Purpose – For Chinese companies that cross-list in Chinese A share and Hong Kong (H share) markets, the H share price has been consistently lower than the A share price by an average of 85% in recent years. This is puzzling because most institutional differences between the two markets have been eliminated since 2007. The purpose of this study is to explain the puzzle of the price difference of AþH companies. Design/methodology/approach – Using all A and H share Chinese firms in the period 2007–2013 and a simultaneous equations approach, this study identifies three new explanations for the recent price difference. Findings – First, utilizing a unique earning quality measure that is directly related to non-persistent components of fair value accounting under International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), this study finds that the lower the earnings quality, the lower the H share price relative to the A share price, and hence the greaterthe price difference. Second, the higherthe myopic investor ownership in A share firms, the largerthe A share price relative to the H share price. Third, the short-selling mechanism introduced to the A share market since 2010 helps reduce the price difference. Originality/value – First, this study identifies three new explanations for the puzzle of the AH price difference which remains substantial even afterthe institutional and accounting standards differences between the two markets were eliminated. Second, we examine the impact of the implementation of fair value accounting under IFRS in an emerging market on the pricing difference of cross-listed shares and reveal that it can induce an unintended negative consequence on the pricing difference of cross-listed shares. Third, this study contributes to the literature on short sales by providing its mitigating role in pricing differences across two different markets. Finally, this study makes improvements in research design, which utilizes a unique measure of earnings quality that is directly related to the implementation of IFRS and a simultaneous equations approach that minimizes endogeneity concern.

Using multiple short sale measures, we examine the predictive power of short sales for future stock returns in 38 countries from July 2006 to December 2014. We find that the days-to-cover ratio and the utilization ratio measures have the most robust predictive power for future stock returns in the global capital market. Our results display significant cross-country and cross-firm differences in the predictive power of alternative short sale measures. The predictive power of shorts is stronger in countries with non-prohibitive short sale regulations and for stocks with relatively low liquidity, high shorting fees, and low price efficiency.

China?s recent removal of short selling and margin trading bans on selected stocks enables testing of the relative effect of margin trading and short selling. We find the prices of the shortable stocks decrease, on average, relative to peer A-shares and cross-listed H-shares, suggesting that short selling dominates margin trading effects. However, there is negligible short sales activity and contrary to the regulators? intention, and recent empirical evidence, liquidity declines and bid-ask spreads increase in these shortable stocks. Consistent with Ausubel (1990), together these results imply uninformed-investors avoid these stocks to reduce the risk of trading with informed-investors.

The debate among various market partic-ipants on the short-selling of securities continues today. Opponents of short-selling argue that it disrupts orderly mar-kets by causing panic selling, high vola-tility, and market crashes. So this paper investigates what the impact of short sell-ing on the volatility and liquidity of Hong Kong stock market is, and the results in-dicate that short selling volumes do not Granger-cause market volatility, but volatility Granger-cause short selling volumes. Moreover Granger causality tests show that there is a double direc-tional causality relationship between short selling volumes and market liquidity.