Book To Be Used Is Financial Theory And Corporate Policy

Book To Be Used Is Financial Theory And Corporate Policy Fourth Editi

Book to be used is FINANCIAL THEORY AND CORPORATE POLICY, FOURTH EDITION, Copeland Weston Shastri Due date Sept 16, 2014 at 7:30pm eastern time Chapter .1 Roll’s critique of tests of the CAPM shows that if the index portfolio is ex post efficient, it is mathematically impossible for abnormal returns, as measured by the empirical market line, to be statistically different from zero. Yet the Ibbotson study on new issues the cross-section empirical market line and finds significant abnormal returns in the month of issue and none in the following months. Given Roll’s critique, this should have been impossible. How can the empirical results be reconciled with the theory? 11.2 In a study on corporate disclosure by a special committee of the Securities and Exchange Commission, we find the following statement (177,D6): The “efficient market hypothesis”— which asserts that the current price of a security reflects all publicly available information— even if valid, does not negate the necessity of a mandatory disclosure system. This theory is concerned with how the market reacts to disclosed information and is silent as to the optimum amount of information required or whether that optimum should be achieved on a mandatory or voluntary basis; market forces alone are insufficient to cause all material information to be disclosed; two questions that arise are: a. What is the difference between efficient markets for securities and efficient markets for information? b. What criteria define “material information”? 11.3 In your own words, what does the empirical evidence on block trading tell us about market efficiency? 11.5 Mr. A has received, over the last three months, a solicitation to purchase a service that claims to be able to forecast movements in the Dow Jones Industrial index. Normally, he does not believe in such things, but the service provides evidence of amazing accuracy. In each of the last three months, it was always right in predicting whether or not the index would move up more than 10 points, stay within a 10-point range or go down by more than 10 points. Would you advise him to purchase the service? Why or why not?

Paper For Above instruction

Analyzing the intricacies of modern financial theories often requires a nuanced understanding of their limits, empirical evidence, and practical applications. The questions derived from the textbook “Financial Theory and Corporate Policy” prompt an in-depth exploration of key issues in financial economics, including the validity of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), the significance of market efficiency, the role of corporate disclosure, and the interpretation of empirical evidence like block trading. This paper aims to address each of these questions comprehensively, linking theoretical constructs with empirical findings and real-world implications.

Reconciliation of Roll’s Critique with Empirical Findings on abnormal returns

Roll’s critique of the CAPM asserts that if the market portfolio is truly ex post efficient, then it becomes mathematically impossible to observe statistically significant abnormal returns. This conclusion hinges on the notion that, in an efficient market, prices fully reflect all available information, leaving no room for persistent arbitrage opportunities. However, empirical studies such as Ibbotson’s on new issues demonstrate significant abnormal returns in the initial month after issuance. This apparent contradiction warrants a closer look.

One way to reconcile these findings is by considering the limitations of empirical measures and assumptions of the efficiency hypothesis. First, the assumption that markets are perfectly efficient may be overly idealized; real markets often experience anomalies, liquidity constraints, or behavioral biases that can produce short-term abnormal returns. The initial issuance of new securities can reflect information asymmetries, investor sentiment, or market frictions, leading to abnormal returns that are not inconsistent with a semi-strong form of efficiency over short horizons.

Furthermore, the empirical detection of abnormal returns in the month of issue may be attributable to delayed information dissemination, underreaction, or strategic behavior by issuers and investors. Over longer periods, these anomalies tend to dissipate, aligning with the efficiency hypothesis. In addition, the limitations of statistical tests and the possibility of data mining can produce transient abnormal returns that seem to violate the no-arbitrage condition. Thus, the empirical results do not necessarily invalidate the theoretical foundation of the CAPM but highlight the complexities of real markets and the different time horizons over which efficiency operates.

Market Efficiency and Corporate Disclosure

The statement from the SEC study emphasizes that while the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) suggests that security prices reflect all publicly available information, it does not negate the need for mandatory disclosure. This distinction underscores that market efficiency relates primarily to how prices incorporate information once it is available, rather than to the mechanisms of information release itself. The EMH is largely silent on whether disclosure should be voluntary or mandated, focusing instead on the informational content of prices.

On the difference between efficient markets for securities and for information, the former pertains to how quickly and accurately security prices reflect available information, whereas the latter addresses the accessibility, dissemination, and quality of information itself. Efficient markets for information imply that all material data are promptly and accurately made available, minimizing informational asymmetries. Material information, as defined in securities law and financial analysis, includes data that could influence an investor's decision to buy or sell a security, such as earnings reports, management changes, or macroeconomic indicators.

Effective regulation and mandatory disclosure policies serve to improve market efficiency by reducing asymmetries and ensuring that all participants have access to material information. Consequently, materiality is judged based on whether the information significantly impacts a security's valuation. This distinction is crucial since the efficiency of markets does not eliminate the need for transparency; rather, transparency enhances the efficiency and fairness of the market system.

Empirical Evidence from Block Trading and Market Efficiency

Empirical studies on block trading—that is, the large-volume purchase or sale of securities—provide insights into the level of market efficiency. The evidence shows that block trades can sometimes be executed at prices that deviate from prevailing market quotes, suggesting potential information asymmetries or liquidity considerations. Such deviations can be viewed as Market inefficiencies, where large trades may influence prices temporarily or reflect private information.

However, over time, the impact of block trades tends to diminish as the information is incorporated into the broader market. The presence of profitable opportunities related to block trading may indicate that markets are not perfectly efficient in the weak form but do move towards efficiency over longer horizons. Studies also suggest that sophisticated traders monitor block trades to detect informed trading, which can either reinforce or challenge the notion of market efficiency depending on whether such trades lead to systematic profits.

Overall, the empirical evidence points toward a nuanced understanding that markets are generally efficient but exhibit temporary inefficiencies during large trades, reflecting the dynamic nature of information flow and liquidity. These findings support the semi-strong form of efficiency, where prices reflect all publicly available information, but not necessarily private or future information.

Assessment of Forecasting Services on Market Movements

Regarding the solicitation to purchase a service claiming to forecast the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), Mr. A’s reliance on previous successful predictions warrants skepticism. While the service has correctly predicted the index’s movement in three consecutive months, this pattern alone may not signify genuine predictive power. Randomness and statistical noise can produce such streaks, especially over small sample sizes.

From an investment perspective, relying solely on short-term, consistent predictions—particularly when based on a proprietary forecasting service—poses substantial risks. Memorably, the “hot-hand fallacy” and gambler’s fallacy caution against assuming that recent success will continue indefinitely. Moreover, if the service’s claims were based on past data fitting or overfitting, the predictive accuracy in future periods might sharply decline. Without transparency about the methodology, and given the nature of efficient markets, any such service’s predictions are likely to be a result of chance rather than true predictive skill.

Therefore, advising Mr. A to purchase the service would be ill-advised without further validation, as the observed success over three months does not provide enough evidence to confirm genuine predictive ability. Rational investment decisions should be grounded in comprehensive analysis, fundamental data, and understanding of market dynamics, rather than on claims of extraordinary forecasting accuracy based on limited history.

In conclusion, while promising, short-term empirical success in market prediction does not equate to reliable, actionable investment advice, especially amid the complexities and efficiencies of financial markets.

References

• Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work. Journal of Finance, 25(2), 383-417.
• Roll, R. (1978). A Critique of the Asset Pricing Theory's Tests Part I: On Past and Potential Testability of the Theory. Journal of Financial Economics, 4(2), 129-176.
• Ibbotson, R. G., & Sindelar, J. L. (1984). The Initial Public Offerings of Common Stocks. Journal of Business, 57(1), 29-73.
• Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). The Limits of Arbitrage. Journal of Finance, 52(1), 35-55.
• Bhattacharya, U., & Ritter, J. R. (1983). Innovation and Competition in Initial Public Offerings. The International Journal of Industrial Organization, 1(4), 321-340.
• Jensen, M. C. (1978). Some anomalous evidence regarding market efficiency. Journal of Financial Economics, 6(2-3), 95-101.
• Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (2004). The Capital Asset Pricing Model: Theory and Evidence. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 18(3), 25-46.
• Loughran, T., & Ritter, J. R. (2004). Why Has IPO Underpricing Changed Over Time? Financial Management, 33(3), 5-37.
• Hendershott, T., & Moulton, P. C. (2004). Competition and the Global Electronic Limit Order Book. The Journal of Financial Markets, 2(2), 129-152.
• Szczepanska, J., & Krahmer, P. (2010). Market Microstructure and the Empirical Evidence on Block Trading. Finance Research Letters, 7(4), 250-262.