Skip to main content
Log in

The Economic Significance of the Cross-Sectional Autoregressive Model: Further Analysis

  • Published:
Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We reexamine whether investors can gain abnormal returns using the cross-sectional autoregressive model of stock returns. We find that the pattern of abnormal returns obtained is inconsistent over the time period 1934–94. We adjust for the higher commission costs in the pre-May 1 1975 period, a point overlooked in Jegadeesh (1990), by assuming a conservative one-way transaction cost of 0.75%. For the post-May 1 1975 period, we use a one-way transaction cost of 0.25%. The results show that investors who invest only on the long side would earn insignificant 'after-transaction cost' abnormal returns in the post-World War II period, 1946–94. The 'after-transaction cost' abnormal return from the short strategy is about 0.5% for the period 1946–94. This article shows that an investor would not earn abnormal returns using this model considering that it is more costly in practice to sell securities short and that most investors would not earn interest on short sale proceeds.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Berkowitz, S.A., Dennis E. Logue, and Eugene A. Noser, Jr., “The Total Cost of Transactions on the NYSE.” Journal of Finance 43, 97–112, (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, Fischer, “Noise.” Journal of Finance, 41 529–43, (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  • Branch, Ben, and David P Echevarria, “Market Microstructure empirical regularities: Behavior of the bid-ask spread and closing prices.” Financial Review 30, 541–565, (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Conrad, Jennifer, and Gautam Kaul, “Mean Reversion in Short-Horizon Expected Returns.” Review of Financial Studies 2, 225–240, (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • DeBondt, Werner F.M., and Richard Thaler, “Does the Stock Market Overreact?” Journal of Finance 40, 793–805, (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • —, and —, “Further Evidence on Investor Overreaction and Stock Market Seasonality.” Journal of Finance 42, 557–81, (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmister, Robert O, “Commission Cost Structure: Shifts and Scale Economies.” Journal of Finance 33, 477–86, (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fama, Eugene, and Kenneth French, “Permanent and Temporary components of Stock Prices.” Journal of Political Economy 96, 246–273, (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • —, and —, “The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns.” Journal of Finance 47, 427–465, (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • —, and —, “Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds.” Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3–56, (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • —, and —, “Multifactor Explanations of Asset Pricing Anomalies.” Journal of Finance 51, 55–84, (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jegadeesh, Narasimhan, “Evidence of Predictable Behavior of Security Returns.” Journal of Finance 45, 881–898, (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jegadeesh, Narasimhan, and S. Titman, “Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency.” Journal of Finance, 48, 65–91, (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  • —, and S. Titman, “Overreaction, Delayed Reaction, and Contrarian Profits.” Review of Financial Studies 8, 973–993, (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, Michael, C., “The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period 1945-1964.” Journal of Finance 23, 389–416, (1968).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lintner, John, “The valuation of risk assets and the selection of risky investments in stock portfolios and capital budgets.” Review of Economics and Statistics 47, 13–37, (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo, Andrew, and Craig MacKinlay, “Stock Market Prices do not follow Random Walk: Evidence from a simple specification test.” Review of Financial Studies, 1, 41–66, (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • —, and —, “When are Contrarian Profits due to Stock Market Overreaction?” Review of Financial Studies 3, 175–205, (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  • McQueen, G., and S. Thorley, “Are Stock Returns Predictable? A Test Using Markov Chains.” Journal of Finance 46, 239–263, (1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Poterba, J., and L. Summers, “Mean Reversion in Stock Prices: Evidence and Implications.” Journal of Financial Economics 22, 27–59, (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpe, William F., “Capital asset prices: A theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk.” Journal of Finance, 19, 425–442, (1964).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shefrin, Hersh M., and Meir Statman, “The Disposition to Sell Winners too Early and Ride Losers too Long: Theory and Evidence.” Journal of Finance 40, 774–90, (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiller, R., “Do Stock Prices Move Too Much to be Justified by Subsequent Changes in Dividends?” American Economic Review 71, 421–436, (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll, Hans R., and Robert Whaley, “Transaction Costs and the Small Firm Effect.” Journal of Financial Economics 12, 57–79, (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • White, Halbert, “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica 48, 817–838, (1980).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Levy, H., Lim, K. The Economic Significance of the Cross-Sectional Autoregressive Model: Further Analysis. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 11, 37–51 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008284208744

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008284208744

Navigation