Host: 上海立信会计金融学院

  • ISSN 2096-9554
  • CN 31-2074/F
Volume 34 Issue 5
Oct.  2020
Turn off MathJax
Article Contents
Article Navigation >  Accounting and Economic Research  > 2020  >  34(5): 3-27
Wei Zhihua, Xia Taibiao, Wang Huiping. 2020. Related Party Transactions, Analyst Behavior and Stock Price Synchronicity: An Empirical Research on Chinese Listed Companies. Accounting and Economic Research, 34(5): 3-27.
Citation: Wei Zhihua, Xia Taibiao, Wang Huiping. 2020. Related Party Transactions, Analyst Behavior and Stock Price Synchronicity: An Empirical Research on Chinese Listed Companies. Accounting and Economic Research, 34(5): 3-27.
shu

Related Party Transactions, Analyst Behavior and Stock Price Synchronicity: An Empirical Research on Chinese Listed Companies

  • School of Economics, Xiamen University, Xiamen Fujian 361005, China

  • Received Date: 2020-01-14
  • Publish Date: 2020-09-25
    Abstract
  • Using a sample of Chinese A-share listed companies for the period of 2006-2016, this paper empirically examines the impact of related party transactions (RPTs) on stock price synchronicity (SPS) and its mechanism, and investigates the important role of analyst behavior in the relationship between RPTs and SPS. The results show that RPTs significantly reduce SPS. The reason is that RPTs reduce transparency of corporate information, make the stock price contains more noise information, and thus reduce SPS. Meanwhile, higher concerns and more accurate forecast of the analysts help to mitigate the interference of noise information on stock price, and this weakens the negative effect of RPTs on SPS. The above results suggest that low information transparency caused by RPTs reduces stock pricing efficiency, while effective analyst following can play a positive role to deal with this problem. Further study finds that among all kinds of RPTs only commodity transactions and secured mortgage have significantly negative effects on SPS. In addition, excessive concentration of ownership will lead to agency problems, and strengthen the negative relationship between RPTs and SPS. Employing high-quality auditors from Big Four accounting firms can play an active role, and weakens the negative relationship between RPTs and SPS. In theory, this study enriches the relevant literatures on the economic consequences of RPTs and the factors affecting SPS. In practice, it provides empirical evidence for a deeper understanding of the impact of RPTs on capital market information efficiency.

     

