Search results

The nature and extent of our knowledge of stock market efficiency are examined. The development of “efficiency”, as a way of thinking about stock markets, is traced from Roberts (1959) and Fama (1965) onward. The early work successfully introduced competitive economic theory to the study of stock markets and paved the way for a flood of empirical research on the relation between information and stock prices. This literature irreversibly altered our views on stock market behavior. The theory and evidence of seemingly‐rational use of information lay in sharp contrast to prior beliefs. It was associated with a widespread increase in respect for stock markets, financial markets, and markets in general, at the time. Researchers began developing and using a variety of formal models of security prices. Nevertheless, “efficiency” has its limitations, both theoretically (as a way of characterizing markets) and empirically (by stretching the quality of the data, the estimation techniques used, and our knowledge of price behavior in competitive markets). Extensive evidence of anomalies suggests either that the market systematically misprices securities or that the theoretical or empirical limitations are binding, or both. The less interesting research question now is whether markets are efficient, and the more interesting question is how we can learn more about price and transactions behavior in competitive stock markets. The concept of an “efficient stock market” has stimulated both insight and controversy since Fama (1965) introduced it to the financial economics literature. As a construct, “efficiency” models the stock market in terms of the reaction of prices to the flow of information. Like all theory choices, modelling the market in this fashion involved tradeoffs. The benefits included opening the literature to an abundance of high‐quality researchable data, covering a variety of information, and the resulting insights obtained on the role of information in setting prices. The opportunity costs included temporarily closing the literature to alternative ways of viewing stock markets, for example by modelling public information as a homogenous good and thus ignoring factors such as differences in beliefs among investors, differences in information processing costs, and the “animal spirits” that might drive group behavior. The costs also included reliance on particular asset‐pricing models of how an “efficient” market would set prices. Not surprisingly, the ensuing deluge of research has produced some startling evidence, for and against the proposition that financial markets are “efficient”. Strongly‐conflicting views and puzzling anomalies remain. The early evidence seemed unexpectedly consistent with the theory. The theory, and its implications, also seemed clear at the time. After a period that seems short in retrospect, the growing body of evidence in favor of the efficient market hypothesis emerged as one of the most influential empirical areas of economics. Fama's (1970) review described a flourishing, coherent and confident literature. This research had an irreversible effect on our knowledge of and attitude toward stock markets, and financial markets generally. It coincided with an emergence of interest in, and respect for, all markets among economists and politicians, and influenced the worldwide trend toward “liberalizing” financial and other markets. The research consistently appeared to show an unbiased reaction of stock prices to public information. The property of “unbiased reaction” to public information, which formed the basis of the early definitions of “efficiency”, was seen to be an implication of rational, maximizing investor behavior in competitive securities markets (Fama 1965, p.4). Reduced to a basic level, the reasoning was that any systematicallybiased reaction to public information is costlessly publicly observable, and thus provides pure profit opportunities to be competed away. Characterizing the market in terms of its reaction to information is only one of many feasible ways of modelling stock price behavior, but it introduced economic theoryto the empirical studyof stock prices, which had received little serious attention from economists prior to that point. Despite the subsequent spate of anomalies, the early efficiency literature not only adapted standard economic theoryto provide the first formal economic insights into how stock prices behave, but it helped pave the way for an outporing of theoretical and empirical work on stock markets and capital markets in general. Subsequent empirical research was not as consistent with the theory. Evidence of “anomalous” return behavior now is widespread and well‐known. It generallytakes the form of variables (for example, size, day‐of‐the‐week, P/E ratio, market/book value ratio, rank of scaled earnings change, dividend yield) that are significantly but inexplicablyrelated to subsequent abnormal stock returns. Much of this evidence has defied rational economic explanation to date and appears to have caused many researchers to strongly qualify their views on market efficiency. Disagreement has not been not confined to the evidence. The literature has produced a variety of research designs, ranging from the “market model” of Fama, Fisher, Jensen and Roll (FFJR, 1969) to Shiller's (1981a,b) variance‐bounds tests. The very term “efficiency” has engendered controversy: there is a modest literature on precisely what efficiency means, on the role of transaction costs, and on whether efficient markets are logically feasible. Making sense of this literature requires careful definition of “efficiency” in this context and careful analysis of the type of evidence that has been offered in relation to it. This involves an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of both the theory of efficient markets, as a way of characterizing stock markets, and of the data and research designs used in testing it. Not surprisingly, a mixed conclusion emerges. While the concept of efficient markets was an audacious departure from the comparative ignorance and suspicion among economists of stock markets that preceded it, and provides valuable insights into their behavior, the concept has its limitations, in terms of both its internal logical coherence and its fit with the data. Section 1 ofthis survey sketches the development of the efficient market theory, reviewing the principal contributions in terms of their usefulness in guiding and evaluating empirical research. Section 2 addresses the limitations inherent in what is knowable about stock market efficiency, given the present state of theory about how security prices might behave in an “efficient” market. It argues that there are binding limitations in the theoryof asset pricing, some of which are known and others of which are unknown or even unknowable. These limitations must be borne in mind when choosing whether to interpret the data as evidence of: (1) market efficiency, under the maintained hypothesis that a specific research design, including a specific model of asset pricing used to benchmark price behavior, correctly describes pricing in an efficient market; or (2) the ability of our models and research designs to encapsulate how prices behave in an efficient market, under the maintained hypothesis of efficiency. Against this background, section 3 then provides an assessment of the accomplishments of the theory of stock market efficiency, including an interpretation of the evidence. It focuses on the nature and influence of the evidence and does not attempt to provide a comprehensive literature taxonomy. The final section offers conclusions. The principal conclusion is that the theory of efficient markets has irreversibly enhanced our knowledge of and respect for stock markets (and perhaps for all financial market or even for markets in general) but that, like all theories, it is fundamentally flawed.

This study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of asset pricing research and identifies the general research trends in the area. The study also aims to provide future direction to the researchers in the area of asset pricing.

The study uses bibliometric analysis techniques to achieve the stated purpose. The study covers 3,007 articles published in the top 50 finance and economics journals, accessed from the Scopus database for a period of 47 years (1973–2020). After initial searching for “asset pricing” as the main keyword in “title, abstract, keywords”, the database yields 6,583 articles. This number further reduces to 3,007 articles when the search is restricted to research and review articles published in the top 50 peer-reviewed journals.

The tabular and pictorial representation obtained from the analysis exhibit that asset pricing is an extensively researched area; however, a sudden rise in the number of publications (242) observed for 2019 demonstrates a growing interest amongst researchers. Further, affiliation statistics indicate that the volume of research is mainly concentrated in the USA and other developed nations; hence it opens vistas for the exploration of risk-return dynamics in the context of emerging markets.

The work presents an exhaustive and comprehensive review along with potential research implications. The present study reconciles various contradictory views of the prior studies under asset pricing such as risk-return trade-off, low-risk anomaly and provides the researchers with potential research gaps.

This paper studies the empirical application of an asset pricing model derived from the irrational individual behavior of loss aversion. Previous research using loss aversion asset pricing finds conclusive evidence that estimations match market equity premium and volatility using simulation data. We find that within its empirical application, the estimated errors are comparable to errors estimated from the capital asset pricing model. This study of the correlations between rational and irrational asset pricing model from the empirical results finds validity for both estimated values. Finally, we see the importance of cultures, economic development and financial development on asset pricing through an empirical examination of five pacific-basin countries in the estimation of asset pricing models.

In capital market, share prices of listed companies generally respond to accounting information. In 1995, Ohlson proposed a share valuation model based on two accounting indicators: company residual income and book value of net asset. In 2000, Zhang introduced the thought of option pricing and developed a new accounting valuation model. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the valuation deviation and the influence of some market transaction characteristics on pricing models.

The authors use listed companies from 1999 to 2013 as samples, and conduct comparative analysis with multiple regression.

The main findings are: first, the accounting valuation model is applicable to the capital market as a whole, and its pricing effect increases as years go by; second, in the environment of out capital market, the maturity of investors is one of important factors that causes the information content of residual income less than that of profit per share and lower pricing effect of valuation models; third, when the price earning (PE) of listed companies reaches certain level, the overall explanation capacity of accounting valuation models will become lower as PE gets higher; fourth, as for companies with higher turnover rate and more active transaction, the pricing effect of accounting valuation model is obviously lower; fifth, the pricing effect of accounting valuation models in a bull market is lower than in a bear market.

