随机漫步和市场效率测试:全球新冠肺炎大流行背景下美国、中国和欧洲资本市场的证据

IF 7.6 1区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS
R. Dias, N. Teixeira, V. Machová, P. Pardal, J. Horák, M. Vochozka
{"title":"随机漫步和市场效率测试:全球新冠肺炎大流行背景下美国、中国和欧洲资本市场的证据","authors":"R. Dias, N. Teixeira, V. Machová, P. Pardal, J. Horák, M. Vochozka","doi":"10.24136/oc.2020.024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research background: Covid-19 has affected the global economy and has had an inevitable impact on capital markets. In the week of February 24?28, 2020, stock markets crashed. The index FTSE 100 decreased 13%, while the indices DJIA and S&P 500 fell 11?12%, the biggest drop since the 2007?2008 financial and economic crisis. It is therefore of interest to test the random walk hypothesis in developed capital markets, European and also non-European, in order to understand the different predictabilities between them. \nPurpose of the article: The aim is to analyze capital market efficiency, in its weak form, through the stock market indices of Belgium (index BEL 20), France (index CAC 40), Germany (index DAX 30), USA (index DOW JONES), Greece (index FTSE Athex 20), Spain (index IBEX 35), Ireland (index ISEQ), Portugal (index PSI 20) and China (index SSE) for the period from December 2019 to May 2020. \nMethods: Panel unit root tests of Breitung (2000), Levin et al. (2002) and Hadri (2002) were used to assess the time series stationarity. The test of Clemente et al. (1998) is used to detect structural breaks. The tests for the random walk hypothesis follows the variance ratio methodology proposed by Lo and MacKinlay (1988). \nFindings & Value added: In general, we found mixed confirmation about the EMH (efficient market hypothesis). Taking into account the conclusions of the rank variance test, the random walk hypothesis was rejected in the case of stock indices: Dow Jones, SSE and PSI 20, partially rejected in the case indices: BEL 20, CAC 40, FTSTE Athex 20 and DEX 30, but accepted for indices: IBEX 35 and ISEQ. The results also show that prices do not fully reflect the information available and that changes in prices are not independent and identically distributed. This situation has consequences for investors, since some returns can be expected, creating opportunities for arbitrage and for abnormal returns, contrary to the assumptions of random walk and information efficiency.","PeriodicalId":46112,"journal":{"name":"Oeconomia Copernicana","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"67","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Random walks and market efficiency tests: evidence on US, Chinese and European capital markets within the context of the global Covid-19 pandemic\",\"authors\":\"R. Dias, N. Teixeira, V. Machová, P. Pardal, J. Horák, M. Vochozka\",\"doi\":\"10.24136/oc.2020.024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Research background: Covid-19 has affected the global economy and has had an inevitable impact on capital markets. In the week of February 24?28, 2020, stock markets crashed. The index FTSE 100 decreased 13%, while the indices DJIA and S&P 500 fell 11?12%, the biggest drop since the 2007?2008 financial and economic crisis. It is therefore of interest to test the random walk hypothesis in developed capital markets, European and also non-European, in order to understand the different predictabilities between them. \\nPurpose of the article: The aim is to analyze capital market efficiency, in its weak form, through the stock market indices of Belgium (index BEL 20), France (index CAC 40), Germany (index DAX 30), USA (index DOW JONES), Greece (index FTSE Athex 20), Spain (index IBEX 35), Ireland (index ISEQ), Portugal (index PSI 20) and China (index SSE) for the period from December 2019 to May 2020. \\nMethods: Panel unit root tests of Breitung (2000), Levin et al. (2002) and Hadri (2002) were used to assess the time series stationarity. The test of Clemente et al. (1998) is used to detect structural breaks. The tests for the random walk hypothesis follows the variance ratio methodology proposed by Lo and MacKinlay (1988). \\nFindings & Value added: In general, we found mixed confirmation about the EMH (efficient market hypothesis). Taking into account the conclusions of the rank variance test, the random walk hypothesis was rejected in the case of stock indices: Dow Jones, SSE and PSI 20, partially rejected in the case indices: BEL 20, CAC 40, FTSTE Athex 20 and DEX 30, but accepted for indices: IBEX 35 and ISEQ. The results also show that prices do not fully reflect the information available and that changes in prices are not independent and identically distributed. This situation has consequences for investors, since some returns can be expected, creating opportunities for arbitrage and for abnormal returns, contrary to the assumptions of random walk and information efficiency.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46112,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oeconomia Copernicana\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"67\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oeconomia Copernicana\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2020.024\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oeconomia Copernicana","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24136/oc.2020.024","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 67

