Investor Clienteles and Asset Pricing Anomalies *
|
|
- Primrose Whitehead
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Investor Clienteles and Asset Pricing Anomalies * David Lesmond Mihail Velikov November 6, 2015 PRELIMINARY DRAFT: DO NOT CITE OR CIRCULATE Abstract This paper shows that the profitability of anomaly trading strategies is strongly concentrated among stocks which have the highest concentration of 500- and 1000-share trade size clusters. Value-weighted decile long-short anomaly strategies executed in the high 500- or high 1000-shares trade size frequency terciles generate average gross returns, net returns, and alphas that are over two times higher than the equivalent for strategies executed in the low 500- or low 1000-shares trade size frequency terciles. Conversely, the concentration of 100-share trades does not help improve the performance of anomaly trading strategies. We argue that this finding is consistent with the existence of trade clienteles where informed traders congregate in the 500- or 1000-share trade clusters compared to the relatively uninformed traders who congregate in the 100-share trade size clusters. JEL classification: G11, G12, E52. Keywords: Asset Pricing, Anomalies, Trade Clusters, Market Microstructure, Return Predictability *The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond or the Federal Reserve System. We thank James Weston for discussions and comments. All mistakes are ours alone. Freeman School of Business, Tulane University, M136 Goldring/Woldenberg Hall II, New Orleans, LA dlesmond@tulane.edu. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 502 S Sharp St, Baltimore, MD mihail.velikov@rich.frb.org.
2 1 Introduction Academic researchers have documented dozens of cross-sectional anomalies" and have used them as examples of violations of both weak-form and semi-strong form of market efficiency. As a result, a host of papers have attempted to either identify the source of the price inefficiency through behavioral arguments, such as Lee and Swaminathan (2000) and Hvidkjaer (2008), or to explain the persistence of anomalies through trading costs, such as Lesmond et al. (2004) and, more recently, Novy-Marx and Velikov (2014). But little research has been devoted to analyzing if there are identifiable clienteles that actively trade anomalies and whether these clienteles, if identified, systematically trade in the same universe of stocks. The identification of trade clienteles that actively engage in investing in anomalies can aid in better understanding the trading mechanisms through which anomalies occur. In this study, we categorize investor clienteles as those trades that are clustered at 100-, 500-, or 1000-share sizes and we asses whether there is a distinctive trading pattern specific for each trade size cluster across the 23 anomaly trading strategies from Novy-Marx and Velikov (2014). We show that the profitability of anomaly trading strategies is strongly concentrated among stocks which have the highest concentration of 500- and 1000-share size trades. Valueweighted decile long-short anomaly strategies executed in the high 500- or high 1000-shares trade size frequency terciles generate average returns that are an order of magnitude higher than the equivalent strategies executed in the low 500- or low 1000-shares trade size frequency terciles. The opposite holds for conditional double sorts on the 100-share trade size frequencies and the anomaly signals. Across the low- and medium-turnover anomalies, portfolios dominated by 500- or 1000-share trade clusters earn a robust and significant alpha of more than 1% per month, more than double the ones from portfolios dominated by 100-share trade clusters, regardless of the anomaly. We argue that this finding is consistent with the existence of trade 1
3 clienteles where informed traders congregate in the 500 or 1000-share trade clusters compared to the relatively uninformed traders who congregate in the 100-share trade size clusters. Trade size has been examined by Barclay and Warner (1993) who argue that trade sizes from 500 shares to 9,900 shares per trade contain more value relevant information than do smaller trade sizes. Hasbrouck (1995) and Chakravarty (2001) document the presence of stealth trading by institutional investors and show that medium-sized trades (defined as trades between 501 and 9,900 shares) tend to have a disproportionately greater aggregate price impact that is attributable to informed traders disguising at least some of their trades. Keim and Madhavan (1995) provide empirical evidence that institutions often break up their orders into discrete trade sizes and fill them over time and Chordia and Subrahmanyam (2004) model conditions in which traders find it optimal to break up their orders to minimize price impact. Battalio and Mendenhall (2005) uses the 500-share trade size as a minimum delineation for more informed trades and contend that trade sizes of 100 to 400 correspond to the trading interests of less informed traders. Alexander and Peterson (2007) find that 500 and 1000 share trade size clusters do indeed experience higher price impact costs consistent with informed trading. In addition, they argue that these trade size clusters may naturally arise because large orders 1 are likely broken down into smaller medium size trades, resulting in trade clusters are 500 and 1000-shares. Given the potential that 500 and 1000-share trade size clusters evidence more informed trade, it is an empirical question whether they are useful in predicting future returns. We explicitly study whether trade size clusters are predictive of the returns accruing to a wide range of anomalies identified in the literature. Previous studies have typically focused on a single anomaly at a time. As noted previously, Hvidkjaer (2008) or Lesmond et al. (2004) study only the momentum anomaly without regard to the vast number of other anomalies that have been identified in the literature. The work 1 Since large orders are likely to involve informed institutions, given the analysis of Hasbrouck (1991) and Chakravarty (2001), the subsequent medium-sized rounded trades are more likely to be information-based. 2
4 of Novy-Marx and Velikov (2014) is more expansive, but they focus on the importance of transaction costs in evaluating the profitability of the anomaly strategies. We take a far different stance, by showing that specific investor clienteles congregate in certain trade size clusters. Consistent with Alexander and Peterson (2007), we attempt to show that there is a commonality in the trading of these anomalies as seen through trade size clusters. Our argument is that these trade size clusters can delineate informed from uninformed trading and, thus, sorting by the frequency of trades occurring at the clusters first should produce a sort in the profitability of the anomalies. Easley and O Hara (1987) theorize that trade size matters because it is correlated with private information about the security s true value. What is relevant for asset pricing is not the number of informed trades, but rather the fraction of trades that come from informed traders. In their model, based on an exogenous signal, large trade sizes (principally block trades) matter because they change the perception of the value of a security. Yet much of the literature is focused on small trades that presumably reflect retail or uninformed trades. Lee (1992) and Battalio and Mendenhall (2005) note the importance of small trades in predicting future returns of post-earnings announcement drift strategies. Hvidkjaer (2006) argues that large trades show no evidence of underreaction, and large trade imbalances have little impact on subsequent returns, concluding that the results suggest that momentum could partly be driven by the behavior of small traders. Our results suggest that trade size clusters are more important in understanding the sources and profits than simply focusing on the behavior of retail or uninformed traders. We rely on the findings Alexander and Peterson (2007) who note that trades cluster at 100-, 500-, and 1000-shares, where, in particular, the 500- and 1000-share trades are representative of informed trading. We sum all 100-, 500-, and 1000-share trades for each firm each day and then divide by the total number of trades each day and then average this ratio over the month. We first sort portfolios into terciles based on each trade size frequency (cluster) and 3
5 then according to deciles based on an anomaly signal. For the low- and medium-turnover anomalies, we show clear monotonicity of the average returns of the anomaly strategies with trade size frequency of 500- and 1000-share sizes. In other words, portfolios that experience the largest concentration of 500 or 1000-share trades earn an order of magnitude higher average returns than do portfolios that are avoided by these traders. The alphas accruing to the highest concentration of larger trade clusters are substantial, often exceeding 1% per month, while the alpha for the portfolio avoided by the 500- and 1000-share trades earns less than half of their counterparts. Conversely, there is little differentiation between the portfolios dominated and avoided by the 100-share traders indicating little informativeness in the 100-share trade clusters. We note that since 2000 decimalization of stock quotes and the advent of high-frequency trading have significantly affected trading behavior, resulting in a vast increase (decrease) in the number of 100-share (500-share) trades. We use this exogenous shock as a control for the informativeness of larger trade clusters. We do not find a decrease in the performance of the hedged 500 and 1000-share portfolios, rather we find that the monotonicity across trade size portfolios for the 500 and 1000-share size trades remains and surprisingly, the profitability of the accruing to the highest concentrations of 500 and 1000-share trade size cluster portfolios is only strengthened. This is particularly evident for the low-turnover anomalies where the alphas in the pre-decimalization period are approximately 0.5% per month, while the alphas in the post-decimalization period are approximately 0.75% per month. We show that investor clienteles exist and can be identified on the basis of trade size clusters where the most informative trade size clusters are delineated by 500- and 1000-share trades. We show that anomaly strategies executed among stocks associated with the informed traders clientele perform significantly better than strategies executed in the universe of stocks dominated by less informed traders. This is the first paper to comprehensively analyze a wide variety 4
