Skip to main content
Log in

Insider trading around auto recalls: Does investor attention matter?

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using a comprehensive sample of customer complaints filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, we examine the differences in the timing of insiders’ and investors’ use of outside generated public information. We first find that levels of customer complaints predict future auto recalls and their financial consequences, suggesting that these publicly available customer complaints contain value-relevant information. We then find that customer complaints are not contemporaneously associated with stock returns but predict large negative abnormal stock returns during the period following the recall announcement. Thus, we find that the market generally fails to impound the information contained in customer complaints in a timely manner. We then examine whether mutual funds, as sophisticated investors, appear to use the complaint data and find that, consistent with the overall market, in the aggregate they do not appear to use the complaint data to inform their trades until after recall announcements. However, mutual funds that focus more of their trades in the auto industry appear to pay more attention to the complaint data and trade consistent with the data before recall announcements. We then find that the top five executives of the car manufacturers in our sample are significant sellers of personal shares prior to the announcement of auto recalls, particularly when customer complaints are high. Our findings suggest that insiders’ informational advantage is at least in part due to general investor limited attention to publicly available information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example, such events include bankruptcy filings (Ma 2001; Seyhun and Bradley 1997), mergers and acquisitions (Keown and Pinkerton 1981), dividends, restatements, and earnings announcements (Sivakumar and Waymire 1994; Ke et al. 2003; Huddart, et al. 2007; Tartaroglu and Imhof 2017).

  2. The automotive industry is regulated by NHTSA, which was created under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966 and aimed to reduce the number of motor vehicle-related injuries by increasing scrutiny over manufacturers’ compliance with federal vehicle safety standards. Part of NHTSA’s responsibilities is to oversee the process of vehicle recalls in the United States. See: http://www.nhtsa.gov/ for additional information.

  3. Prior research shows that the presentation of information affects the extent to which investors use this information (Ettredge et al. 2002).

  4. The Commission is very vigorous in enforcing the laws against insider trading. For example, the Commission filed legal proceedings against several employees and their spouses in CryoLife and charged them with insider trading prior to a product recall order issued by Food and Drug Administration SEC 2005a, b).

  5. We provide evidence consistent with this conjecture in additional analyses section (see Sect. 4.5).

  6. The legal consequences for violating the antifraud provisions of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 have severely increased over time. For example, the Insider Trading Sanctions Act of 1984 imposed significant jail sentences and severe penalties equal to three times the amount of insider profits.

  7. Insider trading regulations were also introduced in other parts of the world (see Rundfelt 1986).

  8. Problems with vehicles older than 20 years are less likely to be a concern since these vehicles are assumed to be near the end of their normal life cycles for most users. Some states waive inspections, and some insurance companies refuse to insure models that are older than 20 years. In a recent recall perception survey performed by the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) 61% of respondents agreed with the statement: “Recalls of older vehicles are generally less meaningful to me than recalls of newer ones.” (NADA 2014). Our coverage of issues concerning each auto model for its expected 20 years of life resonates therefore well with the reality in this industry.

  9. We obtain similar results when we restrict the control period to the pre-event period when measuring ABVSELL.

  10. In Huddart et al. (2007) the mean dollar values of insider net trading (sell minus buy) are $84,000, $863,000, and $67,000 during the 20 days before earnings announcements, between earnings announcement and filing dates, and 20 days after filing dates, respectively.

  11. As explained more fully in our Robustness Tests and Additional Findings section, we examine a recall’s severity based on the number of autos effected by the recall. For the purpose of this analysis, a “severe” recall is one that effects more than the median number of autos.

  12. Our results in Table 2 for recall likelihood following complaints is also robust to aggregating complaints and recalls at Make level rather than the MMY level.

  13. Prior researchers (Bamber and Cheon 1995; Gervais et al. 2001; Kaniel et al. 2012; Barber et al. 2008; Mbanga et al. 2019) often use trading volume to proxy for investor attention. However, employing trading volume (i.e., buy plus sell) data would not allow us to explore our directional questions of whether investors are actually paying specific attention to the auto complaint data and selling shares prior to recall announcements when complaints increase. Therefore, in the context of our study, examining directional trading volume (net selling) of sophisticated investors provides more precise information on whether these investors attend to and properly incorporate the customer complaint data on a timely basis.

  14. Data representatives at Ancerno Ltd. confirm that their investor clients submit all their daily trading activities to them for transaction cost analysis.

  15. Ancerno Ltd. stopped reporting unique mutual fund identifiers after 2010 and therefore we cannot extend our analysis beyond 2010.

