Suchergebnisse

Impending changes in social security as well as in corporate and government policies are making individuals more responsible for their retirement savings. As a result, knowledge of investing concepts and financial markets is more important than ever before. The efficient markets hypothesis, the dominant financial markets theory, is described and analyzed. In doing so assumptions are questioned and the three forms of market efficiency are evaluated in quantitative and qualitative fashion to determine whether the efficient markets hypothesis is an accurate view of financial markets. This paper concludes that the efficient markets hypothesis does not accurately describe U.S. stock market activity.

In exploring the fate of efficient markets in the context of the global financial crisis, discussion begins with a look at classical & neoclassical economic theories, boiling the intellectual history of economics down to three competing hypotheses, two of which square off on the efficiency of markets, leaving the third out in the cold given its incapacity to be captured with a formally precise model. The impact of this on current policy debates over the role of the market economy in generating long-term prosperity is considered in terms of the limitations of the first two hypotheses. Attention is then given to three government policies that curtail the market's ability to overcome the issues of quotidian politics: inflation, price controls, & regime uncertainty. Problems with the US policy response to the current are identified in this light, concluding that efficient markets exist, but are hampered by government failure. References. Adapted from the source document.

That this runs in The Guardian makes us think that they might not have realised the import here: The 59-year-old Wilfred Poggenpoel is a fisher from Lambert's Bay, a picturesque town 170 miles north of Cape Town that's popular with surfers and home to 17,000 breeding pairs of Cape gannets. Five years ago, he made the decision to join a virtual marketplace called Abalobi, which enables fishers such as him to sell their catch directly to restaurants, retailers and consumers using a custom-built app."I get a better price and I can sell more species now," he says. "I've bought a 60-horsepower motor that I'd never have been able to afford before. I've bought a second boat." He joined, he says, because he didn't want to spend all day walking around town in the sun trying to sell fish. "My quality of life has improved. I've even been able to help some old people in the community."Abalobi (which means fisher in isiXhosa, one of the official languages of South Africa) is a tech nonprofit that works to help the small-scale fishers who make up the bulk of the South African fishing industry but are traditionally excluded from it financially.Those previously in a Polanyiesque marketplace of direct contact and mutual obligations have now moved over to a technologically intermediated impersonal and larger scale market. They are - humoungously - better off as a result. Which is glorious, poorer people are now better off. Precisely, exactly and wholly because of a deeper and wider market - a more efficient market. Or, as we might put it, market efficiency matters. It's what makes people better off. Therefore we must - as we are not - be very careful in evaluating anything that makes markets less efficient for whatever synapse-spasm seems a good idea at the time to those proposing it.But then we've known about this for a long time. That study of sardine fishermen and their mobile phones off Kerala was in one of the very top economic journals back in 2007. The creation of those more efficient markets increased fishermen welfare - profits went up and labour requirements declined. Increased consumer welfare - the price of fish went down. Everyone benefitted - even CO2 emissions declined - none lost, from that mere market efficiency.Of course, early papers often get revised - the conclusion of doing that seems to be that the original paper under-estimated the benefits, the general increase in human welfare from that more efficient market.Market efficiency, it's a good thing and don't you, ever, forget it.

I use UK betting exchange data on Wimbledon tennis matches to investigate the Grossman and Stiglitz (1980) paradox. Risk‐free arbitrage opportunities arise frequently during matches (as information arrives and asynchronously shifts prices), but seldom arise before matches (when there is little information to move prices). I find that on the few occasions that arbitrage opportunities do arise before matches, they last substantially longer than average. This suggests, in line with the paradox, that traders neglect to acquire information (carry out research or watch markets) if they believe that markets are already efficient. This neglect, in turn, makes markets inefficient.