Indirect Tests of the Haugen-Lakonishok Small-Firm/January Effect Hypotheses: Window Dressing versus Performance Hedging.
Equity mutual fund data from 1976-93 is used to test hypotheses that distinguish window dressing from performance hedging. No significant difference is found pre/post 1983 in the number of funds choosing non-December fiscal year ends or in the percentage of dollars invested when comparing December/non-December fiscal year ends. Significant differences are found in both January returns for mutual funds with December/non-December fiscal year ends and in one month returns for funds with/without a fiscal year end in the previous month. Therefore, if the small-firm/January effect is portfolio manager related, performance hedging, not window dressing, is the more probable source for the "excess" returns. Copyright 1998 by MIT Press.
Year of publication: |
1998
|
---|---|
Authors: | Lee, Cheng-few ; Porter, David C ; Weaver, Daniel G |
Published in: |
The Financial Review. - Eastern Finance Association - EFA. - Vol. 33.1998, 2, p. 177-93
|
Publisher: |
Eastern Finance Association - EFA |
Saved in:
Saved in favorites
Similar items by person
-
Estimating Bid-Ask Spread Components: Specialist versus Multiple Market Maker Systems.
Porter, David C, (1996)
-
The Proposed Introduction of Futures-Style Margining in the United States: An Australian Comparison
Kutner, George W, (2001)
-
Calculating the Cost of Capital of an Unlevered Firm for Use in Project Evaluation.
Brick, Ivan E, (1997)
- More ...