摘要

研究背景:新冠肺炎影响了全球经济,并对资本市场产生了不可避免的影响。在2月24日的那一周?2020年28日,股市暴跌。富时100指数下跌13%,道琼斯工业平均指数和标准普尔500指数下跌11?12%,创2007年以来最大跌幅?2008年金融和经济危机。因此,有兴趣在发达资本市场(欧洲和非欧洲)中检验随机游走假说,以了解它们之间的不同可预测性。本文目的:通过2019年12月至2020年5月期间比利时(指数BEL 20)、法国(指数CAC 40)、德国(指数DAX 30)、美国(指数DOW JONES)、希腊(指数FTSE Athex 20)、西班牙(指数IBEX 35)、爱尔兰(指数ISEQ)、葡萄牙(指数PSI 20)和中国(指数SSE)的股票市场指数,分析弱形式的资本市场效率。方法:采用Breitung(2000)、Levin等人(2002)和Hadri(2002)的面板单位根检验来评估时间序列的平稳性。Clemente等人(1998)的测试用于检测结构断裂。随机行走假说的检验遵循Lo和MacKinlay(1988)提出的方差比方法。研究结果和附加值:总的来说,我们发现对EMH(有效市场假说)的确认喜忧参半。考虑到秩方差检验的结论,随机游走假说在道琼斯指数、上证指数和PSI 20的情况下被拒绝,在BEL 20、CAC 40、FTSTE Athex 20和DEX 30的情况下部分被拒绝,但在IBEX 35和ISEQ的情况下则被接受。研究结果还表明,价格并没有完全反映现有信息,价格的变化也不是独立的和同分布的。这种情况对投资者产生了影响,因为一些回报是可以预期的,为套利和异常回报创造了机会,这与随机游走和信息效率的假设相反。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Random walks and market efficiency tests: evidence on US, Chinese and European capital markets within the context of the global Covid-19 pandemic
Research background: Covid-19 has affected the global economy and has had an inevitable impact on capital markets. In the week of February 24?28, 2020, stock markets crashed. The index FTSE 100 decreased 13%, while the indices DJIA and S&P 500 fell 11?12%, the biggest drop since the 2007?2008 financial and economic crisis. It is therefore of interest to test the random walk hypothesis in developed capital markets, European and also non-European, in order to understand the different predictabilities between them. Purpose of the article: The aim is to analyze capital market efficiency, in its weak form, through the stock market indices of Belgium (index BEL 20), France (index CAC 40), Germany (index DAX 30), USA (index DOW JONES), Greece (index FTSE Athex 20), Spain (index IBEX 35), Ireland (index ISEQ), Portugal (index PSI 20) and China (index SSE) for the period from December 2019 to May 2020. Methods: Panel unit root tests of Breitung (2000), Levin et al. (2002) and Hadri (2002) were used to assess the time series stationarity. The test of Clemente et al. (1998) is used to detect structural breaks. The tests for the random walk hypothesis follows the variance ratio methodology proposed by Lo and MacKinlay (1988). Findings & Value added: In general, we found mixed confirmation about the EMH (efficient market hypothesis). Taking into account the conclusions of the rank variance test, the random walk hypothesis was rejected in the case of stock indices: Dow Jones, SSE and PSI 20, partially rejected in the case indices: BEL 20, CAC 40, FTSTE Athex 20 and DEX 30, but accepted for indices: IBEX 35 and ISEQ. The results also show that prices do not fully reflect the information available and that changes in prices are not independent and identically distributed. This situation has consequences for investors, since some returns can be expected, creating opportunities for arbitrage and for abnormal returns, contrary to the assumptions of random walk and information efficiency.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
5.90%
发文量
26
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: The Oeconomia Copernicana is an academic quarterly journal aimed at academicians, economic policymakers, and students studying finance, accounting, management, and economics. It publishes academic articles on contemporary issues in economics, finance, banking, accounting, and management from various research perspectives. The journal's mission is to publish advanced theoretical and empirical research that contributes to the development of these disciplines and has practical relevance. The journal encourages the use of various research methods, including falsification of conventional understanding, theory building through inductive or qualitative research, first empirical testing of theories, meta-analysis with theoretical implications, constructive replication, and a combination of qualitative, quantitative, field, laboratory, and meta-analytic approaches. While the journal prioritizes comprehensive manuscripts that include methodological-based theoretical and empirical research with implications for policymaking, it also welcomes submissions focused solely on theory or methodology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信