<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<collection>
<dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:invenio="http://invenio-software.org/elements/1.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd"><dc:identifier>doi:10.1016/j.irfa.2018.01.007</dc:identifier><dc:language>eng</dc:language><dc:creator>Zaremba, Adam</dc:creator><dc:creator>Andreu Sánchez, Laura</dc:creator><dc:title>Paper profits or real money? Trading costs and stock market anomalies in country ETFs</dc:title><dc:identifier>ART-2018-104451</dc:identifier><dc:description>Are the quantitative equity strategies for country selection robust to implementation costs? To answer this question, we conduct a comprehensive examination of the country-level strategies so far. We review, classify, and replicate 120 equity anomalies within a sample of 42 country equity indices for the years 1996–2017. Next, using ETF price and spread data, we test the effect of real-life conditions and trading costs on the anomaly performance. We also examine three cost-mitigation strategies: infrequent rebalancing, capitalization-based weighting, and focus on low-cost securities. We find that 46% of the long-only monthly rebalanced anomaly portfolios display significant alphas, concentrated strongly among strategies based on value, momentum, and liquidity. The effect of transaction costs proves largely lethal to returns, leaving only a handful of anomalies profitable. Less frequent rebalancing (annually) helps to regain the effectiveness of the strategies, increasing the monthly alphas on the long-only anomaly portfolios to 0.44% on average.</dc:description><dc:date>2018</dc:date><dc:source>http://zaguan.unizar.es/record/130945</dc:source><dc:doi>10.1016/j.irfa.2018.01.007</dc:doi><dc:identifier>http://zaguan.unizar.es/record/130945</dc:identifier><dc:identifier>oai:zaguan.unizar.es:130945</dc:identifier><dc:identifier.citation>International review of financial analysis 56 (2018), 181-192</dc:identifier.citation><dc:rights>All rights reserved</dc:rights><dc:rights>http://www.europeana.eu/rights/rr-f/</dc:rights><dc:rights>info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess</dc:rights></dc:dc>

</collection>