Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

8 Aufrufe

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- FIN630 Quiz solution
- Investments, 10th Ed, Bodie, Alex Kane, Alan Marcus
- Exercise 10
- Historical Gold Price Performance
- Is Economic Growth Good for Investors
- Andrade G - New Evidence and Perspectives on Mergers
- irjfe_22_15
- Free Report Stealth Stocks
- THE PERFORMANCE OF INVESTMENT COMPANIES IN RUSSIA
- Investor Sentiment and the Closed-End Fund Puzzle (Nice Page)
- Chapter 13
- Equity Financing
- finance
- LIC%20Jeevan_Anand.pps
- Shapiro CHAPTER 2 Solutions
- Group - 1 (Kiran Mazumdar Shaw )
- Obtaining Financial Freedom
- Investmentmanagement Anjaligopallokendra 121126095502 Phpapp01
- 9666181-CH
- Management Advisory Services

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 40

Li Yong lyong@mail.utexas.edu

Lu Zheng luzheng@umich.edu

March 2004

Starks and Yong are at the McCombs School of Business, UT-Austin, Austin, TX 78712-1179. Zheng is at the School of Business Administration, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1234. The authors would like to thank Andres Almazan, Danie l Bergstresser, Bill Maxwell and participants at a seminar at the University of Texas at Austin and at the 2003 University of North Carolina Tax Symposium. All errors are our own.

Tax-Loss Selling and the January Effect: Evidence from Municipal Bond Closed-End Funds

Abstract

This paper provides direct evidence in support of the tax- loss-selling hypothesis as an explanation for the January effect. Specifically, we examine the turn-of-the-year return and volume patterns of municipal bond closed-end funds, an asset class held almost entirely by tax-sensitive individual investors. First, we document a January effect for the municipal bond closed-end funds and show that the effect can not be explained by a January seasonal in the underlying municipal bond portfolios. Next, we provide direct evidence that the observed January effect can be largely explained by the tax- loss-selling activities at the end of the previous year. In particular, we find that the abnormal returns of the municipal bond closed-end funds in January are positively correlated with the yearend trading volumes, which in turn are negatively related to the current and the previous year returns. The year-end volume is significantly larger in years when fund prices have declined. In addition, we provide evidence that investors sell on capital losses at the end of the year and reinvest in similar tax-advantaged funds at the beginning of the next year by analyzing the buy-sell ratios of the funds. We find a significant selling pressure in December and a significant buying pressure in January, especially in years when municipal bond market incurred losses. Moreover, we document that funds associated with brokerage firms, which should be providing investors with tax advice, display more tax-loss-selling behavior.

Tax-Loss Selling and the January Effect: Evidence from Municipal Bond Closed-End Funds

Among the numerous stock return anomalies, probably none has generated more interest than the turn-of-the- year or January effect, referring to the phenomenon that small capitalization stocks have unusually high returns in early January. 1 A number of hypotheses have been offered to explain this phenomenon. Examples include the taxloss-selling hypothesis, the window-dressing hypothesis, the insider trading/information release hypothesis, and the seasonality of the risk-return relation hypothesis. Existing evidence provides some support for the tax- loss-selling and window-dressing hypotheses, but not for the insider trading or seasonality of risk-return hypotheses. A debate still exists, however, on whether the tax- loss selling of individual investors or the windowdressing of institutional investors is the main driver of the turn-of-the-year effect. Musto (1997) finds a turn-of-the- year effect among money market instruments, which do not generate capital losses, i.e., tax effects. He concludes that at least some of the January effect in the equity market represents window-dressing by portfolio managers, and not tax-loss selling. Similarly, Maxwell (1998) concludes that window dressing is a

significant factor for the January effect in noninvestment grade bonds.2 On the other

Rozeff and Kinney (1976) first document the January effect, whereby stock returns are higher, on average, in January than in other months. Using a combination of several indices, they find that from 1904 to 1974, the average return for NYSE stocks in January is 3.48 percent, as compared to an average of only 0.42% for each of the other eleven months. Banz (1981) and Reinganum (1983) document that the effect is driven by smaller firms (measured by market capitalization), which have higher average rates of return than do larger firms. While Keim (1983) reports that roughly half of the annual difference between the rates of return on small and large stocks over the period 1963 to 1979 occurs during the month of January, Blume and Stambaugh (1983) adjust Keims results for bid-ask spread bias, and show that virtually all of the size effect occurs in the month of January. Roll (1983) dubs this interrelationship the turn-of-the-year effect. 2 Chang and Pinegar (1986) find evidence of a January effect in noninvestment grade bonds, but no evidence of a January effect in investment grade bonds or in Treasury bonds.

hand, Sias and Starks (1997) and Poterba and Weisbenner (2001) document evidence consistent with the tax- loss-selling hypothesis in the equity market. As pointed out by Poterba and Weisbenner (2001), one difficulty in evaluating the tax- loss-selling hypothesis is that many of its predictions coincide with those of the window-dressing hypothesis for institutional investors. It is thus difficult to separate out institutional trades from individual trades, and tax-motivated trades from other trades. Although Sias and Starks (1997) and Poterba and Weisbenner (2001) design controlled tests in order to disentangle and evaluate the two hypotheses in the equity market, the inability to identify tax-motivated trades makes their results suggestive, but incomplete. 3 Previous studies have also tested the tax- loss-selling hypothesis through examinations of trades of individual investors (e.g., Ritter, 1988; Badrinath and Lewellen, 1991; Dyl and Maberly, 1992; Odean, 1998). These approaches require inferring the effects of previous stock returns on trades and, in turn, the impact of these trades on the January returns. In this paper, we examine the turn-of-the-year effect in a different setting in which it is less difficult to isolate the trades of tax-sensitive individual investors. Specifically, we examine the trading and return patterns of a set of securities held almost exclusively by individual investors particularly sensitive to taxes: municipal bond closed-end funds. 4 If tax- loss selling explains the January effect in the equity market in general, we should observe a similar or stronger effect in municipal bond closed-end funds because these fund investors are most tax-sensitive by self-selection;

Sias and Starks (1997) examine differences between securities dominated by individual investors versus those dominated by institutional investors and find that the effect is more pervasive in the former. Poterba and Weisbenner (2001) investigate the effect of specific features of the U.S. capital gains tax on turn-of-the-year stock returns and provide support for the role of tax-loss trading in contributing to the turn-of-the-year return patterns. 4 For example, Laing (1987), Quinn (1987), and Siconolfi (1987) discuss the attraction and holding of these funds for tax-sensitive individual investors.