6 of anomalies for a common indicator that points to informed trading. Although our study is in very preliminary stages, it has the potential to contribute to several different strands of the literature. In the next draft of this study, we plan to... 2 Trade Size and Firm Attribute Controls The sample includes all ordinary common stocks listed on the NYSE and the American Stock Exchange (AMEX) in the period January 1983 through December Transactions data on NASDAQ stocks became available in January 1987, hence those stocks are included in the sample from that time on. Real estate investment trusts, stocks of companies incorporated outside the U.S., and closed-end funds are eliminated from the sample. Return data and unsigned share volume data are from the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) files. Transactions data are obtained from the Institute for the Study of Security Markets (ISSM) and the Trade And Quote (TAQ) data sets. The ISSM data set includes all trades for stocks listed on NYSE/AMEX from 1983 to 1992 and on NASDAQ from 1987 to 1992, while TAQ covers 1993 to present for all exchanges. Trades with irregular terms are excluded and trades are run through a simple price-based error filter to exclude likely erroneous prices. We only focus on the trades database for both ISSM and TAQ negating the need to match the trade with the prevailing quote due to our focus on trade size. We do utilize the quote database to calculate the bid-ask spread applicable to the closing price to estimate the costs of implementing the trade. The trade size frequency variables are the sum of 100-share (T100), 500-share (T500), and 1000-share (T1000) trades over a month divided by the total number of trades that month to derive monthly firm-level frequencies within each trade size category. We also analyze trade size increments between 100 and 500 shares, and between 500 and 1000 shares, between
7 and 5000, 5000-share trades, and greater than 5000 share trades. 2.1 Trade Size Clusters over Time Figure 1 plots the monthly cross-sectional means across firms for trade size frequency variables over time. We can observe that following 2000 the pattern in trading changed dramatically. The share of trades executed in 100-share sizes increased from about 20% in 1999 to over 70% by the end of On the other hand, the average 500- and 1000-share frequencies dropped from over 10% in 1999 to under 3% in This regime shift coincides with the decimalization in stock quotes. The NYSE Fact book reports statistics showing average trade sizes falling dramatically after stock decimalization. The average trade size in 1999 for NYSE-listed firms was 1,205 shares per trade. After decimalization in 2004, the average trade size was significantly reduced to just over 390 shares per trade. In 2010, the average trade size had dwindled to 220 shares per trade and in 2014 the average trade size was approximately 140 shares per trade. In section 3.2 we will explicitly consider how this regime shift affects our results by splitting our sample into pre- and post-decimalization periods. Similarly, figure 2 plots the monthly cross-sectional mean, 30 th, and 70 th percentiles across firms for the trade sizes frequency variables over time. We can observe that the distance between the percentile bounds and means over time, but the percentiles exhibit similar temporal temporal trends. 2.2 Determinants of Trade Size Clusters Next, we focus on the determinants of the trade size frequency variables. Table 1 reports results from monthly Fama-MacBeth cross-sectional regressions of the trade size frequency 6
8 variables on firm characteristics. Specifications (1) - (3) use T100 as the dependent variable, specifications (4) - (6) use T500 as the dependent variable, and specifications (7) - (9) use T1000 as the dependent variables. We can observe that all three trade size frequency variables are persistent. The coefficients on the lagged trade size frequency variables are high and statistically significant in all specifications, even after controlling for firm characteristics related to liquidity. Moreover, the average cross-sectional R 2 in specification (1), for example, is 0.57, while the corresponding number for specification (2) is In other words, firm characteristics, including size, bookto-market, Amihud s illiquidity, and transaction costs do not have much power in explaining the cross-sectional variation in the trade frequencies. It should be noted that even though some of the t-statistics, such as the one on log(prc) in specification (2), are high and statistically significant at conventional levels, the persistent nature of the dependent variable makes them overstated, in spite of the Newey-West correction. The lack of correlation with commonly employed characteristics is important, since we argue that the variables of interest in this study proxy for different investor clienteles, which cannot be captured through conventional variables. 3 Anomalies within Trade Size Clusters In this section we discuss the performance of anomaly trading strategies within trade size clusters. In section 3.1 we present the main results of study, which include conditional double sorts on the three trade size frequency variables (T100, T500, and T1000) and anomaly signals. We show that the profitability of the anomaly trading strategies is strongly concentrated among the high T500 and T1000 terciles. In section 3.2, we address the issue of the dramatic regime shift in trading following the decimalization of U.S. equity market in We show that the 7
9 results holds across both pre- and post-decimalization samples. Finally, in section 3.3 we show that the results also hold when we evaluate the average strategy returns net of transaction costs. Moreover, we confirm the findings of Novy-Marx and Velikov (2014) that the high-turnover anomalies do not exhibit significant profits. All tests use the 23 anomalies from Novy-Marx and Velikov (2014). Unless otherwise noted, all strategies consist of a time-series of value-weighted returns on a long/short selffinancing portfolio, constructed using a decile sort on an anomaly signal. Table 2 documents the anomalies and provides brief descriptions of the signals used for sorting, the rebalancing frequencies, and the appropriate references. For further details on the construction, see Novy- Marx and Velikov (2014) or the relevant references. Novy-Marx and Velikov (2014) establish a taxonomy of anomalies in the cross section of stock returns. They divide trading strategies into three groups, low-, mid-, and high-turnover strategies, corresponding roughly to strategies where each of the long and short side on average turn over less than once per year, between one and five times per year, and more than five times per year, respectively. They note that the strategies exploiting the three different groups of anomalies exhibit different transactions costs. Since transaction costs can impact the different investor clienteles differently, we also look at the anomalies by the three turnover groups. 3.1 Main Results In this section we present the main results of this study. Table 3 reports conditional double sorts o the n trade size frequency variables and an anomaly signal. In each month, stocks are first sorted into terciles based on one of the three trade size frequency variables (T100, T500, or T1000). Then, within each tercile, stocks are sorted into deciles based on an anomaly signal. For each double sort, within each trading size frequency tercile, the table reports the average return [t-stat] of the long-short decile value-weighted anomaly portfolio. Panels A, B, and C 8
10 report results for the low-, mid-, and high-turnover anomalies, respectively. Here, we focus on the full time period, which is 01/1983 to 12/2013. We can observe that across the low- and mid-turnover anomalies (Panels A and B), the strategies executed in the high T500 and T1000 terciles earn average returns that are significantly higher than the strategies executed in the low T500 and T1000 terciles. For example, a decile value-weighted ValMomProf strategy, executed in the high T500 tercile generates a staggering 1.99% per month with a t-statistic of The corresponding number for the low T100 tercile is 0.77 with a t-statistic of This pattern holds consistently across all 17 lowand medium-turnover strategies. Across these, the average returns in the high T500 tercile are, on average, over 2.2 times as large as the average returns for the low T500 tercile. The corresponding number for the T1000 sorts is 2.3. Moreover, across almost all the low- and medium-turnover anomalies, there seems to be a monotonically increasing pattern in the average anomaly strategy returns across the terciles. For example, the average returns (t-stats) to the Net Issuance (M) anomaly strategy are 0.58 (3.33), 0.82 (3.43), and 1.17 (3.60) for the low, mid, and high T500 terciles, respectively. Similarly, the average returns (t-stats) to the Net Issuance (M) anomaly strategy are 0.63 (3.69), 0.88 (4.28), and 1.06 (3.95) for the low, mid, and high T1000 terciles, respectively. On the other hand, the T100 sorts do not exhibit similar patterns. In fact, they contain the opposite pattern, where the anomaly strategies executed in the low T100 terciles exhibit slightly higher returns than the strategies executed in the high T100 universe. This is not surprisingly since T100 is mechanically negatively correlated with T500 and with T1000. If a stock s frequency of trades in 100-share sizes is high, it is likely that its frequencies of 500- and 1000-share sizes are low. In untabulated results which will be included in the next draft of the study we show that the predictive power of trade clustering on anomaly profits stems entirely from the 500- and 1000-share frequencies. On the other hand, clustering around 100 9
11 shares does not seem to predict anomaly profitability. These results are consistent with the notion of existence of investor clienteles. If, as argued by previous literature, informed traders cluster around medium trade share sizes, such as 500 and 1000, and they trade on and profit from these anomalies, we should expect to see precisely the results documented in table 3. Namely, the anomaly strategies, when executed in the universe of stocks where we expect to see more informed traders, perform better. Figures 3-5 are a graphical depiction of the results in table 3. Figure 3 plots the average returns for the anomaly strategies across the T100 terciles, while figures 4 and 5 do the same for the T500 and T1000 terciles, respectively. In all figures, panels (a) and (b) focus on the low- and mid-turnover anomalies, respectively. It is pretty clear from figures 4 and 5 that the low- and mid-turnover anomaly strategies earn significantly higher returns when executed in the univers of stocks where we hypothesize that informed investors focus on. Tables 4 provides an alternative test for the results obtained in table 3 and figures 3-5. It reports results from monthly Fama-MacBeth cross-sectional regressions of returns on anomaly signals, trade size frequency variables and interaction terms. The regressions are estimated separately for each anomaly. Panels A, B, and C report results for the low-, mid-, and highturnover anomalies, respectively. The first column presents results for regressions of the form r tj = α + βx tj + ε tj, where x tj that is an anomaly characteristic signed to predict returns positively. For example, for the Investment anomaly, x tj is the negative of the sum of the changes in plant property and equipment and inventories. All regressions include intercept terms, but their estimates are omitted for expositional purposes. We can observe that, with the exception of Size and, to an extent, Piotroski s F-score, all anomaly characteristics significantly predict returns in the cross section. The rest of columns, however, include our variables of interest, as well as interaction terms 10
