IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jfr/afr111/v6y2017i1p9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effectiveness of Trade for Trade Segment as a Surveillance Effort to Prevent Price Manipulation: Evidence from India

Author

Listed:
  • Kanaiyalal Shantilal Parmar
  • Chakrapani Chaturvedula

Abstract

Indian Stock Exchanges use trade for trade segment as part of surveillance activity to restrict the unwanted growth in prices to safeguard the interest of the investors. This paper studies the impact of the announcement to shift securities to trade for trade segment on stock returns and volatility of the stock returns using event study methodology. It was found that the securities have generated exorbitant positive average abnormal returns during 30 days in the pre event period, which led the exchanges to shift these stocks to trade for trade segment. The event is found to be significantly impacting average abnormal returns during 30 days in the post event period showing the negative price reaction. Also volatility of the stocks returns is found to be increasing post the announcement.

Suggested Citation

  • Kanaiyalal Shantilal Parmar & Chakrapani Chaturvedula, 2017. "The Effectiveness of Trade for Trade Segment as a Surveillance Effort to Prevent Price Manipulation: Evidence from India," Accounting and Finance Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:jfr:afr111:v:6:y:2017:i:1:p:9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/download/10694/6508
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.sciedupress.com/journal/index.php/afr/article/view/10694
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Allen, Franklin & Gale, Douglas, 1992. "Stock-Price Manipulation," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 5(3), pages 503-529.
    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. Markus K. Brunnermeier & Martin Oehmke, 2014. "Predatory Short Selling," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 18(6), pages 2153-2195.
    2. Allen, Franklin & Haas, Marlene D. & Nowak, Eric & Tengulov, Angel, 2021. "Market efficiency and limits to arbitrage: Evidence from the Volkswagen short squeeze," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(1), pages 166-194.
    3. Archishman Chakraborty & Bilge Yilmaz, "undated". "Nested Information and Manipulation in Financial Markets," Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research Working Papers 6-00, Wharton School Rodney L. White Center for Financial Research.
    4. Sheridan Titman & Chishen Wei. Wei & Bin Zhao, 2021. "Corporate Actions and the Manipulation of Retail Investors in China: An Analysis of Stock Splits," NBER Working Papers 29212, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Murgia, Maurizio & Pinna, Andrea & Gottardo, Pietro & Bosetti, Luisella, 2019. "The impact of large orders in electronic markets," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 174-192.
    6. Ben Hamida, Amal & de Peretti, Christian & Belkacem, Lotfi, 2024. "The link between abnormal numbers and price movements of financial securities: How does Benford’s law predict stock returns?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 95(PC).
    7. Hammad Siddiqi, 2007. "Stock Price Manipulation : The Role of Intermediaries," Finance Working Papers 22280, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    8. Oliver Linton & Soheil Mahmoodzadeh, 2018. "Implications of High-Frequency Trading for Security Markets," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 10(1), pages 237-259, August.
    9. Chen-Chang Lo & Yaling Lin & Jiann-Lin Kuo & Yi Ting Wen, 2021. "The Relation Between Trading Volume Concentration and Stock Returns," International Journal of Economics and Financial Research, Academic Research Publishing Group, vol. 7(3), pages 82-89, 09-2021.
    10. Cumming, Douglas & Dannhauser, Robert & Johan, Sofia, 2015. "Financial market misconduct and agency conflicts: A synthesis and future directions," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 150-168.
    11. Pirrong, Craig, 2017. "The economics of commodity market manipulation: A survey," Journal of Commodity Markets, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 1-17.
    12. Haim Kedar-Levy, 2002. "Price Bubbles of New-Technology IPOs," Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance, Pepperdine University, Graziadio School of Business and Management, vol. 7(2), pages 11-32, Summer.
    13. Rudiger, Jesper & Vigier, Adrien, 2013. "Financial Experts, Asset Prices and Reputation," MPRA Paper 51784, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Malay Dey & Hossein Kazemi, 2008. "Bid ask spread in a competitive market with institutions and order size," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 433-453, May.
    15. Eray GEMICI & Mehmet CIHANGIR & Emre YAKUT, 2017. "Islem Bazli Manipulasyon: Turkiye Ornegi," Ege Academic Review, Ege University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, vol. 17(3), pages 369-380.
    16. Ardakani, Omid M. & Dalko, Viktoria & Shim, Hyeeun, 2025. "Information loss from perception alignment," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    17. Julan Du & Shang-Jin Wei, 2004. "Does Insider Trading Raise Market Volatility?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(498), pages 916-942, October.
    18. Cai, Bill M. & Cai, Charlie X. & Keasey, Kevin, 2006. "Which trades move prices in emerging markets?: Evidence from China's stock market," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 453-466, November.
    19. Allen, Franklin & Gorton, Gary, 1992. "Stock price manipulation, market microstructure and asymmetric information," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(2-3), pages 624-630, April.
    20. Xihan Xiong & Zhipeng Wang & Tianxiang Cui & William Knottenbelt & Michael Huth, 2023. "Market Misconduct in Decentralized Finance (DeFi): Analysis, Regulatory Challenges and Policy Implications," Papers 2311.17715, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2024.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    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:jfr:afr111:v:6:y:2017:i:1:p:9. 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: Sciedu Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.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.