Please wait a minute...
金融研究  2020, Vol. 482 Issue (8): 169-187    
  本期目录 | 过刊浏览 | 高级检索 |
卖空限制与收益可预测性——A股融资融券制度的证据
郭彪, 刘普阳, 姜圆
中国人民大学财政金融学院,北京 100872;
东方花旗证券有限公司,北京 100029
Short Selling Restriction and Return Predictability: Evidence from China's A-Share Margin Trading and Short Selling
GUO Biao, LIU Puyang, JIANG Yuan
School of Finance, Renmin University of China;
Citi Orient Securities Company Limited
下载:  PDF (523KB) 
输出:  BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 基于A股市场融资和融券余额的巨大差距,本文拓展了Hong et al.(2016)的理论模型,在融券端和融资端分别找到了影响股票收益率的变量:融券比率(融券余额/流通市值)和融资回补天数(融资比率/日均换手率)。进一步,本文利用组合价差法和Fama-MacBeth横截面回归法,实证检验了A股市场中融券比率与融资回补天数解释和预测股票收益率的能力。实证结果表明,在存在融券限制条件下,融券比率相比融券回补天数(融券比率/日均换手率)能更好地代表套利者对股票价格高估程度的看法,根据融券比率构建的等权重多空组合能带来月均1.58%的显著收益;而由于融资约束相对较少,融资回补天数相比融资比率(融资余额/流通市值)能更好地代表套利者对股票价格低估程度的看法,根据融资回补天数构建的等权重多空组合能带来月均1.28%的显著收益。实证结果与本文存在融券数量限制下的理论模型相符,且该收益率不能被多因子模型和常规股票特征所解释。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
郭彪
刘普阳
姜圆
关键词:  融资融券比率  回补天数    
Summary:  In the context of the stock market, margin trading is the phenomenon whereby investors pay a certain amount of margin to security companies, borrow a certain amount of funds to buy stocks, and return the funds with interest after a certain period. Accordingly, short selling refers to investors' borrowing and selling securities from securities companies and afterwards returning the securities with interest.
Margin trading and short selling have existed in mature stock markets in Europe, the United States, and Japan for many years. Through margin trading and short selling, informed traders can make better use of private information to increase the information content of stock prices and push stock prices to move closer to their intrinsic value. Arbitrageurs can also rely on margin trading and short selling for risk-free arbitrage, reducing stock mispricing (Miller, 1977) and improving overall pricing efficiency in stock markets.
In the literature, the ratio of margin trading and short selling is generally used to measure the market depth of margin trading and short selling. The relationship between stock returns and both margin trading and short selling is studied. A typical indicator is defined as the ratio of balance on margin trading/short selling and outstanding shares. However, it is possible that this ratio does not fully consider the transaction cost information. “Transaction cost” here refers to the time cost required to cover the margin trading and short selling amount. In contrast, the number of days-to-cover takes the impact of the turnover rate on the transaction cost of margin trading and short lending into account, which helps to determine the level of stocks' mispricing.
China's margin trading and short selling businesses are becoming increasingly mature. In March 2010, the China Securities Regulatory Commission launched an A-share margin trading and short selling business pilot program. To date, the program has been enlarged six times. With this expansion in scale, the balance of margin trading and short selling has also increased, rising from less than 13 billion RMB in 2010 to 1.02 trillion RMB by the end of December 2019. However, at the same time, the phenomenon of asymmetric transactions has been prominent. Typically, 98.85% of the trading balance is due to margin trading. This proportion has remained at almost 99% since 2014. Unlike margin trading transactions, short selling is still subject to many restrictions in China's A-share markets.
Based on the huge difference between margin trading and short selling in China's A-share markets, this paper extends the theoretical model of Hong et al. (2016) to identify factors that affect stock returns from margin trading and short selling, which are the short selling ratio and days-to-cover on margin trading. Furthermore, using the portfolio construction and Fama-MacBeth cross-sectional regression methods, this paper empirically tests these factors' predictive power. The sample includes 1,126 stocks selected from the margin trading and short selling pool from January 2012 to December 2018. The data are obtained from the CSMAR database and cross-validated using the WIND database.
The empirical results show that days-to-cover on the margin trading side has significant ability to predict the stock return, while the financing ratio (LR) does not have significant predictive power. This indicates that the days-to-cover is a better criterion than the LR, and can much more precisely represent the view of undervaluation, which is consistent with the theoretical model without financing restrictions. On the short selling side, however, the days-to-cover has no significant ability to predict stock returns. The short selling ratio (SR) has a significant ability to predict stock returns, which indicates that the SR represents the arbitrageur's view of overvaluation better than the days-to-cover. This is also consistent with our model under short selling restrictions. The results remain robust when they are tested with sub-samples in different periods, after controlling for the institutional investor shareholding ratio and other indicators of margin trading and short selling.
Keywords:  Margin Trading and Short Selling Ratio    Days-to-cover
JEL分类号:  G12   G13   G14  
基金资助: * 本文感谢中国人民大学科学研究基金(中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助)项目(16XNA001)的资助。
作者简介:  郭 彪,金融学博士,副教授,中国人民大学财政金融学院,E-mail:biao.guo@ruc.edu.cn.
刘普阳(通讯作者),金融学硕士,东方花旗证券有限公司,E-mail:puyang.liu@citiorient.com.
姜 圆,金融工程学博士研究生,中国人民大学财政金融学院,E-mail:fe.jiangyuan@ruc.edu.cn.
引用本文:    
郭彪, 刘普阳, 姜圆. 卖空限制与收益可预测性——A股融资融券制度的证据[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 482(8): 169-187.
GUO Biao, LIU Puyang, JIANG Yuan. Short Selling Restriction and Return Predictability: Evidence from China's A-Share Margin Trading and Short Selling. Journal of Financial Research, 2020, 482(8): 169-187.
链接本文:  
http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/  或          http://www.jryj.org.cn/CN/Y2020/V482/I8/169
[1]陈晖丽和刘峰,2014,《融资融券的治理效应研究——基于公司盈余管理的视角》,《会计研究》第9期,第45~52页。
[2]顾乃康和周艳利,2017,《卖空的事前威慑,公司治理与企业融资行为——基于融资融券制度的准自然实验检验》,《管理世界》第2期,第120~134页。
[3]李科、徐龙炳和朱伟骅,2014,《卖空限制与股票错误定价——融资融券制度的证据》,《经济研究》第10期,第165~178页。
[4]李志生、陈晨和林秉旋,2015,《卖空机制提高了中国股票市场的定价效率吗?——基于自然实验的证据》,《经济研究》第4期,第165~177页。
[5]廖士光和杨朝军,2005a,《卖空交易机制,波动性和流动性——一个基于香港股市的经验研究》,《管理世界》第12期,第6~13页。
[6]廖士光和杨朝军,2005b,《卖空交易机制对股价的影响——来自台湾股市的经验证据》,《金融研究》第10期,第131~140页。
[7]陆瑶、彭章和冯佳琪,2018,《融资融券对上市公司治理影响的研究》,《管理科学学报》第11期,第97~116页。
[8]肖浩和孔爱国,2014,《融资融券对股价特质性波动的影响机理研究:基于双重差分模型的检验》,《管理世界》第8期,第30~43页。
[9]许红伟和陈欣,2012,《我国推出融资融券交易促进了标的股票的定价效率吗?——基于双重差分模型的实证研究》,《管理世界》第5期,第52~61页。
[10]俞红海、陈百助、蒋振凯和钱仪绰,2018,《融资融券交易行为及其收益可预测性研究》,《管理科学学报》第1期,第72~87页。
[11]朱民武,2014,《融资融券对股价的影响——基于沪市A股的经验研究》,《技术经济与管理研究》第11期,第95~99页。
[12]Amihud, Y. 2002. “Illiquidity and Stock Returns: Cross-section and Time-series effects”, Journal of financial markets, 5(1): 31~56.
[13]Amihud, Y., H. Mendelson, and L. H. Pedersen. 2006. “Liquidity and Asset Prices”, Now Publishers Inc.
[14]Asquith, P., P. A. Pathak, and J. R. Ritter. 2005. “Short Interest, Institutional Ownership, and Stock Returns”, Journal of Financial Economics, 78(2): 243~276.
[15]Banz, R. W. 1981. “The Relationship between Return and Market Value of Common Stocks”, Journal of financial economics, 9(1): 3~18.
[16]Battalio, R., and Schultz, P. 2011. “Regulatory Uncertainty and Market Liquidity: The 2008 Short Sale Ban's Impact on Equity Option Markets”, The Journal of Finance, 66(6): 2013~2053.
[17]Brent, A., D. Morse, and E. K. Stice. 1990. “Short Interest: Explanations and Tests”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 25(02): 273~289.
[18]Carhart, M. M. 1997. “On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance”, The Journal of finance, 52(1): 57~82.
[19]De Bondt, W. F., and Thaler, R. 1985. “Does the Stock Market Overreact?”, The Journal of finance, 40(3): 793~805.
[20]Dechow, P. M., A. P. Hutton, L. Meulbroek, and R. G. Sloan. 2001. “Short-sellers, Fundamental Analysis, and Stock Returns”, Journal of Financial Economics, 61(1): 77~106.
[21]DeLong, J. B., A. Shleifer, L. H. Summers, and R. J. Waldmann. 1990. “Noise Trader Risk in Financial markets”. Journal of political Economy, 98(4): 703~738.
[22]Fama, E. F., and K. R. French. 1992. “The Cross-section of Expected Stock Returns”, The Journal of Finance, 47(2): 427~465.,
[23]Fama, E. F., and K. R. French. 1993. “Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds”, Journal of Financial Economics, 33(1): 3~56.
[24]Fama, E. F., and J. D. MacBeth. 1973. “Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests”, The Journal of Political Economy, 83(1): 607~636.
[25]Figlewski, S. 1981. “The Informational effects of Restrictions on Short Sales: some Empirical Evidence”, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 16(04): 463~476.
[26]Figlewski, S., and G. P. Webb. 1993. “Options, Short Sales, and Market Completeness”, The Journal of Finance, 48(2): 761~777.
[27]Grossman, S. J., and M. H. Miller. 1988. “Liquidity and Market Structure”, The Journal of Finance, 43(3): 617~633.
[28]Hong, H., Li, W., Ni, S. X., Scheinkman, J. A., and Yan, P. 2016. “Days to Cover and Stock Returns” (No. w21166). National Bureau of Economic Research.
[29]Hong, H., J. D. Kubik, and T. Fishman. 2012. “Do Arbitrageurs Amplify Economic Shocks?”, Journal of Financial Economics, 103(3): 454~470.
[30]Huang D, Zhang H, Zhou G. 2017. Twin Momentum. Social Science Electronic Publishing.
[31]Lamont, O. A., and Stein, J. C. 2004. “Aggregate Short Interest and Market Valuations”, American Economic Review, 94(2): 29~32.
[32]Miller, E. M. 1977. “Risk, Uncertainty, and Divergence of Opinion”, The Journal of Finance, 32(4): 1151~1168.
[33]Newey, W. K., K. D. West, et al. 1987. “A Simple, Positive Semi-definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix”, Econometrica, 55(3): 703~708.
[34]Ofek, E., M. Richardson, and R. F. Whitelaw. 2004. “Limited Arbitrage and Short Sales Restrictions: Evidence from the Options Markets”, Journal of Financial Economics, 74(2): 305~342.
[35]Savor, P. G., and Gamboa-Cavazos, M. 2011. “Holding on to your Shorts: When do short Sellers Retreat?” Available at SSRN 689162.
