Emh

EMH
Efficient Markets Hypothesis: Introduction

Markets
Whenever there are valuable commodities to be traded, there are incentives to
develop a social arrangement that allows buyers and sellers to discover
information and carry out a voluntary exchange more efficiently, i.e. develop a
market. The largest and best organised markets in the world tend to be the
securities markets.
Efficiency in Economics
The concept of efficiency in economics is a general term for the value assigned
to a situation by some measure designed to capture the amount of waste or
friction or other undesirable economic features present. Within this context,
it has several quite distinct meanings. For example, allocative efficiency is
concerned with the optimal distribution of scarce resources among individuals
in the economy. An efficient portfolio is one with the highest expected return
for a given level of risk. An efficient market is one in which information is
rapidly disseminated and reflected in prices.
Important
The EMH has been the central proposition of finance since the early 1970s and
is one of the most contoversial and well-studied propositions in all the social
sciences.
History
The history of the EMH is covered in detail here, Bachelier (1900), Samuelson
(1965) and Fama (1970) being the most important papers.
Definition
The term efficient market was first introduced into the economics literature
by Fama in 1965. For this and subsequent definitions, see here.
Scope
The term efficient market was initially applied to the stock market, but the
concept was soon generalised to other asset markets.
Starting Point
Regardless of whether or not one believes that markets are efficient, or even
whether they are efficient, the efficient market hypothesis is almost certainly
the right place to start when thinking about asset price formation. One can
then consider relative efficiency.
Two informal explanations for market efficiency

If one could be sure that a price will rise tomorrow, the asset would be bought
today, raising the price, so that it will not, in fact rise tomorrow. Ergo, the
price is unpredictable.
The intrinsic value of an asset is implied by the cumulative impact of

information we receive as news. Successive news items must be random
because if an item of news were not random, that is, if it were dependent on an
earlier item of news, then it wouldn't be news at all. After all, news by
definition is new. If the rapidly price reflects all information (i.e. the market
is efficient), then the price will fluctuate randomly.
Academics Versus Practitioners

There is little consensus between the opinions held in academia and industry.
Unsurprisingly, most of the support for the EMH comes from the former.
Major Contributor Unrecognised

The American astrophysicist, M. F. Maury Osborne, was the first to publish
the hypothesis that price follows a geometric Brownian motion (the
distribution of price changes is log normal) (Osborne 1959), and was jointly
responsible for the earliest literature identifying the fat tails (Osborne 1959),
that price deviation is proportional to the square root of time (Osborne 1959)
and nonstationarity (Osborne 1962).
Joke
There is an old joke, widely told among economists, about an economist
strolling down the street with a companion when they come upon a $100 bill
lying on the ground. As the companion reaches down to pick it up, the
economist says Dont bother if it were a real $100 bill, someone would have
already picked it up.
Lo in Lo (1997)
Rational?
Contrary to popular belief, the EMH does not require that all market
participants are rational. Indeed, markets can be efficient even when a group
of investors are irrational and correlated, so long as there are some rational
traders present together with arbitrage opportunities. See Shleifer (2000).
Not Possible
Grossman and Stiglitz (1980) argued that because information is costly, prices
cannot perfectly reflect the information which is available, since if it did, those
who spent resources to obtain it would receive no compensation, leading to
the conclusion that an informationally efficient market is impossible.
See impossible.
Not Refutable
The EMH, by itself, is not a well-defined and empirically refutable hypothesis.
See here.
Conclusion
"I believe there is no other proposition in economics which has more solid
empirical evidence supporting it than the Efficient Market Hypothesis."
Jensen (1978)
"If the efficient markets hypothesis was a publicly traded security, its price
would be enormously volatile."
Shleifer and Summers (1990)
"It is disarmingly simple to state, has far-reaching consequences for academic

pursuits and business practice, and yet is surprisingly resilient to empirical
proof or refutation."
Lo in Lo (1997)
"Market efficiency survives the challenge from the literature on long-term

return anomalies. Consistent with the market efficiency hypothesis that the
anomalies are chance results, apparent overreaction to information is about as
common as underreaction, and post-event continuation of pre-event abnormal
returns is about as frequent as post-event reversal. Most important, consistent
with the market efficiency prediction that apparent anomalies can be due to
methodology, most long-term return anomalies tend to disappear with
reasonable changes in technique."
Fama (1998)
"What, then, can we conclude about market efficiency? Amazingly, there is

still no consensus among financial economists. Despite the many advances in
the statistical analysis, databases and theoretical models surrounding the
efficient markets hypothesis, the main effect has been to harden the resolve of
the proponents on each side of the debate."
Lo (2000) in Cootner (1964)
Best Paper
Fama (1970).
Best book
"The Econometrics of Financial Markets" by Campbell, Lo and Mackinlay
(1997).
Review/Survey Papers
Fama (1970)
Fama (1991)
Dimson and Mussavian (1998)
Fama (1998)
Farmer and Lo (1999)
Beechey, Vickery and Gruen (2000)
Lo (2000)
Andreou, Pittis and Spanos (2001)
EMH Definitions
(Or moving goalposts?)
Fama (Jan. 1965: The behavior of stock-market prices):
an efficient market for securities, that is, a market where, given the
available information, actual prices at every point in time represent very good
estimates of intrinsic values.
Fama (Sep.Oct. 1965: Random walks in stock market prices):

An efficient market is defined as a market where there are large numbers of
rational, profit-maximizers actively competing, with each trying to predict
future market values of individual securities, and where important current
information is almost freely available to all participants.
Fama et al. (1969):

an efficient market, i.e., a market that adjusts rapidly to new information.
Fama (1970):
A market in which prices always fully reflect available information is called
efficient.
Jensen (1978):
A market is efficient with respect to information set t if it is impossible to
make economic profits by trading on the basis of information set t.
[By economic profits, we mean the risk adjusted returns net of all costs.]
Fama (1991):
I take the market efficiency hypothesis to be the simple statement that
security prices fully reflect all available information. A precondition for this
strong version of the hypothesis is that information and trading costs, the
costs of getting prices to reflect information, are always 0 (Grossman and
Stiglitz (1980)). A weaker and economically more sensible version of the
efficiency hypothesis says that prices reflect information to the point where
the marginal benefits of acting on information (the profits to be made) do not
exceed marginal costs (Jensen (1978)).
Malkiel (1992):
A capital market is said to be efficient if it fully and correctly reflects all
relevant information in determining security prices. Formally, the market is
said to be efficient with respect to some information set, , if security prices
would be unaffected by revealing that information to all participants.
Moreover, efficiency with respect to an information set, , implies that it is
impossible to make economic profits by trading on the basis of .
Fama (1998):
market efficiency (the hypothesis that prices fully reflect available
information)...
the simple market efficiency story; that is, the expected value of abnormal
returns is zero, but chance generates deviations from zero (anomalies) in both
directions.
Timmermann and Granger (2004):

A market is efficient with respect to the information set, t, search
technologies, St, and forecasting models, Mt, if it is impossible to make
economic profits by trading on the basis of signals produced from a
forecasting model in Mt defined over predictor variables in the information
set t and selected using a search technology in St.
Efficient Markets Hypothesis: History
SEWELL, Martin, 2011. History of the efficient market hypothesis. Research

Note RN/11/04, University College London, London.
Year
1565 The prominent Italian mathematician, Girolamo Cardano,
in Liber de Ludo Aleae (The Book of Games of Chance)
wrote: The most fundamental principle of all in gambling is
simply equal conditions, e.g. of opponents, of bystanders, of
money, of situation, of the dice box, and of the die itself. To
the extent to which you depart from that equality, if it is in
your opponents favour, you are a fool, and if in your own,
you are unjust.
1828 Scottish botanist, Robert Brown, noticed that grains of pollen
suspended in water had a rapid oscillatory motion when
viewed under a microscope.
1863 A French stockbroker, Jules Regnault, observed that the

longer you hold a security, the more you can win or lose on
its price variations: the price deviation is directly
proportional to the square root of time.
1876 Samuel Benner, an Ohio farmer, authored Benners

Prophecies of Future Ups and Downs in Prices in which he
wrote The price of any product is the exponent of the
accumulated wisdom of the country in regard to the
available supply and prospective demand for that product...
Thanks to Chris Dennistoun for this reference.
1880 The British physicist, Lord Rayleigh, (through his work on

sound vibrations) is aware of the notion of a random walk.
1888 John Venn, the British logician and philosopher, had a clear
concept of both random walk and Brownian motion.
1889 Efficient markets were clearly mentioned in a book by

George Gibson entitled The Stock Markets of London, Paris
and New York. Gibson wrote that when shares become
publicly known in an open market, the value which they
acquire may be regarded as the judgment of the best
intelligence concerning them.
1890 Alfred Marshall wrote Principles of Economics.
1900 A French mathematician, Louis Bachelier, published his PhD

thesis, Thorie de la spculation. He developed the
mathematics and statistics of Brownian motion five years
before Einstein (1905). He also deduced that The
mathematical expectation of the speculator is zero 65 years
before Samuelson (1965) explained efficient markets in
terms of a martingale. Bacheliers work was way ahead of his
time and was ignored until it was rediscovered by Savage in
1955.
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905 Karl Pearson, a professor and Fellow of the Royal Society,

introduced the term random walk in the letters pages
of Nature.
Unaware of Bacheliers work in 1900, Albert Einstein

developed the equations for Brownian motion.
1906 Bachelier
A Polish scientist, Marian Smoluchowski, described Brownian

motion.
1907
1908 Bacheliers arguments can also be found in Andr Barriols

book on financial transactions.
De Montessus published a book on probability and its

applications, which contains a chapter on finance based on
Bachelier's thesis.
Langevin authors the stochastic differential equation of

Brownian motion.
1909
1910
1911
1912 George Binney Dibblee published The laws of supply and

demand.
1913
1914 Bachelier published the book, Le Jeu, la Chance et le

Hasard (The Game, the Chance and the Hazard), which sold
over six thousand copies.
1915 According to Mandelbrot (1963) the first to note that

distributions of price changes are too peaked to be relative
to samples from Gaussian populations was Wesley C.
Mitchell.
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921 F. W. Taussig published a paper under the title, Is Market

Price Determinate?
1922
1923 Keynes clearly stated that investors on financial markets are

rewarded not for knowing better than the market what the
future has in store, but rather for risk baring, this is a
consequence of the EMH.
1924
1925 Frederick MacCauley, an economist, observed that there was

a striking similarity between the fluctuations of the stock
market and those of a chance curve which may be obtained
by throwing a dice.
1926 Unquestionable proof of the leptokurtic nature of the

distribution of returns was given by Maurice Olivier in his
Paris doctoral dissertation.
1927 Frederick C. Mills, in The Behavior of Prices, proved the
leptokurtosis of returns.
1928
1929 Stock-market crash in late October.
1930 Alfred Cowles, the American economist and businessman,

founded and funded both the Econometric Society and its
journal, Econometrica.
1931
1932 Cowles set up the Cowles Commission for Economic

Research.
1933 Alfred Cowles 3rd analysed the performance of investment

professionals and concluded that stock market forecasters
cannot forecast.
1934 Holbrook Working concludes that stock returns behave like

numbers from a lottery.
1935
1936 English economist, John Maynard Keynes has General Theory

of Employment, Interest, and Money published. He famously
compares the stock market with a beauty contest, and also
claims that most investors decisions can only be as a result
of animal spirits.
1937 Eugen Slutzky shows that sums of independent random

variables may be the source of cyclic processes.
In the only paper published before 1960 which found

significant inefficiencies, Cowles and Jones found significant
evidence of serial correlation in averaged time series indices
of stock prices.
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944 In a continuation of his 1933 publication, Cowles again

reported that investment professionals do not beat the
market.
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949 Holbrook Working showed that in an ideal futures market it

would be impossible for any professional forecaster to
predict price changes successfully.
1950
1951
1952
1953 Milton Friedman points out that, due to arbitrage, the case
for the EMH can be made even in situations where the
trading strategies of investors are correlated.
Kendall analysed 22 price-series at weekly intervals and

found to his surprise that they were essentially random. Also,
he was the first to note the time dependence of the
empirical variance (nonstationarity).
1954
1955 Around this time, Leonard Jimmie Savage, who had
discovered Bacheliers 1914 publication in the Chicago or
Yale library sent half a dozen blue ditto postcards to
colleagues, asking does any one of you know him? Paul
Samuelson was one of the recipients. He couldn't find the
book in the MIT library, but he did discover a copy of
Bacheliers Ph.D. thesis.
1956 Bacheliers name reappeared in economics, this time, as an

acknowledged forerunner, in a thesis on options-like pricing
by a student of MIT economist Paul A. Samuelson.
1957
1958 Working builds an anticipatory market model.
1959 Harry Roberts demonstrates that a random walk will look

very much like an actual stock series.
M. F. M. Osborne shows that the logarithm of common-stock

prices follows Brownian motion; and also found evidence of
the square root of time rule. Regarding the distribution of
returns, he finds a larger tangential dispersion in the data
at these limits.
1960 Larson presents the results of application of a new method of

time-series analysis. He notes that the distribution of price
changes is "very nearly normally distributed for the central
80 per cent of the data, but there is an excessive number of
extreme values."
Cowles revisits the results in Cowles and Jones (1937),

correcting an error introduced by averaging, and still finds
mixed temporal dependence results.
Working showed that the use of averages can introduce

serial correlations not present in the original series.
1961 Houthakker uses stop-loss sell orders and finds patterns. He

also finds leptokurtosis, nonstationarity and suspects
nonlinearity.
Independently of Working (1960), Alexander realised that

spurious autocorrelation could be introduced by averaging;
or if the probability of a rise is not 0.5. He concluded that the
random walk model best fits the data, but found
leptokurtosis in the distribution of returns. Also, this paper
was the first to test for nonlinear dependence.
John F. Muth introduces the rational expectations hypothesis

in economics.
1962 Mandelbrot first proposes that the tails follow a power law, in
IBM Research Note NC-87.
Paul H. Cootner concludes that the stock market is not a

random walk.
Osborne investigates deviations of stock prices from a

simple random walk, and his results include the fact that
stocks tend to be traded in concentrated bursts.
Arnold B. Moore found insignificant negative serial

correlation of the returns of individual stocks, but a slight
positive serial correlation for the index.
Jack Treynors unpublished manuscript: Toward a Theory of

Market Value of Risky Assets
1963 Berger and Mandelbrot propose a new model for error

clustering in telephone circuits, and if their argument is
applicable to stock trading, it might afford justification for
the Pareto-Levy distribution of stock price changes claimed
by Mandelbrot.
Granger and Morgenstern perform spectral analysis on

market prices and found that short-run movements of the
series obey the simple random walk hypothesis, but that
long-run movements do not, and that business cycles were
of little or no importance.
Benoit Mandelbrot presents and tests a new model of price
behaviour. Unlike Bachelier, he uses natural logarithms of
prices and also replaces the Gaussian distributions with the
more general stable Paretian.
Fama discusses Mandelbrots stable Paretian hypothesis

and concludes that the tested market data conforms to the
distribution.
1964 Alexander answers the critics of his 1961 paper and

concludes that the S&P industrials does not follow a random
walk.
Cootner edited his classic book, The Random Character of

Stock Market Prices, a collection of papers by Roberts,
Bachelier, Cootner, Kendall, Osborne, Working, Cowles,
Moore, Granger and Morgenstern, Alexander, Larson,
Steiger, Fama, Mandelbrot and others.
Godfrey, Granger and Morgenstern publish The Random

Walk Hypothesis of Stock Market Behavior.
Steiger tests for nonrandomness and concludes that stock

prices do not follow a random walk.
Sharpes Nobel prize winning work on the Capital Asset

Pricing Model.
1965 Fama defines an efficient market for the first time, in his
landmark empirical analysis of stock market prices that
concluded that they follow a random walk.
Samuelson provided the first formal economic argument for

efficient markets. His contribution is neatly summarized by
the title of his article: Proof that Properly Anticipated Prices
Fluctuate Randomly. He (correctly) focussed on the concept
of a martingale, rather than a random walk (as in Fama
(1965)).
Fama explains how the theory of random walks in stock

market prices presents important challenges to both the
chartist and the proponent of fundamenatl analysis.
1966 Fama and Blume concluded that for measuring the direction
and degree of dependence in price changes, serial
correlation is probably as powerful as the Alexandrian filter
rules.
Mandelbrot proved some of the first theorems showing how,

in competitive markets with rational risk-neutral investors,
returns are unpredictablesecurity values and prices follow
a martingale.
1967 Harry Roberts coined the term efficient markets hypothesis

and made the distinction between weak and strong form
tests, which became the classic taxonomy in Fama (1970).
1968 Ball and Brown were the first to publish an event study.
Michael C. Jensen evaluates the performance of mutual

funds and concludes that on average the funds apparently
were not quite successful enough in their trading activities to
recoup even their brokerage expenses.
1969 Fama, Fisher, Jensen and Roll undertook the first ever event
study, and their results lend considerable support to the
conclusion that the stock market is efficient.
1970 The definitive paper on the efficient markets hypothesis is

Eugene F. Famas first of three review papers: Efficient
Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work. He
defines an efficient market thus: A market in which prices
always fully reflect available information is called
efficient.. He was also the first to consider the joint
hypothesis problem.
Granger and Morgenstern publish the book The Predictability

of Stock Market Prices.
1971 Kemp and Reid concluded that share price movements were
conspicuously non-random.
Jack L. Treynor published The Only Game in Town under the

pseudonym Walter Bagehot.
Hirshleifer first noted that the expected revelation of

information can prevent risk sharing.
1972 Scholes studies the price effects of secondary offerings and

finds that the market is efficient except for some indication
of post-event price drift.
1973 Samuelsons survey paper, Mathematics of Speculative

Price.
LeRoy showed that under risk-aversion, there is no

theoretical justification for the martingale property.
Lorie and Hamilton publish the book The Stock Market:

Theories and Evidence.
Burton G. Malkiel first publishes the classic A Random Walk

Down Wall Street.
Samuelson generalized his earlier (1965) work to include

stocks that pay dividends.
1974
1975
1976 Cox and Ross author The Valuation of Options for

Alternative Stochastic Processes.
Sanford Grossman describes a model which shows that

informationally efficient price systems aggregate diverse
information perfectly, but in doing this the price system
eliminates the private incentive for collecting the
information.
Fama publishes the book Foundations of Finance.