12 between the trade size frequency variables and the anomaly characteristics. They take the following form: r tj = α + β 1 x tj + β 2 T X tj + β 3 x tj T X tj + ε tj, where x tj is again an anomaly characteristic and T X tj is T 100 tj in columns (2)-(4), T 500 tj in columns (5)-(7), and T 1000 tj in columns (8)-(10). According to our hypothesis we expect to see positive and statistically significant coefficients β 3 on the interaction terms for the T500 and T1000 specifications. We can observe that, in panels A and B, with the exception of the coefficient in the regressions that includes the Size anomaly characteristic, all other estimated coefficients on the interaction terms for the T500 and T1000 specifications are positive and almost all of them are significant. For example, the estimate for beta 3 in panel B for the T500 specification strategy is 8.24 with a t-statistic of On the other hand, for the T100 specification, the interaction terms are mostly negative and far fewer are significant. This corroborates our earlier results from table 3 and figures 3-5 and effectively serves as a robustness test. 3.2 Results Pre- and Post-Decimalization As noted in section 2.1, there has been a dramatic regime shift in trading behavior since the late 90 s primarily due to the decimalization and the increase in high-frequency trading activity. With the advancements in algorithmic trading, it has become increasingly easier for traders to break down their orders into smaller and smaller sizes, which is also evident in the timeseries behavior of our main variables of interest. A natural concern then, is that our results are primarily driven by what happened before We alleviate these concerns in this section. Figures 6-8 repeat the analysis in figures 3-5 by breaking down the sample into two 11
13 subperiods. Panels (a), (c), and (e) restrict the sample to the period and report results for low-, mid-, and high-turnover anomaly strategies, respectively. Similarly, panels (b), (d), and (f) focus on the period and report results for low-, mid-, and highturnover anomaly strategies, respectively. Figures 4 and 5 clearly demonstrate that our main results hold for both samples. Although there have been some shifts in the overall profitability of some of the strategies (such as most of the high-turnover ones for example), the monotonic increase in the strategy profitability across the T500 and T1000 terciles is just as evident in the latter sample as in the earlier. In fact, in figure 4 the Net Issuance (M) anomaly strategy has more pronounced differences in the latter sample. Thus, it appears that as long as there is some trading done in higher clusters (500 or 1000), we can infer something about the profitability of anomaly trading strategies. 3.3 Results Net of Transaction Costs So far in the analysis we have ignored the fact that the patterns observed across the T500 and T1000 terciles don t hold for the high-turnover anomalies as they do for the low- and midturnover anomalies. In this section we show why this is the case. Novy-Marx and Velikov (2014) show that transaction costs eat out the profits from trading high-turnover anomalies and we confirm their finding here. Figures 9-11 repeat the analysis in figures 3-5 by documenting the average returns to the strategies net of transaction costs. The transaction cost estimation follows Novy-Marx and Velikov (2014). We can observe that none of the high-turnover anomalies seems to exhibit significantly positive returns. Thus, it is no surprise that the patterns observed for low- and mid-turnover anomalies don t hold. If our hypothesis of trade clienteles is correct, then it is no surprise that they don t trade these strategies, since they are not profitable. 12
14 4 Conclusions We show that trade size clusters are an important determinant in the pricing of anomalies. We consider the effect of trade size clusters across 23 anomalies and find that 500 and 1000-share trade size clusters delineate more informed trading than do 100-share size trade clusters. Portfolios dominated by 5000 (1000) share trade size clusters outperform by 100% those those that show little concentration in these trade sizes. Across the low and medium-turnover anomalies, we see increasing performance as evidenced in either returns or alphas moving from low to high concentrations of 500 (1000) share trade cluster portfolios. The 100-share size trade cluster portfolios experience a decreasing performance moving from low to high concentrations indicating the uninformativeness of small trade size clusters. The large trade size cluster results are robust to the portfolio formation techniques that focus on pre and post-decimalization and whether the returns are robust to transaction costs. Large trade portfolios continue to earn significant returns in post decimalization period, but the profitability is confined to the low and medium turnover anomalies. Traders concentrating in these portfolios appear to act strategically by focusing on anomalies that are require less frequent trading adding to the literature on stealth trading. This paper attempts to expand upon the research that explores trade size, but we are distinctive in that we combine two separate strains of literature that have been previously explored separately. This include the retail trade literature that requires separate buy and sell volume and is behaviorally based and an older literature that explores the pricing of more informed trades. We combine these two separate literature streams into one picture showing the importance of both categories of trade size and in particular trade size clusters at 500 and 1000-shares. The main features of this path is the ease in implementation and the sheer significance of the results. We view these results as fundamental to better understanding the aspects of asset pricing 13
15 that previously have been only considered as either behavioral in nature or that to be used in conjunction with an information event. We show that trade size clusters are critically important in determining the source of profits across the most prominent anomalies used in the literature 14
16 References Alexander, G., Peterson, M An analysis of trade-size clustering and its relation to stealth trading. Journal of Financial Economics. Amihud, Y Illiquidity and stock returns: Cross-section and timeseries effects. Journal of Financial Markets, 5, Ang, A., Hodrick, R. J., Xing, Y., Zhang, X The cross-section of volatility and expected returns. Journal of Finance, 61, Barclay, M., Warner, J Stealth trading and volatility. Journal of Financial Economics, 34, Battalio, R. H., Mendenhall, R. R Earnings expectations, investor trade size, and anomalous returns around earnings announcements. Journal of Financial Economics, 77, Brandt, M. W., Kishore, R., Santa-Clara, P., Venkatachalam, M Earnings announcements are full of surprises. Working paper. Campbell, J. Y., Hilscher, J., Szilagyi, J In search of distress risk. Journal of Finance, 63, Chakravarty, S Stealth-trading: Which traders trades move stock prices?. Journal of Financial Economics, 61, Chen, L., Novy-Marx, R., Zhang, L An alternative three-factor model. Working paper. Chordia, T., Subrahmanyam, A Order imbalance and individual stock returns: Theory and evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 72,
17 Cooper, M. J., Gulen, H., Schill, M. J Asset growth and the cross-section of stock returns. Journal of Finance, 63, Da, Z., Liu, Q., Schaumurg, E A closer look at the short-term reversal. Management Science, 60, Easley, D., O Hara, M Price, trade size, and information in security markets. Journal of Financial Economics, 19, Fama, E. F., French, K. R Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics, 33, Fama, E. F., French, K. R Dissecting anomalies. Journal of Finance, 63, Foster, G., Olsen, C., Shevlin, T Earnings releases, anomalies, and the behavior of security returns. The Accounting Review, 59, Hasbrouck, J Measuring the Information Content of Stock Trades. The Journal of Finance, XLVI, Hasbrouck, J One Security, Many Markets: Determining the Contributions to Price Discovery. The Journal of Finance, 50, Hasbrouck, J Trading costs and returns for U.S. equities: estimating effective costs from daily data. Journal of Finance, 64, Heston, S. L., Sadka, R Seasonality in the cross-section of stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 87, Hvidkjaer, S A trade-based analysis of momentum. Review of Financial Studies, 19,
18 Hvidkjaer, S Small trades and the cross-section of stock returns. Review of Financial Studies, 21(3), Jegadeesh, N., Titman, S Returns to buying winners and selling losers: implications for stock market efficiency. Journal of Finance, 48, Keim, D., Madhavan, A Anatomy of the trading process empirical evidence on the behavior of institutional traders,. Journal of Financial, 37, Lee, C. M. C., Swaminathan, B Price Momentum and Trading Volume. Journal of Finance, 55, Lee, C. M Earnings news and small traders. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 15, Lesmond, D. A., Schill, M. J., Zhou, C The illusory nature of momentum profits. Journal of financial economics, 71, Lyandres, E., Sun, L., Zhang, L Investment-based underperformance following seasoned equity offerings. Review of Financial Studies, 21, Moskowitz, T., Grinblatt, M Do industries explain momenum? Journal of Finance, 54, Novy-Marx, R The other side of value: The gross profitability premium. Journal of Financial Economics, 108, Novy-Marx, R The quality dimension of value investing. Working paper. Novy-Marx, R., Velikov, M A Taxonomy of Anomalies and their Trading Costs. NBER Working Paper No
19 Piotroski, J Value investing: the use of historical financial statement information to separate winners from losers. Journal of Accounting Research, 38, Sloan, R. G Do stock prices fully reflect information in accruals and cash flows about future earnings? The Accounting Review, 71,
20 19 Figure 1: Average trade size frequencies over time. For each stock, for each month, T100, T500, and T1000 are the frequencies of trades that occur in 100-, 500-, and 1000-share sizes, respectively. T is the frequency of trades that occur in share sizes between 100 and 500. The figure plots the monthly cross-sectional mean across firms for the four trade sizes frequency variables over time.
