沪深A股市场异象研究
|
摘要
资本资产定价模型(CAPM)和有效市场假说是经典金融理论的基石,主要探讨完全竞争市场和理性经济人假设条件下资本市场的行为。对国内外研究分析资本市场中收益和风险之间的关系产生了深远的影响。CAPM认为影响股票期望报酬率的唯一因素是系统风险,并且揭示出两者之间呈正向的线性关系。然而,近三十年来国内外越来越多的研究证实存在许多无法用传统的资产定价理论解释或者与有效市场假说相违背的现象,尤其是股票市场异象的产生,说明我们不能够在经典的资产定价理论框架下探讨股票价格的内在运行规律,除了系统风险之外,还可能有其他的因素可以解释股票异常收益的现象,例如:规模效应、盈余价格比效应、账面市值比效应等。许多学者如Fama﹠French等试图运用不同的研究方法、选取不同国家、不同时期的样本数据、不同的研究视角,在有效市场假说的前提下给出种种解释,然而现有的理论对这些问题并不能完全解释清楚。
从另外一个角度看,它们也为我们深入探究资本市场中股票价格的形成与变化规律提供了一个新的视角或途径,因而这些股票市场异象一经发现,就成了理论界与实务界关注的焦点,因为要解释这些异常现象需要发展新的理论和方法,这在一定程度上也推动金融学科的发展。正是基于这样一种考虑,近三十年来,国内外有许多学者选取不同国家、不同时间段、不同的样本数据对股票市场异象从不同角度进行分析研究;但大多数研究所使用的方法一个共同的特点是研究者根据他主观想法按某一特征值(比如账面市值比,公司规模等)对样本分组构建不同的投资组合。但很少有学者对于我国A股市场运用面板门限模型(Hansen,1999)分析检验各项股票市场异象。运用面板门限模型对比分析检验股权分置改革前后沪深A股市场规模效应和账面市值比效应的存在性、形成原因、以及股权分置改革对沪深股市有效性的影响。一方面可以帮助我们加强理解沪深A股市场自身结构特征、市场交易机制、市场参与者行为以及交易价格形成机制等影响证券市场行为的微观层面问题;另一方面通过比较两市的实证结果找到两个市场运行的特点、存在的差异,为监管层更好地认识两市运行规律提供实证证据,由此考察股票异象随时间变化的演变规律。
有鉴于此,本文运用面板门限模型,选取1996年12月31日前已上市的深圳A股、上海A股部分上市公司为研究对象,以2005年4月29日为实质性股权分置改革的分界点,在考虑异质预期影响的情况下分析比较股权分置改革前后我国股票市场的异象,检验规模效应、账面市值比效应是否存在、简要分析异象产生的原因及这两种异象之间是否存在交叉作用;并通过纵向比较股改前后两市实证检验结果,来检验股权分置改革对沪深A股市场效率的影响。
现将论文的主要研究结论总结如下:
①在股改以前的1997年1月—2005年4月时间段内,研究结果表明:整体而言,沪市A股规模效应显著存在、账面市值比效应不明显。深市A股规模效应和账面市值比效应都显著存在。而股改后的2008年1月—2010年10月时段内。研究结果表明:沪市A股规模效应依然存在着显著,而账面市值比效应不存在。深市A股规模效应显著存在,而账面市值比效应不再存在。
②股改前,沪市A股公司规模存在双重门限效应,公司规模与股票收益率在三个区间依次存在正、负、负相关关系,在相关关系为正的区间,统计上不显著,样本公司大多数落在后两个区间,占样本总数的90.01%,统计上显著但解释程度不同;账面市值比存在单一门限效应,账面市值比与股票收益率在两个区间依次存在负、正相关关系,在负相关关系区间显著,但正相关关系区间统计上不显著。深市A股,公司规模不存在门限效应;账面市值比存在单一门限效应,账面市值比与股票收益率在两个区间依次存在负、正相关关系,在相关关系为负的区间,统计上不显著;而在相关关系为正的区间,存在显著的正相关关系,该区间样本占样本总数55.39%。
股改后,沪市A股公司规模存在单一门限效应,公司规模与股票收益率在这两个区间都为显著的负相关关系,但解释程度不同;账面市值比不存在门限效应。深市A股公司规模存在单一门限效应,公司规模与股票收益率在两个区间依次为正相关、负相关关系,但解释程度和显著性不同,前者统计上不显著,后者统计上显著,后者区间样本占样本总数84.34%;账面市值比不存在门限效应。因此,我们分析股权分置改革前后沪深市A股市场规模效应、账面市值比效应时,要区别异象因子在不同区间的不同变化趋势。
在不同的门限区间内公司规模、账面市值比对股票收益率的解释程度不同,前者主要是由于不同规模的公司被庄家操控股价、并购重组的难易程度不一样,活跃程度也不一样;后者主要由于不同账面市值比的公司基本面不一样,稳定性、股价波动程度不一样。
③公司规模的影响。检验结果表明,股改前后深市A股公司规模对股票收益率的解释力和显著性都要比沪市A股整体要强;股改前后沪深股市各自检验结果纵向比较表明股改后各自公司规模对股票收益率的解释程度也增强了。
④账面市值比的影响。股改前后沪市A股四个样本区间,只有股改前深市A股账面市值比对股票收益率有较强的解释力,与股票收益率存在显著的正相关关系。其他情况下,账面市值比效应不明显。
⑤异质预期的影响。检验结果表明,股改前后沪深A股四个样本区间异质预期对股票收益率的影响都存在,对股票收益有明显的预测作用,其代理变量换手率与股票收益率都为显著的正相关关系,即表明预期差异程度越大对股票收益收益率影响也越大。股改前后深市异质预期对股票收益率的解释程度都要比沪市A股要强。纵向比较结果表明股改后沪深A股预期差异程度对股票收益的解释力与股改前相比都减弱了。
⑥交易金额。股改前检验结果表明沪市A股成交金额对股票收益率产生显著的负向影响,表明交易金额小的股票获得的股票收益率更高。与沪市A股相比,深市A股中该指标对股票收益率的影响也为负相关关系,但是深市A股,解释程度要强。股改后的检验结果表明:沪深两市成交金额对股票收益率都产生显著的负向影响,即对股票收益有预测作用,深市该指标对股票收益率的解释程度要比沪市仍然要强。
⑦公司规模、账面市值比的交叉作用。股改前后沪深A股四个样本区间检验结果都表明公司规模、账面市值比两异象因子不存在交叉作用。
⑧纵向比较结果表明:整体上,股权分置改革促进了沪深A股市场效率的改进。
⑨我国股票市场不太成熟,理性投资缺乏,投机性强,庄家操纵严重股价,小规模公司是并购重组的热点,也是投资者追捧的热点。整体而言,股权分置改革并未完全改变沪深股市高投机性的特性,股改前后,深市A股市场投机性、不稳定性都要强于沪市A股市场。
本文主要创新点如下:
①不同于已有文献大多构建横截面数据模型或者是时间序列数据模型,针对这一问题,本文则构建了面板数据模型,这样能够识别一些前面两种模型所不能识别的因素提高了模型参数估计精度。在此基础上,为了克服人为分组而导致分析结果的偏差,本文尝试运用面板门限模型来改善这项缺失,根据样本资料本身的信息找出门限分区点,区分出非线性关系的区间,这样不仅可验证不同门限区间内股票异象是否存在,而且可探讨公司规模、账面市值比对股票收益率解释程度的差异。检验结果表明,在不同的区间(存在门限或不存在门限),表现出不同的规律;并且在不同的门限区间,由于不同的公司规模(账面市值比)公司被操纵、并购重组的难易程度不一样(基本面不一样,稳定性不一样),所以导致门限变量(公司规模或账面市值比)对股票收益率解释程度不同,与大多已有研究结论单一规律存在差异。改进了目前国内外分析检验股票市场异象所使用的方法,大多是研究者把研究样本按特征值由低到高排序构建不同的投资组合进行分析的做法。
②在已有的研究中,我国学者大多独自构建相应的股票投资组合作为其实证研究对象,样本选取时间段短,大多选用2005年以前的沪市A股数据,并且不同的学者对于市值规模的界定不一致,难以覆盖市场整体情况,造成其重复验证性以及研究的可持续性都比较差,针对这一问题,本文同时选取沪深A股股改前后四个时间段的样本进行分析检验。通过纵向比较股改前后沪深A股检验结果来分析股权分置改革对股票市场效率的影响。结果表明股改前后,深市投机性氛围都要比沪市确实要强烈,股权分置改革在一定程度上促进了沪深A股市场效率的改进。
③考虑异质预期的影响,把换手率作为异质预期的代理变量。改进已有大多数研究较少考虑异质预期的影响,此外还拓展了仅单独检验一种股票异象的情况,更综合的分析了规模效应、账面市值比效应两种异象之间的关系,尝试检验两种异象因子的交叉作用。在借鉴参考Fama&French三因子模型的基础上选取公司规模、账面市值比、成交金额、换手率、交叉作用因子构建新的模型分析股改前后沪深A股异象。检验结果表明股改前后沪深A股异质预期的影响都存在,预期差异程度与股票收益率正相关,股改前后预期差异程度对股票收益率的解释程度深市都要比沪市强烈,股改减弱了异质预期对两市的影响;规模、账面市值比不存在交叉作用。
Capital asset pricing model (CAPM) and efficient market hypothesis, which are the foundation of classical finance theory, mainly discuss the behavior of capital markets based on perfectly competitive market and the 'rational man' hypothesis.They had a profound impact domestic to the relationship between return and risk in capital market around theory circle and practice circle at home and abroad. CAPM account the only factor that affects the stock's expected return is the systematic risk, exists positive linear relationship between them. However, during the last three decades, more and more research confirmed that there are still so many inexplicabilities away from the traditional CAPM or goes against with the efficient market hypothesis when maintaining stock market equilibrium. In particular, the anomalies of stock market illustrated that we can not entirely study the internal operating rules of stock price under classic framework of CAPM. Besides systematic risk, there may are still some other factors could explain the phenomenon of stock abnormal returns. Such as: size effect, earnings-to-price effect, book-to-market effect, overreaction, underreaction, weather effect, etc. Many scholars, such as Fama & French, etc. try to use different study methods, selecting different countries, different periods of sample data, different study perspectives to give the explanations under efficient market hypothesis. However, the existing theory couldn’t give a reasonable explanation for these problems.
From another point of view, they also provided us a new perspective or approach to deeply study the stock price formation and variation rules in the capital market. Therefore, the anomalies of stock market once are discovered, they would became the focus of theory circle and practice circle. To explain these anomalies need to develop new theories and methods, which also contributed to the development of financial discipline to some extent. Based on this kind of consideration, during the last three decades, many scholars at home and abroad selected different countries, different time intervals, different samples data to study on the anomalies of stock market from different angles. But most of all the methods used for the study had a common feature that researchers would build different portfolios based on a particular characteristic value (such as book- to- market, size, earnings-to-price, etc.) by their subjective idea. However, especially for A share market, few scholars chose panel threshold regression model (Hansen, 1999) to analysis the anomalies of stock market. After nearly two decades of booming development, A-share market has accumulated plenty of operating data to provide precious data foundation for our study on the size effect and book- to- market effect of two markets. In addition, a large number of foreign relevant theory provides a good theoretical guidance for our present study. Using new nonlinear measurement methods: (panel threshold) to comparative analysis before and after the split share structure reform of A-share market size effects and book- to- market effect existence, causes, and the impact of A-share market by split share structure reformation. On the one hand, it can help us strengthen the A-share markets structural characteristics, market trading mechanisms, behavior of market participant and market pricing mechanism, etc. which influence the behaviors in stock market at the micro-level, the differences between Shanghai stock market and Shenzhen stock market. And then, by comparing the empirical results of two market, the operation features of two markets were found and the empirical basis of two markets’operation law was provided to regulators for studying the regularity and robustness of stock market anomalies changing over time.
For this reason, by utilizing the non-linear measurement methods - panel threshold model (Hansen ,1999), this thesis selects a part of listed companies up to December 31, 1996 on A share market as research objectives, taking April 29, 2005 as the cut-off point of substantive share-split reform, considering the impact of Heterogeneous expectation to analysis and compare the anomalies of stock market before and after the split share structure reform, to test the existence of the size effect, book- to- market effect , a brief analysis of the causes of anomalies and interrelationship of two anomalies, and then, tests the affection of split share structure reform to A share market effectiveness.
The main conclusions of this paper are as follows:
Firstly, Between January 1997 to April 2005, prior to the split share structure reform, research shows that: on the whole Shanghai A Stock market has significant size effect, and no obvious book- to- market effect, while Shenzhen A Stock market has significant size effect and also obvious book- to- market effect. However, after the completion of the split share structure reform between January 2008 to October 2010, research shows that: on the whole, Shanghai A stock market still has significant size effect, but no book- to- market effect, while Shenzhen A stock market has significant size effect, but no book- to- market effect .
Secondly, It is tested that prior to the split share structure reform, In Shanghai A stock market company size has double threshold. It is positively, negatively, and negatively correlated in the three sample areas respectively with stock return.It is not statistically significant in the positive area.Most of the sample companies are in the latter two areas, statistically significant but to different degree of explanation,accounting for 90.01% of the total samples. Book- to- market has single threshold effect, has negative, positive correlation with stock return in two interval, but not statistically significant in the positive area. In Shenzhen A stock market, company size has no threshold effect, and book- to- market has single threshold effect. book-to-market has negative, positive correlation with stock return in the two interval. In the negative area , no significant statistics; but significant in the positive area, accounting for 55.39% of the total samples.
After the split share structure reform , In Shanghai A stock market, company size has single threshold, is significantly negative correlated with stock returns in the two interval, but degree of explanation is different. Book-to- market has no threshold effect. In Shenzhen A stock market, company size has single threshold, is positively, negatively correlated with stock return in the two interval , accounting for 55.39% of the total samples. but not statistically significant in the positive area, Book-to- market has no threshold effect. Therefore, when we do the analysis for size effect and book-to-market effect in Shanghai and Shenzhen stock market before or after the reform, we need to differentiate the different trend of in different area.
In different threshold areas . company size, book-to-market on stock returns are explained by the degree is different, the former is mainly due to the different scale of the company stock price manipulation by the declarer, merger and reorganization of the difficult easy degree is different the active degree is not the same; the latter mainly due to different book to market value than the company fundamentals are not the same, stability volatility of stock price, not the same degree.
Thirdly, the influence of company size . Test results show: before or after the split share structure reform, company size in Shenzhen A stock market has more significant explanation on the stock return than those companies in Shanghai A stock market.Before or after the split share structure reform,Longitudinal comparison tell us the role of company size on stock return in both market has been enhanced.
Fourthly, the influence of book-to- market . Before or after the split share structure reform, in the four samples area in Shanghai and Shenzhen A stock market,only book-to- market in Shenzhen A stock market has obviously positive relationship with stock return.In other cases, therefore book-to- market effect is not obvious.
Fifthly, the influence of heterogeneous expectation . Test results show that, before or after the split share structure reform, in the four samples area in both Shanghai and Shenzhen A stock market,heterogeneous expectation has positive impact on the stock returns.It plays a significantly predictive role on it.Besides,the proxy variable exchange rate and stock return are positively cross impacted, that means, the higher the exchange rate of company stock is, the greater the stock return is. Before or after the split share structure reform heterogeneous expectation has great effect on stock return in Shenzhen A stock market than in both Shanghai A stock market , The longitudinal comparison in Chapter 7 shows that after the split share structure reform, in both Shanghai and Shenzhen A stock market, heterogeneous expectation has less effect on stock return.
Sixthly, trading volume. Test results show that before the split share structure reform, the trading volume in Shanghai A stock market plays a significantly negative role on stock return, which means the less the amount is,the higher the return is. Compared with Shanghai A stock market, in Shenzhen A stock market,it has the same negative relationship with stock return, but more obvious than that in Shanghai A stock market.After the split share structure reform test results show that the trading volume in Shanghai A stock market play a significantly negative role on stock return. However,Shenzhen A stock has greatly impact than Shanghai A Stock.
Seventhly, The interactions of company size and book-to-market.Before or after the split share structure reform,the four sample area in Shanghai and Shenzhen stock market tell us that company size is not related with book-to-market.
Eighthly, Longitudinal results showed that: Overall, the split share structure reform to some extent contributed to the Shanghai and Shenzhen A-share market efficiency improvements
Ninthly, China's stock market is not mature, irrational, speculative, making a serious price manipulation, small-scale mergers and acquisitions the company is hot, but also investors hit. Overall, the split share structure reform has not completely change the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets highly speculative characteristics, before and after the split share structure reform, Shenzhen A-share market speculation, instability are stronger than the Shanghai A-share market
The main innovative points are as follows:
①Different from the existing literature mostly construction cross section data model or time series data model, To solve this problem, this paper constructs a panel data model, this can identify some in front of two kinds of models can identify factors to improve the accuracy of the estimation of model parameters. on the basis of,In order to overcome the subjective packet causes the analysis result the deviation, this paper attempts to use panel threshold model to improve this deficiency, according to the sample data information threshold partition points out, to distinguish the asymmetric relationship between area, so that it not only can show different threshold area size effect, book-to-market effect exists, and can explore different threshold within the range of company size, book to market on stock returns to explain the extent. The test results showed that, in different areas (the existence of threshold or absence of threshold ), showed a different pattern; and in different threshold areas, due to the different company size (book-to-market) was manipulated, merger and reorganization of the degree of difficulty is not the same ( fundamentals are not the same, stability, so.) led to the threshold variable (company size or book-to-market) on stock returns explain to different degrees, and most previous research conclusions there is a significant difference in a single rule. This is change that Analysis of stock anomalies of the method used, mostly based on their subjective idea of the study sample according to the feature values from low to high ranking construct different investment portfolio analysis, because the artificial distinction sort will lead to different conclusions.
②In previous studies, most Chinese scholars to construct the corresponding stock portfolio as the case study object, sample selection time short, chosen mostly in 2005 before the Shanghai A stock data, and different scholars for market scale definition of inconsistency, to cover the overall market, caused by the repeated verification and research sustainability is poorer, To solve this problem ,this paper selects the Shanghai and Shenzhen A shares before and after the split share structure reform, four time of samples for analysis. Through comparing the test results Shanghai &Shenzhen A shares to the analysis of the split share structure reform on the stock market efficiency. The results show that before and after the split share structure reform, Shenzhen speculative atmosphere than Shanghai to strongly, Overall , the split share structure reform contributed to the Shanghai & Shenzhen A-share market efficiency improvements.
③This paper considers the heterogeneity effect, and perceives the turnover as the proxy variable of heterogeneous expectations. Improvement for most studies seldom consider the heterogeneity effect.Currently,most research only examine such type stock vision solely. However, on the basis of this, this paper analyzes the relationship between size effect and book-to-market effect , and try to test two anomalies factor interactions. Based on the threefactor model of Fama&French, this paper selects company size, book to market value ratio, volume, turnover , interactions factor to establish the new model for analysis test before and after the Shanghai and Shenzhen A shares anomalies. The test results showed that before and after the Shanghai and Shenzhen A shares heterogeneity effects are present, the expected difference in degree and stock returns are related, before and after the expected difference in degree on stock returns to explain the extent of Shenzhen than Shanghai strongly, the weakened heterogeneous expectations on two city influences; size, book-to-market does not exist interactions.
从另外一个角度看,它们也为我们深入探究资本市场中股票价格的形成与变化规律提供了一个新的视角或途径,因而这些股票市场异象一经发现,就成了理论界与实务界关注的焦点,因为要解释这些异常现象需要发展新的理论和方法,这在一定程度上也推动金融学科的发展。正是基于这样一种考虑,近三十年来,国内外有许多学者选取不同国家、不同时间段、不同的样本数据对股票市场异象从不同角度进行分析研究;但大多数研究所使用的方法一个共同的特点是研究者根据他主观想法按某一特征值(比如账面市值比,公司规模等)对样本分组构建不同的投资组合。但很少有学者对于我国A股市场运用面板门限模型(Hansen,1999)分析检验各项股票市场异象。运用面板门限模型对比分析检验股权分置改革前后沪深A股市场规模效应和账面市值比效应的存在性、形成原因、以及股权分置改革对沪深股市有效性的影响。一方面可以帮助我们加强理解沪深A股市场自身结构特征、市场交易机制、市场参与者行为以及交易价格形成机制等影响证券市场行为的微观层面问题;另一方面通过比较两市的实证结果找到两个市场运行的特点、存在的差异,为监管层更好地认识两市运行规律提供实证证据,由此考察股票异象随时间变化的演变规律。
有鉴于此,本文运用面板门限模型,选取1996年12月31日前已上市的深圳A股、上海A股部分上市公司为研究对象,以2005年4月29日为实质性股权分置改革的分界点,在考虑异质预期影响的情况下分析比较股权分置改革前后我国股票市场的异象,检验规模效应、账面市值比效应是否存在、简要分析异象产生的原因及这两种异象之间是否存在交叉作用;并通过纵向比较股改前后两市实证检验结果,来检验股权分置改革对沪深A股市场效率的影响。
现将论文的主要研究结论总结如下:
①在股改以前的1997年1月—2005年4月时间段内,研究结果表明:整体而言,沪市A股规模效应显著存在、账面市值比效应不明显。深市A股规模效应和账面市值比效应都显著存在。而股改后的2008年1月—2010年10月时段内。研究结果表明:沪市A股规模效应依然存在着显著,而账面市值比效应不存在。深市A股规模效应显著存在,而账面市值比效应不再存在。
②股改前,沪市A股公司规模存在双重门限效应,公司规模与股票收益率在三个区间依次存在正、负、负相关关系,在相关关系为正的区间,统计上不显著,样本公司大多数落在后两个区间,占样本总数的90.01%,统计上显著但解释程度不同;账面市值比存在单一门限效应,账面市值比与股票收益率在两个区间依次存在负、正相关关系,在负相关关系区间显著,但正相关关系区间统计上不显著。深市A股,公司规模不存在门限效应;账面市值比存在单一门限效应,账面市值比与股票收益率在两个区间依次存在负、正相关关系,在相关关系为负的区间,统计上不显著;而在相关关系为正的区间,存在显著的正相关关系,该区间样本占样本总数55.39%。
股改后,沪市A股公司规模存在单一门限效应,公司规模与股票收益率在这两个区间都为显著的负相关关系,但解释程度不同;账面市值比不存在门限效应。深市A股公司规模存在单一门限效应,公司规模与股票收益率在两个区间依次为正相关、负相关关系,但解释程度和显著性不同,前者统计上不显著,后者统计上显著,后者区间样本占样本总数84.34%;账面市值比不存在门限效应。因此,我们分析股权分置改革前后沪深市A股市场规模效应、账面市值比效应时,要区别异象因子在不同区间的不同变化趋势。
在不同的门限区间内公司规模、账面市值比对股票收益率的解释程度不同,前者主要是由于不同规模的公司被庄家操控股价、并购重组的难易程度不一样,活跃程度也不一样;后者主要由于不同账面市值比的公司基本面不一样,稳定性、股价波动程度不一样。
③公司规模的影响。检验结果表明,股改前后深市A股公司规模对股票收益率的解释力和显著性都要比沪市A股整体要强;股改前后沪深股市各自检验结果纵向比较表明股改后各自公司规模对股票收益率的解释程度也增强了。
④账面市值比的影响。股改前后沪市A股四个样本区间,只有股改前深市A股账面市值比对股票收益率有较强的解释力,与股票收益率存在显著的正相关关系。其他情况下,账面市值比效应不明显。
⑤异质预期的影响。检验结果表明,股改前后沪深A股四个样本区间异质预期对股票收益率的影响都存在,对股票收益有明显的预测作用,其代理变量换手率与股票收益率都为显著的正相关关系,即表明预期差异程度越大对股票收益收益率影响也越大。股改前后深市异质预期对股票收益率的解释程度都要比沪市A股要强。纵向比较结果表明股改后沪深A股预期差异程度对股票收益的解释力与股改前相比都减弱了。
⑥交易金额。股改前检验结果表明沪市A股成交金额对股票收益率产生显著的负向影响,表明交易金额小的股票获得的股票收益率更高。与沪市A股相比,深市A股中该指标对股票收益率的影响也为负相关关系,但是深市A股,解释程度要强。股改后的检验结果表明:沪深两市成交金额对股票收益率都产生显著的负向影响,即对股票收益有预测作用,深市该指标对股票收益率的解释程度要比沪市仍然要强。
⑦公司规模、账面市值比的交叉作用。股改前后沪深A股四个样本区间检验结果都表明公司规模、账面市值比两异象因子不存在交叉作用。
⑧纵向比较结果表明:整体上,股权分置改革促进了沪深A股市场效率的改进。
⑨我国股票市场不太成熟,理性投资缺乏,投机性强,庄家操纵严重股价,小规模公司是并购重组的热点,也是投资者追捧的热点。整体而言,股权分置改革并未完全改变沪深股市高投机性的特性,股改前后,深市A股市场投机性、不稳定性都要强于沪市A股市场。
本文主要创新点如下:
①不同于已有文献大多构建横截面数据模型或者是时间序列数据模型,针对这一问题,本文则构建了面板数据模型,这样能够识别一些前面两种模型所不能识别的因素提高了模型参数估计精度。在此基础上,为了克服人为分组而导致分析结果的偏差,本文尝试运用面板门限模型来改善这项缺失,根据样本资料本身的信息找出门限分区点,区分出非线性关系的区间,这样不仅可验证不同门限区间内股票异象是否存在,而且可探讨公司规模、账面市值比对股票收益率解释程度的差异。检验结果表明,在不同的区间(存在门限或不存在门限),表现出不同的规律;并且在不同的门限区间,由于不同的公司规模(账面市值比)公司被操纵、并购重组的难易程度不一样(基本面不一样,稳定性不一样),所以导致门限变量(公司规模或账面市值比)对股票收益率解释程度不同,与大多已有研究结论单一规律存在差异。改进了目前国内外分析检验股票市场异象所使用的方法,大多是研究者把研究样本按特征值由低到高排序构建不同的投资组合进行分析的做法。
②在已有的研究中,我国学者大多独自构建相应的股票投资组合作为其实证研究对象,样本选取时间段短,大多选用2005年以前的沪市A股数据,并且不同的学者对于市值规模的界定不一致,难以覆盖市场整体情况,造成其重复验证性以及研究的可持续性都比较差,针对这一问题,本文同时选取沪深A股股改前后四个时间段的样本进行分析检验。通过纵向比较股改前后沪深A股检验结果来分析股权分置改革对股票市场效率的影响。结果表明股改前后,深市投机性氛围都要比沪市确实要强烈,股权分置改革在一定程度上促进了沪深A股市场效率的改进。
③考虑异质预期的影响,把换手率作为异质预期的代理变量。改进已有大多数研究较少考虑异质预期的影响,此外还拓展了仅单独检验一种股票异象的情况,更综合的分析了规模效应、账面市值比效应两种异象之间的关系,尝试检验两种异象因子的交叉作用。在借鉴参考Fama&French三因子模型的基础上选取公司规模、账面市值比、成交金额、换手率、交叉作用因子构建新的模型分析股改前后沪深A股异象。检验结果表明股改前后沪深A股异质预期的影响都存在,预期差异程度与股票收益率正相关,股改前后预期差异程度对股票收益率的解释程度深市都要比沪市强烈,股改减弱了异质预期对两市的影响;规模、账面市值比不存在交叉作用。
Capital asset pricing model (CAPM) and efficient market hypothesis, which are the foundation of classical finance theory, mainly discuss the behavior of capital markets based on perfectly competitive market and the 'rational man' hypothesis.They had a profound impact domestic to the relationship between return and risk in capital market around theory circle and practice circle at home and abroad. CAPM account the only factor that affects the stock's expected return is the systematic risk, exists positive linear relationship between them. However, during the last three decades, more and more research confirmed that there are still so many inexplicabilities away from the traditional CAPM or goes against with the efficient market hypothesis when maintaining stock market equilibrium. In particular, the anomalies of stock market illustrated that we can not entirely study the internal operating rules of stock price under classic framework of CAPM. Besides systematic risk, there may are still some other factors could explain the phenomenon of stock abnormal returns. Such as: size effect, earnings-to-price effect, book-to-market effect, overreaction, underreaction, weather effect, etc. Many scholars, such as Fama & French, etc. try to use different study methods, selecting different countries, different periods of sample data, different study perspectives to give the explanations under efficient market hypothesis. However, the existing theory couldn’t give a reasonable explanation for these problems.
From another point of view, they also provided us a new perspective or approach to deeply study the stock price formation and variation rules in the capital market. Therefore, the anomalies of stock market once are discovered, they would became the focus of theory circle and practice circle. To explain these anomalies need to develop new theories and methods, which also contributed to the development of financial discipline to some extent. Based on this kind of consideration, during the last three decades, many scholars at home and abroad selected different countries, different time intervals, different samples data to study on the anomalies of stock market from different angles. But most of all the methods used for the study had a common feature that researchers would build different portfolios based on a particular characteristic value (such as book- to- market, size, earnings-to-price, etc.) by their subjective idea. However, especially for A share market, few scholars chose panel threshold regression model (Hansen, 1999) to analysis the anomalies of stock market. After nearly two decades of booming development, A-share market has accumulated plenty of operating data to provide precious data foundation for our study on the size effect and book- to- market effect of two markets. In addition, a large number of foreign relevant theory provides a good theoretical guidance for our present study. Using new nonlinear measurement methods: (panel threshold) to comparative analysis before and after the split share structure reform of A-share market size effects and book- to- market effect existence, causes, and the impact of A-share market by split share structure reformation. On the one hand, it can help us strengthen the A-share markets structural characteristics, market trading mechanisms, behavior of market participant and market pricing mechanism, etc. which influence the behaviors in stock market at the micro-level, the differences between Shanghai stock market and Shenzhen stock market. And then, by comparing the empirical results of two market, the operation features of two markets were found and the empirical basis of two markets’operation law was provided to regulators for studying the regularity and robustness of stock market anomalies changing over time.
For this reason, by utilizing the non-linear measurement methods - panel threshold model (Hansen ,1999), this thesis selects a part of listed companies up to December 31, 1996 on A share market as research objectives, taking April 29, 2005 as the cut-off point of substantive share-split reform, considering the impact of Heterogeneous expectation to analysis and compare the anomalies of stock market before and after the split share structure reform, to test the existence of the size effect, book- to- market effect , a brief analysis of the causes of anomalies and interrelationship of two anomalies, and then, tests the affection of split share structure reform to A share market effectiveness.
The main conclusions of this paper are as follows:
Firstly, Between January 1997 to April 2005, prior to the split share structure reform, research shows that: on the whole Shanghai A Stock market has significant size effect, and no obvious book- to- market effect, while Shenzhen A Stock market has significant size effect and also obvious book- to- market effect. However, after the completion of the split share structure reform between January 2008 to October 2010, research shows that: on the whole, Shanghai A stock market still has significant size effect, but no book- to- market effect, while Shenzhen A stock market has significant size effect, but no book- to- market effect .
Secondly, It is tested that prior to the split share structure reform, In Shanghai A stock market company size has double threshold. It is positively, negatively, and negatively correlated in the three sample areas respectively with stock return.It is not statistically significant in the positive area.Most of the sample companies are in the latter two areas, statistically significant but to different degree of explanation,accounting for 90.01% of the total samples. Book- to- market has single threshold effect, has negative, positive correlation with stock return in two interval, but not statistically significant in the positive area. In Shenzhen A stock market, company size has no threshold effect, and book- to- market has single threshold effect. book-to-market has negative, positive correlation with stock return in the two interval. In the negative area , no significant statistics; but significant in the positive area, accounting for 55.39% of the total samples.
After the split share structure reform , In Shanghai A stock market, company size has single threshold, is significantly negative correlated with stock returns in the two interval, but degree of explanation is different. Book-to- market has no threshold effect. In Shenzhen A stock market, company size has single threshold, is positively, negatively correlated with stock return in the two interval , accounting for 55.39% of the total samples. but not statistically significant in the positive area, Book-to- market has no threshold effect. Therefore, when we do the analysis for size effect and book-to-market effect in Shanghai and Shenzhen stock market before or after the reform, we need to differentiate the different trend of in different area.
In different threshold areas . company size, book-to-market on stock returns are explained by the degree is different, the former is mainly due to the different scale of the company stock price manipulation by the declarer, merger and reorganization of the difficult easy degree is different the active degree is not the same; the latter mainly due to different book to market value than the company fundamentals are not the same, stability volatility of stock price, not the same degree.
Thirdly, the influence of company size . Test results show: before or after the split share structure reform, company size in Shenzhen A stock market has more significant explanation on the stock return than those companies in Shanghai A stock market.Before or after the split share structure reform,Longitudinal comparison tell us the role of company size on stock return in both market has been enhanced.
Fourthly, the influence of book-to- market . Before or after the split share structure reform, in the four samples area in Shanghai and Shenzhen A stock market,only book-to- market in Shenzhen A stock market has obviously positive relationship with stock return.In other cases, therefore book-to- market effect is not obvious.
Fifthly, the influence of heterogeneous expectation . Test results show that, before or after the split share structure reform, in the four samples area in both Shanghai and Shenzhen A stock market,heterogeneous expectation has positive impact on the stock returns.It plays a significantly predictive role on it.Besides,the proxy variable exchange rate and stock return are positively cross impacted, that means, the higher the exchange rate of company stock is, the greater the stock return is. Before or after the split share structure reform heterogeneous expectation has great effect on stock return in Shenzhen A stock market than in both Shanghai A stock market , The longitudinal comparison in Chapter 7 shows that after the split share structure reform, in both Shanghai and Shenzhen A stock market, heterogeneous expectation has less effect on stock return.
Sixthly, trading volume. Test results show that before the split share structure reform, the trading volume in Shanghai A stock market plays a significantly negative role on stock return, which means the less the amount is,the higher the return is. Compared with Shanghai A stock market, in Shenzhen A stock market,it has the same negative relationship with stock return, but more obvious than that in Shanghai A stock market.After the split share structure reform test results show that the trading volume in Shanghai A stock market play a significantly negative role on stock return. However,Shenzhen A stock has greatly impact than Shanghai A Stock.
Seventhly, The interactions of company size and book-to-market.Before or after the split share structure reform,the four sample area in Shanghai and Shenzhen stock market tell us that company size is not related with book-to-market.
Eighthly, Longitudinal results showed that: Overall, the split share structure reform to some extent contributed to the Shanghai and Shenzhen A-share market efficiency improvements
Ninthly, China's stock market is not mature, irrational, speculative, making a serious price manipulation, small-scale mergers and acquisitions the company is hot, but also investors hit. Overall, the split share structure reform has not completely change the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock markets highly speculative characteristics, before and after the split share structure reform, Shenzhen A-share market speculation, instability are stronger than the Shanghai A-share market
The main innovative points are as follows:
①Different from the existing literature mostly construction cross section data model or time series data model, To solve this problem, this paper constructs a panel data model, this can identify some in front of two kinds of models can identify factors to improve the accuracy of the estimation of model parameters. on the basis of,In order to overcome the subjective packet causes the analysis result the deviation, this paper attempts to use panel threshold model to improve this deficiency, according to the sample data information threshold partition points out, to distinguish the asymmetric relationship between area, so that it not only can show different threshold area size effect, book-to-market effect exists, and can explore different threshold within the range of company size, book to market on stock returns to explain the extent. The test results showed that, in different areas (the existence of threshold or absence of threshold ), showed a different pattern; and in different threshold areas, due to the different company size (book-to-market) was manipulated, merger and reorganization of the degree of difficulty is not the same ( fundamentals are not the same, stability, so.) led to the threshold variable (company size or book-to-market) on stock returns explain to different degrees, and most previous research conclusions there is a significant difference in a single rule. This is change that Analysis of stock anomalies of the method used, mostly based on their subjective idea of the study sample according to the feature values from low to high ranking construct different investment portfolio analysis, because the artificial distinction sort will lead to different conclusions.
②In previous studies, most Chinese scholars to construct the corresponding stock portfolio as the case study object, sample selection time short, chosen mostly in 2005 before the Shanghai A stock data, and different scholars for market scale definition of inconsistency, to cover the overall market, caused by the repeated verification and research sustainability is poorer, To solve this problem ,this paper selects the Shanghai and Shenzhen A shares before and after the split share structure reform, four time of samples for analysis. Through comparing the test results Shanghai &Shenzhen A shares to the analysis of the split share structure reform on the stock market efficiency. The results show that before and after the split share structure reform, Shenzhen speculative atmosphere than Shanghai to strongly, Overall , the split share structure reform contributed to the Shanghai & Shenzhen A-share market efficiency improvements.
③This paper considers the heterogeneity effect, and perceives the turnover as the proxy variable of heterogeneous expectations. Improvement for most studies seldom consider the heterogeneity effect.Currently,most research only examine such type stock vision solely. However, on the basis of this, this paper analyzes the relationship between size effect and book-to-market effect , and try to test two anomalies factor interactions. Based on the threefactor model of Fama&French, this paper selects company size, book to market value ratio, volume, turnover , interactions factor to establish the new model for analysis test before and after the Shanghai and Shenzhen A shares anomalies. The test results showed that before and after the Shanghai and Shenzhen A shares heterogeneity effects are present, the expected difference in degree and stock returns are related, before and after the expected difference in degree on stock returns to explain the extent of Shenzhen than Shanghai strongly, the weakened heterogeneous expectations on two city influences; size, book-to-market does not exist interactions.
引文
蔡海洪,吴世农. 2003.价值股与成长股不同市场表现的实证研究[J].财经科学. (3): 1- 4.
陈国进,胡超凡,王景. 2007.异质信念与股票收益—基于我国股票市场的实证研究[R].工作论文.
陈国进,王景. 2007.异质信念与我国金融异象研究新进展[J].经济学动态. (9): 75-79.
陈利平,陈若,龚六堂. 2003.股票溢金难题和无风险利率难题[J].经济学动态. (7): 56 -61.
陈展辉. 2004.股票收益的截面差异与三因素资产定价模型—来自A股市场的经验研究[J].中国管理科学. (6): 12 -17.
程兵,张晓军. 2004.中国股票市场的风险溢价[J].系统工程理论方法应用. (1): 14 -19.
陈莹. 2003.中国股市账面—市值比效应的检验与解释[J].证券市场导报. (2):35-41.
丁守海. 2007.股权分置改革效应的实证分析[J].经济理论与经济管理. 1: 54-59.
范龙振,余世典. 2002.中国股票市场的三因子模型[J].系统工程学报. 6(17): 538-546.
高楷祥. 2005.股票市场异象分析[D].台湾淡江大学产业经济学硕士论文.
高峰,宋逢明. 2003.中国股市理性预期的检验[J].经济研究. (3): 61-69.
郭磊,吴冲峰. 2006.基于风险溢价和特征要素的中国股市B/M效应[J].系统工程理论与实践. (2):
国务院. 2004. 1. 31.国务院关于推进资本市场改革开放和稳定发展的若干意见.
何诚颖,程兴华. 2005.基于中国证券市场的有效应研究—以高B/M类上市公司为例[J].管理世界. (11): 145-151.
胡珍全,唐军. 2007.股权分置改革对上市公司经营绩效的影响[J].南方金融. (2): 64-65.
贺炎林. 2007.我国股市横截面收益特征及成因研究[D].天津大学博士学位论文.
靳云汇,刘霖. 2001.中国股票市场CAPM的实证研究[J].金融研究. (7): 106 -115.
李诗林,李扬. 2003.沪深股票市场过度反应效应研究[J].经济科学. (6): 60 -65.
廖理,沈红波. 2008. Fama - French三因子模型与股权分置改革效应研究[J].数量经济技术经济研究, 9: 117-125.
廖理,汪毅慧. 2002.中国股票市场风险溢价研究[J].金融研究. (4): 23 -31.
林乐芬,展海军. 2007.上市公司股权分置改革效应的实证研究[J].南京大学学报. (6): 118-124.
林丽瑞,黄国良. 2006.股权分置改革与资本市场效率关系研究[J].中国管理信息化. (1): 73-74.
刘蕾,马栋. 2005.上海股市规模效应和价值效应实证分析[J].统计与信息论坛. (3):81 -86.
刘力,李文德. 2001.中国股票市场股票首次发行长期绩效研究[J].经济科学. (6):33 -44.
刘维奇. 2009.金融复杂性与中国金融效率[M].北京:科学出版社.
刘维奇,牛晋霞,张信东. 2010.股权分置改革与资本市场效率—基于三因子模型的实证检验[J].会计研究. (3): 65-72.
刘晓霞. 2007.中国股市资产定价及B/M, SIZE异象的实证研究[D].山东大学金融学硕士论文.
迈克尔·J.塞勒著,金马译. 2005.金融研究方法论大全必备[M],北京:清华大学出版社.
邵晓阳,苏敬勤,丁圣睿. 2004.中国A股市场规模效应实证研究[J].管理评论. (7): 11-15.
沈艺峰,吴世农. 1999.我国证券市场过度反应了吗?[J].经济研究. (2): 21 -26.
石予友,仲伟周,马骏,陈燕. 2008.股票的权益比、账面市值比及公司规模与股票投资风险[J]. 金融研究. (6): 122-130.
宋劲松. 2010.股权分置改革前后A股市场效率变化的初步比较[J].管理现代化. (2): 56 -58.
宋逢明,王闻. 2004.法马-弗伦奇三因素资产定价模型评析[J].经济学动态. (9): 89 -92.
宋军,吴冲锋. 2001.基于分散度的金融市场中的羊群行为研究[J].经济研究, (11): 21 -27.
宋军,吴冲锋. 2003.资产收益率的共同运动研究[J].管理工程学报. (2): 41 -44.
宋军,吴冲锋. 2001.从有效市场假设到行为金融理论[J].世界经济. (1)46-58
汪炜,周宇. 2002.中国股市规模效应和时间效应的实证分析[J].经济研究. (10): 16-21.
吴冲锋,穆启国,吴文锋. 2004.基于产业与市场结合的资本资产定价模型研究[J].管理科学学报. (6): 13 -23.
