Fund Network Centrality and Stock Price Informativeness: A Mechanism Study Based on Information Transmission and Governance Effects

Main Article Content

Yuxi Li

Keywords

fund network centrality, stock price informativeness, stock price synchronicity, social network analysis, information transmission

Abstract

Using Chinese A-share listed companies from 2014 to 2024 as the sample, this paper constructs a mutual shareholding network of public mutual funds based on complex network theory. It employs social network analysis to measure fund network centrality and empirically examines its impact on stock price informativeness as well as the underlying mechanisms. The results show that fund network centrality significantly reduces stock price informativeness: higher network centrality is associated with stronger stock price synchronicity and lower efficiency in incorporating firm-specific information into prices. This conclusion remains robust after a series of robustness checks, including lagging the explanatory variable by one period, propensity score matching, and excluding special years. Heterogeneity analysis reveals that the negative effect is more pronounced in small-scale firms and in regions with lower levels of marketization, indicating that weaker information environments amplify homogeneous trading behavior among networked institutions. Mechanism analysis explores two potential channels of influence: first, the “information crowding-out” channel, whereby fund network centrality may weaken analysts’ incentives for information discovery and firm monitoring; second, the “agency cost” channel, whereby network centrality may increase the likelihood of collusion between management and institutional investors, thereby raising agency costs and suppressing the release of firm-specific information. This study extends the research framework on capital market pricing efficiency from a micro-network perspective and provides policy implications for regulators to identify and mitigate market risks arising from coordinated institutional behavior.

Abstract 13 | PDF Downloads 10

References

  • [1] Morck, R., Yeung, B., & Yu, W. (2000). The information content of stock markets: Why do emerging markets have synchronous stock price movements? Journal of Financial Economics, 58(1–2), 215–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-405X(00)00078-7.
  • [2] Pareek, A. (2012). Information networks: Implications for mutual fund trading behavior and stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 105(2), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.02.009.
  • [3] Ozsoylev, H. N., Walden, J., Yavuz, M. D., & Bildik, R. (2014). Investor networks in the stock market. Review of Financial Studies, 27(5), 1323–1366. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hht091.
  • [4] Roll, R. (1988). R². The Journal of Finance, 43(3), 541–566. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1988.tb02681.x.
  • [5] Cohen, L., Frazzini, A., & Malloy, C. (2008). The small world of investing: Board connections and mutual fund returns. Journal of Political Economy, 116(5), 951–979. https://doi.org/10.1086/591273.
  • [6] Hutton, A. P., Marcus, A. J., & Tehranian, H. (2009). Opaque financial reports, R², and crash risk. Journal of Financial Economics, 94(1), 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2008.10.003.
  • [7] Jin, L., & Myers, S. C. (2006). R² around the world: New theory and new tests. Journal of Financial Economics, 79(2), 257–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2005.03.008
  • [8] Chen, K., & Liu, Q. (2018). Stock price informativeness and investment-price sensitivity: A quasi-natural experiment based on margin trading. Journal of Financial Research, (9), 126–142. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-7246.2018.09.009.
  • [9] Xu, N. X., Yu, S. Y., & Yi, Z. H. (2013). Institutional investor herding behavior and stock price crash risk. Management World, (7), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-5502.2013.07.003.
  • [10] Wang, Y. P., Liu, H. L., & Wu, L. S. (2009). Information transparency, institutional investors, and stock price synchronicity. Journal of Financial Research, (12), 162–174. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-7246.2009.12.011.
  • [11] Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7
  • [12] Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
  • [13] Jiang, F., Kim, K. A., Nofsinger, J. R., & Zhu, B. (2015). A pecking order of trading by institutional investors: Evidence from the Chinese stock market. Journal of Financial Stability, 21, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2015.04.006
  • [14] Piotroski, J. D., & Roulstone, D. T. (2004). The influence of analysts, institutional investors, and insiders on the incorporation of market, industry, and firm-specific information into stock prices. The Accounting Review, 79(4), 1119–1151. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2004.79.4.1119
  • [15] Wen, Z. L., & Ye, B. J. (2014). Mediation effect analysis: Methods and model development. Advances in Psychological Science, 22(5), 731–745. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1042.2014.00731.