The Impact of Institutional Investors on the Monday Seasonal*

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "The Impact of Institutional Investors on the Monday Seasonal*"

Transcription

1 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 University-Fullerton The Impact of Institutional Investors on the Monday Seasonal* I. Introduction One of the most noticeable anomalies documented in the finance literature is the Monday seasonal. This anomalous Monday return pattern is observed not only in stock markets in the U. S. (see, for example, French (1980)) and other parts of the world (see, for example, Jaffe, Westerfield, and Ma (1989)), but also in debt markets (see, for example, Flannery and Protopapadakis (1988)). Numerous explanations have been developed to rationalize the puzzling observations that the mean return on Monday is significantly negative and is lower than that on other weekdays (i.e., the Monday seasonal). One of the most plausible * The authors acknowledge helpful comments from Kalok Chan, John Erickson, Tsong Yue Lai, Laura Starks, John Wei, and seminar participants at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. The authors are indebted to an anonymous referee, whose detailed comments have significantly improved the paper. The usual disclaimer applies. (Journal of Business, 2004, vol. 77, no. 4) B 2004 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved /2004/ $10.00 It is well documented that the mean Monday return is significantly negative and is lower than the mean return on other weekdays. Using institutional stock holdings information during the period, we document that the Monday seasonal is stronger in stocks with low institutional holdings and that the Monday return is not significantly different from the mean Tuesday to Friday returns for stocks with high institutional holdings during the period. Our study provides direct evidence to support the belief that the Monday seasonal may be related to the trading activities of less sophisticated individual investors. 967

2 968 Journal of Business explanations is the trading pattern of individual investors. 1 According to Miller (1988) and Lakonishok and Maberly (1990), individual investors typically do not have time during the weekday trading hours and therefore process information and make investment decisions only during the weekend. In addition, since brokers who tend to issue more buy than sell order recommendations do not work on the weekend, individual investors are less likely to be affected by brokers buy order recommendations when they make their investment decisions during the weekend. Lakonishok and Maberly (1990) provide empirical evidence to support this view. They find that when the market reopens on Monday individual investors tend to increase trading activity (especially sell transactions) on that day. Because of the increased selling activity by individual investors on Monday relative to the rest of the week, it is possible that an association exists between the trading behaviour of individual investors and the Monday seasonal. However, there is yet to be direct evidence indicating that those stocks traded by individual investors on Monday are actually the stocks that cause the average price decline in the stock market on Monday. Kamara (1997) reports that the Monday seasonal declines over the period for stocks in the S&P 500 index, but not for stocks in the index of NYSE s smallest capitalization decile. He believes that the decline in trading costs and the increased role of institutions in the stock market can explain this phenomenon. However, because Kamara s observations are based only on the S&P 500 index and the small-cap index (which represent only a small fraction of stocks traded on the NYSE), it is difficult to draw a concrete conclusion as to whether the average decline in the stock market on Monday can be attributed to the lack of institutional ownership in certain stocks. 2 The above is especially true given Sias and Starks s (1995) finding. Using a sample of stocks traded on the NYSE during the period, they find essentially no evidence of differences in Monday returns between stocks with high institutional ownership and stocks with low institutional ownership. 3 Furthermore, conditional on the previous Friday s return and controlling for firm size, Sias and Starks 1. Other explanations include settlement period (see Lakonishok and Levi (1982)), measurement error or specialist-related explanation (see Keim and Stambaugh (1984)), institutional factors (see Flannery and Protopapadakis (1988)), and correlation with Friday return (see Damodaran (1989) and Abraham and Ikenberry (1994)). 2. However, analyzing S&P 500 future and spot returns and small-cap returns on Mondays, Kamara (1997) makes a convincing argument that informed traders use less costly markets to exploit the Monday seasonal. 3. Kamara (1997) uses the ratio of block trading to odd-lot trading to proxy for institutional trading while Sias and Stark (1995) use the institutional ownership level of stocks traded on NYSE (reported by Vickers Stock Research Corporation) to conduct their analysis. This might explain the difference in their findings.

3 The Impact of Institutional Investors on the Monday Seasonal 969 (1995) find that the Monday seasonal is more pronounced in stocks with higher institutional ownership. It should be noted, however, that the sample period of Sias and Starks s (1995) study ends in 1991 and therefore their result does not fully capture the change in the U.S. equity markets caused by the significant increase in institutional holdings in the stock market after (We document the increase in the role of institutional investors later in Table 1 of this paper.) In sum, the results from studies on the relationship between the level of institutional investors and the magnitude of the Monday seasonal seem to be sample specific and inconsistent with each other. It should be noted that prior studies use small samples and/or firms limited to NYSE. However, it is well known that the Monday seasonal exists not only for stocks traded on the NYSE, but also in other stock markets. For example, Wang, Li and Erickson (1997) document that the Monday seasonal is more severe in the Nasdaq market than in the NYSE during the period. In this paper we also show that Nasdaq stocks, which have higher transaction costs and exhibit the strongest Monday seasonal among the three stock markets in the early years, also have relatively lower institutional holdings than NYSE and Amex stocks during the same period. 4 Consequently, it seems necessary to conduct a more comprehensive analysis using firm-specific information on institutional holdings for all stocks traded on the NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq to confirm whether the trading patterns of individual investors can explain the magnitude of the Monday seasonal. This paper examines the relation between the Monday seasonal and the percentage of institutional holdings using all stocks traded on the NYSE, Amex and Nasdaq over the period. We report that the post-1990 period is associated with a significant increase in institutional holdings in the U.S. stock market and that the magnitude of the Monday seasonal diminished during this period. Although there is a possibility that the less negative mean return on Mondays for the 1990s could be the result of the bull market during this period, this is less of a concern because we also document that stock portfolios with high institutional holdings exhibit a weaker Monday seasonal than stock portfolios with low institutional holdings. In addition, we find that the mean Monday returns of stock portfolios with high institutional holdings are mostly positive (and are not significantly different from the mean returns on other weekdays) during the period. Our result provides direct evidence that the Monday seasonal is related to the trading patterns of less sophisticated individual investors. This finding seems to be consistent with the growing body of literature 4. For a partial list of studies on the Nasdaq market, see Huang and Stoll (1996), Chan and Lakonishok (1997), Keim and Madhavan (1997), Bessembinder (1999), Christie and Schultz (1999) and Barclay et al. (1999).

4 970 Journal of Business documenting that institutional investors trading strategies affect the movement of security prices. 5 Section II of this paper describes our data gathering procedure while section III reports the patterns of institutional holdings during the period. Section IV provides our empirical findings. The last section contains our conclusions. II. Data Gathering Procedure To gather institutional holdings and stock returns data, we first obtain from the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) the permanent numbers, CUSIP numbers, and names of all firms traded on the NYSE, Amex and Nasdaq during the period. We then obtain information on the number of shares held by institutional investors from the Spectrum 3:13 ( f ) Institutional Stock Holdings Survey during the same period. (This data source is available on the Spectrum tapes provided by Computer Directions Advisors). Finally, we combine data from the Spectrum tapes with data in the CRSP tapes to create the sample for this study. Only firms with both confirmed institutional information as well as stock return information are included in the final sample. (Appendix A provides details of the data selection and combination process.) The number of firms in our sample monotonically increases over time. We have 4,304 firms and 8,569 firms with complete information in 1981 and 1998, respectively. The percentage of institutional holdings is computed as the number of shares held by institutional investors in the second quarter (June 30) of the year (obtained from Spectrum) divided by the number of shares outstanding at the end of that quarter (obtained from CRSP). III. Patterns of Institutional Holdings During our sample period, institutional investors have become more dominant players in the stock market in the later years. Except for the and periods, we find that the percentage of institutional holdings is a monotonically increasing function of time. The mean percentage of institutional holdings of stocks traded in all the three markets (NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq) is 14.6% in 1981, 21.9% in 1990, and 31.0% in On the other hand, the percentage of stocks with zero institutional holdings decreases from 11.6% in 5. For a partial list of those studies, see Lakonishok, Shleifer, and Vishny (1992), Wang, Chan, and Gau (1992), Chan and Lakonishok (1993 and 1995), Keim and Madhavan (1995), Grinblatt, Titman, and Wermers (1995), Badrinath, Kale, and Noe (1995), Wang, Erickson, Gau, and Chan (1995), Sias and Starks (1997), and Nofsinger and Sias (1999).