吴世农,许年行. 2004.资产的理性定价模型与非理性定价模型的比较研究[J].经济研究. 6: 105-116.
王群勇. 2007. STATA在统计与计量分析中的应用[M].天津:南开大学出版社.
王勇智. 2006.股权分置改革对上市公司每股收益以及对市场有效性影响的实证分析[J].市场论坛. 4: 155-156.
沃尔特.恩德斯. 2006.应用计量经济学—时间序列分析[M].北京,高等教育出版社.
吴贞宜. 2007.以Hasen门限回归探讨台湾股票市场异常报酬之研究[D].台湾国立成功大学硕士论文
肖军,徐信忠. 2004.中国股市价值反转投资策略有效性实证研究[J].经济研究, 3: 55-64.
谢敏. 2006.利率与股票市场间价格及其波动溢出关系的实证研究[D].湖南大学硕士学位论文.
谢世清,邵宇平. 2011.股权分置改革对中国股市波动性与有效性影响的实证研究[J].金融研究, (2): 185-193.
作者***,导师***. 2011.证券市场规模效应研究进展:述评与启示[J].会计研究. (2):39-44.
杨善林,杨模荣,姚禄仕. 2006.股权分置改革与股票市场价值相关性研究[J].会计研究. (12): 41-46.
约翰·Y.坎贝尔,安德鲁·W.罗,艾·克雷格·麦金雷著,朱平方,刘弘等译. 2003.金融市场计量经济学[M].上海:上海财经大学出版社.
张人骥,朱平方,王怀芳. 1998.上海证券市场过度反应的实证检验[J].经济研究. (5): 58 -64.
张仁良,胡斌. 1997.香港股市中的小盘股效应及季节效应分析[J].系统工程理论方法应用. (4):44- 56.
张祥建,谷伟,郭岚. 2003.上海股票市场规模效应的实证研究及原因探析[J].大连理工大学学报. (4): 24-28.
张祥建,徐晋,郭岚. 2004.上海股票市场规模效应的实证研究[J].管理科学, (6):35-38.
张峥,刘力. 2006.换手率与股票收益流动性溢价还是投机性泡沫明[J].经济学季刊, (3):871-892.
张亦春,周颖刚. 2001.中国股市弱式有效吗?[J].金融研究, (3): 34-40.
赵华. 2007.中国股市波动溢出效应的实证研究[D].浙江大学硕士学位论文.
赵留彦,王一鸣. 2003. A、B股之间的信息流动与波动溢出[J].金融研究. (10): 37-52.
赵学军,王永宏. 2001.中国股市“处置效应”的实证分析[J].经济研究. (11):44-46.
赵宇龙. 1998.会计盈余披露的信息含量—来自上海股市的经验证据[J].经济研究. (7): 41-49.
中国证监会2005. 4-29.关于上市公司股权分置改革试点有关问题的通知.
中国证监会网站、上海证券交易所网站,中国证券登记结算公司网站,搜狐财经网站,新浪网站,新华网站.
周文,李友爱. 1999.收益率相关性、规模溢价与市场有效性-对沪,深股票市场的实证检验[J]. 当代经济科学. (1):56-62.
朱宝宪,何治国. 2003.β值与账面市值比与股票收益的实证研究[J].金融研究. (4): 71-79.
朱瑞忠. 2005.收益率、基本因素与股市有效性—对上海股市的实证分析[J].经济理论与经济管理. (12): 43-47.
朱世武,郑淳. 2003.中国资本市场股权风险溢价研究[J].世界经济. (11): 62 -80.
朱曦. 2007.沪深A股市场惯性效应和反转效应研究[D].上海交通大学博士学位论文.
李弘扬. 2007.风险值与股票报酬相关性之研究[D].台湾长荣大学经营管理研究所硕士学位论文.
林瑋娟2007,台湾上市公司股票报酬率波动之探讨[D].台湾淡江大学财务金融系硕士学位论文.
朱小平,暴冰,杨妍. 2005.股权分置改革与流动性定价问题研究[J].会计研究. 2: 87-92.
赵益华. 2006.公司规模与股票收益率关系实证研究[J].上海金融学院学报. 2 :25-30.
财政部注册会计师考试委员会办公室编. 2010.财务成本管理[M]经济科学出版社,
Acharya, L. H. Pedersen. 2005. Asset pricing with liquidity risk[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 77:375–410.
Agadeesh, Narasimhan, T. Sheridan. 1993. Returns to buying winners and selling losers:Implications for stock market efficiency [J]. Journal of Finance. 48: 65-91.
Agannathan, Z. Wang. 1996. The conditional CAPM and the cross-section of expected returns[J]. Journal of Finance . 51: 3-53.
Aggarwal, P. Rivoli. 1990. Fads in the Initial Public Offering Market?[J]. Financial Management. 19(4): 45-57.
Aggarwal, R. Rao , and T. Hiraki. 1990. Regularities in Tokyo Stock Exchange Security Returns :P/ E Ratio , Size and Seasonal Influences[J]. Journal of Financial Research. 13(3):1249 -2163.
Aggarwal, R. Leal, L. Hernandez. 1993. The Aftermarket Performance of Initial Public Offerings in Latin America [J]. Financial Management. 22(1):42 -53.
Ali, L. Hwang, M. A. Trombley. 2003. Arbitrage risks and the book-to-market anomaly [J]. Journal of Financial Economics . 69: 355-373.
Amélie. 2010. The day-of-the-week effects on the volatility: The role of the asymmetry [J]. European Journal of Operational Research. 202: 43–152.
Arshanapalli, T. D. Coggin, J. Doukas. 1998. Multifactor asset pricing analysis of international investment strategies [J]. Journal of Portfolio Management. 2: 10-23.
Avramov, T. Chordia. 2006. Asset pricing models and financial market anomalies [J]. Review of Financial Studies. 19:1001–1040.
Hansen. B. E. 1994. Autoregressive Conditional Density Estimation [J]. International Economic R eview. 35(3): 705-730.
Bai, Jushan. 1997. Estimation of a Change Point in Multiply Regression Models [J]. Review of Economics and Statistics. 79(4): 551-563.
Baik, C. Park. 2003. Dispersion of analysts'Expectations and the cross-section of stock returns[J]. Applied Financial Economics . 13(1), 829-839.
Ball, P. Brown. 1968. An Empirical Evaluation of Accounting Income Numbers [J]. Journal of Accounting Research . 6(2): 159 -178.
Ball. 1978. Anomalies in Relationships between Securities’Yields and Yield2surrogates [J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 6(223): 103 -126.
Banz. 1981. The Relationship between Return and Market Value of Common Stocks [J]. Journal of Financial Economics . 9(1): 3-18.
Barberis, A. Shleifer, R. Vishny. 1998. A Model of Investor Sentiment [J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 49(3): 307-343.
Barberis, M. Huang, T. Santos. 2001. Prospect Theory and Asset Prices [J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics . (116): 1-53.
Basu. 1977. The Investment Performance of Common Stocks in Relation to Their Price EarningsRatios: A Test of the Efficient Market Hypothesis [J]. Journal of Finance. 32(3): 663 -682.
Bauman, R. E. Miller. 1997. Investor expectations and the performance of value stocks versus growth stocks [J]. Journal of Portfolio Management. 1:. 57-68
Bernard, J. Thomas. 1989. Post Earnings Announcement Drift : Delayed Price Response or Risk Premium?[J]. Journal of Accounting Research 27 :1-36.
Bhandari. 1988. Debt/Equity ratio and expected common stock returns: Empirical evidence, Journal of Finance. 43: 507-528.
Black, M. Scholes. 1973. The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities[J]. Journal of Political Economy. 81(3): 637 -654.
Black, M. Jensen, M. Scholes. 1972. The Capital Asset Pricing Model : Some Empirical Tests”, in Jensen, M. (ed. ), Studies in the Theory of Capital Markets. New York :Praeger.
Blume, I. Friend. 1973. A New Look at the Capital Asset Pricing Model[J]. Journal of Finance 28(1): 19 -33.
Bollerslev. 1987. A conditional heteroscedastic time series model for Speculative prices and rates of returns[J]. Review of Economics and Statistics. 69: 542-547.
Brauer. 1987. Open ending Closed end Funds[J]. Journal of Financial Economics 13(4): 491-507.
Brealey. 2000. Stock Prices, Stock Indexes and Index Funds[J]. Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin. 40(1): 61-68.
Breeden. 1979. An Intertemporal Asset Pricing Model with Stochastic Consumption and Investment Opportunities[J]. Journal of Financial Economics 7(3): 265-296.
Bremer, R. Sweeney. 1988. The Information Content of Extreme Negative Rates of Return. Working Paper, Claremont Mc Kenna College.
Brickley, J. Schallheim. 1985. Lifting the Lid on Closed end Investment Companies: A Case of Abnormal Returns[J]. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 20(1): 107-118.
Brouwer, J. V. Put, C. Veld. 1996. Contrarian Investment Strategies in a European Context. Discussion Paper. Center for Economic Research of Tilburg University. No 36.
Brown, W. Harlow, S. Tinic. 1988. Risk Aversion, Uncertain Information, and Market Efficiency[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 22(2): 355 -385.
Campbell, B. Glen. 2003. Taksler. Equity Volatility and Corporate Bond Yields [J]. The Journal of Finance. 58(6): 2321-2350.
Campbell, S. J. Grossman, J. Wang. 1993. Trading Volume and Serial Correlation in stock returns Quarterly[J]. Journal of Economics. 10: 905-939.
Campbell, Y. John, L. Martin, G. M. Burton, Y. Xu. 2001. Have Individual Stocks Become more Volatile? An Empirical Exploration of Idiosyncratic Risk [J]. Journal of Finance. 56:1-43.
Cao, J. Wei. 2004. Stock market returns: A note on temperature anomaly[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance. 29(6): 1559?1573.
Chan, A. Hameed, W. Tong. 2000. Profitability of Momentum Strategies in the International Equity Markets [J]. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis. 35(2): 153-172.
Chan, Y. Hamao, J. Lakonishok. 1991. Fundamentals and Stock Returns in Japan [J]. Journal of Finance. 46(5): 1739-1764.
Chan, R. S. Tsay. 1998. Limiting properties of the least squares estimator of a continuous threshold autoregressive model[J]. Biometrika. 85: 413-426.
Chan, N. F. Chen. 1991. Structural and return characteristics of small and large firms[J]. Journal of Finance. 46: 1467-14.
Chang, D. McLeavey, S. Rhee. 1995. Short term Abnormal Returns of the Contrarian Strategy in the Japanese Stock Market[J]. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 22(7): 1035 -1048.
Charles. J. Jones, W. Wilson. 2004. The Changing Nature of Stock and Bond Volatility[J]. Financial Analysts Journal. 60(1): 100-113.
Chen, T. E. Copeland, D. Mayers. 1987. A Comparison of Single and Multifactor Portfolio Performance Methodologies[J]. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis. 22(4): 401-417.
Cheng, K. C. Ying. 2009. Testing the significance of solar term effect in the Taiwan stock market[J]. Expert Systems with Applications. 36: 6140–6144.
Cheung, Y. Leung, K. Wong. 1994. Small Firm Effect: Evidence from Korean Stock ExChange[J]. Small Business Economics. 6(5): 373-379.
Chiang, C. H. Kevin, Ashley W. P. Kung, 2003. Idiosyncratic Risk and Returns in International Equity Markets. unpublished manuscript, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Chien, C. Lee, A. M. Wang. 2002. A note on stock market seasonality: The impact of stock price volatility on the application of dummy variable regression model[J]. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. 42:155?162.
J. Cho, J. and Jo, K. 2006. Overconfidence and Information: The Differences Between Individuals and Institutions. Working Paper, Seoul National University.
P. H. Chou, C. K. Kuan, S. J. Lin. 2010. Do relative leverage and relative distress really explain size and book-to-market anomalies?[J]. Journal of Financial Markets 13: 77–100.
S. Chou, K. Johnson. 1990. An Empirical Analysis of Stock Market Anomalies. in Rhee , S. and R. Chang(eds. ), Pacific Basin Capital Markets Research. Amsterdam :North Holland.
Chow, H. M. Hulburt. 2000. Value, size, and portfolio efficiency[J]. Journal of Portfolio Management. 26: 78-89.
Christie, R. Huang. 1995. Following the Pied Piper: Do Individual Returns Herd around theMarket?[J]. Financial Analysts Journal. 4(1): 31-37.
Christina. Atanasova, S. Robert. Hudson. 2010. Technical trading rules and calendar anomalies- Are they the same phenomena?[J]. Economics Letters. 106:128–130.
Chung, L. Kryzanowski. 1998. Are the Market Effects associated with Revision of the TSE300 Index Robust ?[J]. Multinational Finance Journal 2(1):1 -36.
Conrad, G. Kaul. 1998. An Anatomy of Trading Strategies[J]. Review of Financial Studies. 11(3): 489 -519.
Culter, J. Poterba, L. Summers. 1989. What Moves Stock Prices? Moves in Stock Prices Reflect Something other than News about Fundamental Values[J]. Journal of Portfolio Management. 989(1): 4 -12.
Culter, J. Poterba, L. Summers. 1991. Speculative Dynamics [J]. Review of Economic Studies. 58(3): 529-546.
Daniel, D. Hirshleifer, A. Subrahmanyam. 1998. Investor Psycohology and Security Market Under- and Overreaction [J]. Journal of Finance. (52): 1-33.
Daniel, S. Titman, J. Wei. 2001. Explaining the Cross-section of Stock Returns in Japan: Factors or Characteristics[J]. Journal of Finance. (56): 743-766.
Daniel, S. Titman. 1997. Evidence on the Characteristics of Cross-Sectional Variation in Stock Returns [J]. Journal of Finance. (52): 1-33.
DeBondt, R. Thaler. 1985. Does the Stock Market Overreact?[J]. Journal of Finance. 40(3): 793 -808.
DeBondt, R. Thaler. 1987. Further Evidence on Investor Overreaction and Stock Market SeaSonality[J]. Journal of Finance. 42(3): 557 -581.
Deidda, B. Fattouh. 2002. Non-linearity Between Finance and Growth[J]. Economics Letters. (74): 339–345.
Deininger, C. Kaserer, S. Roos. 2000. Stock Price Effects Associated with Index Replacements in Germany[J]. Working Paper, Department of Business Administration, University of Wuerzburg.
Dyl, K. Maxfield. 1987. Does the Stock Market Overreact ?Additional Evidence. Working Paper, University of Arizona.
Donald. 1988. Stock market regularities: A synthesis of the evidence and explanations[M]. , in Elroy Dimson, ed. : Stock Market Anomalies. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
T. Eisenberg, S. Sundgren, W. T. Wells. 1998. Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 48(1): 35-54.
JEstrada. 2002. Systematic Risk in Emerging Market: The D-CAPM[J]. Emerging Market Review. 4:365-379.
E. F. Fama. 1965. The Behavior of Stock-Market Prices[J]. The Journal of Business. 38(01): 34-105.
E. F. Fama. 1998. Market efficiency, long-term returns, and behavioral finance[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. (49): 283-306
Fama. 1999. Efficient Capital Markets: II[J]. The Journal of Finance. Xlvl(5): 1575-1617.
Fama, J. MacBeth. 1973. Risk, Return and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests[J]. Journal of Political Economy. 81(3): 607-636.
Fama, K. R. French. 1992. The CrossSection of Expected Stock Returns[J]. Journal of Finance 47(2): 427 -465.
Fama, M. James. 1973. Risk, return and equilibrium: Empirical tests[J]. Journal of Political Economy. (81): 607-636.
Fama, K. R. French. 1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. (33): 3-56.
Fama, K. R. French. 1998. Value versus growth: the internation evidence[J]. Journal of Finance(53): 1975-1999.
Fama. 1991. Efficient capital markets:Ⅱ[J]. Journal of Finance. (46): 1575-1618.
Fama, K. R. French. 1994. Industry costs of equity[M]. Working paper, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 1994.
Fama. 1970.. Effieient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work. [J]. Journal of Finance. 25(5): 383-417.
Fama, K. R. French. 1996. Multifactor Explanations of Asset Pricing Anomalies. Journal of Finance(56): 55-84.
Fant, D. R. Peterson. 1995. T he effect of size, book-to-market equity prior returns, and beta on stock returns: January versus the remainder of the year[J]. Journal of Financial Research. 18(2): 129-142.
Ferson, S. Sarkissian, T. Simin. 1999. The Alpha Factor Asset Pricing Model: A Parable[J]. Journal of Financial Markets. 2(1): 49-68.
Finn, R. Higham. 1988. The Performance of Unseasoned New Equity Issues cum stock Exchange Listings in Australia[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance. 12(3): 333 -351.
Foerster, A. Prihar, J. Schmitz. 1995. Back to the Future[J]. Canadian Investment Review. 7(1): 9 -13.
Fortune. 1996. Anomalies in Option Pricing: The Black Scholes Model Revisited[J]. New England Economic Review. (1): 17-40.
Foster, C. Olse, T. Shevlin. 1984. Earnings Releases, Anomalies, and the Behavior of SecurityReturns[J]. Accounting Review. 59(4): 574 -603.
Francis. 2007. Volatility spillovers across international swap markets: The US, Japan, and the UK[J]. Journal of International Money and Finance. 26: 329-341.
Froot, J. Frankel. 1989. Forward Discount Bias: Is It an Exchange Risk Premium?[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 104(1): 359 -381.
Gaunt. 2004. Size and book to market effects and the Fama French three factor asset pricing model: evidence from the Australian Stock Market[J]. Accounting and Finance. (44): 27-44.
Gay, J. Kale, R. Kolb, T. Noe. 1994. Fads in Asset Prices : Evidence from the Futures Market[J]. Journal of Futures Markets. 14(6): 637 -659.
Gokce. 2000. On the linkages between equity markets in Latin America[J]. Applied Economics Letters. 7(3): 207-210.
Gregor, C. Klein. 2009. Psychological barriers in European stock markets: Where are they?[J]. Global Finance Journal. 19: 268–285.
Grundy, J. Martin. 2001. Understanding the Nature of the Risks and the Source of the Rewards to Momentum Investing[J]. Review of Financial Studies 14(1): 29 -78.
Kaplanski, HaimLevy. 2009. Sentiment and stock prices: The case of aviation disasters[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 95: 174–201.
Hameed, Y. Kusnadi. 2000. Momentum Strategies: Evidence from the Pacific Basin Stock Markets. Working Paper, National University of Singapore.
Hansen. 1999. Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing and inference[J]. Journal of Econometrics. 93(2): 345-368.
Hansen, 2000. Sample Spliting and Threshold Estimation [J]. Econometrica 68(3):575-603.
Hao Jiang. 2009. Institutional investors, intangible information, and the book-to-market Effect[J]. Journal of Financial Economics.
Harpe. 1964. Capital asset prices: a theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk[J]. Journal of Finance 19: 425-44.
Harrison, C. J. Stein. 2007. Disagreement and the Stock Market [J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 21: 109-128.
Harrison, J. and Kreps, D. 1998. Speculative investor behavior in a stock market with heterogeneous expectations, [J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 92:323-336.
Hendricks. 1996. Evaluation of Value-at-Risk Models using Historical Data[J]. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Economic Policy Review. 2: 39-69.
Horowitz, T. Loughran, N. E. Savin. 2000. The Disappearing Size Effect[J]. Research in Economics. 54: 83～100.
S. Y. Hu. 1997. Trading turnover and expected stock returns: The trading frequency hypothesis and evidence from the Tokyo Stock Exchange[J]. Working Paper. Chicago University.
R. Ibbotson, 1975. Price Performance of Common Stock New Issues. Journal of Financial Inagaki, E. Imson, M. P. Murphy. 1999. Law and Market Anomalies[J]. Journal of portfolioManagement 25(2): 53-69.
Jagannathan, Z. Wang. 1996. The conditional CAPM and the cross-section of expected returns[J]. Journal of Finance. 51(2): 3-53.
Jegadeesh, S. Titman. 1993. Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency[J]. Journal of Finance. 48(1): 65-91.
Jegadeesh, N. 1990. Evidence of Predictable Behavior of Security Returns[J]. Journal of Finance. 45(3): 881-898.
Doyle, C. H. Chen. 2009. The wandering weekday effect in major stock markets[J]. Journal of Banking & Finance 33: 1388–1399.
Kazuyuki. 2007. Testing for volatility spillover between the British pound and the euro[J]. Research in International Business and Finance. 21(2):161-174.
Kahneman, A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk[J]. Econometrica. 47(2): 263 -291.
Kanas, G. P. Kouretas. 2001. Volatility Spillovers between the Black Market and Official Market for Foreign Currency in Greece[J]. Journal of Financial Research. 24(3):443-462.
Karolyi 1995. A Multivariate GARCH Model of International Transmissions of Stock Returns and Volatility: the Case of the United States and Canada[J]. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics. 13(): 11-25.
Simons. 2000. The use of value at risk by institutional investors[J]. New England Economic Review. (): 21-31.
Keim. 1983. Size-related anomalies and stock return seasonality[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. (12): 13-32.
Kocherlakota. 1996. The Equity Premium: It’s Still a Puzzle[J]. Journal of Economic L iterature. 34(1): 42 -71.
Kothari. J. shanken, R. G.. Sloan. 1995. Another look at the cross-section of expected stock returns[J]. Journal of Finance. 50: 185-224.
Koutmos, G. Booth. 1995. Asymmetric Volatility Transmission in International Stock Markets[J]. Journal of International Money and Finance. 14(6): 747-762.
Kunz, R. Aggarwal. 1994. Why Initial Public Offerings are Underpriced: Evidence from SwitzErland[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance. 18(4): 705 -723.
Lakonishok, A. Shleifer, R. Vishny. 1994. Contrarian Investment, Extrapolation and Risk[J]. Journal of Finance. 49(5): 1541 -1578.
Laopodis. 2000. Monetary Policy Implications of Volatility Linkages among Long-term Interest Rates[J]. Journal of Economics and Finance. 24(2): 160-179.
Lee, A. Shleifer, R. Thalar. 1991. Investor Sentiment and ClosedEnd Fund Puzzle[J]. Journal of Finance. 46(1): 75 -110.
Lee, B. Swaminahan. 2000. Price Momentum and Trading Volume[J]. Journal of Finance 55(5): 2017 -2069.
Lee, S. Taylor, T. Walter. 1996. Australian IPO Pricing in the Short and Long Run[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance. 20(7): 1189 -1210.
Lehmann. 1990. Fads, Martingales and Market Efficiency. Quarterly[J]. Journal of Economics 105(1): 1 -28.
Levis. 1993. The Long Run Performance of Initial Public Offerings: The U K Experience 1980 -1988[J]. Financial Management. 22(1): 28 -41.
Liew, M. Vassalou. 2000. Can Book to Market, Size and Momentum be Risk Factors that Predict Economic Growth?[J]. Journal of Financial Economics 57(2): 221 -245.
Lin, R. F. Engle. T. Ito. 1994. Do Bulls and Bears Move across Borders? International Lintner , J. 1965. The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets. Review of Economics and Statistics. 47(1):13—37.
Liu , SH. Changes in the Nikkei 500: New Evidence for Downward Sloping Demand Curves for Stocks. Working Paper, University of Missouri.
Lo, C. MacKinlay. 1990. Data Snooping Biases in Tests of Financial Asset Pricing Models. Review of Financial Studies. 3(3): 431 -467.
Lorenzo, F. E. Robert, K. Sheppard. 2003. Asymmetric Dynamics in the Correlations of Global Equity and Bond Returns. ECB Working paper.
Loughran. 1997. Book-to market across firm size, exchangeand seasonality: Is there an effect. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis. 1: 249-268.
Loughran, J. Ritter, K. Rydqvist. 1994. Initial Public Offerings : International Insights. Pacific Basin Finance Journal. 2(223): 165 -177.
Loughran, J. Ritter. 1995. The New Issues Puzzle[J]. Journal of Finance. 50(1): 23 -51.
Loughran. 1993. NYSE vs NASDAQ Returns: Market Microstructure or the Poor Performance of Initial Public Offerings[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 33(2): 241 -260.
Lynch, R. Mendenhall. 1997. New Evidence on Stock Price Effects Associated with Changes in the S &P 500 Index[J]. Journal of Business. 70(3): 351 -383.
Markowitz. 1952. Portfolio Selection[J]. Journal of Finance. 7(1): 77-91.
Mankiw, S. Zeldes. 1991. The Consumption of Stockholders and Non stockholders[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 29(1): 97 -112.
McDonald, A. Fisher. 1972. New Issue Stock Price Behavior[J]. Journal of Finance. 27(1): 97 -102.
Mehra, E. Prescott. 1985. The Equity Premium: A Puzzle[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics 15(2): 145 -162.
Melanie, J. Wei. 2005. Stock market returns: A note on temperature anomaly[J]. Journal of Banking & Finance. 29: 1559–1573.
Merton. 1973. An Intertemporal Capital Asset Pricing Model[J]. Econometrica. 41(5): 867 -887.
Michaely, R. Thaler, K. Womack. 1995. Price Reactions to Dividend Initiations and Omissions: Overreaction or Drift[J]. Journal of Finance. 50(2): 573 -608.
Miller. 1977. Risk, uncertainty and divergence of opinion[J]. Journal of Finance. 32(4): 1151-1168.
Mills, J. Jordanov. 2003. The size effect and the random walk hypothesis: evidence from the London stock exchange using Markov chains[J]. Applied Financial Economics. (13): 807-815.
Montier. 2002. Behavioural Finance: Insight into Irrational Minds and Markets. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Mossin. 1990. Equilibrium in a Capital Asset Market. Econometrica. 34(4): 768 -783.
Osamah. Al-Khazali, Evangelos P. Koumanakos, C. S. Pyun. 2008. Calendar anomaly in the Greek stock market: Stochastic dominance analysis[J]. International Review of Financial Analysis 17 :461–474.
Page, F. Palmer. 1993. The relationship between excess returns, firm size and earnings on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange[J]. South African Journal of Business Management(22): 63-73.
Pastor, R. Stambaugh. 2001. Liquidity risk and expected stock returns. NBER Working Paper.
Peavy. 1990. Returns on Initial Public Offerings of Closed End Funds[J]. Review of Financial Studies. 3(4): 695 -708.
Pinfold, W. R. Wilson, Q. Li. 2001. Book-to-market and size as determinants of returns in small illiquid market:the New Zealand case[J]. Financial Services Review. 10: 291-30.
Pontiff, L. D. Schall. 1998. Book-to-market ratios as predictors of market returns[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 49: 141-160.
Reinganum. 1981. Misspecification of Capital Asset Pricing: Empirical Anomalies Based on Earnings’Yield and Market Values[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 9(1): 16 -46.
Ritter. 1991. The Long run Performance of Initial Public Offerings[J]. Journal of Finance. 46(1): 3-27.
Robert. Durand, J. Alex, G. W. Smith. 2007. SMB-Arousal, disproportionate reactions and thesize-premium[J]. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 15: 315–328.
Roll. 1981. A possible explanation of small firm effect[J]. Journal of Finance. 36: 879-888.
Roll, S. A. Ross. 1994. On the cross sectional relation between expected returns and betas[J]. Journal of Finance. 49: 101-122.
Rosenberg, Barr, R. Kenneth, R. Lanstein. 1985. Persuasive evidence of market inefficiency[J]. Journal of Portfolio Management, 11: 9-17.
Ross. 1976. The Arbitrage Theory of Capital Asset Pricing[J]. Journal of Economic Theory. 13(3): 341-360.
Ross. 1977. Return, risk and arbitrage[M]. in Irwin Friend and James Bicksler(eds. ). Risk and Return in Finance. Cambridge, MA:Ballinger,. 1. :23-31
Ross. A. Stephen. 1976. The arbitrage theory of capital asset pricing[J]. Journal of Economic Theory. (13): 341-360.
Rouwenhorst. 1999. Local Return Factors and Turnover in Emerging Stock Markets[J]. Journal of Finance. 54(4): 1439 -1464.
Rouwenhorst. 1998. International Momentum Strategies[J]. Journal of Finance 53(1): 267 -284.
