Further evidence of the November effect

Ken Johnston () and Chris Paul ()

Journal of Economics and Finance, 2005, vol. 29, issue 2, 280-288

Abstract: Tax-loss selling by individuals has long been thought to be a major factor driving the January effect. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the tax-year end for mutual funds to October 31 and increased the marginal tax rate, creating a natural experiment allowing Bhabra, Dhillon, and Ramirez (1999) to empirically test the tax-selling hypothesis. They find empirical support for a postact November effect. However, a second paper by Gibson, Safieddine, and Titman (2000) finds empirical support for the November effect in only one post-act year, 1990. In this article, we respecify betas, calculate holding period returns over each tax year, construct portfolios with large, differences in mutual fund ownership, and test for the presence of a bid-ask spread bias. The empirical results offer evidence of a November effect but only in the first week of November. Copyright Springer 2005

Date: 2005
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF02761559 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:jecfin:v:29:y:2005:i:2:p:280-288

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer. ... cs/journal/12197/PS2

DOI: 10.1007/BF02761559

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Economics and Finance is currently edited by James Payne

More articles in Journal of Economics and Finance from Springer, Academy of Economics and Finance Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().