21 (a) (b) (c) Figure 2: Trade size frequency tercile breakpoints over time. The figure plots the monthly cross-sectional mean, 30 th, and 70 th percentiles across firms for trade sizes frequency variables over time. Panels (a), (b), and (c) plot the results for T100, T500, and T1000, respectively. 20
22 (a) (b) (c) Figure 3: Conditional double sorts on T100 and an anomaly signal. In each month, stocks are first sorted into terciles based on T100. Then, within each tercile, stocks are sorted into deciles based on an anomaly signal. For each anomaly signal, the figure plots average returns on decile long-short value-weighted 21 anomaly portfolios within the T100 terciles. Panels (a), (b), and (c) report low-, mid-, and high-turnover anomaly strategies, respectively. For further details of the anomaly signals construction, see table 2. Time period used is 01/1983 to 12/2013.
23 (a) (b) (c) Figure 4: Conditional double sorts on T500 and an anomaly signal. In each month, stocks are first sorted into terciles based on T500. Then, within each tercile, stocks are sorted into deciles based on an anomaly signal. For each anomaly signal, the figure plots average returns on decile long-short value-weighted 22 anomaly portfolios within the T500 terciles. Panels (a), (b), and (c) report low-, mid-, and high-turnover anomaly strategies, respectively. For further details of the anomaly signals construction, see table 2. Time period used is 01/1983 to 12/2013.
24 (a) (b) (c) Figure 5: Conditional double sorts on T1000 and an anomaly signal. In each month, stocks are first sorted into terciles based on T1000. Then, within each tercile, stocks are sorted into deciles based on an anomaly signal. For each anomaly signal, the figure plots average returns on decile long-short value-weighted 23 anomaly portfolios within the T1000 terciles. Panels (a), (b), and (c) report low-, mid-, and high-turnover anomaly strategies, respectively. For further details of the anomaly signals construction, see table 2. Time period used is 01/1983 to 12/2013.
25 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Figure 6: Conditional double sorts on T100 and an anomaly signal within subsamples. In each month, stocks are first sorted into terciles based on T100. Then, within each tercile, stocks are sorted into deciles based on an anomaly signal. For each anomaly signal, the figure plots average returns on decile long-short value-weighted anomaly portfolios within the T100 terciles. Panels (a), (c), and (e) use the period and report results for low-, mid, and high-turnover anomaly strategies, respectively. Similarly, panels (b), (d), and (f) use the period and report results for low-, mid-, and high-turnover anomaly strategies, respectively.for further details of the anomaly signals construction, see table 2. 24
26 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Figure 7: Conditional double sorts on T500 and an anomaly signal within subsamples. In each month, stocks are first sorted into terciles based on T500. Then, within each tercile, stocks are sorted into deciles based on an anomaly signal. For each anomaly signal, the figure plots average returns on decile long-short value-weighted anomaly portfolios within the T500 terciles. Panels (a), (c), and (e) use the period and report results for low-, mid, and high-turnover anomaly strategies, respectively. Similarly, panels (b), (d), and (f) use the period and report results for low-, mid-, and high-turnover anomaly strategies, respectively.for further details of the anomaly signals construction, see table 2. 25
27 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Figure 8: Conditional double sorts on T1000 and an anomaly signal within subsamples. In each month, stocks are first sorted into terciles based on T1000. Then, within each tercile, stocks are sorted into deciles based on an anomaly signal. For each anomaly signal, the figure plots average returns on decile long-short value-weighted anomaly portfolios within the T1000 terciles. Panels (a), (c), and (e) use the period and report results for low-, mid, and high-turnover anomaly strategies, respectively. Similarly, panels (b), (d), and (f) use the period and report results for low-, mid-, and high-turnover anomaly strategies, respectively.for further details of the anomaly signals construction, see table 2. 26
28 (a) (b) (c) Figure 9: Net returns from conditional double sorts on T100 and an anomaly signal. In each month, stocks are first sorted into terciles based on T100. Then, within each tercile, stocks are sorted into deciles based on an anomaly signal. For each anomaly signal, the figure plots average net returns on decile long-short 27value-weighted anomaly portfolios within the T100 terciles. The transaction costs estimation follows Novy-Marx and Velikov (2014). Panels (a), (b), and (c) report low-, mid-, and high-turnover anomaly strategies, respectively. For further details of the anomaly signals construction, see table 2. Time period used is 01/1983 to 12/2013.
29 (a) (b) (c) Figure 10: Net returns from conditional double sorts on T500 and an anomaly signal. In each month, stocks are first sorted into terciles based on T500. Then, within each tercile, stocks are sorted into deciles based on an anomaly signal. For each anomaly signal, the figure plots average net returns on decile long-short 28value-weighted anomaly portfolios within the T500 terciles. The transaction costs estimation follows Novy-Marx and Velikov (2014). Panels (a), (b), and (c) report low-, mid-, and high-turnover anomaly strategies, respectively. For further details of the anomaly signals construction, see table 2. Time period used is 01/1983 to 12/2013.
30 (a) (b) (c) Figure 11: Net returns from conditional double sorts on T1000 and an anomaly signal. In each month, stocks are first sorted into terciles based on T1000. Then, within each tercile, stocks are sorted into deciles based on an anomaly signal. For each anomaly signal, the figure plots average net returns on decile long-short 29value-weighted anomaly portfolios within the T1000 terciles. The transaction costs estimation follows Novy-Marx and Velikov (2014). Panels (a), (b), and (c) report low-, mid-, and high-turnover anomaly strategies, respectively. For further details of the anomaly signals construction, see table 2. Time period used is 01/1983 to 12/2013.
31 Table 1: Fama-MacBeth regressions of trade Sizes on Characteristics The table reports results from monthly Fama-MacBeth cross-sectional regressions of the trade size frequency variables on firm characteristics. Amihud s illiquidity measure is estimated monthly, following Amihud (2002), while Tcosts is the effective bidask spread measure from Hasbrouck (2009). All variables are winsorized at the one and 99% levels. T-statistics in brackets are estimated using Newey-West standard errors with 12 lags. Time period is 02/1983 to 12/ y = T 100 y = T 500 y = T 1000 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Const [20.61] [8.13] [15.06] [8.68] [7.86] [7.13] [7.49] [5.72] [6.66] T100 t [33.47] [40.33] T500 t [18.20] [24.81] T1000 t [50.60] [31.37] log(me) [-4.21] [-5.30] [-3.94] [-4.85] [-2.73] [-2.52] log(prc) [10.71] [10.51] [-4.47] [-4.49] [-5.03] [-5.20] Amihud [-1.14] [1.13] [1.07] [-0.06] [-3.90] [-4.44] log(b/m) [-0.50] [2.32] [-3.39] [-3.66] [-4.43] [-5.45] Tcosts [-4.19] [-6.26] [0.61] [0.44] [7.53] [6.71] Average R n
32 Table 2: The anomalies All strategies consist of a time-series of value-weighted returns on a long/short self-financing portfolio, constructed using a decile sort on an anomaly signal. Column 2 indicates the relevant reference, column 3 reports the signal used for sorting. The last column indicates the frequency of rebalancing. For further details on the construction, see Novy-Marx and Velikov (2014) or the relevant references. Panel A: Low Turnover Anomaly Reference(s) Signal Rebal. Size Fama and French (1993) Market equity Annual Gross Profitability Novy-Marx (2013) Gross Profitability Annual Value Fama and French (1993) Book-to-market equity Annual ValProf Novy-Marx (2014) Sum of firms ranks in univariate sorts on Annual book-to-market and gross profitability Accruals Sloan (1996) Accruals Annual Asset Growth Cooper et al. (2008) Asset Growth Annual Investment Lyandres et al. (2008) Investment Annual Piotroski s F-score Piotroski (2000) Piotroski s F-score Annual Panel B: Mid Turnover Anomaly Reference(s) Signal Rebal. Net Issuance (M) Fama and French (2008) Net stock issuance Monthly Return-on-book equity Chen et al. (2010) Return-on-book equity Monthly Failure Probability Campbell et al. (2008) Failure Probability Monthly ValMomProf Novy-Marx (2014) Sum of firms ranks in univariate sorts on Monthly book-to-market, gross profitability, and momentum ValMom Novy-Marx (2014) Sum of firms ranks in univariate sorts on Monthly book-to-market and momentum Idiosyncratic Volatility Ang et al. (2006) Idiosyncratic volatility, measured as the Monthly residuals of regressions of their past three months daily returns on the daily returns of the Fama-French three factors Momentum Jegadeesh and Titman Prior year s stock performance excluding Monthly (1993) the most recent month PEAD (SUE) Foster et al. (1984) Standardized Unexpected Earnings (SUE) Monthly PEAD (CAR3) Brandt et al. (2008) Cumulative three-day abnormal return around announcement (days minus one to one) Monthly 31
