In this study we propose a new price impact ratio as an alternative to the widely used Amihud's (2002) Return-to-Volume ratio (RtoV). This new measure, which is deemed Return-to-Turnover ratio (RtoTR), essentially modifies RtoV by substituting trading volume in its denominator with the turnover ratio for each security. We demonstrate that the new price impact ratio has a number of appealing features. Using daily data from all stocks listed on the London Stock Exchange over the period 1991-2008, we provide overwhelming evidence that this ratio, while being unequivocal to construct and interpret, is also free of a size bias. More importantly, it encapsulates the stocks' cross-sectional variability in trading frequency, a relatively neglected but possibly important determinant of stock returns given the recently observed trends in financial markets. Overall, our findings argue against the conventional wisdom that there is a simple direct link between trading costs and stock prices by strongly suggesting that it is the compound effect of trading frequency and transaction costs that matters for asset pricing, not each aspect in isolation. JEL classification: G10; G12; G14 Trading Frequency and Asset Pricing on the London Stock Exchange:Evidence from a New Price Impact Ratio AbstractIn this study we propose a new price impact ratio as an alternative to the widely used Amihud's (2002) Return-to-Volume ratio (RtoV). This new measure, which is deemed Return-to-Turnover ratio (RtoTR), essentially modifies RtoV by substituting trading volume in its denominator with the turnover ratio for each security. We demonstrate that the new price impact ratio has a number of appealing features. Using daily data from all stocks listed on the London Stock Exchange over the period 1991-2008, we provide overwhelming evidence that this ratio, while being unequivocal to construct and interpret, is also free of a size bias. More importantly, it encapsulates the stocks' cross-sectional variability in trading frequency, a relatively neglected but possibly important determinant of stock returns given the recently observed trends in financial markets. Overall, our findings argue against the conventional wisdom that there is a simple direct link between trading costs and stock prices by strongly suggesting that it is the compound effect of trading frequency and transaction costs that matters for asset pricing, not each aspect in isolation.

This study examines the impact of financial flexibility on the investment and performance of 1,068 East Asian firms over the period 1994-2006. We show that firms can attain financial flexibility, primarily through conservative leverage policies and less commonly by holding large cash balances. Financial flexibility appears to be an important determinant of investment and performance, mainly during the 1997-1998 crisis. In particular, firms that are financially flexible prior to the crisis (i) have a greater ability to take investment opportunities, (ii) rely much less on the availability of internal funds to invest, and (iii) perform better than less flexible firms during the crisis. Our analysis covering the post crisis period does reveal any important investment differentials between flexible and inflexible firms. Finally, we provide evidence that financial flexibility is more likely to play a decisive role in determining corporate investment and performance than traditional measures of financial constraints (e.g. firm size, dividend payout, firm age and business group affiliation) during abnormal periods of the economic cycle.

Research Question/Issue This research examines the relationship between board processes and corporate financial risk. Using a unique questionnaire survey about board behavior, several measures related to board processes are developed and used to explain certain aspects of financial risk during the recent crisis. Research Findings/Insights In a sample of 141 companies with complete data collected from company chairs on both board structure and process, board process is found to be an important determinant of financial risk during the crisis of 2008–2009. In particular, financial risk is lower where non‐executive directors have high effort norms and where board decision processes are characterized by a degree of cognitive conflict. The impact of cognitive conflict is, however, found to be less pronounced in boards with high levels of cohesiveness. Theoretical/Academic Implications The study provides theoretical and empirical advancement of the governance literature towards an understanding of group process‐oriented views of boards' work and effectiveness. This study identifies the significance of board processes and their impact on financial risk supported by quantitative empirics. Findings of a strong relationship between board process and financial risk augment existing theories to suggest that the effects of boards work through group processes that bring executives and non‐executives together in relations laced with control and collaboration. Practitioner/Policy Implications Regulators, acting post the financial crisis have produced governance codes that emphasize risk management as a key responsibility of boards. The link between board process and financial risk established in this paper provides evidence for company chairs and other directors on the possibilities and potential effectiveness of boards in discharging this responsibility.

No abstract

No abstract