thus, they are more likely to sell on losses for tax reasons. Establishing a January effect in municipal closed-end bond funds indicates a more direct link between the turnof-the- year price effects and tax- loss trading activities. Two additional features of municipal bond closed-end funds are important for our study. First, unlike open-end funds, closed-end funds are traded like stocks. As a result, we are able to observe possible price effects of trading activities as well as patterns in trading volumes. Second, municipal bond closed-end funds are a relatively new set of securities introduced in the 1990s. Thus, there is less ambiguity regarding the tax basis of investors (that is, the differences in when securities are purchased) as compared to that encountered in studying the tax effects of most equity shares. We study a sample of 168 municipal bond closed-end funds from 1990 - 2000. We first document that, during our sample period, the average January return for municipal bond closed-end funds is 2.21%, significantly higher than the average monthly return of -0.19% for the other eleven months of the year. Furthermore, our empirical results indicate a direct link between the observed January price effect and the tax- loss selling behavior of individual investors at year-end. Specifically, in cross-sectional tests of the closed-end funds, we find that the abnormal returns in January are positively correlated with the previous year-end volume measures and that the year-end volume measures are negatively related to past fund returns. The year-end volume is

significantly larger in years when fund prices have declined. Moreover, the losses appear to have a subsequent effect on the following year-end trading volumes when funds still have not regained their previous prices. We find that January and December buy-sell

ratios are significantly related to the returns in a manner consistent with the tax-lossselling hypothesis. We also provide an additional unique analysis for the tax- loss selling hypothesis. We examine whether brokers play a role in advising investors to sell on losses. We hypothesize that fund inve stors who have access to brokerage advice, and presumably tax-counseling, display more tax- loss selling behavior. Brokers have incentives to

provide such advice because of the commissions that are generated. We find evidence to support this hypothesis in that funds associated with brokerage firms are more subject to year-end tax- loss selling, suggesting that brokerage firms advise their clients to engage in tax-motivated trading. In summary, we find evidence that the January effect in municipal bond closedend fund prices is largely explained by the fund investors tax- loss selling behavior at the turn of the year. Our findings provide new evidence in support of the tax- loss-selling hypothesis in explaining the January effect. The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section I discusses the previous evidence on the January effect. Section II describes the data. Section III presents the empirical results. Section IV concludes.

I. Previous Evidence on the January Effect The cause of the January effect is still not clear, despite the fact that a variety of explanations have been offered. The main explanations include tax- loss selling by

individual investors, window-dressing by institutional investors, insider trading /information-release, or a January seasonal in the risk-return relation. Empirical results

are largely consistent with the tax-loss selling and window-dressing hypotheses, and inconsistent with the insider trading or risk-return hypotheses. 5 The tax- loss-selling hypothesis has been the most frequently cited explanation for the January effect since Branch (1977) documented high returns in January for stocks that incur negative returns during the previous year. The hypothesis posits that investors sell securities in which they have losses in order to take advantage of accrued capital losses before the end of the year. This selling pressure would depress prices and the prices would rebound in January. Empirical tests of the tax- loss selling hypothesis provide mixed results. For

example, Dyl (1977) finds abnormally high volume in December for stocks that had declined in price over a previous period. Reinganum (1983) finds higher January returns for stocks that experience large declines in price in the preceding year. More recently, by analyzing individual trading data, Badrinath and Lewellen (1991), Odean (1998) and Grinblatt and Keloharju (2001) infer tax- loss selling by individual investors at the end of the year. 6 On the other hand, Reinganum (1983) finds that small firm stocks without price declines also have abnormally high January returns. Constantinides (1984) evaluates rational tax trading and concludes that the optimal strategy is not to delay loss realization until December. Chan (1986) shows empirical evidence that is inconsistent with a model that explains the January seasonal by optimal tax trading. Jones, Pearce, and Wilson (1987) discover a January effect before the imposition of income taxes when examining

5

For empirical results of the insider trading hypothesis, see Seyhun (1988) and Brauer and Chang (1990). For empirical tests of the seasonality of risk-return relation, see Rozeff and Kinney (1976), Tinic and West (1984) and Ritter and Chopra (1989).

U.S. stock returns back to 1871. These results are inconsistent with the tax- loss selling hypothesis. An alternative explanation for the January effect, proposed by Haugen and Lakonishok (1988) is institutional investor window-dressing. Window-dressing refers to actions by portfolio managers in which they sell losing issues before a period ends when they must disclose their portfolio holdings. The selling is an attempt to avoid revealing that they have held poorly performing stocks. Ritter and Chopra (1989) and Musto (1997) find evidence consistent with the window-dressing hypothesis. Because many of the predictions of the window-dressing and tax-loss selling hypotheses are the same, it is difficult to determine which, if either, drives the January effect. Sias and Starks (1997) and Poterba and Weisbenner (2001) both design controlled tests to disentangle and evaluate the two hypotheses in the equity market and find evidence more consistent with the tax- loss-selling hypothesis. However, neither of these studies is able to completely control for the potential existence of the window-dressing hypothesis. In this paper, we provide a test of the tax- loss-selling hypothesis under conditions in which the window-dressing hypothesis would not be a competing explanation. We analyze the turn-of-year returns and trading patterns of municipal bond closed-end funds, which are held almost exclusively by tax-sensitive individuals.

Other studies with results consistent with the tax-loss selling hypothesis include Ritter (1988), Lakonishok and Smidt (1986), Slemrod (1982), Dyl and Maberly (1992) and Eakins and Sewell (1993).

II. Data The principal data for this study is from the CRSP monthly stock file. For each year from 1990-2000, we obtain prices, shares outstanding, monthly volumes, and monthly returns including and excluding dividends for a sample of 168 municipal bond closed-end funds (most of which were established in the early to mid 1990s). Because the dividends on municipal bond closed-end funds are tax-exempt, but the price changes are not, tax- loss-selling behavior would be driven by the price changes only. Thus, we report the test results using the returns series excluding dividends, but the empirical results are very similar using the two types of return series. The first municipal bond closed-end fund was established in 1986. These funds became popular in the early 1990s for several reasons: (1) effective tax rates were increasing and tax law changes in 1986 removed other methods of she ltering money from taxes; (2) interest rates were falling and investors were looking for higher yields; (3) most of these funds were leveraged to produce higher tax-exempt yields (Gould, 1992a; 1992b). The number of funds grew rapidly in the early 1990s. The funds included on our database grew from 17 in 1990 to 165 in 2000, as shown in the summary statistics in Table I. Three funds went defunct during our sample period. The fund categorization is provided by CDA/Wiesenberger. The monthly returns on the municipal index are obtained from Ibbotson Associates.

III. Empirical Results A. The January effect in municipal bond closed-end funds. To test for a January effect among the municipal bond closed-end funds, we calculate, for each month, the average return for all funds that are available in that month

for the period 1990-2000. In Table II, we report the time-series average returns for each of the 12 months in a year. We find that the average return in January is 2.21 percent, as compared to an average of -0.19% for each of the other eleven months. We plot the monthly average returns in Figure 1. Using a simple time-series regression of cross- fund average returns on a January dummy variable, we find that the return is significantly higher in January than in other months at the 1% level. The regression results, reported in Table III, show that the average return in January is about 2.4% higher than the average return in other months. In a second regression, also reported in Table III, we include the monthly returns on a municipal bond index as well as the January dummy variable. Even after controlling for the municipal bond index returns, the average return in January still exceeds the average return in other months by 2.13 percent. The effect is statistically significant at the 1% level regardless of the control for municipal bond index returns. This finding indicates that the observed January effect is not due to the return seasonal in the underlying municipal bond index, which may be viewed as a proxy for the Net Asset Value (NAV) of the closed-end funds. In fact, as the last regression in the table shows, the return on the municipal bond index does not display the January seasonal pattern for the sample period from 1990 to 2000. In summary, the results in Table III provide strong evidence that the well-documented January return seasonal is present among the municipal bond closed-end funds and is not simply a derivative of a January seasonal in the underlying bond portfolios.

