Luigi Zingales Learning to live with not - so - ef 1⁄2 cient markets
نویسنده
چکیده
intellectual casualty of the 2007–2008 1⁄2nancial crisis is the ef1⁄2cient market theory (emt). Newspapers and talk shows have analyzed the theory’s apparent demise; new books with titles like How Markets Fail, The Myth of the Rational Market, and A Failure of Capitalism abound. Yet, in academia, the emt has been challenged since the 1987 stock market crash, and the theoretical and empirical shortcomings of the theory have been well established. The marginal contribution of the 2007–2008 1⁄2nancial crisis was to weaken the already-losing side of hardcore believers in the emt. Thus far, the recent crisis has not provided any crucial new evidence on the deviations of markets from fundamentals, only evidence of the costs of these deviations, especially when coupled with very high leverage. The rise and collapse of the real estate market, with all the consequences these events produce, are much easier to explain as the result of variation in fundamentals than is a 22.6 percent stock market drop in a day with no major news. Hence, those who have remained unchanged in their beliefs since the 1987 stock market crash have been little affected in their faith by the 2007–2008 1⁄2nancial crisis or by the evidence collected in the intervening twenty years. Yet the increasing proportion of academics who question the emt have found in the recent crisis a painful example of the costs of ignoring potential market inef1⁄2ciencies. A major rethinking of the validity of the theory’s implications is all but inevitable. From courtrooms to boardrooms, from policy cabinets to classrooms, the emt provided the intellectual foundation for an entire generation. The current debate has thrown this foundation into question. Rethinking the theory, however, does not mean abandoning it: the approach still holds many useful insights. Because it has provided a coherent framework with great practical value, rethinking the emt will be painful; nonetheless, it is necessary. This journey will inevitably be full of mistakes, but the biggest mistake of all would be not to undertake it.
منابع مشابه
A New Capital Regulation for Large Financial Institutions
We design a new, implementable capital requirement for large financial institutions (LFIs) that are too big to fail. Our mechanism mimics the operation of margin accounts. To ensure that LFIs do not default on either their deposits or their derivative contracts, we require that they maintain a capital cushion sufficiently great that their own credit default swap price stays below a threshold le...
متن کاملThe Ef cient Market Hypothesis and Its
A generation ago, the ef cient market hypothesis was widely accepted by academic nancial economists; for example, see Eugene Fama’s (1970) in uential survey article, “Ef cient Capital Markets.” It was generally believed that securities markets were extremely ef cient in re ecting information about individual stocks and about the stock market as a whole. The accepted view was that when in...
متن کاملThe Ef cient Market Hypothesis and Its Critics
A generation ago, the ef cient market hypothesis was widely accepted by academic nancial economists; for example, see Eugene Fama’s (1970) in uential survey article, “Ef cient Capital Markets.” It was generally believed that securities markets were extremely ef cient in re ecting information about individual stocks and about the stock market as a whole. The accepted view was that when in...
متن کاملFrom Ef cient Markets Theory to Behavioral Finance
A cademic nance has evolved a long way from the days when the ef cient markets theory was widely considered to be proved beyond doubt. Behavioral nance—that is, nance from a broader social science perspective including psychology and sociology—is now one of the most vital research programs, and it stands in sharp contradiction to much of ef cient markets theory. The ef cient markets th...
متن کاملInvestment-cash Flow Sensitivities Are Not Valid Measures of Financing Constraints
Work by Kaplan and Zingales provides both theoretical arguments and empirical evidence that investment-cash ow sensitivities are not good indicators of nancing constraints. Fazzari, Hubbard, and Petersen {this Journal} criticize those ndings. In this note we explain how the Fazzari et al. criticisms are either very supportive of the claims in earlier work by Kaplan and Zingales or incorrect....
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2010