5 The Impact of Institutional Investors on the Monday Seasonal to 3.7% in 1990, and to 2.4% in For NYSE firms, the average percentage of institutional holdings is 25.7% in 1981 and 44.2% in The mean institutional holdings for Amex and Nasdaq firms are 9.1% and 8.3%, respectively in 1981 and 18.6% and 25.4%, respectively in Table 1 presents summary statistics on the distribution of institutional holdings for NYSE, Amex and Nasdaq firms during the , , and periods. Panel A of Table 1 reports that the percentage of institutional holdings for all firms in all the three stock markets in the period (27.0%) is significantly higher (t-statistics = 65.21) than that in the period (18.5%). If we believe that institutional investors are better informed about the Monday seasonal than individual investors are, then our evidence suggests that stock markets should become more efficient in the recent years. Panels B, C, D, and E of Table 1 show that NYSE firms on average have a significantly higher percentage of institutional holdings than both Amex firms and Nasdaq firms in the period of analysis. When Amex firms are compared to Nasdaq firms, Panel E of Table 1 shows that Amex firms have a significantly higher percentage of institutional holdings during the period, but a significantly lower percentage of institutional holdings during the period. From 1981 to 1998, institutional holdings in Nasdaq stocks show a substantial increase of over 206% (from 8.3% in 1981 to 25.4% in 1998) while the increases for Amex and NYSE stocks are 104% (from 9.1% in 1981 to 18.6% in 1998) and 72% (from 25.7% in 1981 to 44.2% in 1998), respectively. The significant change in the level of institutional ownership in the Nasdaq market suggests that an examination of the relationship between institutional investors and price behavior in the Nasdaq market might yield interesting results. IV. Empirical Findings A. Patterns of Monday Returns To examine whether the magnitude of the Monday seasonal changes with the increase in institutional investors in the stock market, we calculate the mean Monday return and the mean Monday minus Tuesday to Friday return by period ( , and ) and by stock market. Panels A, B, C, and D of Table 2 report that, regardless of the stock market chosen, the mean Monday return and the mean Monday minus Tuesday to Friday return are higher in the sub-period than in the sub-period. While it is possible that the less negative mean Monday return in the period could be the result of the bull market of the 1990s, this market condition should also affect the mean returns on

6 972 Journal of Business TABLE 1 Institutional Holdings by Market and by Period for All NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq Firms, Period Panel A: Institutional Holdings for Firms in All Three Markets Mean Median Maximum Ratio of firms with zero holdings Number of observations Panel B: Institutional Holdings for NYSE Firms Mean Median Maximum Ratio of firms with zero holdings Number of observations Panel C: Institutional Holdings for Amex Firms Mean Median Maximum Ratio of firms with zero holdings Number of observations Panel D: Institutional Holdings for Nasdaq Firms Mean Median Maximum Ratio of firms with zero holdings Number of observations Panel E: T-Statistics for the Differences in Mean Institutional Holdings between Firms in Different Markets NYSE vs. Amex 72.5** 75.8** 105.5** NYSE vs. Nasdaq 98.3** 81.1** 121.0** Amex vs. Nasdaq 5.3** 17.7** 13.6** Note. The above summary statistics are based on data for the second quarter (June 30) of each year during the period. The ratio of shares held by institutional investors for each firm is computed as the total number of shares of the firm held by institutional investors at the end of the second quarter divided by the number of shares outstanding. The number of observations reported in the table includes both firms with positive as well as zero institutional holdings. *, ** Significant at the 10% and 5% levels for a two-tailed test, respectively. other weekdays during the same period as well. Since we also find that the magnitude of the mean Monday minus Tuesday to Friday return is significantly reduced in the period, it is more likely that the weaker Monday seasonal during this period is associated with an increase in institutional stock holdings in the markets. We note that NYSE, which has the highest average percentage of institutional holdings among the three markets during each of the

7 The Impact of Institutional Investors on the Monday Seasonal 973 TABLE 2 Mean Monday and Mean Monday Minus Tuesday to Friday Returns (%) for All NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq Stocks Partitioned by Period and Market, (T-statistics in Parentheses) Period Panel A: For all NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq Stocks Combined Difference in Returns between and Period Mean Monday Return (4.21**) (0.88) (3.82**) (2.74**) Mean Monday minus Tuesday Friday Return (6.51**) (4.86**) (8.09**) (2.01**) Panel B: For NYSE Stocks Mean Monday Return (2.65**) (0.29) (2.09**) (2.40**) Mean Monday minus Tuesday Friday Return (4.62**) (1.63) (4.75**) (2.91**) Panel C: For Amex Stocks Mean Monday Return (3.65**) (1.53) (3.90**) (2.31**) Mean Monday minus Tuesday Friday Return (5.99**) (5.62**) (8.05**) (2.13**) Panel D: For Nasdaq Stocks Mean Monday Return (5.40**) (1.34) (4.77**) (2.93**) Mean Monday minus Tuesday Friday Return (7.77**) (6.12**) (9.78**) (1.22) Panel E: T-Statistics for the Differences in Returns between Firms in Different Markets Mean Monday Return NYSE vs. Amex (1.90*) (3.38**) (3.72**) NYSE vs. Nasdaq (2.57**) (3.81**) (4.24**) Amex vs. Nasdaq (1.70*) (0.25) (1.41) Mean Monday minus Tuesday Friday Return NYSE vs. Amex (0.62) (2.66**) (1.93*) NYSE vs. Nasdaq (0.83) (3.57**) (2.83**) Amex vs. Nasdaq (0.16) (1.33) (0.96) Note. The Monday minus Tuesday to Friday return refers to the difference (%) between the Monday return and the average Tuesday to Friday return of the same week. *, ** Significant at the 10% and 5% levels for a two-tailed test, respectively.

8 974 Journal of Business , , and periods, also has the highest (least negative) mean Monday return and mean Monday minus Tuesday to Friday return during the same period. It is also interesting to note that during the sub-period Nasdaq has the lowest percentage of institutional holdings and also has the lowest mean Monday return and mean Monday minus Tuesday to Friday return among the three markets. Panel E of Table 2 provides t-statistics on the differences in mean Monday returns and the differences in mean Monday minus Tuesday to Friday returns between stocks in NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq. The result indicates that the mean Monday returns for NYSE stocks are significantly higher (less negative) than that for Amex and Nasdaq stocks in all the three periods ( , , ) examined. The mean Monday minus Tuesday to Friday return for NYSE stocks is also significantly higher than that for Amex and Nasdaq stocks during the sub-period. These results provide additional evidence that the Monday seasonal may be related to the institutional holdings level in the stock market. B. Analyses Based on Institutional Portfolios Our evidence so far indicates that the Monday seasonal is stronger in the sub-period than in the sub-period. This coincides with the evidence that the percentage of institutional holdings is lower in the period than in the period. We also know that during the period, the Monday seasonal is stronger in Amex and Nasdaq stocks than in NYSE stocks. This coincides with the evidence that the institutional holdings level of NYSE stocks is much higher than that of Amex and Nasdaq stocks. These two pieces of evidence indicate that the Monday seasonal and the level of institutional holdings may be correlated. To provide direct evidence on this issue, this section analyzes the impact of institutional holdings on Monday returns by partitioning stocks into portfolios sorted by the level of institutional holdings. For each year during the period, we divide all NYSE, Amex and Nasdaq stocks in our sample into ten equal portfolios, according to the percentage of institutional holdings in each stock. Portfolio 1 is the portfolio with the lowest mean institutional holdings while portfolio 10 is the one with the highest mean institutional holdings. Table 3 reports the result. The institutional holdings level varies significantly among deciles. In the period, the mean institutional holdings level is 0.2% for the lowest decile and 68.6% for the highest decile. We also observe that the institutional holdings level is a monotonically increasing function of time for nearly all deciles during the period examined.

9 TABLE 3 Institutional Holdings in Each Holdings Decile by Year and Specified Periods, Year Portfolio Lowest Decile Decile Decile Decile Decile Decile Decile Decile Highest Note. This table reports the mean percentage of institutional holdings of ten portfolios of NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq stocks sorted by the percentage of institutional holdings in each year and in each specified period during the period. The percentage of institutional holdings is defined as the number of shares held by institutional investors divided by the number of shares outstanding on June 30 of each year. Portfolio 1 (10) is the portfolio with the lowest (highest) mean institutional holdings. Period The Impact of Institutional Investors on the Monday Seasonal 975

10 976 Journal of Business Panel A of Table 4 reports the mean Monday returns of the ten portfolios sorted by the percentage of institutional holdings in each year and specified periods from 1981 to Two clear patterns can be observed from the table. First, the portfolio returns are, in general, more negative in the earlier years (when institutional holdings are lower) than in the later years (when institutional holdings are higher). Second, the portfolio returns are, in general, more negative in the lower decile portfolios (with lower institutional holdings) than in the higher decile portfolios (with higher institutional holdings). Except for portfolios 1, 3 and 4, the portfolio return is a monotonically increasing function of the level of institutional holdings in the period. For the portfolio with the highest institutional holdings (portfolio 10), the mean Monday return is significantly negative in only one out of the 18 years examined. Not surprisingly, the mean Monday return ( 0.057%) of the portfolio with the highest institutional holdings in the period is not significantly different from zero. Similarly, for the portfolio with the next highest institutional holdings (portfolio 9), only three out of the 18 years are with a significantly negative mean Monday return. A comparison of the results in the sub-period with that in the sub-period yields additional insight. The stock returns of every portfolio in the period are lower than the corresponding portfolio in the period. All the portfolio Monday returns are negative and significant in the period. During the period, except for the portfolios 1 and 7, the return is a monotonically increasing function of the level of institutional holdings. In contrast, only the returns of two portfolios (portfolios 5 and 6) are negative and significant in the period. More interestingly, the two portfolios with the highest institutional holdings (portfolios 9 and 10) exhibit positive mean Monday returns during the period. As a simple test to see if the portfolio Monday return is identical across deciles, we run regressions for each of the years and periods using the portfolio Monday return as the dependent variable and the percentage of institutional holdings in each holdings decile as the independent variable. We predict the coefficient of this variable to be significantly positive. Panel B of Table 4 reports the results. For the 18 years examined, 16 out of the 18 coefficients for the institutional holdings variable are positive. Out of these 16 coefficients, ten are significant. For the remaining two negative coefficients, only one is significant. When examining the relationship between the mean Monday return and the mean institutional holdings during the periods , and , we find that all the three coefficients associated with the institutional holdings variable are positive and significant. This regression result seems to indicate that