B. January abnormal returns and abnormal year-end volume Under the tax- loss-selling hypothesis, before year-end, investors sell securities in which they have experienced losses in order to realize capital losses for tax benefits. Stock prices for these securities then rebound in January when the selling pressure dissipates. If tax-loss selling is the true explanation for the January effect, we would expect January abnormal returns for the closed-end funds to be positively correlated with the previous year-end volume measures. Although Constantinides (1984) argues that delaying the taxloss-selling to the end of the year is not optimal, Badrinath and Lewellen (1990) find that most sales of losers occur in November and December. Further, Bhabra, Dhillon, and Ramirez (1999) document a November effect related to tax-loss selling. Thus, we focus on volume in November and December for our year-end volume. We use two different measures of turnover for each fund:

turnoverit = average November and December trading volume of fund i in year t Numberof shares outstndng for fund i in year t average November and December trading volume of fund i in year t average February to October trading volume of fund i in year t

vol _ ratio it =

The first measure is turnover, defined as a funds average monthly trading volume in November and December divided by the number of fund shares outstanding. This

measure controls for variation in the number of outstanding shares across funds. The second measure of year-end volume, the volume ratio (vol_ratio), is defined as funds average monthly trading volume in November and December divided by the funds average monthly volume from February to October in the same calendar year. It

measures the year-end volume relative to that of the other months in the same year for a fund and thus, controls for the fund-specific and time-specific fluctuations. For example,

noise due to trends in the trading volume of individual funds is moderated by adjusting the year-end volume by the nine- month average. Both the turnover and volume ratio measures allow comparisons across funds even when their normal trading volumes differ in magnitude. Using these two volume measures as alternative independent variables, we estimate the following regression equations:

Janrret it ret it210 = 0t + 1t turnoverit 1 + u it 1 Janrret it ret it210 = 0t + 1t vol _ ratioit 1 + v it 1

(1) (2)

where Janret is the return in January and ret 210 is the average monthly holding period return from February to October in the preceding year. We estimate the abnormal returns in January by controlling for the previous February to October returns. Table IV

provides the results for a panel regression. 7 As the results show, whether turnover or the volume ratio is employed as the independent variable, the coefficient is significantly positive at the 1% level. Abnormal returns in January are positively related to the

previous year-end trading volume. Further, the R2 s are 0.3883 and 0.3814 for turnover and vol_ratio, respectively, indicating that a relatively large proportion of the abnormal returns in January can be explained by the previous year-end trading activities. As a robustness test, in a similar set of regressions, instead of controlling for the previous February to October returns, we subtract from the January fund return the t-bill return for the same month. The estimates for the panel regressions are reported in Panel B of Table IV. The results are similar to those in Panel A.

The panel regression uses panel-corrected standard errors, which adjust for contemporary correlation, autocorrelation, and heteroskedasticity (Beck and Katz, 1995).

10

As a further test, rather than pooling the data, we run annual regressions of equations (1) and (2). The results are provided in Table V. 8 Consistent with the results in Table IV, the coefficients on turnover and vol _ ratio are positive and statistically significant at the 5% level for ten out of the eleven years. In summary, the results of Tables IV and V suggest that the abnormally high returns in January can be largely explained by the abnormally high volumes at year-end. This is consistent with the tax- loss selling hypothesis that the abnormal returns in January are due to the previous year-end selling pressure on these securities. Previous studies have found that most of the abnormal retur ns in January happen on the first several trading days of the month. 9 To examine whether our previous test results are driven primarily by returns on the first several trading days of January, we repeat the analysis in Table IV using the first 5-day retur ns instead of the full month return of January. We report the results in Table VI. As we see, the findings are qualitatively similar to those in Table IV: the returns in the first 5 days of January are positively related to the previous year-end trading activities. The magnitude of the coefficients on the previous year-end trading activities is smaller than that in Table IV, but the R2 s remain similar. Thus we find evidence that trading activities at the end of the year can explain a significant proportion of the variations in the returns during the first five days of January.

All year-by-year regressions report t-statistics based on the Newey-West (1987) heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent standard errors. 9 For example, see Keim (1983), Roll (1983), Ritter (1988) and Sias and Starks (1997).

11

C. Tax-loss selling at year-end In order to examine further whether the observed January return seasonal is caused by loss-taking trading of individual investors at the previo us year-end, we study the year-end volume and tax- loss selling attributes of municipal bond closed-end funds. Since municipal bond closed-end funds are held mostly by tax sensitive individuals, we expect to observe a relatively clear relation between year-end trading activities and taxloss selling attributes. Specifically, we expect funds to display significant increases in year-end trading volume, i.e. tax- loss selling at year-end, when they have experienced negative returns. If the January effect is caused by tax- loss selling, year-end volume should be greater for funds that declined more in price during the year. Thus, we

regress our year-end volume measures on the current and previous years returns as follows:

c p turnoverit = 0t + 1t returnit + 2t returnit + u it c p vol _ ratio it = 0t + 1t returnit + 2t returnit + it

(3) (4)

where return c and return p represent the current year return and the previous year return, respectively. The current year return of a fund is defined as the monthly return of

holding that fund from January to October in that year. The previous year return is defined as the monthly holding period return of the fund in the previous calendar year, from January to December. In Table VII, we report the results of the panel regressions with fund fixed effects. The regressions include a total of 144 closed-end funds in eleven years. 10 For both yearend volume measures, the coefficients on the current year and previous year returns are

12

negative and significant at the 1% level, indicating a negative relation between the yearend volume and past fund returns. Further, the R2 values in these regressions are higher than 50 percent, indicating that the past fund returns can explain a large proportion of the volume variation. These results provide substantial support for the hypothesis that

income tax considerations result in abnormal year-end trading volumes. Table VII shows that year-end abnormal volume can be generally explained by the returns over the previous two years. During our sample period there were seve ral years with negative returns in the bond markets, which require further analysis. Figure 2 exhibits the average annual return across funds for each year from 1990-2000 and indicates substantial variation in the municipal bond funds returns. The return for a year is calculated by compounding the average monthly returns. In three of the eleven years, the average annual return is negative: around -3%, -20%, -22% in 1990, 1994 and 1999 respectively. These returns can be compared to the vo lume in the funds over those time periods. Figure 3 shows the average monthly fund turnover over the sample period where average monthly turnover is calculated by summing up the turnovers of all available funds in that month and dividing by the number of funds. We find that, in each of the three years with negative returns, the year-end turnover is indeed larger. The pattern is most prominent in 1994 and 1999, when these funds experience the largest losses. Further, in years following large loss years, in particular 1995, 1996 and 2000, the year-end turnover is still higher, most likely due to a lag effect in the selling of the fund shares. The losses in 1994 and 1999 are so large that the funds, on average, still do not regain their previous prices in the subsequent years of 1995 and 2000 (as can be seen

10

We lose some fund observations because we require each fund to have complete return data for the past two years.

13

from Figure 2). Thus, investors can continue to realize accrued capital losses at the following year-ends. Given the differences across the years in year-end trading volume shown in Figure 3, we also estimate annual cross-sectional regressions of the year-end volume measures on the current and the previous year returns, with equations (3) and (4). The coefficient estimates and their corresponding t statistics are reported in Table VIII. Using turnover (the volume ratio) as the dependent variable, we find a significantly negative coefficient on the current year return in six (eight) of the 11 years. Furthermore, the negative relation between the year-end volume and the current year return is most prominent in 1994 and 1999, when funds experience the largest losses (the average annual returns are around 20% and 22%, respectively). The coefficients on the previous year return are significantly negative at the 5% level in at least five of the 11 years. The negative relation between the year-end volume and the previous year return is strongest in 1995 and 2000, which would be consistent with a lag tax- loss effect. Because of the huge losses in 1994 and 1999 for municipal bond closed-end funds, in the years immediately following them the funds still do not fully recover from their previous losses. As a result, investors continue to gain tax benefits from late- in-the-year losstaking activities. The regression results again suggest a negative relation between yearend volume and current / previous fund returns and confirm the evidence presented in Figures 2 and 3.

