2021
DOI: 10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2021.03.13
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Investigation of Momentum and Contrarian Anomalies in the Islamic Stocks: Empirical Evidence from Turkey

Abstract: This paper investigates momentum and contrarian anomalies in Islamic stocks in Turkey. For this purpose, the wild bootstrap automatic variance ratio test was carried out using weekly prices of 10 Islamic stocks in Turkey. The analysis results showed that there are both momentum and contrarian anomalies in Islamic stocks in Turkey. It was also found that the contrarian anomaly occurs more than the momentum anomaly in the Turkish Islamic stocks, and the performance of both momentum and contrarian strategies show… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0
1

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
1
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Also, the co-integration relationship must be between the variables under consideration. For these reasons, three widely used unit root tests, namely, Augmented Dickey-Fuller [34], Phillips-Perron [35], and Zivot-Andrews [36] (ZA) were first used to make sure the order of integration of any of the variables was not I(2) (corroborated in the literature [37][38][39][40][41]) also apply these unit roots). The unit root test results are reported in Table 3.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, the co-integration relationship must be between the variables under consideration. For these reasons, three widely used unit root tests, namely, Augmented Dickey-Fuller [34], Phillips-Perron [35], and Zivot-Andrews [36] (ZA) were first used to make sure the order of integration of any of the variables was not I(2) (corroborated in the literature [37][38][39][40][41]) also apply these unit roots). The unit root test results are reported in Table 3.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…;Al-mulali et al, 2013;Kahouli, 2017;Khan et al, 2019;Ahmed & Sarkodie, 2021;Olasehinde-Williams et al, 2021;Ozkan, 2021;Özkan & Çakar, 2021;Godil et al, 2022; …”
unclassified