Causal Inference in Financial Event Studies
金融事件研究中的因果推断AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
本页为预印本版本;arXiv 收录、作者填写的期刊信息以及作者既有发表经历,都不单独证明本篇已接收。作者发表记录按 OpenAlex 身份与完整姓名、本站覆盖期刊 ISSN 及正式卷期核对,只展示已核实例,档案仍可能误合并。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要将金融事件的因果效应与收益因子模型误设直接联系,支持因果推断和金融因子分类。
金融事件研究中的因果推断AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
Financial event studies, ubiquitous in finance research, typically use linear factor models with known factors to estimate abnormal returns and identify causal effects of information events. This paper demonstrates that when factor models are misspecified -- an almost certain reality -- traditional event study estimators produce inconsistent estimates of treatment effects. The bias is particularly severe during volatile periods, over long horizons, and when event timing correlates with market conditions. We derive precise conditions for identification and expressions for asymptotic bias. As an alternative, we propose synthetic control methods that construct replicating portfolios from control securities without imposing specific factor structures. Revisiting four empirical applications, we show that some established findings may reflect model misspecification rather than true treatment effects. While traditional methods remain reliable for short-horizon studies with random event timing, our results suggest caution when interpreting long-horizon or volatile-period event studies and highlight the importance of quasi-experimental designs when available.