p:28-40. 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: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/pacfin .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.