1977 Beja showed that the efficiency of a real market is
impossible.
1978 Ball wrote a survey paper which revealed consistent excess

returns after public announcements of firms' earnings.
Jensen famously wrote, I believe there is no other

proposition in economics which has more solid empirical
evidence supporting it than the Efficient Market Hypothesis.
He defines efficiency thus: A market is efficient with respect
to information set t if it is impossible to make economic
profits by trading on the basis of information set t.
Robert E. Lucas, Jr. builds a theoretical model of rational

agents which shows that the Martingale property need not
hold under risk aversion.
1979 With a theoretical model, Radner shows when rational

expectations equilibria exist that reveal to all traders all of
their initial information.
Dimson reviews the problems of risk measurement

(estimating beta) when shares are subject to infrequent
trading.
Harrison and Kreps publish Martingales and Arbitrage in

Multiperiod Securities Markets.
Robert J. Shiller shows that the volatility of long-term interest

rates is greater than predicted.
1980 Sanford J. Grossman and Joseph E. Stiglitz show that it is

impossible for a market to be perfectly informationally
efficient. Because information is costly, prices cannot
perfectly reflect the information which is available, since if it
did, investors who spent resources on obtaining and
analyzing it would receive no compensation. Thus, a sensible
model of market equilibrium must leave some incentive for
information-gathering (security analysis).
1981 LeRoy and Porter show excess volatility and market
efficiency is rejected.
Stiglitz shows that even with apparently competitive and

efficient markets, resource allocations may not be Pareto
efficient.
Shiller shows that stock prices move too much to be justified

by subsequent changes in dividends, i.e. excess volatility.
1982 Milgrom and Stokey show that under certain conditions, the
receipt of private information cannot create any incentives
to trade.
Tirole shows that unless traders have different priors or are

able to obtain insurance in the market, speculation relies on
inconsistent plans, and thus is ruled out by rational
expectations.
1983
1984 Osborne and Murphy find evidence of the square root of time
rule in earnings.
Roll examined US orange juice futures prices and the effect

of the weather. He found excess volatility.
1985 Werner F. M. DeBondt and Richard Thaler discovered that

stock prices overreact; evidencing substantial weak form
market inefficiencies. This paper marked the start of
behavioural finance.
1986 Marsh and Merton analyze the variance-bound methodology

used by Shiller and conclude that this approach cannot be
used to test the hypothesis of stock market rationality. They
also highlight the practical consequences of rejecting the
EMH.
Fischer Black introduces the concept of noise traders, those

who trade on anything other than information, and shows
that noise trading is essential to the existence of liquid
markets.
Lawrence H. Summers argues that many statistical tests of

market efficiency have very low power in discriminating
against plausible forms of inefficiency.
French and Roll found that asset prices are much more
volatile during exchange trading hours than during non-
trading hours; and they deduced that this is due to trading
on private informationthe market generates its own news.
1987
1988 Fama and French found large negative autocorrelations for

stock portfolio return horizons beyond a year.
Lo and MacKinlay strongly rejected the random walk

hypothesis for weekly stock market returns using the
variance-ratio test.
Poterba and Summers show that stock returns show positive

autocorrelation over short periods and negative
autocorrelation over longer horizons.
Conrad and Kaul characterize the stochastic behavior of

expected returns on common stock.
1989 Cutler, Poterba and Summers found that news does not
adequately explain market movement.
Eun and Shim found that a substantial amount of

interdependence exists among national stock markets, and
the results are consistent with informationally efficient
international stock markets.
Ball discusses the specification of stock market efficiency.
Guimaraes, Kingsman and Taylor edit the book A Reappraisal

of the Efficiency of Financial Markets.
LeRoy publishes his survey paper, Efficient Capital Markets

and Martingales. He makes it clear that the transition
between the intuitive idea of market efficiency and the
martingale is far from direct.
Shiller publishes Market Volatility, a book about the sources

of volatility which challenges the EMH.
1990 Laffont and Maskin show that the efficient market hypothesis
may well fail if there is imperfect competition.
Lehmann finds reversals in weekly security returns and

rejects the efficient markets hypothesis.
Jegadeesh documents strong evidence of predictable

behavior of security returns and rejects the random walk
hypothesis.
1991 Kim, Nelson and Startz reexamine the empirical evidence for
mean-reverting behaviour in stock prices and find that mean
reversion is entirely a pre-World War II phenomenon.
Matthew Jackson explicitly models the price formation

process and shows that if agents are not price-takers, then it
is possible to have an equilibrium with fully revealing prices
and costly information acquisition.
Andrew W. Lo developed a test for long-run memory that is

robust to short-range dependence, and concludes that there
is no evidence of long-range dependence in any of the stock
returns indexes tested.
The second of Famas three review papers. Instead of weak-

form tests, the first category now covers the more general
area of tests for return predictability.
1992 Chopra, Lakonishok and Ritter find that stocks overreact.
Bekaert and Hodrick characterize predictable components in

excess returns on equity and foreign exchange markets.
Peter L. Bernstein publishes the book Capital Ideas, an

engaging account of the history of the ideas that shaped
modern finance and laced with anecdotes.
Malkiels essay Efficient Market Hypothesis in the New

Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance.
1993 Jegadeesh and Titman found that trading strategies that

bought past winners and sold past losers realized significant
abnormal returns.
Richardson shows that the patterns in serial-correlation

estimates and their magnitude observed in previous studies
should be expected under the null hypothesis of serial
independence.
1994 Roll observes that in practice it is hard to profit from even

the strongest market inefficiencies.
Huang and Stoll provide new evidence concerning market

microstructure and stock return predictions.
Metcalf and Malkiel find that portfolios of stocks chosen by

experts do not consistently beat the market.
Lakonishok, Shleifer and Vishny provide evidence that value

strategies yield higher returns because these strategies
exploit the suboptimal behavior of the typical investor and
not because these strategies are fundamentally riskier.
1995 Haugen publishes the book The New Finance: The Case
Against Efficient Markets. He emphasizes that short-run
overreaction (which causes momentum in prices) may lead
to long-term reversals (when the market recognizes its past
error).
1996 W. Brian Arthur, et al. propose a theory of asset pricing by

creating an artificial stock market with heterogeneous
agents with endogenous expectations.
Campbell, Lo and MacKinlay publish their seminal book on

empirical finance, The Econometrics of Financial Markets.
Chan, Jegadeesh and Lakonishok look at momentum

strategies and their results suggest a market that responds
only gradually to new information.
1997 Andrew Lo edits two volumes that bring together the most
influential articles on the EMH.
Chan, Gup and Pan conclude that the world equity markets
are weak-form efficient.
Dow and Gorton investigate the connection between stock

market efficiency and economic efficiency.
1998 Elroy Dimson and Massoud Mussavian give a brief history of

market efficiency.
In his third of three reviews, Fama concludes that, Market

efficiency survives the challenge from the literature on long-
term return anomalies.
1999 Lo and MacKinlay publish A Non-Random Walk Down Wall

Street.
Bernstein criticizes the EMH and claims that the marginal

benefits of investors acting on information exceed the
marginal costs.
Zhang presents a theory of marginally efficient markets.
Farmer and Lo publish an excellent but brief review article.
2000 Shleifer publishes Inefficient Markets: An Introduction to

Behavioral Finance, which questions the assumptions of
investor rationality and perfect arbitrage.
Lo publishes a selective survey of finance.
Beechey, Vickery and Gruens survey paper.
Shiller publishes the first edition of Irrational Exuberance,

which challenges the EMH, demonstrating that markets
cannot be explained historically by the movement of
company earnings or dividends.
2001 Eugene Fama became the first elected fellow of the

American Finance Association.
In an excellent historical review paper, Andreou, Pittis and

Spanos trace the development of various statistical models
proposed since Bachelier (1900), in an attempt to assess
how well these models capture the empirical regularities
exhibited by data on speculative prices.
Mark Rubinstein reexamines some of the most serious

historical evidence against market rationality and concludes
that markets are rational.
Shafer and Vovk publish Probability and Finance: Its Only a

Game! which shows how probability can be based on game
theory; they then apply the framework to finance.
2002 Lewellen and Shanken conclude that parameter uncertainty

can be important for characterizing and testing market
efficiency.
Chen and Yeh investigate the emergent properties of

artificial stock markets and show that the EMH can be
satisfied with some portions of the artificial time series.
2003 Malkiel examines the attacks on the EHM and concludes that
our stock markets are far more efficient and far less
predictable than some recent academic papers would have
us believe.
G. William Schwert shows that when anomalies are

published, practitioners implement strategies implied by the
papers and the anomalies subsequently weaken or
disappear. In other words, research findings cause the
market to become more efficient.
2004 Timmermann and Granger discuss the EMH from the
perspective of a modern forecasting approach.
2005 Malkiel shows that professional investment managers do not

outperform their index benchmarks and provides evidence
that by and large market prices do seem to reflect all
available information.
2006 Blakey looked at some of the causes and consequences of

random price behaviour.
Tth and Kertsz found evidence of increasing efficiency in

the New York Stock Exchange.
Home
EMH Taxonomy
The classic taxonomy of information sets, due to Roberts (1967), and used by
Fama (1970) includes the following:
Weak Form Efficiency

The information set includes only the history of prices.
Semi-strong Form Efficiency

The information set includes all information known to all market participants
(publicly available information).
Strong Form Efficiency

The information set includes all information known to any market participant
(private information).
Redefined by Fama (1991):
"The 1970 review divides work on market efficiency into three categories: (1)
weak-form (How well do past returns predict future returns?), (2) semi-
strong-form tests (How quickly do security prices reflect public information
announcements?), and (3) strong-form tests (Do any investors have private
information that is not fully reflected in market prices?) At the risk of
damning a good thing, I change the categories in this paper.
Instead of weak-form tests, which are only concerned with the forecast power
of past returns, the first category now covers the more general area oftests for
return predictability, which also includes the burgeoning work on forecasting
returns with variables like dividend yields and interest rates. Since market
efficiency and equilibrium-pricing issues are inseparable, the discussion of
predictability also considers the cross-sectional predictability of returns, that
is, tests of asset-pricing models and the anomalies (like the size effect)
discovered in the tests. Finally, the evidence that there are seasonals in returns
(like the January effect), and the claim that security prices are too volatile are
also considered, but only briefly, under the rubric of return predictability.
For the second and third categories, I propose xchanges in title, not coverage.
Instead of semi-strog-form tests of the adjustment of prices to public
announcements, I use the now common title, event studies. Instead of strong-
form tests of whether specific investors have information not in market prices,
I suggest the more descriptive title, tests for private information."
Random Walk Hypothesis
SEWELL, Martin, 2011. Characterization of financial time series. Research

Note RN/11/01, University College London, London.
Applicabilit
Stochastic Descriptio
y to real Notes
process n
markets
Regnault (1863) and

Osborne (1959)
discovered that price
deviation is proportional
to the square root of
satisfies the time, but the
diffusion
diffusion poor nonstationarity found by
process
equation Kendall (1953),
Houthakker (1961) and
Osborne (1962)
compromises the
significance of the
process.
Gaussian increments poor Financial markets exhibit

leptokurtosis (Mitchell
(1915, 1921), Olivier
normally (1926), Mills (1927),
process
distributed Osborne (1959), Larson
(1960), Alexander
(1961)).
Kendall (1953),
stationary Osborne (1962) found
independen nonstationarities in
Lvy process poor
t markets in the form of
increments positive autocorrelation
in the variance of
returns.
Kendall (1953),
Osborne (1962) found
Markov process memoryless poor
positive autocorrelation
in the variance of
returns.
martingale zero submartingal Bachelier (1900) and

expected e: good for Samuelson (1965)
return stock market recognised the
importance of the
martingale in relation to
an efficient market.
Whilst Cox and Ross
(1976), Lucas (1978) and
Harrison and Kreps
(1979) pointed out that in
practice investors are risk
averse, so (presumably
as compensation for the
time value of money and
systematic risk) they
demand a positive
expected return. In a
long-only market like a
stock market this implies
that the price of a stock
follows a submartingale
(a martingale being a
special case when
investors are risk-
neutral).
LeRoy (1973) and

discrete (especially) Lucas (1978)
version of pointed out that a
random walk poor
Brownian random walk is neither
motion necessary nor sufficient
for an efficient market.
Wiener continuous- poor Bachelier (1900)

process/Browni time, developed the
an motion Gaussian mathematics of Brownian
independen motion and used it to
t model financial markets.
increments Note that Brownian
motion is a diffusion
process, a Gaussian
process, a Lvy process,
a Markov process and a
martingale. On the one
hand this makes it a very
strong condition (and
therefore the least
realistic), on the other
hand it makes it a very
important generic
stochastic process and is
therefore used
extensively for modelling
financial markets (for
example, see Black and
Scholes (1973)).
Note that above we are interested in the logarithm of the price of an asset
(Osborne (1959)).
Efficient Markets Hypothesis: Joint Hypothesis
Important paper: Fama (1970)
An efficient market will always fully reflect available information, but in

order to determine how the market should fully reflect this information, we
need to determine investors risk preferences. Therefore, any test of the EMH
is a test of both market efficiency and investors risk preferences. For this
reason, the EMH, by itself, is not a well-defined and empirically refutable
hypothesis.
Sewell (2006)
"First, any test of efficiency must assume an equilibrium model that defines
normal security returns. If efficiency is rejected, this could be because the
market is truly inefficient or because an incorrect equilibrium model has been
assumed. This joint hypothesis problem means that market efficiency as such
can never be rejected."
Campbell, Lo and MacKinlay (1997), page 24
"...any test of the EMH is a joint test of an equilibrium returns model and
rational expectations (RE)."
Cuthbertson (1996)
"The notion of market efficiency is not a well-posed and empirically refutable

hypothesis. To make it operational, one must specify additional structure, e.g.,
investors preferences, information structure, etc. But then a test of market
efficiency becomes a test of several auxiliary hypotheses as well, and a
rejection of such a joint hypothesis tells us little about which aspect of the
joint hypothesis is inconsistent with the data."
Lo (2000) in Cootner (1964), page x
One of the reasons for this state of affairs is the fact that the EMH, by itself, is
not a well-defined and empirically refutable hypothesis. To make it
operational, one must specify additional structure, e.g. investors' preferences,
information structure. But then a test of the EMH becomes a test of several
auxiliary hypotheses as well, and a rejection of such a joint hypothesis tells us
little about which aspect of the joint hypothesis is inconsistent with the data.
Are stock prices too volatile because markets are inefficient, or is it due to risk
aversion, or dividend smoothing? All three inferences are consistent with the
data. Moreover, new statistical tests designed to distinguish among them will
no doubt require auxiliary hypotheses of their own which, in turn, may be
questioned."
Lo in Lo (1997), page xvii
"For the CAPM or the multifactor APT to be true, markets must be efficient."
"Asset-pricing models need the EMT. However, the notion of an efficient
market is not affected by whether any particular asset-pricing theory is true. If
investors preferred stocks with a high unsystematic risk, that would be fine: as
long as all information was immediately reflected in prices, the EMT theory
would be true."
Lofthouse (2001), page 91
"One of the reasons for this state of affairs is the fact that the Efficient Markets
Hypothesis, by itself, is not a well-defined and empirically refutable
hypothesis. To make it operational, one must specify additional structure, e.g.,
investor preferences, information structure, business conditions, etc. But then
a test of the Efficient Markets Hypothesis becomes a test of several auxiliary
hypotheses as well, and a rejection of such a joint hypothesis tells us little
about which aspect of the joint hypothesis is inconsistent with the data. Are
stock prices too volatile because markets are inefficient, or is it due to risk
aversion, or dividend smoothing? All three inferences are consistent with the
data. Moreover, new statistical tests designed to distinguish among them will
no doubt require auxiliary hypotheses of their own which, in turn, may be
questioned."
Lo and MacKinlay (1999), pages 6-7
Efficient Markets Hypothesis: Impossible
Grossman and Stiglitz (1980) argued that because information is costly, prices
cannot perfectly reflect the information which is available, since if it did, those
who spent resources to obtain it would receive no compensation, leading to
the conclusion that an informationally efficient market is impossible.
Sewell (2006)
"Second, perfect efficiency is an unrealistic benchmark that is unlikely to hold
in practice. Even in theory, as Grossman and Stiglitz (1980) have shown,
abnormal returns will exist if there are costs of gathering and processing
information. These returns are necessary to compensate investors for their
information-gathering and information-processing expenses, and are no
longer abnormal when these expenses are properly accounted for. In a large
and liquid market, information costs are likely to justify only small abnormal
returns, but it is difficult to say how small, even if such costs could be
measured precisely."
Campbell, Lo and MacKinlay (1997), page 24
"Grossman (1976) and Grossman and Stiglitz (1980) go even further. They
argue that perfectly informationally efficient markets are an impossibility, for
if markets are perfectly efficient, the return to gathering information is nil, in
which case there would be little reason to trade and markets would eventually
collapse. Alternatively, the degree of market inefficiency determines the
efforrt investors are willing to expend to gather and trade on information,
hence a non-degenerate market equilibrium will arise only when there are
sufficient profit opportunities, i.e., inefficiencies, to compensate investors for
the costs of trading and information-gathering. The profits earned by these
industrious investors may be viewed as economic rents that accrue to those
willing to engage in such activities."
Lo and MacKinlay (1999), pages 5-6
Efficient Markets Hypothesis and Random

Walk Books
BERNSTEIN, Peter L., 1992. Capital Ideas : The Improbable Origins of
Modern Wall Street. [Cited by 205] (14.39/year)
CAMPBELL, John Y., Andrew W. LO and A. Craig MacKINLAY, 1997. The

Econometrics of Financial Markets. [Cited by 2554] (276.36/year)
COOTNER, Paul H. (Edited by), 1964. The Random Character of Stock

Market Prices. [Cited by 270] (6.24/year)
CUTHBERTSON, Keith, 1996. Quantitative Financial Economics: Stocks,

Bonds and Foreign Exchange. [Cited by 74] (22.83/year)
DOOB, J. L., 1953. Stochastic Processes, New York: Wiley. [Cited by 2254]
(130.73/year)
GIBSON, George, 1889. The Stock Markets of London, Paris and New York.
New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. [Cited by 3] (0.03/year)
GUIMARES, Rui M. C., Brian G. KINGSMAN and Stephen J. TAYLOR

(eds), 1989. A Reappraisal of the Efficiency of Financial Markets. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag. [Cited by 6] (0.33/year)
HAUGEN, Robert A., 1995. The New Finance: The Case against Efficient
Markets (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. [not cited] (0.00/year)
LO, Andrew W. (Edited by), 1997. Market Efficiency: Stock Market Behaviour
in Theory and Practice. [Cited by 27] (2.64/year)
LO, Andrew W. and A. Craig MacKINLAY, 1999. A Non-Random Walk Down

Wall Street. [Cited by 205] (39.11/year)
LOFTHOUSE, Stephen, 2001. Investment Management. [Cited by 12]

(1.92/year)
LORIE, J. H. and M. T. HAMILTON, 1973. The Stock Market: Theories and

Evidence Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin. [Cited by 22] (0.64/year)
MALKIEL, Burton G., 1999. A Random Walk Down Wall Street. [Cited by 528]
(46.97/year)
MANDELBROT, Benoit B., 1997. Fractals and Scaling in Finance:

Discontinuity, Concentration, Risk. [Cited by 583] (56.93/year)
SEYHUN, H. N., 1998. Investment Intelligence From Insider Trading.