Rozeff, W. R. J Kinney. 1976. Capital market seasonality: the case of stock returns[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 6(3): 379-402.
Ryan, R. Hudson, K. Kevin, L. Kevin. 2005. Pre-holiday effects: International evidence on the decline and reversal of a stock market anomaly[J]. Journal of International Money and Finance 24: 1226-1236.
Sang, Z. H. Jiang , Y. J. Lee, S. M. Yoon. 2010. Weather effects on the returns and volatility of the Shanghai stock market[J]. Physica A. 389(): 91-99.
Schiereck, W. D. Bondt, M. Weber. 1999. Contrarian and Momentums Strategies in Germany. Financial Analysts Journal. 55(6): 104 -116.
Servaes, R. Rajan. 1997. Analyst Following of Public Offerings[J]. Journal of Finance. 52(2): 507-529.
Sharpe. 1964. Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk[J]. Journal of Finance. 19(3): 425 -442.
Shefrin, M. Statman. 1984. Explaining Investor Preference for Cash Dividends[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 13(2): 253 -282.
Shefrin, M. Statman. 1995. Making Sense of Beta, Size, and Book to market[J]. Journal of Port folio Management. 21(2): 323-349.
Shiller. 2003. From Efficient Markets Theory to Behavioral Finance[J]. Journal of Economic Per pectives. 17(1): 83-104.
Shiller. 1981. Do Stock Prices Move Too Much to be Justified by Subsequent Changes in Dividends?[J]. American Economic Review. 71(3): 421-436.
Shleifer. 1986. Do Demand Curves for Stocks Slope Down?[J]. Journal of Finance. 41(3): 579 -590.
Shleifer, W. V. Robert W. 1997. The Limits of Arbitrage[J]. Journal of Finance. 52: 35–55. J. Siegel, R. Thaler. Anomalies: The Equity Premium Puzzle[J]. Journal of Economic.
Stein. 1989. Overreactions in the Options Market[J]. Journal of Finance. 44(4): 1011-1022.
Stephen. 1989. Information and Volatility: The No-Arbitrage Martingale Approach to Timing and Resolution Irrelevancy[J]. Journal of Finance 44: 1-17.
Sumel, R. F. Engle. 1994. Hour Volatility Spillovers between International Equity Markets[J]. Journal of International Money and Finance. 13(1): 3-25.
Summers. 1986. Does the Stock Market Rationally Reflect Fundamental Values[J]. Journal of Finance. 41(3): 591-601.
Thaler. 1993. A dvances of Behavioral Finance. New York: McGraw Hill Press.
Theodosiou, U. Lee. Mean and Volatility. 1993. Spillovers across Major National Stock
Transmission of Stock Returns and Volatility[J]. The Review of Financial Studies. (7): 507-538.
Travis L. Jones, A. James. Ligon. 2009. The day of the week effect in IPO initial returns[J]. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. 22: 110–127.
Turan, C. Nusret. 2004. Value at Risk and Expected Stock Returns[J]. Financial Analysts Journal. 60: 57-74.
Tversky, D. Kahneman. 1992. Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty[J]. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. (5): 297-323.
Uhlir. 1989. Der Gang an die B rseund das Underpricing Phnomen: Eine empirische Untersuchung deutscher Emissionen(1977—1987). Zeitschrift für Bankrecht und Bankwirtschaft. 1: 2—16.
Victor, Y. C. Lim, C. T. Lin. 2006. Volatility Transmissions Between Stock And Bond Markets: Evidence From Japan And The U. S[J]. International Journal of Information Technology 12(6): 121-128.
Weil. 1989. The Equity Premium Puzzle and the Riskfree Rate Puzzle[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics. 24(3): 401-421.
Weiss. 1989. The Post Offering Price Performance of Closed End Funds[J]. Financial Management. 18(3): 57-67.
Wentworth, R. O. Henry, S. F. Reid. 2009. Japaneseday-of-the-week return patterns: New results[J]. Global Finance Journal. 20: 1–12.
Wong, M. Lye. 1990. Market Values, Earnings, Yields and Stock Returns: Evidence fromSingapore[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance. 14(2): 311-326.
Hamao, R. W. Masulis, V. Ng. 1990. Correlations in price changes and volatility across international stock markets[J]. The Review of Financial Studies. 3: 281-307.
Hwang, G. M. Hong. 2010. Using the credit spread as an option-risk factor: Size and value effects in CAPM[J]. Journal of Banking & Finance. 7(1): 2995-3000.
Han. 2006. A study on sunshine effect of Chinese stock index returns[J]. Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology. 38: 260-263.
Zweig. 1973. An Investor Expectations Stock Price Predictive Model Using Closed End Fund Premiums[J]. Journal of Finance. 28(1): 67 -87.
White, H. , 1982. Instrumental variable regression with independent observations. Econometrica 50:483-499.
陈国进,胡超凡,王景. 2007.异质信念与股票收益—基于我国股票市场的实证研究[R].工作论文.
陈国进,王景. 2007.异质信念与我国金融异象研究新进展[J].经济学动态. (9): 75-79.
陈利平,陈若,龚六堂. 2003.股票溢金难题和无风险利率难题[J].经济学动态. (7): 56 -61.
陈展辉. 2004.股票收益的截面差异与三因素资产定价模型—来自A股市场的经验研究[J].中国管理科学. (6): 12 -17.
程兵,张晓军. 2004.中国股票市场的风险溢价[J].系统工程理论方法应用. (1): 14 -19.
陈莹. 2003.中国股市账面—市值比效应的检验与解释[J].证券市场导报. (2):35-41.
丁守海. 2007.股权分置改革效应的实证分析[J].经济理论与经济管理. 1: 54-59.
范龙振,余世典. 2002.中国股票市场的三因子模型[J].系统工程学报. 6(17): 538-546.
高楷祥. 2005.股票市场异象分析[D].台湾淡江大学产业经济学硕士论文.
高峰,宋逢明. 2003.中国股市理性预期的检验[J].经济研究. (3): 61-69.
郭磊,吴冲峰. 2006.基于风险溢价和特征要素的中国股市B/M效应[J].系统工程理论与实践. (2):
国务院. 2004. 1. 31.国务院关于推进资本市场改革开放和稳定发展的若干意见.
何诚颖,程兴华. 2005.基于中国证券市场的有效应研究—以高B/M类上市公司为例[J].管理世界. (11): 145-151.
胡珍全,唐军. 2007.股权分置改革对上市公司经营绩效的影响[J].南方金融. (2): 64-65.
贺炎林. 2007.我国股市横截面收益特征及成因研究[D].天津大学博士学位论文.
靳云汇,刘霖. 2001.中国股票市场CAPM的实证研究[J].金融研究. (7): 106 -115.
李诗林,李扬. 2003.沪深股票市场过度反应效应研究[J].经济科学. (6): 60 -65.
廖理,沈红波. 2008. Fama - French三因子模型与股权分置改革效应研究[J].数量经济技术经济研究, 9: 117-125.
廖理,汪毅慧. 2002.中国股票市场风险溢价研究[J].金融研究. (4): 23 -31.
林乐芬,展海军. 2007.上市公司股权分置改革效应的实证研究[J].南京大学学报. (6): 118-124.
林丽瑞,黄国良. 2006.股权分置改革与资本市场效率关系研究[J].中国管理信息化. (1): 73-74.
刘蕾,马栋. 2005.上海股市规模效应和价值效应实证分析[J].统计与信息论坛. (3):81 -86.
刘力,李文德. 2001.中国股票市场股票首次发行长期绩效研究[J].经济科学. (6):33 -44.
刘维奇. 2009.金融复杂性与中国金融效率[M].北京:科学出版社.
刘维奇,牛晋霞,张信东. 2010.股权分置改革与资本市场效率—基于三因子模型的实证检验[J].会计研究. (3): 65-72.
刘晓霞. 2007.中国股市资产定价及B/M, SIZE异象的实证研究[D].山东大学金融学硕士论文.
迈克尔·J.塞勒著,金马译. 2005.金融研究方法论大全必备[M],北京:清华大学出版社.
邵晓阳,苏敬勤,丁圣睿. 2004.中国A股市场规模效应实证研究[J].管理评论. (7): 11-15.
沈艺峰,吴世农. 1999.我国证券市场过度反应了吗?[J].经济研究. (2): 21 -26.
石予友,仲伟周,马骏,陈燕. 2008.股票的权益比、账面市值比及公司规模与股票投资风险[J]. 金融研究. (6): 122-130.
宋劲松. 2010.股权分置改革前后A股市场效率变化的初步比较[J].管理现代化. (2): 56 -58.
宋逢明,王闻. 2004.法马-弗伦奇三因素资产定价模型评析[J].经济学动态. (9): 89 -92.
宋军,吴冲锋. 2001.基于分散度的金融市场中的羊群行为研究[J].经济研究, (11): 21 -27.
宋军,吴冲锋. 2003.资产收益率的共同运动研究[J].管理工程学报. (2): 41 -44.
宋军,吴冲锋. 2001.从有效市场假设到行为金融理论[J].世界经济. (1)46-58
汪炜,周宇. 2002.中国股市规模效应和时间效应的实证分析[J].经济研究. (10): 16-21.
吴冲锋,穆启国,吴文锋. 2004.基于产业与市场结合的资本资产定价模型研究[J].管理科学学报. (6): 13 -23.
吴世农,许年行. 2004.资产的理性定价模型与非理性定价模型的比较研究[J].经济研究. 6: 105-116.
王群勇. 2007. STATA在统计与计量分析中的应用[M].天津:南开大学出版社.
王勇智. 2006.股权分置改革对上市公司每股收益以及对市场有效性影响的实证分析[J].市场论坛. 4: 155-156.
沃尔特.恩德斯. 2006.应用计量经济学—时间序列分析[M].北京,高等教育出版社.
吴贞宜. 2007.以Hasen门限回归探讨台湾股票市场异常报酬之研究[D].台湾国立成功大学硕士论文
肖军,徐信忠. 2004.中国股市价值反转投资策略有效性实证研究[J].经济研究, 3: 55-64.
谢敏. 2006.利率与股票市场间价格及其波动溢出关系的实证研究[D].湖南大学硕士学位论文.
谢世清,邵宇平. 2011.股权分置改革对中国股市波动性与有效性影响的实证研究[J].金融研究, (2): 185-193.
作者***,导师***. 2011.证券市场规模效应研究进展:述评与启示[J].会计研究. (2):39-44.
杨善林,杨模荣,姚禄仕. 2006.股权分置改革与股票市场价值相关性研究[J].会计研究. (12): 41-46.
约翰·Y.坎贝尔,安德鲁·W.罗,艾·克雷格·麦金雷著,朱平方,刘弘等译. 2003.金融市场计量经济学[M].上海:上海财经大学出版社.
张人骥,朱平方,王怀芳. 1998.上海证券市场过度反应的实证检验[J].经济研究. (5): 58 -64.
张仁良,胡斌. 1997.香港股市中的小盘股效应及季节效应分析[J].系统工程理论方法应用. (4):44- 56.
张祥建,谷伟,郭岚. 2003.上海股票市场规模效应的实证研究及原因探析[J].大连理工大学学报. (4): 24-28.
张祥建,徐晋,郭岚. 2004.上海股票市场规模效应的实证研究[J].管理科学, (6):35-38.
张峥,刘力. 2006.换手率与股票收益流动性溢价还是投机性泡沫明[J].经济学季刊, (3):871-892.
张亦春,周颖刚. 2001.中国股市弱式有效吗?[J].金融研究, (3): 34-40.
赵华. 2007.中国股市波动溢出效应的实证研究[D].浙江大学硕士学位论文.
赵留彦,王一鸣. 2003. A、B股之间的信息流动与波动溢出[J].金融研究. (10): 37-52.
赵学军,王永宏. 2001.中国股市“处置效应”的实证分析[J].经济研究. (11):44-46.
赵宇龙. 1998.会计盈余披露的信息含量—来自上海股市的经验证据[J].经济研究. (7): 41-49.
中国证监会2005. 4-29.关于上市公司股权分置改革试点有关问题的通知.
中国证监会网站、上海证券交易所网站,中国证券登记结算公司网站,搜狐财经网站,新浪网站,新华网站.
周文,李友爱. 1999.收益率相关性、规模溢价与市场有效性-对沪,深股票市场的实证检验[J]. 当代经济科学. (1):56-62.
朱宝宪,何治国. 2003.β值与账面市值比与股票收益的实证研究[J].金融研究. (4): 71-79.
朱瑞忠. 2005.收益率、基本因素与股市有效性—对上海股市的实证分析[J].经济理论与经济管理. (12): 43-47.
朱世武,郑淳. 2003.中国资本市场股权风险溢价研究[J].世界经济. (11): 62 -80.
朱曦. 2007.沪深A股市场惯性效应和反转效应研究[D].上海交通大学博士学位论文.
李弘扬. 2007.风险值与股票报酬相关性之研究[D].台湾长荣大学经营管理研究所硕士学位论文.
林瑋娟2007,台湾上市公司股票报酬率波动之探讨[D].台湾淡江大学财务金融系硕士学位论文.
朱小平,暴冰,杨妍. 2005.股权分置改革与流动性定价问题研究[J].会计研究. 2: 87-92.
赵益华. 2006.公司规模与股票收益率关系实证研究[J].上海金融学院学报. 2 :25-30.
财政部注册会计师考试委员会办公室编. 2010.财务成本管理[M]经济科学出版社,
Acharya, L. H. Pedersen. 2005. Asset pricing with liquidity risk[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 77:375–410.
Agadeesh, Narasimhan, T. Sheridan. 1993. Returns to buying winners and selling losers:Implications for stock market efficiency [J]. Journal of Finance. 48: 65-91.
Agannathan, Z. Wang. 1996. The conditional CAPM and the cross-section of expected returns[J]. Journal of Finance . 51: 3-53.
Aggarwal, P. Rivoli. 1990. Fads in the Initial Public Offering Market?[J]. Financial Management. 19(4): 45-57.
Aggarwal, R. Rao , and T. Hiraki. 1990. Regularities in Tokyo Stock Exchange Security Returns :P/ E Ratio , Size and Seasonal Influences[J]. Journal of Financial Research. 13(3):1249 -2163.