    • FullText(HTML)
  • loading
    • References(50)
  • [1]
    陈晓, 王琨. 2005. 关联交易、公司治理与国有股改革—来自我国资本市场的实证证据. 经济研究 (4): 77−86.
    [2]
    陈政. 2008. 大股东资金占用与盈余管理: 问题掩饰还是揭露. 证券市场导报 (12): 51−58.
    [3]
    何贤杰, 王孝钰, 孙淑伟, 朱红军. 2018. 网络新媒体信息披露的经济后果研究—基于股价同步性的视角. 管理科学学报 (6): 43−59. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1007-9807.2018.06.004
    [4]
    洪剑峭, 方军雄. 2005. 关联交易和会计盈余的价值相关性. 中国会计评论 (1): 87−98.
    [5]
    胡军, 王甄. 2015. 微博、特质性信息披露与股价同步性. 金融研究 (11): 190−206.
    [6]
    黄俊, 郭照蕊. 2014. 新闻媒体报道与资本市场定价效率—基于股价同步性的分析. 管理世界 (5): 121−130.
    [7]
    黄蓉, 易阳, 宋顺林. 2013. 税率差异、关联交易与企业价值. 会计研究 (8): 47−53. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-2886.2013.08.007
    [8]
    黄贤环, 吴秋生. 2017. 上市公司与财务公司关联交易对投资效率影响研究. 审计与经济研究 (1): 68−79.
    [9]
    孔东民, 申睿. 2008. R2、异常收益与交易中的信息成分. 中大管理研究 (3): 91−112.
    [10]
    李春涛, 胡宏兵, 谭亮. 2013. 中国上市银行透明度研究—分析师盈利预测和市场同步性的证据. 金融研究 (6): 118−132.
    [11]
    李祎, 刘启亮, 李洪. 2016. IFRS、财务分析师、机构投资者和权益资本成本—基于信息治理观视角. 会计研究 (10): 26−33. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-2886.2016.10.004
    [12]
    李志生, 朱雯君. 2015. 信息含量、机构投资者与股价同步性—来自股票增发市场的经验证据. 中南财经政法大学学报 (5): 62−71. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-5230.2015.05.008
    [13]
    刘峰, 贺建刚. 2004. 股权结构与大股东利益实现方式的选择—中国资本市场利益输送的初步研究. 中国会计评论 (1): 141−158.
    [14]
    刘建民, 刘星. 2007. 关联交易与公司内部治理机制实证研究—来自沪深股市的经验证据. 中国软科学 (1): 79−89. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-9753.2007.01.013
    [15]
    潘越, 戴亦一, 林超群. 2011. 信息不透明、分析师关注与个股暴跌风险. 金融研究 (9): 138−151.
    [16]
    史永, 李思昊. 2018. 关联交易、机构投资者异质性与股价崩盘风险研究. 中国软科学 (4): 123−131. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-9753.2018.04.012
    [17]
    汤泰劼, 宋献中, 罗曼璐. 2018. 分析师跟踪是否抑制了企业避税? —基于外部公司治理的视角. 财务研究 (5): 28−39.
    [18]
    佟岩, 程小可. 2007. 关联交易利益流向与中国上市公司盈余质量. 管理世界 (11): 127−138.
    [19]
    王亚平, 刘慧龙, 吴联生. 2009. 信息透明度、机构投资者与股价同步性. 金融研究 (12): 162−174.
    [20]
    魏志华, 李常青, 曾爱民, 陈维欢. 2017a. 关联交易、管理层权力与公司违规—兼论审计监督的治理作用. 审计研究 (5): 87−95.
    [21]
    魏志华, 王贞洁, 吴育辉, 李常青. 2012. 金融生态环境、审计意见与债务融资成本. 审计研究 (3): 98−105.
    [22]
    魏志华, 赵悦如, 吴育辉. 2017b. “双刃剑”的哪一面: 关联交易如何影响公司价值. 世界经济 (1): 142−167.
    [23]
    温忠麟, 侯杰泰, 张雷. 2005. 调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用. 心理学报 (2): 268−274.
    [24]
    肖迪. 2010. 资金转移、关联交易与盈余管理—来自中国上市公司的经验证据. 经济管理 (4): 118−128.
    [25]
    杨有红, 闫珍丽. 2018. 其他综合收益及其列报改进是否提高了盈余透明度? —分析师行为及股价同步性的证据. 会计研究 (4): 20−27. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-2886.2018.04.003
    [26]
    伊志宏, 杨圣之, 陈钦源. 2019. 分析师能降低股价同步性吗—基于研究报告文本分析的实证研究. 中国工业经济 (1): 156−173.
    [27]
    张艳. 2005. 我国证券市场泡沫形成机制研究—基于进化博弈的复制动态模型分析. 管理世界 (10): 34−40.
    [28]
    郑国坚. 2009. 基于效率观和掏空观的关联交易与盈余质量关系研究. 会计研究 (10): 68−76. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-2886.2009.10.010
    [29]
    郑国坚, 林东杰, 张飞达. 2013. 大股东财务困境、掏空与公司治理的有效性—来自大股东财务数据的证据. 管理世界 (5): 157−168.
    [30]
    郑国坚, 魏明海, 孔东民. 2007. 大股东内部市场与上市公司价值: 基于效率观点和掏空观点的实证检验. 中国会计与财务研究 (4): 1−41.
    [31]
    朱红军, 何贤杰, 陶林. 2007. 中国的证券分析师能够提高资本市场的效率吗? —基于股价同步性和股价信息含量的经验证据. 金融研究 (2): 110−121.
    [32]
    Cheung, Y-L., Y. Qi, P. R. Rau, and A. Stouraitis. 2009. Buy high, sell low: How listed firms price transfers in related party transactions. Journal of Banking and Finance 33(5): 914−924. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2008.10.002
    [33]
    Djankov, S., R. La Porta, F. Lopez-de-Silanes, and A. Shleifer. 2008. The law and economics of self-dealing. Journal of Financial Economics 88(3): 430−465. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2007.02.007
    [34]
    Durnev, A., R. Morck, B. Yeung, and P. Zarowin. 2003. Does greater firm-specific return variation mean more or less informed stock pricing? Journal of Accounting Research 41(5): 797−836. doi: 10.1046/j.1475-679X.2003.00124.x