  16. Since fund-industry level trading activity (the numerator) is scaled by the total fund activity (the denominator) our industry focus metric computed in percentages is not biased by the size of fund.

  17. For this test we use only the highest and lowest FOCUSED terciles. We obtain similar results if we retain all three terciles and code FOCUSED a 0 for the lowest tercile, .5 for the middle tercile, and 1 for the most auto-focused mutual funds.

  18. In untabulated additional analyses we also regress the excess returns on complaint measures after controlling for the recall severity Ln(NDEFECT), and find that Ln(NDEFECT) largely subsumes the relation between complaint measures and excess returns. This finding is consistent with the argument that complaints contain value-relevant information because they can be used to assess not only the likelihood but also the severity of an upcoming recall.

  19. Although we assume a positive relation between a recall’s severity and the number of cars affected, we also use the explanation provided from the recall data regarding the company’s corrective actions. While some recalls affect a large number of cars, the corrective action required by the company suggests that the cost of the recall may not be high. In untabulated analyses we obtain our results by either removing these recalls or setting their severity to median; as expected we find stronger results. However, we report these results using NDEFECT as provided by NTHSA in order to prevent any concerns regarding possible bias introduced by our identification process.

  20. In untabulated results we obtain similar results when we scale Ln (NDEFECT) using the logarithm of the firm’s market value at the beginning of the fiscal period.

  21. The intercept is 9.084 when using standardized incidents as our complaint measure, indicating that the average number of cars affected is approximately 8821 (Exp (9.084)) when the standardized incident is zero. The average number of cars affected will therefore be approximately 1,270,224 (144 × 8821) when the standardized incident is one.

References

  • Agrawal A, Cooper T (2015) Insider trading before accounting scandals. J Corp Fin 34:169–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Ali U, Hirshleifer D (2017) Opportunism as a firm and managerial trait: predicting insider trading profits and misconduct. J Fin Econ 126:490–515

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamber LS, Cheon YS (1995) Differential price and volume reactions to accounting earnings announcements. Acc Rev 70:417–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber BM, Darrough MN (1996) Product reliability and firm value: the experience of American and Japanese automakers, 1973–1992. J Pol Econ 104:1084–1099

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber BM, Odean T (2007) All that glitters: the effect of attention and news on the buying behavior of individual and institutional investors. Rev Fin Stud 21:785–818

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber BM, Odean T, Zhu N (2008) Do retail trades move markets? Rev Fin Stud 22(1):151–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett J (2014) GM ordered new switches long before recall. Wall Str J. http://www.wsj.com/articles/gm-ordered-new-switches-long-before-recall-1415584224. Accessed 10 Nov 2018

  • Bettis C, Coles J, Lemmon M (2000) Corporate policies restricting trading by insiders. J Fin Econ 57:191–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein S, Zimmerman MB (1988) Market incentives for safe commercial airline operation. Am Econ Rev 78:913–935

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromiley P, Marcus A (1989) The deterrent to dubious corporate behavior: profitability, probability and safety recalls. Strat Manage J 10(3):233–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y, Nguyen N (2013) Stock price and analyst earnings forecast around product recall announcements. Int J Econ Financ 5:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu TH, Lin CC, Prather LJ (2005) An extension of security price reactions around product recall announcements. Q J Bus Econ 4:33–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Da Z, Engelberg J, Gao P (2011) In search of attention. J Financ 66(5):1461–1499

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson WN, Worrell DL (1992) The effect of product recall announcements on shareholder wealth. Strateg Manag J 13(6):467–473

    Google Scholar 

  • DellaVigna S, Pollet JM (2009) Investor inattention and Friday earnings announcements. J Finance 64(2):709–749

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliott J, Morse D, Richardson G (1984) The association between insider trading and information announcements. RAND J Econ 15(4):521–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelen PJ, Van Liedekerke L (2007) The ethics of insider trading revisited. J Bus Ethics 74(4):497–507

    Google Scholar 

  • Ettredge M, Richardson VJ, Scholz S (2002) Dissemination of information for investors at corporate web sites. J Account Public Policy 21(4–5):357–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederickson JR, Zolotoy L (2015) Competing earnings announcements: Which announcement do investors process first? Acc Rev 91(2):441–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel JA (1997) New evidence on the effects of federal regulations on insider trading: the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act (ITSFEA). J Corp Finance 3:89–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais S, Kaniel R, Mingelgrin DH (2001) The high-volume return premium. J Finance 56:877–919

