Search results

The authors evaluate the Sell in May effect in the Canadian context to comprehensively explore the Sell in May effect as well as its interactions with the size effect and risk and with multiple indices.

The authors use ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions to examine the Sell in May effect and Huber M-estimation to handle potential outliers. They also use the generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) models to explore the role of risk in the Sell in May effect.

The results demonstrate that the Sell in May effect is present in all three main Canadian stock market indices. More telling, the anomaly is strongest in small cap indices and in indices that give equal weighting to small and large cap stocks. They do not find that the effect is driven by risk.

While several papers have explored the Sell in May phenomenon in several countries, little scholarly attention has been paid to this effect in Canada and to its interaction with the size effect. The authors contribute to the literature by examining of the interactions between Sell in May and the size effect in Canada. They examine the Sell in May effect using CFMRC value-weighted and equally weighted indices of all Canadian companies. They also incorporate in their analysis the role of risk.

This research should help determine whether development should focus on individual firms or will raising the national development level act like a rising tide and raise the performance of all corporations.

The comparative data used in this study come from 150 Australian (ASX200 index listed) firms and 150 Sri Lankan (Colombo Stock Exchange listed) firms. The research questions are answered via a quantitative research design that uses primary and secondary data.

The findings demonstrate that capital budgeting practices are more influenced by contingency features and sophistication in Australia and Sri Lanka. Also, Australian firms tend to use capital budget models with good-to-strong predictive power (except for ROE) and Sri Lankan firms tend to use capital-budget models with fair-to-poor predictive power. Further, the analysis of Australian firms yielded much stronger and more statistically significant results than the analysis of Sri Lankan firms.

In complex real-world situations, reconciling the outputs of a multifaceted approach to capital budgeting methods is more likely to give the depth and width of input needed to achieve an optimal capital investment plan.

The results of this study can provide rich information for stakeholders about new findings in capital budgeting (CB) practices and their contributions to firm performance in a comparative perspective.