Abstract, title, references 1. Abstracts have generally explained the contents of the study. 2. Title describes the entire contents of the paper. 3. Reference quality and quantity meet research requirements.

Introduction/background 1. The topic has been well explained in the introduction, by explaining some previous studies such as research conducted by Gordon (1962), and consistent with many studies such as Kandel and Stambaugh (1996), Campbell and Viceira (2001), and Fleming (2001). 2. The research question focuses on the variation in time of expected return on stock returns by comparing the unconditional sample variance of the purchase with estimate expected conditional variant

Methods 1. The process of selecting subjects is clear, variables have been precisely defined and measured. 2. The research method is valid and reliable, and the results are detailed enough to explain the results of the study. 3. Limited estimation involves the numerical solution of the Kuhn-Tucker condition system. When one parameter is involved, the solution sets the estimate to zero when the estimated variance is not infinitely negative

Results 1. Data from the Standard and Poor's index in a variety of different samples and individual common stock data from 26 large companies have been presented in an appropriate way. 2. The tables and figures are relevant and clearly presented. 3. Titles, columns and rows are labeled correctly and clearly. 4. The weak form and semi strong form testing categories are grouped appropriately. 5. explanatory text for adding data is explained in the appendix. 6. The results are explained significantly in statistics, presenting several results on the statistical methods used by the author having the statistical power and robustness of empirical findings. 7. this research has practical benefits.

Discussion and Conclusions 1. Results are discussed from various angles and placed into context without being interpreted properly and not over interpreted. 2. The conclusion has answered the aim of research, the weak form test found no reliable evidence of predictability in modern data. The semi-strong-shape test found small but economically significant predictability. 3. The conclusions are supported by references that have been explained previously, although the conclusions are different from recent studies that rely on aggregate predictor variables, the authors found no evidence that predictability has been reduced in the most recent sample. 4. The study has no limitations that can be fatal or not an opportunity to inform future research.