Talk:Financial market efficiency

Renaming Proposal

I propose renaming this page "Market Efficiency". This will (i) clarify why it should not be merged with the one on "Efficient Market Hypothesis", and (ii) legitimize the content about allocative efficiency, which is not, in my understanding, a type of financial market efficiency but rather a type of efficiency of goods-and-services markets, where different agents can themselves be more or less efficient. There is currently no page called "Market Efficiency", and typing that search term in fact redirects users to "Efficient Market Hypothesis". That's misleading, because there's a lot more to market efficiency, which the present page begins to explain. RMGunton (talk) 20:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose that Efficient-market hypothesis be merged into Financial market efficiency. I think that the content in the Efficient-market hypothesis article can easily be explained in the context of Financial market efficiency, and the Financial market efficiency article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Efficient-market hypothesis will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.

Oppose - If anything, this article should be removed. The belief that the markets are efficient is solely based on the efficient market hypothesis. If there are items not mentioned in this article, then they should be fit into the Efficient market hypothesis article.Sposer (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The Financial market efficiency entry should be removed and anything useful in it added to the Efficient-market hypothesis entry. Andy Denis 10:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Denis (talk • contribs)

The biggest difficulty here is that the Joint Hypothesis Problem (JHP) has been equated with the Efficient Market Hypothesis. The opposite is the fact. The JHP says that it is impossible to prove efficiency (or inefficiency) without first establishing a valid market pricing model (Fama(1991)), and that "valid" means a model that explains both absolute price levels and variations over time. This has not existed so far, although I have current work with the JBFA that explains why we have not been able to achieve a single model that works across markets and through time. The key issue is behavior of markets around dividend payments, which ties in with dividend capture, positive pricing of dividends, Miller and Modigliani (1960) and the tax clientele effect. --peterrice@ozemail.com.au-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.251.121 (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: I came to Efficient-market hypothesis from a blog entry discussing EMH. When I google the term there are sites defining it as well as articles discussing it. While the notion of financial market efficiency could potentially be a broader discussion in fact in its most common usage it is a reference to EMH. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Financial_market_efficiency&action=edit&section=1# Thadmc (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Thadmc

Oppose: Efficient Market Hypothesis is a legitimate economy theory. It should not be merged into another page any more than the page "horses" should be merged with the page "farm animals". Whether the economy theory is correct or incorrect is invalid. You may disagree with socialism but it doesn't mean that we should wipe out the page. Many economic theories have come and gone over the years, there is good education in learning about them all. What worked and didn't work. Kirk Chisholm 04:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkchisholm (talk • contribs)

Oppose: I think the important thing about "financial market efficiency" is that it refers to much more than the EMH. There is also allocative efficiency, which is alluded to in the second paragraph, and operational efficiency. It's confusing that Fama's hypothesis is simply called "the efficient market hypothesis", but this page should clarify that there are other senses too. I therefore plan to demote the opening sentence of this page (about Fama's EMH) to lower down the page, which will hopefully make it clear why a merger would be inappropriate. RMGunton (talk) 11:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Section on Market efficiency types

The account of Tobin's 4 types of financial market efficiency needs some attention. In particular, "2. Fundamental valuation efficiency" states that "Asset prices reflect the expected past flows of payments associated with holding the assets (profit forecasts are correct...)". But "expected past flows" seems to be an oxymoron, and the bit in brackets then seems to refer instead to future flows. This would be consistent with the excerpt here, but this also says that fundamental valuation efficiency corresponds to the strong EMH, and thus conflicts with the closing statement in this section of our Wikipedia page: "This reflects the weak information efficiency model". More generally, none of the 4 types are expressed in terms of efficiency; they are given as propositions, whereas efficiency needs to be quantifiable. So I propose to rewrite this section based on the excerpt linked above, unless someone else knows better. Thanks - RMGunton (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I've now deleted the word "past" - but the other problems remain. RMGunton (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Financial market efficiency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090530160842/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/30743552 to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30743552/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA23 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ISHIKAWAYI (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ISHIKAWAYI (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)