Aggarwal, R. Leal, L. Hernandez. 1993. The Aftermarket Performance of Initial Public Offerings in Latin America [J]. Financial Management. 22(1):42 -53.
Ali, L. Hwang, M. A. Trombley. 2003. Arbitrage risks and the book-to-market anomaly [J]. Journal of Financial Economics . 69: 355-373.
Amélie. 2010. The day-of-the-week effects on the volatility: The role of the asymmetry [J]. European Journal of Operational Research. 202: 43–152.
Arshanapalli, T. D. Coggin, J. Doukas. 1998. Multifactor asset pricing analysis of international investment strategies [J]. Journal of Portfolio Management. 2: 10-23.
Avramov, T. Chordia. 2006. Asset pricing models and financial market anomalies [J]. Review of Financial Studies. 19:1001–1040.
Hansen. B. E. 1994. Autoregressive Conditional Density Estimation [J]. International Economic R eview. 35(3): 705-730.
Bai, Jushan. 1997. Estimation of a Change Point in Multiply Regression Models [J]. Review of Economics and Statistics. 79(4): 551-563.
Baik, C. Park. 2003. Dispersion of analysts'Expectations and the cross-section of stock returns[J]. Applied Financial Economics . 13(1), 829-839.
Ball, P. Brown. 1968. An Empirical Evaluation of Accounting Income Numbers [J]. Journal of Accounting Research . 6(2): 159 -178.
Ball. 1978. Anomalies in Relationships between Securities’Yields and Yield2surrogates [J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 6(223): 103 -126.
Banz. 1981. The Relationship between Return and Market Value of Common Stocks [J]. Journal of Financial Economics . 9(1): 3-18.
Barberis, A. Shleifer, R. Vishny. 1998. A Model of Investor Sentiment [J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 49(3): 307-343.
Barberis, M. Huang, T. Santos. 2001. Prospect Theory and Asset Prices [J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics . (116): 1-53.
Basu. 1977. The Investment Performance of Common Stocks in Relation to Their Price EarningsRatios: A Test of the Efficient Market Hypothesis [J]. Journal of Finance. 32(3): 663 -682.
Bauman, R. E. Miller. 1997. Investor expectations and the performance of value stocks versus growth stocks [J]. Journal of Portfolio Management. 1:. 57-68
Bernard, J. Thomas. 1989. Post Earnings Announcement Drift : Delayed Price Response or Risk Premium?[J]. Journal of Accounting Research 27 :1-36.
Bhandari. 1988. Debt/Equity ratio and expected common stock returns: Empirical evidence, Journal of Finance. 43: 507-528.
Black, M. Scholes. 1973. The Pricing of Options and Corporate Liabilities[J]. Journal of Political Economy. 81(3): 637 -654.
Black, M. Jensen, M. Scholes. 1972. The Capital Asset Pricing Model : Some Empirical Tests”, in Jensen, M. (ed. ), Studies in the Theory of Capital Markets. New York :Praeger.
Blume, I. Friend. 1973. A New Look at the Capital Asset Pricing Model[J]. Journal of Finance 28(1): 19 -33.
Bollerslev. 1987. A conditional heteroscedastic time series model for Speculative prices and rates of returns[J]. Review of Economics and Statistics. 69: 542-547.
Brauer. 1987. Open ending Closed end Funds[J]. Journal of Financial Economics 13(4): 491-507.
Brealey. 2000. Stock Prices, Stock Indexes and Index Funds[J]. Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin. 40(1): 61-68.
Breeden. 1979. An Intertemporal Asset Pricing Model with Stochastic Consumption and Investment Opportunities[J]. Journal of Financial Economics 7(3): 265-296.
Bremer, R. Sweeney. 1988. The Information Content of Extreme Negative Rates of Return. Working Paper, Claremont Mc Kenna College.
Brickley, J. Schallheim. 1985. Lifting the Lid on Closed end Investment Companies: A Case of Abnormal Returns[J]. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 20(1): 107-118.
Brouwer, J. V. Put, C. Veld. 1996. Contrarian Investment Strategies in a European Context. Discussion Paper. Center for Economic Research of Tilburg University. No 36.
Brown, W. Harlow, S. Tinic. 1988. Risk Aversion, Uncertain Information, and Market Efficiency[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 22(2): 355 -385.
Campbell, B. Glen. 2003. Taksler. Equity Volatility and Corporate Bond Yields [J]. The Journal of Finance. 58(6): 2321-2350.
Campbell, S. J. Grossman, J. Wang. 1993. Trading Volume and Serial Correlation in stock returns Quarterly[J]. Journal of Economics. 10: 905-939.
Campbell, Y. John, L. Martin, G. M. Burton, Y. Xu. 2001. Have Individual Stocks Become more Volatile? An Empirical Exploration of Idiosyncratic Risk [J]. Journal of Finance. 56:1-43.
Cao, J. Wei. 2004. Stock market returns: A note on temperature anomaly[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance. 29(6): 1559?1573.
Chan, A. Hameed, W. Tong. 2000. Profitability of Momentum Strategies in the International Equity Markets [J]. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis. 35(2): 153-172.
Chan, Y. Hamao, J. Lakonishok. 1991. Fundamentals and Stock Returns in Japan [J]. Journal of Finance. 46(5): 1739-1764.
Chan, R. S. Tsay. 1998. Limiting properties of the least squares estimator of a continuous threshold autoregressive model[J]. Biometrika. 85: 413-426.
Chan, N. F. Chen. 1991. Structural and return characteristics of small and large firms[J]. Journal of Finance. 46: 1467-14.
Chang, D. McLeavey, S. Rhee. 1995. Short term Abnormal Returns of the Contrarian Strategy in the Japanese Stock Market[J]. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 22(7): 1035 -1048.
Charles. J. Jones, W. Wilson. 2004. The Changing Nature of Stock and Bond Volatility[J]. Financial Analysts Journal. 60(1): 100-113.
Chen, T. E. Copeland, D. Mayers. 1987. A Comparison of Single and Multifactor Portfolio Performance Methodologies[J]. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis. 22(4): 401-417.
Cheng, K. C. Ying. 2009. Testing the significance of solar term effect in the Taiwan stock market[J]. Expert Systems with Applications. 36: 6140–6144.
Cheung, Y. Leung, K. Wong. 1994. Small Firm Effect: Evidence from Korean Stock ExChange[J]. Small Business Economics. 6(5): 373-379.
Chiang, C. H. Kevin, Ashley W. P. Kung, 2003. Idiosyncratic Risk and Returns in International Equity Markets. unpublished manuscript, University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Chien, C. Lee, A. M. Wang. 2002. A note on stock market seasonality: The impact of stock price volatility on the application of dummy variable regression model[J]. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. 42:155?162.
J. Cho, J. and Jo, K. 2006. Overconfidence and Information: The Differences Between Individuals and Institutions. Working Paper, Seoul National University.
P. H. Chou, C. K. Kuan, S. J. Lin. 2010. Do relative leverage and relative distress really explain size and book-to-market anomalies?[J]. Journal of Financial Markets 13: 77–100.
S. Chou, K. Johnson. 1990. An Empirical Analysis of Stock Market Anomalies. in Rhee , S. and R. Chang(eds. ), Pacific Basin Capital Markets Research. Amsterdam :North Holland.
Chow, H. M. Hulburt. 2000. Value, size, and portfolio efficiency[J]. Journal of Portfolio Management. 26: 78-89.
Christie, R. Huang. 1995. Following the Pied Piper: Do Individual Returns Herd around theMarket?[J]. Financial Analysts Journal. 4(1): 31-37.
Christina. Atanasova, S. Robert. Hudson. 2010. Technical trading rules and calendar anomalies- Are they the same phenomena?[J]. Economics Letters. 106:128–130.
Chung, L. Kryzanowski. 1998. Are the Market Effects associated with Revision of the TSE300 Index Robust ?[J]. Multinational Finance Journal 2(1):1 -36.
Conrad, G. Kaul. 1998. An Anatomy of Trading Strategies[J]. Review of Financial Studies. 11(3): 489 -519.
Culter, J. Poterba, L. Summers. 1989. What Moves Stock Prices? Moves in Stock Prices Reflect Something other than News about Fundamental Values[J]. Journal of Portfolio Management. 989(1): 4 -12.
Culter, J. Poterba, L. Summers. 1991. Speculative Dynamics [J]. Review of Economic Studies. 58(3): 529-546.
Daniel, D. Hirshleifer, A. Subrahmanyam. 1998. Investor Psycohology and Security Market Under- and Overreaction [J]. Journal of Finance. (52): 1-33.
Daniel, S. Titman, J. Wei. 2001. Explaining the Cross-section of Stock Returns in Japan: Factors or Characteristics[J]. Journal of Finance. (56): 743-766.
Daniel, S. Titman. 1997. Evidence on the Characteristics of Cross-Sectional Variation in Stock Returns [J]. Journal of Finance. (52): 1-33.
DeBondt, R. Thaler. 1985. Does the Stock Market Overreact?[J]. Journal of Finance. 40(3): 793 -808.
DeBondt, R. Thaler. 1987. Further Evidence on Investor Overreaction and Stock Market SeaSonality[J]. Journal of Finance. 42(3): 557 -581.
Deidda, B. Fattouh. 2002. Non-linearity Between Finance and Growth[J]. Economics Letters. (74): 339–345.
Deininger, C. Kaserer, S. Roos. 2000. Stock Price Effects Associated with Index Replacements in Germany[J]. Working Paper, Department of Business Administration, University of Wuerzburg.
Dyl, K. Maxfield. 1987. Does the Stock Market Overreact ?Additional Evidence. Working Paper, University of Arizona.
Donald. 1988. Stock market regularities: A synthesis of the evidence and explanations[M]. , in Elroy Dimson, ed. : Stock Market Anomalies. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).
T. Eisenberg, S. Sundgren, W. T. Wells. 1998. Larger board size and decreasing firm value in small firms[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 48(1): 35-54.
JEstrada. 2002. Systematic Risk in Emerging Market: The D-CAPM[J]. Emerging Market Review. 4:365-379.
E. F. Fama. 1965. The Behavior of Stock-Market Prices[J]. The Journal of Business. 38(01): 34-105.
E. F. Fama. 1998. Market efficiency, long-term returns, and behavioral finance[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. (49): 283-306
Fama. 1999. Efficient Capital Markets: II[J]. The Journal of Finance. Xlvl(5): 1575-1617.
Fama, J. MacBeth. 1973. Risk, Return and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests[J]. Journal of Political Economy. 81(3): 607-636.
Fama, K. R. French. 1992. The CrossSection of Expected Stock Returns[J]. Journal of Finance 47(2): 427 -465.
Fama, M. James. 1973. Risk, return and equilibrium: Empirical tests[J]. Journal of Political Economy. (81): 607-636.
Fama, K. R. French. 1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. (33): 3-56.
Fama, K. R. French. 1998. Value versus growth: the internation evidence[J]. Journal of Finance(53): 1975-1999.
Fama. 1991. Efficient capital markets:Ⅱ[J]. Journal of Finance. (46): 1575-1618.
Fama, K. R. French. 1994. Industry costs of equity[M]. Working paper, Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 1994.
Fama. 1970.. Effieient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work. [J]. Journal of Finance. 25(5): 383-417.
Fama, K. R. French. 1996. Multifactor Explanations of Asset Pricing Anomalies. Journal of Finance(56): 55-84.
Fant, D. R. Peterson. 1995. T he effect of size, book-to-market equity prior returns, and beta on stock returns: January versus the remainder of the year[J]. Journal of Financial Research. 18(2): 129-142.
Ferson, S. Sarkissian, T. Simin. 1999. The Alpha Factor Asset Pricing Model: A Parable[J]. Journal of Financial Markets. 2(1): 49-68.
Finn, R. Higham. 1988. The Performance of Unseasoned New Equity Issues cum stock Exchange Listings in Australia[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance. 12(3): 333 -351.
Foerster, A. Prihar, J. Schmitz. 1995. Back to the Future[J]. Canadian Investment Review. 7(1): 9 -13.
Fortune. 1996. Anomalies in Option Pricing: The Black Scholes Model Revisited[J]. New England Economic Review. (1): 17-40.
Foster, C. Olse, T. Shevlin. 1984. Earnings Releases, Anomalies, and the Behavior of SecurityReturns[J]. Accounting Review. 59(4): 574 -603.
Francis. 2007. Volatility spillovers across international swap markets: The US, Japan, and the UK[J]. Journal of International Money and Finance. 26: 329-341.
Froot, J. Frankel. 1989. Forward Discount Bias: Is It an Exchange Risk Premium?[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 104(1): 359 -381.
Gaunt. 2004. Size and book to market effects and the Fama French three factor asset pricing model: evidence from the Australian Stock Market[J]. Accounting and Finance. (44): 27-44.
Gay, J. Kale, R. Kolb, T. Noe. 1994. Fads in Asset Prices : Evidence from the Futures Market[J]. Journal of Futures Markets. 14(6): 637 -659.
Gokce. 2000. On the linkages between equity markets in Latin America[J]. Applied Economics Letters. 7(3): 207-210.
Gregor, C. Klein. 2009. Psychological barriers in European stock markets: Where are they?[J]. Global Finance Journal. 19: 268–285.
Grundy, J. Martin. 2001. Understanding the Nature of the Risks and the Source of the Rewards to Momentum Investing[J]. Review of Financial Studies 14(1): 29 -78.
Kaplanski, HaimLevy. 2009. Sentiment and stock prices: The case of aviation disasters[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 95: 174–201.
Hameed, Y. Kusnadi. 2000. Momentum Strategies: Evidence from the Pacific Basin Stock Markets. Working Paper, National University of Singapore.
Hansen. 1999. Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing and inference[J]. Journal of Econometrics. 93(2): 345-368.
Hansen, 2000. Sample Spliting and Threshold Estimation [J]. Econometrica 68(3):575-603.
Hao Jiang. 2009. Institutional investors, intangible information, and the book-to-market Effect[J]. Journal of Financial Economics.
Harpe. 1964. Capital asset prices: a theory of market equilibrium under conditions of risk[J]. Journal of Finance 19: 425-44.
Harrison, C. J. Stein. 2007. Disagreement and the Stock Market [J]. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 21: 109-128.
