Abstract:We replicate 469 anomaly variables similar to those studied by Hou et al. (2020) using Chinese A-share data and a reliable testing procedure with mainboard breakpoints and value-weighted returns. We find that 83.37% of the anomaly variables do not generate significant high-minus-low quintile raw return spreads. Further adjusting risk increases the failure rate slightly to 84.22% based on CAPM alphas and 86.99% based on Fama–French three-factor alphas. We show that the conventional procedure using all A-share breakpoints with equal-weighted returns for the anomaly test is indeed problematic as it assigns too much weight to microcaps and has a very limited investment capacity. The CH3-factor, CH4-factor, and q-factor models show the best performance over the whole sample period. The q-factor model is the best performer in the post-2007 subsample period after significant improvements occurred in China’s financial market environment, such as the completion of the split-share structure reform and the implementation of new accounting standards conforming to the International Financial Reporting Standards. The non–state-owned enterprise subsample in the post-2007 period is a cleaner sample in which the CH4-factor and q-factor models are the best performers. This paper was accepted by Lukas Schmid, finance. Funding: Z. Li acknowledges financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grant 72103043] and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities in UIBE [Grants 19QN01 and 22PY053-72103043]. L. X. Liu acknowledges financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China [Grants 71872006 and 72273006]. L. X. Liu and X. Liu acknowledge financial support from the Guanghua Thought Leadership Platform of Peking University. K. C. J. Wei acknowledges partial financial support from the Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [Grant 15507320]. The authors acknowledge financial support from the Guanghua School of Management, Peking University; the School of Banking and Finance, University of International Business and Economics; and the Non-PAIR Research Centre “Research Centre for Quantitative Finance” at Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2023.4904 .

Expectation disarray: Analysts' growth forecast anomaly in China

Price Nonsynchronicity, Idiosyncratic Risk, and Expected Stock Returns in China

China's Analysts Earning Forecast Errors and Home Advantage

Sources of the Stock Price Fluctuations in Chinese Equity Market

Analysts' forecast anchoring and discontinuous market reaction: evidence from China

The Asymmetric Overnight Return Anomaly in the Chinese Stock Market

Chinese stock anomalies and investor sentiment

Rational or Irrational Expectations? Evidence from China's Stock Market

The change in salience and the cross-section of stock returns: Empirical evidence from China A-shares

Short-Term Price Contrarian and Volume Effect in China's Stock Market

Machine learning, anomalies, and the expected market return: Evidence from China

Earnings management and analyst forecast

Stock return asymmetry in China

Do Analysts Overreact to Extreme Good News in Earnings?

Stock Dividend and Analyst Optimistic Bias in Earnings Forecast

Price Volatility and Expected Stock Returns:Preliminary Evidence from China's Stock Market

Positive skewness, anti-leverage, reverse volatility asymmetry, and short sale constraints: Evidence from the Chinese markets

Replicating and Digesting Anomalies in the Chinese A-share Market

Accurate Forecasts Attract Clients; Biased Forecasts Keep Them Happy

Can Investor Sentiment Explain the Abnormal Returns of Volatility-Managed Portfolio Strategy? Evidence from the Chinese Stock Market

The Associations Between Performance Changes of Listed Companies and Analysts’Forecast