IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/upf/upfgen/585.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

New findings regarding return autocorrelation anomalies and the importance of non-trading periods

Author

Listed:
  • Josep Garcia Blandón

Abstract

In this paper, differences in return autocorrelation across weekdays have been investigated. Our research provides strong evidence of the importance on non-trading periods, not only weekends and holidays but also overnight closings, to explain return autocorrelation anomalies. While stock returns are highly autocorrelated, specially on Mondays, when daily returns are computed on a open-to-close basis, they do not exhibit any significant level of autocorrelation. Our results are compatible with the information processing hypotheses as an explanation of the weekend effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Josep Garcia Blandón, 2001. "New findings regarding return autocorrelation anomalies and the importance of non-trading periods," Economics Working Papers 585, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
  • Handle: RePEc:upf:upfgen:585
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econ-papers.upf.edu/papers/585.pdf
    File Function: Whole Paper
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keim, Donald B & Stambaugh, Robert F, 1984. " A Further Investigation of the Weekend Effect in Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 39(3), pages 819-835, July.
    2. John Y. Campbell & Sanford J. Grossman & Jiang Wang, 1993. "Trading Volume and Serial Correlation in Stock Returns," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 108(4), pages 905-939.
    3. Foster, F Douglas & Viswanathan, S, 1990. "A Theory of the Interday Variations in Volume, Variance, and Trading Costs in Securities Markets," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 3(4), pages 593-624.
    4. Josef Lakonishok, Seymour Smidt, 1988. "Are Seasonal Anomalies Real? A Ninety-Year Perspective," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 1(4), pages 403-425.
    5. Perry, Philip R., 1985. "Portfolio Serial Correlation and Nonsynchronous Trading," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(04), pages 517-523, December.
    6. Bessembinder, Hendrik & Hertzel, Michael G, 1993. "Return Autocorrelations around Nontrading Days," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 6(1), pages 155-189.
    7. Rogalski, Richard J, 1984. " A Further Investigation of the Weekend Effect in Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 39(3), pages 835-837, July.
    8. Admati, Anat R & Pfleiderer, Paul, 1989. "Divide and Conquer: A Theory of Intraday and Day-of-the-Week Mean Effects," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 2(2), pages 189-223.
    9. Jaffe, Jeffrey F & Westerfield, Randolph, 1985. " The Week-End Effect in Common Stock Returns: The International Evidence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 40(2), pages 433-454, June.
    10. Rogalski, Richard J, 1984. " New Findings Regarding Day-of-the-Week Returns over Trading and Non-trading Periods: A Note," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 39(5), pages 1603-1614, December.
    11. Lakonishok, Josef & Maberly, Edwin, 1990. " The Weekend Effect: Trading Patterns of Individual and Institutional Investors," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 45(1), pages 231-243, March.
    12. Dimson, Elroy & Marsh, Paul, 1986. "Event study methodologies and the size effect : The case of UK press recommendations," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 113-142, September.
    13. Abraham, Abraham & Ikenberry, David L., 1994. "The Individual Investor and the Weekend Effect," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(02), pages 263-277, June.
    14. Ritter, Jay R, 1988. " The Buying and Selling Behavior of Individual Investors at the Turn of the Year," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 43(3), pages 701-717, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Return autocorrelation; stock market anomalies; non-trading periods;

    JEL classification:

    • G10 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - General (includes Measurement and Data)

    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:upf:upfgen:585. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://www.econ.upf.edu/ .

    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.