Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-hn9fh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-27T10:18:55.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Trading Rules and Excess Volatility

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2009

George Bulkley  and
Ian Tonks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A number of recent papers have reported evidence that stock prices are more volatile than is consistent with efficient markets. We argue that the excess volatility tests address a definition of efficient markets that makes an extreme information assumption. We go on to test a weaker definition of efficient markets, due to Jensen (1978). We show the existence of a profitable trading rule that earns a significantly higher rate of return than a buy-and-hold strategy, and so conclude that stock prices are too volatile, even when judged by this weaker definition.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 365 - 382
Copyright
Copyright © School of Business Administration, University of Washington 1992

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alexander, S. S. “Price Movements in Speculative Markets: Trends or Random Walks.” Industrial Management Review, 2 (05 1961), 7–26.Google Scholar
Anderson, T. W.The Statistical Analysis of Time Series. New York: Wiley (1971).Google Scholar
Bulkley, G., and Tonks, I.. “Are U. K. Stock Prices Excessively Volatile? Trading Rules and Variance Bounds Tests.” Economic Journal, 99 (12 1989), 1083–1098.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. Y., and Shiller, R. J.. “Co-Integration and Tests of Present Value Models.” Journal of Political Economy, 95 (10 1987), 1062–1088.Google Scholar
De Bondt, W. F. M., and Thaler, R.. “Does the Stock Market Overreact?” Journal of Finance, 40 (07 1985), 793–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bondt, W. F. M., and Thaler, R.. “Further Evidence on Investor Overreaction and Stock Market Seasonally.” Journal of Finance, 42 (07 1987), 557–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fama, E. F., and Blume, M. E.. “Filter Rules and Stock Market Trading.” Journal of Business, 39 (01 1966), 226–241.Google Scholar
Flavin, M. “Excess Volatility in the Financial Markets: A Reassessment of the Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Political Economy, 91 (12 1983), 929–956.Google Scholar
Jensen, M. C. “Some Anomalous Evidence Regarding Market Efficiency.” Journal of Financial Economics, 6 (06/09 1978), 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleidon, A. W. “Variance Bounds Tests and Stock Price Valuation Models.” Journal of Political Economy, 94 (10 1986), 953–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeRoy, S. F., and Porter, R. D.. “Stock Price Volatility: Tests Based on Implied Variance Bounds.” Econometrica, 49 (05 1981), 555–574.Google Scholar
Mankiew, N. G.; Romer, D.; and Shapiro, M. D.. “An Unbiased Reexamination of Stock Market Volatility.” Journal of Finance, 40 (07 1985), 677–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsh, T. A., and Merton, R. C.. “Dividend Variability and Variance Bounds Tests for the Rationality of Stock Market Prices.” American Economic Review, 76 (06 1986), 483–498.Google Scholar
Poterba, J. M., and Summers, L. H.. “Mean Reversion in Stock Prices: Evidence and Implications.” Journal of Financial Economics, 22 (10 1988), 27–59.Google Scholar
Shiller, R. J. “Do Stock Prices Move Too Much to be Justified by Subsequent Changes in Dividends?” American Economic Review, 71 (05 1981), 421–436.Google Scholar
Sweeney, R. J. “Beating the Foreign Exchange Market.” Journal of Finance, 41 (03 1986), 163–182.Google Scholar
Sweeney, R. J. “Some New Filter Rule Tests: Methods and Results.” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 23 (10 1988), 285–300.Google Scholar
West, K. D. “Dividend Innovations and Stock Price Volatility.” Econometrica, 56 (01 1988), 37–62.Google Scholar