Technical ReportPDF Available

Goodbye to the Patell Test in Eventus



Recent and older research shows that the Boehmer-Musumeci-Poulsen (BMP, 1991) standardized cross-sectional test produces more reliable inferences than the original Patell (1976) test on which it is built. Accordingly, the BMP standardized cross-sectional test will be the new default parametric test in Eventus for two-step event studies. Users are free to select the original Patell test or the newer Kolari-Pynnönen (KP, 2010) adjusted standardized cross-sectional test using appropriate option specifications. Optional bootstrap p-values also can be selected for the various tests.
Goodbye to the Patell Test in Eventus
Arnold R. Cowan
CEO, Cowan Research LC
Wells Fargo Professor of Finance, Iowa State University
This draft: March 1, 20200
It’s not really goodbye. You still can run the Patell (1976) test in Eventus® software if you need it.
The longtime default parametric test for basic two-step event studies is only moving out of the
spotlight. The new default now in place for most users is the standardized cross-sectional test by
Boehmer, Musumeci and Poulsen (BMP; 1991); for a smaller number of users, the change may
await the next update or version upgrade. The BMP standardized cross-sectional test is an en-
hanced version of the Patell test.1
This note reviews some of the research that informed our decision to take the rare step of chang-
ing a default setting and provides details about the change.
Relevant Research
The standardized abnormal return test of the null hypothesis that the mean abnormal return is
zero, derived by Patell (1976), has important strengths. Brown and Warner (BW; 1980, 1985)
report simulation evidence that the test is well specified in random samples of actual security
returns. Further, they show that the Patell test greatly improves power to detect an abnormal
return (artificially induced for the simulations) by making use of firm-specific variance estimates.
However, BW also report that a variance increase on the event date can seriously bias the Patell
test. Increased return variances around events have been reported at least since Beaver (1968).
BMP develop an extension of the Patell test, the standardized cross-sectional test, which brings
in cross-sectional variance information to correct for variance increases. BMP provide BW-type
simulation evidence that the standardized cross-sectional test is robust to event-date variance
increases. Focusing on the potential power-degrading effects of outlying estimation-period ob-
servations with high trading volume, Graham, Pirie and Powell (1996) report simulation
evidence that the standardized cross-sectional test provides the best power of three tests studied,
while holding the correct test size (true-null rejection rate). Higgins and Peterson (1998) conduct
simulations and use empirical distribution functions to equalize power under the null hypothesis
across tests. Their results support the overall superiority of the BMP standardized cross-sectional
1 The Patell test receives mentions in the literature under other names such as standardized abnormal return test
and test assuming cross-sectional independence, and sometimes is attributed to various other authors including for
example Brown and Warner (1980, 1985), Dodd and Warner (1983) and Mikkelson and Partch (1988).
Harrington and Shrider (2007) show analytically that under plausible assumptions, cross-sec-
tional differences in event-induced abnormal returns cause the event-day variance to exceed the
variance of estimation-period residuals. This effect is separate from a potential transient or long-
term shock to the variance of the normal return-generating process. Harrington and Shrider also
provide a more rigorous analytical foundation for the BMP standardized cross-sectional test. The
authors report additional simulation evidence of heteroskedasticity-related biases of the Patell
test that the standardized cross-sectional test avoids.
Campbell, Cowan and Salotti (2015) conduct BW-type simulations of multi-country event stud-
ies and report that the standardized cross-sectional test performs well under a variety of
conditions in global samples. However, it is less powerful than nonparametric tests examined,
and it tends to reject a true null hypothesis too often in single-country non-U.S. samples and
when the stock experiencing a firm-specific event is a dominant member of a country index. The
authors recommended using the standardized cross-sectional test in conjunction with a nonpar-
ametric test for international event studies.
