Academic literature on the topic 'Illiquidity discount'

The illiquidity discount represents the reduction in the value of an asset because it cannot be easily sold. It is usually applied by appraisals in valuing a minority interest in a closely-held business. This article presents a literature review of the illiquidity discount and an analysis of the level of discount in Italy during the period 2003 - 2012. The analysis conducted made it possible to verify: a) the existence for the Italian market of a discount for lack of liquidity for shares with less turnover; b) the variability over time of that discount, thus agreeing with the literature that has found the premiums for liquidity risk vary over time. The discounts that were found are, nonetheless, smaller than those indicated in the literature. The descending trend over time for the discount would seem to be particularly consistent with the studies on restricted stocks.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to empirically test whether stock liquidity and investor sentiment have interactive effects on seasoned equity offers (SEOs) price discounts in Australia. Design/methodology/approach – The authors focus on the implicit cost borne by firms when issuing seasoned equity capital. This cost is measured as the relative difference between the SEO offer price and the last close price prior to the announcement of the issue. The primary measure of investor sentiment is a composite index constructed similar to that in Baker and Wurgler (2007). Findings – The results show that, in periods of deteriorating investor sentiment, the increase in SEO price discounts for firms with illiquid stocks is larger than the corresponding increase for firms with liquid stocks. This suggests that, as sentiment wanes, investors become even more concerned about illiquidity, leading to even greater required compensation for holding illiquid assets. The authors find that information asymmetry is positively related to SEO price discounts but this relation is not affected by changing investor sentiment. Research limitations/implications – Collectively, the empirical results provide support for the argument that price discount of SEOs represents compensation to investors for bearing costs associated with illiquidity. The results also lend some support to the behavioural argument that pricing of equity offers is dependent upon investor sentiment, particularly for firms with illiquid stocks. Practical implications – The ability for firms to raise capital in a cost-effective manner is critical for firm growth and stability. Investors require compensation for bearing the costs of illiquidity of their investments in equity. Accordingly, firms need to be conscious of their stocks’ existing liquidity and its influence on the cost of raising additional capital which, in turn, affects their operational stability and investment opportunities. Social implications – Ultimately, the implications of this study will assist firms in capital-raising decisions, investors in making portfolio investment decisions, and investment banks in setting offer prices on equity issues. Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to examine the interaction between investor sentiment and SEO price discounts in Australia.

This article investigates performance of conditional and unconditional Capital Asset Pricing Model and Fama–French model augmented with a downside risk, that is, the value-at-risk (VaR) factor and an illiquidity factor as additional risk factors using the discount factor methodology of Cochrane (1996). Using monthly portfolio data as test assets from the Pakistani stock market from January 1993 to January 2013 we provide empirical evidence on the efficacy of the VaR and illiquidity factors in asset pricing. We find that these factors improve the efficacy of the Fama–French model and including these factors reduces the explanatory power of co-kurtosis factor.

We construct a model for liquidity risk and price impacts in a limit order book setting with depth, resilience and tightness. We derive a wealth equation and a characterization of illiquidity costs. We show that we can separate liquidity costs due to depth and resilience from those related to tightness, and obtain a reduced model in which proportional costs due to the bid-ask spread is removed. From this, we obtain conditions under which the model is arbitrage free. By considering the standard utility maximization problem, this also allows us to obtain a stochastic discount factor and an asset pricing formula which is consistent with empirical findings (e.g., Brennan and Subrahmanyam (1996); Amihud and Mendelson (1986)). Furthermore, we show that in limiting cases for some parameters of the model, we derive many existing liquidity models present in the arbitrage pricing literature, including Çetin et al. (2004) and Rogers and Singh (2010). This offers a classification of different types of liquidity costs in terms of the depth and resilience of prices.

We use principal component analysis on 55 bilateral exchange rates of 11 developed currencies to identify two important global risk sources in foreign exchange (FX) markets. The risk sources are related to Carry and Dollar but are not spanned by these factors. We estimate the market prices associated with the two risk sources in the cross-section of FX market returns and construct FX market-implied country-specific stochastic discount factors (SDFs). The SDF volatilities are related to interest rates and expected carry trade returns in the cross-section. The SDFs price international stock returns and are related to important financial stress indicators and macroeconomic fundamentals. The first principal risk is associated with the Treasury-EuroDollar (TED) spread, quantities measuring volatility, tail and contagion risks, and future economic growth. It earns a relatively small implied Sharpe ratio. The second principal risk is associated with the default and term spreads and quantities capturing volatility and illiquidity risks. It further correlates with future changes in the long-term interest rate and earns a large implied Sharpe ratio. This paper was accepted by Lauren Cohen, finance.

