What Is an Anomaly?

In economics and finance, an anomaly is when the actual result under a given set of assumptions is different from the expected result predicted by a model. An anomaly provides evidence that a given assumption or model does not hold up in practice. The model can either be a relatively new or older model.

Understanding Anomalies

In finance, two common types of anomalies are market anomalies and pricing anomalies. Market anomalies are distortions in returns that contradict the efficient market hypothesis (EMH). Pricing anomalies are when something—for example, a stock—is priced differently than how a model predicts it will be priced.

Common market anomalies include the small-cap effect and the January effect. The small-cap effect refers to the small company effect, where smaller companies tend to outperform larger ones over time. The January effect refers to the tendency of stocks to return much more in the month of January than in others.

Anomalies also often occur with respect to asset pricing models, in particular, the capital asset pricing model (CAPM). Although the CAPM was derived by using innovative assumptions and theories, it often does a poor job of predicting stock returns. The numerous market anomalies that were observed after the formation of the CAPM helped form the basis for those wishing to disprove the model. Although the model may not hold up in empirical and practical tests, it still does hold some utility.

Anomalies tend to be few and far between. In fact, once anomalies become publicly known, they tend to quickly disappear as arbitragers seek out and eliminate any such opportunity from occurring again.

Types of Market Anomalies

In financial markets, any opportunity to earn excess profits undermines the assumptions of market efficiency, which states that prices already reflect all relevant information and so cannot be arbitraged.

January Effect

The January effect is a rather well-known anomaly. According to the January effect, stocks that underperformed in the fourth quarter of the prior year tend to outperform the markets in January. The reason for the January effect is so logical that it is almost hard to call it an anomaly. Investors will often look to jettison underperforming stocks late in the year so that they can use their losses to offset capital gains taxes (or to take the small deduction that the IRS allows if there is a net capital loss for the year). Many people call this event tax-loss harvesting.

As selling pressure is sometimes independent of the company’s actual fundamentals or valuation, this “tax selling” can push these stocks to levels where they become attractive to buyers in January.

Likewise, investors will often avoid buying underperforming stocks in the fourth quarter and wait until January to avoid getting caught up in the tax-loss selling. As a result, there is excess selling pressure before January and excess buying pressure after Jan. 1, leading to this effect.

September Effect

The September effect refers to historically weak stock market returns for the month of September. There is a statistical case for the September effect depending on the period analyzed, but much of the theory is anecdotal. It is generally believed that investors return from summer vacation in September ready to lock in gains as well as tax losses before the end of the year.

There is also a belief that individual investors liquidate stocks going into September to offset schooling costs for children. As with many other calendar effects, the September effect is considered a historical quirk in the data rather than an effect with any causal relationship. 

Days of the Week Anomalies

Efficient market supporters hate the “Days of the Week” anomaly because it not only appears to be true, but it also makes no sense. Research has shown that stocks tend to move more on Fridays than Mondays and that there is a bias toward positive market performance on Fridays. It is not a huge discrepancy, but it is a persistent one.

The Monday effect is a theory which states that returns on the stock market on Mondays will follow the prevailing trend from the previous Friday. Therefore, if the market was up on Friday, it should continue through the weekend and, come Monday, resume its rise. The Monday effect is also known as the “weekend effect.”

On a fundamental level, there is no particular reason that this should be true. Some psychological factors could be at work. Perhaps an end-of-week optimism permeates the market as traders and investors look forward to the weekend. Alternatively, perhaps the weekend gives investors a chance to catch up on their reading, stew and fret about the market, and develop pessimism going into Monday.

Superstitious Indicators

Aside from calendar anomalies, there are some non-market signals that some people believe will accurately indicate the direction of the market. Here is a short list of superstitious market indicators:

• The Super Bowl Indicator: When a team from the old American Football League wins the game, the market will close lower for the year. When an old National Football League team wins, the market will end the year higher. Silly as it may seem, the Super Bowl indicator was correct almost three-quarters of the time over a 53-year period ending in 2021. However, the indicator has one limitation: It contains no allowance for an expansion-team victory!
• The Hemline Indicator: The market rises and falls with the length of skirts. Sometimes this indicator is referred to as the “bare knees, bull market” theory. To its merit, the hemline indicator was accurate in 1987, when designers switched from miniskirts to floor-length skirts just before the market crashed. A similar change also took place in 1929, but many argue as to which came first, the crash or the hemline shifts.
• The Aspirin Indicator: Stock prices and aspirin production are inversely related. This indicator suggests that when the market is rising, fewer people need aspirin to heal market-induced headaches. Lower aspirin sales should indicate a rising market.

