LOG IN⠴ݱâ

  • ȸ¿ø´ÔÀÇ ¾ÆÀ̵ð¿Í Æнº¿öµå¸¦ ÀÔ·ÂÇØ ÁÖ¼¼¿ä.
  • ȸ¿øÀÌ ¾Æ´Ï½Ã¸é ¾Æ·¡ [ȸ¿ø°¡ÀÔ]À» ´­·¯ ȸ¿ø°¡ÀÔÀ» ÇØÁֽñ⠹ٶø´Ï´Ù.

¾ÆÀ̵ð ÀúÀå

   

¾ÆÀ̵ð Áߺ¹°Ë»ç⠴ݱâ

HONGGIDONG ˼
»ç¿ë °¡´ÉÇÑ È¸¿ø ¾ÆÀ̵ð ÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

E-mail Áߺ¹È®ÀÎ⠴ݱâ

honggildong@naver.com ˼
»ç¿ë °¡´ÉÇÑ E-mail ÁÖ¼Ò ÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

¿ìÆí¹øÈ£ °Ë»ö⠴ݱâ

°Ë»ö

SEARCH⠴ݱâ

ºñ¹Ð¹øÈ£ ã±â

¾ÆÀ̵ð

¼º¸í

E-mail

ÇмúÀÚ·á °Ë»ö

Stock prices of public firms and their spillovers on privately held companies : Evidence of negative externalities

  • Hee Jung Choi Korea University Business School (KUBS), Seoul, Korea
  • Dong Wook Lee Korea University Business School (KUBS), Seoul, Korea
Stock prices of publicly traded firms can affect the investment decisions of private firms in the same industry both beneficially?by providing relevant industry- and market-wide information? and detrimentally?by overwhelming private firm¡¯s own information set. Using data from Korea for the period of 2000-2013, we find evidence of negative externalities. Specifically, we find that the investment decisions of private firms are associated more with the relatively noisier KOSDAQ peer q-ratio than with the KOSPI peer q-ratio. Also, the relationship between private-firm investment and public-peer q is present regardless of the fundamental correlation between private firms and their public peers. The relationship is also more pronounced when private firms have negative cashflows. Further analysis indicates that the observed relationship between private-firm investment and public-peer q can hardly be consistent with private firms¡¯ rational learning.

  • Hee Jung Choi
  • Dong Wook Lee
Stock prices of publicly traded firms can affect the investment decisions of private firms in the same industry both beneficially?by providing relevant industry- and market-wide information? and detrimentally?by overwhelming private firm¡¯s own information set. Using data from Korea for the period of 2000-2013, we find evidence of negative externalities. Specifically, we find that the investment decisions of private firms are associated more with the relatively noisier KOSDAQ peer q-ratio than with the KOSPI peer q-ratio. Also, the relationship between private-firm investment and public-peer q is present regardless of the fundamental correlation between private firms and their public peers. The relationship is also more pronounced when private firms have negative cashflows. Further analysis indicates that the observed relationship between private-firm investment and public-peer q can hardly be consistent with private firms¡¯ rational learning.
Private firms,Public peers,Stock price,Industry,Externalities