IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v15y2022i9p399-d910292.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Paradigm Shift in Finance: The Transformation of the Theory from Perfect to Imperfect Capital Markets Using the Example of Company Valuation

Author

Listed:
  • Dietmar Ernst

    (International School of Finance (ISF), Nuertingen-Geislingen University, Sigmaringer Straße 25, 72622 Nürtingen, Germany)

  • Werner Gleißner

    (TU Dresden, Münchner Platz 2/3, 01187 Dresden, Germany)

Abstract

In the capital market and financing theory, we are currently observing major upheavals. For decades, the neoclassical paradigm has dominated in science and practice. Triggered by economic and political crises, transformations, the COVID-19 pandemic, and political instabilities, a paradigm shift is currently occurring in finance. This paradigm shift leads to models and theories that can explain imperfections in capital markets and provide decision support for managers. The aim of this article is to analyse the paradigm shift and to demonstrate it using an example of business valuation theory. We draw on the insights of the philosopher Thomas Samuel Kuhn. He vividly explains the paradigm shift in science in his major work “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”. A paradigm shift in science always encounters resistance. The reasons for this include the strong neoclassical school in finance and the dependence on research funds. Funders expect the use of established methods and the simplicity and dissemination of the models that have prevailed so far. On the other hand, the neoclassical models are unsuitable to explain the transformation processes on financial markets. This fact has been empirically proven. We show a variety of arguments that speak clearly about this paradigm shift. Their importance clearly outweighs the reasons to continue subscribing to the old paradigm. Accordingly, new theories and models have been developed to better explain the changes in the markets. With the simulation-based business valuation, an approach has been developed that considers different degrees of market imperfections. The simulation-based valuation can also depict the special case of the neoclassical paradigm, so that all market constellations can be covered.

Suggested Citation

  • Dietmar Ernst & Werner Gleißner, 2022. "Paradigm Shift in Finance: The Transformation of the Theory from Perfect to Imperfect Capital Markets Using the Example of Company Valuation," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-13, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:15:y:2022:i:9:p:399-:d:910292
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/15/9/399/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/15/9/399/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pascal Bruhn & Dietmar Ernst, 2022. "Assessing the Risk Characteristics of the Cryptocurrency Market: A GARCH-EVT-Copula Approach," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-28, August.
    2. Saha Atanu & Malkiel Burton G., 2012. "Valuation of Cash Flows with Time-Varying Cessation Risk," Journal of Business Valuation and Economic Loss Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-22, May.
    3. Banz, Rolf W., 1981. "The relationship between return and market value of common stocks," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 3-18, March.
    4. Andrew Ang & Robert J. Hodrick & Yuhang Xing & Xiaoyan Zhang, 2006. "The Cross‐Section of Volatility and Expected Returns," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 61(1), pages 259-299, February.
    5. Basu, S, 1977. "Investment Performance of Common Stocks in Relation to Their Price-Earnings Ratios: A Test of the Efficient Market Hypothesis," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 32(3), pages 663-682, June.
    6. Mike Dempsey, 2013. "The Capital Asset Pricing Model ( CAPM ): The History of a Failed Revolutionary Idea in Finance?," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 49, pages 7-23, January.
    7. Jegadeesh, Narasimhan & Titman, Sheridan, 1993. "Returns to Buying Winners and Selling Losers: Implications for Stock Market Efficiency," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 48(1), pages 65-91, March.
    8. Dietmar Ernst, 2022. "Simulation-Based Business Valuation: Methodical Implementation in the Valuation Practice," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-17, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dimitrios D. Thomakos & Michail S. Koubouros, 2011. "The Role of Realised Volatility in the Athens Stock Exchange," Multinational Finance Journal, Multinational Finance Journal, vol. 15(1-2), pages 87-124, March - J.
    2. Turan G. Bali & Robert F. Engle & Yi Tang, 2017. "Dynamic Conditional Beta Is Alive and Well in the Cross Section of Daily Stock Returns," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(11), pages 3760-3779, November.
    3. Zura Kakushadze, 2014. "4-Factor Model for Overnight Returns," Papers 1410.5513, arXiv.org, revised Jun 2015.
    4. Tim Bollerslev & Sophia Zhengzi Li & Viktor Todorov, 2014. "Roughing up Beta: Continuous vs. Discontinuous Betas, and the Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns," CREATES Research Papers 2014-48, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    5. Jiaju Miao & Pawel Polak, 2023. "Online Ensemble of Models for Optimal Predictive Performance with Applications to Sector Rotation Strategy," Papers 2304.09947, arXiv.org.
    6. Zura Kakushadze & Willie Yu, 2016. "Multifactor Risk Models and Heterotic CAPM," Papers 1602.04902, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2016.
    7. De Giorgi, Enrico G. & Post, Thierry & Yalçın, Atakan, 2019. "A concave security market line," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 65-81.
    8. Leonid Kogan & Mary Tian, 2012. "Firm characteristics and empirical factor models: a data-mining experiment," International Finance Discussion Papers 1070, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    9. Tran, Vu Le, 2023. "Sentiment and covariance characteristics," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    10. Amit Goyal, 2012. "Empirical cross-sectional asset pricing: a survey," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 26(1), pages 3-38, March.
    11. Tobek, Ondrej & Hronec, Martin, 2021. "Does it pay to follow anomalies research? Machine learning approach with international evidence," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    12. De Nard, Gianluca & Zhao, Zhao, 2022. "A large-dimensional test for cross-sectional anomalies:Efficient sorting revisited," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 654-676.
    13. Chen, Xuanjuan & Kim, Kenneth A. & Yao, Tong & Yu, Tong, 2010. "On the predictability of Chinese stock returns," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 403-425, September.
    14. Zura Kakushadze & Jim Kyung-Soo Liew, 2015. "Custom v. Standardized Risk Models," Risks, MDPI, vol. 3(2), pages 1-27, May.
    15. Sainan Jin & Liangjun Su & Yonghui Zhang, 2015. "Nonparametric testing for anomaly effects in empirical asset pricing models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 9-36, February.
    16. Amir Amel†Zadeh, 2011. "The Return of the Size Anomaly: Evidence from the German Stock Market," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 17(1), pages 145-182, January.
    17. Bui, Dien Giau & Kong, De-Rong & Lin, Chih-Yung & Lin, Tse-Chun, 2023. "Momentum in machine learning: Evidence from the Taiwan stock market," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    18. Skočir, Matevž & Lončarski, Igor, 2018. "Multi-factor asset pricing models: Factor construction choices and the revisit of pricing factors," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 65-80.
    19. Avanidhar Subrahmanyam, 2010. "The Cross†Section of Expected Stock Returns: What Have We Learnt from the Past Twenty†Five Years of Research?," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 16(1), pages 27-42, January.
    20. Joachim Freyberger & Andreas Neuhierl & Michael Weber, 2020. "Dissecting Characteristics Nonparametrically," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 33(5), pages 2326-2377.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:15:y:2022:i:9:p:399-:d:910292. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.