Short-horizon event study estimation with a STAR model and real contaminated events
- 289 Downloads
We propose a test statistic for nonzero mean abnormal returns based on a Smooth Transition Auto Regressive (STAR) model specification. Estimation of STAR takes into account the probability of contaminated events that could otherwise bias the parameters of the market model and thus the specification and power of the test statistic. Using both simulated and real stock returns data from mergers and acquisitions, we find that the STAR test statistic is robust to contaminated events occurring in the estimation window and in the presence of event-induced increase in return variance. Under the STAR test statistic the true null hypothesis is rejected at appropriate levels. Moreover, it exhibits the highest levels of power when compared with other test statistics that are widely and routinely applied in short-horizon event studies.
KeywordsEvent studies Test statistics Contaminated events Markov switching regression model Smooth Transition Auto Regressive model
JEL ClassificationG14 G34
The authors would like to thank Milto Hadjikyriakou for providing excellent research assistance. The authors also acknowledge comments and constructive suggestions from participants at the 5th CSDA International Conference on Computational and Financial Econometrics (December 2011, UK).
- Ahern KR (2009) Sample selection and event study estimation. J Bank Financ 16:466–482Google Scholar
- Aktas N, De Bodt E, Cousin JG (2007b) Assessing the power and the size of the event study method through the decades. In Finance International Meeting AFFI-EUROFIDAI, Paris, DecemberGoogle Scholar
- Hamilton JD (1994) Time series analysis. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Kothari SP, Warner JB (2007) Econometrics of Event Studies. In: Eckbo BE (ed) Handbooks of corporate finance: empirical corporate finance, vol 1. Elsevier/North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Terasvirta T (1994) Specification, smooth transition autoregressive models. J Am Stat Assoc 89:208–218Google Scholar