    [35]
    Hutton, A. P., A. J. Marcus, and H. Tehranian. 2009. Opaque financial reports, R2 and crash risk. Journal of Financial Economics 94(1): 67−86. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.10.003
    [36]
    Jia, N., J. Shi, and Y. Wang. 2013. Coinsurance within business groups: Evidence from related party transactions in an emerging market. Management Science 59(10): 2295−2313. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1120.1703
    [37]
    Jian, M., and T. J. Wong. 2010. Propping through related party transactions. Review of Accounting Studies 15(1): 70−105. doi: 10.1007/s11142-008-9081-4
    [38]
    Jin, L., and S. C. Myers. 2006. R2 around the world: New theory and new tests. Journal of Financial Economics 79(2): 257−292. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2004.11.003
    [39]
    Johnson, S. R., P. Boone, A. Breach, and E. Frideman. 2000. Corporate governance in the Asian financial crisis. Journal of Financial Economics 58(1): 141−186.
    [40]
    Jones, J. J. 1991. Earnings management during import relief investigations. Journal of Accounting Research 29(2): 193−228. doi: 10.2307/2491047
    [41]
    Kang, M., H-Y. Lee, M-G. Lee, and J. C. Park. 2014. The association between related-party transactions and control-ownership wedge: Evidence from Korea. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 29(1): 272−296.
    [42]
    King, B. F. 1966. Market and industry factors in stock price behavior. Journal of Business 39(1): 139−190.
    [43]
    Kohlbeck, M., and B. W. Mayhew. 2010. Valuation of firms that disclose related party transactions. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy 29(2): 115−137. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2009.10.006
    [44]
    Kohlbeck, M., and B. W. Mayhew. 2017. Are related party transactions red flags? Contemporary Accounting Research 34(2): 900−928. doi: 10.1111/1911-3846.12296
    [45]
    Li, B., S. Rajgopal, and M. Venkatachalam. 2014. R2 and idiosyncratic risk are not interchangeable. The Accounting Review 89(6): 2261−2295. doi: 10.2308/accr-50826
    [46]
    Marchini, P. L., T. Mazza, and A. Medioli. 2018. Related party transactions, corporate governance and earnings management. Corporate Governance 18(6): 1124−1146. doi: 10.1108/CG-11-2017-0271
    [47]
    Morck, R., B. Yeung, and W. Yu. 2000. The information content of stock market: Why do emerging markets have synchronous stock price movements? Journal of Financial Economics 58(1-2): 215−260. doi: 10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00071-4
    [48]
    Rahmat, M. M., B. Muniandy, and K. Ahmed. 2020. Do related party transactions affect earnings quality? Evidence from East Asia. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management 28(1): 147−166.
    [49]
    West, K. D. 1988. Dividend innovations and stock price volatility. Econometrica 56(1): 37−61. doi: 10.2307/1911841
    [50]
    Wong, R. M. K., J-B. Kim, and A. W. Y. Lo. 2015. Are related-party sales value-adding or value-destroying? Evidence from China. Journal of International Financial Management & Accounting 26(1): 1−38.
    • Relative Articles
    • Supplements(0)
    • Cited By

Catalog

    通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
    • 1. 

      沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

    1. 本站搜索
    2. 百度学术搜索
    3. 万方数据库搜索
    4. CNKI搜索

    Figures(1)  / Tables(12)

    Get Citation
    PDF
    XML
    Article views (826) PDF downloads(1007) Cited by()
    Proportional views
    Related
    Link 

    Copyright © 会计与经济研究备案序号: 沪ICP备09005481号-4

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return