ISSN 2229-6891
.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image003.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image004.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image005.gif”>
International Research Journal of
.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image006.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image007.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image008.gif”>
Applied Finance
.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image003.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image009.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image010.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image011.gif”>
Volume.II Issue.6 June 2011
.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image012.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image013.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image014.gif”>
Contents
Testing for Seasonality in Option and Calendar Month: An Empirical Investigation on the US Major Index Components
590 – 608
Rafiqul Bhuyan
Determinants Influencing the Seasoned Equity Offerings: Private Placements vs Rights Issue
609 – 621
Norhanim Dewa & Izani Ibrahim
Effect on Security Prices and Volatility from Cross Listing within the GCC Markets
622 – 630
Dr. Abraham, Abraham
Cash Flow-Investment Sensitivity for Manufacturing Firms in America, Japan and Taiwan
631 – 641
Feng-Li Lin & Jui-Ying, HungDeterminants of the Decision to Finance in Micro Finance Institutions
Prof. Fedhila Hassouna & Dr. Mehdi Mejdoub
Cost of equity in emerging markets. Evidence from Romanian listed companiesCostin Ciora
Corporate Events Effect on Stock Returns: Evidence from Athens Stock Exchange
692 – 715
Aristeidis Samitas, Dimitris Kenourgios & Ioannis Tsakalos
.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image015.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image016.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image017.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image018.gif”>
www.irjaf.com
.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image019.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image020.gif”>.0/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif”>
International Research Journal of Applied Finance ISSN 2229 6891Vol II Issue 6 June, 2011
Call for Papers
International Research Journal of Applied Finance (IRJAF) is a double blind peer-reviewed open access online journal. Every month a copy of IRJAF reaches faculty members in the areas of accounting, finance, and economics working in 70% of AACSB accredited Business Schools across the world. The journal provides a dedicated forum for Academicians, practitioners, policy makers and researchers working in the areas of finance, investment, accounting, and economics. The Editor of the Journal invites papers with theoretical research/conceptual work or applied research/applications on topics related to research, practice, and teaching in all subject areas of Finance, Accounting, Investments, Money, Banking and Economics. The original research papers and articles (not currently under review or published in other publications) will be considered for publication in International Research Journal of Applied Finance.
Topics covered include:
*Portfolio Management *Shareholder Responsibilities *Investors and corporate Social Responsibility *Emerging Markets *Financial Forecasting *Equity Analysis *Derivatives *Currency Markets *International Finance *Behavioral Finance Financial Accounting *Financial Management *Cost Accounting *Applied Economics *Econometrics *Financial Engineering
All paper will be double blind reviewed on a continual basis. Normally the review process will be completed in about 4 weeks after the submission and the author(s) will be informed of the result of the review process. If the paper is accepted, it will be published in the next month issue.
By the final submission for publications, the authors assign all the copyrights to the Kaizen Publications. The Editorial Board reserves the right to change/alter the final submissions for IRJAF for editorial purposes.
Copyright: Articles, papers or cases submitted for publication should be original contributions and should not be under consideration for any other publication at the same time. Authors submitting articles/papers/cases for publication warrant that the work is not an infringement of any existing copyright, infringement of proprietary right, invasion of privacy, or libel and will indemnify, defend, and hold IRJAF or sponsor(s) harmless from any damages, expenses, and costs against any breach of such warranty. For ease of dissemination and to ensure proper policing of use, papers/articles/cases and contributions become the legal copyright of the IRJAF unless otherwise agreed in writing.
