Closed lena-will closed 1 year ago
Based on footnote 4 in Jegadeesh and Titman (1993), we should not change the start date. Table 1 reports estimate for January 1965 to December 1989 but only because they require a full two-year period for their K=12, J=12 specification. Since we use J=12, K=1, using 1964 as starting year is fine. @lena-will @chenandrewy
Ah, good catch. I remember these start / end dates always being tricky. Let's keep 1964.
Based on footnote 4 in Jegadeesh and Titman (1993), we should not change the start date. Table 1 reports estimate for January 1965 to December 1989 but only because they require a full two-year period for their K=12, J=12 specification. Since we use J=12, K=1, using 1964 as starting year is fine. @lena-will @chenandrewy