Cambridge: MIT Press. [Cited by 82] (8.87/year)
SHAFER, Glenn and Vladimir VOVK, 2001. Probability and Finance: Its
Only a Game!, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Cited by 91] (14.58/year)
SHLEIFER, Andrei, 2000. Inefficient Markets: An Introduction to Behavioral

Finance. [Cited by 577] (79.68/year)
SMITH, A., 1968. The Money Game, Random House, New York. [Cited by 7]
(0.18/year)
SPITZER, Frank, 1976. Principles of Random Walk [Cited by 797]

(127.69/year)
TAYLOR, Stephen J., 2005. Asset Price Dynamics, Volatility, and

Prediction [Cited by 11] (4.91/year)
For books on anomalies, see books on behavioural finance.
Book Reviews
HARVEY, Campbell R., 1998. The Econometrics of Financial Markets, The
Journal of Finance, 53(2), 803806.
TISO, Maurizio, 1998. The Econometrics of Financial Markets, The Review of

Financial Studies, 11(1), 233238.
WHITELAW, Robert F., 1998. The Econometrics of Financial

Markets, Macroeconomic Dynamics, 2, 559562.
Bibliography
ALEXANDER, Sidney S., 1961. Price Movements in Speculative Markets:
Trends or Random Walks, Industrial Management Review, 2(2), 726. [Cited by
111] (2.47/year)
ALEXANDER, Sidney S., 1964. Price Movements in Speculative Markets:

Trends or Random Walks, No. 2. Industrial Management Review, 5(2), 2546.
[Cited by 39] (0.93/year)
ALLEN, F., and G. GORTON, 1991. Rational Finite Bubbles, NBER Working
Paper 3707. [Cited by 13] (0.89/year)
ANDERSON, John A., Taking A Peek Inside The Turtles Shell [not found]
ANDREOU, Elena and Nikitas PITTIS and Aris SPANOS, 2001. On Modelling
Speculative Prices: The Empirical Literature. Journal of Economic
Surveys, 15(2), 187220.
ARTHUR, W. Brian, et al., 1997. Asset Pricing Under Endogenous
Expectations in an Artificial Stock Market. In: W. Brian Arthur, Steven N.
Durlauf and David A. Lane, The Economy as an Evolving Complex System II,
ASAL, Maher, Are There Trends Towards Efficiency For the Egyptian Stock
Market?" [not cited] (?/year)
BACHELIER, L., 1900. Thorie de la Spculation (first two pages of English

translation), Annales Scientifiques de l'Ecole Normale Superieure, I I I -17, 21-
86. (English Translation;- Cootner (ed.), (1964) Random Character of Stock
Market Prices, Massachusetts Institute of Technology pp17-78) [Cited by 403]
(3.81/year)
BACHELIER, L., 1906. Thorie des probabilits continues, Journal des

Mathematiques Pures et Appliqees. [not found]
BACHELIER, L., 1913. Les Probabilits cinematiques et dynamiques, Annales

de l'Ecole Normale Suprieure. [Cited by 1] (0.01/year)
BACHELIER, L., 1914. Le Jeu, la Chance, et le Hasard. Flammarion, Paris.

BAGEHOT, Walter (pseudonym for Jack L. TREYNOR), 1971. The Only

Game In Town, Financial Analysts Journal, 27(2), 1214.
BALL, Ray and Philip BROWN, 1968. An Empirical Evaluation of Accounting

Income Numbers, Journal of Accounting Research, 6(2), 159178. [Cited by
500] (13.28/year)
BALL, Ray, 1978. Anomalies in relationships between securities' yields and

yield-surrogates, Journal of Financial Economics, 6(23), 103126. [Cited by 2]
(0.07/year)
BALL, Ray, 1989. What do we know about stock market efficiency? in Rui
M. C. Guimares and Brian G. Kingsman and Stephen J. Taylor (eds) A
Reappraisal of the Efficiency of Financial Markets. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
BALVERS, Ronald J., Thomas F. COSIMANO and Bill MCDONALD,
1990. Predicting Stock Returns in an Efficient Market, Journal of Finance,45(4),
11091128. [Cited by 84] (5.37/year)
BARNETT, William A. and Apostolos SERLETIS, 2000. Martingales,

Nonlinearity, and Chaos, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 24, 703
724. [Cited by 27] (4.78/year)
BARRIOL, A., 1908. Thorie et pratique des oprations financires. Paris: O.

Doin 1908, pp. 375. A 4th corrected edition appeared in 1931. [not found]
BASS, Richard F., Nathalie EISENBAUM and Zhan SHI, 1991. The most
visited sites of symmetric stable processes, 1991. [Cited by 13] (2.30/year)
BASU, Sanjoy, 1977. The Investment Performance of Common Stocks in

Relation to their Price to Earnings Ratio: A Test of the Efficient Markets
Hypothesis, Journal of Finance, 32, pp. 663682. [Cited by 217] (7.55/year)
BEECHEY, Meredith, David GRUEN and James VICKERY, 2000. The

Efficient Market Hypothesis: A Survey, Research Discussion Paper. [Cited by 6]
(1.06/year)
BEJA, Avraham, 1977. The Limits of Price Information in Market Processes,

Working Paper No. 61, Research Program in Finance, University of California,
Berkeley. [Cited by 3] (0.11/year)
BEKAERT, Geert and Robert J. HODRICK, 1992. Characterizing Predictable

Components in Excess Returns on Equity and Foreign Exchange Markets, The
Journal of Finance, 47(2), 467509. [Cited by 154] (10.86/year)
BERGER, J. M. and B. MANDELBROT, 1963. A New Model for Error

Clustering in Telephone Circuits, IBM Journal of Research and
Development,7(3), 224236. [Cited by 23] (0.54/year)
BERNSTEIN, Peter L., 1992. Capital Ideas : The Improbable Origins of

Modern Wall Street. [Cited by 127] (10.04/year)
BERNSTEIN, Peter L., 1999. A New Look at the Efficient Market

Hypothesis, Journal of Portfolio Management, 25(2), pages 12. [Cited by 4]
(0.56/year)
BETTIS, Carr, Don VICKREY and Donn W. VICKREY, Mimickers of
Corporate Insiders Who Make Large-Volume Trades, Financial Analysts Journal,
September/October 1997. [Cited by 18] (2.08/year)
BLACK, Fischer, 1986. Noise, Journal of Finance, 41(3), 529543. [Cited by

446] (22.70/year)
BLAKEY, Peter, 2006. The Efficient Market Approximation, IEEE Microwave

Magazine, 7(1), 2831.
BOLLERSLEV, Tim, and HODRICK, Robert J., Financial Market Efficiency

Tests, Ch. 9 of Handbook of Applied Econometrics, Edited by M. Hashem
Pesaran and M. R. Wickens. Cambridge: Blackwell. [Cited by 31] (2.27/year)
BRACHET, Marc-Etienne, Erik TAFLIN and Jean Marcel TCHEOU, Scaling

transformation and probability distributions for financial time series[Cited by
19] (2.86/year)
BRAY, Margaret, Futures Trading, Rational Expectations, and the Efficient

Markets Hypothesis [Cited by 34] (1.38/year)
BRENNER, Menachem, 1977. The Effect of Model Misspecification on Tests

of the Efficient Market Hypothesis, Journal of Finance, 32(1), 5766. [Cited by
6] (0.21/year)
BROWN, David P. and Zhi Ming ZHANG, Market Orders and Market
Efficiency, Journal of Finance. [Cited by 18] (2.08/year)
BROWN, Robert, 1828. A Brief Account of Microscopical Observations: Made

in the Months of June, July, and August, 1827, on the Particles Contained in the
Pollen of Plants; and on the General Existence of Active Molecules in Organic
and Inorganic Bodies. Not published. [Cited by 53] (0.30/year)
BROWN, Stephen J., William N. GOETZMANN, Stephen A. ROSS,

1995. Survival, The Journal of Finance, 50(3), 853873. [Cited by 128]
(12.03/year)
BRUSH, Stephen G., 1968. A history of random processes: I. Brownian

movement from Brown to Perrin
CAMPBELL, John Y., Andrew W. LO and A. Craig MacKINLAY, 1997. The
Econometrics of Financial Markets. [Cited by 1762] (312.05/year)
CHALLET, D., A. CHESSA, M. MARSILI and Y.-C. ZHANG, From Minority

Games to Real Markets, January 9, 2004, arXiv: cond-mat/0011042 v1 2 Nov
2000. [Cited by 34] (7.32/year)
CHAN, Kam C., Benton E. GUP and Ming-Shiun PAN, 1997. International
Stock Market Efficiency and Integration: A Study of Eighteen Nations.Journal
of Business Finance & Accounting, 24(6), 803813. [Cited by 36] (3.92/year)
CHANCE, D.M., MODELING ASSET PRICES AS STOCHASTIC

PROCESSES I [not found]
CHEN, Ping, 1996. A Random Walk or Color Chaos on the Stock Market?
Time-Frequency Analysis of S&P Indexes, Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and
Econometrics, Quarterly Journal, July 1996, 1(2), The MIT Press. [Cited by 17]
(1.76/year)
CHEN, Ping, A Random-Walk or Color-Chaos on the Stock Market? - Time-

Frequency Analysis of S&P Indexes [Cited by 17] (1.76/year)
CHEN, Shu-Heng and Chia-Hsuan YEH, 2002. On the emergent properties of

artificial stock markets: the efficient market hypothesis and the rational
expectations hypothesis, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 49(2),
217239. [Cited by 23] (6.31/year)
CHOPRA, Navin, Josef LAKONISHOK and Jay R. RITTER, 1992. Measuring

abnormal performance: Do stocks overreact?, Journal of Financial
Economics, 31(2), 235268. [Cited by 155] (10.93/year)
CLARKE, Jonathan, Tomas JANDIK, and Gershon MANDELKER, 2001. The

efficient markets hypothesis. In: Robert C. ARFFA, ed. Expert Financial
Planning: Investment Strategies from Industry Leaders. New York: Wiley,
Chapter 9, pp. 126--141. [not found]
CLAYTON, Jim, 1998. Further Evidence on Real Estate Market

Efficiency, Journal of Real Estate Research, 1998, 15(1), 4158. [Cited by 5]
(0.65/year)
COCHRANE, John H., How Big Is the Random Walk in GNP? [Cited by 331]
(18.76/year)
COLEMAN, Robert D., A Typology of Asset Pricing Models. [not found]
CONRAD, Jennifer and Gautam KAUL, 1988. Time-Variation in Expected

Returns, The Journal of Business, 61(4), 409425. [Cited by 100] (5.67/year)
COOTNER, Paul H. (Edited by), 1964. The Random Character of Stock

Market Prices, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusettes. [Cited by 166]
(4.30/year)
COOTNER, Paul H., 1964. Comments on the Variation of Certain Speculative

Prices IN Paul Cootner, ed., The Random Character of Stock Market Prices.
Cambridge: The MIT Press. [Cited by 2] (0.05/year)
COOTNER, Paul H., 1962. Stock Prices: Random vs. Systematic

Changes, Industrial Management Review, 3(2), 2445. [Cited by 39] (0.89/year)
COPELAND, Thomas E., and Daniel FRIEDMAN, 1991. Partial Revelation of

Information in Experimental Asset Markets, Journal of Finance, 46(1), 265
295. [Cited by 26] (1.78/year)
COWLES 3rd, Alfred, 1933. Can Stock Market Forecasters

Forecast?, Econometrica, 1(3), 309324. [Cited by 89] (1.23/year)
COWLES 3rd, Alfred, 1938, Common Stock Indexes, 18711937. [Cited by

13] (0.19/year)
COWLES 3rd, Alfred, and Herbert E. JONES, 1937. Some A Posteriori

Probabilities in Stock Market Action, Econometrica, 5(3), 280294. [Cited by
31] (0.45/year)
COWLES, Alfred, 1944. Stock Market Forecasting, Econometrica, 12(3/4),

206214. [Cited by 14] (0.23/year)
COWLES, Alfred, 1960. A Revision of Previous Conclusions Regarding Stock

Price Behavior, Econometrica, 28(4), 909915. [Cited by 9] (0.20/year)
COX, Charles C., Futures Trading and Market Information. [Cited by 38]
(1.28/year)
COX, John C., and Stephen A. ROSS, 1976. The Valuation of Options for
Alternative Stochastic Processes, Journal of Financial Economics, 3(12), 145
166. [Cited by 692] (23.34/year)
COZMA, Razvan Gabriel (July 2002) Testing For Romanian Capital Market
Efficiency [not found]
CRAINE, Fair games, and the Martingale (or "Random walk") model of stock
prices. [not found]
CUNIBERTI, Gianaurelio, Marco RABERTO and Enrico

SCALAS, Correlations in the Bond-Future Market. [Cited by 11] (1.66/year)
CUNNINGHAM, Lawrence A., 2000. From Random Walks to Chaotic

Crashes: The Linear Genealogy of the Efficient Market Hypothesis, This article
originally appeared in 62 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1133 (1994). [Cited by 6]
(0.52/year)
CUTHBERTSON, Keith, 1996. Quantitative Financial Economics : Stocks,

Bonds and Foreign Exchange. [Cited by 45] (4.66/year)
CUTLER, David M, James M. POTERBA and Lawrence H. SUMMERS,

1990. Speculative Dynamics and the Role of Feedback Traders, The American
Economic Review, 80(2), 6368. [Cited by 95] (5.87/year)
CUTLER, David M., James M. POTERBA and Lawrence H. SUMMERS,

1989. What moves stock prices?, Journal of Portfolio Management, 15(3), 412.
DACOROGNA, Michel, Ulrich MLLER, Richard OLSEN and Olivier

PICTET, Defining Efficiency in Heterogeneous Markets [Cited by 3] (0.65/year)
DAMODARAN, Aswath, Market Efficiency: Definitions and Tests [not found]
de MONTESSUS, R., 1908. Leons lmentaires sur le Calcul des Probabilits.

Paris: Gauthier-Villars. [Cited by 3] (0.03/year)
DeBONDT, Werner F. M. and Richard THALER, 1985. "Does the Stock

Market Overreact?" Journal of Finance 40, 793805. [Cited by 889]
(243.98/year)
DEMBO, Amir, et al., Thick Points for Planar Brownian Motion and the Erds-
Taylor Conjecture on Random Walk [Cited by 35] (7.54/year)
DIBBLEE, George Binney, 1912. The laws of supply and demand, London:
Constable and Co.
DIMSON, Elroy and Massoud MUSSAVIAN, 1998. A brief history of market

efficiency, European Financial Management, 4(1), 91193. [Cited by 15]
(1.96/year)
DIMSON, Elroy and Massoud MUSSAVIAN, 2000. Market Efficiency, The

Current State of Business Disciplines, 3, 959970, Publisher: Spellbound Pubns
Pvt Ltd (Jul 2000) [Cited by 3] (0.53/year)
DIMSON, Elroy, 1979. Risk measurement when shares are subject to

infrequent trading, Journal of Financial Economics, 7(2), 197226. [Cited by
318] (11.94/year)
DOOB, J. L., 1953. Stochastic Processes, New York: Wiley. [Cited by 1531]
(29.08/year)
DOW, James and Gary GORTON, 1997. Stock Market Efficiency and
Economic Efficiency: Is There a Connection?, The Journal of Finance, 52(3),
10871129. [Cited by 87] (7.78/year)
EINSTEIN, Albert, 1905. ber die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der
Wrme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flssigkeiten suspendierten
Teilchen, Annalen der Physik, 17:549560, 1905. [Cited by 392] (3.89/year)
EUN, Cheol S. and Sangdal SHIM, 1989. International Transmission of Stock

Market Movements, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,24(2),
241256. [Cited by 284] (16.84/year)
EVANS, John L., The Random Walk Hypothesis, Portfolio Analysis and the
Buy-and-Hold Criterion, 1968. [not cited] (0/year)
FAMA, Eugene F., 1963. Mandelbrot and the Stable Paretian Hypothesis, The
Journal of Business, 36(4), 420429. [Cited by 109] (2.56/year)
FAMA, Eugene F., 1965. Random Walks in Stock Market Prices, Financial
Analysts Journal, 21(5), 5559. [Cited by 59] (1.43/year)
FAMA, Eugene F., 1965. The Behavior of Stock-Market Prices, Journal of
Business, 38(1), 34105. [Cited by 1224] (29.72/year)
FAMA, Eugene F., 1970. Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and
Empirical Work, Journal of Finance, 25(2), 383417. [Cited by 1389]
(38.97/year)
FAMA, Eugene F., 1976. Foundations of Finance: Portfolio Decisions and

Securities Prices, New York: Basic Books.
FAMA, Eugene F., 1991. Efficient Capital Markets: II, Journal of

Finance, 46(5), 15751617. [Cited by 871] (57.37/year)
FAMA, Eugene F., 1998. Market efficiency, long-term returns, and behavioral
finance, Journal of Financial Economics 49 (1998) 283306. [Cited by 687]
(89.89/year)
FAMA, Eugene F., et al., 1969. The Adjustment of Stock Prices to New
Information, International Economic Review, 10(1), 121. [Cited by 425]
(11.60/year)
FAMA, Eugene F., and Kenneth R. FRENCH, 1988. Permanent and Temporary
Components of Stock Prices, The Journal of Political Economy, 96(2), 246273.
FAMA, Eugene F., and Marshall E. BLUME, 1966. Filter Rules and Stock-
Market Trading, The Journal of Business, 39(1), 226241. [Cited by 81]
(2.04/year)
FAMA, Eugene, Reply
FARMER, J. D., 1998. Market force, ecology, and evolution, Santa Fe Institute
Working Paper. [Cited by 83] (22.78/year)
FARMER, J. Doyne and Andrew W. LO, 1999. Frontiers of finance: Evolution

and Efficient Markets, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 96(18), 99919992. [Cited by 44] (6.62/year)
FRANCE, Virginia Grace Market Efficiency

FRENCH, Kenneth R., and Richard ROLL, 1986. Stock return variances: The
arrival of information and the reaction of traders, Journal of Financial
Economics, 17(1), 526. [Cited by 359] (18.28/year)
FRIEDERICH, Sylvain, et al., Stock Price Patterns around Directors Trades

on the London Stock Exchange, 2000. [not cited] (?/year)
FRIEDMAN, Milton, 1953. "The Case for Flexible Exchange Rates". In:
Milton Friedman, Essays in Positive Economics, pages 157203. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
GEMAN, H?e?lyettePreface
GENAY, Ramazan, et al., Real-Time Trading Models and the Statistical

Properties of Foreign Exchange Rates. [Cited by 9] (2.47/year)
GIBSON, George, 1889. The Stock Markets of London, Paris and New York.
New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons. [Cited by 3] (0.03/year)
GIRLICH, Hans-Joachim, 2002. Bacheliers Predecessors [Cited by 1]

(0.27/year)
GODFREY, M.D., C.W.J. GRANGER and O. MORGENSTERN, 1964. The

Random Walk Hypothesis of Stock Market Behavior, Kyklos, 17, 130. [Cited
by 13] (0.31/year)
GOUREE, J. K., and HOMMES, C. H. (2000). Heterogeneous beliefs and the

nonlinear cobweb model, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 24, 761
798. [not found ?]
GRANGER, C. W. J., and O. MORGENSTERN, 1963. Spectral Analysis of

New York Stock Market Prices, Kyklos, 16, 127. Reprinted in The Random
Character of Stock Market Prices, edited by P.H. Cootner, The MIT Press, 1964.
GRANGER, Clive W. J., and Oskar MORGENSTERN, 1970. Predictability of

Stock Market Prices, Heath Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachusetts. [Cited
by 63] (1.74/year)
GRAY, R.W. and D.J.S. RUTLEDGE, 1971. The economics of commodity
futures markets: A survey. Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics.
GROSSMAN, Sanford J., and Joseph E. STIGLITZ, 1976. Information and

Competitive Price Systems, The American Economic Review, 66(2), 246253.
GROSSMAN, Sanford J., and Joseph E. STIGLITZ, 1980. On the Impossibility

of Informationally Efficient Markets, The American Economic Review,70(3),
393408. [Cited by 868] (33.85/year)
GROSSMAN, Sanford, 1976. On the Efficiency of Competitive Stock Markets

Where Traders Have Diverse Information, Journal of Finance, 31(2), 573585.
GUERRE, E. and F. JOUNEAU, Geometric Versus Arithmetic Random Walk

The Case of Trended Variables [Cited by 1] (?/year)
GUERRE, E. and F. JOUNEAU, Geometric versus arithmetic random walk.

