Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Some evidence on Ross' resolution irrelevancy hypothesis

  • 28 Accesses

  • 1 Citations

Abstract

This research attempts to discriminate empirically between the predictable events and resolution irrelevancy hypotheses as both pertain to abnormal stock price performance around regular and special proxy statement mailing dates and the related shareholder meeting dates. We find no evidence that these events result in the positive wealth effects suggested by the predictable events hypothesis. We do find evidence of increased idiosyncratic stock price volatility or information flow around special meeting proxy statement mailing dates and special meeting dates. Thus, our evidence supports the resolution irrelevancy hypothesis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Boehmer, Ekkehart, Jim Musumeci, and Annette B. Poulsen, “Event-Study Methodology under Conditions of Event-Induced Variances.”Journal of Financial Economics 30, 253–272, (December 1991).

  2. Brickley, James A., “Interpreting Common Stock Returns around Proxy Statement Disclosures and Annual Shareholder Meetings.”Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 21, 343–349 (September 1986).

  3. Brown, Stephen J. and Jerold B. Warner, “Using Daily Stock Returns: The Case of Event Studies.”Journal of Financial Economics 14, 3–31, (March 1985).

  4. Collins, Daniel W. and Warren T. Dent, “A Comparison of Alternative Testing Methodologies Used in Capital Market Research.”Journal of Accounting Research 22, 48–84, (Spring 1984).

  5. Corrado, Charles, J., “A Nonparametric Test for Abnormal Security-Price Performance in Event Studies.”Journal of Financial Economics 23, 385–395, (August 1989).

  6. Epstein, Larry G. and Stuart M. Turnbull, “Capital Asset Prices and the Temporal Resolution of Uncertainty.”Journal of Finance 35, 627–643, (June 1980).

  7. Kalay, Avner, and Uri Loewenstein, “Predictable Events and Excess Returns: The Case of Dividend Announcements.”Journal of Financial Economics 14, 423–449, (September 1985).

  8. Robichek, Alexander A. and Stewart C. Myers, “Conceptual Problems in the Use of Risk-Adjusted Discount Rates.”Journal of Finance 21, 727–730, (December 1966).

  9. Robins, Russell P. and Ralph W. Sanders, Jr., “A More Powerful Test for Cumulative Average Abnormal Returns.” University of South Florida, Working paper (1993).

  10. Ross, Stephen. A., “Information and Volatility: The No-Arbitrage Martingale Approach to Timing and Resolution Uncertainty.”Journal of Finance 44, 1–17, (March 1989).

  11. Sanders, Ralph W., Jr. and Russell P. Robins, “Discriminating Between Wealth and Information Effects in Event Studies in Accounting and Finance Research.”Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 1, 307–329, (July 1991).

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zdanowicz, J.S., Sanders, R.W. Some evidence on Ross' resolution irrelevancy hypothesis. Rev Quant Finan Acc 5, 291–308 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01074843

Download citation

Key words

  • resolution irrelevancy hypothesis
  • event testing
  • predictable events hypothesis