键合假说的意外检验

L. Gagnon, G. Karolyi
{"title":"键合假说的意外检验","authors":"L. Gagnon, G. Karolyi","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1961178","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We show that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Morrison v. National Australia Bank in June of 2010 was associated with a statistically significant 37 basis point increase on the day in the price deviation between the U.S. cross-listed shares trading in U.S. markets and the underlying home-market shares. The Court unexpectedly ruled that the main fraud-related provisions of U.S. securities laws can apply only to transactions in foreign securities that take place in the U.S. Across our sample of almost 1,000 foreign firms from 42 different countries cross-listed on the major U.S. exchanges as well as those trading on over-the-counter (OTC) markets, the price deviations between the cross-listed and underlying home-market shares widened more dramatically for those companies with a lower presence in the U.S. as measured by the fraction of global trading that takes place in U.S. markets. The market’s revaluation of the cross-listed shares around the decision is consistent with the idea that investors care about the extent to which U.S. securities laws apply, an important driver of the bonding role that U.S. markets play.","PeriodicalId":289542,"journal":{"name":"CGN: Securities Litigation (Sub-Topic)","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Unexpected Test of the Bonding Hypothesis\",\"authors\":\"L. Gagnon, G. Karolyi\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.1961178\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We show that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Morrison v. National Australia Bank in June of 2010 was associated with a statistically significant 37 basis point increase on the day in the price deviation between the U.S. cross-listed shares trading in U.S. markets and the underlying home-market shares. The Court unexpectedly ruled that the main fraud-related provisions of U.S. securities laws can apply only to transactions in foreign securities that take place in the U.S. Across our sample of almost 1,000 foreign firms from 42 different countries cross-listed on the major U.S. exchanges as well as those trading on over-the-counter (OTC) markets, the price deviations between the cross-listed and underlying home-market shares widened more dramatically for those companies with a lower presence in the U.S. as measured by the fraction of global trading that takes place in U.S. markets. The market’s revaluation of the cross-listed shares around the decision is consistent with the idea that investors care about the extent to which U.S. securities laws apply, an important driver of the bonding role that U.S. markets play.\",\"PeriodicalId\":289542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CGN: Securities Litigation (Sub-Topic)\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"18\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CGN: Securities Litigation (Sub-Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1961178\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CGN: Securities Litigation (Sub-Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1961178","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

摘要

我们表明,2010年6月,美国最高法院对莫里森诉澳大利亚国民银行一案的裁决与在美国市场交易的美国交叉上市股票与潜在国内市场股票之间的价格偏差在统计上显著增加37个基点有关。法院出人意料地裁定,美国证券法中与欺诈相关的主要条款仅适用于在美国进行的外国证券交易。在我们对来自42个不同国家的近1000家在美国主要交易所交叉上市的外国公司以及在场外交易(OTC)市场进行交易的外国公司的样本中,以在美国市场进行的全球交易占比来衡量,那些在美国市场份额较低的公司,其交叉上市股票与标的本土市场股票之间的价格差异更为明显。围绕这一决定,市场对交叉上市的股票进行了重估,这与投资者关心美国证券法适用范围的想法是一致的,这是美国市场发挥纽带作用的重要驱动因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
An Unexpected Test of the Bonding Hypothesis
We show that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Morrison v. National Australia Bank in June of 2010 was associated with a statistically significant 37 basis point increase on the day in the price deviation between the U.S. cross-listed shares trading in U.S. markets and the underlying home-market shares. The Court unexpectedly ruled that the main fraud-related provisions of U.S. securities laws can apply only to transactions in foreign securities that take place in the U.S. Across our sample of almost 1,000 foreign firms from 42 different countries cross-listed on the major U.S. exchanges as well as those trading on over-the-counter (OTC) markets, the price deviations between the cross-listed and underlying home-market shares widened more dramatically for those companies with a lower presence in the U.S. as measured by the fraction of global trading that takes place in U.S. markets. The market’s revaluation of the cross-listed shares around the decision is consistent with the idea that investors care about the extent to which U.S. securities laws apply, an important driver of the bonding role that U.S. markets play.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信