The efficient market hypothesis is usually addressed indirectly: what happens if a direct approach is used instead?

Authors

  • Greg Samsa

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.96.10313

Keywords:

efficient market hypothesis, index fund, market returns, regression toward the mean

Abstract

A vast literature on putative market inefficiencies compares the results of an investment strategy which takes advantage of the putative inefficiency against a null hypothesis generated by the efficient market hypothesis (EMH).  Even if negative, such studies do not provide direct evidence in favor of the EMH.  To directly assess a key component of the EMH, namely that stock returns lack memory, we created 30-year portfolios by sampling annual market returns from 1926-2019 with replacement, and then compared the results with the historical record of actual 30-year returns.  Although centered on the correct amount, the EMH-based 30-year returns were notably more variable than the historical 30-year returns.   One possible explanation is that market returns regress toward their mean in the long term.   This demonstrates that while the EMH should be taken seriously, it need not always be taken literally.   

References

Jegadeesh N, Titman S. 1993. Returns to buying winners and selling losers: implications for stock market efficiency. Journal of Finance. 48, 65-91.

Subrahmanyam A. 2018. Equity market momentum: a synthesis of the literature and suggestions for future work. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal. 51:291-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfiin.2018.08.004.

McLean D, Pontiff J. 2016. Does academic research destroy stock market predictability? Journal of Finance. 71,5-32.

Samsa G. 2014. A new critique of the traditional method for empirically estimating the returns associated with strategies of stock investment: impact of fixing the investment horion. Bentley University Case Studies in Business Industry and Government Statisitis. 5(2): 102-110.

Asness C, Moskowitz T, Pedersen L. 2013. Value and momentum everywhere. Journal of Finance. 68, 929-985.

Johnson TC. 2002. Rational momentum effects. Journal of Finance, 57; 585-608.

Holden CW, Subrahmanyam A. 2002. News events, information acquisition, and serial correlation. Journal of Business. 75; 1-32.

Daniel K, Moskowitz T. Momentum crashes. Journal of Financial Economics. 122, 21-247.

Grinblatt M, Han B. 2005. Prospect theory, mental accounting, and momentum. Journal of Financial Economics. 78, 311-339.

Hong H, Stein J. 1999. A unified theory of underreaction, momentum trading and overreaction in asset markets. Journal of Finance. 54, 2143-2184.

Hong H, Stein J, Yu J. 2007. Simple forecasts and paradigm shifts. Journal of Finance. 62, 1207-1242.

Da Z, Gurum U, Waracha M. 2014. Frog in the pan: continuous information and momentum. Review of Financial Studies, 27, 2171-2218.

Antoniou C, Doukas J, Subrahmanyam A. 2013. Cognitive dissonance, sentiment, and momentum. Journal of Financial Quantitative Analysis. 48, 245-275.

Barberis N, Shleifer A, Vishny R. 1998. A model of investor sentiment. Journal of Financial Economics, 49, 307-343.

Lewellen J. 2002. Momentum and autocorrelation in stock returns. Reviews of Financial Studies. 15, 533-564.

Samsa G. 2020. Why does momentum persist? Archives of Business Research 8(11), 119-125.

https://www.slickcharts.com/sp500/returns, accessed 09 January, 2021.

Downloads

Published

2021-06-12

How to Cite

Samsa, G. (2021). The efficient market hypothesis is usually addressed indirectly: what happens if a direct approach is used instead?. Archives of Business Research, 9(6), 45–50. https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.96.10313

Most read articles by the same author(s)