A Survey of the Monday Effect Literature
Journal article by Glenn N. Pettengill; Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics, Vol. 42, 2003
Journal Article Excerpt
A Survey of the Monday Effect Literature. by Glenn N. Pettengill Introduction An extensive and long-standing literature documents calendar patterns in asset returns. In the inaugural edition of the Review of Economic Statistics, Persons (1919) makes reference to a January effect in equity securities, as one of several "seasonals" in stock returns. Another seasonal, the Monday effect, the tendency for Monday stock returns to be low relative to other weekdays and on average negative, provides the focus of this survey paper and other papers in this issue. Maberly (1995) shows that financial practitioners were aware of the Monday effect as early as the late 1920s. (See Kelly, 1930.) Then, as now, the existence of negative returns on Mondays was a puzzling phenomenon. Why should investors on Friday or Saturday buy securities that, based on historical data, should be expected to exhibit negative returns the following trading day? Academic researchers have spent considerable effort attempting to document and, with limited success, to explain the tendency for asset returns to be negative on Monday. In recent years a new dimension has arisen that presents both obstacles and opportunities for explaining the Monday effect. Monday returns for large-firm equities have become positive, and in some years these returns are significantly higher than returns for other weekdays. This survey serves as an introduction to a series of papers that examine the Monday effect including the shift from negative Monday returns to positive Monday returns. Documentation of the Monday Effect An extensive literature documents that weekday returns vary with the day of the week across various assets and markets. A persistent finding of this literature is a tendency for asset returns to be negative on Mondays. This literature began with documentation of low Monday returns of U.S. equity securities by market practitioners. An extensive academic literature applies more sophisticated statistical tools to show differences in U.S. equity returns across weekdays and also identifies similar effects in other equity markets and other asset markets. This section provides a brief overview of these findings. Early Practitioner Studies Market practitioners identified the Monday effect at ]east as early as the 1920s, well in advance of the advent of studies manipulating electronic databases. Kelly (1930) cites a three-year statistical study that identified Mondays as the worse day to buy stocks. He ascribes the cause of the low Monday returns to, among other factors, weekend decision making processing by individual investors. Fields (1931) studies conventional market wisdom and searches for a low-Saturday-return effect in the DJIA. Fields finds (consistent with a Monday effect) that Saturday's average closings are higher than the average of adjacent Friday and Monday closings. (1) Practitioners continued to report evidence of a Monday effect as interest in the market revived following the depression and World War II. Merrill (1966) reports that for the period 1952 through 1965 the DJIA rose only 43.0 percent of Monday trading days, but rose over 50 percent of the trading days for every other weekday. (The DJIA increased 64.6 percent of the Friday trading days in his sample.) Hirsch (1968) in his Stockholder's' Almanac reports average weekday returns and identifies negative average returns for Monday. Another practitioner, Cross (1973), conducts a statistical test of the weekday effect. He studies price changes for the S&P 500 for the period 1953 through 1970. Cross reports that the proportion of increases on Friday is significantly higher than the proportion of increases on Monday. Further Tests on U.S. Equity Markets The first application of rigorous statistical testing of the difference in weekday returns results from French (1980) studying the S&P 500 Index over the period 1953 through 1977 and from Gibbons and Hess (1981) studying the S&P 500 Index and CRSP value- and equally-weighted indexes for NYSE and AMEX securities over the period 1962 through 1978. Keim and Stambaugh (1984) extend the period over which the weekday seasonal is examined for the S&P 500 Index and examine actively traded OTC securities. Linn and Lockwood (1988) examine a larger sample of OTC securities. Using different time frames and different sets of securities, these authors all find a statistically significant difference in returns across weekdays and a significantly negative return for Monday.Lakonishok and Smidt (1988) extend these findings by conducting a ninety-year study of weekday returns for the DJIA. They report negative Monday returns for the entire sample period of 1897 through 1986 and for each of nine subsample periods. Average Monday returns are significantly less than zero for all but two of the subsample periods. ... |
End of free preview...
To continue reading this publication, you must have a Questia Subscription.
Try Us Today! Click Here
Questia provides the world's largest online library of scholarly books and journal articles, with integrated footnote and bibliography tools, highlighting, note taking and book marking. With a Questia subscription, you'll have access to the full text of more than 67,000 books and 1.5 million articles.
Already a subscriber? Login:
Sponsored Links
Free Newsletter
Get helpful how-to's, writing tips, search strategies, quizzes & more!
Search the Library
