Can the Sell in May effect be enhanced by a size tilt?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The authors evaluate the Sell in May effect in the Canadian context to comprehensively explore the Sell in May effect as well as its interactions with the size effect and risk and with multiple indices. Design/methodology/approach The authors use ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions to examine the Sell in May effect and Huber M-estimation to handle potential outliers. They also use the generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) models to explore the role of risk in the Sell in May effect. Findings The results demonstrate that the Sell in May effect is present in all three main Canadian stock market indices. More telling, the anomaly is strongest in small cap indices and in indices that give equal weighting to small and large cap stocks. They do not find that the effect is driven by risk. Originality/value While several papers have explored the Sell in May phenomenon in several countries, little scholarly attention has been paid to this effect in Canada and to its interaction with the size effect. The authors contribute to the literature by examining of the interactions between Sell in May and the size effect in Canada. They examine the Sell in May effect using CFMRC value-weighted and equally weighted indices of all Canadian companies. They also incorporate in their analysis the role of risk.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".