Search results

This study aims to examine stock price synchronicity during the COVID-19 crisis using 32,452 firms from 61 countries. This paper explores the impact of government effectiveness on synchronicity while distinguishing between developed and emerging markets.

The research analysis employs ordinary OLS pooled regression analysis.

This paper presents worldwide evidence that stock price synchronicity was significantly higher during February and March 2020. This paper shows that synchronicity increased with the intensity of the crisis. In addition, the government's role reduced the COVID-19 impact on synchronicity, which was stronger in developed markets than in emerging markets.

The novelty of the study lies in documenting the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on stock price synchronicity. The findings add to a deeper understanding of market behavior amid significant disruptive shocks.

The purpose of this paper is to compare foreign listings on regulated and unregulated exchanges, and civil and common‐law companies to test the effects of cross‐listing (CL) on the firm's number of analysts and the accuracy of their forecast.

The study is a comparative one. The empirical test employs both univariate and multivariate analyses and a sample of 584 cross‐listed firms along with the number of analysts and analysts' forecast errors (FE).

After controlling for the firm's size, risk, earnings surprise, and industry, the results show that analysts become more active around CL on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) and PORTAL compared to CL on AMEX, NASDAQ, NYSE and over the counter (OTC). On the contrary, no statistically significant decrease in the magnitude of analysts' FEs was reported, suggesting no increase in the quantity of analysts' information. The results hold for both civil and common‐law countries.

The study is limited to the use of cross‐listed firms only. Future research should include non‐cross‐listed firms. As for the implications, the evidence indicates that the choice between CL on regulated or unregulated exchanges in the USA has no impact, either on the decision of an analyst to follow the firm or on the quantity of information available about that firm. In addition, the evidence suggests that analysts are more inclined to follow firms that cross‐list on the LSE than on the US regulated exchanges. Moreover, PORTAL, as an unregulated market, provides surprising evidence on the significant role of the US large institutional investors in attracting the highest number of analysts per firm compared to other regulated exchanges.

The paper compares CL on regulated and unregulated exchanges in the USA and UK for both civil and common‐law firms. It contributes to the existing literature on CL and information disclosure and has implications for academics, market regulators, professionals, and multinational firms.

This study aims to conduct a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to determine the intellectual structure of cross-listing studies and suggests a road map for future research in this field.

A step-by-step procedure was carried out. With the help of a defined search string, 580 articles from reputed journals have been retrieved from the Scopus database. Bibliographic coupling and keyword analysis were executed to understand the current research scenario and future research directions in this research field. In addition, R Studio combined with VOSviewer was employed to analyse and visualise the data.

The results provide a deeper insight into publication trends, most prolific countries, institutions and journals in the area of cross-listing. The highest collaboration was observed between the authors in the USA and Canada. Moreover, the results contradict Bradford's and Lotka's laws. A thorough review of the literature identifies five clusters in this domain. Finally, keyword analysis offers a future road map in cross-listing research.

Researchers have shown greater interest in cross-listing topics over the past decades. Even though the research volume on this subject is increasing, the current retrospective is still insufficient. To the best of the authors' knowledge, this study is the first to provide valuable insights to practitioners, academicians, and prospective researchers about the intellectual structure of cross-listing and also offers future avenues in this research field through bibliometric analysis.