- Research
- Open Access
Day-of-the-week returns and mood: an exterior template approach
- Shlomo Zilca^{1}Email authorView ORCID ID profile
- Received: 6 October 2017
- Accepted: 1 November 2017
- Published: 2 December 2017
Abstract
Rule- and template-based pattern-recognition methods are alternative ways to identify various patterns in stock prices alongside more traditional econometric tools. In this study, we generate an exterior template of mood scores from two perplexingly similar samples of mood scores 50 years apart. The mood scores template enables us to deploy a direct test of the behavioral explanation for the day-of-the-week effect. Our evidence shows that the day-of-the-week mood template is a potentially valid explanation of the day-of-the-week effect. Subperiod analysis suggests that the magnitude of the day-of-the-week effect has declined over time. That decline, however, is not uniform across size deciles and is more pronounced in larger capitalization deciles. There is no decline though in the ability of mood to explain the day-of-the-week effect.
Keywords
- Pattern recognition
- Template
- Day-of-the-week effect
- Monday effect
- Behavioral finance
Background
A large body of research investigates the day-of-the-week effect in US stock returns.^{1} ^{,} ^{2} Some studies mainly focus on the large negative abnormal return on Monday (e.g., Kelly, 1930; French, 1980), and some on both the Monday-negative and Friday-positive abnormal returns (e.g., Chen and Singal, 2003). Other studies suggest, however, that the day-of-the-week effect is not limited to Friday and Monday (e.g., French, 1980; Keim and Stambaugh, 1984; Birru, 2017). Keim and Stambugh (1984) and Birru (2017), for example, indicate a tendency for returns to improve during the week.
Different studies propose a number of explanations for the day-of-the-week effect, including measurement errors (Gibbons and Hess, 1981), settlement procedures (Gibbons and Hess, 1981; Lakonishok and Levi, 1982), and the timing of new information (Defusco et al., 1993; Damodaran, 1989; Dyl and Maberly, 1988). A more recent explanation by Chen and Singal (2003) relates the Monday-negative and Friday-positive abnormal returns to the activity of short sellers around the weekend.
Another possible explanation for the day-of-the-week effect is the behavioral hypothesis, which relates the day-of-the-week pattern of returns to the pattern of improving mood throughout the week. The behavioral hypothesis emerges from a line of research in psychology, which suggests that lower mood is associated with more prudent behavior and reduced risk taking (e.g., Cole et al., 1998; Bader, 2005; Kahnman, 2011). Lower mood and the resulting increased prudence at the beginning of the week can therefore potentially explain the increased tendency of individual investors to sell stocks on Monday, as documented by Abraham and Ikenberry (1994), Brockman and Michayluk (1998), Brooks and Kim (1997), and Lakonishok and Maberly (1990). The relation between mood and prudence can also explain the results of Pettengill (1993), who found that investors tend to take higher financial risks before the weekend and lower financial risks after the weekend.
Jacobs and Levy (1988) and Rystrom and Benson (1989) are the first to propose the behavioral hypothesis as a possible explanation for the day-of-the-week effect; neither, however, carry out statistical tests of the hypothesis. Gondhalekar and Mehdian (2003) find some supporting evidence for the behavioral hypothesis by showing that the negative returns on Mondays are intensified during periods of investor pessimism. More recently, Hirshleifer et al. (2017) find supporting evidence for the behavioral explanation of the day-of-the-week effect by using mood-mimicking returns to study the cross-section of returns.
Our interpretation of the behavioral hypothesis is that as the week progresses, the remaining time to the weekend break is shortened, creating anticipation for the break and better mood. If this hypothesis is true, then the day-of-the-week effect is a full-week effect, not limited to just Mondays and Fridays. To test this hypothesis, we build a template of mood scores and then test the ability of this template to explain the day-of-the-week effect.
This rule says that returns improve throughout the week—that is, Friday’s return is larger than Thursday’s, Thursday’s larger than Wednesday’s, and so forth. A rule-based pattern-recognition analysis of the day-of-the-week effect could begin, for example, by counting the number of instances where the rule is matched and compare it to the expected number of instances based on randomness.^{3}
The analysis can then proceed in various ways to examine the appropriateness of the template, for example, by applying various distance measures, such as mean squared error (MSE), that measure the distance between the template and the true data. The template we use here is not a template of stock returns but a template of mood scores that comes from the exterior domain of human psyche—hence the expression “exterior template” in the title of this paper.
The mood scores template is generated from two samples of mood scores 50 years apart: mood scores reported by Farber (1953) and the results of a more recent survey of preferences for days of the week that we conducted in 2007. Our mood scores show the same tendency as Farber’s (1953)—namely, that mood gradually improves during the week. Moreover, our survey results are highly correlated with those of Farber (linear correlation coefficient of 0.98), suggesting that attitudes toward days of the week did not change much over a period of more than 50 years.
To test the behavioral explanation of the day-of-the-week effect, we replicate the weekly mood-score template and regress the time series of daily returns directly on the repeatedly occurring mood-score template. This approach has an advantage over the mood-mimicking returns approach used by Hirshleifer et al. (2017) since it is impossible to know with certainty whether mood-mimicking returns actually mimic mood properly.
Our results indicate that the mood template is a potentially valid explanation of the day-of-the-week effect. Regressions of daily returns from 1953 to 2006 suggest that a simple average of the mood scores in Farber (1953) and our survey can explain 35% to 90% of the variation in average daily abnormal returns. Given evidence that individual investors tend to disproportionately invest in small stocks (Lee, Shleifer, and Thaler, 1991; Grinblatt and Moskowitz, 2004; Nagel, 2005), we expected the mood variable to be more powerful for small stocks. Our findings confirm this hypothesis and show that the ability of mood to explain abnormal returns is considerably higher in small capitalization deciles.
Several studies suggest that the magnitude of the day-of-the-week effect has declined over time. Therefore, we repeated the full-period analysis for three 18-year subperiods and found that the magnitude of the day-of-the-week effect has indeed declined over time. However, we found that the ability of mood to explain the day-of-the-week effect has remained relatively stable.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we generate various mood scores based on Farber (1953) survey and a more recent survey we conducted in 2007. Section 3 analyzes the relation between mood and daily returns. Section 4 repeats the analysis of section 3 for three subperiods. Section 5 concludes the paper.
Day-of-the-week mood template
In this section, we generate a mood template consisting of five mood scores for .Monday through Friday. In doing so, we rely on two main sources for mood scores: mood scores obtained from a survey by Farber (1953) and a more recent survey we conducted among students in 2007.
Day-of-the-week mood scores (Monday through Friday)
Day | 2007 scores | Farber original scores | Farber scores transformed | Mood score - simple average | Mood score -weighted average |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Monday | 5.21 | 6.10 | 5.00 | 5.11 | 5.13 |
Tuesday | 5.66 | 5.00 | 5.90 | 5.78 | 5.75 |
Wednesday | 5.78 | 4.90 | 5.98 | 5.88 | 5.86 |
Thursday | 6.67 | 4.30 | 6.47 | 6.57 | 6.60 |
Friday | 7.67 | 2.90 | 7.62 | 7.64 | 7.65 |
The second column in Table 1, titled “Farber scores,” lists mood scores obtained by Farber (1953) from a survey of 80 students. Farber’s methodology is slightly different from ours. Farber asked students to assign a ranking from 7 to 1 to each day of the week based on how much they liked the day, with 1 given to the most liked day and 7 to the most disliked day. Unlike our survey, the scores in Farber’s survey are given without replacement, meaning that if a student assigned a certain score to one day, the student could not assign it to another day.
The goal of this study is to analyze the relation between the day-of-the-week effect and mood by regressing daily returns on mood scores. For this purpose, we generate two representative weighted mood templates from Farber’s (1953) scores and our 2007 scores. The first uses a simple average of the two sets of scores (ours and Farber’s transformed), and the second uses a weighted average with the weights determined by the number of students in each survey. The simple average and the weighted average mood templates are presented in columns 4 and 5 of Table 1 under the titles “Mood score – simple average” and “Mood score – weighted average,” respectively.
Day-of-the-week effect and mood: Full-period analysis
In this section, we provide a full-period analysis of the day-of-the-week effect. First, we use a dummy variable model to study the day-of-the-week effect; next, we regress the time series of returns on the mood template.
The sample used in this study includes all stocks listed on the NYSE, AMEX, and NASDAQ in the CRSP daily data file. In 2005, the CRSP extended the daily data file from 1965 back to 1926. Since US exchanges moved from a six-day to a five-day trading week in mid-1952, the data we use are from 1953 to 2006. The analysis includes an equally-weighted (EW) portfolio of all stocks, a value-weighted (VW) portfolio, and 10 decile portfolios sorted by market capitalization, with 1 being the smallest capitalization decile and 10 the largest. Continuously compounded returns are calculated and then analyzed for each portfolio and decile.
Analysis of the day-of-the-week effect with a dummy variable model
Dummy-variable model of the day-of-the-week effect, full-period analysis 1953-2006
VW | EW | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mon. coefficient | -0.1222 | -0.1844 | -0.1595 | -0.1891 | -0.1974 | -0.1977 | -0.2008 | -0.1935 | -0.1823 | -0.1707 | -0.1612 | -0.1105 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0204 | 0.0178 | 0.0193 | 0.0180 | 0.0185 | 0.0189 | 0.0195 | 0.0199 | 0.0200 | 0.0199 | 0.0199 | 0.0210 |
t-statistic | -5.99 | -10.36 | -8.26 | -10.51 | -10.67 | -10.46 | -10.30 | -9.72 | -9.12 | -8.58 | -8.10 | -5.26 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Tue. coefficient | -0.0080 | -0.0714 | -0.1417 | -0.1188 | -0.1025 | -0.0931 | -0.0746 | -0.0659 | -0.0537 | -0.0423 | -0.0361 | 0.0033 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0156 | 0.0136 | 0.0163 | 0.0148 | 0.0148 | 0.0147 | 0.0152 | 0.0154 | 0.0158 | 0.0154 | 0.0151 | 0.0164 |
t-statistic | -0.51 | -5.25 | -8.69 | -8.03 | -6.93 | -6.33 | -4.91 | -4.28 | -3.40 | -2.75 | -2.39 | 0.20 |
p-value | 61.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.6% | 1.7% | 84.0% |
Wed. coefficient | 0.0604 | 0.0568 | 0.0247 | 0.0412 | 0.0474 | 0.0512 | 0.0635 | 0.0682 | 0.0695 | 0.0740 | 0.0694 | 0.0578 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0153 | 0.0132 | 0.0152 | 0.0134 | 0.0132 | 0.0135 | 0.0142 | 0.0147 | 0.0151 | 0.0150 | 0.0149 | 0.0159 |
t-statistic | 3.95 | 4.30 | 1.63 | 3.07 | 3.59 | 3.79 | 4.47 | 4.64 | 4.60 | 4.93 | 4.66 | 3.64 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 10.3% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Thu. coefficient | 0.0122 | 0.0505 | 0.0622 | 0.0630 | 0.0624 | 0.0595 | 0.0551 | 0.0547 | 0.0496 | 0.0397 | 0.0389 | 0.0038 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0155 | 0.0136 | 0.0152 | 0.0140 | 0.0140 | 0.0140 | 0.0148 | 0.0152 | 0.0154 | 0.0154 | 0.0151 | 0.0160 |
t-statistic | 0.79 | 3.71 | 4.09 | 4.50 | 4.46 | 4.25 | 3.72 | 3.60 | 3.22 | 2.58 | 2.58 | 0.24 |
p-value | 43.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 1.0% | 1.0% | 81.3% |
Fri. coefficient | 0.0522 | 0.1420 | 0.2106 | 0.1981 | 0.1838 | 0.1736 | 0.1495 | 0.1293 | 0.1099 | 0.0923 | 0.0823 | 0.0405 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0149 | 0.0125 | 0.0151 | 0.0131 | 0.0130 | 0.0131 | 0.0137 | 0.0142 | 0.0145 | 0.0143 | 0.0143 | 0.0155 |
t-statistic | 3.50 | 11.36 | 13.95 | 15.12 | 14.14 | 13.25 | 10.91 | 9.11 | 7.58 | 6.45 | 5.76 | 2.61 |
p-value | 0.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.9% |
R^{2} | 0.0058 | 0.0256 | 0.0308 | 0.0368 | 0.0335 | 0.0305 | 0.0247 | 0.0204 | 0.0162 | 0.0136 | 0.0119 | 0.0043 |
Adjusted R^{2} | 0.0055 | 0.0253 | 0.0305 | 0.0365 | 0.0332 | 0.0302 | 0.0244 | 0.0201 | 0.0159 | 0.0134 | 0.0116 | 0.0040 |
F-statistic | 15.0 | 85.2 | 107.7 | 131.9 | 116.2 | 102.1 | 78.0 | 61.1 | 48.4 | 40.1 | 33.9 | 10.6 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
The upper part of Table 2 reports the single-coefficient results for the dummy variable model, including regression coefficients, Newey-West standard errors, and the corresponding t-statistics and p-values. The adjustment for serial correlation and heteroscedasticity follows evidence in the literature showing that daily returns are serially correlated and heteroscedastic (e.g., Kiymaz and Berument, 2003; Aggrawal and Schatzberg, 1997; Connolly, 1989; Bessembinder and Hertzel, 1993).^{5}
Day-of-the-week effect and mood
Where mood _{ t } is the mood on day t fitted by day of the-week, \( {\widehat{\delta}}_{p,0} \) is the estimated regression intercept, and \( {\widehat{\delta}}_{p,1} \) is the estimated regression slope coefficient.
In estimating (2), we use the four mood templates reported in columns 1, 3, 4, and 5 of Table 1 (these are the “2007 scores,” “Farber scores transformed,” “mood score simple average,” and “mood score weighted average”). The prediction of the behavioral hypothesis is that the sign of the regression slope coefficient, \( {\widehat{\delta}}_{p,1} \), should be positive and statistically significant.
In addition to the standard regression output for the model in (2), we also measure the proportion of the variation of the average daily abnormal returns explained by mood. Our measure is the ratio of the R^{2} of the mood regression divided by the R^{2} of the corresponding dummy-variable regression. Note that since the denominator for the two R^{2} is identical and equal to the sum of squares of unconditional returns, this measure is actually the ratio of the two explained sum of squares. Note also that the dummy variable model is, by construction, the best in terms of explaining the daily pattern of abnormal returns, and therefore the ratio of the two R^{2} must be between zero and unity. The higher the ratio of the two R^{2}, the higher the proportion of variation in abnormal average returns that can be attributed to the mood template.
Day-of-the-week effect and mood
VW | EW | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Panel A: 2007 scores | ||||||||||||
λ_{0} | -0.2899 | -0.6905 | -0.9099 | -0.8949 | -0.8544 | -0.8172 | -0.7357 | -0.6647 | -0.5852 | -0.5039 | -0.4621 | -0.2288 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0502 | 0.0417 | 0.0446 | 0.0412 | 0.0424 | 0.0439 | 0.0461 | 0.0484 | 0.0496 | 0.0489 | 0.0494 | 0.0520 |
t-statistic | -5.77 | -16.56 | -20.40 | -21.72 | -20.15 | -18.62 | -15.96 | -13.73 | -11.80 | -10.30 | -9.35 | -4.40 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
λ_{1} | 0.0467 | 0.1114 | 0.1467 | 0.1443 | 0.1378 | 0.1318 | 0.1186 | 0.1072 | 0.0944 | 0.0813 | 0.0745 | 0.0369 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0079 | 0.0063 | 0.0067 | 0.0061 | 0.0063 | 0.0066 | 0.0070 | 0.0073 | 0.0075 | 0.0075 | 0.0076 | 0.0082 |
t-statistic | 5.94 | 17.80 | 22.03 | 23.69 | 21.84 | 20.09 | 17.04 | 14.60 | 12.52 | 10.87 | 9.83 | 4.51 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
R^{2} | 0.0023 | 0.0189 | 0.0269 | 0.0311 | 0.0274 | 0.0243 | 0.0179 | 0.0137 | 0.0101 | 0.0075 | 0.0063 | 0.0013 |
Adjusted R^{2} | 0.0022 | 0.0188 | 0.0268 | 0.0310 | 0.0274 | 0.0243 | 0.0178 | 0.0136 | 0.0100 | 0.0075 | 0.0063 | 0.0013 |
Proportion of the effect explained by mood | 39.5% | 73.8% | 87.4% | 84.5% | 81.9% | 79.8% | 72.4% | 67.3% | 62.3% | 55.2% | 53.4% | 30.8% |
Panel B: Farber scores | ||||||||||||
λ_{0} | -0.3571 | -0.7526 | -0.9250 | -0.9355 | -0.9060 | -0.8740 | -0.8047 | -0.7345 | -0.6557 | -0.5772 | -0.5319 | -0.2963 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0521 | 0.0428 | 0.0460 | 0.0423 | 0.0436 | 0.0451 | 0.0474 | 0.0496 | 0.0508 | 0.0502 | 0.0506 | 0.0540 |
t-statistic | -6.85 | -17.58 | -20.11 | -22.12 | -20.78 | -19.38 | -16.98 | -14.81 | -12.91 | -11.50 | -10.51 | -5.49 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
λ_{1} | 0.0576 | 0.1213 | 0.1491 | 0.1508 | 0.1460 | 0.1409 | 0.1297 | 0.1184 | 0.1057 | 0.0930 | 0.0857 | 0.0478 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0081 | 0.0064 | 0.0068 | 0.0062 | 0.0064 | 0.0067 | 0.0071 | 0.0074 | 0.0077 | 0.0076 | 0.0077 | 0.0084 |
t-statistic | 7.12 | 19.10 | 21.83 | 24.28 | 22.78 | 21.16 | 18.35 | 15.91 | 13.82 | 12.24 | 11.14 | 5.66 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
R^{2} | 0.0033 | 0.0212 | 0.0263 | 0.0321 | 0.0292 | 0.0263 | 0.0202 | 0.0158 | 0.0120 | 0.0093 | 0.0079 | 0.0021 |
Adjusted R^{2} | 0.0032 | 0.0212 | 0.0262 | 0.0321 | 0.0291 | 0.0263 | 0.0201 | 0.0158 | 0.0119 | 0.0093 | 0.0079 | 0.0020 |
Proportion of the effect explained by mood | 56.7% | 82.9% | 85.3% | 87.3% | 87.0% | 86.3% | 81.9% | 77.7% | 73.9% | 68.4% | 66.9% | 48.8% |
Panel C: Simple average | ||||||||||||
λ_{0} | -0.3266 | -0.7297 | -0.9287 | -0.9260 | -0.8904 | -0.8553 | -0.7788 | -0.7073 | -0.6272 | -0.5462 | -0.5022 | -0.2649 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0513 | 0.0425 | 0.0455 | 0.0419 | 0.0432 | 0.0447 | 0.0469 | 0.0493 | 0.0505 | 0.0498 | 0.0503 | 0.0532 |
t-statistic | -6.37 | -17.17 | -20.41 | -22.10 | -20.61 | -19.13 | -16.61 | -14.35 | -12.42 | -10.97 | -9.98 | -4.98 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
λ_{1} | 0.0526 | 0.1176 | 0.1497 | 0.1493 | 0.1436 | 0.1379 | 0.1256 | 0.1140 | 0.1011 | 0.0881 | 0.0810 | 0.0427 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0080 | 0.0063 | 0.0068 | 0.0062 | 0.0064 | 0.0067 | 0.0071 | 0.0074 | 0.0076 | 0.0076 | 0.0077 | 0.0083 |
t-statistic | 6.58 | 18.55 | 22.08 | 24.16 | 22.47 | 20.74 | 17.82 | 15.34 | 13.23 | 11.64 | 10.56 | 5.12 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
R^{2} | 0.0028 | 0.0203 | 0.0269 | 0.0320 | 0.0286 | 0.0256 | 0.0192 | 0.0149 | 0.0111 | 0.0085 | 0.0072 | 0.0017 |
Adjusted R^{2} | 0.0027 | 0.0202 | 0.0268 | 0.0319 | 0.0286 | 0.0256 | 0.0192 | 0.0148 | 0.0111 | 0.0084 | 0.0071 | 0.0016 |
Proportion of the effect explained by mood | 48.2% | 79.1% | 87.4% | 86.9% | 85.4% | 84.0% | 77.9% | 73.2% | 68.7% | 62.3% | 60.6% | 39.7% |
Panel D: Weighted average | ||||||||||||
λ_{0} | -0.3175 | -0.7209 | -0.9259 | -0.9199 | -0.8829 | -0.8471 | -0.7691 | -0.6976 | -0.6174 | -0.5362 | -0.4927 | -0.2559 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0510 | 0.0423 | 0.0453 | 0.0418 | 0.0430 | 0.0446 | 0.0468 | 0.0491 | 0.0503 | 0.0496 | 0.0501 | 0.0529 |
t-statistic | -6.23 | -17.04 | -20.44 | -22.01 | -20.53 | -18.99 | -16.43 | -14.21 | -12.27 | -10.81 | -9.83 | -4.84 |
p-value | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
λ_{1} | 0.0512 | 0.1162 | 0.1493 | 0.1483 | 0.1424 | 0.1366 | 0.1240 | 0.1125 | 0.0996 | 0.0865 | 0.0794 | 0.0413 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0080 | 0.0063 | 0.0068 | 0.0062 | 0.0064 | 0.0066 | 0.0070 | 0.0074 | 0.0076 | 0.0076 | 0.0077 | 0.0083 |
t-statistic | 6.42 | 18.39 | 22.09 | 24.07 | 22.32 | 20.60 | 17.64 | 15.18 | 13.07 | 11.44 | 10.37 | 4.98 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
R^{2} | 0.0027 | 0.0200 | 0.0270 | 0.0318 | 0.0284 | 0.0253 | 0.0189 | 0.0146 | 0.0109 | 0.0083 | 0.0070 | 0.0016 |
Adjusted R^{2} | 0.0026 | 0.0199 | 0.0269 | 0.0318 | 0.0283 | 0.0253 | 0.0189 | 0.0146 | 0.0108 | 0.0082 | 0.0069 | 0.0015 |
Proportion of the effect explained by mood | 45.9% | 77.9% | 87.6% | 86.5% | 84.7% | 83.0% | 76.6% | 71.8% | 67.1% | 60.5% | 58.8% | 37.3% |
Panels C and D in Table 3 report the results with the simple-average and weighted-average mood templates. Since those two averages incorporate mood scores from both 1953 and 2007, they may be more inclusive than the results for the standalone mood score reported in Panels A and B. An important result in Panels C and D is the proportion of variation of average daily abnormal returns explained by mood as measured by the ratio of the R^{2} of the mood regression to the dummy variable regression. Panel C shows that these proportions are substantial, equaling 79.1% and 48.2% for the EW and VW portfolios, respectively. The results in Panel D are similar but slightly weaker: 77.9% and 45.9%, respectively. The results in Panel C also suggest a clear trend of declining ability of mood to explain the day-of-the-week effect: the ratio of the two R^{2} monotonically declines from 87.4% in the smallest capitalization decile to 39.7% in the largest capitalization decile. In Panel D, a similar declining trend can be seen—from 87.6% in the smallest capitalization decile to 37.3% in the largest capitalization decile. We conclude that the ability of mood to explain the day-of-the-week effect is substantial but declines with market capitalization.
Day-of-the-week effect and mood: Subperiod analysis
In this section, we examine the day-of-the-week effect and its relation to mood in three 18-year subperiods: 1953–1970, 1971–1988, and 1989–2006. The main purpose of these tests is to examine the evolution of the day-of-the-week effect over time and to test whether the ability of mood to explain the effect is consistent over time.
Subperiod analysis of the day-of-the-week effect using a dummy variable model
Dummy variable model of the day-of-the-week effect, subperiod analysis
VW | EW | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Panel A: 1953-1970 | ||||||||||||
Mon. coefficient | -0.2158 | -0.2158 | -0.1825 | -0.2124 | -0.2344 | -0.2309 | -0.2348 | -0.2299 | -0.2173 | -0.2062 | -0.1978 | -0.2036 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0299 | 0.0299 | 0.0334 | 0.0323 | 0.0321 | 0.0319 | 0.0329 | 0.0321 | 0.0303 | 0.0295 | 0.0284 | 0.0293 |
t-statistic | -7.11 | -7.21 | -5.47 | -6.58 | -7.31 | -7.23 | -7.13 | -7.16 | -7.17 | -7.00 | -6.95 | -6.96 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Tue. coefficient | -0.0583 | -0.0583 | -0.1311 | -0.1050 | -0.0768 | -0.0821 | -0.0560 | -0.0437 | -0.0367 | -0.0267 | -0.0192 | -0.0025 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0210 | 0.0210 | 0.0260 | 0.0248 | 0.0245 | 0.0231 | 0.0239 | 0.0227 | 0.0219 | 0.0203 | 0.0200 | 0.0222 |
t-statistic | -0.54 | -2.77 | -5.04 | -4.23 | -3.14 | -3.55 | -2.34 | -1.93 | -1.68 | -1.31 | -0.96 | -0.11 |
p-value | 59.1% | 0.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.0% | 1.9% | 5.4% | 9.3% | 18.9% | 33.9% | 91.2% |
Wed. coefficient | 0.1005 | 0.1005 | 0.0890 | 0.0956 | 0.1082 | 0.0896 | 0.1196 | 0.1139 | 0.1055 | 0.1061 | 0.0932 | 0.0920 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0213 | 0.0213 | 0.0247 | 0.0232 | 0.0231 | 0.0230 | 0.0239 | 0.0232 | 0.0221 | 0.0209 | 0.0202 | 0.0219 |
t-statistic | 4.52 | 4.72 | 3.60 | 4.13 | 4.67 | 3.90 | 5.00 | 4.91 | 4.77 | 5.08 | 4.62 | 4.21 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Thu. coefficient | 0.0392 | 0.0392 | 0.0615 | 0.0486 | 0.0475 | 0.0509 | 0.0344 | 0.0390 | 0.0348 | 0.0192 | 0.0247 | 0.0151 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0219 | 0.0219 | 0.0261 | 0.0244 | 0.0245 | 0.0241 | 0.0247 | 0.0236 | 0.0221 | 0.0213 | 0.0199 | 0.0198 |
t-statistic | 0.98 | 1.79 | 2.36 | 1.99 | 1.94 | 2.11 | 1.39 | 1.65 | 1.57 | 0.90 | 1.24 | 0.76 |
p-value | 32.9% | 7.3% | 1.9% | 4.6% | 5.2% | 3.5% | 16.3% | 9.8% | 11.6% | 36.6% | 21.6% | 44.7% |
Fri. coefficient | 0.1317 | 0.1317 | 0.1618 | 0.1712 | 0.1528 | 0.1699 | 0.1336 | 0.1175 | 0.1106 | 0.1047 | 0.0962 | 0.0958 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0197 | 0.0197 | 0.0269 | 0.0233 | 0.0228 | 0.0218 | 0.0224 | 0.0207 | 0.0202 | 0.0186 | 0.0179 | 0.0189 |
t-statistic | 5.42 | 6.70 | 6.03 | 7.35 | 6.71 | 7.80 | 5.96 | 5.67 | 5.47 | 5.62 | 5.38 | 5.07 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
R^{2} | 0.0284 | 0.0344 | 0.0273 | 0.0345 | 0.0343 | 0.0364 | 0.0319 | 0.0313 | 0.0302 | 0.0302 | 0.0285 | 0.0258 |
Adjusted R^{2} | 0.0275 | 0.0336 | 0.0265 | 0.0337 | 0.0335 | 0.0355 | 0.0310 | 0.0304 | 0.0293 | 0.0293 | 0.0277 | 0.0249 |
F-statistic | 30.0 | 37.7 | 25.7 | 37.0 | 36.2 | 40.6 | 33.5 | 32.8 | 31.5 | 33.0 | 29.8 | 27.0 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Panel B: 1971-1988 | ||||||||||||
Mon. coefficient | -0.1589 | -0.1998 | -0.1498 | -0.1902 | -0.2001 | -0.2119 | -0.2321 | -0.2308 | -0.2195 | -0.2144 | -0.2090 | -0.1439 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0424 | 0.0332 | 0.0310 | 0.0327 | 0.0343 | 0.0354 | 0.0362 | 0.0367 | 0.0374 | 0.0377 | 0.0387 | 0.0442 |
t-statistic | -3.75 | -6.01 | -4.82 | -5.82 | -5.83 | -5.98 | -6.41 | -6.28 | -5.87 | -5.68 | -5.40 | -3.26 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% |
Tue. coefficient | 0.0001 | -0.1007 | -0.1432 | -0.1554 | -0.1415 | -0.1446 | -0.1251 | -0.1152 | -0.0982 | -0.0783 | -0.0585 | 0.0206 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0271 | 0.0241 | 0.0264 | 0.0259 | 0.0268 | 0.0277 | 0.0274 | 0.0279 | 0.0279 | 0.0270 | 0.0265 | 0.0289 |
t-statistic | 0.00 | -4.18 | -5.43 | -5.99 | -5.28 | -5.23 | -4.56 | -4.12 | -3.52 | -2.90 | -2.21 | 0.71 |
p-value | 99.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.4% | 2.7% | 47.6% |
Wed. coefficient | 0.0596 | 0.0424 | -0.0057 | 0.0158 | 0.0212 | 0.0454 | 0.0505 | 0.0560 | 0.0605 | 0.0647 | 0.0711 | 0.0578 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0280 | 0.0226 | 0.0228 | 0.0231 | 0.0231 | 0.0239 | 0.0247 | 0.0252 | 0.0260 | 0.0256 | 0.0263 | 0.0293 |
t-statistic | 2.13 | 1.87 | -0.25 | 0.68 | 0.91 | 1.90 | 2.04 | 2.22 | 2.33 | 2.52 | 2.71 | 1.97 |
p-value | 3.4% | 6.1% | 80.4% | 49.4% | 36.0% | 5.8% | 4.1% | 2.7% | 2.0% | 1.2% | 0.7% | 4.9% |
Thu. coefficient | 0.0248 | 0.0709 | 0.0523 | 0.0854 | 0.0848 | 0.0866 | 0.0848 | 0.0857 | 0.0789 | 0.0781 | 0.0665 | 0.0116 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0267 | 0.0220 | 0.0236 | 0.0228 | 0.0237 | 0.0239 | 0.0245 | 0.0248 | 0.0250 | 0.0246 | 0.0248 | 0.0282 |
t-statistic | 0.93 | 3.23 | 2.22 | 3.74 | 3.58 | 3.63 | 3.45 | 3.46 | 3.15 | 3.17 | 2.68 | 0.41 |
p-value | 35.4% | 0.1% | 2.7% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0.7% | 68.1% |
Fri. coefficient | 0.0661 | 0.1798 | 0.2433 | 0.2392 | 0.2296 | 0.2174 | 0.2134 | 0.1955 | 0.1694 | 0.1408 | 0.1205 | 0.0459 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0261 | 0.0216 | 0.0222 | 0.0226 | 0.0229 | 0.0236 | 0.0239 | 0.0244 | 0.0244 | 0.0242 | 0.0246 | 0.0274 |
t-statistic | 2.53 | 8.32 | 10.96 | 10.58 | 10.04 | 9.22 | 8.94 | 8.02 | 6.93 | 5.82 | 4.90 | 1.67 |
p-value | 1.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 9.4% |
R^{2} | 0.0079 | 0.0342 | 0.0433 | 0.0476 | 0.0425 | 0.0405 | 0.0388 | 0.0345 | 0.0279 | 0.0240 | 0.0199 | 0.0056 |
Adjusted R^{2} | 0.0071 | 0.0333 | 0.0425 | 0.0468 | 0.0417 | 0.0397 | 0.0380 | 0.0337 | 0.0270 | 0.0231 | 0.0190 | 0.0048 |
F-statistic | 6.6 | 40.3 | 69.1 | 65.5 | 54.1 | 46.6 | 46.2 | 39.1 | 30.5 | 24.6 | 19.3 | 4.2 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% |
Panel C: 1989-2006 | ||||||||||||
Mon. coefficient | 0.0007 | -0.1357 | -0.1456 | -0.1640 | -0.1566 | -0.1492 | -0.1339 | -0.1181 | -0.1087 | -0.0896 | -0.0751 | 0.0194 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0320 | 0.0270 | 0.0330 | 0.0259 | 0.0268 | 0.0280 | 0.0298 | 0.0325 | 0.0345 | 0.0344 | 0.0345 | 0.0326 |
t-statistic | 0.02 | -5.02 | -4.41 | -6.32 | -5.85 | -5.33 | -4.50 | -3.63 | -3.16 | -2.61 | -2.18 | 0.60 |
p-value | 98.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.2% | 0.9% | 3.0% | 55.1% |
Tue. coefficient | -0.0127 | -0.0553 | -0.1504 | -0.0958 | -0.0887 | -0.0524 | -0.0426 | -0.0386 | -0.0261 | -0.0218 | -0.0302 | -0.0083 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0317 | 0.0239 | 0.0295 | 0.0236 | 0.0235 | 0.0235 | 0.0258 | 0.0278 | 0.0302 | 0.0308 | 0.0305 | 0.0329 |
t-statistic | -0.40 | -2.31 | -5.09 | -4.07 | -3.77 | -2.23 | -1.65 | -1.39 | -0.86 | -0.71 | -0.99 | -0.25 |
p-value | 68.8% | 2.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.6% | 9.9% | 16.5% | 38.8% | 47.9% | 32.2% | 80.1% |
Wed. coefficient | 0.0276 | 0.0285 | -0.0072 | 0.0140 | 0.0148 | 0.0196 | 0.0222 | 0.0361 | 0.0435 | 0.0522 | 0.0448 | 0.0245 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0296 | 0.0243 | 0.0296 | 0.0223 | 0.0221 | 0.0226 | 0.0250 | 0.0277 | 0.0296 | 0.0303 | 0.0298 | 0.0304 |
t-statistic | 0.93 | 1.17 | -0.24 | 0.63 | 0.67 | 0.87 | 0.89 | 1.30 | 1.47 | 1.73 | 1.50 | 0.81 |
p-value | 35.0% | 24.1% | 80.8% | 53.0% | 50.2% | 38.5% | 37.4% | 19.3% | 14.2% | 8.4% | 13.3% | 41.9% |
Thu. coefficient | -0.0073 | 0.0413 | 0.0727 | 0.0551 | 0.0549 | 0.0410 | 0.0460 | 0.0393 | 0.0350 | 0.0220 | 0.0257 | -0.0152 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0319 | 0.0258 | 0.0272 | 0.0240 | 0.0233 | 0.0240 | 0.0269 | 0.0293 | 0.0314 | 0.0323 | 0.0318 | 0.0328 |
t-statistic | -0.23 | 1.60 | 2.67 | 2.29 | 2.36 | 1.71 | 1.71 | 1.34 | 1.11 | 0.68 | 0.81 | -0.46 |
p-value | 81.9% | 10.9% | 0.8% | 2.2% | 1.8% | 8.8% | 8.7% | 18.1% | 26.6% | 49.7% | 41.9% | 64.2% |
Fri. coefficient | -0.0085 | 0.1143 | 0.2261 | 0.1836 | 0.1686 | 0.1336 | 0.1013 | 0.0748 | 0.0499 | 0.0316 | 0.0303 | -0.0197 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0314 | 0.0233 | 0.0273 | 0.0209 | 0.0213 | 0.0223 | 0.0243 | 0.0278 | 0.0297 | 0.0304 | 0.0306 | 0.0326 |
t-statistic | -0.27 | 4.90 | 8.27 | 8.80 | 7.93 | 5.98 | 4.16 | 2.69 | 1.68 | 1.04 | 0.99 | -0.60 |
p-value | 78.6% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.7% | 9.3% | 29.8% | 32.1% | 54.6% |
R^{2} | 0.0002 | 0.0137 | 0.0284 | 0.0320 | 0.0279 | 0.0180 | 0.0107 | 0.0064 | 0.0041 | 0.0028 | 0.0022 | 0.0003 |
Adjusted R^{2} | -0.0006 | 0.0129 | 0.0276 | 0.0312 | 0.0270 | 0.0171 | 0.0098 | 0.0055 | 0.0032 | 0.0019 | 0.0013 | -0.0005 |
F-statistic | 0.3 | 16.3 | 37.2 | 41.6 | 35.9 | 21.6 | 11.7 | 6.4 | 4.2 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 0.4 |
p-value | 89.1% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 1.6% | 5.5% | 87.9% |
Panel A in Table 4 reports the results for the first subperiod, Panel B for the second subperiod, and Panel C for the third subperiod. The first part in each panel reports the daily coefficients and their statistical significance, and the second part reports results for the regression as a whole (R^{2}, adj R^{2}, F-statistics, and corresponding p-values). All tests are adjusted for serial correlation and heteroscedasticity using Newey-West standard errors (Newey and West 1987).
An examination of the coefficients in Table 4 suggests that the pattern of improving returns throughout the week is also present in the subperiods. However, as in the full-period analysis, Wednesday’s return seems too high and violates the pattern in many cases. Furthermore, consistent with some recent studies, there is a tendency for the effect to decline over time. This can be observed in the size of the F-statistics in the EW and VW portfolios. In the VW portfolio, the F-statistic is 30.0 in the first subperiod, 6.6 in the second, and 6.6 again in the third. In the EW portfolio, the F-statistics are 37.7, 40.3, and 16.3, respectively. Hence, although not entirely smooth, there is a clear tendency of decline in the magnitude of the day-of-the-week effect over time. Note also that, as part of this decline, the effect disappeared in the last subperiod in the largest capitalization decile and became borderline significant in decile 9. Nevertheless, the effect remains statistically significant in all other 8 deciles and in the EW and VW portfolios, even in the last subperiod. Consistent with other studies, we conclude that the results show a decline in the magnitude of the effect over time (e.g., Brusa et al., 2000; Gu, 2004; Kohers et al., 2004; Mehdian and Perry, 2001; Kamara, 1997, for similar evidence), but the effect has not vanished.
Subperiod analysis using mood as an explanatory variable
Day-of-the-week effect and mood, subperiod analysis
VW | EW | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Panel A: 1953-1970 | ||||||||||||
λ_{0} | -0.5841 | -0.7243 | -0.8092 | -0.8558 | -0.8237 | -0.8748 | -0.7486 | -0.6979 | -0.6549 | -0.6031 | -0.5723 | -0.5646 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0670 | 0.0684 | 0.0842 | 0.0760 | 0.0767 | 0.0749 | 0.0772 | 0.0740 | 0.0716 | 0.0661 | 0.0648 | 0.0689 |
t-statistic | -8.71 | -10.59 | -9.61 | -11.26 | -10.74 | -11.69 | -9.70 | -9.43 | -9.14 | -9.12 | -8.83 | -8.20 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
λ_{1} | 0.0942 | 0.1168 | 0.1305 | 0.1381 | 0.1329 | 0.1411 | 0.1208 | 0.1126 | 0.1056 | 0.0973 | 0.0923 | 0.0911 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0101 | 0.0103 | 0.0130 | 0.0115 | 0.0117 | 0.0114 | 0.0117 | 0.0112 | 0.0108 | 0.0100 | 0.0098 | 0.0104 |
t-statistic | 9.30 | 11.33 | 10.08 | 11.97 | 11.37 | 12.43 | 10.29 | 10.07 | 9.74 | 9.77 | 9.44 | 8.74 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
R^{2} | 0.0152 | 0.0221 | 0.0195 | 0.0251 | 0.0229 | 0.0270 | 0.0188 | 0.0177 | 0.0171 | 0.0161 | 0.0156 | 0.0134 |
Adjusted R^{2} | 0.0150 | 0.0218 | 0.0192 | 0.0249 | 0.0227 | 0.0267 | 0.0186 | 0.0175 | 0.0169 | 0.0159 | 0.0153 | 0.0132 |
Proportion of effect explained by mood | 53.5% | 64.1% | 71.1% | 72.7% | 66.7% | 74.1% | 59.0% | 56.6% | 56.7% | 53.4% | 54.5% | 51.9% |
Panel B: 1971-1988 | ||||||||||||
λ_{0} | -0.4275 | -0.8908 | -1.0030 | -1.0830 | -1.0637 | -1.0445 | -1.0528 | -0.9969 | -0.8936 | -0.7974 | -0.7125 | -0.3291 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0946 | 0.0749 | 0.0678 | 0.0716 | 0.0764 | 0.0814 | 0.0813 | 0.0851 | 0.0871 | 0.0873 | 0.0895 | 0.0987 |
t-statistic | -4.52 | -11.89 | -14.79 | -15.13 | -13.92 | -12.84 | -12.95 | -11.71 | -10.26 | -9.13 | -7.96 | -3.33 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% |
λ_{1} | 0.0689 | 0.1436 | 0.1617 | 0.1746 | 0.1715 | 0.1684 | 0.1697 | 0.1607 | 0.1441 | 0.1286 | 0.1149 | 0.0531 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0145 | 0.0109 | 0.0096 | 0.0102 | 0.0110 | 0.0118 | 0.0119 | 0.0125 | 0.0128 | 0.0129 | 0.0134 | 0.0153 |
t-statistic | 4.75 | 13.13 | 16.89 | 17.04 | 15.53 | 14.26 | 14.28 | 12.83 | 11.23 | 9.94 | 8.59 | 3.48 |
p-value | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% |
R^{2} | 0.0042 | 0.0293 | 0.0396 | 0.0427 | 0.0383 | 0.0346 | 0.0332 | 0.0287 | 0.0223 | 0.0180 | 0.0138 | 0.0022 |
Adjusted R^{2} | 0.0040 | 0.0291 | 0.0394 | 0.0425 | 0.0381 | 0.0344 | 0.0330 | 0.0285 | 0.0221 | 0.0178 | 0.0136 | 0.0020 |
Proportion of effect explained by mood | 52.9% | 85.8% | 91.5% | 89.7% | 90.1% | 85.4% | 85.6% | 83.2% | 80.1% | 74.9% | 69.4% | 39.7% |
Panel C: 1989-2006 | ||||||||||||
λ_{0} | 0.0329 | -0.5721 | -0.9736 | -0.8388 | -0.7833 | -0.6458 | -0.5338 | -0.4260 | -0.3319 | -0.2370 | -0.2208 | 0.1000 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0981 | 0.0728 | 0.0792 | 0.0649 | 0.0661 | 0.0709 | 0.0793 | 0.0899 | 0.0962 | 0.0978 | 0.0996 | 0.1018 |
t-statistic | 0.34 | -7.86 | -12.30 | -12.91 | -11.86 | -9.11 | -6.74 | -4.74 | -3.45 | -2.42 | -2.22 | 0.98 |
p-value | 26.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.1% | 1.5% | 2.7% | 32.6% |
λ_{1} | -0.0053 | 0.0922 | 0.1569 | 0.1352 | 0.1262 | 0.1041 | 0.0860 | 0.0686 | 0.0535 | 0.0382 | 0.0356 | -0.0161 |
Newey-West S.E. | 0.0158 | 0.0112 | 0.0120 | 0.0097 | 0.0099 | 0.0108 | 0.0122 | 0.0139 | 0.0150 | 0.0153 | 0.0156 | 0.0164 |
t-statistic | -0.34 | 8.23 | 13.09 | 13.96 | 12.78 | 9.68 | 7.06 | 4.93 | 3.57 | 2.49 | 2.28 | -0.98 |
p-value | 26.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.3% | 2.3% | 32.7% |
R^{2} | 0.0000 | 0.0117 | 0.0255 | 0.0297 | 0.0257 | 0.0162 | 0.0091 | 0.0047 | 0.0024 | 0.0012 | 0.0010 | 0.0002 |
Adjusted R^{2} | -0.0002 | 0.0115 | 0.0253 | 0.0294 | 0.0255 | 0.0160 | 0.0089 | 0.0045 | 0.0022 | 0.0010 | 0.0008 | 0.0000 |
Proportion of effect explained by mood | NA | 85.5% | 89.9% | 92.6% | 92.1% | 90.0% | 84.9% | 73.9% | 59.4% | 42.9% | 46.5% | NA |
The results in Table 5 are generally consistent with the prediction of the behavioral hypothesis for the day-of-the-week effect: the sign of the mood coefficient is positive and statistically significant in all cases. The only exceptions to this result are in the last subperiod where decile 10 and the VW portfolio display a mild negative sign for the mood variable.
The results in Table 5 also show that there is a decline in the t-statistic of the mood variable. For example, in the VW portfolio, the t-statistics in the first, second, and third subperiods are 9.30, 4.75, and −0.34, respectively. In the EW portfolio, the t-statistics are 11.33, 13.13, and 8.23, respectively. Thus, the decline in the magnitude of the t-statistics is much more pronounced in the VW portfolio.
There are two possible explanations for the decline in the magnitude of the t-statistics of the mood variable. One possible source for this decline is the general decline of the day-of-the-week effect as documented in the previous subsection. The second possible explanation is that the ability of mood to explain the effect has declined. It appears to us that this reflects more of a general decline in the magnitude of the day-of-the-week effect than a decline in the ability of mood to explain it. The basis for this conjecture is the fact that the proportion of variation of average abnormal returns explained by the mood variable, as measured by the ratio of R^{2}, does not show a declining trend over time. For example, in the EW portfolio, the proportion of variation of average abnormal returns explained by the mood variable in the first, second, and third subperiods is 64.1%, 85.8%, and 85.5%, respectively. Similar results can be seen in the small capitalization deciles. We conclude, therefore, that the reduction in the magnitude of the t-statistics of the mood variable is more likely the result of the general decline in the magnitude of the day-of-the-week effect than a decline in the ability of mood to explain the effect.
Conclusion
We design four mood templates based on day-of-the-week mood scores obtained from two surveys in 1953 and 2007. Quite remarkably, our results suggest that mood patterns throughout the week have changed very little, if any, in the last 50 years. Using the mood templates, we deploy a direct test of the behavioral explanation of the day-of-the-week effect by regressing daily returns on the mood templates.
The mood regressions show that mood has substantial explanatory power for the day-of -the-week effect. Between 35% and 90% of the variation of the average daily abnormal returns can be attributed to mood fluctuations throughout the week. We also find that the ability of mood to explain the day-of-the-week effect is larger in the smaller capitalization deciles.
We repeat the mood regressions in three subperiods. Although we find a decline in the magnitude of the day-of-the-week effect over time, the proportion of variation of daily average abnormal returns explained by mood remains relatively stable over time. This suggests that there has been no decline in the ability of mood to explain the day-of-the-week effect.
See for example, French (1980), Gibbons and Hess (1981), Keim and Stambaugh (1984), Lakonishok and Smidt (1988), Abraham and Ikenberry (1994), Aggarwal and Schatzberg (1997), Chen and Singal (2003), Hirshleifer, Jiang and Meng (2017), Birru (2017).
Investigation of the day-of-the-week effect has been also extended to other stock markets around the world, with evidence supporting the existence of the day-of-the-week effect in many of them. A partial list includes Cai et al. (2006), Demirer and Karan (2002), Brooks and Persand (2001), Keef and McGuinness (2001), Choudhry (2000), Dubois and Louvet (1996), Wong et al. (1992), Bishara (1989), Board and Sutcliffe (1988), and Hindmarch et al. (1983).
This could be done by bootstrapping. See, for example, Bessembinder and Chan (1998) for application of bootstrapping to technical analysis rules.
The negative correlation is a result of the fact that the two scales Farber’s and ours are opposite. Our scale gives the highest score to the most liked day while Farber’s gives the lowest score to the most liked day.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
I thank Gady Jacoby for many suggestions and comments.
Funding
Not applicable
Author’s contribution
Not applicable
Author’s information
Shlomo Zilca is an independent researcher. He holds Ph.D. in finance from Tel Aviv University. Shlomo taught statistics and investments at the University of Auckland and Tel Aviv University.
Competing interests
The author declares that he has no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
- Abraham A, Ikenberry D (1994) The individual investor and the weekend effect. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 29:263–277View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Aggarwal R, Schatzberg JD (1997) Day-of-the-week effects, information seasonality, and higher moments of security returns. Journal of Economics and Business 49:1–20View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bader AM (2005) Relationship between depression and anxiety among undergraduate students in eighteen Arab countries: A cross-cultural study. Social Behavior and Personality 33:503–512View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bessembinder H, Chan K (1998) Market efficiency and the returns to technical analysis. Financial Management 27:5–17View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bessembinder H, Hertzel MG (1993) Return autocorrelations around nontrading days. Review of Financial Studies 6:155–189View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Birru J (2017) Day-of-the-week and the cross section of returns. Working paper, Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
- Bishara H (1989) Stock Returns and the Weekend Effect in Canada. Akron Business and Economic Review 20:62–71Google Scholar
- Board J, Sutcliffe C (1988) The Weekend Effect in UK Stock Market Returns. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 15:199–213View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brock W, Lakonishok J, Lebaron B (1992) Simple technical trading rules and the stochastic properties of stock returns. Journal of Finance 47:1731–1764View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brockman P, Michayluk D (1998) Individual Versus Institutional Investors and the Weekend Effect. Journal of Economics and Finance 22:71–85View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brooks RM, Kim H (1997) The Individual Investor and the Weekend Effect: A Reexamination with Intraday Data. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 37:725–737View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brooks C, Persand G (2001) Seasonality in Southeast Asian Stock Markets: Some New Evidence on Day-of-the-Week Effects. Applied Economics Letters 8:155–158View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Brusa J, Liu P, Schulman C (2000) The Weekend Effect, ‘Reverse’ Weekend Effect, and Firm Size. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 27:555–574View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cai J, Li Y, Qi Y (2006) The Day-of-the-Week Effect: New Evidence from the Chinese Stock Market. The Chinese Economy 39:71–88View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Chen H, Singal V (2003) Role of Speculative Short Sales in Price Formation: The Case of the Weekend Effect. Journal of Finance 58:685–705View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Choudhry T (2000) Day-of-the-Week Effect in Emerging Asian Stock Markets: Evidence from the GARCH Model. Applied Financial Economics 10:235–242View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Cole DA, Peeke LG, Lachlan G, Martin JM, Truglio R, Seroczynski AD (1998) A longitudinal look at the relation between depression and anxiety in children and adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 66:451–460View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Connolly R (1989) An Examination of the Robustness of the Weekend Effect. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 24:133–170View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Damodaran A (1989) The weekend effect in information releases: A study of earnings and dividend announcements. Review of Financial Studies 2:607–623View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- DeFusco R, McCabe G, Yook K (1993) Day-of-the-Week Effects: A Test of Information Timing Hypothesis. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 20:835–842View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Demirer R, Karan MB (2002) An Investigation of the Day-of-the-Week Effect on Stock Returns in Turkey. Emerging Markets, Finance & Trade 38:47–77Google Scholar
- DuBois M, Louvet P (1996) The Day-of-the-Week Effect: The International Evidence. Journal of Banking and Finance 20:1463–1484View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dyl E, Maberly E (1988) A Possible Explanation of the Weekend Effect. Financial Analysts Journal 44:83–84View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Farber M (1953) Time-Perspective and Feeling-Tone: A Study in the Perception of the Days. Journal of Psychology 35:253–257View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- French K (1980) Stock returns and the weekend effect. Journal of Financial Economics 8:55–69View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fu TC, Chung FL, Luk R, Ng CM (2007) Stock time series pattern matching: Template-based vs. Rule-based approaches. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 20:347–364.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gibbons M, Hess P (1981) Day-of-the-week effects and asset returns. Journal of Business 54:579–596View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gondhalekar V, Mehdian S (2003) The Blue-Monday Hypothesis: Evidence Based on Nasdaq Stocks, 1971–2000. Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics 42:73–92Google Scholar
- Grinblatt M, Moskowitz TJ (2004) Predicting stock price movements from past returns: the role of consistency and tax-loss selling. Journal of Financial Economics 71:541–579View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gu AY (2004) The Reversing Weekend Effect: Evidence from the US Equity Markets. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting 22:5–14View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hindmarch S, Jentsch D, Drew D (1984) A Note on Canadian Stock Returns and the Weekend Effect. Journal of Business Administration 14:163–172Google Scholar
- Hirshleifer DA, Jiang D, Meng Y (2017) Mood beta and seasonalities in stock returns. Working paper, SSRN library, abstract 2880257.Google Scholar
- Jacobs B, Levy K (1988) Calendar Anomalies: Abnormal Returns at Calendar Turning Points. Financial Analysts Journal 44:28–39View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kahnman D (2011) Thinking fast and slow. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kamara A (1997) New Evidence on the Monday Seasonal in Stock Returns. Journal of Business 70:63–84View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Keef S, McGuinness P (2001) Changes in Settlement Regime and the Modulation of Day-of-the-Week Effects in Stock Returns. Applied Financial Economics 11:361–371View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Keim D, Stambaugh R (1984) A Further investigation of the weekend effect in stock returns. Journal of Finance 39:819–835View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kelly F (1930) Why You Win or Lose: The Psychology of Speculation. Houghton Mifflin, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Kiymaz H, Berument H (2003) The Day-of-the-Week Effect on Stock Market Volatility and Volume: International Evidence. Review of Financial Economics 12:363–380View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Kohers G, Kohers N, Pandy V, Kohers T (2004) The Disappearing Day-of-the-Week Effect in the World’s Largest Equity Markets. Applied Economics Letters 11:167–171View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lakonishok J, Levi M (1982) Weekend Effects on Stock Returns: A Note. Journal of Finance 37:883–889View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lakonishok J, Maberly E (1990) The Weekend Effect: Trading Patterns of Individual and Institutional Investors. Journal of Finance 45:231–243View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lakonishok J, Smidt S (1988) Are seasonal anomalies real? A ninety year perspective. Review of Financial Studies 1:403–425View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lee CMC, Shleifer A, Thaler RH (1991) Investor sentiment and the closed-end fund puzzle. Journal of Finance 46:75–109View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lo AW, Mamaysky H, Wang J (2000) Foundations of Technical Analysis: Computational Algorithms, Statistical Inference, and Empirical Implementation. Journal of Finance 55:1705–1765View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mehdian S, Perry M (2001) The Reversal of the Monday Effect: New Evidence from US Equity Markets. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 28:1043–1065View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Nagel S (2005) Short sales, institutional investors and the cross section of stock returns. Journal of financial economics 78:277–309View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Newey W, West K (1987) A simple positive semi-definite heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix. Econometrica 55:703–708View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Pettengill G (1993) An Experimental Study of the ‘Blue Monday’ Hypothesis. Journal of Socio-Economics 22:241–257View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rystrom R, Benson E (1989) Investor Psychology and the Day-of-the-Week Effect. Financial Analysts Journal 45:75–78View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- White H (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48:817–838View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wong KA, Hui TK, Chan CY (1992) Day-of-the-Week Effects: Evidence from Developing Stock Markets. Applied Financial Economics 2:49–56View ArticleGoogle Scholar