IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/apfiec/v15y2005i3p165-171.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why investors should not be cautious about the academic approach to testing for stock market anomalies

Author

Listed:
  • Brian Lucey
  • Angel Pardo

Abstract

The ability of investors to implement seasonal strategies implied by academic papers has been widely criticized, most recently by Hudson et al. (Applied Financial Economics, 12, 681-86, 2002). This paper addresses these concerns, and provides an example of a strategy derived from academic papers that indicates how and to what profitability such a strategy can be implemented. In particular, the pre-holiday anomaly is examined, where returns tend to be higher on the day before a holiday. After checking that the pre-holiday return compensates market frictions, the existence and the changing nature of such anomaly is tested. Finally, the profitability of the pre-holiday trading strategy in an out-of-the-sample period is assessed by checking that the pre-holiday profit is clearly different from the result an investor would obtain on a set of randomly selected days. This evidence is provided for three large stocks and an index in two different markets, Spain and Ireland.

Suggested Citation

  • Brian Lucey & Angel Pardo, 2005. "Why investors should not be cautious about the academic approach to testing for stock market anomalies," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 165-171.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:apfiec:v:15:y:2005:i:3:p:165-171
    DOI: 10.1080/0960310042000313213
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0960310042000313213
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    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. Robert Hudson & Kevin Keasey & Kevin Littler, 2002. "Why investors should be cautious of the academic approach to testing for stock market anomalies," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(9), pages 681-686.
    2. David Hirshleifer & Tyler Shumway, 2003. "Good Day Sunshine: Stock Returns and the Weather," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 58(3), pages 1009-1032, June.
    3. Paul Brockman & David Michayluk, 1998. "The persistent holiday effect: additional evidence," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 205-209.
    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. repec:ddj:fserec:y:2017:p:95-112 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Qadan, Mahmoud & Kliger, Doron, 2016. "The short trading day anomaly," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 38(PA), pages 62-80.
    3. Benjamin R. Auer & Horst Rottmann, 2013. "Is there a Friday the 13th Effect in Emerging Asian Stock Markets?," CESifo Working Paper Series 4409, CESifo Group Munich.
    4. Wessel Marquering & Johan Nisser & Toni Valla, 2006. "Disappearing anomalies: a dynamic analysis of the persistence of anomalies," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 291-302.
    5. Auer, Benjamin R., 2014. "Daily seasonality in crude oil returns and volatilities," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 82-88.
    6. Paulo M. Gama & Elisabete F. S. Vieira, 2013. "Another look at the holiday effect," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(20), pages 1623-1633, October.
    7. Paul McGuinness, 2005. "A re-examination of the holiday effect in stock returns: the case of Hong Kong," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(16), pages 1107-1123.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:apfiec:v:15:y:2005:i:3:p:165-171. 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: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAFE20 .

    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.