Disclosure and liquidity
The purpose of this paper is to test empirically the relationship between two important concepts: disclosure and liquidity. Using a sample of Spanish quoted firms between 1994 and 2000 we show that the estimation of the relationship between disclosure and liquidity depends crucially on two factors: a) the multidimensionality of the concept of liquidity; b) the use of an econometric methodology that deals properly with the features of the sample used. However the use of the Amihud (2002) illiquidity measure provides evidence in favour of a positive relationship between disclosure and liquidity.
|Date of creation:||Jan 2005|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.business.uc3m.es/es/index|
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.:
- Jones, Charles M. & Lipson, Marc L., 2001. "Sixteenths: direct evidence on institutional execution costs," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 253-278, February.
- Glosten, Lawrence R, 1994. " Is the Electronic Open Limit Order Book Inevitable?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(4), pages 1127-61, September.
- Kyle, Albert S, 1985. "Continuous Auctions and Insider Trading," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(6), pages 1315-35, November.
- Amihud, Yakov, 2002. "Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 31-56, January.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cte:wbrepe:wb050202. 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: (Ana Poveda)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.