IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Panel Data Approach to Testing Anomaly Effects in Factor Pricing Models



There has been a large anomaly literature where firm specific characteristics such as earnings-to-price ratio and book-to-market ratio as well as size help explain cross sectional returns. These anomalies that have been attributed to market inefficiency could be the result of a misspecification of the underlying factor pricing model. The most popular approach to detecting these anomaly effects has been the two pass (TP) cross-sectional regression models. However, it is well-established that the TP method suffers from the errors in variables problem, because estimated betas are used in the second stage cross sectional regression. In this paper we address the issue of testing for factor price misspecification via the panel data approach. Perhaps one of the main reasons for the neglect of benefits of using panel data technique is that in factor pricing models, all betas are heterogeneous in the first pass time series regression. However, if our interest lies solely in testing the significance of the firm's characteristics in factor pricing models, we can show how to construct a theoretically coherent example to which panel data techniques dealing with both homogeneous and heterogeneous parameters can be applied. Panel-based anomaly tests have one clear advantage over TP-based tests; they are based on full information maximum likelihood estimates so that they do not suffer from the errors in variable problem and have all the usual asymptotic properties associated with likelihood tests. The empirical illustration shows the importance of book to market equity and market value in helping explain asset returns in the UK over 1968-2002 even in the three factor models.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura Serlenga & Yongcheol Shin & Andy Snell, 2002. "A Panel Data Approach to Testing Anomaly Effects in Factor Pricing Models," ESE Discussion Papers 88, Edinburgh School of Economics, University of Edinburgh.
  • Handle: RePEc:edn:esedps:88

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Barclay, Michael J. & Holderness, Clifford G., 1989. "Private benefits from control of public corporations," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 371-395, December.
    2. Marco Bigelli, 1998. "The Quasi-split Effect, Active Insiders and the Italian Market Reaction to Equity Rights Issues," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 4(2), pages 185-206.
    3. Hansen, Robert S & Torregrosa, Paul, 1992. " Underwriter Compensation and Corporate Monitoring," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(4), pages 1537-1555, September.
    4. Hertzel, Michael G & Smith, Richard L, 1993. " Market Discounts and Shareholder Gains for Placing Equity Privately," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(2), pages 459-485, June.
    5. Patrick Bolton & Ernst-Ludwig von Thadden, 1998. "Blocks, Liquidity, and Corporate Control," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 53(1), pages 1-25, February.
    6. Wruck, Karen Hopper, 1989. "Equity ownership concentration and firm value : Evidence from private equity financings," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 3-28, June.
    7. Eckbo, B. Espen & Masulis, Ronald W., 1992. "Adverse selection and the rights offer paradox," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 293-332, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


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

    Cited by:

    1. Sainan Jin & Liangjun Su & Yonghui Zhang, 2015. "Nonparametric testing for anomaly effects in empirical asset pricing models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 9-36, February.

    More about this item


    excess returns; factor pricing models; anomaly effects; partially heterogeneous panels; pooled ML estimation;

    JEL classification:

    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • C13 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Estimation: General
    • G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing; Trading Volume; Bond Interest Rates

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:edn:esedps:88. 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: (Research Office). General contact details of provider: .

    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.