16.11.2014 Views

McGraw-Hill

McGraw-Hill

McGraw-Hill

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Disentangling Equity Return Regularities 85<br />

CONCLUSION<br />

Anomalies such as residual reversal and trends in analysts' earnings<br />

estimates appear to be true pockets of stock market inefficiency. Other<br />

effects, such as low P/E and small size, appear nonstationary; they<br />

may be anomalous, or they might represent empirical return regula<br />

ties only in a broader macroeconomic framework. The future holds<br />

open the potential of uncovering new return regularities, as better databases<br />

(such as real-time pricing) and greater computer power are<br />

brought to task. At the same time, as however,<br />

develop better ways<br />

of measuring risk and newer asset pricing models, new theories wil<br />

undoubtedly arise to fit the observed facts. will It be exating to observe<br />

the progress on both fronts.<br />

ENDNOTES<br />

The authors thank The Dais Group, Interactive Data Corporation,<br />

Institutional Brokers Estimate System (I/B/E/S), and Standard &<br />

Poor's Compustat for data and systems support.<br />

1. For a review of the anomaly literature, see Keim (1986b). See Fama<br />

(1976) for a discussion of the CAPM and tests of market efficiency.<br />

While still controversial, some recent research finds anomalies even<br />

in an APT framework [Reinganum(1981b); Lehma~ and Modest<br />

(1985); Chen, Copeland, and Mayers (1987); and Connor and<br />

Korajczyk (1987)l. While Lehmann and Modest show that the sizerelated<br />

rejection of APT is not an artifact of infrequent trading or<br />

solely due to the month of January, they also find that the dividendyield<br />

and own-variance effects not are anomalous in their AM<br />

framework (while they are CAPM anomalies). Connor and<br />

Korajczyk find APT performs better in explaining the January<br />

seasonality in returns to small size, but no better than CAPM in non-<br />

January months. Chen, Copeland, and Mayers show that size the<br />

effect and Value Line enigmas are not explained by an APT<br />

framework. Value Line uses a composite of several measures, such<br />

as earnings surprise and price and earnings momentum. Gultekin<br />

and Gultekin (1987) find that APT cannot explain January, size, or<br />

sigma return regularities.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!