The case of trended variables, 1996. [Cited by 1] (0.13/year)
GUIMARES, Rui M. C., Brian G. KINGSMAN and Stephen J. TAYLOR

(eds), 1989. A Reappraisal of the Efficiency of Financial Markets. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag. [Cited by 3] (0.18/year)
HAGERMAN, Robert L. and Richard D. RICHMOND, 1973. Random Walks,

Martingales and the OTC, Journal of Finance, 28(4), 897909. [Cited by 7]
(0.21/year)
HALL, Stephen and Giovanni URGA, 2002. Testing for Ongoing Efficiency in
the Russian Stock Market, 2002. [not found]
HANSEN, L.P. and R.J. HODRICK, 1983, Risk averse speculation in the
forward foreign exchange market: An economic analysis of linear models, in:
J.A. Frenkel, ed., Exchange Rates and International Macroeconomics
(University of Chicago Press, Chicago IL) 113152. [Cited by 59] (2.61/year)
HANSEN, Lars Peter and Kenneth J. SINGLETON, 1982. Generalized

Instrumental Variables Estimation of Nonlinear Rational Expectations
Models,Econometrica, 50(5), 12691286. [Cited by 500] (21.15/year)
HANSEN, Lars Peter, 1982. Large Sample Properties of Generalized Method
of Moments Estimators, Econometrica, 50(4), 10291054. [Cited by 1846]
(78.08/year)
HANSEN, Lars Peter, and Kenneth J. SINGLETON, 1982.
HANSEN, Lars Peter, and Kenneth J. SINGLETON, 1984. Generalized

Instrumental Variables Estimation of Nonlinear Rational Expectations Models
(in Errata), Econometrica, 52(1), 267268. [Cited by 500] (21.15/year)
HARRISON, J. Michael, and David M. KREPS, 1979. Martingales and

Arbitrage in Multiperiod Securities Markets, Journal of Economic Theory,20(3),
381408. [Cited by 849] (31.87/year)
HAUGEN, Robert A., 1995. The New Finance: The Case against Efficient
Markets (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. [Cited by 4] (0.38/year)
HAW, Mark, 2005. Einstein's random walk (January 2005) - Physics World -
PhysicsWeb [not listed]
HELLSTRM, Thomas and Kenneth HOLMSTRM, 1998. The Relevance of

Trends for Predictions of Stock Returns [Cited by 6] (1.06/year)
HELLSTRM, Thomas and Kenneth HOLMSTRM, Predicting the Stock

Market. [Cited by 16] (2.11/year)
HELLSTRM, Thomas and Kenneth HOLMSTRM, The Relevance of

Trends for Predictions of Stock Returns, 1998. [Cited by 6] (1.06/year)
HELLSTRM, Thomas, A Random Walk through the Stock Market, 1998.

HELPERN 1962
HIRSHLEIFER, Jack, 1971. The Private and Social Value of Information and
the Reward to Inventive Activity, The American Economic Review,61(4), 561
574. [Cited by 246] (7.10/year)
HOUTHAKKER, Hendrik, S., 1961. Systematic and Random Elements in

Short-Term Price Movements, The American Economic Review, 51(2), 164172.
HUANG, J. and J. WANG, 2005. Market structure, security prices, and
informational efficiency. Macroeconomic Dynamics. [Cited by 11] (15.14/year)
HUANG, Roger D. and Hans R. STOLL, 1994. Market Microstructure and

Stock Return Predictions, The Review of Financial Studies, 7(1), 179213.
[Cited by 82] (?/year)
HUIZINGA, J., 1987. An empirical investigation of the long-run behavior of

real exchange rates. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 27,
149214. [Cited by 110] (5.84/year)
Hull University Business School, Efficient Markets Hypothesis
ILINSKAIA, Alexandra and Kirill ILINSKI, How to reconcile Market

Efficiency and Technical Analysis, cond-mat/9902044 [Cited by 3] (0.45/year)
JACKSON, Matthew O., 1991. Equilibrium, Price Formation, and the Value of
Private Information, The Review of Financial Studies, 4(1), 116. [Cited by 28]
(1.91/year)
JAFFE, Jeffrey F. and Mark RUBINSTEIN, The Value of Information in

Impersonal and Personal Markets, 1987. [not cited] (?/year)
JEGADEESH, Narasimhan and Sheridan TITMAN, 1993. Returns to Buying

Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency,Journal
of Finance, 48(1), 6591. [Cited by 897] (70.94/year)
JEGADEESH, Narasimhan, 1990. Evidence of Predictable Behavior of

Security Returns, The Journal of Finance, 45(3), 881898. [Cited by 285]
(17.61/year)
JEN, Frank C., Random Walks and Technical Theories: Some Additional
Evidence: Discussion, Journal of Finance [Cited by 41] (1.15/year)
JENG, L., A. METRICK and R. ZECKHAUSER, 1999. 'The profits to insider

trading: A performance-evaluation perspective'. NBER Working Paper #6913.
Cambridge, MA: NBER. [Cited by 17] (2.56/year)
JENSEN, Michael C. and George A. BENINGTON, Random Walks and

Technical Theories: Some Additional Evidence, Journal of Finance. [Cited by
41] (1.15/year)
JENSEN, Michael C., 1968. The Performance of Mutual Funds in the Period
1945-1964, Journal of Finance, 23(2), 389416. [Cited by 595] (15.81/year)
JENSEN, Michael C., 1978. Some anomalous evidence regarding market

efficiency, Journal of Financial Economics, 6(23), 95101. [Cited by 128]
(4.63/year)
JOY, O. M. and C. P. JONES, 1986. Should we believe the tests of market

efficiency?, Journal of Portfolio Management, 12, Summer, 4954. [Cited by 3]
(0.15/year)
JUNG, Jeeman and Robert J. SHILLER, One Simple Test of Samuelson's

Dictum for the Stock Market. [Cited by 7] (1.92/year)
KANZLER, Ludwig, A Study of the Efficiency of the Foreign Exchange

Market Through Analysis of Ultra-High Frequency Data [not found]
KAVAJECZ, K.A and ? Technical Analysis and Liquidity Provision [Cited by

14] (5.30/year)
KEIM, D., and R. STAMBAUGH, 1986. Predicting Returns in Stock and Bond
Markets, Journal of Financial Economics, 17, 357390. [Cited by 1] (0.05/year)
KEMP, Alexander G. and Gavin C. REID, 1971. The Random Walk Hypothesis
and the Recent Behaviour of Equity Prices in Britain, Economica, New
Series, 38(149), 2851. [Cited by 2] (0.06/year)
KENDALL, M. G., 1953. The Analysis of Economic Time-SeriesPart I:

Prices, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General), 116(1), 11
25. [Cited by 129] (2.43/year)
KEOWN, Arthur J. and John M. PINKERTON, Merger Announcements and

Insider Trading Activity: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Finance[Cited
by 48] (1.95/year)
KEYNES, J.M., 1923. "Some Aspects of Commodities Markets", Manchester

Guardian Commercial, March 29, 1923. Reprinted in The Collected Writings of
John Maynard Keynes, Volume XII, London: Macmillan, (1983). [not found]
KEYNES, John Maynard, 1936. The General Theory of Employment, Interest

and Money. Macmillan, London.
KIM, Myung Jig, Charles R. NELSON and Richard STARTZ, 1991. Mean
Reversion in Stock Prices? A Reappraisal of the Empirical Evidence, The
Review of Economic Studies, 58(3), 515528. [Cited by 124] (8.17/year)
KING, W.I., 1930. Index Numbers Elucidated, New York, Longmans, Green
and Co. [Cited by 2] (0.03/year)
KURZ, M., 1994. Endogenous Economic Fluctuations, Studies in the Theory of

Rational Beliefs, 6, Studies in Economic Theory. Springer, Berlin.
LAFFONT, Jean-Jacques and Eric S. MASKIN, 1990. The Efficient Market

Hypothesis and Insider Trading on the Stock Market, The Journal of Political
Economy, 98(1), 7093. [Cited by 37] (2.29/year)
LANGEVIN, P., 1908. Sur la thorie du mouvement brownien. Comptes

Rendus de lAcadmie des Sciences de Paris 146: 530533. [Cited by 51]
(0.52/year)
LARSON, Arnold B., 1960. Measurement of a Random Process in Futures

Prices, Food Research Institute Studies, 1(3), 31324. [Cited by 4] (0.09/year)
LEHMANN, Bruce N. Fads, Martingales, and Market Efficiency, Quarterly

Journal of Economics, 105(1), 128. [Cited by 196] (12.53/year)
LeROY, Stephen F. and Richard D. PORTER, 1981. The Present-Value

Relation: Tests Based on Implied Variance Bounds, Econometrica, 49(3), 555
574. [Cited by 150] (6.08/year)
LeROY, Stephen F., 1973. Risk Aversion and the Martingale Property of Stock
Prices, International Economic Review 14(2), 436446. [Cited by 24]
(0.74/year)
LeROY, Stephen F., 1989. Efficient Capital Markets and Martingales, Journal
of Economic Literature, 27(4), 15831621. [Cited by 119] (7.15/year)
LeROY, Stephen F., Efficient Capital Markets: Comment, 1976. [Cited by 10]
(0.34/year)
LEVINE 1962
LEVY, Moshe, 2001. Market Efficiency, the Pareto Wealth Distribution, and
the Lvy Distribution of Stock Returns [Cited by 2] (0.43/year)
LEVY, P., 1925. Calcul des Probabilites. Gauthier-Villars, Paris. [Cited by 76]
(0.94/year)
LEWELLEN, Jonathan and Jay SHANKEN, 2002. Learning, Asset-Pricing

Tests, and Market Efficiency, The Journal of Finance, 57(3), 11131145. [Cited
by 75] (20.13/year)
LEWELLEN, Jonathan, and Jay SHANKEN, 2000. Estimation Risk, Market

Efficiency, and the Predictability of Returns, NBER Working Paper No. W7699
from National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, Issued in May 2000. [Cited
by 5] (0.89/year)
LIMA, Ricardo Chaves, and Alberto OHASHI, The Efficient Market

Hypothesis and the Dynamic Behavior of Sugar Future Prices [not cited]
(?/year)
LIU, Christina Y. and Jia HE, A Variance-Ratio Test of Random Walks in

Foreign Exchange Rates, Journal of Finance [Cited by 48] (3.28/year)
LO and MacKINLAY, Lo & MacKinlay A Non-Random Walk down Wall

Street Introduction.htm
LO, Andrew W. (Edited by), 1997. Market Efficiency: Stock Market Behaviour
in Theory and Practice. [Cited by 17] (1.97/year)
LO, Andrew W. and A. Craig MacKINLAY, 1999. A Non-Random Walk Down

Wall Street. [Cited by 138] (20.76/year)
LO, Andrew W., 1991. Long-Term Memory in Stock Market

Prices, Econometrica, 59(5), 12791313. [Cited by 349] (20.97/year)
LO, Andrew W., 2000. Finance: A Selective Survey.. Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 95(450), 629635. [Cited by 7] (1.19/year)
LO, Andrew W., and A. Craig MACKINLAY, 1988. Stock Market Prices do not
Follow Random Walks: Evidence from a Simple Specification Test,The Review
of Financial Studies, 1(1), 4166. [Cited by 622] (35.26/year)
LOFTHOUSE, Stephen, 2001. Investment Management. [Cited by 6]
(1.29/year)
LORIE, James H. and Mary T HAMILTON, 1973. The Stock Market: Theories
and Evidence, Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin. [Cited by 1] (0.03/year)
LOVATT, David, Andrew BOSWELL and Reza NOOR, Further evidence on

the predictability of UK stock returns. [not found]
LUCAS, Robert E., Jr., 1978. Asset Prices in an Exchange

Economy, Econometrica, 46(6), 14291445. [Cited by 1006] (36.39/year)
LUX, Thomas, Microscopic Models of Financial Markets [not found]
MacCAULEY, Frederick R., 1925. Forecasting Security Prices, Journal of the

American Statistical Association, 20(150), 244249. [not cited] (0/year)
MALKIEL, B., 1992. Efficient Market Hypothesis, in Peter Newman,

Murray Milgate and John Eatwell (eds.), New Palgrave Dictionary of Money
and Finance, Macmillan, London.
MALKIEL, Burton G., 1973. A Random Walk Down Wall StreetNew York: W.
W. Norton & Company
MALKIEL, Burton G., 1999. A Random Walk Down Wall Street. [Cited by
350] (16.95/year)
MALKIEL, Burton G., 2003. The Efficient Market Hypothesis and Its
Critics, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(1), 5982. [Cited by 50]
(18.34/year)
MALKIEL, Burton G., 2005. Reflections on the Efficient Market Hypothesis:

30 Years Later, The Financial Review, 40(1), 19.
MANDELBROT, Benoit B., 1972. Correction of an Error in "The Variation of

Certain Speculative Prices (1963) [Cited by 1] (0.03/year)
MANDELBROT, Benoit B., 1997. Fractals and Scaling in Finance:

Discontinuity, Concentration, Risk. [Cited by 67] (7.75/year)
MANDELBROT, Benoit, 1962. The Variation of Certain Speculative Prices,
Research Note NC-87, issued on March 26, 1962 by the Research Center of
the International Business Machines Corporation.
MANDELBROT, Benoit, 1963. The Variation of Certain Speculative

Prices, The Journal of Business, 36(4), 394419. [Cited by 1039] (24.37/year)
MANDELBROT, Benoit, 1966. Forecasts of Future Prices, Unbiased Markets,

and Martingale Models, Journal of Business, 39(1), 242255. [Cited by 50]
(1.26/year)
MARKOWITZ, Harry M., 1991. Foundations of Portfolio Theory, Journal of

Finance, 46(2), 469477. [Cited by 96] (6.56/year)
MARSH, Terry A. and Robert C. MERTON, 1986. Dividend Variability and

Variance Bounds Tests for the Rationality of Stock Market Prices, The American
MAUBOUSSIN, Michael J., Revisiting Market Efficiency: The Stock Market

as a Complex Adaptive System, [Cited by 4] (1.10/year)
MEISSNER, Gunter, Albin ALEX and Kai NOLTE, A Refined MACD

Indicator Evidence against the Random Walk Hypothesis?
METCALF, Gilbert E. and Burton G. MALKIEL, 1994. The Wall Street

Journal contests: the experts, the darts, and the efficient market
hypothesis,Applied Financial Economics, 4(5), 371374. [Cited by 7]
(0.57/year)
MILGROM, Paul and Nancy STOKEY, 1982. Information, trade and common
knowledge, Journal of Economic Theory, 26(1), 1727. [Cited by 280]
(11.80/year)
MILIESKA, Gediminas, The Evaluation of the Lithuanian Stock Market with

the Weak-form Market Efficiency Hypothesis, Bachelor Dissertation, 2004.
[not found]
MILLS, Frederick C., 1927. The Behavior of Prices (New York: National
Bureau of Economic Research, 1927). [Cited by 52] (0.66/year)
MITCHELL, Wesley C., 1915 and 1921. "The Making and Using of Index
Numbers," Introduction to Index Numbers and Wholesale Prices in the United
States and Foreign Countries (published in 1915 as Bulletin No. 173 of the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, reprinted in 1921 as Bulletin No. 284). [Cited by 11]
(0.16/year)
MOBAREK, Asma and Keavin KEASEY, Weak-form market efficiency of an

emerging Market: Evidence from Dhaka Stock Market of Bangladesh.[Cited by
2] (0.35/year)
MOORE, Arnold B., 1962. A Statistical Analysis of Common Stock Prices,

unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Graduate School of Business, University of
Chicago. [Cited by 10] (0.23/year)
MOORE, Arnold B., 1964. Some Characteristics of Changes in Common Stock

Prices In P. Cootner, ed. The Random Character of Stock Market Prices, pp.
13961. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1964. [Cited by 5] (0.12/year)
MUENDLER, Marc-Andreas, 2000. A Contribution to the Theory of

Information Acquisition in Financial Markets. [not cited] (0/year)
MUTH, John F., 1961. Rational Expectations and the Theory of Price
Movements, Econometrica, 29(3), 315335. [Cited by 608] (13.55/year)
OHLSON, J. and J. PATELL, 1979. Residual (API) analysis and the private
value of information, Journal of Accounting Research, 17, 504549 [Cited by 2]
(0.08/year)
OHLSON, James A., Risk-Aversion and the Martingale Property of Stock

