On Russell index reconstitution
This 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
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 26 (2006)
Issue (Month): 4 (June)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://springer.com|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/finance/journal/11156/PS2|
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Barberis, Nicholas & Shleifer, Andrei, 2003.
Journal of Financial Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 161-199, May.
- Amihud, Yakov & Mendelson, Haim, 1986. "Asset pricing and the bid-ask spread," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 223-249, December.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:rqfnac:v:26:y:2006:i:4:p:409-430. 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: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.