11 The Impact of Institutional Investors on the Monday Seasonal 977 the mean Monday returns across institutional holdings deciles are not identical. 6 When the difference between the Monday return and the average Tuesday to Friday return is partitioned by institutional holdings level and by year, we find an interesting pattern. Panel A of Table 5 reports that the differences become insignificantly different from zero in recent years (1990 onwards) for portfolios with higher institutional holdings. For the period, the difference between the Monday return and the average Tuesday to Friday return is not significant for the two portfolios (portfolios 9 and 10) with the highest institutional holdings level. This at least shows that, in recent years, the Monday return is not different from the mean Tuesday to Friday return for stocks with more institutional investors. Similar to Table 4, we also run regressions for each of the years and periods using the difference between the Monday return and the average Tuesday to Friday return as the dependent variable and the institutional holdings in each decile as the independent variable. Again, we predict the coefficient of this variable to be significantly positive. Panel B of Table 5 reports the result. For the 18 years examined, 16 of the coefficients associated with the institutional holdings variable are significantly positive. For the three periods examined ( , and ), all the three coefficients associated with the institutional holdings variable are also positive (two are significant). Our regression result suggests that the difference between the Monday return and the average Tuesday to Friday return is not identical across holdings deciles. This further shows that the Monday seasonal is typically stronger in stocks with low institutional holdings. A comparison of the result in Table 4 (based on Monday returns) with that in Table 5 (based on Monday minus Tuesday to Friday returns) yields an interesting observation. We observe in Table 4 that the effect of holdings is not very significant on a year-to-year basis after 1990, while in Table 5 the effect of holdings is always significantly positive. This is probably because, although the mean Monday returns are not significantly negative for most holdings deciles for the years during the bull market of 1990s, the Monday returns (at least for the lower holdings deciles) are still significantly lower than the returns on other weekdays during the period. This lower mean Monday minus Tuesday to Friday return may be the reason why the institutional holdings variable is more significant in explaining the Monday minus 6. We also conduct t-tests to see if the mean Monday returns are equal among institutional holdings deciles in the period. When we divide all stocks into three institutional holdings portfolios, the difference in the Monday returns between the high holdings portfolio and low holdings portfolio is 0.068% (t-statistic = 2.29). When we divide all stocks into five institutional holdings portfolios, the difference in the Monday returns between the highest holdings portfolio and lowest holdings portfolio is 0.056% (t-statistic = 2.26). These results support the conclusions derived from the regression analyses.

12 TABLE 4 Impact of Institutional Holdings on Mean Monday Returns of Portfolios of NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq Stocks, Year Panel A: Equally-Weighted Monday Returns (%) of Portfolios of NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq Stocks Sorted by the Level of Institutional Holdings (T-Statistics in Parentheses) Portfolio Lowest (3.48**) (2.61**) (1.33) (5.17**) (3.13**) (3.38**) (2.22**) (1.03) (3.07**) (2.86**) (.33) (.82) Decile (3.99**) (2.73**) (.97) (4.80**) (1.56) (2.77**) (1.86*) (.80) (2.45**) (1.73*) (.22) (1.63) Decile (2.72**) (1.97**) (.62) (4.26**) (1.14) (2.90**) (2.18**) (.02) (2.77**) (1.83*) (.21) (.84) Decile (2.14**) (.87) (.47) (3.96**) (1.05) (2.91**) (1.77*) (.25) (3.16**) (1.54) (.81) (.27) Decile (2.08**) (1.22) (.83) (3.49**) (.20) (2.55**) (1.75*) (.41) (3.48**) (2.18**) (.39) (.16) Decile (2.16**) (1.01) (.73) (2.58**) (.56) (3.02**) (1.84*) (.09) (2.35**) (1.75*) (.00) (.07) Decile (1.89*) (.74) (.62) (2.53**) (.13) (2.56**) (1.57) (.04) (3.06**) (1.60) (.24) (.01) Decile (1.54) (1.23) (.81) (2.02**) (.01) (2.25**) (1.65*) (.61) (2.21**) (.74) (.48) (.69) Decile (1.51) (.54) (.58) (2.32**) (.04) (2.25**) (1.50) (.30) (1.90*) (.16) (.59) (.63) Highest (.96) (.28) (.57) (1.69*) (.17) (1.47) (1.45) (.33) (.84) (.04) (.19) (.87) Panel B: Regression Estimates Obtained by Regressing the Mean Monday Return of Each Portfolio on the Institutional Holdings Level in Each Decile (T-Statistics in Parentheses) Intercept (10.20**) (7.42**) (7.49**) (20.78**) (4.86**) (18.24**) (21.98**) (2.05*) (12.90**) (9.70**) (1.70) (2.47 **) Holdings (4.18**) (3.94**) (1.57) (5.01**) (4.09**) (.37) (3.85**) (3.35**) (4.31**) (5.36**) (.92) (.00) Adjusted R Number of Observations Journal of Business Period

13 TABLE 4 Impact of Institutional Holdings on Mean Monday Returns of Portfolios of NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq Stocks, Year Panel A: Equally-Weighted Monday Returns (%) of Portfolios of NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq Stocks Sorted by the Level of Institutional Holdings (T-Statistics in Parentheses) Portfolio Lowest (.82) (1.10) (.97) (1.00) (.14) (.95) (1.24) (7.00**) (.95) (5.71**) Decile (1.63) (.84) (2.35**) (.22) (.79) (.53) (1.28) (6.13**) (1.64) (5.83**) Decile (.84) (1.85*) (.84) (.55) (.41) (.24) (1.29) (5.14**) (1.08) (4.58**) Decile (.27) (.71) (1.61) (.81) (.54) (.14) (1.21) (4.45**) (1.40) (4.27**) Decile (.16) (.02) (1.71*) (.41) (.06) (.02) (1.63) (4.09**) (1.76*) (4.27**) Decile (.07) (.22) (1.04) (.14) (.34) (.02) (1.29) (4.10**) (1.74*) (4.23**) Decile (.01) (.29) (1.18) (.53) (.02) (.31) (1.24) (3.60**) (1.16) (3.47**) Decile (.69) (.27) (.92) (.15) (.27) (.45) (1.07) (3.37**) (.37) (2.81**) Decile (.63) (1.04) (.72) (.84) (.42) (.62) (.74) (3.01**) (.53) (2.00**) Highest (.87) (1.36) (.34) (.14) (.23) (.35) (.62) (2.24**) (.42) (1.50) Period The Impact of Institutional Investors on the Monday Seasonal Panel B: Regression Estimates Obtained by Regressing the Mean Monday Return of Each Portfolio on the Institutional Holdings Level in Each Decile (T-Statistics in Parentheses) Intercept (2.47 **) (2.25*) (6.19 **) (.02) (3.71**) (4.76**) (8.76**) (33.12**) (5.43**) (32.15**) Holdings (.00) (.33) (2.83**) (.86) (4.11**) (4.64**) (1.09) (5.68**) (3.27**) (8.65**) Adjusted R Number of Observations Note. Panel A of this table reports the equally-weighted Monday returns (%) of ten portfolios of NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq stocks sorted by the percentage of institutional holdings in each year and in each specified period during the period. For each year or specified period, we divide all NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq stocks in our sample into ten equal portfolios based on the percentage of institutional holdings of each stock. ( The percentage of institutional holdings is defined as the number of shares held by institutional investors divided by the number of shares outstanding on June 30 of each year.) Portfolio 1 (10) is the portfolio with the lowest (highest) mean institutional holding. The mean portfolio return reported in the table is the average of the mean Monday returns of all the securities that comprise the portfolio in a particular year or period. Panel B reports the regression results where the mean Monday returns of each portfolio are regressed on the percentage of institutional holdings of each holdings decile. *, ** Significant at the 10% and 5% levels, respectively, for a two-tailed test (t-statistics). 979

14 TABLE 5 Difference between Monday Returns and Mean Tuesday to Friday Returns of Portfolios of NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq Stocks, Year Panel A: Difference (%) between Monday Returns and Mean Tuesday to Friday Returns of Portfolios of NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq Stocks Sorted by the Level of Institutional Holdings (T Statistics in Parentheses) Portfolio All combined (2.65**) (2.23**) (2.29**) (3.12**) (2.63**) (3.83**) (2.14**) (1.31) (4.57**) (1.18) (2.16**) (2.10**) (1.9 Lowest (3.16*) (2.51*) (2.77*) (3.92*) (3.13*) (2.93*) (2.27*) (1.70**) (3.80*) (1.94**) (2.24*) (3.45*) (3.1 Decile (3.78*) (3.62*) (2.41*) (3.73*) (2.95*) (4.21*) (2.35*) (2.28*) (4.27*) (2.02*) (3.94*) (2.18*) (3.0 Decile (3.07*) (2.94*) (2.24*) (3.84*) (3.51*) (4.21*) (2.67*) (1.48*) (4.79*) (2.07*) (3.71*) (3.08*) (1.8 Decile (2.57*) (2.00*) (2.16*) (3.77*) (3.27*) (4.13*) (2.13*) (1.57) (5.01*) (2.11*) (2.47*) (3.40*) (2.1 Decile (2.70*) (2.43*) (2.32*) (3.35*) (2.59*) (3.79*) (2.08*) (.92) (5.35*) (2.11*) (2.41*) (2.10*) (2.2 Decile (2.66*) (2.28*) (2.26*) (2.76*) (2.59*) (3.87*) (2.19*) (1.49) (3.95*) (1.71**) (2.03*) (1.99*) (2.1 Decile (2.46*) (1.89**) (2.10*) (2.49*) (2.15*) (3.47*) (1.85**) (1.24) (4.59*) (1.29) (1.70**) (1.69**) (1.6 Decile (2.18*) (2.18*) (2.11*) (2.20*) (2.11*) (3.17*) (2.00*) (.71) (3.66*) (.50) (1.08) (.55) (.9 Decile (2.01*) (1.39) (1.80**) (2.60*) (1.65**) (3.06*) (1.90**) (.78) (3.18*).10 (.82) (.32) (.1 Highest (1.39) (1.17) (1.81**) (1.86**) (1.23) (2.35*) (1.90**) (.50) (2.10*).27 (.97).10 Panel B: Regression Estimates Obtained by Regressing the Difference between the Monday Returns and Mean Tuesday to Friday Returns of Each Portfolio on the Institutional Holdings Level in Each Decile (T-Statistics in Parentheses) Intercept (13.35**) (9.38**) (22.01**) (43.68**) (22.42**) (10.69**) (15.53**) (10.53**) (14.66**) (7.73**) (8.53**) (12.64**) (1 Holdings (3.93**) (1.99*) (2.76**) (3.36**) (5.62**) (1.06) (3.72**) (4.50**) (3.28**) (5.73**) (3.07**) (8.52**) (9 Adj. R-sq Number of Observations Journal of Business

15 TABLE 5 (Continued) Year Period Panel A: Difference (%) between Monday Returns and Mean Tuesday to Friday Returns of Portfolios of NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq Stocks Sorted by the Level of Institutional Holdings (T Statistics in Parentheses) Portfolio All combined (2.10**) (1.93*) (2.19**) (2.46**) (1.60) (.97) (1.66*) (6.51**) (4.86**) (8.09**) Lowest (3.45*) (3.15*) (3.54*) (2.78*) (2.93*) (3.56*) (3.06*) (7.57*) (8.81*) (11.40*) Decile (2.18*) (3.03*) (3.98*) (4.33*) (2.88*) (2.34*) (2.11*) (8.31*) (8.33*) (11.56*) Decile (3.08*) (1.89**) (2.27*) (3.57*) (2.04*) (1.46) (1.93**) (7.78*) (6.77*) (10.26*) Decile (3.40*) (2.16*) (2.38*) (3.72*) (1.86**) (1.11) (1.67**) (7.02*) (6.18*) (9.33*) Decile (2.10*) (2.20*) (2.30*) (1.89**) (1.12) (.87) (2.03*) (6.61*) (5.27*) (8.43*) Decile (1.99*) (2.13*) (1.65**) (2.44*) (1.70**) (.83) (1.60) (6.52*) (4.85*) (8.09*) Decile (1.69**) (1.64) (1.54) (1.32) (1.21) (.42) (1.44) (5.95*) (3.74*) (6.93*) Decile (.55) (.92) (1.24) (1.41) (.83) (.23) (1.33) (5.63*) (2.51*) (5.90*) Decile (.32) (.14) (.95) (.66) (.39) (.06) (1.01) (5.06*) (1.35) (4.75*) Highest (.63) (1.19) (.88) (.34) (.88) (4.15*) (1.39) (4.11*) The Impact of Institutional Investors on the Monday Seasonal Panel B: Regression Estimates Obtained by Regressing the Difference between the Monday Returns and Mean Tuesday to Friday Returns of Each Portfolio on the Institutional Holdings Level in Each Decile (T-Statistics in Parentheses) Intercept (12.64**) (13.06**) (11.00**) (14.50**) (13.08**) (7.60**) (15.06**) (25.15**) (31.42**) (38.10**) Holdings (8.52**) (9.68**) (5.85**) (4.14**) (3.87**) (3.78**) (4.67**) (1.70) (13.07**) (8.52**) Adj. R-sq Number of Observations Note. Panel A of this table reports the difference (%) between the equally-weighted Monday returns and the average Tuesday to Friday returns of ten portfolios of NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq stocks sorted by the percentage of institutional holdings in each year and in each specified period during the period. For each year or specified period, we divide all NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq stocks in our sample into ten equal portfolios based on the percentage of institutional holdings of each stock. (The percentage of institutional holdings is defined as the number of shares held by institutional investors divided by the number of shares outstanding on June 30 of each year.) Portfolio 1 (10) is the portfolio with the lowest (highest) mean institutional holding. The portfolio return reported in the table is the average of the difference between the mean Monday returns and the mean Tuesday to Friday returns of all the securities that comprise the portfolio in a particular year or period. Panel B reports the regression results where the difference in returns of each portfolio is regressed on the percentage of institutional holdings of each holdings decile. *, ** Significant at the 10% and 5% levels, respectively, for a two-tailed test (t-statistics). 981

16 982 Journal of Business TABLE 6 Dependent Variable Regression Analysis of the Effect of Institutional Holdings on Monday Returns and Monday minus Tuesday to Friday Returns for the and Sub-Periods Regression 1 Monday Return Regression 2 Monday minus Tuesday to Friday Return Intercept (25.35**) (30.03**) Percentage Holdings (4.35**) (2.03*) Dummy (12.58**) (3.11**) Percentage Holdings * Dummy (1.03) (4.50**) Adjusted R-square Number of Observations Note. Regression 1 uses the average Monday returns of the ten portfolios sorted by institutional holdings during the sub-period and the average Monday returns of the ten portfolios sorted by institutional holdings level during the sub-period as the dependent variable. Regression 2 uses the 20 average Monday minus Tuesday to Friday portfolio returns sorted by institutional holdings level during the and the sub-periods as the dependent variable. Percentage Holdings is the average percentage of institutional holdings of each portfolio sorted by holdings level during the two sub-periods. Dummy takes a value of 1 for the ten portfolio returns during the period. Percentage holdings * Dummy is an interaction variable. *, ** Significant at the 10% and 5% levels, respectively, for a two-tailed test (t-statistics). Tuesday to Friday return than in explaining the Monday return during the period. 7 We also conduct two regressions to see if the effect of institutional holdings is the same for the and sub-periods. In regression 1, we regress the 20 mean Monday returns (for the decile portfolios in the period and the decile portfolios in the period) against three independent variables: dummy for , percentage of institutional holdings in each decile, and an interaction variable (dummy for * percentage holdings). Regression 2 estimates the same equation, with the exception that we use the mean Monday minus Tuesday to Friday return as the dependent variable. We expect the coefficient of the institutional holdings variable to be significantly positive. Table 6 reports the result. As expected, the coefficients for the percentage of institutional holdings are significantly positive in both regressions. When the Monday return is used as the dependent variable, the interaction term is not significant indicating that the percentage of institutional holdings does not have a different effect in the two sub-periods. However, when Monday minus Tuesday to Friday return is used as the dependent variable, we find that the effect of institutional holdings is stronger in the sub-period than in the sub-period. (The 7. We thank an anonymous referee for pointing out this observation.