Prices: Comments, International Economic Review, 1977. [Cited by 2]
(0.07/year)
OLIVIER, Maurice, "Les Nombres indices de la variation des prix" (Paris

doctoral dissertation, 1926) [not cited] (0/year)
OLSEN, Richard B., et al., 1992. Going Back to the Basics - Rethinking
Market Efficiency, Technical Report, Olsen and Associates, Zurich, Switzerland.
OSBORNE, M. F. M. and Joseph E. MURPHY, Jr., 1984. Financial Analogs of
Physical Brownian Motion, as Illustrated by Earnings, Financial Review, 19(2),
153172. [not cited] (?/year)
OSBORNE, M. F. M., 1967. Some Quantitative Tests for Stock Price

Generating Models and Trading Folklore, Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 1967. [not cited] (0/year)
OSBOURNE, M. F. M., 1962. Periodic Structure in the Brownian Motion of

Stock Prices, Operations Research, 10(3), 345379. [Cited by 44] (1.01/year)
OSBOURNE, M.F.M., 1959. Brownian Motion in the Stock

Market, Operations Research, 7(2), 14573. [Cited by 109] (2.34/year)
PAYNE, Kent E., Predicting Intermediate Returns of the S&P500; The Risk
Factor [not cited] (?/year)
PEARSON, Karl, 1905. The Problem of the Random Walk, Nature, 72(1865),
294.
PEARSON, Karl, 1905. The problem of the random walk, Nature, 72, page
342.
PEDERSEN, Lasse H., Market Efficiency and Anomalies. [not found]
PESANDO, James E., 1979. On the Random Walk Characteristics of Short-

and Long-Term Interest Rates In an Efficient Market, Journal of Money, Credit
and Banking, 11(4), 457466. [Cited by 9] (0.34/year)
PESARAN, M. Hashem, 2003. Market Efficiency and Stock Market

Predictability [not cited] (?/year)
PESARAN, M. Hashem, 2005. Market Efficiency Today [not cited] (?/year)
PLAT, C.G., Chapter One: Noisy Rational Expectations With Stochastic

Fundamentals, Noisy Rational Expectations with Stochastic Fundamentals,
Dissertation (University of California-Santa Cruz, December 1995) [not cited]
(0/year)
POTERBA, James M. and Lawrence H. SUMMERS, 1988. Mean Reversion in
Stock Prices: Evidence and Implications, Journal of Financial Economics, 22,
2759. [Cited by 344] (20.67/year)
PRATHER, Larry J., Karen L. MIDDLETON and Antony J. CUSACK,

2001. Are N + 1 heads better than one? The timing and selectivity of Australian-
managed investment funds, Pacific-Basin Finance Journal 9 2001 379400.
PROXMIRE (1968)
RADNER, Roy, 1979. Rational Expectations Equilibrium, Generic Existence

and the Information Revealed by Prices, Econometrica, 47(3), 655678. [Cited
by 117] (4.39/year)
RAYLEIGH, Lord, 1880. On the resultant of a large number of vibrations of

the same pitch and of arbitrary phase, Philosophical Magazine, 10, pages 7378.
RAYLEIGH, Right Honourable Lord, 1905. The problem of the random

walk, Nature, 72, page 318.
REGNAULT, Jules, 1863. Calcul des chances et philosophie de la Bourse.

Mallet-Bachelier et Castel, Paris, 1863. 219 pages. [Cited by 7] (0.05/year)
RICHARDSON, Matthew and Tom SMITH, 1991. Tests of Financial Models

in the Presence of Overlapping Observations, The Review of Financial
Studies, 4(2), 227254. [Cited by 59] (4.03/year)
RICHARDSON, Matthew, 1993. Temporary Components of Stock Prices: A

Skeptics View, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 11(2), 199207.
RISAGER, Ole, 1998. Random Walk or Mean Reversion: The Danish Stock
Market Since World War I. [Cited by 1] (0.13/year)
ROBERTS, H., 1967. Statistical versus Clinical Prediction of the Stock Market,
unpublished manuscript [28] [Cited by 57] (1.47/year)
ROBERTS, Harry, V., 1959. Stock-Market "Patterns" and Financial Analysis:
Methodological Suggestions, Journal of Finance, 14(1), pp. 110. [Cited by 47]
(1.01/year)
RODE, David, et al., An Evolutionary Approach to Technical Trading and

Capital Market Efficiency, 1995. [not cited] (?/year)
ROLL, Richard, 1984. Orange Juice and Weather, The American Economic
Review, 74(5), 861880. [Cited by 120] (5.49/year)
ROLL, Richard, 1984. A Simple Implicit Measure of the Effective Bid-Ask

Spread in an Efficient Market, Journal of Finance, 39(4), 11271139. [Cited by
287] (13.26/year)
ROLL, Richard, 1994. What Every CFO Should Know About Scientific
Progress in Economics: What is Known and What Remains to be
Resolved,Financial Management, 23(2), 6975. [Cited by 19] (1.56/year)
ROUTLEDGE, Bryan R., 1999. Adaptive Learning in Financial Markets, The

Review of Financial Studies, 12(5), 11651202. [Cited by 31] (4.66/year)
RUBINSTEIN, Mark, 2001. Rational Markets: Yes or No? The Affirmative

Case,Financial Analysts Journal, 57(3), 1529. [Cited by 56] (9.92/year)
RUSSELL, T., and R. THALER, 1985. The Relevance of Quasi Rationality in

Competitive Markets, The American Economic Review, 75(5), 10711082.
SAMUELSON, Paul A., 1965. Proof that properly anticipated prices fluctuate
randomly, Industrial Management Review, 6, 4149. [Cited by 317] (7.80/year)
SAMUELSON, Paul A., 1973. Mathematics of Speculative Price, SIAM

Review, 15(1), 142. [Cited by 23] (0.70/year)
SAMUELSON, Paul A., 1973. Proof That Properly Discounted Present Values
of Assets Vibrate Randomly, The Bell Journal of Economics and Management
Science, 4(2), 369374. [Cited by 29] (0.88/year)
SAMUELSON, Paul Anthony, "Intertemporal Price Equilibrium: A Prologue to

the Theory of Speculation," Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 79, 181221 (1957).
SCHOLES, Myron S., 1972. The Market for Securities: Substitution Versus
Price Pressure and the Effects of Information on Share Prices, The Journal of
Business, 45(2), 179211. [Cited by 145] (4.31/year)
SCHWERT, G. William, 2002. Anomalies and Market Efficiency, Chapter

15, Handbook of the Economics of Finance, Edited by G.M. Constantinides, M.
Harris and R. Stulz
SEILER, Michael J., and Walter ROM, 1997. A Historical Analysis of Market
Efficiency: Do Historical Returns Follow a Random Walk?, Journal Of
Financial And Strategic Decisions, 10(2), 4957. [Cited by 1] (0.12/year)
SEYHUN, H. N., 1998. Investment Intelligence From Insider Trading.

Cambridge: MIT Press.
SHAFER, Glenn and Vladimir VOVK, 2001. Probability and Finance: Its
Only a Game!, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. [Cited by 64] (12.35/year)
SHAH, Nilay and David DeHorn, Stock Returns and the Test of the Random
Walk Hypothesis, 2001. [not found]
SHARPE, William F., 1964. Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market

Equilibrium under Conditions of Risk, The Journal of Finance, 19(3), 425442.
[Cited by 1672] (40.15/year)
SHI, Zhan and B?a?lint T?O?TH, 2000. Favourite sites of simple random
walk, Periodica Mathematica Hungarica, 41(1), 237249. [Cited by 1]
(0.18/year)
SHILLER, Robert J., 1979. The Volatility of Long-Term Interest Rates and
Expectations Models of the Term Structure, The Journal of Political
Economy, 87(6), 11901219. [Cited by 154] (5.78/year)
SHILLER, Robert J., 1981. Do Stock Prices Move Too Much to be Justified by
Subsequent Changes in Dividends?, The American Economic Review,71(3),
421436. [Cited by 668] (26.87/year)
SHILLER, Robert J., 1999. Human Behavior and the Efficiency of the
Financial System, Handbook of Macroeconomics, Vol. 1, edited by J.B. Taylor
and M. Woodford, 1999. [Cited by 104] (13.61/year)
SHILLER, Robert J., 2000. Irrational Exuberance [Cited by 777] (135.69/year)
SHLEIFER, Andrei and Lawrence H. SUMMERS, The Noise Trader Approach

to Finance, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1990. [Cited by 188]
(12.02/year)
SHLEIFER, Andrei, 2000. Inefficient Markets : An Introduction to Behavioral

SKOURAS, Spyros, 1998. Financial Returns and Efficiency as seen by an

Artificial Technical Analyst, Finance 9808001, Economics Working Paper
Archive at WUSTL Revised 24 Aug 1998. [Cited by 13] (2.80/year)
SLUTZKY, Eugen, 1937. The Summation of Random Causes as the Source of

Cyclic Processes, Econometrica, 5(2), 105146; translation of Russian origina
in Problems of Economic Conditions, vol. 3, edited by the Conjuncture Institute,
Moscou, (1927). [Cited by 83] (1.21/year)
SMITH, A., 1968. The Money Game, Random House, New York. [Cited by 5]
(0.13/year)
SMOLUCHOWSKI, Marian von, 1906. Zarys kinetycznej teoriji ruchw

browna i roztworw metnych. Rozprawy i Sprawozdania z Posiedze{n/}
Wydzialu Matematyczno-Przyrodniczego Akademii Umiejetno{s/}ci, 3:257282,
1906. A German translation appeared in the Annalen der Physik, 21, pp. 756
780 in 1906. [citations for translation] [Cited by 34] (0.34/year)
South-Western College Publishing, Chapter Nine: Market Efficiency, 2001.
SPITZER, Frank, 1976. Principles of Random Walk [Cited by 479]

(16.16/year)
STANFORD, Richard A., The Efficient Markets Hypothesis
STEIGER, William, 1964. A Test of Nonrandomness in Stock Price

Changes, The Random Character of Stock Market Prices, edited by Paul H.
Cootner, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusettes, Pages 303312. [Cited by
4] (0.10/year)
STEWART, Ian, Where drunkards hang out, Nature, 2001. [Cited by 2]

(0.43/year)
STIGLITZ, Joseph E., 1981. The Allocation Role of the Stock Market: Pareto
Optimality and Competition, The Journal of Finance, 36(2), 235251.
SUBRAHMANYAM, Avanidhar, Risk Aversion, Market Liquidity, and Price

Efficiency [Cited by 68] (4.64/year)
SUMMERS, Lawrence H., 1986. Does the Stock Market Rationally Reflect
Fundamental Values?, The Journal of Finance, 41(3), 591601. [Cited by 242]
(12.32/year)
TMASSON, Gunnar, Principles of Economic Analysis, 1998. [2]
TTH, Bence, and Jnos KERTSZ, 2006. Increasing market efficiency:

Evolution of cross-correlations of stock returns, Physica A: Statistical
Mechanics and its Applications, 360(2), 505515.
TAPIERO, Charles S., IIa Martingale Math.ppt,
TAQQU, Murad S., 2001. Bachelier and his times: A conversation with Bernard
Bru, Finance and Stochastics, 5(1), 332. [Cited by 7] (1.51/year)
TAUSSIG, F. W., 1921. Is Market Price Determinate?, The Quarterly Journal

of Economics, 35(3), 394411.
TAYLOR, Stephen J., 2005. Asset Price Dynamics, Volatility, and Prediction
[not cited] (?/year)
THE FUTURES MARKET ECONOMIST, The Efficient Market Hypothesis,

Part IV: Is there any Structure in the Sea of Noise? [not found]
The Hulbert Financial Digest, The Hulbert Financial Digest
THOMAS, James D., News and Trading Rules [Cited by 1] (0.38/year)

TIMMERMANN, Allan and Clive W. J. GRANGER, 2004. Efficient market
hypothesis and forecasting, International Journal of Forecasting, 20(1), 1527.
TIROLE, Jean, 1982. On the Possibility of Speculation under Rational

Expectations, Econometrica, 50(5), 11631182. [Cited by 146] (6.12/year)
TREYNOR, Jack L., 1962. Toward a Theory of Market Value of Risky Assets,
Unpublished manuscript. A final version was published in 1999, in Asset Pricing
and Portfolio Performance: Models, Strategy and Performance Metrics. Robert
A. Korajczyk (editor) London: Risk Books, pp. 1522. [Cited by 33] (0.73/year)
TUNG, Y. Alex and James R. MARSDEN, Test of Market Efficiencies Using

Experimental Electronic Markets. [Cited by 3] (0.39/year)
UPSON, Roger B., 1972. Random Walk and Forward Exchange Rates: A
Spectral Analysis, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 1972. [Cited
by 1] (0.03/year)
VENKATARAMANI, Chandramouliswaran, 2003. Random Walk Hypotheses

and Profitability of Momentum Based Trading Rules [not cited] (0/year)
VENN, John, 1888. The logic of Chance, an Essay on the Foundations and
Province of the Theory of Probability with special References to its Logical
Bearings and its Application to Moral and Social Sciences, and to Statistics.
(Third Edition.) London: MacMillan. [Cited by 62] (0.48/year)
WALTER, Christian, 1996. Une histoire du concept defficience sur les

marchs financiers, Annales: Historie, Sciences Sociales, number 4:873905,
JulyAugust 1996. [Cited by 11] (1.13/year)
WASSERFALLEN, Walter, Trends, Random Walks, and the Expectations-

Augmented Phillips Curve Evidence from Six Countries, Journal of Money,
Credit and Banking, 1988. [not cited] (0/year)
WEI, Gaoyuan, Exact shapes of random walks in two dimensions. [Cited by 2]

(0.19/year)
WEI, Gaoyuan, New approaches to shapes or arbitrary random walks, Physica

A, 1995. [not found]
WEINTRAUB, Robert E., On Speculative Prices and Random Walks A
Denial, Journal of Finance, 1963. [Cited by 2] (0.05/year)
WOLF, M., 2000. Stock Returns and Dividend Yields Revisited: A New Way to
Look at an Old Problem, Journal of Business and Economic Statistics,18(1), 18
30. [Cited by 11] (1.95/year)
WORKING, Holbrook, 1934. A Random-Difference Series for Use in the

Analysis of Time Series, Journal of the American Statistical
Association,29(185), 1124. [Cited by 44] (0.61/year)
WORKING, Holbrook, 1949. The Investigation of Economic

Expectations, The American Economic Review, 39(3), 150166. [Cited by 7]
(0.12/year)
WORKING, Holbrook, 1958. A Theory of Anticipatory Prices, The American

WORKING, Holbrook, 1960. Note on the Correlation of First Differences of

Averages in a Random Chain, Econometrica, 28(4), 916918. [Cited by 94]
(2.06/year)
YUE, Wei T., Alok R. CHATURVEDI and Shailendra MEHTA, 2000. Is More
Information Better? The Effect of Traders' Irrational Behavior on an Artificial
Stock Market, Proceedings of the Twenty First International Conference on
Information Systems (ICIS), December 2000. [not cited] (0/year)
ZALEWSKA-MITURA, Anna and Stephen G. HALL, Examining the First

Stages of Market Performance. A Test for Evolving Market Efficiency[Cited by
18] (2.71/year)
ZECKHAUSER, Richard, Jayendu PATEL and Darryll HENDRICKS,

1991. Nonrational Actors and Financial Market Behavior, Theory and
Decision,31, 1991, 257287. [Cited by 12] (0.82/year)
ZHANG, Yi-Cheng, 1999. Toward a Theory of Marginally Efficient

Markets, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 269(1), 3044.
ZIMMERMANN, Heinz and Elmar MERTENS, 2002. Capital Asset Pricing

Model & Mutual Fund Performance Studies - Review and Evidence. [not found]
Home
Holidays
The holiday effect refers to the tendency of the market to do well on any day
which precedes a holiday.
LAKONISHOK, Josef and Seymour SMIDT, 1988. Are seasonal anomalies

real? A ninety-year perspective, The Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4.
(Winter, 1988), pp. 403-425. [Cited by 161] (8.80/year)
Abstract: "This study uses 90 years of daily data on the Dow Jones Industrial
Average to test for the existence of persistent seasonal patterns in the rates of
return. Methodological issues regarding seasonality tests are considered. We find
evidence of persistently anomalous returns around the turn of the week, around
the turn of the month, around the turn of the year, and around holidays."
ARIEL, R.A., 1990. High Stock Returns before Holidays: Existence and
Evidence on Possible Causes, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 45, No. 5. (Dec.,
1990), pp. 1611-1626. [Cited by 64] (3.93/year)
Abstract: "On the trading day prior to holidays, stocks advance with
disproportionate frequency and show high mean returns averaging nine to
fourteen times the mean return for the remaining days of the year. Over one third
of the total return accruing to the market portfolio over the 19631982 period
was earned on the eight trading days which each year fall before holiday market
closings. Examination of hourly pre-holiday stock returns reveals high returns
throughout the day. Pre-holiday stock returns in the post-test 19831986 period
are also examined."
ARSAD, Zainudin and J. Andrew COUTTS. 1997. Security price anomalies in

the London International Stock Exchange: a 60 year perspective,Applied
Financial Economics, Volume 7, Number 5, 1 October 1997, pp. 455-464. [Cited
by 29] (3.12/year)
Abstract: "This paper investigates the existence of security price anomalies, or
calendar effects in the Financial Times Industrial Ordinary Shares Index over a
60 year period: 1 July 1935 through 31 December 1994. Our results broadly
support similar evidence documented for many countries concerning stock
market anomalies, as the weekend, January and holiday effects all appear, to
some extent, to be present in our data set. We conclude, that even if these
anomalies are persistent in their occurrence and magnitude, the cost of
implementing any potential trading rules may be prohibitive due to the
illiquidity of the market and round trip transactions costs. This is of course
perfectly consistent with the notion of market efficiency, in that no strategy
exists that will consistently yield abnormal returns."
MENEU, Vicente and Angel PARDO, 2004. Pre-holiday Effect, Large Trades
and Small Investor Behaviour, Journal of Empirical Finance, Volume 11, Issue
2, March 2004, Pages 231-246. [Cited by 6] (2.61/year)
Abstract: "This paper investigates the existence of a pre-holiday effect in the
most important individual stocks of the Spanish Stock Exchange that are also
traded in both the New York Stock Exchange and the Frankfurt Stock Exchange.
Our results show high abnormal returns on the trading day prior to holidays that
are not related to any calendar anomaly. A thorough study of diverse liquidity-
related measures suggests a new explanation for the pre-holiday effect based on
the reluctance of small investors to buy on pre-holidays. The results of this paper
are important for the practitioners since we show that institutional investors
could have economically exploited this anomaly."
KIM, Chan-Wung and Jinwoo PARK, 1994. Holiday Effects and Stock
Returns: Further Evidence, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis,
Vol. 29, No. 1. (Mar., 1994), pp. 145-157. [Cited by 30] (2.44/year)
Abstract: "This paper provides further evidence of the holiday effect in stock
returns and additional insight into the effect. This paper reports abnormally high
returns on the trading day before holidays in all three of the major stock markets
in the U.S.: the NYSE, AMEX, and NASDAQ. The holiday effect is also present
in the U.K. and Japanese stock markets, even though each country has different
holidays and institutional arrangements. This study finds that the holiday effects
in the U.K. and Japanese stock markets are independent of the holiday effect in
the U.S. stock market. Unlike the other seasonal patterns in stock returns, such
as January and weekend effects, this investigation of size decile portfolios shows
that the size effect is not present in mean returns on preholidays."
CADSBY, Charles Bram and Mitchell RATNER, 1992. Turn-of-month and pre-
holiday effects on stock returns: Some international evidence, Journal of
Banking & Finance, Volume 16, Issue 3, June 1992, Pages 497-509. [Cited by
34] (2.38/year)
LUCEY, B.M., 2005. Are local or international influences responsible for the
pre-holiday behaviour of Irish equities?. Applied Financial Economics.[Cited by
2] (1.54/year)
LUCEY, B.M. and A. PARDO, 2005. Why investors should not be cautious
about the academic approach to testing for stock market . Applied Financial
Economics 15(3) :165-171 [Cited by 2] (1.54/year)
BROCKMAN, P., 1998. The persistent holiday effect: additional

