数据窥探和市场择时规则性能

A. Neuhierl, Bernd Schlusche
{"title":"数据窥探和市场择时规则性能","authors":"A. Neuhierl, Bernd Schlusche","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1343896","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We reassess the performance of market-timing rules when controlling for data-snooping biases. For the first time, a comprehensive set of simple and complex market-timing rules is examined and tested for statistical significance, using the White (2000) \"Reality Check,\" the Hansen (2005) SPA test, as well as their stepwise extensions by Romano and Wolf (2005) and Hsu, Hsu, and Kuan (2010). Even though individual market-timing rules significantly outperform a buy-and-hold strategy at both daily and monthly frequencies when considered in isolation, their outperformance, generally, does not remain significant after correcting for data snooping. Relative to the alternative of investing in the risk-free rate, however, we find significant outperformance of the best rules, even after data-snooping adjustment, when testing at a monthly timing frequency. (JEL: G11, G14) Copyright The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org, Oxford University Press.","PeriodicalId":425229,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Hypothesis Testing (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"35","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Data Snooping and Market-Timing Rule Performance\",\"authors\":\"A. Neuhierl, Bernd Schlusche\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1343896\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We reassess the performance of market-timing rules when controlling for data-snooping biases. For the first time, a comprehensive set of simple and complex market-timing rules is examined and tested for statistical significance, using the White (2000) \\\"Reality Check,\\\" the Hansen (2005) SPA test, as well as their stepwise extensions by Romano and Wolf (2005) and Hsu, Hsu, and Kuan (2010). Even though individual market-timing rules significantly outperform a buy-and-hold strategy at both daily and monthly frequencies when considered in isolation, their outperformance, generally, does not remain significant after correcting for data snooping. Relative to the alternative of investing in the risk-free rate, however, we find significant outperformance of the best rules, even after data-snooping adjustment, when testing at a monthly timing frequency. (JEL: G11, G14) Copyright The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org, Oxford University Press.\",\"PeriodicalId\":425229,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Hypothesis Testing (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-02-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"35\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Hypothesis Testing (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1343896\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Hypothesis Testing (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1343896","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 35

摘要

在控制数据窥探偏差的情况下,我们重新评估了市场择时规则的性能。第一次,一套全面的简单和复杂的市场时机规则被检查和测试的统计显著性,使用White(2000)。“现实检验”,Hansen(2005)的SPA检验,以及Romano和Wolf(2005)和Hsu、Hsu和Kuan(2010)的逐步延伸。尽管单独考虑单个市场时机规则时,在日频率和月频率上的表现明显优于买入并持有策略,但在对数据窥探进行校正后,它们的表现通常并不明显。然而,相对于投资于无风险利率的替代方案,我们发现,即使在数据窥探调整之后,当以每月定时频率进行测试时,最佳规则的表现也明显优于最佳规则。(JEL: G11, G14)版权所有作者2011。牛津大学出版社出版。版权所有。有关许可,请发送电子邮件:journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org,牛津大学出版社。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Data Snooping and Market-Timing Rule Performance
We reassess the performance of market-timing rules when controlling for data-snooping biases. For the first time, a comprehensive set of simple and complex market-timing rules is examined and tested for statistical significance, using the White (2000) "Reality Check," the Hansen (2005) SPA test, as well as their stepwise extensions by Romano and Wolf (2005) and Hsu, Hsu, and Kuan (2010). Even though individual market-timing rules significantly outperform a buy-and-hold strategy at both daily and monthly frequencies when considered in isolation, their outperformance, generally, does not remain significant after correcting for data snooping. Relative to the alternative of investing in the risk-free rate, however, we find significant outperformance of the best rules, even after data-snooping adjustment, when testing at a monthly timing frequency. (JEL: G11, G14) Copyright The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org, Oxford University Press.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Lagrange-Multiplier Test for Large Heterogeneous Panel Data Models "Go Wild for a While!": A New Asymptotically Normal Test for Forecast Evaluation in Nested Models Tests of Conditional Predictive Ability: Existence, Size, and Power Inference for Large-Scale Linear Systems with Known Coefficients The Testing of Efficient Market Hypotheses: A Study of Indian Pharmaceutical Industry
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1