IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

The liquidity of dual-listed corporate bonds: empirical evidence from Italian markets

Listed author(s):
  • MODENA, MATTEO
  • LINCIANO, NADIA
  • GENTILE, MONICA
  • FANCELLO, FRANCESCO

We compute some indicators (zero-trade, turnover ratio, Amihud price impact, and Roll bid-ask spread) to examine the liquidity conditions of corporate bonds traded on the main Italian retail bond markets from January 2010 to June 2013. In order to compare market liquidity for identical securities, our analysis focuses on fragmented bonds, i.e. bonds traded concurrently on two different venues: either DomesticMOT and EuroTLX, or ExtraMOT and EuroTLX. As for bonds traded on DomesticMOT and EuroTLX, the Amihud and the Roll statistics suggest EuroTLX being more liquid. Moreover, irrespective of the trading venue, on average bank bonds are less liquid than bonds issued by non-financial companies, especially from 2011 due to the impact of the sovereign debt crisis. With regard to bonds traded across ExtraMOT and EuroTLX, the latter is characterized by better liquidity conditions, with bank bonds being more liquid than non-financial ones. Furthermore, we find evidence of better liquidity figures for Italian bonds (nationality), structured bonds (complexity), and securities with greater minimum trading size (MTS). We also find that bonds’ features (issuers’ nationality and industry; bonds’ residual maturity, complexity, rating, etc…) affect liquidity differently depending upon the trading venue, thus supporting the view that market microstructure may play a relevant role. Finally, we investigate the effect of fragmentation by comparing the liquidity of dual-listed bank bonds fragmented across DomesticMOT and EuroTLX with otherwise similar bank bonds traded exclusively on DomesticMOT. Italian fragmented bank bonds turn out to be slightly more liquid than similar Italian bonds traded exclusively on DomesticMOT; whereas, the opposite holds for foreign bank bonds. However, overall there is not a clear-cut evidence on the effect of fragmentation on bond liquidity, probably because it is intertwined with bonds’ attributes, such as the issue size (in our sample, higher for the Italian bank bonds).

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.

File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/62479/2/MPRA_paper_62479.pdf
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 62479.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 15 Oct 2014
Date of revision: 23 Feb 2015
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:62479
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany

Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2459
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-992459
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de

More information through EDIRC

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.:

as
in new window


  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. Hasbrouck, Joel, 2004. "Liquidity in the Futures Pits: Inferring Market Dynamics from Incomplete Data," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 39(02), pages 305-326, June.
  3. Houweling, Patrick & Mentink, Albert & Vorst, Ton, 2005. "Comparing possible proxies of corporate bond liquidity," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 1331-1358, June.
  4. Michael J. Fleming, 2003. "Measuring treasury market liquidity," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, issue Sep, pages 83-108.
  5. Antonio Díaz & Eliseo Navarro, 2002. "Yield Spread and Term to Maturity: Default vs. Liquidity," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 8(4), pages 449-477.
  6. Lesmond, David A., 2005. "Liquidity of emerging markets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 411-452, August.
  7. Huang, Roger D. & Stoll, Hans R., 1996. "Dealer versus auction markets: A paired comparison of execution costs on NASDAQ and the NYSE," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 313-357, July.
  8. Brockman, Paul & Chung, Dennis Y., 2008. "Commonality under market stress: Evidence from an order-driven market," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 179-196.
  9. Sarig, Oded & Warga, Arthur, 1989. "Bond Price Data and Bond Market Liquidity," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 24(03), pages 367-378, September.
  10. Pastor, Lubos & Stambaugh, Robert F., 2003. "Liquidity Risk and Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(3), pages 642-685, June.
  11. Lesmond, David A & Ogden, Joseph P & Trzcinka, Charles A, 1999. "A New Estimate of Transaction Costs," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 12(5), pages 1113-1141.
  12. Edwin J. Elton & T. Clifton Green, 1998. "Tax and Liquidity Effects in Pricing Government Bonds," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(5), pages 1533-1562, October.
  13. Edith S. Hotchkiss & Tavy Ronen, 2002. "The Informational Efficiency of the Corporate Bond Market: An Intraday Analysis," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 15(5), pages 1325-1354.
  14. 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.
  15. Karolyi, G. Andrew & Lee, Kuan-Hui & van Dijk, Mathijs A., 2012. "Understanding commonality in liquidity around the world," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 82-112.
  16. Dick-Nielsen, Jens & Feldhütter, Peter & Lando, David, 2012. "Corporate bond liquidity before and after the onset of the subprime crisis," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(3), pages 471-492.
  17. Alexander, Gordon J. & Edwards, Amy K. & Ferri, Michael G., 2000. "The determinants of trading volume of high-yield corporate bonds," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 177-204, May.
  18. Warga, Arthur, 1992. "Bond Returns, Liquidity, and Missing Data," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(04), pages 605-617, December.
  19. Joel Hasbrouck, 2009. "Trading Costs and Returns for U.S. Equities: Estimating Effective Costs from Daily Data," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 64(3), pages 1445-1477, 06.
  20. Kamara, Avraham & Lou, Xiaoxia & Sadka, Ronnie, 2008. "The divergence of liquidity commonality in the cross-section of stocks," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(3), pages 444-466, September.
  21. Roll, Richard, 1984. " A Simple Implicit Measure of the Effective Bid-Ask Spread in an Efficient Market," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 39(4), pages 1127-1139, September.
  22. 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.
  23. Davies, Ryan J. & Kim, Sang Soo, 2009. "Using matched samples to test for differences in trade execution costs," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 173-202, May.
  24. Tonny Lybek & Abdourahmane Sarr, 2002. "Measuring Liquidity in Financial Markets," IMF Working Papers 02/232, International Monetary Fund.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:62479. 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: (Joachim Winter)

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.