    Google Scholar 

  • Givoly D, Palmon D (1985) Insider trading and the exploitation of inside information: some empirical evidence. J Bus 58(1):69–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleason CA, Lee CM (2003) Analyst forecast revisions and market price discovery. Acc Rev 78(1):193–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Govindaraj S, Jaggi B, Lin B (2004) Market overreaction to product recall revisited—the case of firestone tires and the ford explorer. Rev Quant Financ Acc 23(1):31–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris LC, Ogbonna E (2010) Hiding customer complaints: studying the motivations and forms of service employees’ complaint concealment behaviours. Br J Manag 21(2):262–279

    Google Scholar 

  • Haunschild PR, Rhee M (2004) The role of volition in organizational learning: the case of automotive product recalls. Manag Sci 50(11):1545–1560

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller VL, Darling JR (2012) Anatomy of crisis management: lessons from the infamous Toyota Case. European Bus Rev 24(2):151–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer D, Teoh SH (2003) Limited attention, information disclosure, and financial reporting. J Acc Econ 36(1):337–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirshleifer D, Lim SS, Teoh SH (2009) Driven to distraction: extraneous events and underreaction to earnings news. J Finance 64(5):2289–2325

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffer GE, Pruitt SW, Reilly RJ (1987) Automotive recalls and informational efficiency. Financ Rev 22(4):433–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang J (2017) The customer knows best: the investment value of consumer opinions. J Financ Econ 128(1):164–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Huberman G, Regev T (2001) Contagious speculation and a cure for cancer: a nonevent that made stock prices soar. J Financ 56(1):387–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Huddart S, Ke B, Shi C (2007) Jeopardy, non-public information, and insider trading around SEC 10-K and 10-Q filings. J Acc Econ 43(1):3–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Ittner CD, Larcker DF (1998) Are non-financial measures leading indicators of financial performance? An analysis of customer satisfaction. J Acc Res 36(3):1–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivory D (2015) Honda fined for violations of safety law. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/business/honda-fined-70-million-in-underreporting-safety-issues-to-government.html?_r=0

  • Jarrell G, Peltzman S (1985) The impact of product recalls on the wealth of sellers. J Political Econ 93:512–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson R, Mehra S (2002) Best-practice complaint management. Acad Manag Executive 16(4):145–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (1973) Attention and effort. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaniel R, Liu S, Saar G, Titman S (2012) Individual investor trading and return patterns around earnings announcements. J Finance 67(2):639–680

    Google Scholar 

  • Karpoff JM, Lott JR Jr (1993) Reputational penalty firms bear from committing criminal fraud. J Law Econ 36(2):757–802

    Google Scholar 

  • Ke B, Huddart S, Petroni K (2003) What insiders know about future earnings and how they use it: evidence from insider trades. J Acc Econ 35(3):315–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Keown AJ, Pinkerton JM (1981) Merger announcements and insider trading activity: an empirical investigation. J Finance 36(4):855–869

    Google Scholar 

  • Keown AJ, Pinkerton JM, Young L, Hansen R (1985) Recent SEC prosecution and insider trading on forthcoming merger announcements. J Bus Res 13(4):329–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirmani A, Rao AR (2000) No pain, no gain: a critical review of the literature on signaling unobservable product quality. J Mark 64:66–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Knox G, van Oest R (2014) Customer complaints and recovery effectiveness: a customer base approach. J Market 78(4):42–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Kothari SP, Shu S, Wysocki PD (2009) Do managers withhold bad news? J Acc Res 47(1):241–276

    Google Scholar 

  • Lapré MA, Tsikriktsis N (2006) Organizational learning curves for customer dissatisfaction: heterogeneity across airlines. Manag Sci 52(3):352–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Yu J (2012) Investor attention, psychological anchors, and stock return predictability. J Financ Econ 104:401–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin CP, Chen SC, Chiu CK, Lee WY (2011) Understanding purchase intention during product-harm crises: moderating effects of perceived corporate ability and corporate social responsibility. J Bus Ethics 102(3):455–471

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Shankar V (2015) The dynamic impact of product-harm crises on brand preference and advertising effectiveness: an empirical analysis of the automobile industry. Manag Sci 61(10):2514–2535

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma Y (2001) Insider trading behavior prior to Chapter 11 bankruptcy announcements. J Bus Res 54(1):63–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma Y, Sun HL (1998) Where should the line be drawn on insider trading ethics? J Bus Ethics 17(1):67–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Machan TR (1996) What is morally right with insider trading. Public Aff Q 10(2):135–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Manne HG (1966a) Insider trading and the stock market. Free Press, Mumbai