Click here to submit your paper: http://irjaf.com/Submission.html
589
International Research Journal of Applied Finance ISSN 2229 6891Vol II Issue 6 June, 2011
Testing for Seasonality in Option and Calendar Month: An Empirical Investigation on the US Major Index Components
Rafiqul Bhuyan, PhD
Associate Professor of Finance
Dept. of Accounting & Finance
College of Business & Public Administration
California State University
San Bernardino
CA 92407 rbhuyan@csusb.edu
590
International Research Journal of Applied Finance ISSN 2229 6891Vol II Issue 6 June, 2011
Abstract
Using all securities from Dow 30, S&P 100 and S&P 500 indices respectively we show that Option month based monthly returns and volatilities are different from those of calendar month. These differences may explain the worthiness of options contracts on call and put options when they expire. We conclude the option expiration effect may explain the differences in return in option month compared to the calendar month. Our result contributes to the existing literature by offering evidence of return differences in option month what support the option expiration effect. When security returns are analyzed based on calendar month and option month to test for seasonality, our results support the findings of the existing literature in terms of the calendar month. Our findings contribute to the literature by adding the result that when security returns are analyzed based on the option month; it also shows the seasonal pattern. Our both results could be the added evidence against the weak-form market efficiency.
I. Introduction
Seasonality in financial market is widely investigated in finance literature. It is addressed by investigating the abnormal returns in the month of January, day of the week, tax loss selling effect, among other effects. When analyzing the January effect, it is the calendar month January effect addressed in the literature. However, there remains to be seen the effect of option month in return pattern. Option months beginning and ending dates are from two calendar months. The third Friday of a month marks the ending day of the option month and the Monday after the third Friday marks the First day of the option month. Trillions of dollar transaction takes place in option markets to profit from the movement of the underlying assets. That makes the option month a special case and event for stock market. The intent of this current research is to analyze the option month effect whether it adds as an additional anomaly in financial market.
II. Literature Review
The January effect has been widely studied to see if a profitable investment strategy exists. The key explanations for the January effect are: the year-end tax-loss-selling hypothesis (e.g., Branch (1977), Dyl (1977), and Schultz (1985)); the window-dressing hypothesis (e.g., Haugen and Lakonishok (1988), and Ritter and Chopra (1989)); turn-of- the-year ‘liquidity’ hypothesis (e.g., Ogden (1990)); accounting information hypothesis (e.g., Rozeff and Kinney (1976)), and bid-ask spread (e.g., Keim (1989)). However, Bhardwaj and Brooks (1992) conclude that for typical investors, the January anomaly of low-price stocks outperforming high-price stocks cannot be used to earn abnormal returns. Mills and Coutts (1995) report that even if calendar effects are persistent in their occurrence and magnitude, the costs of implementing trading rules is prohibitive. Draper and Paudyal (1997) find that although it appears to be feasible to earn a high nominal return by trading on seasonality, it does not appear to be feasible to earn excess returns after allowance for transaction costs. Booth and Keim (2000) also conclude that the January effect is ‘alive’ but difficult to capture.
On the other
hand, Ko (1998) gives some favorable evidence on the economic
exploitation of
seasonalities. Specifically, he investigates the effects of international
diversification on the stock market monthly seasonality from an economic point of view. He finds that the strategy using monthly seasonality outperforms a buy-and-hold strategy. De Bondt, Thaler and Bernstein (1985), found that investors over-reacted to unexpected news. Stocks that performed well in the previous periods (winners), and stocks that performed poorly in the
591
International Research Journal of Applied Finance ISSN 2229 6891Vol II Issue 6 June, 2011
previous periods (losers), both tended to revert back to their mean value in the subsequent periods. In a psychological study, Kahneman and Tversky (1982) document individuals over-reacting to new information, whether good or bad. If over-reaction behavior occurs, profitable contrarian trading strategies, buying past losers and selling past winners can be formed. Smirlock and Starks (1986) report the negative Monday effect in stock returns has been “moving up” in time. Johnston, Kracaw, and McConnell find similar results (for GNMAs, this effect occurs after December 1984. For T-bonds, the negative Wednesday occurs before January 1981) of Gay and Kim (1987) and Chang and Kim (1988), who document the disappearance of Monday effects in the commodities futures index.
III. Data and Methodology
The data in this research is taken from PC QUOTES for stocks of three US indices: Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 100, and S&P 500 respectively. Stocks of each of these indices are analyzed from the period beginning 1970 to the end of 2001. We sort the stock price data for each stock based on calendar month and option months and estimate two different monthly returns and standard deviations respectively. We then organize times series of monthly returns and standard deviation of each stock according to month. For example, we pool all monthly returns of January (only) from 1970 to 2001 and averaged over this period to estimate mean January return for a stock. Similarly mean monthly return for all other months are estimated. This process is followed to estimate mean monthly return for both calendar month and option month. Then a cross section of all stocks monthly returns are pooled together to conduct different econometric analysis.
Once the data are processed and pooled, we first test for the equality of mean return and volatility for calendar month and option month, i.e., for return, if the mean calendar month January returns is equal to mean option month January return and so on. Our hypothesis is that there is no difference between the return and volatilities of these two types of months. Second, we also test if there is any seasonality in monthly return. We conduct the seasonality test on both calendar month and option month returns. Our test hypothesis would be that there is no difference between returns in different option months. Using the F test we investigate if the seasonality persists in return pattern of the option months. If the calendar month and option month returns are not the same then the second issue is of our importance. Third, if seasonality exists in options month then we investigate if one can capture abnormal returns from the seasonality in options month by applying some trading rules.
IV. Econometric Analysis:
We propose that the mean return of the calendar month return and option month return are equal. So our formal hypothesis is:
H0:µOM
= µCM
(1)
Ha:µOM
? µCM
Here, µOM indicates the mean option month return, andµCM indicates the calendar month mean
return. This hypothesis is tested under two different circumstances: when the variance of calendar month and option month are same and when they are different. Similarly, the equality
592
International Research Journal of Applied Finance ISSN 2229 6891Vol II Issue 6 June, 2011
of monthly variance is tested to see if the variance based on option month is equal to that of calendar month. So, our test hypothesis is of the following form:
H0:?OM2
=?CM2
(2)
Ha:?OM2
? ?CM2
Next we investigate the seasonality in monthly returns on both calendar month return and on option month return. The regression equation that addresses this issue is as follows:
Rt =?+?1D1t+?2 D2t+?3 D3t+?4 D4t+???????+?11D11t+?t (3)
The dependent variable, Rt is the stocks monthly return at time t,?t is the white noise error
term. ? , the constant, in the right hand side of the equation identifies the monthly return for the
month of January. The
seasonal dummy variables are defined by the D1t ,………, D12,t where
1,
for
the
ith
month
Di t =
otherwise
and month begins from the second month ( February) of the
0,
year and hence
i =
2, ——,12, indicates the difference in return between January and the ith
month of the year.
V. Results:
V.1 Summary Statistics:
We calculate returns on calendar month and option month and is presented in Table 1. Table 1A shows the calendar month based monthly returns for the 30 DOW components from period 1970-2001. Results are pooled by the month. It is shown in the table that on an average the DOW components offer the lowest return of -0.686% in the month of September and highest return of 2.89% in the month of January.
Please insert Table 1A and 1B about here
Looking at the results one would presume that historically, September and August are the two worst months for DOW components and January, December, and November are the best months. In Table 1B it is observed that option period average monthly returns offer different returns. The worst average return for the DOW components comes in October option month with -0.118% and the highest average return comes in January option month with 2.602%. Historically, October and September offer the worst returns and January, November, December, and February offer the best returns.
Table 2A offers the summary statistics of historical returns for S&P 100 components based on the calendar month. Results show that S&P 100 components offer worst return in the month of April with average return of -3.747% and best return in the month of January with average return of 3.268%.
Please insert Table 2A and 2B about here
Table 2B shows the summary statistics of historical returns for S&P 100 components based on the option month. On average, S&P 100 components offer worst return in the option month of October with average return of -0.051% and best return in the option month of January with average return of 2.823%.
593
International Research Journal of Applied Finance ISSN 2229 6891Vol II Issue 6 June, 2011
Table 3A presents the summary results of historical average returns for S&P 500 components based on calendar month. It shows that April calendar month offers the worst average ret urn of – 6.937% and January calendar month offers the highest average return of 3.449%.
Please Insert Table 3A and 3B about here
When data are arranged based on option months, the summary results are shown in Table 3B. It shows that the lowest return comes in the October option month with average return of 0.102% and the highest return comes in the option month of January with average return of 4.078%.
V.2 Results for Mean-Variance Equality Test
Table 4-6 shows the test results on S&P 100 components. When the mean returns, based on calendar month and option months, are tested they are done under two different assumptions: once it is tested assuming the variances (based on calendar month and option month respectively) are equal and next when assumed that variances are not equal.
Please Insert Table 4, 5, and 6 about here
In both cases our test results show that the null hypothesis is rejected implying that the mean return based on calendar month and that of option month are different. Next we conduct a variance equality test and result indicates that even variance calculated based on calendar month and on option month is different.
We conduct the similar tests on the DOW 30 components. Table 7, 8, and 9 show the test results. When assumed that the variance calculated based on calendar month and option month are equal, our mean equality test indicate the similar result that we find in S&P 100 components: the means are not equal.
Please Insert Table 7, 8, and 9 About Here
Also, when assumed the variances are not equal, the mean returns turn out to be different. The tests for variance equality also show that the variances are not equal either.
Please Insert Table 10, 11, and 12 About Here
Finally, we conduct the similar tests on S&P 500 components. The test results are identical to those of S&P 100 and DOW 30 Components.
The main conclusion we can draw from our findings is that monthly returns show a pattern when they are estimated based on the option period. Outstanding options contracts, whose value depend on the third Fridays closing price, whether they are worthless or not and hence exercised or not may have some impact on the closing price of the Third Friday and that may make the monthly return and variances to be different from calendar month.
V. 3 Results for Seasonality Test
Seasonality tests are done both on calendar month return and on option month returns. Table 13 shows the seasonality test results conducted on S&P 500 components.
Please Insert Table 13 and 14 About Here
Results indicate that there is a seasonal pattern exists in the calendar month returns. Table 14 shows the seasonality test results of option month returns. It is quite clear that there is a seasonal pattern in return structure of the option month as well. One difference we like to include is the T statistics for the month of December. Calendar month show that it is insignificant where as the Option month based T statistics shows that it is significant.
594
International Research Journal of Applied Finance ISSN 2229 6891Vol II Issue 6 June, 2011
Table 15 and 16 show the seasonality test results for Calendar month and option month respectively on S&P 100 components. Both calendar month and option month based tests show that there is a seasonal pattern in return structure.
Please Insert Table 15 and 16 About Here
One interesting observation is that in calendar month analysis, December month return turns out to be insignificant. However, in the option month based analysis it is observed that February, May, June and October turn insignificant.
Table 17 and 18 show the seasonality test results of calendar month and option month based returns on DOW 30 components. Results and conclusions are very similar to the ones we observe in S&P 500 and S&P 100 components.
Please Insert Table 17 and 18 About Here
Just like S&P 500 and S&P 100, the December calendar month return comes insignificant in DOW 30 Securities as well. When option month based test is conducted, February, October, and November month returns turn insignificant.
VI. Concluding Remarks
We investigate whether option month based monthly returns and volatilities are different from those of calendar month. Our test results support the differences. These differences may explain the worthiness of options contracts on call and put options when they expire. As a result, we conclude the option expiration effect may explain the differences in return in option month compared to the calendar month. Our result contributes to the existing literature by offering evidence of return differences in option month what support the option expiration effect. When security returns are analyzed based on calendar month and option month to test for seasonality, our results support the findings of the existing literature in terms of the calendar month. Our findings contribute to the literature by adding the result that when security returns are analyzed based on the option month; it also shows the seasonal pattern. Our both results could be the added evidence against the weak-form market efficiency.
References
Bhardwaj, Ravinder K., and Leroy D. Brooks, 1992, The January Anomaly: Effects of Low Share Price, Transaction Costs, and Bid-Ask Bias, The Journal of Finance 47, 553-575.
Booth, Donald G., and Donald B. Keim, 2000, Is there still a January effect? Chapter 8 in Keim, Donald B., and William T. Ziemba, Security Market Imperfections in World Wide Equity Markets, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Branch, Ben, 1977, A Tax Loss Trading Rule, The Journal of Business 50, 198-207. Coutts, J. Andrew, Christos Kaplanidis, and Jennifer Roberts, 2000, Security price
anomalies in an emerging market: the case of the Athens Stock Exchange, Applied Financial Economics 10, 561-571.
Draper, Paul, and Krishna Paudyal, 1997, Microstructure and Seasonality in the UK Equity Market, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 24, 1177-1204.
Dyl, Edward A., 1977, Capital Gains Taxation and Year-End Stock Market Behavior, The Journal of Finance, 32, 165-175.
Fountas, Stilianos, and Konstantinos N. Segredakis, 2002, Emerging stock markets return seasonalities: the January effect and the tax-loss selling hypothesis, Applied Financial Economics 12, 291-299.
595
International Research Journal of Applied Finance ISSN 2229 6891
Vol II Issue 6 June, 2011
Haugen, Robert A., and Josef Lakonishok, 1988, The Incredible January Effect: The Stock Market’s Unsolved Mystery, United States of America, Dow Jones-Irwin.
Keim, Donald B., 1983, Size-Related Anomalies and Stock Return Seasonality: Further Empirical Evidence, Journal of Financial Economics 12, 13-32.
Keim, Donald B., 1989, Trading Patterns, Bid-Ask Spreads, And Estimated Security Returns: The Case of Common Stocks at Calendar Turning Points, Journal of Financial Economics 25, 75-97.
Ko, Kwangsoo, 1998, Strategic International Diversification and Monthly Seasonality, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting 25, 203-223.
Mills, Terence C., and J. Andrew Coutts, 1995, Calendar Effects in the London Stock Exchange FT-SE indices, The European Journal of Finance 1, 79-93.
Allen, D.E. and Prince, R. (1995), The winner/loser hypothesis: some preliminary Australian evidence on the impact of changing risk, Applied Economic Letters, vol.2, pp.280-283.
Alonso, A. and Rubio, G. (1990) Overreaction in the Spanish Equity Market, Journal of Banking and Finance, vol.14, no.2-3, pp 469-481.
Anderson, D., Lynch, A. and Mathiou, N. (1990), Behaviour of CAPM Anomalies in Smaller Firms: Australian Evidence, Australian Journal of Management, vol.15,
pp 1-37.
Ball, B. and Kothari, S.P. (1989), Nonstationarity Expected Returns: Implications for Tests of Market Efficiency and Serial Correlation in Returns, Journal of Financial Economics, vol.25, pp 51-74.
Banz, R.W. (1981) The Relationship between Return and Market value of Common Stock, Journal of Financial Economics, vol.9, no.1, pp 3-18.
Beaver, W. and Landsman, W.R. (1981), Note on the Behaviour of Residual Security Returns for Winner and Loser Portfolios, Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol.3, no.3, pp 233-241.
Beedles, W.L., Dodd, P. and Officer, R.R. (1988), Regularities in Australian Share Returns, Australian Journal of Management, vol.13, pp. 1-29.
Black, F. and Scholes, M. (1973), “The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities”, Journal of Political Economy, May to June.
Bradley K., & Alles, L., (1998) ‘Beta, Book-to-market ratio, firm size and the cross-section of Australian stock market returns’,
Brailsford, T. (1992), A Test for the Winner-Loser Anomaly in the Australian Equity Market: 1958-87, Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, vol.19, no.2, pp 225-241.