Marks and Musumeci (2017) argue that due to slow convergence of the sample mean to a normal
distribution, an event-induced variance shift is not necessary for the Patell test to be biased. They
conduct simulations with larger samples and far more replications than previous studies and find
over-rejection of true null hypotheses by the Patell test but. In contrast, the standardized cross-
sectional test performs nominally. Marks and Musumeci endorse Harrington and Shrider’s rec-
ommendation that researchers always use the BMP standardized cross-sectional test BMP in
preference to the Patell test.
The Patell and Standardized Cross-Sectional Tests in Eventus
Starting with the first commercial version in 1989, Eventus software provided the Patell test by
default. In 2017, we decided that changing the default parametric test was the responsible deci-
sion in light of the weight of research evidence published over more than a quarter century, the
admonition of Karolyi (2011) that the academic finance profession has room for improvement in
taking the “con out of econometrics”2, the warnings of Harvey (2017) concerning “p-hacking”,
and our observation from support interactions that it is not uncommon for users to accept the
default test as standard.
The standardized cross-sectional test has been an available option in Eventus for approximately
two decades; users have been able to select it by adding the StdCSect option to the EvtStudy
statement. Going forward, if one does not select a specific parametric test or a non-two-step
method (such as calendar-time portfolio regression or Ibbotson RATS), Eventus will provide the
standardized cross-sectional test.
2 The phrase originated with Leamer (1983).
The Eventus implementation of the BMP test applied to multi-day or multi-month windows in-
corporates a correction for the serial correlation that occurs when using the same coefficient
estimates for each daily or monthly abnormal return (Cowan, 1993) .This correction also has
been available for the Patell test in Eventus for many years through the use of the EvtStudy state-
ment option Serial. Serial has been, and still is, activated by default for the BMP standardized
cross-sectional test from the first release of Eventus that offered the test. It always has been, and
continues to be, necessary to specify Serial explicitly if one wants to use the correction with the
original Patell test.
Users often recycle and adapt old programs of their own or those of others for new studies. We
have seen many Eventus user programs that specify the Patell option explicitly, typically to select
this test along with other parametric tests in the same run. Third-party tools to assist Eventus
uses may also specify Patell. To ensure that our change of default is not rendered moot by un-
conscious habit or code inertia, we have taken another rare step and changed the meaning of the
Patell option. Instead of invoking the original Patell test, the simple EvtStudy statement option
specification Patell now selects (or for some users will select) the standardized cross-sectional
test, which one could think of as Patell 2.0. Users still can select the Patell 1.0 test by using the
new EvtStudy statement option specification Patell=Original (case does not matter).
A side benefit of the changes is that some users will encounter less confusion when seeking a
Patell-type test with a multi-factor benchmark model such as the Fama-French three-, four- and
five-factor models in two-step mode. Eventus offers the standardized cross-sectional test but not
the original Patell test with multi-factor models.
Users also may want to be aware of another available EvtStudy statement option specification,
StdCSect=Adjusted, which selects the adjusted standardized cross-sectional test of Kolari and
Pynnönen (2010). This test (perhaps Patell 3.0) retains the benefits of the BMP standardized
cross-sectional test while further accounting for cross-correlation, which especially arises when
all firms experience the event on the same calendar date. 3
The original Patell, the standardized cross-sectional test and the adjusted standardized cross-
sectional test must be run separately; it is not possible to select two or more in the same run.
A specific suggestion of Karolyi (2011) for improving the credibility of conclusions from empiri-
cal financial economics is the use of simulation methods, of which bootstraps are an example. In
Eventus, use the EvtStudy statement option Bootstrap (or just Boot) to compute nonparametric-
bootstrap p-values of parametric tests, or Bootstrap=Wild to compute wild bootstrap p-values.
3 WRDS web queries that formerly defaulted to the Patell option now default to the Patell=Original option. This
design choice was made by WRDS. We recommend that users of these query pages select the StdCSect option or
add a line containing only ?*#! StdCSect=Adjusted to the beginning of the request file to select the adjusted
standardized cross-sectional test.