33 Table 2: Continued Panel C: High Turnover Anomaly Reference(s) Signal Rebal. Industry Momentum Moskowitz and Grinblatt Industry past month s return Monthly (1999) Industry Relative Reversals Da, Liu and Schaumurg (2014) Difference between a firm s prior month s return and the prior month s return of their Monthly High-frequency Combo Novy-Marx and Velikov (2014) industry Sum of firms ranks in the univariate sorts on industry relative reversals and industry momentum Short-run Reversals Jegadeesh and Titman (1993) Prior month s returns Seasonality Heston and Sadka (2011) Average return in the calendar month over the preceding five years Industry Relative Novy-Marx and Velikov Industry relative reversals, restricted to Reversals (Low (2014) stocks with idiosyncratic volatility lower Volatility) than the NYSE median for the month Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly 32
34 Table 3: Conditional Double Sorts on Trade Size and an Anomaly Signal The table reports conditional double sorts on trade size frequency variables and an anomaly signal. In each month, stocks are first sorted into terciles based on one of the three trade size frequency variables. Then, within each tercile, stocks are sorted into deciles based on an anomaly signal. For each double sort, within each trading size frequency tercile, the table reports the average return [t-stat] of the longshort decile value-weighted anomaly portfolio. Panels A, B, and C report results for the low-, mid-, and high-turnover anomalies, respectively. For further details of the anomaly signals construction, see table 2. Time period used is 01/1983 to 12/2013. Panel A: Low-turnover anomalies Anomaly T100 Terciles T500 Terciles T1000 Terciles (L) (2) (H) (L) (2) (H) (L) (2) (H) Size [- 0.29] [- 0.07] [0.23] [- 0.45] [0.37] [- 0.59] [- 0.63] [0.27] [- 1.00] Gross Profitability [0.85] [4.21] [1.98] [2.28] [2.57] [2.88] [1.74] [1.74] [2.91] Value [2.63] [0.13] [0.94] [0.78] [1.87] [0.40] [1.07] [1.34] [- 0.20] ValProf [3.30] [3.29] [2.42] [2.58] [3.66] [3.89] [1.59] [3.07] [4.73] Accruals [1.58] [1.61] [1.41] [0.72] [2.08] [1.33] [1.38] [3.01] [1.67] Asset Growth [2.19] [2.13] [0.78] [1.82] [1.78] [1.20] [1.14] [1.41] [1.13] Investment [2.24] [2.61] [1.40] [1.96] [2.65] [1.60] [1.77] [2.43] [3.13] Piotroski F-score [2.56] [1.47] [0.96] [2.06] [0.42] [1.91] [3.06] [0.78] [2.13] Panel B: Mid-turnover anomalies Net Issuance (M) [4.62] [4.96] [2.46] [3.16] [3.43] [3.92] [3.86] [3.89] [2.84] ROE [1.60] [3.27] [2.98] [2.96] [2.45] [2.00] [2.33] [3.32] [1.87] Failure Probability [4.06] [3.00] [2.63] [4.01] [2.87] [4.93] [2.48] [3.62] [4.40] ValMomProf [4.69] [4.03] [3.63] [3.90] [4.50] [5.16] [2.83] [5.48] [5.29] ValMom [3.46] [3.27] [3.74] [2.56] [4.04] [4.13] [2.21] [4.49] [3.63] Idiosyncratic Volatility [4.21] [2.68] [2.04] [2.96] [2.23] [4.80] [2.22] [3.44] [4.25] Momentum [3.75] [3.05] [2.79] [3.03] [2.82] [4.49] [1.72] [3.40] [4.26] PEAD (SUE) [2.85] [2.55] [3.13] [3.21] [2.79] [2.62] [2.57] [2.84] [3.19] PEAD (CAR3) [3.36] [4.17] [5.41] [4.12] [3.37] [5.05] [3.87] [4.71] [5.06] 33
35 Table 3: Continued Panel C: High-turnover anomalies Anomaly T100 Terciles T500 Terciles T1000 Terciles (L) (2) (H) (L) (2) (H) (L) (2) (H) Industry Momentum [2.25] [1.47] [0.77] [0.73] [0.93] [0.58] [0.69] [1.92] [2.32] Industry Relative Reversals [1.78] [0.50] [2.76] [2.25] [0.76] [1.35] [3.23] [1.71] [0.71] High-frequency Combo [4.86] [5.10] [3.52] [4.12] [4.90] [3.81] [5.07] [5.12] [2.48] Short-run Reversals [1.59] [0.19] [1.08] [1.80] [0.18] [1.35] [2.22] [0.34] [0.50] Seasonality [2.84] [3.10] [4.33] [4.02] [2.49] [3.05] [5.25] [2.89] [2.44] IRR (LowVol) [3.05] [5.94] [6.40] [7.01] [5.52] [2.89] [8.16] [4.54] [3.46] 34
36 Table 4: Fama-MacBeth Regressions of Returns on Anomaly Signals and Trade Size This table reports results from monthly Fama-MacBeth cross-sectional regressions of returns on anomaly signals, trade size frequency variables and interaction terms. The regressions are estimated separately for each anomaly. The first column contains slope coefficents from regressions with the following specification: r tj = α + βx tj + ε tj The rest of the columns contain slope coefficients from regressions with the following specifications: r tj = α + β 1 x tj + β 2 T X tj + β 3 x tj T X tj + ε tj In all of these specifications, x tj is the anomaly characteristic. T X tj stands for T 100 tj in columns (2)-(4), T 500 tj in columns (5)-(7), and T 1000 tj in columns (8)-(10). Panels A, B, and C report results for low-, mid-, and high-turnover anomalies, respectively. Independent variables are winsorized at the one and 99% levels. For further details of the anomaly signals construction, see table 2. Time period used is 01/1983 to 12/2013. Panel A: Low-turnover anomalies Anomaly (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) T100 Specification T500 Specification T1000 Specification β β 1 β 2 β 3 β 1 β 2 β 3 β 1 β 2 β 3 Size [-0.84] [-0.99] [0.29] [1.00] [-0.00] [-0.58] [-0.34] [-0.12] [-0.31] [-0.01] Gross Profitability [4.32] [2.35] [0.11] [-1.47] [2.21] [-0.71] [0.88] [2.18] [-0.29] [0.69] Value [5.05] [4.76] [1.08] [-3.54] [1.57] [-1.39] [2.81] [1.61] [-0.96] [2.88] ValProf [7.37] [5.17] [2.30] [-4.13] [3.32] [-2.07] [2.67] [4.06] [-1.32] [2.10] Accruals [4.95] [3.00] [-0.48] [-0.68] [2.02] [-0.44] [1.30] [3.91] [0.04] [0.44] Asset Growth [8.97] [6.25] [-3.37] [-4.63] [4.03] [0.87] [1.60] [3.38] [1.29] [2.09] Investment [7.62] [4.40] [-1.07] [-3.60] [4.22] [-0.10] [1.42] [2.92] [0.39] [2.08] Piotroski F-score [1.78] [2.10] [-0.12] [-1.06] [0.74] [-1.29] [2.16] [1.79] [-0.37] [1.28] 35
Trade Size and the Cross-Sectional Relation to Future Returns
Trade Size and the Cross-Sectional Relation to Future Returns David A. Lesmond and Xue Wang February 1, 2016 1 David Lesmond (dlesmond@tulane.edu) is from the Freeman School of Business and Xue Wang is
More informationCore CFO and Future Performance. Abstract
Core CFO and Future Performance Rodrigo S. Verdi Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology 50 Memorial Drive E52-403A Cambridge, MA 02142 rverdi@mit.edu Abstract This paper investigates
More informationThe cross section of expected stock returns
The cross section of expected stock returns Jonathan Lewellen Dartmouth College and NBER This version: March 2013 First draft: October 2010 Tel: 603-646-8650; email: jon.lewellen@dartmouth.edu. I am grateful
More informationLiquidity skewness premium
Liquidity skewness premium Giho Jeong, Jangkoo Kang, and Kyung Yoon Kwon * Abstract Risk-averse investors may dislike decrease of liquidity rather than increase of liquidity, and thus there can be asymmetric
More informationAsubstantial portion of the academic
The Decline of Informed Trading in the Equity and Options Markets Charles Cao, David Gempesaw, and Timothy Simin Charles Cao is the Smeal Chair Professor of Finance in the Smeal College of Business at
More informationRevisiting Idiosyncratic Volatility and Stock Returns. Fatma Sonmez 1
Revisiting Idiosyncratic Volatility and Stock Returns Fatma Sonmez 1 Abstract This paper s aim is to revisit the relation between idiosyncratic volatility and future stock returns. There are three key
More informationAn Online Appendix of Technical Trading: A Trend Factor
An Online Appendix of Technical Trading: A Trend Factor In this online appendix, we provide a comparative static analysis of the theoretical model as well as further robustness checks on the trend factor.
More informationTurnover: Liquidity or Uncertainty?
