Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:52:48.866Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Market Line Deviations and Market Anomalies with Reference to Small and Large Firms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

Bob Korkie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous anomaly research may have misinterpreted corrected, for the market index, mean returns on small firms. Assuming mean-variance preferences, it is shown theoretically that corrected mean returns (i.e., market line deviations) are not indicative of the relative desirability of increasing the proportional investment in small firms. The correct improvement criterion is derived and estimated. Tests indicate that the value-weighted market index is not significantly improved with greater weight on small firms, in the average month. When seasonality is considered, the observed performance improvements due to small or large firms are significant in some months, but the required portfolio position is unclear. If a case exists for a small firm anomaly in January, it probably exists in other months and it also exists for large firms. It is doubtful whether such an anomalous stock market exists.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 1986 , pp. 161 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1986

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

REFERENCES

[1]Banz, R. W. “The Relationship between Return and Market Value of Common Stocks.” Journal of Financial Economics, 9 (03 1981), 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[2]Barry, C. B., and Brown, S. J.. “Differential Information and the Small Firm Effect.” Journal of Financial Economics, 13 (06 1984), 283–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[3]Blume, M., and Stambaugh, R.. “Biases and Computed Returns: An Application to the Size Effect.” Journal of Financial Economics, 12 (11 1983), 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[4]Brown, P.; Kleidon, A.; and Marsh, T.. “New Evidence on Size-Related Anomalies in Stock Prices.” Journal of Financial Economics, 12 (06 1983), 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[5]Constantinides, G. M. “Optimal Stock Trading with Personal Taxes: Implications for Prices and the Abnormal January Returns.” Journal of Financial Economics, 13 (03 1984), 65–90.Google Scholar
[6]Dybvig, P. H., and Ross, S. A.. “The Simple Analytics of Performance Measurement.” Paper presented to the WFA Meetings, Jackson Hole, WY (1981).Google Scholar
[7]Fama, E. F. “Components of Investment Performance.” Journal of Finance, 27 (06 1972), 551–568.Google Scholar
[8]Ibbotson, R. G., and Sinquefield, R. A.. “Stocks, Bonds, Bills and Inflation: Historical Returns (1926–1978).” Financial Analysts Research Foundation, Univ. of VA, Charlottesville (1979).Google Scholar
[9]Jobson, J. D., and Korkie, R. M.. “Estimation for Markowitz Efficient Portfolios.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75 (09 1980), 544–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[10]Jobson, J. D., and Korkie, R. M.. “Performance Hypothesis Testing with the Sharpe and Treynor Measures.” Journal of Finance, 36 (09 1981), 889–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]Jobson, J. D., and Korkie, R. M.. “Potential Performance and Tests of Portfolio Efficiency.” Journal of Financial Economics, 10 (12 1982), 433–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[12]Jobson, J. D., and Korkie, R. M.. “A Note on the Jensen Measure and Marginal Improvements in Portfolio Performance.” Journal of Finance, 39 (03 1984), 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[13]Kandel, S. “The Likelihood Ratio Test Statistic of Mean-Variance Efficiency without a Riskless Asset.” Journal of Financial Economics, 13 (12 1984), 575–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[14]Keim, D. B. “Size-Related Anomalies and Stock Market Seasonality: Further Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Financial Economics, 12 (06 1983), 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[15]Korkie, R. M. “Market Line Deviations and Firm Size.” Presented to the Third Symposium on Money, Banking and Insurance, Univ. of Karlsruhe, W. Germany (1984).Google Scholar
[16]Merton, R. C. “An Analytical Derivation of the Efficient Portfolio Frontier.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 7 (06 1972), 1851–1872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[17]Reinganum, M. “The Anomalous Stock Market Behavior of Small Firms in January: Empirical Tests for Tax-Loss Selling Effects.” Journal of Financial Economics, 12 (04 1983), 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[18]Roll, R. “Ambiguity when Performance is Measured by the Securities Market Line.” Journal of Finance, 33 (09 1978), 1051–1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[19]Roll, R. “A Possible Explanation of the Small Firm Effect.” Journal of Finance, 36 (09 1981), 879–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[20]Ross, S. A. “A Test of the Efficiency of a Given Portfolio.” Paper presented at the World Econometrics Meeting, Aix-en-Provence, France (1980).Google Scholar
[21]Seber, G. A. F.Multivariate Observations. NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[22]Sharpe, W. F. “Mutual Fund Performance.” Journal of Business, Supplement (1966), 119–138.Google Scholar
[23]Stoll, H. R., and Whaley, R. E.. “Transactions, Costs and the Small Firm Effect.” Journal of Financial Economics, 12 (06 1983), 57–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar