• The Korean Journal of Financial Management
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.65-94
• /
• 2009

The event of change in KOSPI 200 Index composition is one of the main subjects for the test of EMH. According to EMH, when a certain event is not related with firm's fundamental value, stock price should not change after the announcement of news. This hypothesis leads us to the conclusion of horizontal demand curve of stock. This logic was questioned by Shleifer(1986) and argued that downward sloping demand curve hypothesis was supported. But Harris and Gruel(1986) found a different empirical evidence that price reversal occurs in the long run, which is called price pressure hypothesis. They argued that short term price effect by large block trading (price pressure) is offset in the long run because these event is unrelated to fundamental value. Therefor, they argued that EMH can not be rejected in the long run. Until now, there are two empirical studies with Korean market data in this area. Using a data with same time period of $1996{\sim}1999$, Kweon and Park(2000) and Ahn and Park(2005) showed that stock price or beta is not significantly affected by change in index composition. This study retested this event expanding sample period from 1996 to 2006, and analyzed why this event was considered an uninformative events in the preceding studies. We analyzed a market impact by separating samples according to firm size and market condition. In case of newly enlisted firm, we found the evidence supporting price pressure hypothesis on average. However, we found the long run price effect in the sample of large firms under bearish markets. At the same time, we know that the number of samples under the category of large firms under bearish markets is relatively small, which drives the same result of supporting the hypothesis that change in index composition is a non-informative event on average. Also, the long run price effect of large size firms under bearish markets was supported by the analyses using trading volumes. On the other hand, in case of delisting from the index, we found the long run price effect but that was not supported by trading volume analyses.

• The Korean Journal of Financial Management
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.85-107
• /
• 2007

In this study, I analyzed determinant factors of mutual fund return. The samples was distributed into three types according to the ratio of included stocks in funds. The proxies of mutual funds were set up three ways(returns of fund). As a result of the analysis, I found that growth positively affect to fund return, abnormal return and adjusted abnormal return in all samples. While, according to three types of sample, expected and unexpected fund cash flows had differently effect on fund return. Inferentially, it seemed that the ratio of included stocks in fund was the cause of that. But price pressure hypothesis are not supported. In conclusion, it was not found the possibility of stock market disturbance in this analysis.

• The Korean Journal of Financial Management
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.35-62
• /
• 2010

This paper examines the existence of the fund performance persistence and the smart money effect in Korean stock market and tests the flow-induced price pressure (FIPP) hypothesis, that is, fund flows affect individual stock returns and mutual fund performance. This paper also tests whether the FIPP effect can cause the performance persistence using the monthly returns and stock holdings data of 2,702 Korean mutual funds from January 2002 to June 2008. The empirical results indicate that the performance persistence exists significantly for a long time but the smart money effect does not. The hedge portfolio constructed by buying funds with the highest past 12 months performance and selling funds with the lowest past 12 months performance earns 0.11%~1.05% monthly abnormal returns, on average, in 3 years from portfolio formation month, but the hedge portfolio constructed by buying funds with the highest past net fund inflows and selling funds with the lowest past net fund inflows cannot earn positive monthly abnormal returns and the size of negative abnormal returns of the portfolio increase as time goes on. We find the evidence that the FIPP hypothesis is significantly supported. We first estimate the FIPP measure for each individual stock using the trading volume resulting from past fund flows and then construct the hedge portfolio by buying stocks with the highest FIPP measure and selling stocks with the lowest FIPP measure. That portfolio earns significantly positive abnormal return, 1.01% at only portfolio formation month and cannot earn significant abnormal returns after formation month. But, the FIPP effect cannot cause the performance persistence because, within the same FIPP measure group, funds with higher past performance still earn higher monthly abnormal returns than those with lower past performance by 0.08%~0.77%, on average, in 2 years. These results imply that the main cause of the performance persistence in Korean stock market is the difference of fund managers' ability rather than the FIPP effect.

• Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.80-88
• /
• 2010

There has been considerable research examining the relationship between stockholders equity and various marketing strategies. These include studies linking stock price performance to advertising, customer service metrics, new product introductions, research and development, celebrity endorsers, brand perception, brand extensions, brand evaluation, company name changes, and sports sponsorships. Another facet of marketing investments which has received heightened scrutiny for its purported influence on stockholder equity is television advertisement embedded within specific sporting events such as the Super Bowl. Research indicates that firms which advertise in Super Bowls experience stock price gains. Given this reported relationship between advertising investment and increased shareholder value, for both general and special events, it is surprising that relatively little research attention has been paid to investigating the relationship between advertising in the Olympic Games and its subsequent impact on stockholder equity. While attention has been directed at examining the effectiveness of sponsoring the Olympic Games, much less focus has been placed on the financial soundness of advertising during the telecasts of these Games. Notable exceptions to this include Peters (2008), Pfanner (2008), Saini (2008), and Keller Fay Group (2009). This paper presents a study of Olympic advertisers who ran TV ads on NBC in the American telecasts of the 2000, 2004, and 2008 Summer Olympic Games. Five hypothesis were tested: H1: The stock prices of firms which advertised on American telecasts of the 2008, 2004 and 2000 Olympics (referred to as O-Stocks), will outperform the S&P 500 during this same period of time (i.e., the Monday before the Games through to the Friday after the Games). H2: O-Stocks will outperform the S&P 500 during the medium term, that is, for the period of the Monday before the Games through to the end of each Olympic calendar year (December 31st of 2000, 2004, and 2008 respectively). H3: O-Stocks will outperform the S&P 500 in the longer term, that is, for the period of the Monday before the Games through to the midpoint of the following years (June 30th of 2001, 2005, and 2009 respectively). H4: There will be no difference in the performance of these O-Stocks vs. the S&P 500 in the Non-Olympic time control periods (i.e. three months earlier for each of the Olympic years). H5: The annual revenue of firms which advertised on American telecasts of the 2008, 2004 and 2000 Olympics will be higher for those years than the revenue for those same firms in the years preceding those three Olympics respectively. In this study, we recorded stock prices of those companies that advertised during the Olympics for the last three Summer Olympic Games (i.e. Beijing in 2008, Athens in 2004, and Sydney in 2000). We identified these advertisers using Google searches as well as with the help of the television network (i.e., NBC) that hosted the Games. NBC held the American broadcast rights to all three Olympic Games studied. We used Internet sources to verify the parent companies of the brands that were advertised each year. Stock prices of these parent companies were found using Yahoo! Finance. Only companies that were publicly held and traded were used in the study. We identified changes in Olympic advertisers' stock prices over the four-week period that included the Monday before through the Friday after the Games. In total, there were 117 advertisers of the Games on telecasts which were broadcast in the U.S. for 2008, 2004, and 2000 Olympics. Figure 1 provides a breakdown of those advertisers, by industry sector. Results indicate the stock of the firms that advertised (O-Stocks) out-performed the S&P 500 during the period of interest and under-performed the S&P 500 during the earlier control periods. These same O-Stocks also outperformed the S&P 500 from the start of these Games through to the end of each Olympic year, and for six months beyond that. Price pressure linkage, signaling theory, high involvement viewers, and corporate activation strategies are believed to contribute to these positive results. Implications for advertisers and researchers are discussed, as are study limitations and future research directions.

• Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.89-97
• /
• 2010

This study researches the effects of common features on a no-choice option with respect to regulatory focus theory. The primary interest is in three factors and their interrelationship: common features, no-choice option, and regulatory focus. Prior studies have compiled vast body of research in these areas. First, the "common features effect" has been observed bymany noted marketing researchers. Tversky (1972) proposed the seminal theory, the EBA model: elimination by aspect. According to this theory, consumers are prone to focus only on unique features during comparison processing, thereby dismissing any common features as redundant information. Recently, however, more provocative ideas have attacked the EBA model by asserting that common features really do affect consumer judgment. Chernev (1997) first reported that adding common features mitigates the choice gap because of the increasing perception of similarity among alternatives. Later, however, Chernev (2001) published a critically developed study against his prior perspective with the proposition that common features may be a cognitive load to consumers, and thus consumers are possible that they are prone to prefer the heuristic processing to the systematic processing. This tends to bring one question to the forefront: Do "common features" affect consumer choice? If so, what are the concrete effects? This study tries to answer the question with respect to the "no-choice" option and regulatory focus. Second, some researchers hold that the no-choice option is another best alternative of consumers, who are likely to avoid having to choose in the context of knotty trade-off settings or mental conflicts. Hope for the future also may increase the no-choice option in the context of optimism or the expectancy of a more satisfactory alternative appearing later. Other issues reported in this domain are time pressure, consumer confidence, and alternative numbers (Dhar and Nowlis 1999; Lin and Wu 2005; Zakay and Tsal 1993). This study casts the no-choice option in yet another perspective: the interactive effects between common features and regulatory focus. Third, "regulatory focus theory" is a very popular theme in recent marketing research. It suggests that consumers have two focal goals facing each other: promotion vs. prevention. A promotion focus deals with the concepts of hope, inspiration, achievement, or gain, whereas prevention focus involves duty, responsibility, safety, or loss-aversion. Thus, while consumers with a promotion focus tend to take risks for gain, the same does not hold true for a prevention focus. Regulatory focus theory predicts consumers' emotions, creativity, attitudes, memory, performance, and judgment, as documented in a vast field of marketing and psychology articles. The perspective of the current study in exploring consumer choice and common features is a somewhat creative viewpoint in the area of regulatory focus. These reviews inspire this study of the interaction possibility between regulatory focus and common features with a no-choice option. Specifically, adding common features rather than omitting them may increase the no-choice option ratio in the choice setting only to prevention-focused consumers, but vice versa to promotion-focused consumers. The reasoning is that when prevention-focused consumers come in contact with common features, they may perceive higher similarity among the alternatives. This conflict among similar options would increase the no-choice ratio. Promotion-focused consumers, however, are possible that they perceive common features as a cue of confirmation bias. And thus their confirmation processing would make their prior preference more robust, then the no-choice ratio may shrink. This logic is verified in two experiments. The first is a $2{\times}2$ between-subject design (whether common features or not X regulatory focus) using a digital cameras as the relevant stimulus-a product very familiar to young subjects. Specifically, the regulatory focus variable is median split through a measure of eleven items. Common features included zoom, weight, memory, and battery, whereas the other two attributes (pixel and price) were unique features. Results supported our hypothesis that adding common features enhanced the no-choice ratio only to prevention-focus consumers, not to those with a promotion focus. These results confirm our hypothesis - the interactive effects between a regulatory focus and the common features. Prior research had suggested that including common features had a effect on consumer choice, but this study shows that common features affect choice by consumer segmentation. The second experiment was used to replicate the results of the first experiment. This experimental study is equal to the prior except only two - priming manipulation and another stimulus. For the promotion focus condition, subjects had to write an essay using words such as profit, inspiration, pleasure, achievement, development, hedonic, change, pursuit, etc. For prevention, however, they had to use the words persistence, safety, protection, aversion, loss, responsibility, stability etc. The room for rent had common features (sunshine, facility, ventilation) and unique features (distance time and building state). These attributes implied various levels and valence for replication of the prior experiment. Our hypothesis was supported repeatedly in the results, and the interaction effects were significant between regulatory focus and common features. Thus, these studies showed the dual effects of common features on consumer choice for a no-choice option. Adding common features may enhance or mitigate no-choice, contradictory as it may sound. Under a prevention focus, adding common features is likely to enhance the no-choice ratio because of increasing mental conflict; under the promotion focus, it is prone to shrink the ratio perhaps because of a "confirmation bias." The research has practical and theoretical implications for marketers, who may need to consider common features carefully in a practical display context according to consumer segmentation (i.e., promotion vs. prevention focus.) Theoretically, the results suggest some meaningful moderator variable between common features and no-choice in that the effect on no-choice option is partly dependent on a regulatory focus. This variable corresponds not only to a chronic perspective but also a situational perspective in our hypothesis domain. Finally, in light of some shortcomings in the research, such as overlooked attribute importance, low ratio of no-choice, or the external validity issue, we hope it influences future studies to explore the little-known world of the "no-choice option."