Turnover: Liquidity or Uncertainty? Alexander Barinov Terry College of Business University of Georgia E-mail: abarinov@terry.uga.edu http://abarinov.myweb.uga.edu/ This version: July 2009 Abstract The
More informationThe Effect of Kurtosis on the Cross-Section of Stock Returns
Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Plan B and other Reports Graduate Studies 5-2012 The Effect of Kurtosis on the Cross-Section of Stock Returns Abdullah Al Masud Utah State University
More informationFundamental, Technical, and Combined Information for Separating Winners from Losers
Fundamental, Technical, and Combined Information for Separating Winners from Losers Prof. Cheng-Few Lee and Wei-Kang Shih Rutgers Business School Oct. 16, 2009 Outline of Presentation Introduction and
More informationPost-Earnings-Announcement Drift: The Role of Revenue Surprises and Earnings Persistence
Post-Earnings-Announcement Drift: The Role of Revenue Surprises and Earnings Persistence Joshua Livnat Department of Accounting Stern School of Business Administration New York University 311 Tisch Hall
More informationOnline Appendix to Turning Alphas into Betas: Arbitrage and Endogenous Risk
Online Appendix to Turning Alphas into Betas: Arbitrage and Endogenous Risk Thummim Cho Harvard University January 15, 2016 Please click here for the most recent version and online appendix. Abstract The
More informationInternet Appendix Arbitrage Trading: the Long and the Short of It
Internet Appendix Arbitrage Trading: the Long and the Short of It Yong Chen Texas A&M University Zhi Da University of Notre Dame Dayong Huang University of North Carolina at Greensboro May 3, 2018 This
More informationAsset-Pricing Anomalies and Financial Distress
Asset-Pricing Anomalies and Financial Distress Doron Avramov Department of Finance Robert H. Smith School of Business University of Maryland davramov@rhsmith.umd.edu Tarun Chordia Department of Finance
More informationDecimalization and Illiquidity Premiums: An Extended Analysis
Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Plan B and other Reports Graduate Studies 5-2015 Decimalization and Illiquidity Premiums: An Extended Analysis Seth E. Williams Utah State University
More informationEarnings Announcement Idiosyncratic Volatility and the Crosssection
Earnings Announcement Idiosyncratic Volatility and the Crosssection of Stock Returns Cameron Truong Monash University, Melbourne, Australia February 2015 Abstract We document a significant positive relation
More informationDiscussion Paper No. DP 07/02
SCHOOL OF ACCOUNTING, FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT Essex Finance Centre Can the Cross-Section Variation in Expected Stock Returns Explain Momentum George Bulkley University of Exeter Vivekanand Nawosah University
More informationAn Alternative Four-Factor Model
Master Thesis in Finance Stockholm School of Economics Spring 2011 An Alternative Four-Factor Model Abstract In this paper, we add a liquidity factor to the Chen, Novy-Marx & Zhang (2010) three-factor
More informationOn the Profitability of Volume-Augmented Momentum Trading Strategies: Evidence from the UK
On the Profitability of Volume-Augmented Momentum Trading Strategies: Evidence from the UK AUTHORS ARTICLE INFO JOURNAL FOUNDER Sam Agyei-Ampomah Sam Agyei-Ampomah (2006). On the Profitability of Volume-Augmented
More informationWhen Low Beats High: Riding the Sales Seasonality Premium
When Low Beats High: Riding the Sales Seasonality Premium Gustavo Grullon Rice University grullon@rice.edu Yamil Kaba Rice University yamil.kaba@rice.edu Alexander Núñez Lehman College alexander.nuneztorres@lehman.cuny.edu
More informationTrading Costs of Asset Pricing Anomalies
Trading Costs of Asset Pricing Anomalies Andrea Frazzini AQR Capital Management Ronen Israel AQR Capital Management Tobias J. Moskowitz University of Chicago, NBER, and AQR Copyright 2014 by Andrea Frazzini,
More informationPrice Momentum and Idiosyncratic Volatility
Marquette University e-publications@marquette Finance Faculty Research and Publications Finance, Department of 5-1-2008 Price Momentum and Idiosyncratic Volatility Matteo Arena Marquette University, matteo.arena@marquette.edu
More informationAN ALTERNATIVE THREE-FACTOR MODEL FOR INTERNATIONAL MARKETS: EVIDENCE FROM THE EUROPEAN MONETARY UNION
AN ALTERNATIVE THREE-FACTOR MODEL FOR INTERNATIONAL MARKETS: EVIDENCE FROM THE EUROPEAN MONETARY UNION MANUEL AMMANN SANDRO ODONI DAVID OESCH WORKING PAPERS ON FINANCE NO. 2012/2 SWISS INSTITUTE OF BANKING
More informationThe Value Premium and the January Effect
The Value Premium and the January Effect Julia Chou, Praveen Kumar Das * Current Version: January 2010 * Chou is from College of Business Administration, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199;
More informationWho, if Anyone, Reacts to Accrual Information? Robert H. Battalio, Notre Dame Alina Lerman, NYU Joshua Livnat, NYU Richard R. Mendenhall, Notre Dame
Who, if Anyone, Reacts to Accrual Information? Robert H. Battalio, Notre Dame Alina Lerman, NYU Joshua Livnat, NYU Richard R. Mendenhall, Notre Dame 1 Overview Objectives: Can accruals add information
More informationFurther Test on Stock Liquidity Risk With a Relative Measure
International Journal of Education and Research Vol. 1 No. 3 March 2013 Further Test on Stock Liquidity Risk With a Relative Measure David Oima* David Sande** Benjamin Ombok*** Abstract Negative relationship
More informationLiquidity and the Post-Earnings-Announcement Drift
Liquidity and the Post-Earnings-Announcement Drift Tarun Chordia, Amit Goyal, Gil Sadka, Ronnie Sadka, and Lakshmanan Shivakumar First draft: July 31, 2005 This Revision: May 8, 2006 Abstract The post-earnings-announcement
More informationInternet Appendix. Table A1: Determinants of VOIB
Internet Appendix Table A1: Determinants of VOIB Each month, we regress VOIB on firm size and proxies for N, v δ, and v z. OIB_SHR is the monthly order imbalance defined as (B S)/(B+S), where B (S) is
More informationAsset Pricing Anomalies and Financial Distress
Asset Pricing Anomalies and Financial Distress Doron Avramov, Tarun Chordia, Gergana Jostova, and Alexander Philipov March 3, 2010 1 / 42 Outline 1 Motivation 2 Data & Methodology Methodology Data Sample
More informationA Lottery Demand-Based Explanation of the Beta Anomaly. Online Appendix
A Lottery Demand-Based Explanation of the Beta Anomaly Online Appendix Section I provides details of the calculation of the variables used in the paper. Section II examines the robustness of the beta anomaly.
