IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsk/journ4/4973941.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are the GIPS sovereign debt markets efficient during a crisis?

Author

Listed:
  • Bachar Fakhrya
  • Omar Masood
  • Mondher Bellalah

Abstract

The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) has been around since 1962. It is a theory based on a simple rule, which states that the price of any asset must fully reflect all available information. Yet, there is empirical evidence suggesting that markets are too volatile to be efficient. In essence, this evidence suggests that the reaction of market participants to information or events is the crucial factor, rather than the information itself. This highlights the need to include behavioral finance theory in the pricing of assets. This paper aims to analyze the efficiency of the Greek, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish (ie, GIPS) sovereign debt markets during crises: in essence, the recent global financial and sovereign debt crises. We use a generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (GARCH)-based variance bound test to test the null hypothesis of the market being too volatile to be efficient. In general, our EMH tests gave mixed results; this points to an acceptance of our null hypothesis that the market is too volatile to be efficient. Interestingly, a number of observations also pointed to a rejection of the null hypothesis that the market is too volatile to be efficient.

Suggested Citation

  • Bachar Fakhrya & Omar Masood & Mondher Bellalah, . "Are the GIPS sovereign debt markets efficient during a crisis?," Journal of Risk, Journal of Risk.
  • Handle: RePEc:rsk:journ4:4973941
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-risk/4973941/are-the-gips-sovereign-debt-markets-efficient-during-a-crisis
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:rsk:journ4:4973941. 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: Thomas Paine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.risk.net/journal-of-risk .

    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.