Abnormal returns and standardized abnormal returns at the security-event (“firm”) level do not
vary across the three tests. The tests differ only in how they aggregate security-event results to
produce an overall test statistic.
Recent and older research shows that the Boehmer-Musumeci-Poulsen (BMP) standardized
cross-sectional test produces more reliable inferences than the original Patell test on which it is
built. Accordingly, we decided to make the BMP standardized cross-sectional test the new de-
fault parametric test in Eventus for two-step event studies. Users are free to select the original
Patell test or the newer Kolari-Pynnönen (KP) adjusted standardized cross-sectional test using
appropriate option specifications. Optional bootstrap p-values also can be selected for the vari-
ous tests.
The following table shows how to select various test choices in Eventus if the new defaults are
active, as they now are for the majority of users.
To Select This:
dd This (in Upper, Lower or Mixed
Case) Anywhere Among the Options of
the EvtStudy Statement, or Specify
One Option Per Line at the Beginning of
the Request File on Lines Starting with
the Four Characters ?*#!:
Standardized cross-sectional test (BMP) None or StdCSect or Patell
djusted standardized cross-sectional test (KP) StdCSect=Adjusted
Original Patell test Patell=Original
Original Patell test plus correction for serial correla-
tion in multi-day or multi-month windows
Patell=Original Serial
Standardized cross-sectional test (BMP) for the
Fama-French five-factor model (as an example of se-
lecting the test for any multi-factor model)
FamaFrench5 TwoStep or
FamaFrench5 TwoStep StdCSect
dd nonparametric bootstrap p-values for any of the
above tests
dd wild bootstrap p-values for any of the above tests Bootstrap=Wild
Questions or comments on this note are welcome; you can contact us through our support web-
site, Detailed usage help is limited to verified authorized users.
Registering with your institutional e-mail address will help us quickly verify your eligibility.
Beaver, W.H., 1968. The information content of annual earnings announcements. Journal of Ac-
counting Research, pp.67-92.
Boehmer, E., Musumeci, J. and Poulsen, A.B., 1991. Event-study methodology under conditions
of event-induced variance. Journal of Financial Economics, 30(2), pp.253-272.
Brown, S.J. and Warner, J.B., 1980. Measuring security price performance. Journal of Financial
Economics, 8(3), pp.205-258.
Brown, S.J. and Warner, J.B., 1985. Using daily stock returns: The case of event studies. Journal
of Financial Economics, 14(1), pp.3-31.
Campbell, C.J., Cowan, A.R. and Salotti, V., 2010. Multi-country event-study methods. Journal
of Banking & Finance, 34(12), pp.3078-3090.
Cowan, A.R., 1993. Tests for cumulative abnormal returns over long periods: Simulation evi-
dence. International Review of Financial Analysis, 2(1), pp.51-68.
Dodd, P. and Warner, J.B., 1983. On corporate governance: A study of proxy contests. Journal of
Financial Economics, 11(1-4), pp.401-438.
Graham, A.S., Pirie, W.L. and Powell, W.A., 1996. Detecting abnormal returns using the market
model with pre‐tested data. Journal of Financial Research, 19(1), pp.21-40.
Harrington, S.E. and Shrider, D.G., 2007. All events induce variance: Analyzing abnormal re-
turns when effects vary across firms. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 42(1), pp.229-
Harvey, Campbell R., The scientific outlook in financial economics (July 17, 2017). Duke I&E
Research Paper No. 2017-05. Available at SSRN: or
Higgins, E.J. and Peterson, D.R., 1998. The power of one and two sample t-statistics given event-
induced variance increases and nonnormal stock returns: A comparative study. Quarterly Journal
of Business and Economics, pp.27-49.
Karolyi, G.A., 2011. The ultimate irrelevance proposition in finance? Financial Review, 46(4),
Kolari, J.W. and Pynnönen, S., 2010. Event study testing with cross-sectional correlation of ab-
normal returns. Review of Financial Studies, 23(11), pp.3996-4025.