17 The Impact of Institutional Investors on the Monday Seasonal 983 coefficient of the interaction term in regression 2 is positive and significant.) This probably explains why the mean Monday minus Tuesday to Friday returns of larger holdings deciles (deciles 7 to 10) are mostly not significantly different from zero for the years in the subperiod, but are mostly negative and significant during the years in the sub-period. However, the fact that the dummy for the period is also significantly positive in both regressions indicates that during the period there are forces other than institutional holdings affecting the magnitude of the Monday seasonal as well. C. Additional Tests Abraham and Ikenberry (1994) and Sias and Starks (1995) find that firm size may also influence the magnitude of the Monday return. In addition, Wang, Li, and Erickson (1997) report that the mean Monday return is more negative in the last two weeks of the month. The literature also indicates that the Monday seasonal is highly correlated with the previous Friday s return. To further test the impact of institutional holdings on Monday returns while controlling for these factors, we run two separate sets of regressions. The first set of regressions tests the impact of institutional holdings on the Monday return of individual stocks by year and by specified period over the period while controlling for firm size and the type of stock market. (The dependent variable is the Monday return of individual stocks and the independent variables are the percentage of institutional holdings of the stock, the logarithm of the stock s market capitalization, and two dummies representing different stock markets). The second set of regressions analyzes the relation between institutional holdings and the Monday returns of individual stocks for size-sorted portfolios over the period while accounting for the previous trading day return, the last two Mondays effect, and the type of stock market. Overall, our conclusions regarding the effects of institutional holdings on the Monday return do not seem to be affected when we control for these additional variables. V. Conclusions The Monday seasonal has been one of the most puzzling phenomena in the finance literature. Our paper reports several interesting findings related to this phenomenon. We first document that the mean Monday return is not significantly negative if we consider only stock return data from 1990 to There are two possible explanations for this observation. First, the bull market of the 1990s could have resulted in a less negative mean Monday return during the period. Second,

18 984 Journal of Business because more institutional investors participate in the stock market during the period than in the pre-1990 period, the decline in the magnitude of the Monday return after 1990 may be linked to the increased role of institutional investors in the equity markets. We further explore the relationship between institutional investors and the Monday seasonal, finding that the Monday seasonal is weaker for stock portfolios with high institutional holdings than those with low institutional holdings. More importantly, we find that the mean Monday returns of stock portfolios with high institutional holdings are positive during the period and most of these returns are not significantly different from the corresponding mean Tuesday to Friday returns during the same period. Our paper provides direct evidence that the well-known Monday seasonal is typically stronger in stocks with low institutional holdings. Lakonishok and Maberly (1990) document that individual investors tend to increase trading activity (especially sell transactions) on Monday. This evidence indicates that the Monday seasonal could be related to the trading pattern of individual investors. Our result supports Lakonishok and Maberly s (1990) findings. Our finding also suggests that an active participation of institutional investors in a stock market may reduce the magnitude of the Monday seasonal. This is true because institutional investors may be able to actively arbitrage the seasonal given that they should be more aware of the Monday seasonal and have lower trading costs than most individuals. Appendix Our data collection process begins with the Spectrum tapes. From these tapes, we obtain the following information: CUSIP, stock name, end-of-quarter shares outstanding, and shares held by institutional investors. However, because the Spectrum file reports the number of shares outstanding figure rounded to the nearest one million, some of the percentages exceed 100 percent when the percentage of shares held by institutional investors is calculated. To solve this problem, we use shares outstanding data from CRSP tapes. We first identify firms that are listed by both the CRSP and Spectrum tapes and then use the 8-digit CUSIP number from the CRSP tapes as the key to merge information from the two tapes. This process results in a file that contains the permanent number (from CRSP), the number of shares held by each institutional investor (from Spectrum), the number of shares outstanding at the end of each quarter (from CRSP), and stock returns data (from CRSP) during the period. For each firm the percentage of institutional holdings in each quarter is computed as the number of shares held by institutional investors divided by the number of shares outstanding in that quarter. We use the data reported for 1984 as an example to discuss the data collection process. In 1984, there are 5,266 firms in the Spectrum tapes that have information on the number of shares held by institutional investors. Of these firms, 158 cannot be matched (using the 8-digit CUSIP number) with any firm in the CRSP tapes

19 The Impact of Institutional Investors on the Monday Seasonal 985 during the same quarter. (The majority of these firms are foreign firms.) Since we do not have return data for these 158 firms, we delete them from the sample. After eliminating these firms, the resulting number of Spectrum firms that can be completely matched with CRSP firms in the same quarter using the 8-digit CUSIP number is 5,108. From these 5,108 firms we exclude 8 observations where the computed percentage of institutional share holdings exceeds 100 percent and another 50 observations with no CRSP shares outstanding data for the quarter. (In the latter case, Spectrum reports the share holdings information on the firm at least a quarter earlier than when CRSP begins to report shares outstanding data for the firm. This is likely in situations where firms go public using the best-efforts method.) After going through the above-mentioned procedures, the resulting number of useful observations is 5,050. We then match firms listed in CRSP tapes with firms listed in Spectrum in the period. In the second quarter of 1984, we find 6,335 observations in the CRSP tapes with shares outstanding data along with stock return data during the quarter. Among these 6,335 firms, 381 cannot be matched (using the 8-digit CUSIP number) with firms listed in Spectrum during any quarter in the period In other words, during the period none of the 13(f ) institutions hold the stocks of these firms. Hence these firms are assigned a zero percentage of institutional holdings for the purpose of analysis. 5,954 firms listed in the CRSP tapes in the second quarter of 1984 can be matched using the 8-digit CUSIP with firms listed in the Spectrum in one of the quarters during the period. From these 5,954 firms we exclude 8 firms (similar to the 8 firms in the Spectrum tapes) that have a computed percentage of institutional holdings in excess of 100 percent. After we exclude these 8 firms we have 5,946 completely matched CRSP firms. Of these 5,946 firms, 5,050 are matched with Spectrum firms in the same quarter and 896 are matched with Spectrum firms in a quarter other than the current quarter. Since we are not certain about the institutional holdings information in the current quarter for the 896 firms, we delete these firms from the sample. This process gives us a total of 5,431 observations. Of these, 5,050 observations have a positive percentage of institutional holdings and 381 observations have zero institutional holdings (these are firms that cannot be matched with firms listed in Spectrum during any quarter in the period). References Abraham, A., and Ikenberry, D. L The individual investor and the weekend effect. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 29: Badrinath, S. G.; Kale, J.; and Noe, T Of shepherds, sheep and the cross-autocorrelation in equity returns. Review of Financial Studies 2: Barclay, M.; Christie, W.; Harris, J.; Kandel, E.; and Schultz, P The effects of market reform on the trading costs and depths of Nasdaq stocks. Journal of Finance 54: Bessembinder, H Trade execution costs on NASDAQ and NYSE: A post-reform comparison. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 34: Chan, L. K. C., and Lakonishok, J Institutional trades and intraday stock price behavior. Journal of Financial Economics 33: Chan, L. K. C., and Lakonishok, J The behavior of stock prices around institutional trades. Journal of Finance 50: Chan, L. K. C., and Lakonishok, J Institutional equity trading costs: NYSE versus Nasdaq. Journal of Finance 52:

Day-of-the-Week Trading Patterns of Individual and Institutional Investors

Day-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 information

Day-of-the-Week and the Returns Distribution: Evidence from the Tunisian Stock Market

Day-of-the-Week and the Returns Distribution: Evidence from the Tunisian Stock Market The Journal of World Economic Review; Vol. 6 No. 2 (July-December 2011) pp. 163-172 Day-of-the-Week and the Returns Distribution: Evidence from the Tunisian Stock Market Abderrazak Dhaoui * * University

More information

Efficient Market Hypothesis Foreign Institutional Investors and Day of the Week Effect

Efficient Market Hypothesis Foreign Institutional Investors and Day of the Week Effect DOI: 10.7763/IPEDR. 2012. V50. 20 Efficient Market Hypothesis Foreign Institutional Investors and Day of the Week Effect Abstract.The work examines the trading pattern of the Foreign Institutional Investors

More information

Reconcilable Differences: Momentum Trading by Institutions

Reconcilable Differences: Momentum Trading by Institutions Reconcilable Differences: Momentum Trading by Institutions Richard W. Sias * March 15, 2005 * Department of Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, College of Business and Economics, Washington State University,

More information

The Value Premium and the January Effect

The 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 information

Day-of-the-week and the returns distribution: evidence from the Tunisian Stock Market

Day-of-the-week and the returns distribution: evidence from the Tunisian Stock Market Day-of-the-week and the returns distribution: evidence from the Tunisian Stock Market Abderrazak DHAOUI Abstract In this paper, we examine the behavior of returns across the-day-of-the-week in the context

More information

Herding and Feedback Trading by Institutional and Individual Investors

Herding and Feedback Trading by Institutional and Individual Investors THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LIV, NO. 6 DECEMBER 1999 Herding and Feedback Trading by Institutional and Individual Investors JOHN R. NOFSINGER and RICHARD W. SIAS* ABSTRACT We document strong positive correlation

More information

The 52-Week High And The January Effect Seung-Chan Park, Adelphi University, USA Sviatoslav A. Moskalev, Adelphi University, USA

The 52-Week High And The January Effect Seung-Chan Park, Adelphi University, USA Sviatoslav A. Moskalev, Adelphi University, USA The 52-Week High And The January Effect Seung-Chan Park, Adelphi University, USA Sviatoslav A. Moskalev, Adelphi University, USA ABSTRACT The predictive power of past returns for January reversal is compared

More information

Vas Ist Das. The Turn of the Year Effect: Is the January Effect Real and Still Present?

Vas Ist Das. The Turn of the Year Effect: Is the January Effect Real and Still Present? Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Plan B and other Reports Graduate Studies 5-2015 Vas Ist Das. The Turn of the Year Effect: Is the January Effect Real and Still Present? Michael I.

