nach oben

Journal of Financial Services Research

Erschienen in:

01.12.2007

Securities Transaction Tax and Market Efficiency: Evidence from the Japanese Experience

verfasst von: Shinhua Liu

Erschienen in: Journal of Financial Services Research | Ausgabe 3/2007

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This study examines the effect of transaction costs on the time series behavior of stock returns over a period surrounding the April 1989 changes in tax rates on securities transactions and capital gains in Japan. We find significant decreases in estimates of the first-order autocorrelation in returns for Japanese stocks listed in Japan, but no changes for Japanese stocks dually listed in the United States as American Depository Receipts (ADRs), which were not subject to the tax law change. We also find lower price basis between the ADRs and their underlying Japanese stocks. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that a reduction in transaction costs improves the efficiency of the price discovery process.

Vorheriger Artikel Trading Credit Default Swaps via Interdealer Brokers

Nächster Artikel Universal Banking, Conflicts of Interest and Firm Growth

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

An anonymous referee graciously suggested this rationale.

Another type of transaction cost comes in the form of bid–ask spread.

From “Is there any reason to keep transaction tax?” The Nikkei Weekly, March 28, 1992.

A potentially relevant factor is capital–loss deductibility. However, tax–loss deductibility in Japan, which allows for capital loss carryover for 3 years, was introduced only in calendar year 2003 (Proposed Reform to the Taxation of Capital Gain of Stocks, Ministry of Finance, Japan, October 30, 2001). Apparently, it is not applicable to our sample period.

The 1% flat transactions tax option for satisfying the capital gains tax was explained as equivalent to a 20% tax on a 5% capital gain. A quick check on the Bank of Japan website (Statistics section) reveals that, in fiscal year 1989, the official discount rate was 4.25 or 4.5%, depending on the collaterals pledged, and the prime lending rate stood at 5.75% for short-term loans and 6.5% for long-term loans. In view of these concurrent interest rates, it is quite conservative for the Japanese tax authorities to assume the 5% rate of capital gain in the tax code, considering the higher risks involved in equity investments.

From “Brokers hail securities transaction tax cut,” Jiji Press Ticker Service, December 15, 1995.

From Japanese Tax System (1998 edition) and “Government approves taxation system reform for FY ‘98,” Japan Economic Newswire, January 9, 1998.

From Japanese Tax System (1999 edition); FY 2003 Tax Reform (Main Points); “Government to bring forward commission decontrol to April,” Japan Economic Newswire, October 31, 1998; and “LDP panel wants securities transaction tax abolition in Jan.–April,” Jiji Press Ticker Service, December 14, 1998.

Effective on April 1, 1998, brokerage commission on trades over 50 million yen was deregulated, and corporate tax rate was lowered by 3%. Starting on April 1, 1999, corporate tax rate was reduced by 4.5%, and full deregulation of brokerage commission was scheduled to take effect, but delayed to October 1.

Trading shares were based on transactions on the First Section of the TSE for 1975–1980, and since 1981 on those on the First and Second Section of the TSE, as well as the Osaka and Nagoya Stock Exchanges.

See, among others, Ito and Iwaisako (1995) and Ito (2003) for discussions about the possible causes of the asset price bubble in Japan.

However, in most of the years, the estimated effective rates are somewhat higher than the official rates for some conceivable reasons. One clear reason is that the aggregate trading value excluded transaction values for foreign stocks listed and actively traded in Japan around the time, which were subject equally to the securities transaction tax. Another possible reason could be errors made in the bookkeeping, collection, aggregation, and reporting of the tax revenue and trading value. These factors may also help to account for the rate variations in the years (e.g., from 1982 through 1988) in between the official tax law changes.

Indeed, using the same test in the corresponding sample periods for the tax reforms in 1978, 1981, and 1996, we find no significant efficiency impact in the Japanese equity market. Furthermore, for the three STT increases in 1973, 1978, and 1981, we do not have an adequate control sample, given that there were very few Japanese ADRs around the changes. For the STT increase in 1973, we do not even have the necessary data for the treatment (Japanese) stocks, given the common base date of 01/01/1973 for Japan in the Datastream and PACAP (Pacific-Basin Capital Markets), the only databases for Japan employed in the finance literature.

