IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/rfinst/v23y2010i8p3225-3277.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do Market Efficiency Measures Yield Correct Inferences? A Comparison of Developed and Emerging Markets

Author

Listed:
  • John M. Griffin
  • Patrick J. Kelly
  • Federico Nardari

Abstract

Using data from 56 markets, we find that short-term reversal, post-earnings drift, and momentum strategies earn similar returns in emerging and developed markets. Variance ratios and market delay measures often show greater deviations from random walk pricing in developed markets. Conceptually, we show that commonly used efficiency tests can yield misleading inferences because they do not control for the information environment. Our evidence corrects misperceptions that emerging markets feature larger trading profits and higher return autocorrelation, highlights crucial limitations of weak and semi-strong form efficiency measures, and points to the importance of measuring informational aspects of efficiency. The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Society for Financial Studies. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org., Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • John M. Griffin & Patrick J. Kelly & Federico Nardari, 2010. "Do Market Efficiency Measures Yield Correct Inferences? A Comparison of Developed and Emerging Markets," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(8), pages 3225-3277, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:rfinst:v:23:y:2010:i:8:p:3225-3277
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/rfs/hhq044
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:oup:rfinst:v:23:y:2010:i:8:p:3225-3277. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sfsssea.html .

    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.