AbstractThe liquidity premium on corporate bonds has been high on the agenda of Solvency regulators owing to its potential relationship to an additional discount factor on long-dated insurance liabilities. We analyse components of the credit spread as a function of standard bond characteristics during 2003–2014 on a daily basis by regression analyses, after introducing a new liquidity proxy. We derive daily distributions of illiquidity contributions to the credit spread at the individual bond level and find that liquidity premia were close to zero just before the financial crisis. We observe the time-varying nature of liquidity premia as well as a widening in the daily distribution in the years after the credit crunch. We find evidence to support higher liquidity premia, on average, on bonds of lower credit quality. The evolution of model parameters is economically intuitive and brings additional insight into investors’ behaviour. The frequent and bond-level estimation of liquidity premia, combined with few data restrictions makes the approach suitable for ALM modelling, especially when future work is directed towards arriving at forward-looking estimates at both the aggregate and bond-specific level.

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a novel theory of the equilibrium liquidity premia of private equity funds and explore its asset-pricing implications. Design/methodology/approach – The theory assumes that investors are exposed to the risk of facing surprise liquidity shocks, which upon arrival force them to liquidate their positions on the secondary private equity markets at some stochastic discount to the fund’s current net asset value. Assuming a competitive market where fund managers capture all rents from managing the funds and investors just break even on their positions, liquidity premia are defined as the risk-adjusted excess returns that fund managers must generate to compensate investors for the costs of illiquidity. The model is calibrated to data of buyout funds and is illustrated by using numerical simulations. Findings – The model analysis generates a rich set of novel implications. These concern how fund characteristics affect liquidity premia, the role of the investors’ propensities of liquidity shocks in determining liquidity premia and the impact of market conditions and cycles on liquidity premia. Originality/value – This is the first paper that derives liquidity premia of private equity funds in an equilibrium setting in which investors are exposed to the risk of facing surprise liquidity shocks.

A private company lacks a direct observable market value and several situations may require a practitioner to compute the value of a private company. Since most of the valuation methods in use are based on data derived from the public stock markets certain adjustments may be appropriate when valuing a private company. Marketability and liquidity is said to be one of the more observable differences between a public and a private company. This implies that the shares in a private company have a lack of marketability and liquidity in comparison to the shares in a public company, which practitioners may have to adjust for. Several quantitative studies are conducted on the subject in order reassure price differences between public and private companies, namely a private company discount (PCD). Furthermore, several quantitative studies strive to establish a general and standardized cost for lack of marketability (liquidity) expressed as the illiquidity discount or the discount for lack of marketability (DLOM). These studies have different perceptions and use different hypothesis to identify illiquidity, which in turn will lead to a large span of different discounts. Essentially, earlier research examines assets marketability and liquidity with the assumption of them being equal in all other aspects. Professional practitioners constantly seek guidance in these studies to justify their estimated and applied illiquidity discount/DLOM when performing a valuation on a privately held company. Furthermore, we have also observed survey-studies adopting a more qualitative method in order to appreciate the level of discounts applied in a valuation by professional practitioners. Consequently, this sea of studies provides the practitioner with a discount that ranges from 5% to 60% to take a stand on. The impossibility to determine the most adequate theory contributes to the inconsistency of how this issue is handled in reality by market participants and courts. In our study we first provide the reader with a rigorous literature study, which describes earlier research on the subject of illiquidity discount/DLOM. We conclude that research has gone one step too far when conducting all of these quantitative studies. This is why we conduct our own empirical data through semi-structured in-depth interviews with professional valuation experts on the Swedish market. This makes our approach a retake on the issue in order to generate suggestions to further studies. What we find is that all of the independent consultants, primarily, does not apply a discount when valuing a majority interest due to the paradigm on the Swedish market. In contrast, the private equity fund manager, which only acquires majority interest, can use this type of discounts in their dependent valuation of majority interests. However, when valuing a minority interest the independent valuation consultants use quantitative empirical studies to derive a starting point of the discount. The level of the discount is then estimated upon the purpose of the valuation and firm-specific variables, which all of the participant’s states to be the most important ones when estimating a illiquidity discount/DLOM. Based on these results we argue that one should be very careful when taking guidelines from quantitative empirical studies. Our interpretation is that the level of illiquidity/DLOM applicable depends on the level of attractiveness, which in turn has a bearing on all firm-specific variables. When it comes to applying the appropriate discount all of the participants argue in favor for a discount-on-value and not as some research suggest; a risk premium added to the discount rate. We also generate adequate suggestions to further studies based on these interviews. Since courts and in particular the Swedish tax-court is inconsistent when approving or rejecting illiquidity discounts/DLOM we suggest legal actions on the issue. Furthermore we suggest a survey-like study in order to catch consensus take on how to estimate the level of discount. In fact, this can be done every year in a similar way as PwC’s market risk premium study is conducted.