More information

International Journal of Management Sciences and Business Research, 2013 ISSN ( ) Vol-2, Issue 12

International Journal of Management Sciences and Business Research, 2013 ISSN ( ) Vol-2, Issue 12 Momentum and industry-dependence: the case of Shanghai stock exchange market. Author Detail: Dongbei University of Finance and Economics, Liaoning, Dalian, China Salvio.Elias. Macha Abstract A number of

More information

Daily Patterns in Stock Returns: Evidence From the New Zealand Stock Market

Daily Patterns in Stock Returns: Evidence From the New Zealand Stock Market Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, ISSN 1548-6583 October 2011, Vol. 7, No. 10, 1116-1121 Daily Patterns in Stock Returns: Evidence From the New Zealand Stock Market Li Bin, Liu Benjamin Griffith

More information

Real Estate Investment Trusts and Calendar Anomalies

Real Estate Investment Trusts and Calendar Anomalies JOURNAL OF REAL ESTATE RESEARCH 1 Real Estate Investment Trusts and Calendar Anomalies Arnold L. Redman* Herman Manakyan** Kartono Liano*** Abstract. There have been numerous studies in the finance literature

More information

Tick size and trading costs on the Korea Stock Exchange

Tick size and trading costs on the Korea Stock Exchange See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228723439 Tick size and trading costs on the Korea Stock Exchange Article January 2005 CITATIONS

More information

Intraday return patterns and the extension of trading hours

Intraday return patterns and the extension of trading hours Intraday return patterns and the extension of trading hours KOTARO MIWA # Tokio Marine Asset Management Co., Ltd KAZUHIRO UEDA The University of Tokyo Abstract Although studies argue that periodic market

More information

An Analysis of Day-of-the-Week Effects in the Egyptian Stock Market

An Analysis of Day-of-the-Week Effects in the Egyptian Stock Market INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS, 9(3), 2004 ISSN: 1083 4346 An Analysis of Day-of-the-Week Effects in the Egyptian Stock Market Hassan Aly a, Seyed Mehdian b, and Mark J. Perry b a Ohio State University,

More information

Option Introduction and Liquidity Changes in the OTC/NASDAQ Equity Market

Option Introduction and Liquidity Changes in the OTC/NASDAQ Equity Market The Journal of Entrepreneurial Finance Volume 2 Issue 1 Fall 1992 Article 4 December 1992 Option Introduction and Liquidity Changes in the OTC/NASDAQ Equity Market Rich Fortin New Mexico State University

More information

Seasonal, Size and Value Anomalies

Seasonal, Size and Value Anomalies Seasonal, Size and Value Anomalies Ben Jacobsen, Abdullah Mamun, Nuttawat Visaltanachoti This draft: August 2005 Abstract Recent international evidence shows that in many stock markets, general index returns

More information

Do Earnings Explain the January Effect?

Do Earnings Explain the January Effect? Do Earnings Explain the January Effect? Hai Lu * Leventhal School of Accounting Marshall School of Business University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089 hailu@marshall.usc.edu Qingzhong Ma Department

More information

Dissecting Anomalies. Eugene F. Fama and Kenneth R. French. Abstract

Dissecting 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 information

What Drives the Earnings Announcement Premium?

What Drives the Earnings Announcement Premium? What Drives the Earnings Announcement Premium? Hae mi Choi Loyola University Chicago This study investigates what drives the earnings announcement premium. Prior studies have offered various explanations

More information

Is the Weekend Effect Really a Weekend Effect?

Is the Weekend Effect Really a Weekend Effect? International Journal of Economics and Finance; Vol. 7, No. 9; 2015 ISSN 1916-971X E-ISSN 1916-9728 Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education Is the Weekend Effect Really a Weekend Effect?

More information

PRE-CLOSE TRANSPARENCY AND PRICE EFFICIENCY AT MARKET CLOSING: EVIDENCE FROM THE TAIWAN STOCK EXCHANGE Cheng-Yi Chien, Feng Chia University

PRE-CLOSE TRANSPARENCY AND PRICE EFFICIENCY AT MARKET CLOSING: EVIDENCE FROM THE TAIWAN STOCK EXCHANGE Cheng-Yi Chien, Feng Chia University The International Journal of Business and Finance Research VOLUME 7 NUMBER 2 2013 PRE-CLOSE TRANSPARENCY AND PRICE EFFICIENCY AT MARKET CLOSING: EVIDENCE FROM THE TAIWAN STOCK EXCHANGE Cheng-Yi Chien,

More information

Local Culture and Dividends

Local Culture and Dividends Local Culture and Dividends Erdem Ucar I empirically investigate whether geographical variations in local culture, as proxied by local religion, affect dividend demand and corporate dividend policy for

More information

Post-Earnings-Announcement Drift: The Role of Revenue Surprises and Earnings Persistence

Post-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 information

An Analysis of Day-of-the-Week Effect in Indian Stock Market

An Analysis of Day-of-the-Week Effect in Indian Stock Market International Journal of Business Management An Analysis of Day-of-the-Week Effect in Indian Stock Market Abstract Dr.Vandana Khanna 1 The present study examines the effect of trading days in the Indian

More information

Between-country differences in the Monday Effect:

Between-country differences in the Monday Effect: Between-country differences in the Monday Effect: Evidence from European Equity Markets ABSTRACT. The goal of this paper is to find evidence if the Monday effect still exists and if there are economic

More information

Is There a Friday Effect in Financial Markets?

Is There a Friday Effect in Financial Markets? Economics and Finance Working Paper Series Department of Economics and Finance Working Paper No. 17-04 Guglielmo Maria Caporale and Alex Plastun Is There a Effect in Financial Markets? January 2017 http://www.brunel.ac.uk/economics

More information

Active portfolios: diversification across trading strategies

Active portfolios: diversification across trading strategies Computational Finance and its Applications III 119 Active portfolios: diversification across trading strategies C. Murray Goldman Sachs and Co., New York, USA Abstract Several characteristics of a firm

More information

A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge

A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge Abu Bakar, A., Siganos, A., and Vagenas-Nanos, E. (2014) Does mood explain the Monday effect? Journal of Forecasting, 33 (6). pp. 409-418. ISSN 0277-6693 Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. A copy can

More information

Does Book-to-Market Equity Proxy for Distress Risk or Overreaction? John M. Griffin and Michael L. Lemmon *

Does Book-to-Market Equity Proxy for Distress Risk or Overreaction? John M. Griffin and Michael L. Lemmon * Does Book-to-Market Equity Proxy for Distress Risk or Overreaction? by John M. Griffin and Michael L. Lemmon * December 2000. * Assistant Professors of Finance, Department of Finance- ASU, PO Box 873906,

More information

Underreaction, Trading Volume, and Momentum Profits in Taiwan Stock Market

Underreaction, 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 information

On 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 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 information

Momentum and the Disposition Effect: The Role of Individual Investors

Momentum and the Disposition Effect: The Role of Individual Investors Momentum and the Disposition Effect: The Role of Individual Investors Jungshik Hur, Mahesh Pritamani, and Vivek Sharma We hypothesize that disposition effect-induced momentum documented in Grinblatt and

More information

Premium Timing with Valuation Ratios

Premium 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 information

ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, TAXES DRIVE THE JANUARY EFFECT. Abstract

ALL 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 information

PROFITABILITY OF CAPM MOMENTUM STRATEGIES IN THE US STOCK MARKET

PROFITABILITY 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 information

IPO s Long-Run Performance: Hot Market vs. Earnings Management

IPO s Long-Run Performance: Hot Market vs. Earnings Management IPO s Long-Run Performance: Hot Market vs. Earnings Management Tsai-Yin Lin Department of Financial Management National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology Jerry Yu * Department of Finance

More information

The Day of the Week Effect in the Pakistani Equity Market: An Investigation

The Day of the Week Effect in the Pakistani Equity Market: An Investigation MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive The Day of the Week Effect in the Pakistani Equity Market: An Investigation Fazal Husain Pakistan Institute of Development Economics 2000 Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5268/

More information

Cross Sections of Expected Return and Book to Market Ratio: An Empirical Study on Colombo Stock Market

Cross Sections of Expected Return and Book to Market Ratio: An Empirical Study on Colombo Stock Market Cross Sections of Expected Return and Book to Market Ratio: An Empirical Study on Colombo Stock Market Mohamed I.M.R., Sulima L.M., and Muhideen B.N. Sri Lanka Institute of Advanced Technological Education

More information

INVESTING IN THE ASSET GROWTH ANOMALY ACROSS THE GLOBE

INVESTING IN THE ASSET GROWTH ANOMALY ACROSS THE GLOBE JOIM Journal Of Investment Management, Vol. 13, No. 4, (2015), pp. 87 107 JOIM 2015 www.joim.com INVESTING IN THE ASSET GROWTH ANOMALY ACROSS THE GLOBE Xi Li a and Rodney N. Sullivan b We document the

More information

Is Information Risk Priced for NASDAQ-listed Stocks?

Is Information Risk Priced for NASDAQ-listed Stocks? Is Information Risk Priced for NASDAQ-listed Stocks? Kathleen P. Fuller School of Business Administration University of Mississippi kfuller@bus.olemiss.edu Bonnie F. Van Ness School of Business Administration

More information

INTRA-INDUSTRY REACTIONS TO STOCK SPLIT ANNOUNCEMENTS. Abstract. I. Introduction

INTRA-INDUSTRY REACTIONS TO STOCK SPLIT ANNOUNCEMENTS. Abstract. I. Introduction The Journal of Financial Research Vol. XXV, No. 1 Pages 39 57 Spring 2002 INTRA-INDUSTRY REACTIONS TO STOCK SPLIT ANNOUNCEMENTS Oranee Tawatnuntachai Penn State Harrisburg Ranjan D Mello Wayne State University

More information

An Online Appendix of Technical Trading: A Trend Factor

An 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 information

Liquidity skewness premium

Liquidity 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 information

An Analysis of Relative Return Behavior: REITs vs. Stocks

An Analysis of Relative Return Behavior: REITs vs. Stocks An Analysis of Relative Return Behavior: REITs vs. Stocks Jorg Bley American University of Sharjah and Dennis Olson American University of Sharjah Abstract We have analyzed the return behavior of the equity

More information

The Day of the Week Effect in the Pakistani Equity Market: An Investigation

The Day of the Week Effect in the Pakistani Equity Market: An Investigation Fazal Husain 93 The Day of the Week Effect in the Pakistani Equity Market: An Investigation Fazal Husain * Abstract This paper investigates the day of the week effect in the Pakistani equity market. Using

More information

Decimalization and Illiquidity Premiums: An Extended Analysis

Decimalization 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 information

When do banks listen to their analysts? Evidence from mergers and acquisitions

When do banks listen to their analysts? Evidence from mergers and acquisitions When do banks listen to their analysts? Evidence from mergers and acquisitions David Haushalter Penn State University E-mail: gdh12@psu.edu Phone: (814) 865-7969 Michelle Lowry Penn State University E-mail:

More information

DIVIDEND POLICY AND THE LIFE CYCLE HYPOTHESIS: EVIDENCE FROM TAIWAN

DIVIDEND POLICY AND THE LIFE CYCLE HYPOTHESIS: EVIDENCE FROM TAIWAN The International Journal of Business and Finance Research Volume 5 Number 1 2011 DIVIDEND POLICY AND THE LIFE CYCLE HYPOTHESIS: EVIDENCE FROM TAIWAN Ming-Hui Wang, Taiwan University of Science and Technology

More information

RESEARCH PROPOSAL PRICE BEHAVIOR AROUND BLOCK TRADES ON THE NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE, INDIA

RESEARCH PROPOSAL PRICE BEHAVIOR AROUND BLOCK TRADES ON THE NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE, INDIA RESEARCH PROPOSAL PRICE BEHAVIOR AROUND BLOCK TRADES ON THE NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE, INDIA BACKGROUND Although it has been empirically observed that information about block trades has mixed signaling effect

More information

Day of the Week Effects: Recent Evidence from Nineteen Stock Markets

Day of the Week Effects: Recent Evidence from Nineteen Stock Markets Day of the Week Effects: Recent Evidence from Nineteen Stock Markets Aslı Bayar a* and Özgür Berk Kan b a Department of Management Çankaya University Öğretmenler Cad. 06530 Balgat, Ankara Turkey abayar@cankaya.edu.tr

More information

Seasonality in Value vs. Growth Stock Returns and the Value Premium

Seasonality in Value vs. Growth Stock Returns and the Value Premium Seasonality in Value vs. Growth Stock Returns and the Value Premium George Athanassakos*, Professor of Finance University of Western Ontario, London, Canada ABSTRACT Employing data from each of the three

More information

This is a working draft. Please do not cite without permission from the author.

This is a working draft. Please do not cite without permission from the author. This is a working draft. Please do not cite without permission from the author. Uncertainty and Value Premium: Evidence from the U.S. Agriculture Industry Bruno Arthur and Ani L. Katchova University of

More information

The Reporting of Island Trades on the Cincinnati Stock Exchange

The Reporting of Island Trades on the Cincinnati Stock Exchange The Reporting of Island Trades on the Cincinnati Stock Exchange Van T. Nguyen, Bonnie F. Van Ness, and Robert A. Van Ness Island is the largest electronic communications network in the US. On March 18

More information

BOOK TO MARKET RATIO AND EXPECTED STOCK RETURN: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON THE COLOMBO STOCK MARKET

BOOK TO MARKET RATIO AND EXPECTED STOCK RETURN: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON THE COLOMBO STOCK MARKET BOOK TO MARKET RATIO AND EXPECTED STOCK RETURN: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY ON THE COLOMBO STOCK MARKET Mohamed Ismail Mohamed Riyath Sri Lanka Institute of Advanced Technological Education (SLIATE), Sammanthurai,

More information

Deviations 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 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 information

Recency Bias and Post-Earnings Announcement Drift * Qingzhong Ma California State University, Chico. David A. Whidbee Washington State University

Recency 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 information

Liquidity Variation and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns *

Liquidity 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 information

R&D and Stock Returns: Is There a Spill-Over Effect?

R&D and Stock Returns: Is There a Spill-Over Effect? R&D and Stock Returns: Is There a Spill-Over Effect? Yi Jiang Department of Finance, California State University, Fullerton SGMH 5160, Fullerton, CA 92831 (657)278-4363 yjiang@fullerton.edu Yiming Qian

More information

Momentum, Business Cycle, and Time-varying Expected Returns

Momentum, Business Cycle, and Time-varying Expected Returns THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LVII, NO. 2 APRIL 2002 Momentum, Business Cycle, and Time-varying Expected Returns TARUN CHORDIA and LAKSHMANAN SHIVAKUMAR* ABSTRACT A growing number of researchers argue that

More information

Tracking Retail Investor Activity. Ekkehart Boehmer Charles M. Jones Xiaoyan Zhang

Tracking Retail Investor Activity. Ekkehart Boehmer Charles M. Jones Xiaoyan Zhang Tracking Retail Investor Activity Ekkehart Boehmer Charles M. Jones Xiaoyan Zhang May 2017 Retail vs. Institutional The role of retail traders Are retail investors informed? Do they make systematic mistakes

More information

PRICE REVERSAL AND MOMENTUM STRATEGIES

PRICE REVERSAL AND MOMENTUM STRATEGIES PRICE REVERSAL AND MOMENTUM STRATEGIES Kalok Chan Department of Finance Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Clear Water Bay, Hong Kong Phone: (852) 2358 7680 Fax: (852) 2358 1749 E-mail: kachan@ust.hk

More information

It is well known that equity returns are

It is well known that equity returns are DING LIU is an SVP and senior quantitative analyst at AllianceBernstein in New York, NY. ding.liu@bernstein.com Pure Quintile Portfolios DING LIU It is well known that equity returns are driven to a large

More information

Existence Of Certain Anomalies In Indian Stock Market

Existence Of Certain Anomalies In Indian Stock Market 2011 International Conference on Economics and Finance Research IPEDR vol.4 (2011) (2011) IACSIT Press, Singapore Existence Of Certain Anomalies In Indian Stock Market Dr.D.S.SELVAKUMAR School of social

More information

Economics of Behavioral Finance. Lecture 3

Economics 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 information

A Spline Analysis of the Small Firm Effect: Does Size Really Matter?

A Spline Analysis of the Small Firm Effect: Does Size Really Matter? A Spline Analysis of the Small Firm Effect: Does Size Really Matter? Joel L. Horowitz, Tim Loughran, and N. E. Savin University of Iowa, 108 PBAB, Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1000 July 23, 1996 Abstract: This

More information

The Changing Relation Between Stock Market Turnover and Volatility

The Changing Relation Between Stock Market Turnover and Volatility The Changing Relation Between Stock Market Turnover and Volatility Paul Schultz * October, 2006 * Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame 1 Extensive research shows that for both individual

More information

An analysis of intraday patterns and liquidity on the Istanbul stock exchange

An analysis of intraday patterns and liquidity on the Istanbul stock exchange MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive An analysis of intraday patterns and liquidity on the Istanbul stock exchange Bülent Köksal Central Bank of Turkey 7. February 2012 Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/36495/

More information

Momentum Life Cycle Hypothesis Revisited

Momentum 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 information

Revisiting Idiosyncratic Volatility and Stock Returns. Fatma Sonmez 1

Revisiting 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 information

Do 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? 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 information

Asubstantial portion of the academic

Asubstantial 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 information

Stock price synchronicity and the role of analyst: Do analysts generate firm-specific vs. market-wide information?

