MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2265850759

Quarterly Patterns in Momentum and Reversal in the U.S. Stock Market: The Consequences of Tax-Loss Sales and Window Dressing

2015· article· en· W2265850759 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David P. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxable incomeMonetary economicsEconomicsMomentum (technical analysis)Equity (law)Quarter (Canadian coin)Stock (firearms)IncentiveFinancial economicsBusinessMarket economyAccounting
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Active investment managers have strong incentives to simultaneously realize tax losses and window dress taxable portfolios at the end of each calendar quarter. As a result, stocks with capital losses experience negative abnormal returns during the third months of quarters. During the years after the passage of Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act in 1982, the lion’s share of returns of momentum strategies is earned in these stocks, and at the ends of calendar quarters. Since 1982, reversals of monthly returns appear only in the first months of quarters, and only at times when the aggregate value of capital losses is large. These turn-of-the-quarter patterns in momentum and reversals are now larger, after the IRS rules regarding taxes on capital gains have tightened, and they are strong in big and liquid stocks, as well as in small and illiquid stocks. The patterns indicate that momentum and reversal are due in part to institutional features of the stock market, including tax rules and reporting practices of active managers.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies→French-language works237,207→