[36]Shleifer, A., and R. W. Vishny. 1997. “The Limits of Arbitrage”, The Journal of Finance, 52(1): 35~55.
[37]Woolridge, J. R., and A. Dickinson. 1994. “Short Selling and Common Stock Prices”, Financial Analysts Journal, 50(1): 20~28.
[1] 陆蓉, 谢晓飞. 凤尾变鸡头:被忽视的指数成分股交换[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 480(6): 171-187.
[2] 陈赟, 沈艳, 王靖一. 重大突发公共卫生事件下的金融市场反应[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 480(6): 20-39.
[3] 许红梅, 李春涛. 劳动保护、社保压力与企业违约风险——基于《社会保险法》实施的研究[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 477(3): 115-133.
[4] 朱红兵, 张兵. 价值性投资还是博彩性投机?——中国A股市场的MAX异象研究[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 476(2): 167-187.
[5] 李伦一, 张翔. 中国房地产市场价格泡沫与空间传染效应[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 474(12): 169-186.
[6] 刘杰, 陈佳, 刘力. 投资者关注与市场反应——来自中国证券交易所交易公开信息的自然实验[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 473(11): 189-206.
[7] 尹力博, 廖辉毅. 中国A股市场存在品质溢价吗?[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 472(10): 170-187.
[8] 陈国进, 丁杰, 赵向琴. “好”的不确定性、“坏”的不确定性与股票市场定价——基于中国股市高频数据分析[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 469(7): 174-190.
[9] 朱菲菲, 李惠璇, 徐建国, 李宏泰. 短期羊群行为的影响因素与价格效应——基于高频数据的实证检验[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 469(7): 191-206.
[10] 黄隽, 李越欣. 中国艺术品投资收益:离岸与在岸市场的特征和互动[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 468(6): 188-206.
[11] 刘丽华, 徐艳萍, 饶品贵, 陈玥. 一损俱损:违规事件在企业集团内的传染效应研究[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 468(6): 113-131.
[12] 杨涛, 郭萌萌. 投资者关注度与股票市场——以PM2.5概念股为例[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 467(5): 190-206.
[13] 姜富伟, 郭鹏, 郭豫媚. 美联储货币政策对我国资产价格的影响[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 467(5): 37-55.
[14] 谢谦, 唐国豪, 罗倩琳. 上市公司综合盈利水平与股票收益[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 465(3): 189-207.
[15] 李志冰, 刘晓宇. 基金业绩归因与投资者行为[J]. 金融研究, 2019, 464(2): 188-205.
[1] 王曦, 朱立挺, 王凯立. 我国货币政策是否关注资产价格?——基于马尔科夫区制转换BEKK多元GARCH模型[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 1 -17 .
[2] 刘勇政, 李岩. 中国的高速铁路建设与城市经济增长[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 18 -33 .
[3] 陈德球, 陈运森, 董志勇. 政策不确定性、市场竞争与资本配置[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 449(11): 65 -80 .
[4] 李丹, 庞晓波, 方红生. 财政空间与中国政府债务可持续性[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 448(10): 1 -17 .
[5] 步丹璐, 狄灵瑜. 治理环境、股权投资与政府补助[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 448(10): 193 -206 .
[6] 张成思, 党超. 基于双预期的前瞻性货币政策反应机制[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 447(9): 1 -17 .
[7] 纪敏, 严宝玉, 李宏瑾. 杠杆率结构、水平和金融稳定——理论分析框架和中国经验[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 440(2): 11 -25 .
[8] 黄宪, 黄彤彤. 论中国的“金融超发展”[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 440(2): 26 -41 .
[9] 丁志杰, 谢峰. 汇率对中等收入国家经济跨越的影响研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 440(2): 42 -53 .
[10] 陈奎明, 陈通. 关于发放高质量小额贷款的关键因子相关研究[J]. 金融研究, 2017, 440(2): 197 -215 .
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
版权所有 © 《金融研究》编辑部
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发 技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn
京ICP备11029882号-1