evidence. Applied Economics Letters. [Cited by 11] (1.33/year)
LIN, J.L. and T.S. LIU, 2002. Modeling Lunar Calendar Holiday Effects in
Taiwan. Taiwan Economic Forecast and Policy. [Cited by 4] (0.93/year)
ECONOMICS, A.F., 2002. The anomalies that aren't there: the weekend,
January and pre-holiday effects on the all gold index . Applied Financial
Economics. [Cited by 4] (0.93/year)
REDMAN, Arnold L., Herman MANAKYAN and Kartono LIANO, 1997. Real
Estate Investment Trusts and Calendar Anomalies. Journal of Real Estate
Research. [Cited by 8] (0.86/year)
VERGIN, Roger C. and John McGINNIS 1999. Revisiting the Holiday Effect:
is it on holiday?. Applied Financial Economics. [Cited by 6] (0.82/year)
ZIEMBA, W.T., 1990. Japanese Security Market Regularities: Monthly, Turn of

the Month and Year, Holiday and Golden Week . ideas.repec.org. [Cited by
11] (0.68/year)
LIANO, K., P.H. MARCHAND and G.C. HUANG, 1992. The holiday effect in
stock returns: Evidence from the OTC market. Review of Financial
TAKEI, A., et al., 2003. 'Drug holiday' effects of tandospirone in a patient with
Machado-Joseph disease. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences.[Cited by 2]
(0.61/year)
HELLSTR?M, Thomas and Kenneth HOLMSTR?M, 1998. Predictable

patterns in stock returns. mdh.se. [Cited by 5] (0.60/year)
PEARCE, Douglas K., 1996. The Robustness of Calendar Anomalies in Daily

Stock Returns. Journal of Economics and Finance. [Cited by 6] (0.58/year)
BROCKMAN, P., 1995. A review and analysis of the holiday effect. Financial
Markets, Institutions & Instruments. [Cited by 5] (0.44/year)
MERRILL, A.A., 1966. Behavior of Prices on Wall Street. Analysis Press.
CHENG, S.W., 1996. The Impact of Holidays on the Trading Pattern of

Australian Share Price Index Futures. Honours Dissertation, Department of
Accounting and Finance, . [Cited by 2] (0.19/year)
FIELDS, M.J., 1934. Security prices and stock exchange holidays in relation to
short selling, The Journal of Business of the University of Chicago, Vol. 7, No.
4. (Oct., 1934), pp. 328-338. [Cited by 12] (0.17/year)
LIANO, K. and L.R. WHITE, 1994. Business Cycles and the Pre-holiday
Effect in Stock Returns. Applied Financial Economics. [Cited by 2] (0.16/year)
KAM, S.W., 1995. of Daily Foreign Exchange Rates with Non-normal

Assumption and Day-of-the-week and Holiday Effects. Dept. of Economics,
University of Queensland. [Cited by 1] (0.09/year)
HIRAKI, Takato and Edwin D. MABERLY, An Analysis of Japanese Stock

Return Dynamics Conditional on US Monday Holiday
Closures.papers.ssrn.com. [not cited] (0/year)
Weekend Effect
The weekend effect (also known as the Monday effect, the day-of-the-
week effect or the Monday seasonal) refers to the tendency of stocks to exhibit
relatively large returns on Fridays compared to those on Mondays. This is a
particularly puzzling anomaly because, as Monday returns span three days, if
anything, one would expect returns on a Monday to be higher than returns for
other days of the week due to the longer period and the greater risk.
Articles via Google Scholar
All
All
Articles published since
2000| 2001| 2002| 2003| 2004| 2005| 2006| 2007| 2008| 2009| 2010
| 2011| 2012
Seminal
French (1980)
Important
HAWAWINI, G. and D.B. KEIM, 1995. On the predictability of common stock
returns: World-wide evidence. In: Handbooks in Operations Research and
Management Science, Volume 9, Finance, pages 497-544. [Cited by 58] (4.06/year)
Abstract: "Recent empirical findings suggest that equity returns are predictable.
These findings document persistent cross- sectional and time series patterns in
returns that are not predicted by extant theory, and are, therefore, often classified
as anomalies. In this paper we synthesize the evidence on predictable returns,
focusing on the subset of the findings whose existence has proved most robust with
respect to both time and the number of stock markets in which they have been
observed."
SCHWERT, G. William, 2002. Anomalies and Market Efficiency, Handbook of the

Economics of Finance, pages 937-972. [Cited by 78] (18.18/year)
FRENCH, Kenneth R., 1980. Stock Returns and the Weekend Effect, Journal of
Financial Economics, Volume 8, Issue 1, March 1980, Pages 55-69. [Cited by 310]
(11.79/year)
Abstract: "This paper examines two alternative models of the process generating
stock returns. Under the calendar time hypothesis, the process operates
continuously and the expected return for Monday is three times the expected return
for other days of the week. Under the trading time hypothesis, returns are
generated only during active trading and the expected return is the same for each
day of the week. During most of the period studied, from 1953 through 1977, the
daily returns to the Standard and Poor's composite portfolio are inconsistent with
both models. Although the average return for the other four days of the week was
positive, the average for Monday was significantly negative during each of five-year
subperiods."
RUBINSTEIN, M., 2001. Rational Markets: Yes or No? The Affirmative

Case, Financial Analysts Journal, volume 57, number 3 (May/June), pages 15-29.
Abstract: "With the recent flurry of articles declaiming the death of the rational
market hypothesis, it is well to pause and recall the very sound reasons this
hypothesis was once so widely accepted, at least in academic circles. Although
academic models often assume that all investors are rational, this assumption is
clearly an expository device not to be taken seriously. What is in contention is
whether markets are rational in the sense that prices are set as if all investors are
rational. Even if markets are not rational in this sense, abnormal profit opportunities
still may not exist. In that case, markets may be said to be minimally rational. I
maintain that not only are developed financial markets minimally rational, they are,
with two qualifications, rational. I contend that, realistically, market rationality
needs to be defined so as to allow investors to be uncertain about the
characteristics of other investors in the market. I also argue that investor
irrationality, to the extent that it affects prices, is particularly likely to be manifest
through overconfidence, which in turn, is likely to make the market hyper-rational.
To illustrate, the article reexamines some of the most serious historical evidence
against market rationality."
HARRIS, Lawrence, 1986. A transaction data study of weekly and intradaily

patterns in stock returns, Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 16, Issue 1 , May
1986, Pages 99-117. [Cited by 184] (9.07/year)
Abstract: "Weekly and intradaily patterns in common stock prices are examined
using transaction data. For large firms, negative Monday close-to-close returns
accrue between the Friday close and the Monday open; for smaller firms they
accrue primarily during the Monday trading day. For all firms, significant weekday
differences in intraday returns accrue during the first 45 minutes after the market
opens. On Monday mornings, prices drop, while on the other weekday mornings,
they rise. Otherwise the pattern of intraday returns is similar on all weekdays. Most
notable is an increase in prices on the last trade of the day."
LAKONISHOK, Josef and Seymour SMIDT, 1988. Are seasonal anomalies real? A
ninety-year perspective, The Review of Financial Studies, Vol. 1, No. 4. (Winter,
1988), pp. 403-425. [Cited by 161] (8.80/year)
Abstract: "This study uses 90 years of daily data on the Dow Jones Industrial
Average to test for the existence of persistent seasonal patterns in the rates of
return. Methodological issues regarding seasonality tests are considered. We find
evidence of persistently anomalous returns around the turn of the week, around the
turn of the month, around the turn of the year, and around holidays."
GIBBONS, Michael R. and Patrick HESS, 1981. Day of the Week Effects and Asset
Returns, The Journal of Business, Vol. 54, No. 4. (Oct., 1981), pp. 579-596. [Cited by
176] (6.96/year)
Abstract: "A traditional distributional assumption regarding the returns on a financial
asset specifies that the expected returns are identical for all days of the week.
Contrary to this plausible assumption, this paper discovers that the expected
returns on common stocks and treasury bills are not constant across days of the
week. The most notable evidence is for Monday's returns where the mean is
unusually low or even negative. Several explanations of the results are investigated,
but none proves satisfactory. Aside from documenting significant day of the week
effects, the implications of the results for tests of market efficiency are examined.
While market-adjusted returns continue to exhibit day of the week effects, these
effects are no longer concentrated on Monday."
KEIM, Donald B. and Robert F. STAMBAUGH, 1984. A Further Investigation of the

Weekend Effect in Stock Returns, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 39, No. 3, Papers and
Proceedings, Forty-Second Annual Meeting, American Finance Association, San
Francisco, CA, December 28-30, 1983. (Jul., 1984), pp. 819-835. [Cited by 146]
(6.55/year)
Abstract: "This study uses a longer time period and additional stocks to further
investigate the weekend effect. We find consistently negative Monday returns (1) for
the S & P Composite as early as 1928, (2) for Exchange-traded stocks of firms of all
sizes, and (3) for actively traded over-the-counter (OTC) stocks. The OTC results are
based on bid prices and therefore appear to reject specialist-related explanations.
For the 30 individual stocks of the Dow Jones Industrial Index, the average
correlation between Friday and Monday returns is positive and the highest of all
pairs of successive days. The latter finding is inconsistent with fairly general
measurement-error explanations."
AGRAWAL, Anup and Kishore TANDON, 1994. Anomalies or illusions? Evidence

from stock markets in eighteen countries, Journal of International Money and
Finance, Volume 13, Issue 1, February 1994, Pages 83-106. [Cited by 75] (6.10/year)
Abstract: "This paper examines five seasonal patterns in stock markets of eighteen
countries: the weekend, turn-of-the-month, end-of-December, monthly and Friday-
the-thirteenth effects. We find a daily seasonal in nearly all the countries, but a
weekend effect in only nine countries. Interestingly, the daily seasonal largely
disappears in the 1980s. The last trading day of the month has large returns and
low variance in most countries. Many countries have large December pre-holiday
and inter-holiday returns. The January returns are large in most countries and a
significant monthly seasonal exists in ten countries."
ABRAHAM, Abraham and David L. IKENBERRY, 1994. The Individual Investor and
the Weekend Effect, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 29, No.
2. (Jun., 1994), pp. 263-277. [Cited by 71] (5.78/year)
Abstract: "It is well known that stock returns, on average, are negative on Mondays.
Yet, it is less well known that this finding is substantially the consequence of returns
in prior trading sessions. When Friday's return is negative, Monday's return is
negative nearly 80 percent of the time with a mean return of -0.61 percent. When
Friday's return is positive, the subsequent Monday's mean return is positive, 0.11
percent. This relationship is stronger than for any other pair of trading days and is
most acute in small- and medium-size companies. The trading behavior of individual
investors appears to be at least one factor contributing to this pattern. Individual
investors are more active sellers of stock on Mondays, particularly following bad
news in the market."
LAKONISHOK, Josef and Edwin MABERLY, 1990. The Weekend Effect: Trading
Patterns of Individual and Institutional Investors, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 45, No.
1. (Mar., 1990), pp. 231-243. [Cited by 94] (5.77/year)
Abstract: "In this paper, we document regularities in trading patterns of individual
and institutional investors related to the day of the week. We find a relative increase
in trading activity by individuals on Mondays. In addition, there is a tendency for
individuals to increase the number of sell transactions relative to buy transactions,
which might explain at least part of the weekend effect."
CONNOLLY, Robert A., 1989. An Examination of the Robustness of the Weekend

Effect, The Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 24, No. 2. (Jun., 1989),
pp. 133-169. [Cited by 98] (5.67/year)
Abstract: "This paper analyzes the robustness of the day-of-the-week (DOW) and
weekend effects to alternative estimation and testing procedures. The results show
that sample size can distort the interpretation of classical test statistics unless the
significance level is adjusted downward. Specification tests reveal widespread
departures from OLS assumptions. Hypothesis tests results are reported using
robust econometric methods and a GARCH model. The strength of the DOW and
weekend effect evidence appears to depend on the estimation and testing method.
Both effects seem to have disappeared by 1975."
STEELEY, James M., 2001. A note on information seasonality and the

disappearance of the weekend effect in the UK stock market, Journal of Banking and
Finance, Volume 25, Issue 10, October 2001, Pages 1941-1956. [Cited by 27]
(5.11/year)
Abstract: "The weekend effect in UK stock prices has disappeared in the 1990s.
Beneath the surface however there remain systematic day-of-the-week effects only
visible when returns are partitioned by the direction of the market. A systematic
pattern of market-wide news arrivals into the UK stock market is discovered and
found to provide an explanation for these day-of-the-week effects."
SULLIVAN, Ryan, Allan TIMMERMANN and Halbert WHITE, 2001. Dangers of data
mining: the case of calendar effects in stock returns, Journal of Econometrics,
Volume 105, Issue 1, November 2001, Pages 249-286. [Cited by 41] (4.95/year)
Abstract: "Economics is primarily a non-experimental science. Typically, we cannot
generate new data sets on which to test hypotheses independently of the data that
may have led to a particular theory. The common practice of using the same data
set to formulate and test hypotheses introduces data-mining biases that, if not
accounted for, invalidate the assumptions underlying classical statistical inference.
A striking example of a data-driven discovery is the presence of calendar effects in
stock returns. There appears to be very substantial evidence of systematic
abnormal stock returns related to the day of the week, the week of the month, the
month of the year, the turn of the month, holidays, and so forth. However, this
evidence has largely been considered without accounting for the intensive search
preceding it. In this paper we use 100 years of daily data and a new bootstrap
procedure that allows us to explicitly measure the distortions in statistical inference
induced by data mining. We find that although nominal p-values for individual
calendar rules are extremely significant, once evaluated in the context of the full
universe from which such rules were drawn, calendar effects no longer remain
significant."
JAFFE, Jeffrey and Randolph WESTERFIELD, 1985. The Week-End Effect in

Common Stock Returns: The International Evidence, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 40,
No. 2. (Jun., 1985), pp. 433-454. [Cited by 100] (4.70/year)
Abstract: "This paper examines the daily stock market returns for four foreign
countries. We find a so-called week-end effect in each country. In addition, the
lowest mean returns for the Japanese and Australian stock markets occur on
Tuesday. The remainder of the paper answers four questions. Are seasonal patterns
in foreign stock markets independent of those previously reported in the U.S.? Do
Japan and Australia exhibit a seasonal one day out of phase due to different time
zones? Do settlement procedures across countries bias week-end effects? Does the
seasonal pattern in foreign exchange offset the week-end effect in stocks for
Americans investing overseas?"
WANG, Ko, Yuming LI and John ERICKSON, 1997. A New Look at the Monday
Effect, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 52, No. 5. (Dec., 1997), pp. 2171-2186. [Cited by
43] (4.63/year)
Abstract: "It is well documented that expected stock returns vary with the day-of-
the-week (the Monday or weekend effect). In this article we show that the well-
known Monday effect occurs primarily in the last two weeks (fourth and fifth weeks)
of the month. In addition, the mean Monday return of the first three weeks of the
month is not significantly different from zero. This result holds for most of the
subperiods during the 1962-1993 sampling period and for various stock return
indexes. The monthly effect reported by Ariel (1987) and Lakonishok and Smidt
(1988) cannot fully explain this phenomenon."
KAMARA, Avraham, 1997. New Evidence on the Monday Seasonal in Stock

