MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W216302672

The Fading Day-of-the-Week Effect in Developed Equity Markets

2003· article· en· W216302672 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gerald Kohers, Vivek Pandey, Ninon Kohers, Theodor Kohers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of international business research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeekend effectNames of the days of the weekEquity (law)EconomicsMonetary economicsDemographic economicsDemographyMedicinePhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The day-of-the-week effect, one of the most widely documented anomalies, has revealed that security returns tend to be significantly higher on some days of the week relative to other days. If the efficiency of markets improves over time, then the day-of-the-week effect may have faded away in recent time periods. This paper investigates the existence of this anomaly in the world's 23 developed equity markets over the last 22 years. The findings show that the day-of-the-week effect clearly was evident in the vast majority of developed markets during the 1980s, but it appears to have faded away in the 1990s. These results imply that increases in market efficiency over long time periods may have dissipated the effects of certain anomalies in more recent years. INTRODUCTION A substantial volume of research on security price behavior has identified a number of persistent seasonal patterns commonly known as calendar anomalies. According to these seasonal anomalies, the tendency exists for securities to display systematic patterns at certain times like days, weeks or months. One of the most widely documented anomalies is the day-of-the-week effect, according to which the security returns are significantly higher on some days of the week relative to other days (see e.g., Aggarwal & Tandon, 1994; Barone, 1990; Cross, 1973; Lakonishok & Smidt, 1988). Some studies showed that the average return for Monday is significantly negative for countries like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada (see e.g., Aggarwal & Schatzberg, 1997; Balaban et al., 2001; Flannery & Protopapadakis, 1988; French, 1980; Gibbons & Hess, 1981; Keim & Stambauch, 1984; Kohers & Kohers, 1995; Pena, 1995; Pettengill, 1985; Rogalski, 1984; Schwert, 1983; Smirlock & Starks, 1986; Solnik & Bousquet,1990). In contrast, for several Pacific Rim countries, the lowest rate of return tends to occur on Tuesdays (see Brooks & Persand, 2001; Davidson & Faff, 1999; Dubois & Louvet, 1996; Jaffe & Westerfield, 1985). The literature offers a number of possible explanations for the existence of the day-of-the-week effect, (see e.g., Keim & Stambauch, 1984; Miller, 1988; Wilson & Jones, 1993). However, most of the evidence centers around negative news releases over the weekend (e.g., Berument & Kiymaz, 2001; Penman, 1988). While most research supports the existence of a day-of-the-week effect, some offer contradictory evidence. For example, Connolly (1989) and Chang et. al. (1992) submitted evidence to suggest that sample size and/or error term adjustments render U.S. day-of-the-week effects statistically insignificant. These day-of-the-week findings appear to conflict with the Efficient Market Hypothesis since they imply that investors could develop a trading strategy that takes advantage of these seasonal regularities. However, once transaction costs and time-varying stock market risk premiums are taken into account, it is not clear that the predictability of stock returns translate into market inefficiencies. Focusing on the returns in Korea and the United Kingdom, two recent studies have suggested that starting in the 1990s, the day-of-the-week effect has disappeared in these countries (e.g., see Kamath & Chusanachoti, 2002; Steeley, 2001). If markets have become more efficient over time, seasonal anomalies such as the day-of-the-week effect may have gradually faded away in more recent periods. Given the possible evolution of this seasonal over time, renewed attention to this topic seems warranted. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to test for the existence of this anomaly in the world's developed equity markets over the last two decades. Specifically, the daily returns for the indices of the 23 MSCI-designated developed markets for the period from January 1980 through June 2002 are examined for the continuous presence of this regularity. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of international business researchSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207