On Russell index reconstitution
AbstractThis paper investigates whether abnormal returns permanently exist in transparent U.S. Russell index reconstitution and provides evidence to disentangle the competing hypotheses associated with the index effect in the literature. Additions to Russell 1000 generate cumulative excess returns of 10.9% from 2 days before May 31 to June 30 while stocks deleted from Russell 2000 Growth Index suffer cumulative loss of 6.6%. The effect of index reconstitution on stocks in the style switching groups is moderate while it is much smaller for stocks in the retention groups. Based on daily trading volume, there is evidence that money managers tied to Russell style indexes tend not to rebalance their portfolios actively until the time of index reconstitution to avoid tracking error. However, for stocks generating large excess returns, money managers trade them actively prior to the reconstitution. This study is supportive of the imperfect substitutes hypothesis in explaining the index effect, given the absence of complete reversal of the event period abnormal returns and of consistent improvement in liquidity for the index additions. In the joint test, the price pressure hypothesis and the liquidity hypothesis explain the marginal index effect at most by 0.12% and 3.05%, respectively, while the imperfect substitutes hypothesis explains it at least by 9.21%. Furthermore, the index effect is not purely driven by individual stock price momentum. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Springer in its journal Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting.
Volume (Year): 26 (2006)
Issue (Month): 4 (June)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://springerlink.metapress.com/link.asp?id=102990
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Lee, Charles M C & Ready, Mark J, 1991. " Inferring Trade Direction from Intraday Data," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 46(2), pages 733-46, June.
- Barberis, Nicholas & Shleifer, Andrei, 2003.
Journal of Financial Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 161-199, May.
- Kent Daniel & Sheridan Titman, 1996.
"Evidence on the Characteristics of Cross Sectional Variation in Stock Returns,"
NBER Working Papers
5604, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Daniel, Kent & Titman, Sheridan, 1997. " Evidence on the Characteristics of Cross Sectional Variation in Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 1-33, March.
- Ernest N. Biktimirov & Arnold R. Cowan & Bradford D. Jordan, 2004. "Do Demand Curves for Small Stocks Slope Down?," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association & Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 27(2), pages 161-178.
- Amihud, Yakov & Mendelson, Haim, 1986. "Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 223-249, December.
- George, Thomas J & Kaul, Gautam & Nimalendran, M, 1991. "Estimation of the Bid-Ask Spread and Its Components: A New Approach," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 4(4), pages 623-56.
- Aditya Kaul & Vikas Mehrotra & Randall Morck, 1999.
"Demand Curves for Stocks Do Slope Down: New Evidence From An Index Weights Adjustment,"
Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers
1884, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Aditya Kaul & Vikas Mehrotra & Randall Morck, 2000. "Demand Curves for Stocks "Do "Slope Down: New Evidence from an Index Weights Adjustment," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 55(2), pages 893-912, 04.
- Fama, Eugene F & French, Kenneth R, 1996. " Multifactor Explanations of Asset Pricing Anomalies," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(1), pages 55-84, March.
- Fama, Eugene F & MacBeth, James D, 1973. "Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(3), pages 607-36, May-June.
- Yun, Jooyoung & Kim, Tong S., 2010. "The effect of changes in index constitution: Evidence from the Korean stock market," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 258-269, September.
- Petajisto, Antti, 2011. "The index premium and its hidden cost for index funds," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 271-288, March.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.