Summary:
To improve china the connections between the capital markets of mainland China and Hong Kong China, the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect (SH-HKSC) was launched in November 2014 and the Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect (SZ-HKSC) in December 2016, enabling investors in the mainland and Hong Kong to mutually trade eligible stocks. SH-HKSC and SZ-HKSC attract much attention from investors and scholars. Their effects on spillovers, market risks, the A-H share premium, pricing efficiency, and corporate behavior are investigated. However, few studies examine the impact of SH-HKSC and SZ-HKSC on the cost of equity, which is the focus of this paper. Traditional wisdom suggests that stock market liberalization may reduce the cost of equity in the domestic market because of risk-sharing or increased liquidity. However, this does not consider the impact of information heterogeneity among domestic and foreign investors, which may restrict the application of such liberalization in China. Compared with more developed capital markets, the mainland market has a larger proportion of retail investors, while the Hong Kong market is dominated by institutional investors. Research shows that institutional investors in Hong Kong have information advantages over retail investors in mainland (Chen and Huang, 2019; Lian et al., 2019; Zhong et al., 2018; Zhong and Lu, 2018). Thus, an influx of Hong Kong institutional investors will dramatically change the information structure and intensify the competition between informed and uninformed investors in the mainland market. We draw on these observations to examine the effects of SH-HKSC and SZ-HKSC on the cost of equity, and divide them into a “competition channel” and an “information channel”. The competition channel can reduce the cost of equity in three ways. First, in terms of risk sharing, the potential for diversification will stimulate foreign investors to purchase domestic stocks and reduce the cost of equity. Second, increased capital inflows can increase market liquidity and reduce the liquidity premium. Finally, an increase in competition can enhance price informativeness and reduce the risk of information asymmetry. The information channel can have two opposite effects on the cost of equity. The informed trading of Hong Kong investors helps to transfer private information to the stock price, which on average increases the precision of information possessed by investors and reduces the cost of equity. However, the increased information asymmetry caused by the influx of informed traders may also increase the cost of equity. The degree of this effect depends on the level of investor competition. To empirically test the overall effects of SH-HKSC and SZ-HKSC on the cost of equity, we use residual income models (GLS, CT, OJ, PEG, and MPEG models) to estimate the cost of equity and conduct a difference-in-differences analysis. We find that due to policy risks and the unstable market environment, SH-HKSC has no significant reduction effect on the cost of equity until the second year after its implementation. SZ-HKSC, which draws on the operating experience of SH-HKSC, demonstrates an immediate, strong, and significant reduction effect on the cost of equity. We further analyze subsamples and find evidence of the competition and information channels. We find that SZ-HKSC significantly reduces the cost of equity of stocks with a relatively high degree of investor competition or with relatively high quality public information, but for those with less competition or higher information asymmetry, the cost is not affected. This study makes three main contributions to the literature. First, it fills a research gap by examining how SH-HKSC and SZ-HKSC affect the cost of equity in the mainland market. Second, it extends research on capital market liberalization by systematically analyzing its effects on the cost of equity through the two channels of competition and information. Third, the empirical results provide new evidence of the theoretical relationship between information asymmetry and the cost of equity in markets with imperfect competition.
庞家任, 张鹤, 张梦洁. 资本市场开放与股权资本成本——基于沪港通、深港通的实证研究[J]. 金融研究, 2020, 486(12): 169-188.
PANG Jiaren, ZHANG He, ZHANG Mengjie. Capital Market Liberalization and the Cost of Equity: Empirical Evidence from the Shanghai-Hong Kong and Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect Programs. Journal of Financial Research, 2020, 486(12): 169-188.
Akins, Brian K., Jeffrey Ng, and Rodrigo S. Verdi. 2012. “Investor Competition over Information and the Pricing of Information Asymmetry”, The Accounting Review, 87(1):35～58.
[24]
Amihud, Yakov and Haim Mendelson. 1986. “Asset Pricing and the Bid-Ask Spread”, Journal of Financial Economics, 17(2):223～249.
[25]
Armstrong, Christopher S., John E. Core, Daniel J. Taylor, and Robert E. Verrecchia. 2011. “When Does Information Asymmetry Affect the Cost of Capital？” Journal of Accounting Research, 49(1):1～40.
[26]
Balakrishnan, Karthik, Rahul Vashishtha, and Robert E. Verrecchia. 2019. “Foreign Competition for Shares and the Pricing of Information Asymmetry: Evidence from Equity Market Liberalization”, Journal of Accounting and Economics, 67(1):80～97.
[27]
Bekaert, Geert and Campbell R. Harvey. 2000. “Foreign Speculators and Emerging Equity Markets”, The Journal of Finance, 55(2):565～613.
[28]
Chan, Marc K. and Simon S. Kwok. 2015. “Capital Account Liberalization and Dynamic Price Discovery: Evidence from Chinese Cross-listed Stocks”, Applied Economics, 48(6):1～19.
[29]
Claus, James and Jacob Thomas. 2010. “Equity Premia as Low as Three Percent？ Evidence from Analysts' Earnings Forecasts for Domestic and International Stock Markets”, The Journal of Finance, 56(5):1629～1666.
[30]
Dow, James and Gary Gorton. 1995. “Profitable Informed Trading in a Simple General Equilibrium Model of Asset Pricing”, Journal of Economic Theory, 67:327～369.
[31]
Easley, David and Maureen O’Hara. 2004. “Information and the Cost of Capital”, The Journal of Finance, 59(4):1553～1583.
[32]
Easton, Peter D.. 2004. “PE ratios, PEG Ratios, and Estimating the Implied Expected Rate of Return on Equity Capital”, The Accounting Review, 79(1):73～95.
[33]
Fan, Qingliang and Ting Wang. 2017. “The Impact of Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect Policy on A-H Share Price Premium”, Finance Research Letters, 21:222～227.
[34]
Gebhardt, William R., Charles M. C. Lee, and Bhaskaran Swaminathan. 2001. “Toward an Implied Cost of Capital”, Journal of Accounting Research, 39(1):135～176.
[35]
Grossman, Sanford J.. 1976. “On the Efficiency of Competitive Stock Market where Trades Have Diverse Information”, The Journal of Finance, 31(2):573～585.
[36]
Grossman, Sanford J. and Joseph E. Stiglitz. 1980. “On the Impossibility of Informationally Efficient Markets”, The American Economic Review, 70(3):393～408.
[37]
Henry, Peter B.. 2000a. “Stock Market Liberalization, Economic Reform, and Emerging Market Equity Prices”, The Journal of Finance, 55(2):529～564.
[38]
Henry, Peter B.. 2000b. “Do Stock Market Liberalizations Cause Investment Booms？” Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1-2):301～334.
[39]
Huo, Rui and Abdullahi D. Ahmed. 2017. “Return and Volatility Spillovers Effects: Evaluating the Impact of Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect”, Economic Modelling, 61:260～272.
[40]
Kyle, Albert S.. 1989. “Informed Speculation with Imperfect Competition”, The Review of Economic Studies, 56(3):317～355.
[41]
Lambert, Richard A., Christian Leuz, and Robert E. Verrecchia. 2012. “Information Asymmetry, Information Precision, and the Cost of Capital”, Review of Finance, 16(1):1～29.
[42]
Lambert, Richard A. and Robert E. Verrecchia. 2010. “Cost of Capital in Imperfect Competition Settings,” Working paper, University of Pennsylvania.
[43]
Ohlson, James A. and Beate E. Juettner-Nauroth. 2005. “Expected EPS and EPS Growth as Determinants of Value”, Review of Accounting Studies, 10(2-3):349～365.
[44]
Wang, Jiang. 1993. “A Model of Intertemporal Asset Prices under Asymmetric Information”, Review of Economic Studies, 60(2):249～282.