14

D. January volume According to the tax- loss-selling hypothesis, the trading volume in January would also be higher for closed-end funds that have declined in value during the previous years, since the investors will reinvest in these funds in January. To test this hypothesis, we estimate similar regressions as those in equations (3) and (4), but using January volume measures (turnove r and vol_ratio) instead of year-end volume measures. The results of the panel regressions with fund fixed effects are shown in Table IX. The regressions include a total of 141 closed-end funds in ten years. All the coefficients on the returns are negative and significant at the 5% level, indicating a negative relation between the volume in January and previous fund returns. Thus, we find evidence that funds that incurred more capital losses in the previous years experience higher trading volume at year-end and in January. We notice that the magnitude of the estimates in Table IX is generally smaller than that in the year-end (November/December) volume regressions in Table VII. The weaker relation between January volumes and current or previous returns seems to suggest that not all investors reinvest in January. When we estimate these regressions on an annual basis (not shown), we find that the coefficient on the previous year return is significantly negative at the 5% level in three and four of the years, using turnover and volume ratio, respectively. In summary, we find evidence that the abnormal returns in January can be explained largely by the turn-of the year trading activities, which are in turn closely related to the tax- loss attributes of these funds in the previous two years.

15

E. December and January buy-sell ratios If tax- loss-selling is the explanation for the abnormal December and January trading volumes, then we should also observe differences in the buy-sell ratio around the year end. We should also observe the ratio to be related to the current January returns and the previous years returns. To construct a ratio of apparent buy to sell volume for the turn-of-the- year period, we use the intraday trade and quote data from TAQ for the 1993 through 2000 period and classify individual trades as market buy or market sell orders following the algorithm proposed by Lee and Ready (1991). 11 Using the

classified buys and sells, we aggregate the buy volume and sell volume for the last five days in December and the first 5 days in January for each fund and construct the funds average buy-sell ratios for those periods. Table X shows the buy-sell ratios for the last five trading days of December and the first five trading days of January for the funds in our sample. Before the turn-of-theyear, the buy-sell ratio averages less than one, indicating a selling pressure at the end of the year. After the turn-of-year, the buy-sell ratio averages greater than one, indicating a buying pressure at the beginning of the year. Moreover, both the buy-sell ratio over the last five days of December and over the first five days of January are significantly different from 1 at the one percent level; the buy-sell ratio in January is significantly higher than the buy-sell ratio in December at the one percent level. Consistent with the

11

According to this algorithm, trades are classified by comparing the transaction price to the prices of the prevailing quote, if available. Trades at the bid price are classified as sells and trades at the ask price are classified as buys. The prevailing quote is the current quote or the quote in effect five seconds ago if the current quote is less than five seconds old. Following Lee and Ready, we only include quotes issued by the primary (NYSE) specialist and that are BBO-eligible, that is, eligible for inclusion in the NASD Best Bid and Offer calculation. When a BBO-eligible quote is unavailable or when a trade is at the midpoint of a spread, the tick test is used, so that the trade is classified as a buy (sell) if the price change immediately before the trade is positive (negative). Trades inside the spread, but not at the middle of the spread, are

16

predictions of the tax- loss selling hypothesis, the three largest differences between the January and December buy-sell ratios occurred in the periods 1994-1995, 1995-1996, and 1999-2000, which follow the large losses in the municipal bond markets in 1994 and 1999. Table XI provides the results of a panel regression of the December (January) buy-sell ratios against the current year and previous year returns. The results show that the buy-sell ratio in the last few days of December is strongly related to the return over the previous February to October, as well as the return over the year proceeding the current year. Municipal bond closed-end funds are sold more/purchased less at the end of the year when the preceding returns are low. On the other hand, the buy-sell ratio in January is negatively related to the preceding returns: when funds have performed poorly, they are more likely to be associated with a higher buy-sell ratio in January, suggesting more reinvestment activities. We further examine whether the January 5-day return and January 5-day buy-sell ratio are related. The results of this regression are provided in Table XII. As would be expected, a strong relation exists between the return and the buy-sell ratio, suggesting that the abnormal return in early January can be partly explained by the abnormal purchasing activities. In summary, we find evidence that investors sell on capital losses at the end of the year and move them to similar tax-advantaged funds at the beginning of the year. The December and January buy-sell ratios are related to the asset returns in a manner consistent with the tax-loss selling hypothesis.

classified by their proximity to the bid or ask price trades closer to the bid (ask) are classified as sells (buys). All trades except opening trades are included in the analysis.

17

F. Tax-loss selling and brokerage firms A direct implication of the tax- loss-selling hypothesis is that investors who receive investment advice would be more likely to engage in tax- loss selling. In this regard, we develop a further brokerage hypothesis, which has not been previous ly examined. We posit that closed-end funds held by investors who receive more tax Under this hypothesis, funds

associated with a brokerage firm are more subject to tax- loss selling because the brokers would presumably advise the investors to take advantage of the tax benefits in realizing capital losses at year-end. To test this hypothesis, we include a brokerage dummy variable equal to one if a closed-end fund management company is associated with a brokerage firm, and equal to zero otherwise. We interact this dummy variable with the current and previous year returns. The fixed-effects panel regression results are shown in Table XIII. The two models included in the table differ in their dependent variables: the first model uses turnover as the year-end volume measure while the second model uses vol_ratio. Note that the dummy variable estimates are not listed in the table because they are picked up by the intercepts (fixed effects). As shown in the table, the coefficients on the past fund return and the brokerage-return interaction terms are negative and significant at the 5% level in all but one case. The regression results indicate that in addition to the negative return- volume relation, brokerage counseling is an important factor that explains investor year-end tax-motivated trading activities. Thus, funds associated with brokerage firms

18

display a stronger pattern of tax-loss selling at the end of the year, which supports the hypothesis that brokerage firms advise their clients to engage in tax- motivated trading. In summary, Table XIII indicates that tax counseling has significant effects on year-end tax-motivated trading as the brokerage-related closed-end funds display a stronger pattern of tax- loss selling.

IV. Conclusion The fact that municipal bond closed-end funds are held almost entirely by taxsensitive individual investors make them good candidates for the study of tax- loss selling as an explanation for the January effect. In this paper, we find evidence that the tax- loss selling behavior of investors at year-end accounts for a large proportion of the January effect for this particular set of securities. In particular, we find that the abnormal returns of the municipal bond closed-end funds in January are positively correlated with the yearend trading volumes and that the year-end volumes are negatively related to the current and the previous year returns. Our findings support the tax- loss-selling hypothesis. In addition, we find that closed-end funds associated with brokerage firms display more taxloss selling behavior. In summary, we find a significant January effect among a set of securities that are held only by individual investors. We provide direct evidence that the observed January effect can be explained by the tax- loss-selling hypothesis.

