Review of Financial Studies
Опубликовано на портале: 22-10-2007Anat R. Admati, Paul Pfleiderer Review of Financial Studies. 1989. Vol. 2. No. 2. P. 189-223.
This article develops a model in which pattern in buy and sell volume, order imbalances, and expected price changes arise endogenously. The model covers cases in which the market maker is competitive and is a monopolist. Our results provide an explanation for the existence of patterns in mean returns within the trading day and across trading days.
Partial Adjustment or Stale Prices? Implications from Stock Index and Futures Return Autocorrelations [статья]
Опубликовано на портале: 03-11-2007Dong-Hyun Ahn, Jacob Boudoukh, Matthew Richardson, Robert Whitelaw Review of Financial Studies. 2002. Vol. 15. No. 2. P. 655-689.
We investigate the relation between returns on stock indices and their corresponding futures contracts to evaluate potential explanations for the pervasive yet anomalous evidence of positive, short-horizon portfolio antocorrelations. Using a simple theoretical framework, we generate empirical implications for both microstructure and partial adjustment models. The major findings are (i) return autocorrelations of indices are generally positive even though futures contracts have autocorrelations close to zero, and (ii) these autocorrelation differences are maintained under conditions favorable for spot-futures arbitrage and are most prevalent during low-volume periods. These results point toward microstructure-based explanations and away from explanations based on behavioral models.
Опубликовано на портале: 25-10-2007Andrew W. Lo, A. Craig MacKinlay Review of Financial Studies. 1988. Vol. 1. No. 1. P. 41-66.
In this article we test the random walk hypothesis for weekly stock market returns by comparing variance estimators derived from data sampled at different frequencies. The random walk model is strongly rejected for the entire sampleperiod (1962-1985) and for all subperiods for a variety of aggregate returns indexes and size-sorted porfolios. Although the rejections are due largely to the behavior of small stocks, they cannot be attributed completely to the effects of infrequent trading or timevarying volatilities. Moreover, the rejection of the random walk for weekly returns does not support a mean-reverting model of assetprices.