Brown, P., Kleidon, A.W. and Marsh, T.A. (1983), New Evidence on the nature of Sizerelated Anomalies in Stock Prices, Journal of Financial Economics, vol.12, pp 33-56.
Chan, K.C. (1988), On the Contrarian Investment Strategy, Journal of Business, vol.61, no.2, pp.147-163.
Chan, K.C., Hamao, Y. and Lakonishok, J. (1991), Fundamentals and Stock returns in Japan, Journal of Finance, vol.46, no.5, pp.1739-1789.
Chen, C.R. and Sauer, D.A. (1997), Is Stock Market Overreaction Persistent Over Time? Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, vol.24, no.1, pp. 51-67.
Chopra, N., Lakonishok, J. and Ritter, J. (1992), Measuring Abnormal Performance: Do stocks overreact? Journal of Financial Economics, vol.31, no.2, pp.235-268.
da Costa, Jr, N.C.A. (1995), Overreaction in the Brazilian Stock Market, Journal of Banking and Finance, vol.18, pp.633-642.
596
International Research Journal of Applied Finance ISSN 2229 6891
Vol II Issue 6 June, 2011
De Bondt W.F.M. and Thaler, R. (1987), Further Evidence on Investor Overreaction and Stock Market Seasonality, Journal of Finance, vol. 42, no.3, pp.557-580.
De Bondt W.F.M., Thaler, R. and Bernstein, P.L. (1985), Does the Stock Market Overreact? Journal of Finance, July, vol. 40, no 3, pp 793-807 and
Fama, E. F (1970) Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of theory and Empirical Work, Journal of Finance, vol.25, pp 383-417.
Fama, E.F and French, K.R. (1992), The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns, Journal of Finance, June, vol 47, no 2, pp.427-465.
Fama, E.F and French, K.R. (1993), Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds, Journal of Financial Economics, vol.33, no.1, pp.3-56.
Fama, E.F and French, K.R. (1996), Multifactor Explanations of Asset Pricing Anomalies’, Journal of Finance, March, vol LI, no 1, pp.55-84.
Gaunt, G. (2000), Overreaction in the Australian equity market: 1974-1997, Pacific- Basin Finance Journal, vol.8, no.3-4, pp.375-398.
Jegadeesh, N. and Titman, S. (1993), Returns to Buying and Selling Losers: Implication for Stock Market Efficiency, Journal of Finance, vol.48, no.1, pp. 65-91.
Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A. (1982), Intuitive Prediction: Biases and Corrective Procedures in D.Kahneman, P. Slovic, and A. Tversky (eds), Judgement Under
Uncertainty: Heuristics Biases, New York, Cambridge University Press. Keim, D.B. (1983), Size-related Anomalies and Stock Return Seasonality, Journal of Financial Economics, vol.12, no.1, pp.13-32.
Keim, D.B. and Stambaugh, R.F. (1986), Predicting returns in stock and bond markets, Journal of Financial Economics, vol.17, no.2, pp.357-390.
Kryzanowski, L. and Zhang, H. (1992), The Contrarian Investment Strategy does not work in Canadian Markets, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, vol 27, no 3, pp.383-395.
Lakonishok, J., Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R.W. (1994), Contrarian Investment, Extrapolation and Risk, Journal of Finance, vol.49, no.5, pp.1541-1577.
Lehmann, B.N. (1990), Fads, Martingales and Market Efficiency, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol.105, no.1, pp 1-28.
Pettengill, G.N. and Jordan, B.D. (1990), The Overreaction Hypothesis, Firm Size, and Stock Market Seasonality, Journal of Portfolio Management, vol.16, no.3, pp.60-64.
Reinganum, M.R. (1981), Misspecification of Capital Asset Pricing: Empirical Anomalies Based on Earnings Yields and Market Values, Journal of Financial Economics, vol.9, pp 19-46.
Zarowin, P. (1990), Size, Seasonality, and Stock Market Overreaction, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, vol .25, no.1, pp.113-125.