We analyze the empirical power and specification of test statistics in event studies designed to detect long-run (one- to five-year) abnormal stock returns. We document that test statistics based on abnormal returns calculated using a reference portfolio, such as a market index, are misspecified (empirical rejection rates exceed theoretical rejection rates) and identify three reasons for this misspecification. We correct for the three identified sources of misspecification by matching sample firms to control firms of similar sizes and book-to-market ratios. This control firm approach yields well-specified test statistics in virtually all sampling situations considered.

This research evaluates methods used in event studies that employ accounting-based measures of operating performance. We examine the choice of an accounting-based performance measure, a statistical test, and a model of expected operating performance. We document the impact of these choices on the test statistics designed to detect abnormal operating performance. We find that commonly used research designs yield test statistics that are misspecified in cases where sample firms have performed either unusually well or poorly. In this sampling situation, the test statistics are only well specified when sample firms are matched to control firms of similar pre-event performance.