Score contribution per author:
α: calibrated so average coauthorship-adjusted count equals average raw count
We have confirmed that Corrado and Schatzberg's (1990) criticism of our test for serial independence in stock returns (Ashley and Patterson (1986)) is correct. The corrected results still favor rejection of the null hypothesis that the daily returns for several stocks (notably Holly Sugar (HLY) and E Systems (ESY)) are serially independent, but only at the 12-percent and 14-percent significance levels, respectively. Evidently, this kind of test is long on simplicity and intuitive appeal, but short on power.