Stock price synchronicity and the role of analyst: Do analysts generate firm-specific vs. market-wide information? Stock price synchronicity and the role of analyst: Do analysts generate firm-specific vs. market-wide information? Yongsik Kim * Abstract This paper provides empirical evidence that analysts generate firm-specific

More information

Measurement Effects and the Variance of Returns After Stock Splits and Stock Dividends

Measurement Effects and the Variance of Returns After Stock Splits and Stock Dividends Measurement Effects and the Variance of Returns After Stock Splits and Stock Dividends Jennifer Lynch Koski University of Washington This article examines the relation between two factors affecting stock

More information

EMPIRICAL STUDY ON STOCK'S CAPITAL RETURNS DISTRIBUTION AND FUTURE PERFORMANCE

EMPIRICAL STUDY ON STOCK'S CAPITAL RETURNS DISTRIBUTION AND FUTURE PERFORMANCE Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses 5-2013 EMPIRICAL STUDY ON STOCK'S CAPITAL RETURNS DISTRIBUTION AND FUTURE PERFORMANCE Han Liu Clemson University, hliu2@clemson.edu Follow this and additional

More information

VALCON Morningstar v. Duff & Phelps

VALCON Morningstar v. Duff & Phelps VALCON 2010 Size Premia: Morningstar v. Duff & Phelps Roger J. Grabowski, ASA Duff & Phelps, LLC Co-author with Shannon Pratt of Cost of Capital: Applications and Examples, 3 rd ed. (Wiley 2008) and 4th

More information

Tick Size, Spread, and Volume

Tick Size, Spread, and Volume JOURNAL OF FINANCIAL INTERMEDIATION 5, 2 22 (1996) ARTICLE NO. 0002 Tick Size, Spread, and Volume HEE-JOON AHN, CHARLES Q. CAO, AND HYUK CHOE* Department of Finance, The Pennsylvania State University,

More information

The Tangible Risk of Intangible Capital. Abstract

The Tangible Risk of Intangible Capital. Abstract The Tangible Risk of Intangible Capital Nan Li Shanghai Jiao Tong University Weiqi Zhang University of Muenster, Finance Center Muenster Yanzhao Jiang Shanghai Jiao Tong University Abstract With the rise

More information

International Journal of Asian Social Science OVERINVESTMENT, UNDERINVESTMENT, EFFICIENT INVESTMENT DECREASE, AND EFFICIENT INVESTMENT INCREASE

International Journal of Asian Social Science OVERINVESTMENT, UNDERINVESTMENT, EFFICIENT INVESTMENT DECREASE, AND EFFICIENT INVESTMENT INCREASE International Journal of Asian Social Science ISSN(e): 2224-4441/ISSN(p): 2226-5139 journal homepage: http://www.aessweb.com/journals/5007 OVERINVESTMENT, UNDERINVESTMENT, EFFICIENT INVESTMENT DECREASE,

More information

How Do Firms Finance Large Cash Flow Requirements? Zhangkai Huang Department of Finance Guanghua School of Management Peking University

How Do Firms Finance Large Cash Flow Requirements? Zhangkai Huang Department of Finance Guanghua School of Management Peking University How Do Firms Finance Large Cash Flow Requirements? Zhangkai Huang Department of Finance Guanghua School of Management Peking University Colin Mayer Saïd Business School University of Oxford Oren Sussman

More information

Stock Return Autocorrelation, Day-of-The-Week and Volatility: An Empirical Investigation on Saudi Arabian Stock Market

Stock Return Autocorrelation, Day-of-The-Week and Volatility: An Empirical Investigation on Saudi Arabian Stock Market Stock Return Autocorrelation, Day-of-The-Week and Volatility: An Empirical Investigation on Saudi Arabian Stock Market Shah Saeed Hassan Chowdhury, Prince Mohammad Bin Fahd University 1 M. Arifur Rahman,

More information

Empirical Research of Asset Growth and Future Stock Returns Based on China Stock Market

Empirical Research of Asset Growth and Future Stock Returns Based on China Stock Market Management Science and Engineering Vol. 10, No. 1, 2016, pp. 33-37 DOI:10.3968/8120 ISSN 1913-0341 [Print] ISSN 1913-035X [Online] www.cscanada.net www.cscanada.org Empirical Research of Asset Growth and

More information

Fama-French in China: Size and Value Factors in Chinese Stock Returns

Fama-French in China: Size and Value Factors in Chinese Stock Returns Fama-French in China: Size and Value Factors in Chinese Stock Returns November 26, 2016 Abstract We investigate the size and value factors in the cross-section of returns for the Chinese stock market.

More information

Seasonality of Optimism in Options Markets

Seasonality of Optimism in Options Markets Seasonality of Optimism in Options Markets Kelley Bergsma, Andy Fodor, and Danling Jiang June 2016 Abstract We study how seasonality in option implied volatilities and returns is related to predictable

More information

LIQUIDITY OF AUCTION AND SPECIALIST MARKET STRUCTURES: EVIDENCE FROM THE BORSA ITALIANA

LIQUIDITY OF AUCTION AND SPECIALIST MARKET STRUCTURES: EVIDENCE FROM THE BORSA ITALIANA LIQUIDITY OF AUCTION AND SPECIALIST MARKET STRUCTURES: EVIDENCE FROM THE BORSA ITALIANA ALEX FRINO a, DIONIGI GERACE b AND ANDREW LEPONE a, a Finance Discipline, Faculty of Economics and Business, University

More information

Stock return and trading volume distribution across the day-of-theweek: evidence from Japanese stock market

Stock return and trading volume distribution across the day-of-theweek: evidence from Japanese stock market Stock return and trading volume distribution across the day-of-theweek: evidence from Japanese stock market Abderrazak DHAOUI a, Ramzi FARHANI b, Riadh GARFATTA c Abstract In this paper, we examine the

More information

The Supply and Demand of Liquidity: Understanding and Measuring Institutional Trade Costs

The Supply and Demand of Liquidity: Understanding and Measuring Institutional Trade Costs The Supply and Demand of Liquidity: Understanding and Measuring Institutional Trade Costs Donald B. Keim Wharton School University of Pennsylvania WRDS Advanced Research Scholar Program August 21, 2018

More information

A Lottery Demand-Based Explanation of the Beta Anomaly. Online Appendix

A 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 information

Institutional Trading and Stock Return Autocorrelation: Empirical Evidence on Polish Pension Fund Investors Behavior

Institutional Trading and Stock Return Autocorrelation: Empirical Evidence on Polish Pension Fund Investors Behavior Institutional Trading and Stock Return Autocorrelation: Empirical Evidence on Polish Pension Fund Investors Behavior Martin T. Bohl, Bartosz Gebka, and Harald Henke Abstract In this paper, we extend the

More information

Hedge 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 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 information

Size and Book-to-Market Factors in Returns

Size and Book-to-Market Factors in Returns Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Plan B and other Reports Graduate Studies 5-2015 Size and Book-to-Market Factors in Returns Qian Gu Utah State University Follow this and additional

More information

Return Reversals, Idiosyncratic Risk and Expected Returns

Return 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 information

DETERMINANTS OF HERDING BEHAVIOR IN MALAYSIAN STOCK MARKET Abdollah Ah Mand 1, Hawati Janor 1, Ruzita Abdul Rahim 1, Tamat Sarmidi 1

DETERMINANTS OF HERDING BEHAVIOR IN MALAYSIAN STOCK MARKET Abdollah Ah Mand 1, Hawati Janor 1, Ruzita Abdul Rahim 1, Tamat Sarmidi 1 DETERMINANTS OF HERDING BEHAVIOR IN MALAYSIAN STOCK MARKET Abdollah Ah Mand 1, Hawati Janor 1, Ruzita Abdul Rahim 1, Tamat Sarmidi 1 1 Faculty of Economics and Management, University Kebangsaan Malaysia

More information

Are Firms in Boring Industries Worth Less?

Are Firms in Boring Industries Worth Less? Are Firms in Boring Industries Worth Less? Jia Chen, Kewei Hou, and René M. Stulz* January 2015 Abstract Using theories from the behavioral finance literature to predict that investors are attracted to

More information

Tobin's Q and the Gains from Takeovers

Tobin's Q and the Gains from Takeovers THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LXVI, NO. 1 MARCH 1991 Tobin's Q and the Gains from Takeovers HENRI SERVAES* ABSTRACT This paper analyzes the relation between takeover gains and the q ratios of targets and

More information

Profitability of CAPM Momentum Strategies in the US Stock Market

Profitability of CAPM Momentum Strategies in the US Stock Market MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Profitability of CAPM Momentum Strategies in the US Stock Market Terence Tai Leung Chong and Qing He and Hugo Tak Sang Ip and Jonathan T. Siu The Chinese University of

More information

The Price Impact of Institutional Trading

The Price Impact of Institutional Trading The Price Impact of Institutional Trading Richard W. Sias Department of Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate Washington State University Pullman, WA 99164-4746 (509) 335-2347 sias@wsu.edu Laura T. Starks

More information

Further Test on Stock Liquidity Risk With a Relative Measure

Further 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 information

Momentum Trading by Institutions

Momentum Trading by Institutions THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE VOL. LVII, NO. 6 DECEMBER 2002 Momentum Trading by Institutions S.G. BADRINATH and SUNIL WAHAL* ABSTRACT We document the equity trading practices of approximately 1,200 institutions

More information

Variation in Liquidity, Costly Arbitrage, and the Cross-Section of Stock Returns

Variation 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 information