19

References Badrinath, S. G., and Wilbur G. Lewellen, 1991, Evidence on tax- motivated securities trading behavior, Journal of Finance 46, 369-382. Banz, R. W., 1981, The relationship between return and market value of common stocks, Journal of Financial Economics 9, 3-18. Beck, Nathaniel, and Jonathan N. Katz, 1995, What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data, The American Political Science Review 89(3), 634-647. Bergstresser, Daniel B., and James Poterba, 2002. Do after-tax returns affect mutual fund inflows? Journal of Financial Economics 63, 381-414. Bhabra, Harjeet, Upinder Dhillon, and Gabriel Ramirez, 1999, A November effect? revisiting the tax-loss-selling hypothesis, Financial Management 28, 5-15. Blume, M. E., and R. F. Stambaugh, 1983, Bias in computed returns: An application to the size effect, Journal of Financial Economics 12, 387-404. Branch, B., 1977, A tax loss trading rule, Journal of Business 50, 198-207. Brauer, Greggory A., and Eric C. Chang, 1990, Return seasonality in stocks and their underlying assets: tax-loss selling versus information explanations, Review of Financial Studies 3, 255-280. Brickley, J., S. Manaster, and J. Schallheim, 1991, The tax timing option and the discount on closed-end investment companies, Journal of Business 64, 287-312. Chan, K. C., 1986, Can tax- loss selling explain the January seasonal in stock returns, Journal of Finance 41, 1115-1128. Chang, Eric C., and Michael J. Pinegar, 1986, Return seasonality and tax- loss selling in the market for long-term government and corporate bonds, Journal of Financial Economics 17, 391-415. Constantinides, George, 1984, Optimal stock trading with personal taxes, Journal of Financial Economics 13, 65-89. Dyl, Edward, 1977, Capital gains taxation and year-end stock market behavior, Journal of Finance 32, 165-175. Dyl, Edward, and Edwin Maberly, 1992, Odd-lot transactions around the turn of the year and the January effect, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 27, 591-604. Eakins, Stan, and Susan Sewell, 1993, Tax- loss selling, institutional investors, and the January effect: A note, Journal of Financial Research 16, 377-384. Givoly, Dan and Arie Ovadia, 1983, Year-end induced sales and stock market seasonality, Journal of Finance 38, 171-185. Gould, Carole, 1992a, Mutual funds; popular closed-end municipals, New York Times (April 12), p.18. Gould, Carole, 1992b, Mutual funds; bargain look in closed-end munis, New York Times (July 12), p.16.

20

Grinblatt, Mark, and Matti Keloharju, 2001, What makes investors trade, Journal of Finance 56, 589-616. Grinblatt, Mark, and Matti Keloharju, 2004, Tax- loss trading and wash sales, Journal of Financial Economics 71, 51-76. Haugen, Robert, and Josef Lakonishok, 1988, The incredible January effect: The stock markets unsolved mystery (Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, Illinois). Jones, Charles, Douglas Pearce, and Jack Wilson, 1987, Can tax- loss selling explain the January effect? A note, Journal of Finance 42, 453-461. Keim, Donald, 1983, Size-related anomalies and stock return seasonality: Further empirical evidence, Journal of Financial Economics 12, 12-32. Laing, J. R., 1987, Burnt offerings: Closed-end funds bring no blessings to shareholders, Barrons August 10, 1987, 32-36. Lakonishok, Josef, and Seymour Smidt, 1986, Volume for winners and losers: taxation and other motives for stock trading, Journal of Finance 41, 951-974. Lee, Charles M., and Mark J. Ready, 1991, Inferring trade direction from intraday data, Journal of Finance 46, 733-746. Maxwell, William, 1998, The January effect in the corporate bond market: A systematic examination, Financial Management 27, 18-30. Musto, David K., 1997, Portfolio disclosures and year-end price shifts, Journal of Finance 52, 1563-1588. Newey, Whitney, and Kenneth West, 1987, A simple positive definite, heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix, Econometrica 5, 703-705. Odean, Terrance, 1998, Are investors reluctant to realize their losses, Journal of Finance 53, 1775-1798. Peavy, John III W., 1995, New evidence on the turn-of-the-year effect from closed-end fund IPOs, Journal of Financial Services Research 9, 49-64. Poterba, James M. and Scott J. Weisbenner, 2001, Capital gains tax rules, tax- loss trading, and turn-of-the-year returns, Journal of Finance 56, 353-368. Quinn, J. B., 1987, Playing the closed-end funds, Newsweek August 17, 1987, 65. Reinganum, Marc, 1983, The anomalous stock market behavior of small firms in January, Journal of Financial Economics 12, 89-104. Ritter, Jay, 1988, The buying and selling behavior of individual investors at the turn of the year, Journal of Finance 43, 701-717. Ritter, Jay, and Navin Chopra, 1989, Portfolio rebalancing and the turn of the year effect, Journal of Finance 44, 149-166. Roll, Richard, 1983, Vas ist das? The turn-of-the-year effect and the return premia of small firms, Journal of Portfolio Management 9, 18-28.

21

Rozeff, Michael and William Kinney, 1976, Capital market seasonality: The case of stock returns, Journal of Financial Economics 3, 379-402. Seyhun, H. Nejat, 1988, The January effect and aggregate insider trading, Journal of Finance 43, 129-141. Sias, Richard W., and Laura T. Starks, 1997, Institutions and individuals at the turn-ofthe-year, Journal of Finance 52, 1543-1562. Siconolfi, M., 1987, Launching of closed-end funds may ease, Wall Street Journal November 27, 1987, 29. Slemrod, Joel, 1982, The effect of capital gains taxation on year-end stock market behavior, National Tax Journal 35, 69-77. Tinic, Seha M., and Richard R. West, 1984, Risk and return: January vs. the rest of the year, Journal of Financial Economics 13, 561-574.

22

Table I Descriptive Statistics of Municipal Bond Closed-End Fund Sample Over the Period 1990-2000 For each year from 1990 through 2000, this table shows descriptive statistics for the shares outstanding (in thousands), monthly volume, and monthly returns (without dividends) on the municipal bond closed-end funds with data available in that year. The table shows the mean, standard deviation, maximum and minimum statistics for each of these variables along with the number of funds with available data in each year. The total sample of funds is 168, with 3 funds having terminated before the end of the sample period. Year 1990 Variable Shares o/s Volume Return Shares o/s Volume Return Shares o/s Volume Return Shares o/s Volume Return Shares o/s Volume Return Shares o/s Volume Return Shares o/s Volume Return Shares o/s Volume Return Shares o/s Volume Return Shares o/s Vo lume Return Shares o/s Volume Return Mean 27018.94 637467.8 -0.00234 25828.05 653597 0.004562 21954.01 572512.9 0.000124 17157.68 477409.9 0.00159 16641.69 557166.8 -0.01822 17435.09 491234.1 0.012917 18002.86 473169.8 0.003026 18106.74 450436.8 0.00757 18039.57 403139.2 0.003163 17949.15 579137.8 -0.02072 18029.93 497481.7 0.008166 Std. Dev. 28225.53 610549.5 0.028391 25783.04 555367.4 0.020862 22673.08 580170.5 0.027073 19615.5 551556.5 0.027923 19241.33 762609 0.040001 19180.86 561003.2 0.034963 21027.94 598960.7 0.025149 21131.1 618346.5 0.021618 20996.81 513977.3 0.023215 20039.73 871530.1 0.02801 20124.97 608110.4 0.030918 Minimum 3113 21500 -0.10811 3119 12300 -0.08955 2607 5000 -0.10084 1007 3500 -0.125 1007 9200 -0.14851 1007 8000 -0.08491 1007 5900 -0.08929 1007 8800 -0.07767 1007 4800 -0.09884 1007 1200 -0.19745 1007 3500 -0.17949 Maximum 159110 4066100 0.090909 161132 3702800 0.075758 162145 5329000 0.088496 164230 5723700 0.103896 166371 9102200 0.105263 166371 6709800 0.192771 194960 10940500 0.130952 194960 8608000 0.085 194960 6470200 0.072034 194960 15146498 0.075438 194960 7449100 0.139535 N 17

