Advertisement

Financial Markets and Portfolio Management

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 427–451 | Cite as

Changing organizational form in the stock exchange industry and risk-taking

  • Isaac OtchereEmail author
  • Sana Mohsni
Article
  • 165 Downloads

Abstract

Recent developments in the stock exchange industry have compelled some exchanges to demutualize and become for-profit entities. We examine the risk-taking behavior of demutualized exchanges and find that prior to the conversion, the exchanges exhibited higher risk than their mutual counterparts. Following demutualization, however, the exchanges experienced a significant decrease in risk, which is not attributable to industry-wide effects. Our results are consistent with the conjecture that higher risk induced the conversion to equity ownership. Interestingly, we find that publicly listed exchanges that have gone through the three organizational structures exhibit risk-taking behavior somewhat similar to that of the mutual, demutualized, and publicly listed exchanges. We also document significant increases in nontraditional income after demutualization and this increase in nontraditional income is significantly related to the reduction in risk. We therefore attribute the risk reduction experienced by the converted exchanges to diversification.

Keywords

Stock exchanges Demutualization Self-listing Risk-taking Nontraditional income 

JEL Classification

G10 G15 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank an anonymous referee and the editor for their insightful comments. The paper also benefited from comments and suggestions from the discussants and participants at the 2015 International Banking and Finance Society Conference (Hangzhou), the 2015 Global Finance Conference (Hangzhou), and the 2016 SGF Conference of the Swiss Society for Financial Market Research (Zurich).

References

  1. Aggarwal, R.: Demutualization and corporate governance of stock exchanges. J. Appl. Corp. Financ. 15, 105–113 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aggarwal, R., Dahiya, S.: Demutualization and public offerings of financial exchanges. J. Appl. Corp. Financ. 18(3), 96–106 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Azzam, I.: Stock exchange demutualization and performance. Glob. Financ. J. 20, 211–222 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bessembinder, H., Kaufman, H.: A comparison of trade execution cost for NYSE and NASDAQ-listed stocks. J. Financ. Quant. Anal. 32(3), 287–310 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Di Noia, C.: The stock-exchange industry: network effects, implicit mergers and corporate governance. Quaderni de Finanza. 33 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. Domowitz, I., Steil, B.: Automation, Trading Costs, and the Structure of the Securities Trading Industry. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Financial Services, 33–81 (1999)Google Scholar
  7. Elliott, W., Warr, R.: Price pressure on the NYSE and Nasdaq: evidence from S&P 500 index changes. Financ. Manag. 32(3), 85–99 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hart, O., Moore, J.: The governance of exchanges: members’ co-operatives versus outside ownership. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 12, 53–69 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Krishnamurti, C., Sequiera, J.M., Fangjian, F.: Stock exchange governance and market liquidity. J. Bank. Financ. 27(9), 1859–1878 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lee, R.: The Future of Securities Exchanges. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Financial Services, 1–33 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Macey, J.R., O’Hara, M.: The economics of stock exchange listing fees and listing requirements. J. Financ. Intermed. 11, 297–319 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mercieca, S., Schaeck, K., Wolfe, S.: Small European banks: benefits from diversification? J. Bank. Financ. 31(7), 1975–1998 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mendiola, A.M., O’Hara, M.: Taking Stock of Stock Markets: The Changing Governance of Exchanges. Working Paper, Cornell University (2003)Google Scholar
  14. Oldford, E., Otchere, I.: Can commercialization improve the performance of stock exchanges even without corporatization? Financ. Rev. 46, 67–87 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Otchere, I.: Stock exchange self-listing and value effects. J. Corp. Financ. 12, 926–953 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Otchere, I., Abou-Zied, K.: Stock exchange demutualization, self-listing and performance: the case of the Australian Stock Exchange. J. Bank. Financ. 32, 512–525 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Otchere, I., Owusu-Antwi, G., Mohsni, S.: Why are stock exchange IPOs so underpriced yet outperform in the long run? J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 27, 76–98 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pagano, M., Röell, A., Zechner, J.: The geography of equity listing: why do companies list abroad? J. Financ. 57, 2651–2694 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Parker, D., Hartley, K.: Organizational status and performance: effects of employment. Appl. Econ. 23(2), 403–416 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Petersen, M.: Estimating standard errors in finance panel data sets: comparing approaches. Rev. Financ. Stud. 22, 435–480 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Riordan, R., Storkenmaier, A.: Latency, liquidity and price discovery. J. Financ. Markets 416–437 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schmiedel, H.: Technological development and concentration of stock exchanges in Europe. Bank of Finland Discussion Paper Series 21/2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  23. Serisfoy, B.: Demutualization, outsider ownership, and stock exchange performance: empirical evidence. Working Paper Series: Finance and Accounting, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main (2007)Google Scholar
  24. WFE: Annual Report (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Swiss Society for Financial Market Research 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sprott School of BusinessCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations