Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,170

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Day of the Week Effects and Asset Returns

Gibbons, Michael R., Hess, Patrick·1981·The Journal of Business

Abstract

The number of empirical studies using daily stock returns is rapidly increasing.' Researchers generally assume that the distribution of stock returns is identical for all days of the week-a convenient statistical assumption but not a necessary condition of market equilibrium. Nevertheless, there are reasons to suspect that the distribution of returns may vary according to the day of the week; the most obvious is the impact of weekends on Monday's return. Since Monday's return is calculated over three instead of one calender day, the mean and variance may well be higher on Monday compared with any other daily return (perhaps three times as large). Previous research has examined the daily distribution of stock returns for a Monday effect. While Fama (1965) does not compare daily mean returns, he does report that Monday's variance is about 20o greater than other daily returns. With A traditional distributional assumption regarding the returns on a financial asset specifies that the expected returns are identical for all days of the week. Contrary to this plausible assumption, this paper discovers that the expected returns on common stocks and treasury bills are not constant across days of the week. The most notable evidence is for Monday's returns where the mean is unusually low or even negative. Several explanations of the results are investigated, but none proves satisfactory. Aside from documenting significant day of the week effects, the implications of the results for tests of market efficiency are examined. While market-adjusted returns continue to exhibit day of the week effects, these effects are no longer concentrated on Monday. * During the last year we have had many conversations with our colleagues throughout the professions. We are particularly thankful to the participants at sessions of the Western and American Finance Associations where preliminary versions of this paper were presented. Special thanks are due to Gene Fama, Gailen Hite, Jon Ingersoll, Robert Jarrow, Merton Miller, Clifford Smith and Rex Thompson. The expert research assistance of Frank Rabinovitch and YoungSup Yun is gratefully acknowledged. 1. The list of papers using daily stock returns is too long to name. Recent examples include Charest (1978), Dodd (1980), Banz (1981), and Reinganum (1981).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/296147

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,170

Metadata

Authors
Gibbons, M. R., & Hess, P.
Venue
The Journal of Business
Published
1981-01
Volume
54
Issue
4
Pages
579
ISSN
  • 0021-9398 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5374
OpenAlex
W2006568420
Cited by
1,170
References
0
FWCI
19.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Day of the Week Effects and Asset Returns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/296147
The paper
Gibbons, M. R., & Hess, P. (1981). Day of the Week Effects and Asset Returns. The Journal of Business. https://doi.org/10.1086/296147

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.