Skip Navigation


RFS Advance Access originally published online on January 22, 2007
Review of Financial Studies 2007 20(4):1113-1138; doi:10.1093/revfin/hhm003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
20/4/1113    most recent
hhm003v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hou, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrow G12 - Asset Pricing
Right arrow G14 - Information and Market Efficiency; Event Studies
Right arrow L25 - Firm Performance: Size, Age, Profit, and Sales
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for Financial Studies.

Industry Information Diffusion and the Lead-lag Effect in Stock Returns

Kewei Hou
Department of Finance, Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University

Address correspondence to Kewei Hou, Department of Finance, Fisher College of Business, Ohio State University, 2100 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, or e-mail: hou.28{at}osu.edu

JEL: G12, G14


   Abstract

I argue that the slow diffusion of industry information is a leading cause of the lead-lag effect in stock returns. I find that the lead-lag effect between big firms and small firms is predominantly an intra-industry phenomenon. Moreover, this effect is driven by sluggish adjustment to negative information, and is robust to alternative determinants of the lead-lag effect. Small, less competitive and neglected industries experience a more pronounced lead-lag effect. The lead-lag effect is related to the post-announcement drift of small firms following the earnings releases of big firms within the industry.


The article is based on my dissertation at the Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago. I am grateful to the members of my dissertation committee, Nicholas Barberis, George Constantinides, Eugene Fama, Richard Leftwich, and especially Tobias Moskowitz (the chair), for their guidance and encouragement. I also thank Nicole Boyson, Douglas Diamond, Milton Harris, Campbell Harvey (the editor), Owen Lamont, Tim Loughran, Lubos Pastor, David Robinson, Rene Stulz, Alvaro Taboada, an anonymous referee, and seminar participants at the University of Chicago, the University of Texas at Austin, Emory University, MIT, Yale University, the University of North Carolina, Vanderbilt University, the University of Southern California, Cornell University, and the Ohio State University for many helpful comments and suggestions as well as Sandra Sizer for editorial assistance. Research support from the Dice Center for Research in Financial Economics, the Dean's Summer Research Fellowship at the Ohio State University, and the Sanford J. Grossman Fellowship in honor of Arnold Zellner is gratefully acknowledged. Any remaining errors are my responsibility.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.