Critical Analysis of Efficiency Market Hypothesis

Capital markets provide a function which facilitates the buying and selling of long-term financial securities to increase liquidity and their value, Watson & Head (2013). Hence, the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) explains the relationship that exists with the prices of the capital market securities, where no individual can beat the market by regularly buying securities at a lower price than it should be. This means that in order to be an efficient market prices of securities will have to fairly and fully reflect all available information, Fama (1970). Consequently, Watson & Head (2013) believe that market efficiency refers to the speed and quality of how share price adjusts to new information. Nevertheless, the testing of the efficient markets has led to the recognition of three different forms of efficiency in which explains how information available is used within the market. In this essay, the EMH will be analysed; testing of EMH will show that the model does provide strong evidence to explain share behaviour but also anomalies will be discussed that refutes the EMH. Therefore, a judgment will be made to see which structure explains the efficient market and whether there are some implications with the EMH, as a whole.

It is believed that Efficient Market Theory is based upon some fallacies and it does not provide strong grounds of whatever that it proposes. More importantly the Efficient Market theory is perceived to be too subjective in its definition and details and because of this it is close to impossible to accommodate this theory into a meaningful and explicit financial model that can actually assist investors in making the investment decisions (Andresso-O’Callaghan, B., 2007).

As Chapter 10 questions, if further evidence continues to surface that capital markets do not always behave in accordance with the efficient market hypothesis, then should we reject the research that has embraced the EMH as a fundamental assumption? In this regard we can return to earlier chapters of this book in which we emphasised that theories are abstractions of reality. Capital markets are made of individuals and as such it would not (or perhaps, should not) be surprising to find that the

This financial crisis has eroded the confidence in the EMH. The validity of the EMH and the existence of the efficient market are questioned broadly. If asset prices are always correct and reflect all the relevant information concerning about its return just as the EMH has suggested, why there exists such a great bubble in the financial market during the recent financial crisis? If the market is efficient, why the market fails to predict the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stern and other large financial institutions? Overall, the EMH fails to answer such questions. Moreover, the EMH also performs poor in explaining other financial crisis. One example is the Tulipmania that occurred in the 17th century. The prices of the tulip bulbs reached extremely high level which seriously deviates from its fundamental value that was suggested by the EMH. This apparent bubble is contradicted with the prediction of the EMH. In fact, the explaining power of the EMH becomes pale when confronting financial crisis.

Random walk hypothesis of the Asian stock markets (Malaysia and Korea) strongly rejected examined by Huang (1995). Gordon and Rittenberg (1995) examines weak form efficiency do not apply on Warsaw Stock Exchange as prices are not fully reflect the information. There is some evidence suggested by Gilmore and McManus (2003), random walk hypothesis is rejected by his finding in this study from 1995 to 2000. Moreover, Vosvorda et al. (1998) analyse the Prague Stock Exchange and the weak form market efficiency rejected by this study for 1995 to 1997. Dahel and Laabas (1999) studied the market efficiency of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Oman markets reject the weak form of the EMH. It has been reported that. Hasan et al. (2007) shows the evidence on Karachi Stock Exchange in Pakinstan walk as the behaviour of price do not supporting random thus are not weak form efficient. In the view of Dima and Milos (2009), the long term financial instability experienced within the Romanian economy, the market’s information is limited to a weak form

The Efficient-Market Hypothesis (EMH) states that it is impossible to beat the market because stock market efficiency causes existing share prices to always incorporate and reflect all relevant information.

* An efficient market is a market in which all the available information is fully incorporated into

In accordance to this, MM provided assumptions to support their findings. These assumptions can be characterized by the existence of a perfect capital market where;

Under the idea that markets are efficient, stock prices reflect new information quickly and accurately. Furthermore, Morningstar (n.d.) contributes details on the strongest supportive theory of efficient markets, EMH exists in three forms: weak, semi-strong and strong. The hypothesis calls for the existence of informationally efficient markets, were current stock prices reflect all information, and attempts to outperform the market will only come in the form of riskier investments. Also, because of a large number of independent investors actively analyzing new information simultaneously as it enters the market, investors react accordingly and is immediately reflected in the stock

sider BACKGROUND Efficient market theory examines how accurately stock prices signal resource allocation alloc and fully reflect all available information. Fama (1970) introduced the efficient market hypothesis stating there are three forms of efficiency: weak, semi strong, and strong. A market semi-strong, that incorporates all historical information is said to be weak form efficient, while one that responds to all publicly available informatio is semi-strong efficient. In a semiinformation -strong efficient market, prices instantly change to reflect publicly available information. A strong form market, strong responds to all information, both public and private. The hypothesis claims that achieving above average returns on a risk adjusted basis is impossible (Fama 1970). (Fama, The lowest level of market efficiency, weak form, states that the market only reacts to historical information. This means that no one can earn above normal returns based on published historical information; however, the market does not quickly react to new public or private information. It may be possible then, in a weak form efficient market, to obtain abnormal returns form using either new publicly available or private insider information (Fama 1970). (Fama, A semi-strong form market is more efficient that a weak form, as it reacts to publicly strong available new information quickly and share prices adjust to reflect the market’s reaction. share Obtaining

In the efficient market no one can make profit by trading information because it’s available on public and new information available as well. In real circumstances arbitrage opportunities are created based on new information and

Efficient Market Hypothesis has been controversial issues among researcher for decades. Until now, there is no united conclusion whether capital markets are efficiency or not. In 1960s, Fama (1970) believed that market is very efficient despite there are some trivial contradicted tests. Until recently, both empirical and theatrical efficient market hypothesis was being disputed by behavior finance economist. They have found that investor have psychological biases and found evidences that some stocks outperform other stocks. Moreover, there are evidences prove that market are not efficient for instance financial crisis, stock market bubble, and some investor can earn abnormal return which happening regularly in stock markets all over the world. Therefore, the purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that Efficient Market Hypothesis in stock (capital) markets does not exist in the real world by proofing four outstanding unrealistic conditions that make market efficient: information is widely available and cost-free, investor are rational, independent and unbiased, There is no liquidity problem in stock market, and finally stock prices has no pattern.

The efficient market, as one of the pillars of neoclassical finance, asserts that financial markets are efficient on information. The efficient market hypothesis suggests that there is no trading system based on currently available information that could be expected to generate excess risk-adjusted returns consistently as this information is already reflected in current prices. However, EMH has been the most controversial subject of research in the fields of financial economics during the last 40 years. “Behavioural finance, however, is now seriously challenging this premise by arguing that people are clearly not rational” (Ross, (2002)). Behavioral finance uses facts from psychology and other human sciences in order to

The economy has a large number of firms, N, who maximize their expected discounted profits;

In 1970’s a new approach emerged in the economics – the information economics. This assumes that the market actors (the internal and external stakeholders of the companies, i.e. the managers and the investors) are not equally informed, and not equal their chance to access information. This statement contradicts the theory of efficient market, by which the market prices reflect all available information. However, the full efficiency of the financial markets was not proved successfully, the financial markets are theoretically considered strongly efficient. How can be the market actors inequally informed, if the prices are available for the public? The Grossman-Stiglitz paradox gives a possible solution for this problem. Its core reason is if