More informationUnderreaction, Trading Volume, and Momentum Profits in Taiwan Stock Market
Underreaction, Trading Volume, and Momentum Profits in Taiwan Stock Market Mei-Chen Lin * Abstract This paper uses a very short period to reexamine the momentum effect in Taiwan stock market, focusing
More informationRisk-managed 52-week high industry momentum, momentum crashes, and hedging macroeconomic risk
Risk-managed 52-week high industry momentum, momentum crashes, and hedging macroeconomic risk Klaus Grobys¹ This draft: January 23, 2017 Abstract This is the first study that investigates the profitability
More informationLiquidity and the Post-Earnings-Announcement Drift
Liquidity and the Post-Earnings-Announcement Drift Tarun Chordia, Amit Goyal, Gil Sadka, Ronnie Sadka, and Lakshmanan Shivakumar First draft: July 31, 2005 This Revision: July 31, 2006 Abstract The post-earnings-announcement
More informationDispersion in Analysts Earnings Forecasts and Credit Rating
Dispersion in Analysts Earnings Forecasts and Credit Rating Doron Avramov Department of Finance Robert H. Smith School of Business University of Maryland davramov@rhsmith.umd.edu Tarun Chordia Department
More informationMarket Frictions, Price Delay, and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns
Market Frictions, Price Delay, and the Cross-Section of Expected Returns forthcoming The Review of Financial Studies Kewei Hou Fisher College of Business Ohio State University and Tobias J. Moskowitz Graduate
More informationTime-Varying Liquidity and Momentum Profits*
Time-Varying Liquidity and Momentum Profits* Doron Avramov Si Cheng Allaudeen Hameed Abstract A basic intuition is that arbitrage is easier when markets are most liquid. Surprisingly, we find that momentum
More informationMomentum Life Cycle Hypothesis Revisited
Momentum Life Cycle Hypothesis Revisited Tsung-Yu Chen, Pin-Huang Chou, Chia-Hsun Hsieh January, 2016 Abstract In their seminal paper, Lee and Swaminathan (2000) propose a momentum life cycle (MLC) hypothesis,
More informationLiquidity Variation and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns *
Liquidity Variation and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns * Fangjian Fu Singapore Management University Wenjin Kang National University of Singapore Yuping Shao National University of Singapore Abstract
More informationAn analysis of momentum and contrarian strategies using an optimal orthogonal portfolio approach
An analysis of momentum and contrarian strategies using an optimal orthogonal portfolio approach Hossein Asgharian and Björn Hansson Department of Economics, Lund University Box 7082 S-22007 Lund, Sweden
More informationNBER WORKING PAPER SERIES FUNDAMENTALLY, MOMENTUM IS FUNDAMENTAL MOMENTUM. Robert Novy-Marx. Working Paper
NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES FUNDAMENTALLY, MOMENTUM IS FUNDAMENTAL MOMENTUM Robert Novy-Marx Working Paper 20984 http://www.nber.org/papers/w20984 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts
More informationThe Impact of Institutional Investors on the Monday Seasonal*
Su Han Chan Department of Finance, California State University-Fullerton Wai-Kin Leung Faculty of Business Administration, Chinese University of Hong Kong Ko Wang Department of Finance, California State
More informationCommon Factors in Return Seasonalities
Common Factors in Return Seasonalities Matti Keloharju, Aalto University Juhani Linnainmaa, University of Chicago and NBER Peter Nyberg, Aalto University AQR Insight Award Presentation 1 / 36 Common factors
More informationDissecting Anomalies. Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French. Abstract
First draft: February 2006 This draft: June 2006 Please do not quote or circulate Dissecting Anomalies Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French Abstract Previous work finds that net stock issues, accruals,
More informationSystematic liquidity risk and stock price reaction to shocks: Evidence from London Stock Exchange
Systematic liquidity risk and stock price reaction to shocks: Evidence from London Stock Exchange Khelifa Mazouz a,*, Dima W.H. Alrabadi a, and Shuxing Yin b a Bradford University School of Management,
More informationALL THINGS CONSIDERED, TAXES DRIVE THE JANUARY EFFECT. Abstract
The Journal of Financial Research Vol. XXVII, No. 3 Pages 351 372 Fall 2004 ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, TAXES DRIVE THE JANUARY EFFECT Honghui Chen University of Central Florida Vijay Singal Virginia Tech Abstract
More informationTHE EFFECT OF LIQUIDITY COSTS ON SECURITIES PRICES AND RETURNS
PART I THE EFFECT OF LIQUIDITY COSTS ON SECURITIES PRICES AND RETURNS Introduction and Overview We begin by considering the direct effects of trading costs on the values of financial assets. Investors
More informationDay-of-the-Week Trading Patterns of Individual and Institutional Investors
Day-of-the-Week Trading Patterns of Individual and Instutional Investors Hoang H. Nguyen, Universy of Baltimore Joel N. Morse, Universy of Baltimore 1 Keywords: Day-of-the-week effect; Trading volume-instutional
More informationVolatility Appendix. B.1 Firm-Specific Uncertainty and Aggregate Volatility
B Volatility Appendix The aggregate volatility risk explanation of the turnover effect relies on three empirical facts. First, the explanation assumes that firm-specific uncertainty comoves with aggregate
More informationPost-Earnings-Announcement Drift (PEAD): The Role of Revenue Surprises
Post-Earnings-Announcement Drift (PEAD): The Role of Revenue Surprises Joshua Livnat Department of Accounting Stern School of Business Administration New York University 311 Tisch Hall 40 W. 4th St. New
More informationReturn Reversals, Idiosyncratic Risk and Expected Returns
Return Reversals, Idiosyncratic Risk and Expected Returns Wei Huang, Qianqiu Liu, S.Ghon Rhee and Liang Zhang Shidler College of Business University of Hawaii at Manoa 2404 Maile Way Honolulu, Hawaii,
More informationIdiosyncratic Risk and Stock Return Anomalies: Cross-section and Time-series Effects
Idiosyncratic Risk and Stock Return Anomalies: Cross-section and Time-series Effects Biljana Nikolic, Feifei Wang, Xuemin (Sterling) Yan, and Lingling Zheng* Abstract This paper examines the cross-section
More informationShort Sales and Put Options: Where is the Bad News First Traded?
Short Sales and Put Options: Where is the Bad News First Traded? Xiaoting Hao *, Natalia Piqueira ABSTRACT Although the literature provides strong evidence supporting the presence of informed trading in
More informationPROFITABILITY OF CAPM MOMENTUM STRATEGIES IN THE US STOCK MARKET
International Journal of Business and Society, Vol. 18 No. 2, 2017, 347-362 PROFITABILITY OF CAPM MOMENTUM STRATEGIES IN THE US STOCK MARKET Terence Tai-Leung Chong The Chinese University of Hong Kong
More informationReal Estate Ownership by Non-Real Estate Firms: The Impact on Firm Returns
Real Estate Ownership by Non-Real Estate Firms: The Impact on Firm Returns Yongheng Deng and Joseph Gyourko 1 Zell/Lurie Real Estate Center at Wharton University of Pennsylvania Prepared for the Corporate
More informationTime-Varying Momentum Payoffs and Illiquidity*
Time-Varying Momentum Payoffs and Illiquidity* Doron Avramov Si Cheng and Allaudeen Hameed Current Draft: July 5, 2013 * Doron Avramov is from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (email: doron.avromov@huji.ac.il).
More informationTrading Costs of Asset Pricing Anomalies Appendix: Additional Empirical Results
Trading Costs of Asset Pricing Anomalies Appendix: Additional Empirical Results ANDREA FRAZZINI, RONEN ISRAEL, AND TOBIAS J. MOSKOWITZ This Appendix contains additional analysis and results. Table A1 reports
More informationVariation in Liquidity, Costly Arbitrage, and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns
Variation in Liquidity, Costly Arbitrage, and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns Badrinath Kottimukkalur * January 2018 Abstract This paper provides an arbitrage based explanation for the puzzling negative
More informationChange in systematic trading behavior and the cross-section of stock returns during the global financial crisis: Fear or Greed?
Change in systematic trading behavior and the cross-section of stock returns during the global financial crisis: Fear or Greed? P. Joakim Westerholm 1, Annica Rose and Henry Leung University of Sydney
More informationOnline Appendix to. The Value of Crowdsourced Earnings Forecasts
Online Appendix to The Value of Crowdsourced Earnings Forecasts This online appendix tabulates and discusses the results of robustness checks and supplementary analyses mentioned in the paper. A1. Estimating
More informationWhat Does Risk-Neutral Skewness Tell Us About Future Stock Returns? Supplementary Online Appendix
What Does Risk-Neutral Skewness Tell Us About Future Stock Returns? Supplementary Online Appendix 1 Tercile Portfolios The main body of the paper presents results from quintile RNS-sorted portfolios. Here,
More informationThe Trend in Firm Profitability and the Cross Section of Stock Returns
The Trend in Firm Profitability and the Cross Section of Stock Returns Ferhat Akbas School of Business University of Kansas 785-864-1851 Lawrence, KS 66045 akbas@ku.edu Chao Jiang School of Business University
More informationElisabetta Basilico and Tommi Johnsen. Disentangling the Accruals Mispricing in Europe: Is It an Industry Effect? Working Paper n.
Elisabetta Basilico and Tommi Johnsen Disentangling the Accruals Mispricing in Europe: Is It an Industry Effect? Working Paper n. 5/2014 April 2014 ISSN: 2239-2734 This Working Paper is published under
More informationHedge Funds as International Liquidity Providers: Evidence from Convertible Bond Arbitrage in Canada
Hedge Funds as International Liquidity Providers: Evidence from Convertible Bond Arbitrage in Canada Evan Gatev Simon Fraser University Mingxin Li Simon Fraser University AUGUST 2012 Abstract We examine
More informationMarket Efficiency and Idiosyncratic Volatility in Vietnam
International Journal of Business and Management; Vol. 10, No. 6; 2015 ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Market Efficiency and Idiosyncratic Volatility
More informationVariation in Liquidity and Costly Arbitrage
and Costly Arbitrage Badrinath Kottimukkalur * December 2018 Abstract This paper explores the relationship between the variation in liquidity and arbitrage activity. A model shows that arbitrageurs will
More informationOrder flow and prices
Order flow and prices Ekkehart Boehmer and Julie Wu * Mays Business School Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77845-4218 March 14, 2006 Abstract We provide new evidence on a central prediction of
More informationInformation Risk and Momentum Anomalies
Information Risk and Momentum Anomalies Chuan-Yang Hwang cyhwang@ntu.edu.sg Nanyang Business School Nanyang Technological University Singapore and Xiaolin Qian xiaolinqian@umac.mo Faculty of Business Administration
More informationIdiosyncratic volatility and stock returns: evidence from Colombia. Introduction and literature review
Idiosyncratic volatility and stock returns: evidence from Colombia Abstract. The purpose of this paper is to examine the association between idiosyncratic volatility and stock returns in Colombia from
More informationIndustries and Stock Return Reversals
Industries and Stock Return Reversals Allaudeen Hameed Department of Finance NUS Business School National University of Singapore Singapore E-mail: bizah@nus.edu.sg Joshua Huang SBI Ven Capital Pte Ltd.