Returns, The Journal of Business, Vol. 70, No. 1. (Jan., 1997), pp. 63-84. [Cited by 41]
(4.41/year)
Abstract: "Equity derivatives and the institutionalization of equity markets affect the
Monday seasonal. The seasonal in the Standard and Poor's 500 (S&P) declines
significantly over 1962-93. This decline is positively related to the ratio of
institutional to individual trading volume. In contrast, the seasonal for small stocks
does not decline and is unaffected by institutional versus individual trading. Higher
trading costs sustain the seasonal in small stock, and unlike the S&P, theses costs
are not lower for institutions than for individuals. Futures minus spot S&P returns
exhibit a reverse seasonal. Informed traders use the less costly market to exploit
the seasonal."
CHEN, Honghui and Vijay SINGAL, 2003. Role of Speculative Short Sales in Price
Formation: The Case of the Weekend Effect, The Journal of Finance, Volume 58,
Number 2, April 2003, pp. 685-706. [Cited by 14] (4.26/year)
Abstract: "We argue that short sellers affect prices in a significant and systematic
manner. In particular, we contend that speculative short sales contribute to the
weekend effect: The inability to trade over the weekend is likely to cause these
short sellers to close their speculative positions on Fridays and reestablish new
short positions on Mondays causing stock prices to rise on Fridays and fall on
Mondays. We find evidence in support of this hypothesis based on a comparison of
high short-interest stocks and low short-interest stocks, stocks with and without
actively traded options, IPOs, zero short-interest stocks, and highly volatile stocks."
CHAN, Su Han, Wai-Kin LEUNG and Ko WANG, 2004. The Impact of Institutional
Investors on the Monday Seasonal, The Journal of Business, Volume 77, Number 4
(October 2004), pages 967-986. [Cited by 9] (3.93/year)
Abstract: "It is well documented that the mean Monday return is significantly
negative and is lower than the mean return on other weekdays. Using institutional
stock holdings information during the 19811998 period, we document that the
Monday seasonal is stronger in stocks with low institutional holdings and that the
Monday return is not significantly different from the mean Tuesday to Friday returns
for stocks with high institutional holdings during the 19901998 period. Our study
provides direct evidence to support the belief that the Monday seasonal may be
related to the trading activities of less sophisticated individual investors."
LAKONISHOK, Josef and Maurice LEVI, 1982. Weekend Effects on Stock Returns: A
Note, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 37, No. 3. (Jun., 1982), pp. 883-889. [Cited by 92]
(3.79/year)
"SOME RESEARCHERS HAVE APPARENTLY been surprised to discover that the
distribution of stock returns depends on the day of the week. 1 Kenneth French [3],
for example, in testing whether daily stock returns are generated by a trading time
or calendar time hypothesis, provided convincing evidence of a negative market
return on Mondays. As French carefully notes, this finding runs counter to both
hypotheses, since a trading time view would have expected stock returns equal on
different days, and a calendar time view would have higher expected returns on
Monday to compensate for the longer holding period.
In this paper we offer a partial explanation for the apparently puzzling discovery of
different daily returns. We argue that the expected stock returns as measured, for
example, from closing prices, should depend on the day of the week. In general, we
argue that the expected returns on Mondays should be lower than would be implied
simply by a trading time or calendar time model, and the returns on Fridays should
be higher. In addition, we anticipate that holidays will have complex effects on stock
returns on other days of the week. Our argument is based on the delay between
trading and settlements in stocks and in clearing checks. The explanation that we
offer for different measured daily returns does not contradict the efficient market
hypothesis, as correctly adjusted expected returns should not differ according to the
day of the week."
ROGALSKI, Richard J., 1984. New Findings Regarding Day-of-the-Week Returns

over Trading and Non-Trading Periods: A Note, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 39, No. 5.
(Dec., 1984), pp. 1603-1614. [Cited by 82] (3.68/year)
Abstract: "This paper decomposes daily close to close returns into trading day and
non-trading day returns. We discover that all of the average negative returns from
Friday close to Monday close documented in the literature for stock market indexes
occurs during the non-trading period from Friday close to Monday open. In addition,
average trading day returns (open to close) are identical for all days of the week.
January/firm size/turn-of-the-year anomalies are shown to be interrelated with day-
of-the-week returns."
DUBOIS, M. and P. LOUVET, 1996. The day-of-the-week effect: the international

evidence, Journal of Banking and Finance, Volume 20, Issue 9, November 1996,
Pages 1463-1484. [Cited by 35] (3.40/year)
Abstract: "We re-examine the day-of-the-week effect for eleven indexes from nine
countries during the 19691992 period. The standard methodology as well as the
moving average methodology are used and we find returns to be lower at the
beginning of the week (but not necessarily on Monday) for the full period. As in
Chang et al. (International evidence on the robustness of the day-of-the-week effect,
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 28 (1993), 497514), the anomaly
disappears for the most recent period in the USA. However, the effect is still strong
for European countries, Hong-Kong and Toronto."
\citeasnoun{}
AGGARWAL, Reena and Pietra RIVOLI, 1989. Seasonal and Day-of-the-Week
Effects in Four Emerging Stock Markets, The Financial Review, Vol. 24, Issue 4
(November 1989), Pages 541-550. [Cited by 54] (3.12/year)
The January effect and the weekend effect have proven to be persistent
anomalies in U.S. equity markets. The objective of this paper is to examine seasonal
and daily patterns in equity returns of four emerging markets: Hong Kong,
Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines. These markets are gaining importance
with the globalization of business; therefore, it is necessary to examine the
efficiency and functioning of these capital markets. Our analysis uses daily data for
the 12 years from September 1, 1976, to June 30, 1988. The results support the
existence of a seasonal pattern in these markets. Returns in the month of January
are higher than any other month for all markets examined except the Philippines. A
robust day-of-the-week effect is also found. These markets exhibit a weekend effect
of their own in the form of low Monday returns. In addition, there exists a strong
Tuesday effect, which may be related to the + 13 hour time difference between
New York and these emerging markets."
ARSAD, Zainudin and J. Andrew COUTTS. 1997. Security price anomalies in the
London International Stock Exchange: a 60 year perspective, Applied Financial
Economics, Volume 7, Number 5, 1 October 1997, pp. 455-464. [Cited by 29]
(3.12/year)
Abstract: "This paper investigates the existence of security price anomalies, or
calendar effects in the Financial Times Industrial Ordinary Shares Index over a 60
year period: 1 July 1935 through 31 December 1994. Our results broadly support
similar evidence documented for many countries concerning stock market
anomalies, as the weekend, January and holiday effects all appear, to some extent,
to be present in our data set. We conclude, that even if these anomalies are
persistent in their occurrence and magnitude, the cost of implementing any
potential trading rules may be prohibitive due to the illiquidity of the market and
round trip transactions costs. This is of course perfectly consistent with the notion
of market efficiency, in that no strategy exists that will consistently yield abnormal
returns."
SIAS, Richard W. and Laura T. STARKS, 1995. The Day-of-the-Week Anomaly: The
Role of Institutional Investors, Financial Analysts Journal, May/June 1995, Vol. 51, No.
3: pp. 58-67. [Cited by 33] (2.92/year)
CHOUDHRY, T., 2000. Day of the week effect in emerging Asian stock markets:
evidence from the GARCH model, Applied Financial Economics, Volume 10, Number
3, 1 June 2000, pp. 235-242. [Cited by 18] (2.86/year)
Abstract: "This paper investigates the day of the week effect on seven emerging
Asian stock markets returns and conditional variance (volatility). The empirical
research was conducted using the GARCH model and daily returns from India,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand from January
1990 to June 1995. Results obtained indicate the significant presence of the day of
the week effect on both stock returns and volatility, though the result involving both
the return and volatility are not identical in all seven cases. Results also show that
these effects may be due to a possible spill-over from the Japanese stock market."
\citeasnoun{}
CHEN, G., 2001. The day-of-the-week regularity in the stock markets of
China. Journal of Multinational Financial Management. [Cited by 15] (2.84/year)
CHANG, Eric C., J. Michael PINEGAR and R. RAVICHANDRAN, 1993. International

Evidence on the Robustness of the Day-of-the-Week Effect, The Journal of Financial
and Quantitative Analysis, Vol. 28, No. 4. (Dec., 1993), pp. 497-513. [Cited by 37]
(2.78/year)
Abstract: "Consistent with Connolly's (1989), (1991) evidence, this study finds that
sample size and/or error term adjustments render U.S. day-of-the-week effects
statistically insignificant. In contrast, day-of-the-week effects in seven European
countries and in Canada and Hong Kong are robust to individual sample size or error
term adjustments, and day-of-the-week effects in five European countries survive
the simultaneous imposition of both types of adjustments. In most countries where
day-of-the-week effects are robust, however, the effects are statistically significant
in not more than two weeks out of the month. These findings are inconsistent with
explanations of the day-of-the-week effect based on institutional differences or on
the arrival of new information. Thus, in the absence of other potential explanations
already dismissed by Jaffe and Westerfield (1985), evidence in this study further
complicates the international day-of-the-week effect puzzle."
\citeasnoun{}
CROSS, Frank, 1973. The Behavior of Stock Prices on Fridays and
Mondays, Financial Analysts Journal, November/December 1973, Vol. 29, No. 6: 67-
69. [Cited by 91] (2.73/year)
MEHDIAN, Seyed and Mark J. PERRY, 2001. The Reversal of the Monday Effect:
New Evidence from US Equity Markets, Journal of Business Finance & Accounting,
Volume 28, Numbers 7-8, September/October 2001, pp. 1043-1065. [Cited by 14]
(2.65/year)
Abstract: "This article re-examines the Monday effect in the US stock market from
1964-1999 using daily returns from three large-cap indexes and two small-cap
indexes. In the period before 1987, Monday returns are significantly negative in all
five US stock indexes, confirming previous empirical findings. In the post-1987
period, we uncover a significant reversal of the Monday effect in the large-cap
indexes (NYSE, S&P500 and DJCOMP), since Monday returns are significantly
positive. Furthermore, significant differences in the persistence and reversal of the
Monday effect are found between large-cap and small-cap stock indexes."
\citeasnoun{}
BALABAN, Ercan, 1995. Day of the week effects: new evidence from an emerging
stock market, Applied Economics Letters, Volume 2, Number 5, 1 May 1995, pp.
139-143. [Cited by 29] (2.57/year)
Abstract: "The primary objective is to investigate day of the week effects in an
emerging stock market of a developing country, namely Turkey. Empirical results
verify that although day of the week effects are present in Istanbul Securities
Exchange Composite Index (ISECI) return data for the period January 1988 to August
1994, these effects change in direction and magnitude through time."
DAMODARAN, A., 1989. The weekend effect in information releases: a study of

earnings and dividend announcements, Review of Financial Studies, Volume 2,
Number 4, Pp. 607-623. [Cited by 36] (2.08/year)
MILLER, E., 1988. Why a Weekend Effect? Journal of Portfolio

Management. [Cited by 36] (1.97/year)Journal of Portfolio Management 14,
43-48, (Summer 1988).
ALEXAKIS, P. and M. XANTHAKIS, 1995. Day of the week effect on the Greek
stock market. Applied Financial Economics. [Cited by 22] (1.95/year)Applied
Financial Economics Volume (Year): 5 (1995) Issue (Month): 1
(February) Pages: 43-50
PENMAN, S.H., 1987. The distribution of earnings news over time and
seasonalities in aggregate stock returns. Journal of Financial Economics 18:199-228.
BERUMENT, H. and H. KIYMAZ, 2001. The Day of the Week Effect on Stock Market
Volatility. Journal of Economics and Finance. [Cited by 10] (1.89/year)
KIYMAZ, H. and H. BERUMENT, 2003. The day of the week effect on stock market
volatility and volume: International evidence. Review of Financial Economics. [Cited
by 6] (1.83/year)
BRUSA, J., P. LIU and C. SCHULMAN, 2000. The Weekend Effect,'Reverse'
Weekend Effect, and Firm Size. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. [Cited by
11] (1.75/year)
JAFFE, J., R. WESTERFIELD and C. MA, 1989. A twist on the Monday effect in stock
prices: evidence from the US and foreign stock markets. Journal of Banking and
BHATTACHARYA, K., N. SARKAR and D. MUKHOPADHYAY, 2003. Stability of the
day of the week effect in return and in volatility at the Indian capital market: a
. Applied Financial Economics. [Cited by 5] (1.52/year)
LUCEY, B.M., 2000. Anomalous daily seasonality in Ireland?. Applied Economics
Letters. [Cited by 8] (1.27/year)
CONDOYANNI, L., J. O.'HANLON. and C.W.R. WARD, 1987. Day of the week
effects on stock returns: international evidence, Journal of Business Finance and
Accounting 14:159-174. [Cited by 24] (1.24/year)
KELLY, F.C., 2003. Why You Win Or Lose: The Psychology of Speculation. (Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1930). [Cited by 4] (1.22/year)
PETTENGILL, Glenn N., 2003. A Survey of the Monday Effect Literature, Quarterly
Journal of Business and Economics, Vol. 42. [Cited by 4]
(1.22/year)\citeasnoun{}
CLARE, A.D., M.S.B. IBRAHIM and S.H. THOMAS, 1998. The Impact of Settlement
Procedures on Day-of-the-week Effects: Evidence from the Kuala Lumpur Stock
. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting. [Cited by 10] (1.21/year)
MILLER, E.M., L.J. PRATHER and M.I. MAZUMDER, 2003. Day-of-the-Week Effects
among Mutual Funds.. Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics.[Cited by 4]
(1.21/year)
CHOW, E.H., P. HSIAO and M.E. SOLT, 1997. Trading Returns for the Weekend
Effect Using Intraday Data. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting.[Cited by 11]
(1.18/year)
COUTTS, J.A., 1999. The weekend effect, the Stock Exchange Account and the
Financial Times Industrial Ordinary Shares . Applied Financial Economics.[Cited by
8] (1.10/year)
CONNOLLY, R.A., 1991. A posterior odds analysis of the weekend effect, Journal
of Econometrics 49:51-104. [Cited by 15] (0.98/year)
ZIEMBA, W., T., 1991, Japanese security market regularities: monthly, turn-of-
the-month and year, holiday and Golden Week effects. Japan and the World
Economy 3:119-146. [Cited by 11] (0.68/year)
HERWARTZ, H., 2000. Weekday dependence of German stock market
returns. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry. [Cited by 4] (0.64/year)
DYL, E.A. and S.A. MARTIN, 1985. Weekend Effects on Stock Returns: A
Comment. The Journal of Finance. [Cited by 12] (0.56/year)
MABERLY, Edwin D., 1995. Eureka! Eureka! Discovery of the Monday Effect
Belongs to the Ancient Scribes, Financial Analysts Journal, September/October 1995,
Vol. 51, No. 5: 10-11. [Cited by 6] (0.53/year)\citeasnoun{}
CHOY, A.Y.F. and J.O.'.H.A.N.L.O.N. , 1989. Day-of-the-week effects in the UK
equity market: a cross sectional analysis. Journal of Business Finance and
Accounting. [Cited by 6] (0.35/year)
BALL, R. and J. BOWERS, 1988. Daily Seasonals in Equity and Fixed-Interest
Returns: Australian Evidence and Tests of Plausible . Stock Market Anomalies.
FIELDS, M.J., 1931. Stock Prices: A Problem in Verification, The Journal of
Business of the University of Chicago, Vol. 4, No. 4. (Oct., 1931), pp. 415-418. [Cited
by 20] (0.27/year)
HIRSCH, Y., 1986. Don't Sell Stocks on Monday. Facts on File New York, NY.
COURSEY, D.L. and E.A. DYL, 1986. Price Effects of Trading Interruptions in an
Experimental Market. Unpublished working paper, Department of Economics,
. [Cited by 2] (0.10/year)
CHANG, E.C., 1994. European Day-of-the Week Effects, Beta Asymmetries, and
International Herding/Y Eric C. Chng, J. . Center for International Business
Education and Research, . [not cited] (0/year)
O'Hanlon, J. & Papaspirou, P. (1988). The daily behaviour of national equity
markets: seasonal patterns and inter-relationships. Investment Analyst, (89), 26-35.
Cointegration
Cointegration (Engle and Granger, 1987) is an econometric technique for
testing the relationship between non-stationary time series variables. If two or
more series each have a unit root, that is I(1), but a linear combination of them
is stationary, I(0), then the series are said to be cointegrated.
For example, a stock market index and the price of its associated futures
contract, whilst both following a random walk, will be in a long-run
equilibrium and deviations from this equilibrium will be stationary.
Robert Engle and Clive Granger shared the 2003 Bank of Sweden Prize in
Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, the latter's portion due to his
contribution to the development of cointegration.
Sewell (2006)
Books
Amazon.com: Books Search Results: cointegration
"Market Models: A Guide to Financial Data Analsis" by Carol Alexander, 2001,

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
"Pairs Trading: Quantitative Methods and Analysis" by Ganapathy
Vidyamurthy, 2004, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Top Ten Publications

1. ENGLE, R.F. and C.W.J. GRANGER, 1987. Cointegration and error
correction: representation, estimation and testing. [Cited by 3830] (206.51/year)
2. PEDRONI, P., 2004. PANEL COINTEGRATION: ASYMPTOTIC AND

FINITE SAMPLE PROPERTIES OF POOLED TIME SERIES TESTS WITH
AN . Econometric Theory. [Cited by 165] (106.71/year)
3. JOHANSEN, S. and K. JUSELIUS, 1990. Maximum likelihood estimation and

infere nce on cointegration--with applications to the demand for . [Cited by
1628] (104.72/year)
4. JOHANSEN, S. and K. JUSILIUS, 1991. Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of

Cointegration Vectors in Gaussian Vector Autoregressive Models. [Cited by
1392] (95.69/year)
5. HYLLEBERG, S., et al., 2001. Seasonal integration and

cointegration. Causality, Integration And Cointegration, And Long
Memory. [Cited by 367] (80.73/year)
6. MACKINNON, J.G., R.F. ENGLE and C.W.J. GRANGER, 1991. Critical

values for cointegration tests. Long-Run Economic Relationships: Readings in
Cointegration. [Cited by 960] (66.00/year)
7. MADDALA, G.S. and I.M. KIM, 1999. Unit Roots, Cointegration, and
Structural Change. books.google.com. [Cited by 411] (62.78/year)
8. BANERJEE, A., et al., 1993. Co-Integration, Error-Correction, and the

Econometric Analysis of Non-Stationary Data. ingentaconnect.com. [Cited by
591] (47.11/year)
9. OSTERWALD-LENUM, M., 1992. of the asymptotic dis trib ution of the

maximum likelihood cointegration rank test statistics.. [Cited by 620]
(45.77/year)
10. GONZALO, J. and C.W.J. GRANGER, 2001. Estimation of Common Long-

Memory Components in Cointegrated Systems. Harvard University Press
Cambridge, MA, USA. [Cited by 195] (42.89/year)
Links
About.com: Cointegration
gummy stuff: cointegration
Wikipedia: Cointegration
Bibliography
ALBEROLA, E., et al., 1999. Rates: Euro, Dollar,Ins,Outs, and Other
Major Currencies in a Panel Cointegration . IMF Working Papers.[Cited by
54] (8.25/year)
BAI, J. and S. NG, 2004. A PANIC Attack on Unit Roots and

Cointegration. Econometrica. [Cited by 64] (41.39/year)
BAILLIE, R.T. and D.D. SELOVER, 1987. Cointegration and models of

exchange rate determination. International Journal of Forecasting. [Cited by 65]
(3.50/year)
BAILLIE, R.T. and T. BOLLERSLEV, 1994. Cointegration, Fractional

Cointegration, and Exchange Rate Dynamics. The Journal of Finance. [Cited by
103] (8.92/year)
BALTAGI, B.H. and C. KAO, 2000. Nonstationary Panels, Cointegration in

Panels and Dynamic Panels: A Survey. Advances in Econometrics. [Cited by
103] (18.57/year)
BANERJEE, A., 1999. Panel Data Unit Roots and Cointegration: An

Overview. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. [Cited by 136]
(20.78/year)
BANERJEE, A., et al., 1993. Co-Integration, Error-Correction, and the

Econometric Analysis of Non-Stationary Data. ingentaconnect.com. [Cited by
591] (47.11/year)
BANERJEE, A., J. DOLADO and R. MESTRE, 1998. Error-correction

Mechanism Tests for Cointegration in a Single-equation Framework. Journal of
Time Series Analysis. [Cited by 99] (13.12/year)
BLAKE, N.S. and T.B. FOMBY, 1997. Threshold Cointegration. International
Economic Review. [Cited by 212] (24.81/year)
BRENNER, R.J. and K.F. KRONER, 1995. Arbitrage, Cointegration, and

Testing the Unbiasedness Hypothesis in Financial Markets. The Journal of
Financial and Quantitative Analysis. [Cited by 82] (7.78/year)
CAMPBELL, J.Y. and R.J. SHILLER, 1987. Cointegration and Tests of Present
Value Models. The Journal of Political Economy. [Cited by 488] (26.31/year)
CAMPOS, J., N.R. ERICSSON and D.F. HENDRY, 1993. Cointegration tests
in the presence of structural breaks. [Cited by 60] (4.78/year)
CAPORALE, G.M., et al., Report NEP-ETS-2005-02-08. ideas.repec.org. [not

cited] (?/year)
CHAREMZA, W. and D. DEADMAN, 1997. in econometric practice:

general to specific modelling, cointegration, and vector autoregression. Lyme,
NH: Edward Elgar Pub. [Cited by 298] (34.87/year)
CHEUNG, Y.W. and K.S. LAI, 1990. A fractional cointegration analysis of

purchasing power parity. [Cited by 155] (9.97/year)
CHEUNG, Y.W. and K.S. LAI, 1993. Finite-sample sizes of Johansen's

likelihood ratio tests for cointegration. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and
Statistics. [Cited by 300] (23.91/year)
CHRISTOFFERSEN, P.F. and F.X. DIEBOLD, 1998. Cointegration and Long-

Horizon Forecasting. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics. [Cited by 44]
(5.83/year)
COINTEGRATION, I., I.I.E.G.C. TEST and E.C.

