Efficient Market Hypothesis ( Emh )

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

Chapter seven: What does the efficient market theory have to do with Financial markets? Discuss the positives and negatives of the theory. Why do Wall-Street types not like it? Explain the coin flipping experiment, as it relates to investment diversification.

Chapter seven: What does the efficient market theory have to do with Financial markets? Discuss the positives and negatives of the theory. Why do Wall-Street types not like it? Explain the coin flipping experiment, as it relates to investment diversification.

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.

It was previously assumed that economic investors and regulators (agents) utilised all available information and thus market prices were a reflection of this information with assets representing their fundamental value, encouraging the position that agents’ actions were rational. The 2007-2008 Global Financial Crisis (GFC) is posited to have originated from the notion that all available information was utilised, causing agents to fail to thoroughly investigate and confirm “the true values of publicly traded securities,” leading to a failure to register the presence of an asset price bubble preceding the GFC (Ball 2009).

The efficient markets theory, according to NASDAQ (n.d.) is the, “Principle that all assets are correctly priced by the market, and that there are no bargains,” (para. 1). This theory implies that supply and demand dictate the reasonable market value for products. Without high demand, the supply will be greater and prices will be lower. Respectively, as demand increases so do the prices until the supply and demand are at equilibrium.

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).

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

In the efficient market everyone make a decision based on the information they have got. In the real circumstances, there is an agency problem so the agents know more information than the shareholder, so they make high investment and make abnormal profit. This is known as a corporate fraud. If the investors find out about this the fraudulent activity then this cause to stop the investments in particular sector. This lead to decrease share price in particular sector. If the price gone up this means that market is in-efficient.

Another concern relates of insider trading of market efficiency of stock market. In his classical study Fama (1970) proposes efficient market Hypothesis, which suggests that stock price reflects all available information (historical price, public and private) in

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

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