This dissertation consists of two essays: one looks at the time-varying relationship between earnings and price momentum, and the other looks at how liquidity and transparency affect the pricing differential between Chinese A-and Hong Kong H-share. The first essay presented in Chapter I investigates the time varying relationship between earnings momentum and price momentum. Using a Markov-switching framework, allowing for variation between high volatility and low volatility states, I find that price momentum is significantly more influenced by earnings momentum in the high volatility state. Further for price momentum I find that loser firms display a higher degree of differential response to earnings momentum across the low and high volatility states than winner firms. Limited financing and investor’s sensitivity to future investment opportunities might explain these two results. A further analysis indeed indicates that loser firms tend to be more financially constrained. Additionally, I investigate the relationship between investor sentiment and the two momentums and find that sentiment only has predictive power for price momentum profits in the low volatility state. Finally, the results are robust regardless of instrument variables. The second essay presented in Chapter 2 examines the impact of liquidity and transparency on the discount attached to H-shares from 2003 to 2011. The higher the relative illiquidity of an H-share, the more the H-share is discounted relative to the underlying A-share price. In addition, more actively traded A-shares and infrequently traded H-shares are associated with a higher H-share discount. Further, increases in the number of analysts following a firm, both in the A-and H- market, are accompanied by a lower H-share discount. Also, a firm with a higher percentage of A-share holdings by mutual funds is associated with a smaller H-share discount. Overall, the results provide support for the notion that liquidity and transparency affect the relative pricing of A- and H-shares.

Mestrado em Actuarial Science
A adoção da IFRS 17 a um de Janeiro de 2022 introduz um dos maiores desafios recentemente enfrentados pelas empresas de seguros. A compreensão das mudanças inerentes à sua introdução, bem como os possíveis impactos no mercado segurador, tornou-se preocupação geral do mercado, alvo de intensa discussão e investigação. Devido ao seu cariz internacional, a IFRS 17 é desenvolvida num contexto de requisitos não prescritivos, baseado em princípios. No entanto, a sua natureza levanta algumas questões na salvaguarda do level-playing field que é desejado. A subjetividade implícita em componentes chave para a mensuração de contratos de seguros, tal como as taxas de desconto e o risk adjustment for non-financial risk, pode ser motivo de heterogeneidade no seio do reporte financeiro. Motivado pelo ambiente de incerteza inerente à adoção do IFRS 17, o presente relatório procura mitigar alguns dos requisitos subjacentes à avaliação das provisões técnicas de contractos de seguros. Adicionalmente, compreende uma discussão ao nível do alcance dos seus principais objetivos, incluindo a transparência, comparabilidade e consistência do reporte financeiro de contractos de seguro. Este relatório é o resultado da investigação realizada ao longo de seis meses no âmbito de um estágio curricular na Autoridade de Supervisão de Seguros e Fundos de Pensões.
The implementation of IFRS 17 on the first of January 2022 brings one of the biggest challenges recently being faced by insurers. The understanding of the upcoming changes and their impact on the insurance sector became a global market concern, subjected to extensive discussion and investigation. Due to its international relevance, IFRS 17 is set-up on a principles-based framework. However, this raises some uncertainty in safeguarding the level-playing field that is aimed. In fact, the subjectivity underlying some key components for the measurement of insurance contracts, such as the discount rates and the risk adjustment for non-financial risk, may be the cause of heterogeneity within insurance reporting. Motivated by the environment of concern that underlies IFRS 17, the present report aims to assess its requirements within the evaluation of technical provisions of insurance contracts, while understanding possible large macro impacts that its adoption implies. It further comprises a discussion on the likelihood of the regime to satisfy its intended goals, including the transparency, comparability and consistency of insurance reporting. This is the outcome of the six-month curricular internship at Autoridade de Supervisão de Seguros e Fundos de Pensões.
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The first chapter defines the liquidity and determines the cost forming the illiquidity discount. The second chapter assesses the various methods and studies relating to estimation of the discount for lack of marketability for minority interests within the U.S. markets. The third chapter identifies the effects of factors that influence the discount in the in the Czech Republic differently from the U.S. markets. The fourth chapter focuses on factors affecting the level of the discount within převiously observed range and determines the basic method for calculating the discount for lack of marketability for minority interest in the Czech Republic. The fifth chapter deals with the possibility of converting the discount for lack of marketability into risk premium in the CAPM model. The last chapter focuses on determination of the discount for lack of marketability for majority interests.