The Nature and Persistence of Buyback Anomalies
Top Cited Papers
- 16 March 2008
- journal article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in The Review of Financial Studies
- Vol. 22 (4) , 1693-1745
- https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhn024
Abstract
Using recent data, we reject the hypothesis that the buyback anomalies first reported by Lakonishok and Vermaelen (1990, Journal of Finance 45:455–77) and Ikenberry, Lakonishok, and Vermaelen (1995, Journal of Financial Economics 39:181–208) have disappeared over time. We find evidence consistent with the hypothesis that open market repurchases are a response to a market overreaction to bad news: significant analyst downgrades, combined with overly pessimistic forecasts of long-term earnings. Stock prices after tender offers are set as if all investors tender their shares, but empirically they do not. Thus, the arbitrage opportunity persists because the market sets prices as if the average, not the marginal investor, determines the stock price.Keywords
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- The relation between corporate financing activities, analysts’ forecasts and stock returnsJournal of Accounting and Economics, 2006
- Payout policy in the 21st centuryJournal of Financial Economics, 2005
- On the Timing and Execution of Open Market RepurchasesThe Review of Financial Studies, 2003
- Limited arbitrage in mergers and acquisitionsJournal of Financial Economics, 2002
- The Association between Trading Recommendations and Broker‐Analysts’ Earnings ForecastsJournal of Accounting Research, 2002
- Managerial timing and corporate liquidity:Journal of Financial Economics, 2001
- Share repurchase tender offers and bid–ask spreadsJournal of Banking & Finance, 2001
- On Persistence in Mutual Fund PerformanceThe Journal of Finance, 1997
- Corporate payout policy: Cash Dividends versus Open-Market RepurchasesJournal of Financial Economics, 1988
- Does the Stock Market Overreact?The Journal of Finance, 1985