To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
3 results ✕ Clear filters

The other January effect☆

Journal of Financial Economics 2006 82(2), 315-341
Streetlore since at least 1973 has touted the market return in January as a predictor of market returns for the remainder of the year. We systematically examine the predictive power of January returns over the period 1940–2003 and find that January returns have predictive power for market returns over the next 11 months of the year. The effect persists after controlling for macroeconomic/business cycle variables that have been shown to predict stock returns, the Presidential Cycle in returns, and investor sentiment, and it persists among both large and small capitalization stocks and among both value and growth stocks. In addition, we find that January has predictive power for two of the three premiums in the Fama–French [1993. Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3–50] three-factor model of asset pricing.

Returns to Acquirers of Listed and Unlisted Targets

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 2006 41(1), 197-220
We examine announcement period abnormal returns to acquirers of listed and unlisted targets in 17 Western European countries over the interval 1996–2001. Acquirers of listed targets earn an insignificant average abnormal return of –0.38%, while acquirers of unlisted targets earn a significant average abnormal return of 1.48%. This listing effect in acquirers' returns persists through time and across countries and remains after controlling for the method of payment for the target, the acquirer's size and Tobin's Q, pre-announcement leakage of information about the transaction, whether the acquisition created a blockholder in the acquirer's ownership structure, whether the acquisition was a cross-border deal, and other variables. The fundamental factors that give rise to this listing effect, which has also been documented in U.S. acquisitions, remain elusive.

Political Connections and Corporate Bailouts

Journal of Finance 2006 61(6), 2597-2635
We analyze the likelihood of government bailouts of 450 politically connected firms from 35 countries during 1997–2002. Politically connected firms are significantly more likely to be bailed out than similar nonconnected firms. Additionally, politically connected firms are disproportionately more likely to be bailed out when the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank provides financial assistance to the firm's home government. Further, among bailed‐out firms, those that are politically connected exhibit significantly worse financial performance than their nonconnected peers at the time of and following the bailout. This evidence suggests that, at least in some countries, political connections influence the allocation of capital through the mechanism of financial assistance when connected companies confront economic distress.