Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T11:13:28.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TESTING FOR THE EFFICIENT MARKET HYPOTHESIS IN STOCK PRICES: INTERNATIONAL EVIDENCE FROM NONLINEAR HETEROGENEOUS PANELS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2013

Chien-Chiang Lee ,
Ching-Chuan Tsong  and
Cheng-Feng Lee
Chien-Chiang Lee*
Affiliation:
National Sun Yat-sen University
Ching-Chuan Tsong
Affiliation:
National Chi Nan University
Cheng-Feng Lee
Affiliation:
National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences
*
Address correspondence to Chien-Chiang Lee, Department of Finance, National Sun Yat-sen University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Using international data, this paper explores whether the efficient market hypothesis for real stock prices is supported for different panels. The stationarity of a real stock price has important implications for modeling and forecasting financial activities. On a global scale, we implement the recently developed nonlinear heterogeneous panel unit root test, which allows us to account for possible nonlinearity and cross-section dependence and to identify how many and which countries of the panel contain a unit root. The primary conclusion is that the stationarity of real stock prices varies between regions and levels of economic development. Overall, our empirical results illustrate that real stock prices in these countries are a mixture of stationary (integrated of order zero) and nonstationary (integrated of order one) processes.

Keywords

Real Stock PricesPanel Unit RootNonlinearityCross-Section Dependence
Type
Articles
Information
Macroeconomic Dynamics , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , June 2014 , pp. 943 - 958
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Altug, Sumru, Ashley, Richard A., and Patterson, Douglas M. (1999) Are technology shocks nonlinear? Macroeconomic Dynamics 3, 506–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, Ray, Kothari, S. P., and Shanken, Jay (1995) Problems in measuring portfolio performance: An application to contrarian investment strategies. Journal of Financial Economics 38, 79–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balvers, Ronald, Wu, Yangru, and Gilliland, Erik (2000) Mean reversion across national stock markets and parametric contrarian investment strategies. Journal of Finance 55, 745–772.Google Scholar
Bidarkota, Prasad (2006) On the economic impact of modeling nonlinearities: The asset pricing example. Macroeconomic Dynamics 10, 56–76.Google Scholar
Bonilla, Claudio A., Romero-Meza, Rafael, and Maquieira, Carlos (2011) Nonlinearities and GARCH inadequacy for modeling stock market returns: Empirical evidence from Latin America. Macroeconomic Dynamics 15, 713–724.Google Scholar
Boswijk, H. Peter, Hommes, Cars H., and Manzan, Sebastiano (2007) Behavioral heterogeneity in stock prices. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 31, 1938–1970.Google Scholar
Breitung, Jörg and Pesaran, M. Hashem (2008) Unit roots and cointegration in panels. In Matyas, L. and Sevestre, P. (eds.), The Econometrics of Panel Data, 3rd ed., Ch. 9, pp. 279–322. Springer.Google Scholar
Calza, Alessandro and Zaghini, Andrea (2009) Nonlinearities in the dynamics of the euro area demand for M1. Macroeconomic Dynamics 13, 1–19.Google Scholar
Chang, Tsangyao and Liu, Wen-Chi (2010) Long-run purchasing power parity with asymmetric adjustment: Evidence from nine major oil-exporting countries, International Journal of Finance and Economics 15, 263–274.Google Scholar
Chang, Yoosoon (2002) Nonlinear IV unit root tests in panels with cross-sectional dependency. Journal of Econometrics 110, 261–292.Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, Kausik and Wu, Yangru (2003) Random walk versus breaking trend in stock prices: Evidence from emerging markets, Journal of Banking and Finance 27, 575–592.Google Scholar
Choi, In and Chue, Timothy K. (2007) Subsampling hypothesis tests for nonstationary panels with applications to exchange rates and stock prices. Journal of Applied Econometrics 22, 233–264.Google Scholar
Chortareas, Georgios and Kapetanios, George (2009) Getting PPP right: Identifying mean-reverting real exchange rates in panels. Journal of Banking and Finance 33, 390–404.Google Scholar
Conrad, Jennifer and Kaul, Gautam (1993) Long-term market overreaction or biases in computed returns? Journal of Finance 48, 39–63.Google Scholar
De Bondt, Werner F. M. and Thaler, Richard (1985) Does the stock market overreact? Journal of Finance 40, 793–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickey, David A. and Fuller, Wayne A. (1979) Distribution of the estimation for an autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association 74, 427–431.Google Scholar
Diebold, Francis X. and Kilian, Lutz (2000) Unit-root tests are useful for selecting forecasting models. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 18, 265–273.Google Scholar