Shrinking (extending) the sample period to 1 year (3 years) around the event day yields qualitatively similar results. Since the 1996 tax event is in between the two commission deregulations in April 1994 and April 1998, we tried only the shorter sample period to avoid potential contamination.

Empirical results are qualitatively invariant to the weighting scheme (equal or value weighting). Therefore, to save space, we report only results from the equally weighted portfolios in the paper.

The ADR returns are from the U.S. market, which lags the Japanese market. As such, we delay the event day (April 1, 1989) by one trading day, but find almost identical results, i.e., no efficiency changes occur to the ADRs around the tax reform. One could argue that some ADR volume might migrate to the home market following the event. This depends on if the transaction costs in Japan are lower than in the U.S. following the event. The lack of an efficiency effect on the ADRs does not seem to favor the migration argument.

The U.S. does not levy taxes on security transactions at the federal level. However, as discussed in Belkin (2003), the State of New York imposed a tax on sales of corporate stocks and certificates in 1905, shifted the tax to New York City in 1966, added a surcharge in 1975, and began phasing out the tax in 1978. The effective elimination of the stock transfer tax was completed in October 1981, at which time 100% of the tax was rebated to the payer. We are grateful to an anonymous referee for guiding us to this information.

Of course, cross-border arbitrage could indirectly affect the ADRs if the price discrepancies more than cover the arbitrage costs. Later, we show that the ADR portfolios are indeed unaffected, at least in terms of efficiency, by the tax reform in Japan.

Qualitatively similar correlations also obtain in the out-of-sample periods (1 to 3 years in both directions) around the sample period.

The only exception is the small-stock portfolio, TSESML, in the Pearson correlation.

Following Neumark et al. (1991, Panel B, Table VI), we regress the home-market (TSEALL) returns on the ADR returns while controlling for the host-market returns, and find the following results: \( {\text{TSEALL}} = 0.0003 + 0.5624 * {\text{ADR}} - 0.1616 * {\text{S\& P}}500 \), with the two-sided t-statistics for the two regressors being respectively 24.965 and −5.873, both significant at the 1% level, and the adj-R ² being 38.61%. The coefficient estimate for the ADR in this alternative equation is very close to that for the TSEALL in Eq. (1), suggesting a positive and significant correlation between the control and treatment portfolio return.

To further check the robustness of our findings, we conduct the same tests using a hypothetical event day of April 1 in sample periods of similar lengths both before and after the real event day, April 1, 1989, but find no significant changes in first-order autocorrelation in either the control or the treatment portfolios. This exercise lends support to the efficiency effects of the tax reform.

The daily price volatility is calculated as the intra-daily high–low price ratio in logarithm, i.e., ln(p ^h/p ^l), where p ^h and p ^l stand respectively for the intra-day high price and low price, as discussed in more detail in Parkinson (1980).

The rate of increase in raw trading value was about 26% in terms of the daily trading value per firm in the two post-event years (1,147 million yen) over that in the two prior years (911 million yen), without adjusting for the concurrent inflations rates.

The rate of decrease in the STT revenue was about 49.11% in terms of the average total STT revenue in the 2 years after the tax reform (990.5 billion yen) over that in the 2 years before the event (1,946.5 billion yen), even without taking into account the contemporary inflation rates.

An anonymous referee kindly suggested to us this supplemental investigation.

Using stocks in the TSEALL portfolio (covering all TSE stocks with continuous data in the sample period) and its three size-based sub-portfolios in the same 4-year sample period confirms the positive price effect of the tax event in the Japanese equity market. For instance, the average price for stocks in the TSEALL increased by about 20% (from ¥1,452 in the two prior years to ¥1,741 in the two post-event years).

The switching regression model is equivalent to the mean-adjusted event study method, an arguably more appropriate one than the market-adjusted methods when investigating a marketwide event such as the tax changes in question. Brown and Warner (1980) explore these conventional event-study methods.

We also try to estimate the price basis effect as the cross-sectional average of the changes in the firm-specific price basis around the event, and find almost identical results. The choice of closing and opening prices in Eq. 4 is dictated by the fact that trading in Japan precedes that in the U.S. We also test with closing prices for the ADRs, but find no material difference in results.

Anonymous, Is there any reason to keep transaction tax? The Nikkei Weekly, p. 14, March 28, 1992

Anonymous, Brokers hail securities transaction tax cut, Jiji Press Ticker Service, December 15, 1995

Anonymous, Government approves taxation system reform for FY ’98, Japan Economic Newswire, January 9, 1998

Anonymous, Government to bring forward commission decontrol to April, Japan Economic Newswire, October 31, 1998

Anonymous, LDP panel wants securities transaction tax abolished in Jan.–April, Jiji Press Ticker Service, December 14, 1998

Barberis N, Thaler R (2001) A survey of behavioral finance, Working paper, University of Chicago

Belkin D (2003) Revising the New York stock transfer tax: revenues and risks, Background Paper, New York City Independent Budget Office

Brown S, Warner J (1980) Measuring security price performance. J Financ Econ 8:205–258CrossRef

Chou R, Wang G (2006) Transaction tax and market quality of the Taiwan stock index Futures. J Futures Mark 26:1195–1216CrossRef

Eun C, Sabherwal S (2003) Cross-border listings and price discovery: evidence from U.S.-listed Canadian stocks. J Finance 58:549–575CrossRef

Fama E (1970) Efficient capital markets: a review of theory and empirical work. J Finance 25:383–417CrossRef

Fama E (1991) Efficient capital markets: II. J Finance 46:1575–1617CrossRef

Froot K, Perold A (1995) New trading practices and short-run market efficiency. J Futures Mark 15:731–765CrossRef

Grossman S, Stiglitz J (1980) On the impossibility of informationally efficient markets. Am Econ Rev 70:393–408

Hu S (1998) The effects of the stock transaction tax on the stock market—Experiences from the Asian markets. Pac Basin Finance J 6:347–364CrossRef

Ito T (2003) Retrospective on the bubble period and its relationship to developments in the 1990s. World Econ 26:283–300CrossRef

Ito T, Iwaisako T (1995) Explaining asset bubbles in Japan, NBER Working Paper No. W5358

Jensen M (1978) Some anomalous evidence regarding market efficiency. J Financ Econ 6:95–101CrossRef

Kupiec P (1995) A securities transactions tax and capital market efficiency. Contemp Econ Policy 13:101–112CrossRef

Kupiec P (1996) Noise traders, excess volatility, and a securities transaction tax. J Financ Serv Res 10:115–129CrossRef

Lo A, MacKinlay C (1988) Stock market prices do not follow random walks: evidence from a simple specification test. Rev Financ Stud 1:41–66CrossRef

Lo A, Mamaysky H, Wang J (2004) Asset prices and trading volume under fixed transactions costs. J Polit Econ 112:1054–1091CrossRef

Ministry of Finance, Japan, Japanese Tax System [1998 Edition] and [1999 Edition]

Ministry of Finance, Japan, Proposed Reform to the Taxation of Capital Gain of Stocks (Main Points), October 30, 2001

Ministry of Finance, Japan, FY 2003 Tax Reform (Main Points), December 19, 2002

Neumark D, Tinsley P, Tosini S (1991) After-hours stock prices and post-crash Hangovers. J Finance 46:159–178CrossRef

Parkinson M (1980) The extreme value method for estimating the variance of the rate of return. J Bus 53:61–66CrossRef

Tokyo Stock Exchange (1989) Fact Book

Tokyo Stock Exchange (1990) Fact Book

Tokyo Stock Exchange (2004) Fact Book

Umlauf S (1993) Transaction taxes and the behavior of the Swedish stock market. J Financ Econ 33:227–240CrossRef

Titel: Securities Transaction Tax and Market Efficiency: Evidence from the Japanese Experience
verfasst von: Shinhua Liu
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2007
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Financial Services Research / Ausgabe 3/2007
Print ISSN: 0920-8550
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0735
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10693-007-0018-z