Why investors should not be cautious about the academic approach to testing for stock market anomalies
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.
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): 15 (2005)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAFE20|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RAFE20|
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.:
- David Hirshleifer & TYLER G. SHUMWAY, 2004.
"Good Day Sunshine: Stock Returns and the Weather,"
- 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.
- Paul Brockman & David Michayluk, 1998. "The persistent holiday effect: additional evidence," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 205-209.
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: (Michael McNulty)
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.