Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Contemporaneous Event Studies in Corporate Finance: Methods, Critiques and Robust Alternative Approaches 1st ed. Edition Jau-Lian Jeng full chapter instant download
Contemporaneous Event Studies in Corporate Finance: Methods, Critiques and Robust Alternative Approaches 1st ed. Edition Jau-Lian Jeng full chapter instant download
https://ebookmass.com/product/alternative-approaches-in-conflict-
resolution-1st-edition-martin-leiner/
https://ebookmass.com/product/analysing-planning-and-valuing-
private-firms-new-approaches-to-corporate-finance-federico-
beltrame/
https://ebookmass.com/product/numerical-methods-and-optimization-
in-finance-2nd-ed-manfred-gilli/
https://ebookmass.com/product/corporate-governance-of-chinese-
multinational-corporations-case-studies-1st-ed-edition-runhui-
lin/
eTextbook 978-0133507676 Fundamentals of Corporate
Finance (Pearson Series in Finance)
https://ebookmass.com/product/etextbook-978-0133507676-
fundamentals-of-corporate-finance-pearson-series-in-finance/
https://ebookmass.com/product/corporate-finance-european-edition-
david-hillier/
https://ebookmass.com/product/principles-of-corporate-finance-
mcgraw-hill-irwin-series-in-finance-insurance-and-real-
estate-12th-edition-brealey/
https://ebookmass.com/product/principles-of-corporate-finance-
brealey/
https://ebookmass.com/product/fundamentals-of-corporate-finance-
berk-demarzo-harford-the-corporate-finance-series-4th-edition-
ebook-pdf-version/
Jau-Lian Jeng
Contemporaneous
Event Studies in
Corporate Finance
Methods, Critiques
and Robust Alternative
Approaches
Contemporaneous Event Studies in Corporate
Finance
Jau-Lian Jeng
Contemporaneous
Event Studies
in Corporate Finance
Methods, Critiques and Robust
Alternative Approaches
Jau-Lian Jeng
School of Business and Management
Azusa Pacific University
Los Angeles, CA, USA
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature
Switzerland AG 2020
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher,
whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting,
reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical
way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software,
or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with
regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Preface
v
vi Preface
For the technicality applied, readers are suggested to have some read-
ings in mathematical statistics, econometrics, and/or probability theory.
Understanding of diffusion processes, asymptotic theory of mathematical
statistics are certainly of advantage. Although the contents of the book
are mainly for the applications of event study methodology in social sci-
ence or business management, the technical elaborations with mathe-
matical reasoning in stochastic processes and econometrics are essential
to provide rigors in various arguments.
Acknowledgments The writing of this book will not be feasible without the
assistance of the editorial board of Palgrave Macmillan publishing, the fruitful
reviews of Dr. Hou and Dr. Phillips, and the spiritual supports of my family.
Appreciation
Especially, this book is done during the period of stroke where my wife’s
hearted support is cordially appreciated. In particular, during the edit-
ing period, my mom passed away due to a stage 4 lung cancer and my
dad passed away later on in which the Coronavirus consumes the glob-
al economy entirely. Yet, the project continued. Many thanks are given
to the one who said “I am!” in granting me the strength and the heal-
ing to carry on. Hopefully, this work will commemorate my parents for
their hardship in supporting my education and provide the foundation
for anyone who’s interested in the event studies in corporate finance or
else and will benefit from the discussions.
vii
Introduction
ix
x Introduction
findings) for the events that may interest the readers or, simply to match
the trend of existing literature.
For instance, the contents of this book discuss the possible similarities
between the applications of cumulative sum (CUSUM) statistics with
structural change tests, and the applications of cumulative abnormal re-
turns (CAR’s) in event studies of some corporate finance issues. In partic-
ular, it is easy to verify that the applications of CAR’s are sensitive to the
presumption of pre- and post-event windows where manipulation can be
easily introduced if some intended hypotheses are of interest.
Namely, if the pre-event window is set to accommodate the intent
to prove the significance of events of interest, and if there is a possible
significant parameter change in the systematic component of asset re-
turns, there is a high likelihood that the resulting CAR’s may show that
their (cross-sectional) mean (within the event window) will be statistical-
ly different from zero. In other words, the empirical statistical results may
show that there’s a significant impact from the events of interest. In fact,
it is a parameter change in the systematic components of asset returns
that provides the cause, and the result is not related with the corporate
events of concern.
