What's My Line? A Comparison of Industry Classification Schemes for Capital Market Research

314Citations
Citations of this article
431Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

This study compares four broadly available industry classification schemes in a variety of applications common to capital market research. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes have been available since 1939 but are being replaced by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes. The Global Industry Classifications Standard (GICS)SM system, jointly developed by Standard & Poor's and Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI), is popular among financial practitioners, whereas the Fama and French [1997] algorithm is used primarily by academics. Our results show that GIGS classifications are significantly better at explaining stock return comovements, as well as cross-sectional variations in valuation multiples, forecasted and realized growth rates, research and development expenditures, and various key financial ratios. The GIGS advantage is consistent from year to year and is most pronounced among large firms. The other three methods differ little from each other in most applications.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bhojraj, S., Lee, C. M. C., & Oler, D. K. (2003). What’s My Line? A Comparison of Industry Classification Schemes for Capital Market Research. Journal of Accounting Research, 41(5), 745–774. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1475-679X.2003.00122.x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free