    Google Scholar 

  • Manne HG (1966b) Defense of insider trading. Harv Bus Rev 44(6):113–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Manne HG (1985) Insider trading and property rights in new information. Cato J 4(3):933–943

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus RD, Swidler S, Zivney TL (1987) An explanation of why shareholders’ losses are so large after drug recalls. Manag Dec Econ 8:295–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Mbanga C, Darrat AF, Park JC (2019) Investor sentiment and aggregate stock returns: the role of investor attention. Rev Quant Financ Acc 53:397–428

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee RW (2008) Applying ethics to insider trading. J Bus Ethics 77(2):205–217

    Google Scholar 

  • McGee RW (2010) Analyzing insider trading from the perspectives of utilitarian ethics and rights theory. J Bus Ethics 91(1):65–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore J (1990) What is really unethical about insider trading? J Bus Ethics 9(3):171–182

    Google Scholar 

  • NADA (2014) The impact of vehicle recalls on the automotive market. http://automotivedigest.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NADA-report-The-Impact-of-Vehicle-Recalls-on-the-Automotive-Market.pdf. Accessed 14 Sept 2016

  • Ni JZ, Flynn BB, Jacobs FR (2014) Impact of product recall announcements on retailers’ financial value. Int J Prod Econ 153:309–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmrose ZV, Richardson VJ, Scholz S (2004) Determinants of market reactions to restatement announcements. J Acc Econ 37(1):59–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Peng L, Xiong W (2006) Investor attention, overconfidence and category learning. J Financ Econ 80:563–602

    Google Scholar 

  • Persons O (1997) SEC’s insider trading enforcements and target firms’ stock values. J Bus Res 39(3):187–194

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt SW, Peterson DR (1986) Security price reactions around product recall announcements. J Financ Res 9:113–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly RJ, Hoffer GE (1983) Will retarding the information flow on automobile recalls affect consumer demand? Econ Inq 21(3):444–447

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhee M, Haunschild PR (2006) The liability of good reputation: a study of recalls in the U.S. automobile industry. Organ Sci 17:101–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Rundfelt R (1986) Insider trading: regulation in Europe. J Acc Audit Financ 1(2):125–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (2005a) SEC charges a sales employee of CryLife, Inc. and his wife with illegal insider trading. Litig Release No. 19379. September 15. https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr19379.htm

  • Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (2005b) SEC charges four sales employees of CryLife, Inc. and two spouses with illegal insider trading. Litig Release No. 19378. September 15. https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr19378.htm

  • Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (2018) SEC charges former pharma executive and others with insider trading. Litig Release No. 24245. August 23. https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2018/lr24245.htm

  • Seyhun HN (1988) The information content of aggregate insider trading. J Bus 61:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyhun HN (1990) Do bidder managers knowingly pay too much for target firms? J Bus 63:439–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Seyhun HN, Bradley M (1997) Corporate bankruptcy and insider trading. J Bus 70(2):189–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivakumar K, Vijayakumar J (2001) Insider trading, analysts’ forecast revision, and earnings changes. J Acc Audit Financ 16(2):167–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivakumar K, Waymire G (1994) Insider trading following material news events: evidence from earnings. Financ Manag 23(1):23–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith T, Block WE (2016) The economics of insider trading: a free market perspective. J Bus Ethics 139(1):47–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Snoeyenbos M, Smith K (2000) Ma and Sun on insider trading ethics. J Bus Ethics 28(4):361–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Tartaroglu S, Imhof M (2017) Insider trading and response to earnings announcements: the impact of accelerated disclosure requirements. Rev Quant Financ Acc 49:315–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirumalai S, Sinha KK (2011) Product recalls in the medical device industry: an empirical exploration of the sources and financial consequences. Manag Sci 57(2):376–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlastakis N, Markellos RN (2012) Information demand and stock market volatility. J Bank Financ 36(6):1808–1821

    Google Scholar 

  • Werhane PH (1989) The ethics of insider trading. J Bus Ethics 8(11):841–845

    Google Scholar 

  • Werhane PH (1991) The indefensibility of insider trading. J Bus Ethics 10(9):729–731

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavyalova A, Pfarrer MD, Reger RK, Shapiro DL (2012) Managing the message: the effects of firm actions and industry spillovers on media coverage following wrongdoing. Acad Manag J 55(5):1079–1101

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge valuable comments from Musa Subasi, George Hoffer, Joe B. Hoyle, Gregory Martin, Jack Cathey, Yianni Floros and seminar participants at the 2016 Academy of Management Annual Meeting, 2015 Mid-Atlantic American Accounting Association Meeting, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Virginia Commonwealth University, Suffolk University, Bogazici University, Central Bank of Turkey, 2015 American Accounting Association Meeting, and the 2015 DePaul University Finance and Economics Conference.

