Economic Theory Suggests That Markets Are Efficient and Security Prices Are Determined on the Basis of Fundamental Value

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

Definitions Define the following terms using your text or other resources. Cite all resources consistent with APA guidelines. TermDefinitionResource you usedTime value of moneyA dollar received today is worth more than a dollar received in the future. Conversely, a dollar received in the future is worth less than a dollar received today.Titman, S., Keown, A. J., Martin, J. D. (2014).Financial Management. Principles and Applications(12th ed.). Pearson Education.Efficient marketWhen money is put into the stock market, the goal is to generate a return on the capital invested. Many investors try not only to make a profitable return, but also to outperform, or beat, the market.However, market efficiency - championed in theefficient market

Lets go back to December 5th, 1996 when Greenspan said “Irrational exuberance and unduly escalating stock prices.” Those words alone triggered markets around the world to decline. The Japanese stock market took a 3.2% plunge and the German market fell 4%. When the stock market opened in the United States, the New York Stock Exchange went down 145 points in 30 minutes.

Efficient Market- Advertises in which security prices return all available information and adjust right away to any fresh information. If the safekeeping markets are truly well

More recently, Kim & Zhang (2015) have found a an empirical evidence that releasing the accumulated bad news all at once would lead to stock price crashes. They find a negative association between the degree (changes) of conditional conservatism and the likelihood (changes) of a firm experiencing future stock price crashes and this association is more pronounced in an environment with higher information asymmetries.

The premise of an efficient market is that stock prices adjust accordingly as information is received. The speed and accuracy of the pricing changes are a reflection of the strength of the market efficiency, where in theory a perfectly efficient market will re-adjust prices immediately and precisely with new information. The efficient market hypothesis aligns with beliefs about whether technical and fundamental analyses are useful in making investment decisions or whether a passive approach is appropriate. In a perfectly efficient market, these types of analyses are not able to predict stock price trends (based on market inefficiencies or price abnormalities) which could assist in portfolio positioning or investment management. However, some investors belive that the market pricing is not precise and that there are timing windows and pricing trends that can be identified through analysis of past performance and finding price abnormalities where all information is not correctly reflected in the stock price (Hirt, Block and Basu, 2006).

Allocating the ownership of economy’s stock capital is the primary role of capital market. In an ideal market the price would provide accurate signals for allocation of resources. Ideal market is one in which firm’s production-investment decisions and investor’s decision regarding securities will depend on the assumption that the security prices fully reflect available information at any point in time. A market in which prices always “fully reflect” available information is called efficient.1

The efficient-market hypothesis (EMH) is one of the well-known methods for measuring the future value of stock prices. According to this hypothesis, the market is efficient if its prices are formed on the basis of all disposable information. According to EMH if there is a possibility to predict the future price of shares, that is the first sign of an inefficient market.

Bubble prices can be an issue for investors as it may mislead them into making poor investing decisions. There is plenty of empirical evidence to show that bubble prices exist (Ryan, 2008). These price bubbles, according to Penman (2007), are introduced into financial statements through the usage of fair value accounting. He goes on to say that this causes bubble gains to reflect on the income statement, and these may, falsely, show the company as being healthy which could lull investors into a false sense of security. These bubbles also result in the investor receiving ineffective financial statements which will impair their decision making. An example of this would be where investors pay prices that far exceed their own valuation (Scheinkman and Xiong, 2003). This would make it tough for investors to earn a reasonable return on their investments. However, the research fails to consider the difficulties locating price bubbles or how investors can prevent themselves from being misled. It also fails to consider that bubble prices show the current trading price, albeit inflated, and therefore show the true value of the investment according to current prices.

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

First time this phenomenon was presented by the economists Rajnish Mehra and Edward Prescott in 1985. They discovered that the return from US equity investments in comparison to the return from a risk free government securities had been much far above during the twentieth century to be interpreted by the traditional economic theories (Siegel and Thaler, 1997).

Richard Roll, and University and Auburn, University of Washington, and University of Chicago educated economist, began his career researching the effect of major events of stock prices. This experience likely helped him reach the two conclusions he makes in his 1977 “A Critique Of The Asset Pricing Theory’s Tests”, one of the earliest and most influential arguments against CAPM. In the paper, Roll makes two major claims: that CAPM is actually a redundant equation that just further proves the concept of mean-variance efficiency, and that it is impossible to conclusively prove CAPM. His first claim relates to mean-variance efficiency: the idea that mathematically one must be able to create a portfolio that offers the most return for a given amount of risk. Roll claims that all CAPM is doing is testing a portfolio’s mean variance efficiency, and not actually modeling out projected future returns. The second claim in the paper is that there is not enough data about market returns for CAPM to ever prove conclusive. Even if modern technologies could help alleviate some of the burden of testing market returns for publicly traded equities, there is still no way to account for the returns of less liquid markets, where there is less public information. This means it is impossible for