Market Efficiency

Loading...

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

0 comments

Post a comment

    Post a comment
    Embed Video
    Edit your comment Cancel

    2 Favorites

    Market Efficiency - Presentation Transcript

    1. Market Efficiency- a case study of NSE Dr Saif Siddiqui Assistant Professor Centre for Management Studies Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi - 11025
    2. Plan for Discussion
      • Efficiency and its Forms
      • Misconceptions of EMH
      • Testing Weak form of Market Efficiency
      • Case Study of selected NSE indices
        • S&P CNX Nifty
        • CNX Nifty Junior
    3. Efficiency : defined
      • An efficient capital market is a market that is efficient in processing information…
      • In an efficient market, prices ‘fully reflect’ available information..
    4. In 1960s and early 1970s
      • Fama (1965) concluded that
      • Most of the evidences are consistent with Efficient Market Hypothesis
      • Stock prices showed Random walk
      • Predictable variations in equity return were statistically insignificant
      • Reference:
      • Fama EF (1965) “The behaviour of stock market prices”. Journal of Business . 38:34–105
    5. Forms of Market Efficiency
      • Fama (1970) defined three form of market efficiency :
      • Weak Form
      • Semi-Strong Form
      • Strong Form
      • Reference :
      • Fama, E F (1970): ‘Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical
      • Work’, Journal of Finance , 25, pp 383-417.
    6. Weak Form
      • Weak form of efficiency implies that :
      • The current price reflects the past information or the history of prices.
      • Suggesting that charts and technical analyses that use past prices alone would not be useful in finding valuable stocks.
    7. Semi-Strong Form
      • Semi-strong form of efficiency implies that
      • the current price reflects the information contained not only in past prices but all publically available information (financial statements/reports).
    8. Strong Form
      • Strong form of efficiency implies that:
      • the current price reflects all information, public as well as private, and
      • no investors will be able to consistently find under valued stocks.
    9. Misconceptions on EMH
    10. Misconceptions of EMH
      • No group of investors will beat the market in the long term .
      • Given the number of investors in markets, the laws of probability suggests that a fairly large number can beat the market consistently over long periods,
        • not because of their investment strategies but because they are lucky .
    11. Misconceptions of EMH
      • An efficient market does not imply that stock prices cannot deviate from true value ;
      • there can be large deviations from true value. The deviations do have to be random.
    12. Fama’s new View
      • Fama (1998) suggests that apparent anomalies require:
        • new behavioural based theories of the stock market and
        • the need to continue the search for better models of asset pricing.
      • Reference:
      • Fama, E F (1998): ‘Market Efficiency, Long-term Returns, and Behavioural Finance’, Journal of Financial Economics , 49, pp 283-306 .
      • Testing Weak form of
      • Market Efficiency
    13. Random walk hypothesis
      • Ko and Lee (1991),
      • If the random walk hypothesis holds, the weak form of the efficient market hypothesis must hold,
      • Thus, evidence supporting the random walk model is the evidence of market efficiency .
      • Reference :
      • Ko, K.S. and Lee, S.B. (1991) A comparative analysis of the daily behavior of stock returns: Japan, the U.S and the Asian NICs. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting , 18, 219-234.
    14. Case Study- NSE
      • This study attempts, to seek evidence for the weak form efficient market hypothesis using the daily data for stock indices of the National Stock Exchange of India for the period of:
      • 1 January 2000 to 31 Oct 2008
    15. Research Methodology
      • Following test are done to analyze the data :
      • Jarque Bera Test
      • Unit Root Test
      • Autocorrelation test
      • Run Test
      • K-S Test
    16. Descriptive Statistics
    17. Analysis
      • Stock returns are not normally distributed,
      • Also verified with the Jarque-Bera statistic, which is a test statistic for testing whether the series is normally distributed.
      • The hypothesis of normal distribution is rejected at the conventional 5% level.
    18. Unit Root Test
      • A test to determine whether a time series is stationary or not,
      • whether the null hypothesis of a unit root can be rejected.
    19. ADF Test
    20. PP Test
    21. Analysis
      • The null hypothesis that there is a unit root cannot be rejected for both Nifty and Nifty Junior , in the level form.
      • For the first differences of both , the null hypothesis of a unit root is strongly rejected.
      • Both indexes contain a unit root , that is, non-stationary in their level forms, but stationary in their first differenced forms.
    22. Runs Test
      • Runs Test is for the randomness of the series.
      • Runs test investigates serial dependence in share price movements
    23. Run Test
    24. Analysis
      • It can be seen that the total number of runs are 8 and 15 for S&P CNX Nifty and CNX Nifty Junior respectively.
      • Therefore, the hypothesis of randomness for both the series is rejected .
    25. Autocorrelations
      • Autocorrelation is the correlation of a series with itself .The autocorrelation function (ACF) test is examined to identify the degree of autocorrelation in a time series.
    26. Analysis
      • Time Series Error term is stationary
    27. Kolmogorov Smirnov Test
      • KS is used to determine how well a random sample of data fits a particular distribution (uniform, normal, poisson).
      • It is based on comparison of the sample’s cumulative distribution against the standard cumulative function for each distribution .
      • .
    28. K-S Test
    29. Analysis
      • The Kolmogorov Smirnov Goodness of Fit Test (KS) shows 0.00 significance for the Z at the 5 percent level.
      • Null hypothesis of normal distribution for both is rejected
    30. Conclusion
      • Jarque Bera : No Normality
      • K-S Test : Does not fit in Normal Distribution
      • Run Test : No Random Walk
      • Autocorrelation : Time series error : Stationary
      • Unit Root Test : Random Walk
    31. thanks

    + Dr Saif SiddiquiDr Saif Siddiqui, 10 months ago

    custom

    2020 views, 2 favs, 0 embeds more stats

    More info about this document

    © All Rights Reserved

    Go to text version

    • Total Views 2020
      • 2020 on SlideShare
      • 0 from embeds
    • Comments 0
    • Favorites 2
    • Downloads 0
    Most viewed embeds

    more

    All embeds

    less

    Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
    Flag as inappropriate

    Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

    Cancel
    File a copyright complaint
    Having problems? Go to our helpdesk?

    Categories