These findings establish connection between accounting valuation and market transaction characteristics providing an explorable orientation for the future development of accounting valuation theories and models.

This study aims to organise and present the development of asset pricing models in the international environment. The stock market integration and cross-listing lead us to another objective of bibliometric analysis for “International Asset Pricing” to provide a complete overview and give scope and directions for future research.

Web of Science database is used to search with “International Asset Pricing.” Of 3,438 articles, 2,487 articles are selected for the final bibliometric analysis. Various research such as citation analysis, keyword analysis, author’s and corresponding author's analysis have been conducted.

The bibliometric analysis finds that the USA comes out to be the country where the maximum research was conducted on the topic. The keyword analysis was also analysed to evaluate the significant areas of the research. Risk, return and international asset pricing are the most frequently used keywords. The year 2020 has the maximum number of published research articles and citations due to the change in the market structure worldwide and the effect of Covid-19 across the world.

The present paper provides the collection, classification and comprehensive analysis of “International Asset pricing,” which may help the academicians, researchers and practitioners for future research for the relevant subject area.

This paper demonstrates an application of the Arbitrage Pricing Theory using canonical analysis as an alternative to the conventional factor analysis. Following the traditional view that asset prices are influenced by unanticipated economic events, the systematic effects of the major composite economic indices on a wide spectrum of industry returns are explored. The main conclusion is that profitability may be considered as the single most important factor that influences security returns. Also, the composite lagging economic indicators appear to be more useful to investors in forming market expectations than the composite leading economic indicators. Finally, it is argued that the composite index of coincident economic indicators do not exhibit any significant influence in the pricing of capital assets.

This paper participates in the debate on market efficiency and correct approach for asset pricing through a comprehensive review of literature in favor, as well as against the long held belief of market efficiency. The purpose of this paper is to understand emerging trends in behavioral finance and establish its future potential as a mainstream alternative theory of asset pricing.

The review and discussion of literature is mainly divided into three different sections that are –theories supporting efficient market hypothesis (EMH); studies providing evidences from the stock market on the failure of EMH and studies on behavioral finance, discussing separately investors’ behavioral biases keeping in mind their effect on stock prices; and providing empirical evidences on the effect of investor sentiment on stock prices.

The review of literature from both the point of views has helped in understanding the market efficiency issue and changing dynamics of asset pricing approach. This is achieved by highlighting the gaps in the concept of market efficiency and also suggesting how these gaps can be bridged with a superior approach such as behavioral finance. Through further discussion of emerging trends in behavioral finance, the paper also points out gaps and how these can be abridged, for behavioral finance to be accepted as a mainstream alternative approach to EMH.

This is an extensive and one of a kind study that discusses market efficiency through discussion of EMH and behavioral finance side by side. With the help of such a study, researchers can precisely understand the need and can focus on the future course of action to make behavioral finance a mainstream approach to asset pricing.

I survey applications of Markov switching models to the asset pricing and portfolio choice literatures. In particular, I discuss the potential that Markov switching models have to fit financial time series and at the same time provide powerful tools to test hypotheses formulated in the light of financial theories, and to generate positive economic value, as measured by risk-adjusted performances, in dynamic asset allocation applications. The chapter also reviews the role of Markov switching dynamics in modern asset pricing models in which the no-arbitrage principle is used to characterize the properties of the fundamental pricing measure in the presence of regimes.

This paper gives a selective review on some recent developments of nonparametric methods in both continuous and discrete time finance, particularly in the areas of nonparametric estimation and testing of diffusion processes, nonparametric testing of parametric diffusion models, nonparametric pricing of derivatives, nonparametric estimation and hypothesis testing for nonlinear pricing kernel, and nonparametric predictability of asset returns. For each financial context, the paper discusses the suitable statistical concepts, models, and modeling procedures, as well as some of their applications to financial data. Their relative strengths and weaknesses are discussed. Much theoretical and empirical research is needed in this area, and more importantly, the paper points to several aspects that deserve further investigation.