Misspecification in event studies

Joseph M. Marks and Jim Musumeci

Journal of Corporate Finance, 2017, vol. 45, issue C, 333-341

Abstract: We examine the statistical error and efficiency associated with two commonly used event-study techniques when applied to samples of various sizes. Previous research has established that the frequently used Patell (1976) test is not well specified when the event itself creates additional return variance. We find that even under ideal conditions when the event creates no additional variance, the Patell test rejects a true null hypothesis substantially more often than the stated significance level. In contrast, the alternate test of Boehmer et al. (1991) performs well in samples of all sizes and under all conditions we consider.

Keywords: Event study; Standardized abnormal return; Misspecification; Simulation; Patell test; BMP test (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: C10 C15 G14 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (7)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929119916303868
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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:eee:corfin:v:45:y:2017:i:c:p:333-341

DOI: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2017.05.003

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Corporate Finance is currently edited by A. Poulsen and J. Netter

More articles in Journal of Corporate Finance from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().