IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/empfin/v18y2011i3p447-460.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Monday effect revisited: An alternative testing approach

Author

Listed:
  • Alt, Raimund
  • Fortin, Ines
  • Weinberger, Simon

Abstract

This paper questions traditional approaches for testing the Monday effect of stock returns. We propose an alternative, multiple hypothesis testing approach based on the closure test principle which controls the multiple type I error. We consider the US, the UK and the German stock markets and test Monday related pairwise comparisons of daily expected stock returns, while the probability of committing any type I error is always kept smaller than a prespecified level [alpha], for each combination of true null hypotheses. Overall, the new testing approach supports previous findings of a Monday effect for the 1970s and 1980s, in particular for the US and Germany, while it suggests that the Monday effect has vanished in the 1990s and 2000s in all three markets. The comparison of the closure test procedure, the traditional multiple t-test and the Bonferroni test, a classical multiple test procedure, shows that traditional testing may result in spurious significance while the Bonferroni test may sometimes be too conservative.

Suggested Citation

  • Alt, Raimund & Fortin, Ines & Weinberger, Simon, 2011. "The Monday effect revisited: An alternative testing approach," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 447-460, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:empfin:v:18:y:2011:i:3:p:447-460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927539811000223
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keim, Donald B & Stambaugh, Robert F, 1984. " A Further Investigation of the Weekend Effect in Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 39(3), pages 819-835, July.
    2. Chow, K. Victor & Denning, Karen C., 1993. "A simple multiple variance ratio test," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 385-401, August.
    3. Foster, F Douglas & Viswanathan, S, 1990. "A Theory of the Interday Variations in Volume, Variance, and Trading Costs in Securities Markets," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 3(4), pages 593-624.
    4. Dubois, M. & Louvet, P., 1996. "The day-of-the-week effect: The international evidence," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 20(9), pages 1463-1484, November.
    5. Sullivan, Ryan & Timmermann, Allan & White, Halbert, 2001. "Dangers of data mining: The case of calendar effects in stock returns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 249-286, November.
    6. Greenstone, Michael & Oyer, Paul, 2000. "Are There Sectoral Anomalies Too? The Pitfalls of Unreported Multiple Hypothesis Testing and a Simple Solution," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 37-55, July.
    7. Honghui Chen & Vijay Singal, 2003. "Role of Speculative Short Sales in Price Formation: The Case of the Weekend Effect," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(2), pages 685-706, April.
    8. Savin, N.E., 1984. "Multiple hypothesis testing," Handbook of Econometrics,in: Z. Griliches† & M. D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 14, pages 827-879 Elsevier.
    9. Peter Huber, 1997. "Stock market returns in thin markets: evidence from the Vienna Stock Exchange," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, pages 493-498.
    10. Neusser, Klaus, 1991. "Testing the long-run implications of the neoclassical growth model," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, pages 3-37.
    11. Madlener, Reinhard & Alt, Raimund, 1996. "Residential Energy Demand Analysis: An Empirical Application of the Closure Test Principle," Empirical Economics, Springer, pages 203-220.
    12. Chang, Eric C. & Pinegar, J. Michael & Ravichandran, R., 1993. "International Evidence on the Robustness of the Day-of-the-Week Effect," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(04), pages 497-513, December.
    13. French, Kenneth R., 1980. "Stock returns and the weekend effect," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 55-69, March.
    14. Peter Hansen & Asger Lunde, 2003. "Testing the Significance of Calendar Effects," Working Papers 2003-03, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    15. Connolly, Robert A., 1991. "A posterior odds analysis of the weekend effect," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1-2), pages 51-104.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kumar, Satish, 2016. "Revisiting calendar anomalies: Three decades of multicurrency evidence," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, pages 16-32.
    2. Urquhart, Andrew & McGroarty, Frank, 2014. "Calendar effects, market conditions and the Adaptive Market Hypothesis: Evidence from long-run U.S. data," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 154-166.
    3. Hülya Cengiz & Ömer Bilen & Ali Hakan Büyüklü & Gülizar Damgacı, 2017. "Stock market anomalies: the day of the week effects, evidence from Borsa Istanbul," Journal of Global Entrepreneurship Research, Springer;UNESCO Chair in Entrepreneurship, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, December.
    4. repec:blg:journl:v:12:y:2017:i:1:p:95-109 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Sungro Lee, Chang Sik Kim, In-Moo Kim & Chang Sik Kim & In-Moo Kim, 2012. "Testing the Monday Effect using High-frequency Intraday Returns: A Spatial Dominance Approach," Korean Economic Review, Korean Economic Association, pages 69-90.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:empfin:v:18:y:2011:i:3:p:447-460. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jempfin .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.