Leamer, E.E., 1983. Let's take the con out of econometrics. American Economic Review, 73(1),
Mikkelson, W.H. and Partch, M.M., 1988. Withdrawn security offerings. Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis, 23(2), pp.119-133.
Patell, J.M., 1976. Corporate forecasts of earnings per share and stock price behavior: Empirical
test. Journal of Accounting Research, pp.246-276.
This document was last updated March 1, 2020.
... Therefore, Boehmer, Musumeci and Poulsen (1991) improve this latter by developing the standardized cross-sectional test (BMP test) which is robust to possible eventinduced volatility and thereby outperforms the Patell test (Higgins and Peterson, 1998;Graham, Pirie and Powell, 1996;Harrington and Shrider, 2007;Campbell, Cowan and Salotti, 2010;Marks and Musumeci, 2017). It is widely considered as the default parametric test (Marks and Musumeci, 2017;Cowan, 2017 Kolari and Pynnonen (2010) propose an adjustment of the BMP test that will account for cross-sectional correlation. It is the Kolari-Pynnonen test (or the adjusted standardized cross-sectional test). ...
Cette thèse a pour objectif de contribuer à la littérature sur les tests de résistance réglementaires (stress tests) des banques en menant une étude plus complète et plus affinée du contenu informatif des résultats divulgués des tests. Étant donné que les stress tests fournissent aux marchés des informations sur la capacité des banques testées à absorber des pertes et à rester solidement solvables (évitant ainsi le défaut), pour examiner si ces informations sont nouvelles et pertinentes pour les acteurs du marché et évaluer la réaction de ces derniers, un instrument approprié à utiliser est le Credit Default Swaps (CDSs). En effet, la prime de CDS est une tarification relativement pure du risque de défaut bancaire (Zhang et al., 2009), sur différentes échéances (maturités). Le chapitre 1 analyse donc les instruments de CDS en posant essentiellement la question : quelle(s) maturité(s) doit-on considérer lorsqu'on veut utiliser le spread (ou prime) de CDS comme proxy du risque de défaut bancaire ? Pour tenter de répondre à cette question, ce chapitre examine s'il existe une ou plusieurs maturités de CDS dont les variations de spreads illustrent ou résument celles de toutes les autres maturités. Nos résultats suggèrent que la dynamique des trois plus courtes maturités de CDS (les maturités de 6 mois, 1 an et 2 ans) pourrait être utile à considérer si on veut avoir une représentation générale de la dynamique de toutes les maturités. De plus, nos investigations suggèrent que la publication des résultats des stress tests devrait être informative pour toutes les maturités des CDS et devrait impacter leurs spreads différemment. Dès lors, le chapitre 2 s’interroge si la seule utilisation des spreads de CDS de maturité 5 ans est suffisante pour apprécier la réaction des acteurs du marché à la suite de la publication des résultats, et évaluer pleinement le contenu informatif de cette publication. Les résultats montrent que ce n'est pas suffisant, car les acteurs du marché réagissent différemment en fonction de la maturité du contrat de CDS. Par conséquent, la seule prise en compte de la maturité de 5 ans peut conduire à une analyse incomplète et partielle de la réaction des acteurs du marché. Ceci, à son tour, peut conduire à des interprétations erronées du contenu informatif des résultats des stress tests. Le chapitre 3 propose d’aller plus loin en étudiant les déterminants de la réaction des acteurs du marché suite à la publication, considérant distinctement les résultats divulgués des deux scénarios mis en oeuvre, à savoir le scénario de base et le scénario défavorable. L'objectif est d'examiner si les résultats issus des deux scénarios expliquent les mouvements anormaux des spreads de CDS des banques testées (considérant toutes les maturités), et si leur contenu informatif est identique ou non. Nos résultats montrent qu'en période de panique, les acteurs du marché semblent tirer des informations nouvelles et pertinentes des résultats des deux scénarios (en particulier du scénario défavorable). Mais, en période d'accalmie, seuls les résultats du scénario de base semblent leur fournir de telles informations ; de plus, nous montrons que ces informations concernent principalement les acteurs du marché qui ont un horizon d'investissement à court terme.
It is time that we reassess how we approach our empirical research in financial economics. Given the competition for top journal space, there is an incentive to produce “significant” results. With the combination of: unreported tests, lack of adjustment for multiple tests, direct and indirect p-hacking, many of the research results that we are publishing will fail to hold up in the future. In addition, there are some fundamental issues with the interpretation of statistical significance. Increasing thresholds, such as t > 3, may be necessary but such a rule is not sufficient. If the effect being studied is rare, even a rule like t > 3 will produce a large number of false positives. I take a step back and explore the meaning of a p-value and detail its limitations. I offer a simple alternative approach known as the minimum Bayes factor which delivers a Bayesian p-value. I present a list of guidelines that are designed to provide a foundation for a robust, transparent research culture in financial economics. Finally, I offer some thoughts on the importance of risk taking (both from the perspective of both authors and editors) to advance our field.The transcript and presentation slides are available here.
We demonstrate analytically that cross-sectional variation in the effects of events, i.e., in true abnormal returns, necessarily produces event-induced variance increases, biasing popular tests for mean abnormal returns in short-horizon event studies. We show that unexplained cross-sectional variation in true abnormal returns plausibly produces nonproportional heteroskedasticity in cross-sectional regressions, biasing coefficient standard errors for both ordinary and weighted least squares. Simulations highlight the resulting biases, the necessity of using tests robust to cross-sectional variation, and the power of robust tests, including regression-based tests for nonzero mean abnormal returns, which may increase power by conditioning on relevant explanatory variables.
This paper examines a sample of firms experiencing proxy contests for seats on their board of directors. Dissident shareholders usually fail to obtain a majority of board seats. Nevertheless, they capture some seats, via mechanisms such as cumulative voting, in over half of the sample contests. Regardless of proxy contest outcome, positive and statistically significant share price performance is associated with the contest. That finding is predicted by the standard economic analysis of proxy contests, in which the challenges benefit shareholders by improving corporate performance. The finding runs counter to the claim of Berle (1962) that the economists' view of proxy contests is ‘a wholly imaginary picture’. A portion of the positive share price changes taking place in the early stages of some proxy contests is not permanent, however, and as suggested by Manne (1962) is at least partially attributable to temporary increases in the market value of the vote attached to corporate shares.
This paper examines properties of daily stock returns and how the particular characteristics of these data affect event study methodologies. Daily data generally present few difficulties for event studies. Standard procedures are typically well-specified even when special daily data characteristics are ignored. However, recognition of autocorrelation in daily excess returns and changes in their variance conditional on an event can sometimes be advantageous. In addition, tests ignoring cross-sectional dependence can be well-specified and have higher power than tests which account for potential dependence.
I survey 457 published papers in top finance journals across two decades to assess whether these papers misuse tests of significance. More than 80% of published studies are diligent about distinguishing between statistical and economic significance and quantifying and interpreting the economic magnitudes of the statistical relationships they measure. Yet, only 10% of these acknowledge limits to the power of their tests and even fewer do anything about them. Recent demographic trends in publishing, such as larger co-author teams and increased participation by non-North American scholars, women, and those outside the top finance departments are not associated with these outcomes.
We examine the stock price behavior associated with public offerings of common stock and convertible debt that are withdrawn by the issuing firm, as well as the stock price behavior associated with completed offerings. We find that stock returns are negative in the period from the announcement to the withdrawal, and are statistically insignificant from the announcement to the issuance. Stock returns are positive at the withdrawal and negative at the issuance. Furthermore, the average stock returns associated with withdrawals are significantly different from zero only when the reported reason for the withdrawals is unfavorable market conditions. Our evidence suggests that managers' decisions to withdraw equity offerings depend on recent stock price behavior, and that managers' decisions convey information about firm value to market participants.