IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/edn/esedps/88.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

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

Author

Abstract

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," Edinburgh School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 88, Edinburgh School of Economics, University of Edinburgh.
    • Handle: RePEc:edn:esedps:88
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econ.ed.ac.uk/papers/id88_esedps.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Myers, Stewart C. & Majluf, Nicholas S., 1984. "Corporate financing and investment decisions when firms have information that investors do not have," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 187-221, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Stewart C. Myers & Nicholas S. Majluf, 1984. "Corporate Financing and Investment Decisions When Firms Have InformationThat Investors Do Not Have," NBER Working Papers 1396, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. 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.
    5. Inmoo Lee & Scott Lochhead & Jay Ritter & Quanshui Zhao, 1996. "The Costs Of Raising Capital," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association;Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 19(1), pages 59-74, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Jung, Kooyul & Yong-Cheol, Kim & Stulz, Rene M., 1996. "Timing, investment opportunities, managerial discretion, and the security issue decision," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 159-185, October.
    8. 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, July.
    9. Hansen, Robert S & Torregrosa, Paul, 1992. "Underwriter Compensation and Corporate Monitoring," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(4), pages 1537-1555, September.
    10. Goh, Jeremy, et al, 1999. "Private Placement of Common Equity and Earnings Expectations," The Financial Review, Eastern Finance Association, vol. 34(3), pages 19-32, August.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Jasman Tuyon & Zamri Ahmad, 2018. "Behavioural Asset Pricing Determinants in a Factor and Style Investing Framework," Capital Markets Review, Malaysian Finance Association, vol. 26(2), pages 32-52.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Seth Armitage & Andy Snell, 2001. "Rights issues versus private placements:- Theory and UK evidence," Edinburgh School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 87, Edinburgh School of Economics, University of Edinburgh.
    2. Cronqvist, Henrik & Nilsson, Mattias, 2005. "The choice between rights offerings and private equity placements," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 375-407, November.
    3. Lee, Chin-Chong & Poon, Wai-Ching & Sinnakkannu, Jothee, 2014. "Why are rights offers in Hong Kong so different?," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 176-197.
    4. B. Espen Eckbo, 2008. "Equity Issues and the Disappearing Rights Offer Phenomenon," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 20(4), pages 72-85, September.
    5. Anjali Tuli, 2016. "Firms’ Choice of Seasoned Equity Issuance Method—Taking Private or Non-private Route," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 17(2), pages 400-410, April.
    6. Ching, Ken M.L. & Firth, Michael & Rui, Oliver M., 2006. "The information content of insider trading around seasoned equity offerings," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 91-117, January.
    7. Dang, Man & Puwanenthiren, Premkanth & Thai, Hong An & Mazur, Mieszko & Jones, Edward & Vo, Xuan Vinh, 2021. "Policy uncertainty and seasoned equity offerings methods," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    8. Lee, Gemma & Masulis, Ronald W., 2009. "Seasoned equity offerings: Quality of accounting information and expected flotation costs," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 443-469, June.
    9. Krishnamurthy, Srinivasan & Spindt, Paul & Subramaniam, Venkat & Woidtke, Tracie, 2005. "Does investor identity matter in equity issues? Evidence from private placements," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 14(2), pages 210-238, April.
    10. Stepanov, Sergey & Suvorov, Anton, 2017. "Agency problem and ownership structure: Outside blockholder as a signal," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 87-107.
    11. Kim, Ju Hyun & Song, Kyojik, 2020. "The choice of SEO method in Korea: Rights vs. public offers," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    12. Adrian Melia & Paul Docherty & Steve Easton, 2020. "The impact of regulation on the seasoned equity offering decision," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(1), pages 94-113, February.
    13. Pradip Banerjee & Soumya Guha Deb, 2015. "The Choice between QIP and Rights Issue: Evidence from India," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 16(5_suppl), pages 155-174, October.
    14. Holderness, Clifford G., 2018. "Equity issuances and agency costs: The telling story of shareholder approval around the world," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 415-439.
    15. Julian FRANKS & Colin MAYER & MIYAJIMA Hideaki & OGAWA Ryo, 2023. "Managing Ownership by Management," Discussion papers 23022, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    16. Consuelo Riano & Fco. Javier Ruiz & Rafael Santamaria, 2007. "Determinants of the underpricing of new shares during the subscription period: empirical evidence from the Spanish stock exchange," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7), pages 521-540.
    17. B[oslash]hren, [Oslash]yvind & Eckbo, B. Espen & Michalsen, Dag, 1997. "Why underwrite rights offerings? Some new evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 223-261, November.
    18. Dahiya, Sandeep & Klapper, Leora & Parthasarathy, Harini & Singer, Dorothe, 2017. "Equity raising by Asian firms: Choosing between PIPEs and SEOs," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 64-83.
    19. Ari Pandes, J., 2010. "Bought deals: The value of underwriter certification in seasoned equity offerings," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1576-1589, July.
    20. Schlingemann, Frederik P., 2004. "Financing decisions and bidder gains," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 10(5), pages 683-701, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    excess returns; factor pricing models; anomaly effects; partially heterogeneous panels; pooled ML estimation;
    All these keywords.

    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:

    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:edn:esedps:88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Research Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deediuk.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.