What Is an Asset Swapped Convertible Option Transaction (ASCOT)?

An asset swapped convertible option transaction (ASCOT) is a structured investment strategy in which an option on a convertible bond is used to separate a convertible bond into its two components: a fixed income piece and an equity piece. More specifically, the components being separated are the corporate bond with its regular coupon payments and the equity option that functions as a call option.

The ASCOT structure allows an investor to gain exposure to the option within the convertible without taking on the credit risk represented by the bond part of the asset. It is also used by convertible arbitrage traders seeking to profit from apparent mis-pricings between these two components.

Understanding Asset Swapped Convertible Option Transactions

ASCOTs are complex instruments that allow parties to take the role of equity investor and credit risk buyer/bond investor in what was initially sold as a combined instrument — the convertible bond itself.

An asset swapped convertible option transaction is done by writing (selling) an American option on the convertible bond. This essentially creates a compound option, as the convertible bond already comes with an embedded equity call option itself due to the conversion feature. The American option can be exercised by the holder at any time, but the strike price paid must include all the costs of unwinding the asset swap.

How an ASCOT Works

Convertible bond traders are exposed to two types of risk. One is the credit risk inherent in the bond portion of the investment. The other is the market volatility on the share price of the underlying, as it impacts whether or not the conversion option has any value.

For our purposes, let’s assume the convertible bond trader wants to focus on the equity angle of their convertible bond portfolio. To do this, the trader sells the convertible bond to an investment bank, which will be the intermediary in the transaction.

The investment bank structures the ASCOT by writing a call option on the convertible portion of the bond and selling it back to the convertible bond trader. The bond portion of the convertible bond with its payments is then sold to a different party who is prepared to take on the credit risk in return for the fixed returns. The bond component may be broken down into smaller denomination bonds and sold to multiple investors.

ACOTS and Convertible Arbitrage

When a convertible bond is stripped of its credit risk through an asset swap, the option holder is left with a volatile — but potentially very valuable — option. ASCOTs, specifically the equity portion, are bought and sold by hedge funds employing convertible arbitrage strategies. Hedge funds are able to easily increase their portfolios’ leverage because of the nature of the compound option within an ASCOT, leaving the less lucrative bond side and its credit risk out of the equation.

What Is an Audit?

The term audit usually refers to a financial statement audit. A financial audit is an objective examination and evaluation of the financial statements of an organization to make sure that the financial records are a fair and accurate representation of the transactions they claim to represent. The audit can be conducted internally by employees of the organization or externally by an outside Certified Public Accountant (CPA) firm.

Understanding Audits

Almost all companies receive a yearly audit of their financial statements, such as the income statement, balance sheet, and cash flow statement. Lenders often require the results of an external audit annually as part of their debt covenants. For some companies, audits are a legal requirement due to the compelling incentives to intentionally misstate financial information in an attempt to commit fraud. As a result of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002, publicly traded companies must also receive an evaluation of the effectiveness of their internal controls.

Standards for external audits performed in the United States, called the generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS), are set out by Auditing Standards Board (ASB) of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Additional rules for the audits of publicly traded companies are made by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), which was established as a result of SOX in 2002. A separate set of international standards, called the International Standards on Auditing (ISA), were set up by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB).

Types of Audits

External Audits

Audits performed by outside parties can be extremely helpful in removing any bias in reviewing the state of a company’s financials. Financial audits seek to identify if there are any material misstatements in the financial statements. An unqualified, or clean, auditor’s opinion provides financial statement users with confidence that the financials are both accurate and complete. External audits, therefore, allow stakeholders to make better, more informed decisions related to the company being audited.

External auditors follow a set of standards different from that of the company or organization hiring them to do the work. The biggest difference between an internal and external audit is the concept of independence of the external auditor. When audits are performed by third parties, the resulting auditor’s opinion expressed on items being audited (a company’s financials, internal controls, or a system) can be candid and honest without it affecting daily work relationships within the company.

Internal Audits

Internal auditors are employed by the company or organization for whom they are performing an audit, and the resulting audit report is given directly to management and the board of directors. Consultant auditors, while not employed internally, use the standards of the company they are auditing as opposed to a separate set of standards. These types of auditors are used when an organization doesn’t have the in-house resources to audit certain parts of their own operations.

The results of the internal audit are used to make managerial changes and improvements to internal controls. The purpose of an internal audit is to ensure compliance with laws and regulations and to help maintain accurate and timely financial reporting and data collection. It also provides a benefit to management by identifying flaws in internal control or financial reporting prior to its review by external auditors.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Audits

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) also routinely performs audits to verify the accuracy of a taxpayer’s return and specific transactions. When the IRS audits a person or company, it usually carries a negative connotation and is seen as evidence of some type of wrongdoing by the taxpayer. However, being selected for an audit is not necessarily indicative of any wrongdoing.

IRS audit selection is usually made by random statistical formulas that analyze a taxpayer’s return and compare it to similar returns. A taxpayer may also be selected for an audit if they have any dealings with another person or company who was found to have tax errors on their audit.

There are three possible IRS audit outcomes available: no change to the tax return, a change that is accepted by the taxpayer, or a change that the taxpayer disagrees with. If the change is accepted, the taxpayer may owe additional taxes or penalties. If the taxpayer disagrees, there is a process to follow that may include mediation or an appeal.

What Is an Automatic Stabilizer?

Automatic stabilizers are a type of fiscal policy designed to offset fluctuations in a nation’s economic activity through their normal operation without additional, timely authorization by the government or policymakers.

The best-known automatic stabilizers are progressively graduated corporate and personal income taxes, and transfer systems such as unemployment insurance and welfare. Automatic stabilizers are called this because they act to stabilize economic cycles and are automatically triggered without additional government action.

Understanding Automatic Stabilizers

Automatic stabilizers are primarily designed to counter negative economic shocks or recessions, though they can also be intended to “cool off” an expanding economy or to combat inflation. By their normal operation, these policies take more money out of the economy as taxes during periods of rapid growth and higher incomes. They put more money back into the economy in the form of government spending or tax refunds when economic activity slows or incomes fall. This has the intended purpose of cushioning the economy from changes in the business cycle. 

Automatic stabilizers can include the use of a progressive taxation structure under which the share of income that is taken in taxes is higher when incomes are high. The amount then falls when incomes fall due to a recession, job losses, or failing investments. For example, as an individual taxpayer earns higher wages, their additional income may be subjected to higher tax rates based on the current tiered structure. If wages fall, the individual will remain in the lower tax tiers as dictated by their earned income.

Similarly, unemployment insurance transfer payments decline when the economy is in an expansionary phase since there are fewer unemployed people filing claims. Unemployment payments rise when the economy is mired in recession and unemployment is high. When a person becomes unemployed in a manner that makes them eligible for unemployment insurance, they need only file to claim the benefit. The amount of benefit offered is governed by various state and national regulations and standards, requiring no intervention by larger government entities beyond application processing.

Automatic Stabilizers and Fiscal Policy

When an economy is in a recession, automatic stabilizers may by design result in higher budget deficits. This aspect of fiscal policy is a tool of Keynesian economics that uses government spending and taxes to support aggregate demand in the economy during economic downturns.

By taking less money out of private businesses and households in taxes and giving them more in the form of payments and tax refunds, fiscal policy is supposed to encourage them to increase, or at least not decrease, their consumption and investment spending. In this case, the goal of fiscal policy is to help prevent an economic setback from deepening.

Real-World Examples of Automatic Stabilizers

Automatic stabilizers can also be used in conjunction with other forms of fiscal policy that may require specific legislative authorization. Examples of this include one-time tax cuts or refunds, government investment spending, or direct government subsidy payments to businesses or households.

Some examples of these in the United States were the 2008 one-time tax rebates under the Economic Stimulus Act and the $831 billion in federal direct subsidies, tax breaks, and infrastructure spending under the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act.

In 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act became the largest stimulus package in U.S. history. It provided over $2 trillion in government relief in the form of expanded unemployment benefits, direct payments to families and adults, loans and grants to small businesses, loans to corporate America, and billions of dollars to state and local governments.

Special Considerations

Since they almost immediately respond to changes in income and unemployment, automatic stabilizers are intended to be the first line of defense to turn mild negative economic trends around. However, governments often turn to other types of larger fiscal policy programs to address more severe or lasting recessions or to target specific regions, industries, or politically favored groups in society for extra-economic relief.