Harrison, J. and Kreps, D. 1998. Speculative investor behavior in a stock market with heterogeneous expectations, [J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 92:323-336.
Hendricks. 1996. Evaluation of Value-at-Risk Models using Historical Data[J]. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Economic Policy Review. 2: 39-69.
Horowitz, T. Loughran, N. E. Savin. 2000. The Disappearing Size Effect[J]. Research in Economics. 54: 83～100.
S. Y. Hu. 1997. Trading turnover and expected stock returns: The trading frequency hypothesis and evidence from the Tokyo Stock Exchange[J]. Working Paper. Chicago University.
R. Ibbotson, 1975. Price Performance of Common Stock New Issues. Journal of Financial Inagaki, E. Imson, M. P. Murphy. 1999. Law and Market Anomalies[J]. Journal of portfolioManagement 25(2): 53-69.
Jagannathan, Z. Wang. 1996. The conditional CAPM and the cross-section of expected returns[J]. Journal of Finance. 51(2): 3-53.
Jegadeesh, S. Titman. 1993. Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency[J]. Journal of Finance. 48(1): 65-91.
Jegadeesh, N. 1990. Evidence of Predictable Behavior of Security Returns[J]. Journal of Finance. 45(3): 881-898.
Doyle, C. H. Chen. 2009. The wandering weekday effect in major stock markets[J]. Journal of Banking & Finance 33: 1388–1399.
Kazuyuki. 2007. Testing for volatility spillover between the British pound and the euro[J]. Research in International Business and Finance. 21(2):161-174.
Kahneman, A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk[J]. Econometrica. 47(2): 263 -291.
Kanas, G. P. Kouretas. 2001. Volatility Spillovers between the Black Market and Official Market for Foreign Currency in Greece[J]. Journal of Financial Research. 24(3):443-462.
Karolyi 1995. A Multivariate GARCH Model of International Transmissions of Stock Returns and Volatility: the Case of the United States and Canada[J]. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics. 13(): 11-25.
Simons. 2000. The use of value at risk by institutional investors[J]. New England Economic Review. (): 21-31.
Keim. 1983. Size-related anomalies and stock return seasonality[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. (12): 13-32.
Kocherlakota. 1996. The Equity Premium: It’s Still a Puzzle[J]. Journal of Economic L iterature. 34(1): 42 -71.
Kothari. J. shanken, R. G.. Sloan. 1995. Another look at the cross-section of expected stock returns[J]. Journal of Finance. 50: 185-224.
Koutmos, G. Booth. 1995. Asymmetric Volatility Transmission in International Stock Markets[J]. Journal of International Money and Finance. 14(6): 747-762.
Kunz, R. Aggarwal. 1994. Why Initial Public Offerings are Underpriced: Evidence from SwitzErland[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance. 18(4): 705 -723.
Lakonishok, A. Shleifer, R. Vishny. 1994. Contrarian Investment, Extrapolation and Risk[J]. Journal of Finance. 49(5): 1541 -1578.
Laopodis. 2000. Monetary Policy Implications of Volatility Linkages among Long-term Interest Rates[J]. Journal of Economics and Finance. 24(2): 160-179.
Lee, A. Shleifer, R. Thalar. 1991. Investor Sentiment and ClosedEnd Fund Puzzle[J]. Journal of Finance. 46(1): 75 -110.
Lee, B. Swaminahan. 2000. Price Momentum and Trading Volume[J]. Journal of Finance 55(5): 2017 -2069.
Lee, S. Taylor, T. Walter. 1996. Australian IPO Pricing in the Short and Long Run[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance. 20(7): 1189 -1210.
Lehmann. 1990. Fads, Martingales and Market Efficiency. Quarterly[J]. Journal of Economics 105(1): 1 -28.
Levis. 1993. The Long Run Performance of Initial Public Offerings: The U K Experience 1980 -1988[J]. Financial Management. 22(1): 28 -41.
Liew, M. Vassalou. 2000. Can Book to Market, Size and Momentum be Risk Factors that Predict Economic Growth?[J]. Journal of Financial Economics 57(2): 221 -245.
Lin, R. F. Engle. T. Ito. 1994. Do Bulls and Bears Move across Borders? International Lintner , J. 1965. The Valuation of Risk Assets and the Selection of Risky Investments in Stock Portfolios and Capital Budgets. Review of Economics and Statistics. 47(1):13—37.
Liu , SH. Changes in the Nikkei 500: New Evidence for Downward Sloping Demand Curves for Stocks. Working Paper, University of Missouri.
Lo, C. MacKinlay. 1990. Data Snooping Biases in Tests of Financial Asset Pricing Models. Review of Financial Studies. 3(3): 431 -467.
Lorenzo, F. E. Robert, K. Sheppard. 2003. Asymmetric Dynamics in the Correlations of Global Equity and Bond Returns. ECB Working paper.
Loughran. 1997. Book-to market across firm size, exchangeand seasonality: Is there an effect. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis. 1: 249-268.
Loughran, J. Ritter, K. Rydqvist. 1994. Initial Public Offerings : International Insights. Pacific Basin Finance Journal. 2(223): 165 -177.
Loughran, J. Ritter. 1995. The New Issues Puzzle[J]. Journal of Finance. 50(1): 23 -51.
Loughran. 1993. NYSE vs NASDAQ Returns: Market Microstructure or the Poor Performance of Initial Public Offerings[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 33(2): 241 -260.
Lynch, R. Mendenhall. 1997. New Evidence on Stock Price Effects Associated with Changes in the S &P 500 Index[J]. Journal of Business. 70(3): 351 -383.
Markowitz. 1952. Portfolio Selection[J]. Journal of Finance. 7(1): 77-91.
Mankiw, S. Zeldes. 1991. The Consumption of Stockholders and Non stockholders[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 29(1): 97 -112.
McDonald, A. Fisher. 1972. New Issue Stock Price Behavior[J]. Journal of Finance. 27(1): 97 -102.
Mehra, E. Prescott. 1985. The Equity Premium: A Puzzle[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics 15(2): 145 -162.
Melanie, J. Wei. 2005. Stock market returns: A note on temperature anomaly[J]. Journal of Banking & Finance. 29: 1559–1573.
Merton. 1973. An Intertemporal Capital Asset Pricing Model[J]. Econometrica. 41(5): 867 -887.
Michaely, R. Thaler, K. Womack. 1995. Price Reactions to Dividend Initiations and Omissions: Overreaction or Drift[J]. Journal of Finance. 50(2): 573 -608.
Miller. 1977. Risk, uncertainty and divergence of opinion[J]. Journal of Finance. 32(4): 1151-1168.
Mills, J. Jordanov. 2003. The size effect and the random walk hypothesis: evidence from the London stock exchange using Markov chains[J]. Applied Financial Economics. (13): 807-815.
Montier. 2002. Behavioural Finance: Insight into Irrational Minds and Markets. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Mossin. 1990. Equilibrium in a Capital Asset Market. Econometrica. 34(4): 768 -783.
Osamah. Al-Khazali, Evangelos P. Koumanakos, C. S. Pyun. 2008. Calendar anomaly in the Greek stock market: Stochastic dominance analysis[J]. International Review of Financial Analysis 17 :461–474.
Page, F. Palmer. 1993. The relationship between excess returns, firm size and earnings on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange[J]. South African Journal of Business Management(22): 63-73.
Pastor, R. Stambaugh. 2001. Liquidity risk and expected stock returns. NBER Working Paper.
Peavy. 1990. Returns on Initial Public Offerings of Closed End Funds[J]. Review of Financial Studies. 3(4): 695 -708.
Pinfold, W. R. Wilson, Q. Li. 2001. Book-to-market and size as determinants of returns in small illiquid market:the New Zealand case[J]. Financial Services Review. 10: 291-30.
Pontiff, L. D. Schall. 1998. Book-to-market ratios as predictors of market returns[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 49: 141-160.
Reinganum. 1981. Misspecification of Capital Asset Pricing: Empirical Anomalies Based on Earnings’Yield and Market Values[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 9(1): 16 -46.
Ritter. 1991. The Long run Performance of Initial Public Offerings[J]. Journal of Finance. 46(1): 3-27.
Robert. Durand, J. Alex, G. W. Smith. 2007. SMB-Arousal, disproportionate reactions and thesize-premium[J]. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 15: 315–328.
Roll. 1981. A possible explanation of small firm effect[J]. Journal of Finance. 36: 879-888.
Roll, S. A. Ross. 1994. On the cross sectional relation between expected returns and betas[J]. Journal of Finance. 49: 101-122.
Rosenberg, Barr, R. Kenneth, R. Lanstein. 1985. Persuasive evidence of market inefficiency[J]. Journal of Portfolio Management, 11: 9-17.
Ross. 1976. The Arbitrage Theory of Capital Asset Pricing[J]. Journal of Economic Theory. 13(3): 341-360.
Ross. 1977. Return, risk and arbitrage[M]. in Irwin Friend and James Bicksler(eds. ). Risk and Return in Finance. Cambridge, MA:Ballinger,. 1. :23-31
Ross. A. Stephen. 1976. The arbitrage theory of capital asset pricing[J]. Journal of Economic Theory. (13): 341-360.
Rouwenhorst. 1999. Local Return Factors and Turnover in Emerging Stock Markets[J]. Journal of Finance. 54(4): 1439 -1464.
Rouwenhorst. 1998. International Momentum Strategies[J]. Journal of Finance 53(1): 267 -284.
Rozeff, W. R. J Kinney. 1976. Capital market seasonality: the case of stock returns[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 6(3): 379-402.
Ryan, R. Hudson, K. Kevin, L. Kevin. 2005. Pre-holiday effects: International evidence on the decline and reversal of a stock market anomaly[J]. Journal of International Money and Finance 24: 1226-1236.
Sang, Z. H. Jiang , Y. J. Lee, S. M. Yoon. 2010. Weather effects on the returns and volatility of the Shanghai stock market[J]. Physica A. 389(): 91-99.
Schiereck, W. D. Bondt, M. Weber. 1999. Contrarian and Momentums Strategies in Germany. Financial Analysts Journal. 55(6): 104 -116.
Servaes, R. Rajan. 1997. Analyst Following of Public Offerings[J]. Journal of Finance. 52(2): 507-529.
Sharpe. 1964. Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk[J]. Journal of Finance. 19(3): 425 -442.
Shefrin, M. Statman. 1984. Explaining Investor Preference for Cash Dividends[J]. Journal of Financial Economics. 13(2): 253 -282.
Shefrin, M. Statman. 1995. Making Sense of Beta, Size, and Book to market[J]. Journal of Port folio Management. 21(2): 323-349.
Shiller. 2003. From Efficient Markets Theory to Behavioral Finance[J]. Journal of Economic Per pectives. 17(1): 83-104.
Shiller. 1981. Do Stock Prices Move Too Much to be Justified by Subsequent Changes in Dividends?[J]. American Economic Review. 71(3): 421-436.
Shleifer. 1986. Do Demand Curves for Stocks Slope Down?[J]. Journal of Finance. 41(3): 579 -590.
Shleifer, W. V. Robert W. 1997. The Limits of Arbitrage[J]. Journal of Finance. 52: 35–55. J. Siegel, R. Thaler. Anomalies: The Equity Premium Puzzle[J]. Journal of Economic.
Stein. 1989. Overreactions in the Options Market[J]. Journal of Finance. 44(4): 1011-1022.
Stephen. 1989. Information and Volatility: The No-Arbitrage Martingale Approach to Timing and Resolution Irrelevancy[J]. Journal of Finance 44: 1-17.
Sumel, R. F. Engle. 1994. Hour Volatility Spillovers between International Equity Markets[J]. Journal of International Money and Finance. 13(1): 3-25.
Summers. 1986. Does the Stock Market Rationally Reflect Fundamental Values[J]. Journal of Finance. 41(3): 591-601.
Thaler. 1993. A dvances of Behavioral Finance. New York: McGraw Hill Press.
Theodosiou, U. Lee. Mean and Volatility. 1993. Spillovers across Major National Stock
Transmission of Stock Returns and Volatility[J]. The Review of Financial Studies. (7): 507-538.
Travis L. Jones, A. James. Ligon. 2009. The day of the week effect in IPO initial returns[J]. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. 22: 110–127.
Turan, C. Nusret. 2004. Value at Risk and Expected Stock Returns[J]. Financial Analysts Journal. 60: 57-74.
Tversky, D. Kahneman. 1992. Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty[J]. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. (5): 297-323.
Uhlir. 1989. Der Gang an die B rseund das Underpricing Phnomen: Eine empirische Untersuchung deutscher Emissionen(1977—1987). Zeitschrift für Bankrecht und Bankwirtschaft. 1: 2—16.
Victor, Y. C. Lim, C. T. Lin. 2006. Volatility Transmissions Between Stock And Bond Markets: Evidence From Japan And The U. S[J]. International Journal of Information Technology 12(6): 121-128.
Weil. 1989. The Equity Premium Puzzle and the Riskfree Rate Puzzle[J]. Journal of Monetary Economics. 24(3): 401-421.
Weiss. 1989. The Post Offering Price Performance of Closed End Funds[J]. Financial Management. 18(3): 57-67.
Wentworth, R. O. Henry, S. F. Reid. 2009. Japaneseday-of-the-week return patterns: New results[J]. Global Finance Journal. 20: 1–12.
Wong, M. Lye. 1990. Market Values, Earnings, Yields and Stock Returns: Evidence fromSingapore[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance. 14(2): 311-326.
Hamao, R. W. Masulis, V. Ng. 1990. Correlations in price changes and volatility across international stock markets[J]. The Review of Financial Studies. 3: 281-307.
Hwang, G. M. Hong. 2010. Using the credit spread as an option-risk factor: Size and value effects in CAPM[J]. Journal of Banking & Finance. 7(1): 2995-3000.
Han. 2006. A study on sunshine effect of Chinese stock index returns[J]. Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology. 38: 260-263.
Zweig. 1973. An Investor Expectations Stock Price Predictive Model Using Closed End Fund Premiums[J]. Journal of Finance. 28(1): 67 -87.
White, H. , 1982. Instrumental variable regression with independent observations. Econometrica 50:483-499.