1991

30

1992

37

1993

62

1994

107

1995

140

1996

141

1997

141

1998

141

1999

145

2000

165

23

Table II Monthly Average Return for Municipal Bond Closed-End Funds (1990-2000) This table shows the average monthly return, broken down by month, for the sample of closed-end funds. The last row of the panel shows the average across all months except January. Month Average Return 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2-12 0.0221 0.0011 -0.0153 -0.0025 -0.0012 0.0065 0.0102 -0.0033 -0.0093 -0.0105 0.0023 0.0009 -0.0019

24

Table III This table shows three regressions of monthly returns. Model (1) shows monthly returns against monthly dummy variables. Model (2) is the same regression but also controlling for a monthly municipal bond index return. Model (3) is a regression of the monthly municipal bond index return against the monthly dummy variables. The table shows only the estimated coefficients for the January dummy variables along with the accompanying t-statistics and the regression R2s. All t-statistics are based on the Newey-West (1987) heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent standard errors (t-statistics in parentheses). The coefficients for the other months, not shown, are never significantly different from zero at the 5% level. Monthly Return = -0.00192 (Intercept) + 0.02403 (Jan) (-1.03) (2.74)***

R2 adjusted = 0.0964

Monthly Return = -0.00841 (Intercept) + 0.02133 (Jan) + 1.12301 (Muni index return) (-5.73)*** (2.80)*** (8.75)*** R2 adjusted = 0.5262 Municipal Bond Index Monthly Return = 0.00578 (Intercept) + 0.00241 (Jan) (5.04)*** (0.85) R2 adjusted = -0.0046

* indicates statistically significant at the 10% level; ** at the 5% level; *** at the 1% level.

25

Table IV Panel Regression of January Returns on Volume Measures This table shows the coefficients from regressions of adjusted January returns against volume measures. Model (1) measures volume by turnover and Model (2) measures volume by the volume ratio. In Panel A the January return is adjusted by the previous February through October average returns. In Panel B the January return is adjusted by the same months treasury bill return. There are 144 cross-sections and eleven years of data. All t-statistics are based on the panel corrected standard errors (PCSEs), which adjust for contemp oraneous correlation, autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity.

Panel A. January Returns Adjusted for Previous Feb-Oct Average Returns on Previous Year's Volume Measures Model (1) Model (2)

Janrret it ret

210 it 1

= 0 + 1 turnoverit 1 + u it

t-statistic -1.33 4.00 R2 0.3883

Janrret it ret

210 it 1

= 0 + 1 vol _ ratioit 1 + v it

t-statistic -1.52 3.40 R2 0.3814

Intercept Turnover

Intercept Vol_ratio

Panel B. January Returns Adjusted for Same Period T-Bill Returns on Previous Year's Volume Measures Coefficient Estimates (Panel Corrected Standard Errors in Parentheses) Model (1) Model (2)

Coefficients -0.0138 (0.0132) 0.000092*** (0.000030) T Value -1.04 3.10 R2 0.2805

Coefficients -0.0180 (0.0167) 0.0257** (0.0102) T Value -1.08 2.52 R2 0.2538

Intercept Turnover

Intercept Vol_ratio

* indicates statistically significant at the 10% level; ** at the 5% level; *** at the 1% level.

26

Table V Regression Results for January Returns Adjusted for Previous Feb-Oct Average Returns on Previous Year's Volume Measures This table shows the coefficients from annual regressions of adjusted January returns against volume measures. Model (1) measures volume by turnover and Model (2) measures volume by the volume ratio. The January return is adjusted by the previous February through October average returns. All tstatistics are based on the Newey-West (1987) heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent standard errors. Coefficient Estimates (t-statistics in parentheses) Model (1) Model (2)

Janrret it ret

Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 0 -0.0487*** (-3.05) -0.0084 (-0.72) -0.0080 (-0.64) -0.0048 (-0.40) 0.0056 (1.39) 0.0560*** (6.18) 0.0119* (1.71) -0.0105** (-2.59) -0.0026 (-0.69) -0.0635*** (-10.50) 0.0377*** (7.26)

210 it 1

= 0t + 1t turnoverit 1 + uit

1 0.00029*** (3.77) 0.00012*** (3.60) 0.00007 (1.38) 0.00013** (2.58) 0.00003*** (3.23) 0.00010*** (7.33) 0.00006*** (3.10) 0.00007*** (5.79) 0.00008*** (4.63) 0.00015*** (4.87) 0.00001** (1.98) R2 adjusted 0.4394 0.1367 0.0447 0.1881 0.0513 0.2810 0.0834 0.1475 0.1104 0.1598 0.0145

Janrret it ret

0 -0.0455** (-2.72) -0.0187 (-0.77) -0.0314*** (-2.78) -0.0079 (-0.60) 0.0008 (0.11) 0.0418** (2.61) -0.0127 (-1.65) -0.0133** (-1.99) 0.0006 (0.11) -0.0539*** (-8.02) 0.0245*** (3.14)

210 it 1

1 0.0582*** (3.49) 0.0341* (1.90) 0.0429*** (4.08) 0.0376** (2.47) 0.0133** (2.14) 0.0313*** (4.79) 0.0307*** (6.13) 0.0203*** (3.80) 0.0150*** (2.76) 0.0208*** (2.86) 0.0081*** (2.96) R2 adjusted 0.2029 0.0834 0.2355 0.0658 0.0434 0.2142 0.2043 0.0682 0.0421 0.0472 0.0501 N 17 30 37 62 107 140 141 141 141 145 165

* indicates statistically significant at the 10% level; ** at the 5% level; *** at the 1% level.

27

Table VI Panel Regressions of January 5-Day Returns against Volume Measures This table shows the coefficients from regressions of returns in the first five days of January against volume measures. Model (1) measures volume by turnover and Model (2) measures volume by the volume ratio. In Panel A of the table the January return is adjusted by the previous February through October average returns. In Panel B the January return is adjusted by the same periods treasury bill return. There are 144 crosssections and eleven years of data. All t-statistics are based on the panel corrected standard errors (PCSEs), which adjust for contemporaneous correlation, autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity. Panel A. January 5-Day Returns Adjusted for Previous Feb-Oct Average Returns on Previous Year's Volume Measures Coefficient Estimates (Panel Corrected Standard Errors in Parentheses) Model (1) Model (2)

210 it 1

= 0 + 1 turnoverit 1 + uit

T Value -1.16 4.30 R2 0.3732

210 it 1

T Value -1.59 3.88 R2 0.3986

Intercept Turnover

Intercept Vol_ratio

Panel B. January 5-Day Returns Adjusted for Same Period T-Bill Returns on Previous Year's Volume Measures Coefficient Estimates (Panel Corrected Standard Errors in Parentheses) Model (1) Model (2)

Coefficients -0.0042 (0.0063) 0.000044*** (0.000014) T Value -0.67 3.05 R2 0.2009

Coefficients -0.0069 (0.0081) 0.0125** (0.0049) T Value -0.85 2.54 R2 0.1944

Intercept Turnover

Intercept Vol_ratio

* indicates statistically significant at the 10% level; ** at the 5% level; *** at the 1% level.

28

Table VII Results for Panel Regression with Fixed Effects for Funds: Year -End Volume Measures on Current Year and Previous Year's Returns This table shows the coefficients from regressions of year-end volume measures on the current-year and previous-year returns, where current year returns are measured from February through October. Model (1) measures volume by turnover and Model (2) measures volume by the volume ratio. Coefficients on firm fixed effects and constants are not reported. There are 144 cross-sections and eleven years of data. All t-statistics are based on the panel corrected standard errors (PCSEs), which adjust for contemporaneous correlation, autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity. Coefficient Estimates (Panel Corrected Standard Errors in Parentheses ) Model (1) Model (2)

p it

c vol _ ratio it = 0i + 1 return it + 2 return itp + it

c it

Return

Return p

R2 0.5302

R2 0.6228

* indicates statistically significant at the 10% level; ** at the 5% level; *** at the 1% level.

29

Table VIII Regression Results for Year-End Volume Measures on Current Year and Previous Year's Returns This table shows the coefficients from annual regressions of year-end volume measures on the current-year and previous-year returns, where current year returns are measured from February through October. Model (1) measures volume by turnover and Model (2) measures volume by the volume ratio. All t-statistics are based on the Newey-West (1987) heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent standard errors. Coefficient Estimates (t-statistics in parentheses) Model (1) Model (2)

p it

c vol _ ratio it = 0t + 1t return it + 2t return itp + it

c it

Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

0 0.0224*** (6.19) 0.0251*** (5.87) 0.0246*** (13.91) 0.0295*** (9.35) 0.0247*** (3.76) 0.0139*** (2.75) 0.0313*** (13.39) 0.0207*** (13.32) 0.0206*** (12.49) 0.0160** (2.03) 0.0069 (1.24)

1 -0.5575* (-1.98) -0.2162 (-0.30) -1.2421*** (-3.41) -0.3357 (-1.03) -1.8760*** (-5.39) -0.7737** (-2.48) -0.0755 (-0.33) 0.5679*** (2.81) -0.4429*** (-2.71) -2.8102*** (-7.78) -2.4447*** (-3.99)

2 -0.5306 (-1.38) -0.3219 (-0.83) -0.4741* (-1.95) -0.7385*** (-2.77) -0.1353 (-0.30) -1.9054*** (-4.96) -0.0215 (-0.11) -0.7552*** (-3.85) 0.0648 (0.35) -1.6566*** (-2.80) -2.0182*** (-4.85)

R2 adjusted 0.0367 -0.0465 0.3191 0.0610 0.2401 0.2348 -0.0139 0.1523 0.0479 0.3496 0.3085

0 1.1197*** (13.40) 1.1350*** (7.60) 0.9588*** (38.05) 1.4394*** (10.53) 1.8882*** (10.03) 1.0656*** (6.45) 1.3141*** (19.05) 1.0026*** (21.96) 1.0407*** (12.78) 1.1279*** (5.22) 0.9553*** (8.07)

1 -31.0409*** (-4.62) -32.9375 (-1.50) -14.2994*** (-6.12) -39.1786** (-2.64) -30.6106*** (-3.76) -29.3155*** (-3.04) 0.5561 (0.09) -5.8208 (-0.98) -20.7269*** (-4.20) -88.1825*** (-8.01) -42.1940*** (-7.44)

2 -21.2405* (-1.76) -26.5554* (-2.01) -16.0399*** (-4.35) -19.6083* (-1.99) -22.1838 (-1.46) -44.3644*** (-4.73) -6.6137 (-1.35) -20.6876*** (-2.91) -6.1782 (-0.62) -22.8311 (-1.63) -30.3601*** (-5.73)

R2 adjusted 0.3587 0.1223 0.4193 0.1543 0.0883 0.1658 -0.0048 0.0566 0.0788 0.4005 0.3620

* indicates statistically significant at the 10% level; ** at the 5% level; *** at the 1% level.

30

Table IX Results for Panel Regression with Fixed Effects for Funds: January Volume Measures on Previous Two Years Returns This table shows the coefficients from regressions of January volume measures on the previous two years returns. Model (1) measures volume by turnover and Model (2) measures volume by the volume ratio. Coefficients on firm fixed effects and constants are not reported. There are 141 crosssections and ten years of data. All t-statistics are based on the panel corrected standard errors (PCSEs), which adjust for contemporaneous correlation, autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity. Coefficient Estimates (Panel Corrected Standard Errors in Parentheses) Model (1) Model (2)

turnover = 0i + 1 return

J it

( 1) it

+ 2 return

( 2) it

+ u it

Return

(-1)

Return (-2)

R2 0.1505

R2 0.0711

* indicates statistically significant at the 10% level; ** at the 5% level; *** at the 1% level.

31

Table X 5-Day Buy to Sell Ratios around the Turn-of-the-Year: January 1993-December 2000 This table shows the buy-sell ratios for the last five trading days of December and the first five trading days of January around the turn-of-the-year, where transaction buy and sell orders are aggregated into daily buy and sell volumes using the Lee-Ready (1991) algorithm to classify trades. Panel A. 5-Day Buy to Sell Ratios, January 1993-December 2000 Period by Years Last 5 days of December First 5 days of January 1992-1993 1.4209 1993-1994 1.0770 1.4795 1994-1995 0.7223 1.8881 1995-1996 0.9171 1.5785 1996-1997 0.9266 1.3759 1997-1998 0.8752 1.1743 1998-1999 0.8056 0.7904 1999-2000 0.6734 1.2868 2000-2001 0.8113 Average 0.8511 1.3743 Panel B. Tests of Differences H0 : Mean of the December buy to sell ratio = 1. t-statistic = -3.31 (p-value = 0.0130) H0 : Mean of the January buy to sell ratio = 1. t-statistic = 3.33 (p-value = 0.0126) H0 : Mean of differences between the January buy to sell ratio and the prior Decembers buy to sell ratio = 0. t-statistic = 3.70 (p-value = 0.0100)

32

Table XI Results for Panel Regression with Fixed Effects for Funds: December Last 5-Day and January First 5-Day Buy to Sell Ratio on Current Year and Previous Years Returns This table shows the coefficients from regressions of buy-sell ratios on the current-year and previous-year returns, where current year returns are measured from February through October. The data covers the 1993-2000 period. There are 139 cross-sections and eight years of data. Coefficients on the firm fixed effects and constants are not reported. All t-statistics are based on the panel corrected standard errors (PCSEs), which adjust for contemporaneous correlation, autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity. Panel A. December Last 5-day buy to sell ratio Coefficient Estimates (Panel Corrected Standard Errors in Parentheses) R2 0.0199

Return

Return p

Panel B. January First 5-day buy to sell ratio Coefficient Estimates (Panel Corrected Standard Errors in Parentheses) R2 0.0647

Return

Return p

* indicates statistically significant at the 10% level; ** at the 5% level; *** at the 1% level.

33

Table XII Results for Panel Regression: January First 5-Day Return on January First 5-Day Buy-Sell Ratio This table shows the coefficients from regressions of daily returns on buy-sell ratios, both measured contemporaneously over the first five days of January. The data covers the 1993-2000 period. There are 136 cross-sections and eight years of data. Coefficients on the firm fixed effects and constant are not reported. All t-statistics are based on the panel corrected standard errors (PCSEs), which adjust for contemporaneous correlation, autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity. Coefficient Estimates (Panel Corrected Standard Errors in Parentheses ) R2 0.2070

Buy-Sell Ratio

T Value 6.70

* indicates statistically significant at the 10% level; ** at the 5% level; *** at the 1% level.

34

Table XIII Results for Panel Regression with Fixed Effects for Funds: Year -End Volume Measures on Current Year and Previous Year's Returns with Brokerage Dummy and Interaction Terms Added This table shows the coefficients from regressions of year-end volume measures on the current-year and previous-year returns, where current year returns are measured from February through October, and on these returns interacted with a dummy variable equal to one if the closedend funds sponsor is also affiliated with a brokerage firm. Return c_D and Return p _D are the interaction terms between the brokerage dummy and the previous two year returns respectively. Model (1) measures volume by turnover and Model (2) measures volume by the volume ratio. Coefficients on firm fixed effects and constants are not reported. There are 144 cross-sections and eleven years of data. All t statistics are based on the panel corrected standard errors (PCSEs), which adjust for contemporaneous correlation, autocorrelation and heteroskedasticity. Coefficient Estimates (Panel Corrected Standard Errors in Parentheses) Model (1) Turnover Coefficients -1.1636*** (0.2005) -0.5458** (0.2134) -0.8001*** (0.1277) -0.5984*** (0.1138) T Value -5.80 -2.56 -6.27 -5.26 R2 0.5665 Coefficients -51.4226*** (6.8305) -21.7059*** (6.9959) -15.7831** (7.8270) -5.9738 (8.4917) Model (2) Vol_ratio T Value -7.53 -3.10 -2.02 -0.70 R2 0.6319

* indicates statistically significant at the 10% level; ** at the 5% level; *** at the 1% level.

35

2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0.0% -0.5% -1.0% -1.5% -2.0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

36

20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 90 -5.0% -10.0% -15.0% -20.0% -25.0% 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00

37

0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0

Ja n90 Ju l-9 0 Ja n91 Ju l-9 1 Ja n92 Ju l-9 2 Ja n93 Ju l-9 3 Ja n94 Ju l-9 4 Ja n95 Ju l-9 5 Ja n96 Ju l-9 6 Ja n97 Ju l-9 7 Ja n98 Ju l-9 8 Ja n99 Ju l-9 9 Ja n00 Ju l-0 0

Dec-99

Dec-94

Dec-00

38

- FIN630 Quiz solutionHochgeladen voncs619finalproject.com
- Investments, 10th Ed, Bodie, Alex Kane, Alan MarcusHochgeladen vonpino
- Exercise 10Hochgeladen vonapi-3737025
- Historical Gold Price PerformanceHochgeladen vonanipchin
- Is Economic Growth Good for InvestorsHochgeladen vondpbasic
- Andrade G - New Evidence and Perspectives on MergersHochgeladen vonsergiosiade
- irjfe_22_15Hochgeladen vonSandeep Boddu
- Free Report Stealth StocksHochgeladen vonschmich
- THE PERFORMANCE OF INVESTMENT COMPANIES IN RUSSIAHochgeladen vonSveta
- Investor Sentiment and the Closed-End Fund Puzzle (Nice Page)Hochgeladen vonDavid Lim
- Chapter 13Hochgeladen vonAnonymous bf1cFDuepP
- Equity FinancingHochgeladen vonrobinjames24
- financeHochgeladen vonPaul Radido
- LIC%20Jeevan_Anand.ppsHochgeladen vonJay Prakash Tiwari
- Shapiro CHAPTER 2 SolutionsHochgeladen vonPradeep Hemachandran
- Group - 1 (Kiran Mazumdar Shaw )Hochgeladen vonAshish Goyal
- Obtaining Financial FreedomHochgeladen voncpsankar
- Investmentmanagement Anjaligopallokendra 121126095502 Phpapp01Hochgeladen vonnas
- 9666181-CHHochgeladen vonashish_bhalla98
- Management Advisory ServicesHochgeladen vonJovz Bumohya
- Single Security Return ProblemsHochgeladen vonVijaya Kadiyala
- Barclay 1989 (Premium)Hochgeladen vonAvinash Mehrotra
- HW3B_CDHochgeladen vonIcanDOit
- All Cap Growth Equity Fact Sheet - September 2017 - FINALHochgeladen vonRonal Córdova
- Formulario PMPHochgeladen vonPepe Trejo
- Financial Management (1)Hochgeladen vonArun Reddy
- CASH FLOW MANAGEMENT - PROPOSAL.docxHochgeladen vonbogere moses
- Fonderia di Torino.pdfHochgeladen vonBilly Gema
- 02652320910928218.pdfHochgeladen vonrohil qureshi
- ch5Hochgeladen vonChaucer19

- g0o1Hochgeladen vonbodai
- Tiger Woods ComplaintHochgeladen vonjmaglich1
- 10000013453Hochgeladen vonChapter 11 Dockets
- R16_Intercorporate_Investment_Q_Bank.pdfHochgeladen vonZidane Khan
- Role and Function of Brokerage FirmHochgeladen vonSrinibash Behura
- Elizabeth Patrick Assignment 1.2Hochgeladen vonAlex
- Tan Choon Yong v Goh Jon Keat and Others AndHochgeladen vonANA
- 2012 L1 Equity QuizHochgeladen vonAli Khan
- Acquisition Leveraged Finance%28한성원%29Hochgeladen vonClaire Jingyi Li
- Washington Mutual (WMI) - Response of the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders to Statement of DebtorsHochgeladen vonmeischer
- Lyons RaymondJamesSuitHochgeladen vonShreveport Times
- Mas ReviewerHochgeladen vonMichelle Aviles
- Para Banking by Management Fund AHochgeladen vonPrerna Gill
- NEPHILA - PSERS Presentation RevisedHochgeladen vonPAindy
- Investment BanksHochgeladen vonankit2016
- Asset and Liability Management in BanksHochgeladen vonlaser544
- Sunset View Condominium CorporationHochgeladen vonBarra Queley
- The Features of Long Term DebtsHochgeladen vonMicah Ramayka
- New Revised Project..on Commercial paperHochgeladen vonAkshay Mahadik
- Bloomberg Training ManualHochgeladen vonrajdeep91_singh
- Homework Assignment – Week 2 - AnswersHochgeladen vonVoThienTruc
- BIR FORM 2551Q (2018)Hochgeladen vonObin Tambasacan Baggayan
- Tax 1 FinalsHochgeladen vonJauhari C. Azis
- Money MartketHochgeladen vonALI
- Stairway to Shareholder Heaven - Exploring Self-Affinity in Return on InvestmentHochgeladen vonpjs15
- Macquarie Us Globalist 200614 e 183390Hochgeladen vonAnonymous uiD5GJBg
- company law notes PROSPECTUS.docxHochgeladen vonVarun Bhomia
- Company law NotesHochgeladen vonIshank Singh
- 1st Circuit Appellate - Juarez v Select Portfolio Servicing - Failure to State a Claim, HO Challenge to PSA, Fraud - Excellent for Use in ArgumentsHochgeladen von4EqltyMom
- Chapter 2.pdfHochgeladen vonarwa_mukadam03