More specifically, it is easy to see the usual CUSUM tests and the
cumulative abnormal returns (CAR’s) can be related to each other and
that, the results may lead to incorrect verification for the hypotheses of
interest. For instance, let the specification of normal rate of return be
given as the following simplified univariate model such that
rit = αi + βi xt + εit ,
where i = 1,2, …,n is the index for firm’s rates of return, t = 1, 2,…, T
is the time index over the entire time horizon of interest, x t is the com-
mon factor (such as market index return) for the return series. Suppose
there is an unknown structural change over the time period of interest,
and there is an interest of study to verify if there is a significant corpo-
rate event during the time periods by using the conventional cumulative
abnormal returns according to MacKinlay (1997).
xii Introduction
t
∼
t
∗
C A Ri = εis = t − T δi + εis ,
s=0 s=0
where ts=0 εis is the genuine cumulative abnormal returns. It is easy
to see that if the cross-sectional average of these cumulative abnormal
returns are used to form the statistics, the cross-sectional average of these
CAR’s may reject the null hypothesis such that
1 ∼ 1
n t n n t
AC A R = εis = t − T ∗ δi + εis .
n n
i=1 s=0 i=1 i=1 s=0
The statistic ACAR may become significantly different from zero even
n t
though n1 i=1 s=0 εis may actually converge to zero. In other words,
if there exists an unknown structural change of the parameter(s) in the
fitted model of normal returns, it is likely that the conventional CAR’s
(and hence, the ACAR’s across all sampled firms) may become significant
statistically when the event period is extensive enough to encompass the
time of possible structural change in parameter(s). The statistics may even
become more significant when the excedance of time (after structural
change) t − T ∗ expands.
Alternatively, following the same equation as above, if there is a sig-
nificant impact from the corporate events of some firms, this gives the
condition that for some significant number of firms, the ts=0 εis may
not be of zero mean. Using the conventional CUSUM (cumulative sum
of residuals) from the above regressions (even with recursive estimation)
Introduction xiii
may exceed certain pre-specified boundaries and reject the null hypoth-
esis as there is no structural change in the parameters α i or β i . In other
words, the applications of CUSUM statistics may wrongfully conclude
that there is a significant structural change in parameters of regressions
during the sampled period of time, while the so-called structural change
is actually the consequence of the idiosyncratic corporate events.
Particularly, the usual structural change tests or the so-called monitor-
ing tests rely on whether the test statistics exceed the boundaries (pre-
specified according to the assumption of convergence in distribution to
a certain diffusion process) or not. The approach ignores two issues: epi-
demic change and dependent sequential test statistics due to dependence
in sequential multi-hypotheses.
For instance, when there is an epidemic change, the parameters may
change for a tentative short period and end with no change afterward.
The usual structural change test may simply reject the null hypothesis
of no change when the statistics cross the boundaries when observations
within the epidemic-change time period are applied. In other words, the
tests usually assume permanent change on the parameters. This result,
in turns, is not often observed in corporate finance events. On the oth-
er hand, the tests statistics applied in the sequential monitoring test are
usually sequentially dependent where the control of type-1 errors in test
should take this possibility into account.
Furthermore, there are research articles that proclaim the usage of
firm-specific information may help explaining the forecasts of asset re-
turns. It is not surprising to state that, although these applications of
firm-specific variables assist contemporaneous explanation on asset re-
turns, the contribution is usually short-lived and lack of explanation
from the theoretical standpoints. However, applications of these addi-
tional firm-specific variables (for conditional expectations of asset re-
turns) may actually dilute the specification of abnormal returns which
are the essential variables for the event studies.
More specifically, it is dubious to accept those claims since event stud-
ies should focus on the possible impacts on the so-called abnormal re-
turns, where abnormal returns should be the additional returns in ex-
cess of the expected returns merely based on systematic (nondiversifiable)
economic variables. In other words, the prerequisite for the robust event
xiv Introduction
N (t) = Nt = i∈N ∗ δ(ti <t) as a counting process with intensity as
N (t + t)
λ (t|Ht ) = lim t→0 E |Ht .
t
References
xvii
xviii Contents
Index 225
List of Tables
xix
Part I
The Conventional Approach
1
Popular Methods for Event Studies
in Corporate Finance—Subjectivity Versus
Robustness
1.1 Introduction
This chapter is to survey the conventional methods in event studies of
corporate events. Intuitively, since the corporate (finance) events are con-
sidered as the newly available information concerning the specific insti-
tutions of interest, the information regarding the institutions alone is
considered as especially firm-specific. Therefore, the methods usually con-
sider the approximation of normal returns in using either the asset pricing
models or time series modeling to filter them. The residuals from these
methods are then, considered the abnormal returns since they are the devi-
ations of stock returns from the expected returns (based on the systematic
information).
In other words, the abnormal returns are considered as firm-specific
since the contents of information regarding corporate events are not sys-
tematic. Therefore, the event studies of corporate (finance) issues typically
focus on the statistics and statistical inferences of abnormal returns. This
also leads to the understanding that confusion over systematic versus firm-
specific information may misguide the event studies even when robust
statistical methods are applied. Specifically, the systematic components of