IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/apfiec/v13y2003i8p573-579.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pros win! Pros win!… or do they?: an analysis of the 'Dartboard' contest using stochastic dominance

Author

Listed:
  • Ross Dickens
  • Roger Shelor

Abstract

Market efficiency is examined using The Wall Street Journal's dartboard contest in which the pros' stock selections seem superior under the contest's rules of only capital gains returns (ignoring dividends). After adjusting for systematic risk, it is found that the pros' capital gains are higher than expected. However, the results are suspect given questions concerning the validity and estimation of asset pricing models. Therefore, stochastic dominance is used to analyse the contest. It is found that the pros' capital gains outperform the darts' at the second order of stochastic dominance, but they do not dominate any market index. Finally, for total returns (including dividends), no difference is found between the pros and darts. This finding supports Metcalf and Malkiel (Applied Financial Economics, 4, pp. 371-4, 1994).

Suggested Citation

  • Ross Dickens & Roger Shelor, 2003. "Pros win! Pros win!… or do they?: an analysis of the 'Dartboard' contest using stochastic dominance," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(8), pages 573-579.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:apfiec:v:13:y:2003:i:8:p:573-579
    DOI: 10.1080/0960310022000025451
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0960310022000025451
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/0960310022000025451?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fama, Eugene F & French, Kenneth R, 1992. "The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(2), pages 427-465, June.
    2. Larsen, Glen A, Jr & Resnick, Bruce G, 1996. "Refining the Bootstrap Method of Stochastic Dominance Analysis: The Case of the January Effect," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 65-79, July.
    3. Barber, Brad M. & Loeffler, Douglas, 1993. "The “Dartboard” Column: Second-Hand Information and Price Pressure," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 273-284, June.
    4. Seyhun, H. Nejat, 1993. "Can Omitted Risk Factors Explain the January Effect? A Stochastic Dominance Approach," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 195-212, June.
    5. Roll, Richard, 1977. "A critique of the asset pricing theory's tests Part I: On past and potential testability of the theory," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 129-176, March.
    6. Krueger, Thomas M & Kennedy, William F, 1990. "An Examination of the Super Bowl Stock Market Predictor," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 45(2), pages 691-697, June.
    7. Travlos, Nickolaos G, 1987. "Corporate Takeover Bids, Methods of Payment, and Bidding Firms' Stock Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 42(4), pages 943-963, September.
    8. Bjerring, James H & Lakonishok, Josef & Vermaelen, Theo, 1983. "Stock Prices and Financial Analysts' Recommendations," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 38(1), pages 187-204, March.
    9. Liang, Bing, 1999. "Price Pressure: Evidence from the "Dartboard" Column," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 72(1), pages 119-134, January.
    10. Albert, Robert Jr. & Smaby, Timothy R., 1996. "Market response to analyst recommendations in the "dartboard" column: the information and price-pressure effects," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 59-74.
    11. Jason Greene & Scott Smart, 1999. "Liquidity Provision and Noise Trading: Evidence from the “Investment Dartboard” Column," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(5), pages 1885-1899, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michael Weba, 2024. "Investment strategies based on forecasts are (almost) useless," Papers 2408.01772, arXiv.org.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhang, Yongjie & Song, Weixin & Shen, Dehua & Zhang, Wei, 2016. "Market reaction to internet news: Information diffusion and price pressure," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 43-49.
    2. Dehua Shen & Wei Zhang, 2021. "Stay-at-Home Stocks Versus Go-Outside Stocks: The Impacts of COVID-19 on the Chinese Stock Market," Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, Springer;Japanese Association of Financial Economics and Engineering, vol. 28(2), pages 305-318, June.
    3. Enrico Maria Cervellati & Riccardo Ferretti & Pierpaolo Pattitoni, 2011. "Market Reaction to Second-Hand News: Attention Grabbing or Information Dissemination," Centro Studi di Banca e Finanza (CEFIN) (Center for Studies in Banking and Finance) 0024, Universita di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Dipartimento di Economia "Marco Biagi".
    4. Zhang, Yongjie & Zhang, Zuochao & Liu, Lanbiao & Shen, Dehua, 2017. "The interaction of financial news between mass media and new media: Evidence from news on Chinese stock market," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 486(C), pages 535-541.
    5. Moshirian, Fariborz & Ng, David & Wu, Eliza, 2009. "The value of stock analysts' recommendations: Evidence from emerging markets," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 18(1-2), pages 74-83, March.
    6. Enrico Maria Cervellati & Riccardo Ferretti & Pierpaolo Pattitoni, 2014. "Market reaction to second-hand news: inside the attention-grabbing hypothesis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(10), pages 1108-1121, April.
    7. Zhang, Yuzhao & Liu, Haifei, 2021. "Stock market reactions to social media: Evidence from WeChat recommendations," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 562(C).
    8. Radosław Kurach, 2013. "Does Beta Explain Global Equity Market Volatility – Some Empirical Evidence," Contemporary Economics, University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw., vol. 7(2), June.
    9. Flouris, Triant & Walker, Thomas, 2005. "Financial Comparisons Across Different Business Models in the Canadian Airline Industry," 46th Annual Transportation Research Forum, Washington, D.C., March 6-8, 2005 208157, Transportation Research Forum.
    10. Turan G. Bali & Robert F. Engle & Yi Tang, 2017. "Dynamic Conditional Beta Is Alive and Well in the Cross Section of Daily Stock Returns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3760-3779, November.
    11. Sudi Sudarsanam & Ashraf A. Mahate, 2003. "Glamour Acquirers, Method of Payment and Post‐acquisition Performance: The UK Evidence," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1‐2), pages 299-342, January.
    12. Tim Bollerslev & Sophia Zhengzi Li & Viktor Todorov, 2014. "Roughing up Beta: Continuous vs. Discontinuous Betas, and the Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns," CREATES Research Papers 2014-48, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    13. Hendershott, Terrence & Livdan, Dmitry & Rösch, Dominik, 2020. "Asset pricing: A tale of night and day," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(3), pages 635-662.
    14. Linnenluecke, Martina K. & Chen, Xiaoyan & Ling, Xin & Smith, Tom & Zhu, Yushu, 2017. "Research in finance: A review of influential publications and a research agenda," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 188-199.
    15. Juan-Pedro Gómez & Fernando Zapatero, 2001. "Asset pricing implications of benchmarking: A two-factor CAPM," Economics Working Papers 693, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    16. Ismail, Ahmad, 2008. "Which acquirers gain more, single or multiple? Recent evidence from the USA market," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 72-84.
    17. Martin Lettau & Sydney Ludvigson, 2001. "Resurrecting the (C)CAPM: A Cross-Sectional Test When Risk Premia Are Time-Varying," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(6), pages 1238-1287, December.
    18. Abdul Rashid & Saba Kausar, 2019. "Testing the Monthly Calendar Anomaly of Stock Returns in Pakistan: A Stochastic Dominance Approach," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 58(1), pages 83-104.
    19. Rúben Miguel Torcato Peixinho, 2011. "Are analysts misleading investors? The case of goingconcern opinions," CEFAGE-UE Working Papers 2011_22, University of Evora, CEFAGE-UE (Portugal).
    20. Ryan Bartens & Shakill Hassan, 2010. "Value, size and momentum portfolios in real time: the cross section of South African stocks," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 35(2), pages 181-202, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:apfiec:v:13:y:2003:i:8:p:573-579. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RAFE20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.