More informationPremium Timing with Valuation Ratios
RESEARCH Premium Timing with Valuation Ratios March 2016 Wei Dai, PhD Research The predictability of expected stock returns is an old topic and an important one. While investors may increase expected returns
More informationInternet Appendix to Is Information Risk Priced? Evidence from Abnormal Idiosyncratic Volatility
Internet Appendix to Is Information Risk Priced? Evidence from Abnormal Idiosyncratic Volatility Table IA.1 Further Summary Statistics This table presents the summary statistics of further variables used
More informationEconomics of Behavioral Finance. Lecture 3
Economics of Behavioral Finance Lecture 3 Security Market Line CAPM predicts a linear relationship between a stock s Beta and its excess return. E[r i ] r f = β i E r m r f Practically, testing CAPM empirically
More informationFresh Momentum. Engin Kose. Washington University in St. Louis. First version: October 2009
Long Chen Washington University in St. Louis Fresh Momentum Engin Kose Washington University in St. Louis First version: October 2009 Ohad Kadan Washington University in St. Louis Abstract We demonstrate
More informationTime-Varying Momentum Payoffs and Illiquidity*
Time-Varying Momentum Payoffs and Illiquidity* Doron Avramov Si Cheng and Allaudeen Hameed Current Draft: August, 2013 * Doron Avramov is from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (email: doron.avromov@huji.ac.il).
More informationTrading Behavior around Earnings Announcements
Trading Behavior around Earnings Announcements Abstract This paper presents empirical evidence supporting the hypothesis that individual investors news-contrarian trading behavior drives post-earnings-announcement
More informationRealized Skewness for Information Uncertainty
Realized Skewness for Information Uncertainty Youngmin Choi Suzanne S. Lee December 2015 Abstract We examine realized daily skewness as a measure of information uncertainty concerning a firm s fundamentals.
More informationLiquidity and IPO performance in the last decade
Liquidity and IPO performance in the last decade Saurav Roychoudhury Associate Professor School of Management and Leadership Capital University Abstract It is well documented by that if long run IPO underperformance
More informationDeviations from Optimal Corporate Cash Holdings and the Valuation from a Shareholder s Perspective
Deviations from Optimal Corporate Cash Holdings and the Valuation from a Shareholder s Perspective Zhenxu Tong * University of Exeter Abstract The tradeoff theory of corporate cash holdings predicts that
More informationTurnover: Liquidity or Uncertainty?
Turnover: Liquidity or Uncertainty? Abstract I show that turnover is unrelated to several alternative measures of liquidity risk and in most cases negatively, not positively, related to liquidity. Consequently,
More informationMOMENTUM INVESTING: SIMPLE, BUT NOT EASY
MOMENTUM INVESTING: SIMPLE, BUT NOT EASY As Of Date: 9/5/2018 Wesley R. Gray, PhD T: +1.215.882.9983 F: +1.216.245.3686 ir@alphaarchitect.com 213 Foxcroft Road Broomall, PA 19008 Empower Investors Through
More informationMULTI FACTOR PRICING MODEL: AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO CAPM
MULTI FACTOR PRICING MODEL: AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO CAPM Samit Majumdar Virginia Commonwealth University majumdars@vcu.edu Frank W. Bacon Longwood University baconfw@longwood.edu ABSTRACT: This study
More informationThe Role of Industry Effect and Market States in Taiwanese Momentum
The Role of Industry Effect and Market States in Taiwanese Momentum Hsiao-Peng Fu 1 1 Department of Finance, Providence University, Taiwan, R.O.C. Correspondence: Hsiao-Peng Fu, Department of Finance,
More informationPrice, Earnings, and Revenue Momentum Strategies
Price, Earnings, and Revenue Momentum Strategies Hong-Yi Chen Rutgers University, USA Sheng-Syan Chen National Taiwan University, Taiwan Chin-Wen Hsin Yuan Ze University, Taiwan Cheng-Few Lee Rutgers University,
More informationA Comparison of the Results in Barber, Odean, and Zhu (2006) and Hvidkjaer (2006)
A Comparison of the Results in Barber, Odean, and Zhu (2006) and Hvidkjaer (2006) Brad M. Barber University of California, Davis Soeren Hvidkjaer University of Maryland Terrance Odean University of California,
More informationCan Hedge Funds Time the Market?
International Review of Finance, 2017 Can Hedge Funds Time the Market? MICHAEL W. BRANDT,FEDERICO NUCERA AND GIORGIO VALENTE Duke University, The Fuqua School of Business, Durham, NC LUISS Guido Carli
More informationAnalysts and Anomalies ψ
Analysts and Anomalies ψ Joseph Engelberg R. David McLean and Jeffrey Pontiff October 25, 2016 Abstract Forecasted returns based on analysts price targets are highest (lowest) among the stocks that anomalies
More informationStyle-Driven Earnings Momentum
Style-Driven Earnings Momentum Sebastian Müller This Version: May 2013 First Version: November 2011 Appendix attached Abstract This paper shows that earnings announcements contain information about future
More informationThe predictive power of investment and accruals
The predictive power of investment and accruals Jonathan Lewellen Dartmouth College and NBER jon.lewellen@dartmouth.edu Robert J. Resutek Dartmouth College robert.j.resutek@dartmouth.edu This version:
More informationUNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER. Home work Assignment #4 Due: May 24, 2012
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER William E. Simon Graduate School of Business Administration FIN 532 Advanced Topics in Capital Markets Home work Assignment #4 Due: May 24, 2012 The point of this assignment is
More informationMomentum, Acceleration, and Reversal. James X. Xiong and Roger G. Ibbotson
Momentum, Acceleration, and Reversal James X. Xiong and Roger G. Ibbotson Date: 11/1/2013 James X. Xiong, Ph.D, CFA, is Head of Quantitative Research at Ibbotson Associates, a division of Morningstar,
More informationRecency Bias and Post-Earnings Announcement Drift * Qingzhong Ma California State University, Chico. David A. Whidbee Washington State University
The Journal of Behavioral Finance & Economics Volume 5, Issues 1&2, 2015-2016, 69-97 Copyright 2015-2016 Academy of Behavioral Finance & Economics, All rights reserved. ISSN: 1551-9570 Recency Bias and
More informationDo Investors Fully Understand the Implications of the Persistence of Revenue and Expense Surprises for Future Prices?
Do Investors Fully Understand the Implications of the Persistence of Revenue and Expense Surprises for Future Prices? Narasimhan Jegadeesh Dean s Distinguished Professor Goizueta Business School Emory
More informationEconomic Policy Uncertainty and Momentum
Economic Policy Uncertainty and Momentum Ming Gu School of Economics and WISE Xiamen University guming@xmu.edu.cn Minxing Sun Department of Finance University of Memphis msun@memphis.edu Yangru Wu Rutgers
More informationThis paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Sciences Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
= = = = = = = Working Paper Neoclassical Factors Lu Zhang Stephen M. Ross School of Business at the University of Michigan and NBER Long Chen Eli Broad College of Business Michigan State University Ross
More informationGross Profit Surprises and Future Stock Returns. Peng-Chia Chiu The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Gross Profit Surprises and Future Stock Returns Peng-Chia Chiu The Chinese University of Hong Kong chiupc@cuhk.edu.hk Tim Haight Loyola Marymount University thaight@lmu.edu October 2014 Abstract We show
More informationAnother Look at Market Responses to Tangible and Intangible Information
Critical Finance Review, 2016, 5: 165 175 Another Look at Market Responses to Tangible and Intangible Information Kent Daniel Sheridan Titman 1 Columbia Business School, Columbia University, New York,
More informationDaily Winners and Losers a
Daily Winners and Losers a Alok Kumar b, Stefan Ruenzi, Michael Ungeheuer c First Version: November 2016; This Version: March 2017 Abstract The probably most salient feature of the cross-section of stock
More informationRealization Utility: Explaining Volatility and Skewness Preferences
Realization Utility: Explaining Volatility and Skewness Preferences Min Kyeong Kwon * and Tong Suk Kim March 16, 2014 ABSTRACT Using the realization utility model with a jump process, we find three implications
More informationLecture Notes. Lu Zhang 1. BUSFIN 920: Theory of Finance The Ohio State University Autumn and NBER. 1 The Ohio State University
Lecture Notes Li and Zhang (2010, J. of Financial Economics): Does Q-Theory with Investment Frictions Explain Anomalies in the Cross-Section of Returns? Lu Zhang 1 1 The Ohio State University and NBER
More informationOn the economic significance of stock return predictability: Evidence from macroeconomic state variables
On the economic significance of stock return predictability: Evidence from macroeconomic state variables Huacheng Zhang * University of Arizona This draft: 8/31/2012 First draft: 2/28/2012 Abstract We
More information