Price Impact or Trading Volume: Why Is the Amihud (2002) Measure Priced?

Xiaoxia Lou and Tao Shu

The Review of Financial Studies, 2017, vol. 30, issue 12, 4481-4520

Abstract: The return premium associated with the Amihud (2002) measure is generally considered a liquidity premium that compensates for price impact. We find that the pricing of the Amihud measure is not attributable to the construction of the return-to-volume ratio intended to capture price impact, but is driven by the trading volume component. Additionally, the high-frequency price impact and spread benchmarks are priced only in January and do not explain the pricing of the trading volume component of the Amihud measure. Additional analyses suggest that the volume effect on stock return is likely caused by mispricing, not by compensation for illiquidity. Received September 20, 2014; editorial decision April 16, 2017 by Editor Andrew Karolyi.

Date: 2017
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (44)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rfs/hhx072 (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:rfinst:v:30:y:2017:i:12:p:4481-4520.

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

The Review of Financial Studies is currently edited by Itay Goldstein

More articles in The Review of Financial Studies from Society for Financial Studies Oxford University Press, Journals Department, 2001 Evans Road, Cary, NC 27513 USA.. Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().