Funding

This study receives no funding from external sources.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abdullah Kumas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Variable name

Variable definition

Complaint sample (Model 1)

RECALL

 An indicator variable taking value of one if there is a recall for a MMY during calendar quarter t + 1, and zero otherwise

MMY

 Make-model-year

#INCIDENT

 The number of incidents for a MMY during a calendar quarter

#INJURED

 The number of injured for a MMY during a calendar quarter

#CRASH

 The number of incidents that involved a crash for a MMY during a calendar quarter

#FIRE

 The number of incidents that involved a fire for a MMY during a calendar quarter

#DEATH

 The number of dead for a MMY during a calendar quarter

#SINCIDENT

 The standardized #INCIDENT obtained by dividing number of incidents for the MMY during a quarter by the maximum number of the incident measure for the MMY over the sample period.

#SINJURED

 The standardized #INJURED obtained by dividing number of injuries for the MMY during a quarter by the maximum number of the injury measure for the MMY over the sample period

#SCRASH

 The standardized #CRASH obtained by dividing number of crashes for the MMY during a quarter by the maximum number of the crash measure for the MMY over the sample period

#SFIRE

 The standardized #FIRE obtained by dividing number of fires for the MMY during a quarter by the maximum number of the fire measure for the MMY over the sample period

#SDEATH

 The standardized #DEATH obtained by dividing number of deaths for the MMY during a quarter by the maximum number of the death measure for the MMY over the sample period

FACTOR

 The average of the five standardized complaint measures

COMPLAINT

 One of the six standardized complaint measures for the MMY obtained as of calendar quarter t

Recall sample (Models 2, 3, and 4)

EXRET

 Either the value-weighted excess returns over 3 days around the recall report or the value-weighted excess returns over 3 months beginning 2 days after the recall report date

VSELL

 The value of sell transactions (in million dollars) minus value of buy transactions (in million dollars) in the event period, 3 months ending before the recall report date

ABVSELL

 Abnormal dollar value of net insider selling in the event period, measured as the net insider selling in the event period minus the average net insider selling pre-event period, 3 months ending before the beginning of the event period, and post-event period, 3 months beginning on the recall date

RDATE

 The date report received by NHTSA

NDEFECT

 The number of potential cars affected in the recall

#INCIDENT

 The total number of incidents associated with the recall within 1 year period ending before the recall date

#INJURED

 The total number of injuries associated with the recall within 1 year period ending before the recall date

#CRASH

 The total number of crashes associated with the recall within 1 year period ending before the recall date

#FIRE

 The total number of fires associated with the recall within 1 year period ending before the recall date

#DEATH

 The total number of deaths associated with the recall within 1 year period ending before the recall date

#SINCIDENT

 The standardized #INCIDENT obtained by dividing number of incidents associated with a recall by the maximum number of incidents across all recalls for the firm in the sample period

#SINJURED

 The standardized #INJURED obtained by dividing number of injuries associated with a recall by the maximum number of injuries across all recalls for the firm in the sample period

#SCRASH

 The standardized #CRASH obtained by dividing number of crashes associated with a recall by the maximum number of crashes across all recalls for the firm in the sample period

#SFIRE

 The standardized #FIRE obtained by dividing number of fires associated with a recall by the maximum number of fires across all recalls for the firm in the sample period

#SDEATH

 The standardized #DEATH obtained by dividing number of deaths associated with a recall by the maximum number of deaths across all recalls for the firm in the sample period

FACTOR

 The average of the five standardized complaint measures

COMPLAINT

 One of the six standardized complaint measures

LMV

 The natural logarithm of market value of equity (MV) at the beginning of the year where MV is measured as stock price multiplied by number of shares outstanding at the beginning of fiscal year t end

BM

 The book-to-market ratio at the beginning of the year, measured as the book value of equity divided by the market value of equity

MOMENTUM

 The cumulative market-adjusted returns over 3 months ending 1 day prior to the beginning of a given period

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gokalp, O.N., Keskek, S., Kumas, A. et al. Insider trading around auto recalls: Does investor attention matter?. Rev Quant Finan Acc 55, 1003–1033 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-019-00866-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-019-00866-9

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation