Difficulties in Conducting Short Horizon Event Studies: Call for Further Research

  • Abadan Jasmon Lecturer of Accounting, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, 63100 Cyberjaya, Malaysia
  • Prof Dr Lai Ming Ming Lecturer of Accounting, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, 63100 Cyberjaya, Malaysia
  • Dr Abdul Aziz Ahamad Lecturer of Accounting, Faculty of Management, Multimedia University, 63100 Cyberjaya, Malaysia
  • Dr Nik Mohamad Zaki NIk Salleh Senior Lecturer of Accounting, School of Economics and Management, Xiamen University, Bandar Sunsuria, 43900 Sepang, Malaysia
Keywords: headline key performance indicators (headline KPIs), announcement, stock returns

Abstract

The wide variety of applications and the richness of data available have made event studies commonplace in economic, finance, and accounting research. The strength of the event study methodology is that abnormal returns due to a firm-specific, but time independent event may be precisely estimated by aggregating results over many firms experiencing a similar event at different times. The case study examines whether Malaysian GLC’s headline KPI announcements over the transformation period FY 2005-2014 resulted in significant abnormal stock returns. A pilot study using three-factor model of [4] showed that virtually all the significant abnormal stock returns were recorded in the first month following the announcement (short market reaction, i.e. short horizon).  However, since the company book values used in computing the HML proxy factor is only available at month-ends, the [4] model cannot be used for this short horizon study; even though R-squared increased due to additional proxy factors besides company beta, namely company size and growth. Thus, the actual study had to be conducted using a one-factor Short Horizon Event Study - the risk factor (beta) for each security is obtained through regression and then used to predict daily stock returns, and subsequently the abnormal returns, over a short horizon of 30 days’ post-announcement date.  Company size factor was controlled by grouping the securities according to small, medium, and large securities. Results showed that small and large securities consistently recorded abnormal stock returns. Overall, the study has demonstrated that over a short horizon, the stock value of GLCs can be increased through headline KPI announcements, thus reinforcing the signalling and agency theories. The more important contribution of this research is that it has highlighted deficiencies in the current model to study short horizon events, which hopefully will encourage more rigorous future research.

References

S. P. Kothari and J.B. Warner. “Chapter 1: Econometrics of Event Studies” in Handbook of Corporate Finance: Empirical Corporate Finance, B.E. Eckbo, vol. 1 (Handbooks in Finance Series), Elsevier, 2007.

U. Basdas, and A. Oran (2014). “Event studies in Turkey.” Borsa Istanbul Review vol.14. Available: http://www.elsevier.com/journals/borsa-istanbul-review/2214-8450 [12/7/2018].

E.F. Fama and K.R. French. “Common risk factors in the returns on securities”. Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 33 issue 1, pp. 3-56, 1993.

E.F. Fama and K.R. French. “Size and Book to Market Factors in Earnings and Returns.” Journal of Finance, vol.50, 1996.

M.M. Carhart. “On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance”. The Journal of Finance, vol. 52, pp. 57-82, 1997.

American Accounting Association (AAA): A.M. Laureen, B. Eli, M. F. Patricia, D.E. Hirst, E.L. Teresa, R. Mallett, M.C. Schrand, D.J. Skinner, and L. Vincent. “Recommendations on Disclosure of Nonfinancial Performance Measures, reporting for the American Financial Accounting Standards Committee”. Accounting Horizons, vol 16 issue 4, pp. 353-362, 2002.

G. Dipankar and A. Wu. “The Effect of Positive and Negative Financial and Nonfinancial Performance Measures on Analysts' Recommendations”. Behavioral Research in Accounting, vol. 24 issue 2, pp. 47-64, 2012.

E. Amir and B. Lev. Value-relevance of nonfinancial information: The wireless communications industry. Journal of Accounting & Economics, vol. 2, pp. 3-30, 1996.

T. Shevlin. “The value-relevance of nonfinancial information: A discussion”. Journal of Accounting & Economics vol. 22, pp. 31-42, 1996

A. Rajgopal, M. Venkatachalam, and S. Kotha. The Value Relevance of Network Advantages: The Case of E-Commerce Firms. Journal of Accounting Research vol. 41 issue 1, 2003

J. Francis, K. Schipper, and L. Vincent. The Relative and Incremental Explanatory Power of Earnings and Alternative (to Earnings) Performance Measures for Returns. Contemporary Accounting Research, vol. 20 issue 1, pp. 121-164, 2003.

R.O.C. Somoye, I.R. Akintoye, and J.E. Oseni. Determinants of Equity Prices in the Stock Markets. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, vol. 30: pp. 177-189, 2009

L. Jeffrey, I.G. Callen, and S. Dan. The complementary relationship between financial and non-financial information in the biotechnology industry and the degree of investor sophistication. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, vol. 6, pp. 61–76, 2010.

P.N. Patatoukas, R.G. Sloan, and J. Zha. The Pricing of Mandatory DCF Disclosures: Evidence from Oil and Gas Royalty Trusts. The Accounting Review, vol. 90: pp. 2448-2482, 2015

D. Lei. Understanding investors’ reliance on disclosures of nonfinancial information and mitigating mechanisms for underreliance. Accounting and Business Research, vol. 47 issue 4, pp. 431-454, 2017.

H. Elzahar, K. Hussaine, F. Mazzi, and I. Tsalavoutas. “Economic consequences of key performance indicators' disclosure quality.” International Review of Financial Analysis, vol. 39, pp. 96-112, 2015.

S. Smith and H. V. D. Heijden “Analysts’ evaluation of KPI usefulness, standardization and assurance.” Journal of Applied Accounting Research, vol. 18, pp. 63-86, 2017.

ICAEW (2014), “The journey milestone 1: assurance over key performance indicators”, Internet: www.icaew.com/~/media/corporate/files/technical/audit%20and%20assurance/assurance/milestones/milestone%201.ashx [22 April 2016].

R.G. Bowman. “Understanding and conducting event studies.” Journal of Business Finance and Accounting, vol. 10, pp. 561–584, 1983.

S.P. Kothari, X. Li, and J.E. Short. “The effect of disclosures by management, analysts, and financial press on cost of capital, return volatility, and analyst forecasts: A study using content analysis”. The Accounting Review, vol. 84 issue, pp. 1639–1670, 2009.

P.M. Healy, A. Hutton, and K.G. Palepu. “Stock performance and intermediation changes surrounding sustained increases in disclosure”. Contemporary Accounting Research, vol. 16 issue 3, pp. 485–520, 1999.

D.F. Larker, S.A. Richardson, and I. Tuna. “Corporate governance, accounting outcomes, and organizational performance”. The Accounting Review, vol. 82 issue 4, pp. 963-1008, 2007.

I. Ioannou and G. Serafeim. “The consequences of mandatory corporate sustainability reporting: Evidence from four countries”. Harvard Business School Working Paper, 2015.

C. Leuz and P. Wysocki. (2008). “Economic consequences of financial reporting and disclosure regulation: A review and suggestions for future research”. Available from: http://papers.ssrn.com/ [Accessed 1st July 2014].

K. McDowell (2002) Children's Literature in Education, vol. 33: pp. 213-217. Available: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019634116385

M. Saunders, P. Lewis, and A. Thornhill. Research Methods for Business Students 6th Ed, Pearson Education Limited: Harlow, 2012.

A. Beyer, D.A. Cohen, T.Z. Lys, and B.R. Walther. “The financial reporting environment: Review of the recent literature”. Journal of Accounting and Economics, vol. 50, pp. 296–343, 2010.

Published
2019-10-19
Section
Articles