Refining the bootstrap method of stochastic dominance analysis: The case of the January effect

  • Glen A. LarsenJr.
  • Bruce G. Resnick


This study investigates the effect of sample size and population distribution on the bootstrap estimated sampling distributions for stochastic dominance (SD) test statistics. Bootstrap critical values for Whitmore's (1978) second- and third-degree stochastic dominance test statistics are found to vary with both data sample size and variance of the population distribution. The results indicate the parametric nature of the statistics and suggest that the bootstrap method should be used to estimate a sampling distribution each time a new data sample is drawn. As an application of the bootstrap method, the January small firm effect is examined. The results conflict with the SD results of others, and indicate that not all investors would prefer to hold just a portfolio of small capitalization firms in January.

Key words

bootstrap method stochastic dominance analysis January effect 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Banz, R., “The Relationship Between Return and Market Value of Common Stocks.” Journal of Financial Economics 9, 3–18, (1981).Google Scholar
  2. Branch, B., “A Tax Loss Trading Rule.” Journal of Business 50, 198–207, (1977).Google Scholar
  3. Chan, K.C. and N. Chen, “An Unconditional Asset-Pricing Test and the Role of Firm Size as an Instrumental Variable for Risk.” Journal of Finance 43, 309–325, (1988).Google Scholar
  4. Chan, K.C. and N. Chen, “Structural and Return Characteristics of Small and Large Firms.” Journal of Finance 46, 1467–1484, (1991).Google Scholar
  5. Chan, K.C., N. Chen, and D.A. Hsieh, “An Exploratory Investigation of the Firm Size Effect.” Journal of Financial Economics 14, 451–471, (1985).Google Scholar
  6. Efron, B., “Bootstrap Method: Another Look at the Jackknife.” Annals of Statistics 7, 1–26, (1979).Google Scholar
  7. Falk, H. and H. Levy, “Market Reaction to Quarterly Earnings' Announcements: A Stochastic Dominance Based Test of Market Efficiency.” Management Science 35, 425–446, (1989)Google Scholar
  8. Fama, E. and K. French, “The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns.” Journal of Finance, 47, 427–465, (1992).Google Scholar
  9. Hadar, J. and W.R. Russell, “Rules for Ordering Uncertain Prospects.” American Economic Review 59, 25–34, (1969).Google Scholar
  10. Hanoch, G. and H. Levy, “The Efficiency Analysis of Choice Iinvolving Risk.” Review of Economic Studies 36, 335–346, (1969).Google Scholar
  11. Haugen, R.A. and J. Lakonishok, The Incredible January Effect. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin 1988.Google Scholar
  12. Keim, D.B., “Size-Related Anomalies and Stock Return Seasonality: Further Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Financial Economics 12, 13–32, (1983).Google Scholar
  13. Kinderman, A.J. and J.G. Ramage, “Computer Generation of Normal Random Variables.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 72, 893–896, (1976).Google Scholar
  14. Lakonishok, J. and S. Smidt, “Volume and Turn of the Year Behavior.” Journal of Financial Economics 13, 435–456, (1984).Google Scholar
  15. Larsen, G.A. and B.G. Resnick, “Bootstrapping a Distance Test for Stochastic Dominance Analysis.” Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 3, 61–69, (1993).Google Scholar
  16. Levy, H. and Y. Kroll, “Efficiency Analysis with Borrowing and Lending Criteria and Their Effectiveness.” Review of Economics and Statistics 2, 13–37, (1979).Google Scholar
  17. McNichols, M. and A. David, “Stock Dividends, Stock Splits, and Signalling.” Journal of Finance 45, 857–889, (1990).Google Scholar
  18. Quirk, J.P. and R. Saposnik, “Admissibility and Measurable Utility Functions.” Review of Economic Studies 9, 140–146, (1962).Google Scholar
  19. Reinganum, M.R., “The Anomalous Stock Market Behavior of Small Firms in January: Empirical Tests for Tax-Loss Selling Effects.” Journal Financial Economics 2, 89–104, (1983).Google Scholar
  20. Ritter, J.R., “The Buying and Selling Behavior of Individual Investors at the Turn of the Year.” Journal of Finance 43, 701–717, (1988).Google Scholar
  21. Ritter, J.R. and N. Chopra, “Portfolio Rebalancing and the Turn of the Year Effect.” Journal of Finance 44, 149–166, (1989).Google Scholar
  22. Rozeff, M.S., “Tax Loss Selling: Evidence from December Stock Returns and Share Shifts.” In Proceedings of the Seminar on the Analysis of Security Prices. Center for Research in Security Prices, University of Chicago Graduate School of Business, 9–45, 1986.Google Scholar
  23. Seyhun, H. Nejay, “Can Omitted Risk Factors Explain the January Effect? A Stochastic Dominance Approach.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 28, 195–212, (1993).Google Scholar
  24. Stoll, H.R. and R.E. Whaley, “Transactions Costs and the Small Firm Effect.” Journal of Financial Economics 12, 57–79, (1983).Google Scholar
  25. Whitmore, G.A., “Third Degree Stochastic Dominance.” American Economic Review 60, 457–459, (1970).Google Scholar
  26. Whitmore, G.A., “Statistical Tests for Stochastic Dominance.” In Stochastic Dominance: An Approach to Decision Making Under Risk, G.A. Whitmore and M.C. Findlay, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Glen A. LarsenJr.
    • 1
  • Bruce G. Resnick
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Finance, School of BusinessIndiana UniversityIndianapolisUSA
  2. 2.Babcock Graduate School of ManagementWake Forest UniversityWinston-SalemUSA

Personalised recommendations