Stock return seasonalities and the tax-loss selling hypothesis: Analysis of the arguments and Australian evidence

A ‘tax-loss selling’ hypothesis has frequently been advanced to explain the ‘January effect’ reported in this issue by Keim. This paper concludes that U.S. tax laws do not unambiguously predict such an effect. Since Australia has similar tax laws but a July–June tax year, the hypothesis predicts a s...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of financial economics 1983-01, Vol.12 (1), p.105-127
Hauptverfasser: Brown, Philip, Keim, Donald B., Kleidon, Allan W., Marsh, Terry A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:A ‘tax-loss selling’ hypothesis has frequently been advanced to explain the ‘January effect’ reported in this issue by Keim. This paper concludes that U.S. tax laws do not unambiguously predict such an effect. Since Australia has similar tax laws but a July–June tax year, the hypothesis predicts a small-firm July premium. Australian returns show pronounced December–January and July–August seasonals, and a premium for the smallest-firm decile of about four percent per month across all months. This contrasts with the U.S. data in which the small-firm premium is concentrated in January. We conclude that the relation between the U.S. tax year and the January seasonal may be more correlation than causation.
ISSN:0304-405X
1879-2774
DOI:10.1016/0304-405X(83)90030-2