Elliott, Graham, Rothenberg, Thomas J., and Stock, James H. (1996) Efficient tests for an autoregressive unit root. Econometrica 64, 813–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, Eugene F. (1970) Efficient capital markets: A review of theory and empirical work. Journal of Finance 25, 383–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Bruce E. (1996) Inference when a nuisance parameter is not identified under the null hypothesis. Econometrica 64, 413–430.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Joel L. (2001) The Bootstrap. In Heckman, J. J. and Leamer, E. E., eds., Handbook of Econometrics, Vol. 5, pp. 3159–3228. Elsevier.Google Scholar
Im, Kyung So, Pesaran, M. Hashem, and Shin, Yongcheol (2003) Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics 115, 53–74.Google Scholar
Kapetanios, George, Shin, Yongcheol, and Snell, Andy (2003) Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework. Journal of Econometrics 112, 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karlsson, Sune and Lothgren, Mickael (2000) On the power and interpretation of panel unit root tests. Economics Letters 66, 249–255.Google Scholar
Kwiatkowoski, Denis, Phillips, Peter C. B., Schmidt, Peter, and Shin, Yongcheol (1992) Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root. Journal of Econometrics 54, 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Chien-Chiang (2013) Insurance and real output: The key role of banking activities, Macroeconomic Dynamics 17 (2), 235–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Chien-Chiang and Chiu, Yi-Bin (2012), The impact of real income on insurance premiums: Evidence from panel data. International Review of Economics and Finance 21, 246–260.Google Scholar
Lee, Chien-Chiang, Lee, Jun-De, and Lee, Chi-Chuan (2010) Stock prices and the efficient market hypothesis: Evidence from a panel stationary test with structural breaks. Japan and the World Economy 22 (1), 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Junsoo and Strazicich, Mark C. (2003) Minimum Lagrange multiplier unit root test with two structural breaks. Review of Economics and Statistics 85, 1082–1089.Google Scholar
Leroy, Stephen F. (1982) Expectations models of asset price: A survey of the theory. Journal of Finance 37, 185–217.Google Scholar
Levin, Andrew, Lin, Chien-Fu, and Chu, Chia-Shang (2002) Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics 108, 1–24.Google Scholar
Liew, Venus Khim-sen, Baharumshah, Ahmad Zubaidi, and Chong, Terence Tai-leung (2004) Are Asian real exchange rates stationary? Economics Letters 83, 313–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lim, Kian-Ping and Hinich, Melvin J. (2005) Non-linear market behavior: Events detection in the Malaysian stock market. Economics Bulletin 7, 1–5.Google Scholar
Lumsdaine, Robin L. and Papell, David H. (1997) Multiple trend breaks and the unit-root hypothesis. Review of Economics and Statistics 79, 212–218.Google Scholar
Malkiel, Burton G. (2003) The efficient market hypothesis and its critics. Journal of Economic Perspectives 17, 59–82.Google Scholar
McMillan, David G. (2003) Non-linear predictability of UK stock market returns. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 65, 557–573.Google Scholar
Ng, Serena and Perron, Pierre (2001) Lag length selection and the construction of unit root tests with good size and power. Econometrica 69, 1519–1554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connell, Paul G. J. (1998) The overvaluation of purchasing power parity. Journal of International Economics 44, 1–19.Google Scholar
Panagiotidis, Theodore and Pelloni, Gianluigi (2007) Non-linearity in the Canadian and US labour market: Univariate and multivariate evidence from a battery of tests. Macroeconomic Dynamics 11, 613–637.Google Scholar
Park, Joon Y. (2003). Bootstrap unit root tests. Econometrica 71, 1845–1895.Google Scholar
Qian, Xi-Yuan, Song, Fu-Tie, and Zhou, Wei-Xing (2008) Nonlinear behaviour of the Chinese SSEC index with a unit root: Evidence from threshold unit root tests. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 387, 503–510.Google Scholar
Richards, Anthony J. (1997) Winner–loser reversals in national stock market indices: Can they be explained? Journal of Finance 52, 2129–2144.Google Scholar
Shefrin, Hersh and Statman, Meir (1985) The disposition to sell winners too early and ride losers too long: Theory and evidence. Journal of Finance 40, 777–790.Google Scholar
Ucar, Nuri and Omay, Tolga (2009) Testing for unit root in nonlinear heterogeneous panels. Economics Letters 104, 5–8.Google Scholar
Zarowin, Paul (1990) Size, seasonality, and stock market overreaction. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 25, 113–125.Google Scholar
Zivot, Eric and Andrews, Donald W. K. (1992) Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 10, 251–270.Google Scholar