ESTIMATION, COINTEGRATION AND DEMAND
SYSTEMS. classes.ses.wsu.edu. [not cited] (?/year)
COINTEGRATION, N. and A.U. APPROACH, DEPARTMENT OF

ECONOMICS. econ.au.dk. [not cited] (?/year)
CORBAE, D. and S. OULIARIS, 1988. Cointegration and Tests of Purchasing

Power Parity. The Review of Economics and Statistics. [Cited by 93] (5.30/year)
DICKEY, D.A., D.W. JANSEN and D.L. THORNTON, 1991. A Primer on
Cointegration with an Application to Money and Income. Federal Reserve Bank
of St. Louis Review. [Cited by 99] (6.81/year)
DIEBOLD, F.X., J. GARDEAZABAL and K. YILMAZ, 1993. On

cointegration and exchange rate dynamics. [Cited by 76] (6.06/year)
DOLADO, J.J., T. JENKINSON and S. SOSVILLA-RIVERO,

1990. Cointegration and unit roots. Journal of Economic Surveys. [Cited by 128]
(8.23/year)
DOORNIK, J.A., 1998. APPROXIMATIONS TO THE ASYMPTOTIC

DISTRIBUTIONS OF COINTEGRATION TESTS. Journal of Economic
Surveys. [Cited by 43] (5.70/year)
DUEKER, M. and R. STARTZ, 1998. Maximum-Likelihood Estimation of

Fractional Cointegration with an Application to US and Canadian . The
Review of Economics and Statistics. [Cited by 42] (5.57/year)
DWYER, G.P. and M.S. WALLACE, 1992. Cointegration and market

efficiency. Journal of International Money and Finance. [Cited by 66]
(4.87/year)
E, D.E. and P.L. DA, 2000. Cointegration analysis in the presence of structural
breaks in the deterministic trend. Econometrics Journal. [Cited by 70]
(12.62/year)
ENDERS, W. and P.L. SIKLOS, 2001. Cointegration and Threshold

Adjustment. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics. [Cited by 69]
(15.18/year)
ENDERS, W., 1988. Arima and Cointegration Tests of PPP under Fixed and
Flexible Exchange Rate Regimes. The Review of Economics and Statistics.
ENGLE, R.F. and C.W.J. GRANGER, 1987. Cointegration and error

correction: representation, estimation and testing. [Cited by 3830] (206.51/year)
ENGLE, R.F., et al., 1991. Long-run economic relationships: readings in

cointegration. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. [Cited by 100]
(6.87/year)
ENGLE, R.F., et al., 1993. Seasonal cointegration: the Japanese consumption
function. Journal of Econometrics. [Cited by 70] (5.58/year)
ERICSSON, N.R., D.F. HENDRY and G.E. MIZON, 1998. Exogeneity,

Cointegration, and Economic Policy Analysis. Journal of Business & Economic
FISHER, E.O.N. and J.Y. PARK, 1991. Testing Purchasing Power Parity under
the Null Hypothesis of Co-Integration. The Economic Journal. [Cited by 39]
(2.68/year)
FRANSES, P.H. and N. HALDRUP, 1993. The effects of additive outliers on

tests for unit roots and cointegration. [Cited by 71] (5.66/year)
GERDTHAM, U.G. and M. LTHGREN, 2000. On stationarity and

cointegration of international health expenditure and GDP. Journal of Health
GONZALO, J. and C.W.J. GRANGER, 2001. Estimation of Common Long-

Memory Components in Cointegrated Systems. Harvard University Press
Cambridge, MA, USA. [Cited by 195] (42.89/year)
GREGORY, A. and B.E. HANSEN, 1992. Residual-based tests for

cointegration in models with regime shifts. [Cited by 229] (16.90/year)
HAFER, R.W. and D.W. JANSEN, 1991. The Demand for Money in the United
States: Evidence from Cointegration Tests.. Journal of Money, Credit &
Banking. [Cited by 61] (4.19/year)
HAKKIO, C.S. and M. RUSH, 1989. Market Efficiency and Cointegration: An

Application to the Sterling and Deutschemark Exchange . Journal of
International Money and Finance. [Cited by 96] (5.80/year)
HAKKIO, C.S. and M. RUSH, 1990. Cointegration: how short is the long run?.
HALL, A.D., H.M. ANDERSON and C.W.J. GRANGER, 1992. A

Cointegration Analysis of Treasury Bill Yields. The Review of Economics and
HANSEN, B.E. and B. SEO, 2002. Testing for two-regime threshold
cointegration in vector error-correction models. Journal of Econometrics. [Cited
by 54] (15.23/year)
HANSEN, H. and K. JUSELIUS, 2000. CATS in RATS: cointegration analysis

of time series. [Cited by 165] (29.75/year)
HANSEN, P. and A. KING, 1996. The determinants of health care expenditure:

a cointegration approach. Journal of Health Economics. [Cited by 46]
(4.82/year)
HARRIS, F.H., et al., 1995. Cointegration, error correction, and price discovery
on informationally linked security markets. Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis. [Cited by 39] (3.70/year)
HARRIS, R.I.D., 1995. Using cointegration analysis in econometric modelling.

London; New York: Prentice Hall/Harvester Wheatsheaf. [Cited by 288]
(27.31/year)
HAUG, A.A., 1996. Tests for cointegration: a Monte Carlo

comparison. Journal of Econometrics. [Cited by 72] (7.54/year)
HENDRY, D.F. and K. JUSELIUS, 2001. Explaining Cointegration Analysis:

Part II. Energy Journal. [Cited by 53] (11.66/year)
HOLDEN, D. and R. PERMAN, 1994. Unit roots and cointegration for the
economist. Rao, BB (1994). Cointegration for the applied economist. .[Cited
by 46] (3.98/year)
HORVATH, M.T.K. and M.W. WATSON, 1995. Testing for cointegration when
some of the cointegrating vectors are prespecified. Econometric Theory.[Cited
by 74] (7.02/year)
HYLLEBERG, S., et al., 2001. Seasonal integration and

cointegration. Causality, Integration And Cointegration, And Long
Memory. [Cited by 367] (80.73/year)
JOHANSEN, S. and E. SCHAUMBURG, 1997. Likelihood analysis of

seasonal cointegration. [Cited by 52] (6.08/year)
JOHANSEN, S. and K. JUSELIUS, 1990. Maximum likelihood estimation and
infere nce on cointegration--with applications to the demand for . [Cited by
1628] (104.72/year)
JOHANSEN, S. and K. JUSELIUS, 1992. Testing structure hypotheses in a

multivariate cointegration analysis of the PPP and the UIP for UK. [Cited by
417] (30.78/year)
JOHANSEN, S. and K. JUSELIUS, 1994. The role of the constant and linear
terms in cointegration analysis of nonstationary variables. Econometric
Reviews. [Cited by 99] (8.57/year)
JOHANSEN, S. and K. JUSILIUS, 1991. Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of

Cointegration Vectors in Gaussian Vector Autoregressive Models. [Cited by
1392] (95.69/year)
JOHANSEN, S., 1991. Determination of cointegration rank in the presence of a

linear trend. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. [Cited by 212] (14.57/year)
JOHANSEN, S., 1991. Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration

vectors in Gaussian autoregressive models. Econometrica. [Cited by 76]
(5.22/year)
JOHANSEN, S., 1991. Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration

vectors in Gaussian vector autoregression models. Econometrica. [Cited by 51]
(3.51/year)
JOHANSEN, S., 1991. Testing weak exogeneity and the order of cointegration
in UK money demand data. Helsinki: University of Helsinki. [Cited by 108]
(7.42/year)
JOHANSEN, S., 1994. Cointegration in Partial Systems and the Efficiency of

Single-Equation Analysis. [Cited by 169] (14.64/year)
JOHANSEN, S., 1995. A statistical analysis of cointegration for I (2)

variables. Econometric Theory. [Cited by 81] (7.68/year)
JOHANSEN, S., 1995. restrictions of linear equations with applications to

simultaneous equations and cointegration. Journal of Econometrics.[Cited by
99] (9.39/year)
KAO, C., 1999. Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration
in panel data. Journal of Econometrics. [Cited by 167] (25.51/year)
KAO, C., M.H. CHIANG and B. CHEN, 1999. International R & D Spillovers:
An Application of Estimation and Inference in Panel Cointegration.Oxford
Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. [Cited by 60] (9.17/year)
KIM, Y., 1990. Purchasing Power Parity in the Long Run: A Cointegration
Approach.. Journal of Money, Credit & Banking. [Cited by 78] (5.02/year)
KREMERS, J.J.M., N.R. ERICSSON and J.J. DOLADO, 1992. The Power of
cointegration tests. [Cited by 259] (19.12/year)
LARSSON, R., J. LYHAGEN and M. LOTHGREN, 2001. Likelihood-based

cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels. Econometrics Journal. [Cited by 52]
(11.44/year)
LEE, H.S., 1992. Maximum likelihood inference on cointegration and seasonal

cointegration. Journal of Econometrics. [Cited by 55] (4.06/year)
LEE, T.H. and Y. TSE, 1996. Cointegration tests with conditional

heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics. [Cited by 36] (3.77/year)
MACKINNON, J.G., 1994. Approximate Asymptotic Distribution Functions

for Unit-Root and Cointegration Tests. Journal of Business & Economic
MACKINNON, J.G., 1995. Numerical distribution functions for unit root and
cointegration tests. [Cited by 104] (9.86/year)
MACKINNON, J.G., A.A. HAUG and L. MICHELIS, 1999. Numerical

distribution functions of likelihood ratio tests for cointegration. Journal of
Applied Econometrics. [Cited by 87] (13.29/year)
MACKINNON, J.G., R.F. ENGLE and C.W.J. GRANGER, 1991. Critical

values for cointegration tests. Long-Run Economic Relationships: Readings in
Cointegration. [Cited by 960] (66.00/year)
MADDALA, G.S. and I.M. KIM, 1999. Unit Roots, Cointegration, and
Structural Change. books.google.com. [Cited by 411] (62.78/year)
MARK, N.C. and D. SUL, 2003. Cointegration Vector Estimation by Panel
DOLS and Long-run Money Demand*. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and
MCCOSKEY, S. and C. KAO, 1998. A Residual-Based Test of the Null of

Cointegration in Panel Data. Econometric Reviews. [Cited by 72] (9.54/year)
MILLER, S.M., 1991. Monetary Dynamics: An Application of Cointegration

and Error-Correction Modeling. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking.[Cited by
63] (4.33/year)
MUSCATELLI, V.A. and S. HURN, 1992. Cointegration and Dynamic Time

Series Models. Journal of Economic Surveys. [Cited by 48] (3.54/year)
OGAKI, M. and J.Y. PARK, 1998. A cointegration approach to estimating

preference parameters. Journal of Econometrics. [Cited by 49] (6.49/year)
OSTERWALD-LENUM, M., 1992. of the Asymptotic Distribution of the

Maximum Likelihood Cointegration Rank Test Statistics: Four . Oxford
Bulletin of Economics and Statistics. [Cited by 214] (15.80/year)
OSTERWALD-LENUM, M., 1992. of the asymptotic dis trib ution of the

maximum likelihood cointegration rank test statistics.. [Cited by 620]
(45.77/year)
PARK, J.Y., 1990. Testing for Unit Roots and Cointegration by Variable
Addition. Advances in Econometrics. [Cited by 69] (4.44/year)
PEDRONI, P., 1999. Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous

Panels with Multiple Regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and
PEDRONI, P., 2004. PANEL COINTEGRATION: ASYMPTOTIC AND

FINITE SAMPLE PROPERTIES OF POOLED TIME SERIES TESTS WITH
AN . Econometric Theory. [Cited by 165] (106.71/year)
PESARAN, M.H. and Y. SHIN, 1996. Cointegration and speed of convergence

to equilibrium. Journal of Econometrics. [Cited by 83] (8.69/year)
PESARAN, M.H., Y. SHIN and S. STROM, 1999. An autoregressive
distributed lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis. Econometrics and
Economic Theory in the 20th Century: The . [Cited by 176] (26.89/year)
PHILLIPS, P.C.B. and S. OULIARIS, 1990. Asymptotic Properties of Residual

Based Tests for Cointegration. Econometrica. [Cited by 342] (22.00/year)
RAHBEK, A., 1999. Trend stationarity in the I (2) cointegration model-An

application to aggregate money holdings. Journal of Econometrics.[Cited by 56]
(8.55/year)
REIMERS, H.E., 1992. Comparisons of tests for multivariate

cointegration. Statistical Papers. [Cited by 192] (14.17/year)
RICHARDS, A.J., 1995. Comovements in national stock market returns:

Evidence of predictability, but not cointegration. Journal of Monetary
SAIKKONEN, P., 1989. Asymptotically efficient estimation of cointegration

regressions. Hki: University of Helsinki. [Cited by 186] (11.24/year)
SEPHTON, P.S. and H.K. LARSEN, 1990. Tests of exchange market

efficiency: fragile evidence from cointegration tests. [Cited by 51] (3.28/year)
SHEA, G.S., 1992. the Expectations Hypothesis of the Interest-Rate Term

Structure: An Analysis of Cointegration . Journal of Business & Economic
SHIN, Y., 1994. A residual-based test of the null of cointegration against the
alternative of no cointegration. Econometric Theory. [Cited by 117] (10.13/year)
TAYLOR, M.P., 1988. An empirical examination of long-run purchasing power

parity using cointegration techniques. Applied Economics. [Cited by 95]
(5.41/year)
WAHAB, M. and M. LASHGARI, 1993. Price Dynamics and Error Correction

in Stock Index and Stock Index Futures Markets: A Cointegration .Journal of
Futures Markets. [Cited by 56] (4.46/year)
WATSON, M.W., 1993. Vector autoregressions' and cointegration. [Cited by

105] (8.37/year)
ZAPATA, H.O. and A.N. RAMBALDI, 1997. Monte Carlo Evidence on
Cointegration and Causation. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics.[Cited
by 45] (5.27/year)

Emh

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Emh

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

EMH

Efficient Markets Hypothesis: Introduction

Two informal explanations for market efficiency

The intrinsic value of an asset is implied by the cumulative impact of

Academics Versus Practitioners

Major Contributor Unrecognised

"It is disarmingly simple to state, has far-reaching consequences for academic

"Market efficiency survives the challenge from the literature on long-term

"What, then, can we conclude about market efficiency? Amazingly, there is

Dimson and Mussavian (1998)

Farmer and Lo (1999)

Beechey, Vickery and Gruen (2000)

Fama (Sep.Oct. 1965: Random walks in stock market prices):

Fama et al. (1969):

Timmermann and Granger (2004):

Efficient Markets Hypothesis: History

SEWELL, Martin, 2011. History of the efficient market hypothesis. Research

1863 A French stockbroker, Jules Regnault, observed that the

1876 Samuel Benner, an Ohio farmer, authored Benners

1880 The British physicist, Lord Rayleigh, (through his work on

1889 Efficient markets were clearly mentioned in a book by

1890 Alfred Marshall wrote Principles of Economics.

1900 A French mathematician, Louis Bachelier, published his PhD

1905 Karl Pearson, a professor and Fellow of the Royal Society,

Unaware of Bacheliers work in 1900, Albert Einstein

A Polish scientist, Marian Smoluchowski, described Brownian

1908 Bacheliers arguments can also be found in Andr Barriols

De Montessus published a book on probability and its

Langevin authors the stochastic differential equation of

1912 George Binney Dibblee published The laws of supply and

1914 Bachelier published the book, Le Jeu, la Chance et le

1915 According to Mandelbrot (1963) the first to note that

1921 F. W. Taussig published a paper under the title, Is Market

1923 Keynes clearly stated that investors on financial markets are

1925 Frederick MacCauley, an economist, observed that there was

1926 Unquestionable proof of the leptokurtic nature of the

1929 Stock-market crash in late October.

1930 Alfred Cowles, the American economist and businessman,

1932 Cowles set up the Cowles Commission for Economic

1933 Alfred Cowles 3rd analysed the performance of investment

1934 Holbrook Working concludes that stock returns behave like

1936 English economist, John Maynard Keynes has General Theory

1937 Eugen Slutzky shows that sums of independent random

In the only paper published before 1960 which found

1944 In a continuation of his 1933 publication, Cowles again

1949 Holbrook Working showed that in an ideal futures market it

Kendall analysed 22 price-series at weekly intervals and

1956 Bacheliers name reappeared in economics, this time, as an

1958 Working builds an anticipatory market model.

1959 Harry Roberts demonstrates that a random walk will look

M. F. M. Osborne shows that the logarithm of common-stock

1960 Larson presents the results of application of a new method of

Cowles revisits the results in Cowles and Jones (1937),

Working showed that the use of averages can introduce

1961 Houthakker uses stop-loss sell orders and finds patterns. He

Independently of Working (1960), Alexander realised that

John F. Muth introduces the rational expectations hypothesis

Paul H. Cootner concludes that the stock market is not a

Osborne investigates deviations of stock prices from a

Arnold B. Moore found insignificant negative serial

Jack Treynors unpublished manuscript: Toward a Theory of

1963 Berger and Mandelbrot propose a new model for error

Granger and Morgenstern perform spectral analysis on

Fama discusses Mandelbrots stable Paretian hypothesis