Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T01:07:30.639Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Book-to-Market across Firm Size, Exchange, and Seasonality: Is There an Effect?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Tim Loughran
Tim Loughran
Affiliation:
Department of Finance, University of Iowa, 108 PBAB, Iowa City, IA 52242.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Fama and French (1992) report that size and the book-to-market ratio capture the cross-sectional variation of average stock returns for the universe of NYSE, Amex, and Nasdaq securities. This paper, in providing an exhaustive exploration of book-to-market across the dimensions of firm size, exchange listing, and calendar seasonally, reports that Fama and French's empirical findings are driven by two features of the data: a January seasonal in the book-to-market effect, and exceptionally low returns on small, young, growth stocks. In the largest size quintile of all firms (accounting for 73% of the total market value of all publicly traded firms), book-to-market has no significant explanatory power on the cross-section of realized returns during the 1963–1995 period. Thus, book-to-market as such would have less importance to money managers than the literature would have led us to believe.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , September 1997 , pp. 249 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atkins, A. B., and Dyl, E.. “Market Structure and Reported Trading Volume: Nasdaq Versus the NYSE.” Journal of Financial Research (1997, forthcoming).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhardwaj, K. R., and Brooks, L. D.. “The January Anomaly: Effects of Low Share Price, Transaction Costs, and Bid-Ask Bias.” Journal of Finance, 47 (1992), 553–575.Google Scholar
Blume, M. E., and Stambaugh, R.. “Biases in Computed Returns: An Application to the Size Effect.” Journal of Financial Economics, 12 (1983), 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, L. K. C.; Hamao, Y.; and Lakonishok, J.. “Fundamentals and Stock Returns in Japan.” Journal of Finance, 46 (1991), 1739–1764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, L. K. C.; Jegadeesh, N.; and Lakonishok, J.. “Evaluating the Performance of Value Versus Glamour Stocks: The Impact of Selection Bias.” Journal of Financial Economics, 38 (1995), 269–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, J. “The Cross-Section of Realized Returns: The Pre-COMPUSTAT Evidence.” Journal of Finance, 49 (1994), 1579–1593.Google Scholar
Fama, E. F., and French, K. R.. “The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns.” Journal of Finance, 47 (1992), 427–465.Google Scholar
Fama, E. F., and French, K. R.. “Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds.” Journal of inancial Economics, 33 (1993), 3–56.Google Scholar
Fama, E. F., and French, K. R.. “Size and Book-to-Market Factors in Earnings and Returns.” Journal of Finance, 50 (1995), 131–155.Google Scholar
Gould, J. F., and Kleidon, A. W.. “Market Maker Activity on Nasdaq: Implications for Trading Volume.” Stanford Journal of Law, Business and Finance, 1 (1994), 1–17.Google Scholar
Hawawini, G., and Keim, D. B.. “On the Predictability of Common Stock Returns: World-Wide Evidence.” Handbooks in Operations Research and Management Science, 9 (1995), 497–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibbotson, R. G.; Sindelar, J. L.; and Ritter, J. R.. “The Market's Problems with the Pricing of Initial Public Offerings.” Unpubl. Working Paper, Univ. of Florida (1996).Google Scholar
Jaffe, J.; Keim, D.; and Westerfield, R.. “Earnings Yields, Market Values, and Stock Returns.” Journal of Finance, 44 (1989), 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keim, D. B. “Size-Related Anomalies and Stock Return Seasonally: Further Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Financial Economics, 12 (1983), 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keim, D. B. “Stock Market Regularities: A Synthesis of the Evidence and Explanations.” In Stock Market Anomalies, Dimson, Elroy ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ. Press 1988).Google Scholar
Keim, D. B. “Trading Patterns, Bid/Ask Spreads, and Estimated Security Returns.” Journal of Financial Economics, 25 (1989), 75–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kothari, S. P.; Shanken, J.; and Sloan, R. G.. “Another Look at the Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns.” Journal of Finance, 50 (1995), 185–224.Google Scholar
Lakonishok, J.; Shleifer, A.; and Vishny, R. W.. “Contrarian Investment, Extrapolation, and Risk.” Journal of Finance, 49 (1994), 1541–1578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loughran, T. “NYSE vs NASDAQ Returns; Market Microstructure or the Poor Performance of Initial Public Offerings.” Journal of Financial Economics, 33 (1993), 241–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loughran, T. and Ritter, J. R.. “The New Issues Puzzle.” Journal of Finance, 49 (1995), 23–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malkiel, B. G. “Returns from Investing in Equity Mutual Funds 1971 to 1991.” Journal of Finance, 50 (1995), 549–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritter, J. R. “The Long-Run Performance of Initial Public Offerings.” Journal of Finance, 46 (1991), 3–27.Google Scholar
Ritter, J. R., and Chopra, N.. “Portfolio Rebalancing and the Turn-of-the-Year Effect.” Journal of Finance, 44 (1989), 149–166.Google Scholar
Siegel, J. J. “The Nifty-Fifty Revisited: Do Growth Stocks Ultimately Justify their Price?” Journal of Portfolio Management, 21 (Summer 1995), 8–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar