[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/kngedp/2015_006.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Stock market efficiency in Iran: unit root testing with smooth structural breaks and non-trading days

Author

Listed:
  • Vince, Daly

    (Kingston University London)

  • Paytakhti Oskooe, Seyyed Ali

    (Islamic Azad University)

Abstract
A ‘flexible Fourier trend’ unit root test, permitting smooth structural breaks of unknown form and dates, is used to test weak-form market efficiency in the Tehran stock market’s TEPIX index. Monte Carlo experiments show that this test has low power when non-trading-day gaps in the daily data are filled with missing value codes. The test’s properties for weekly returns and for data as published, with non-trading-day gaps suppressed, are better and similar to each other. Analysis of the full sample of TEPIX data as published supports a unit root null but indicates the presence of additional autocorrelation – questioning weak-form efficiency. Sub-sample analysis again finds evidence of a unit root, but also of complex autocorrelation. Support for the unit root increased in the years (2000-2004) following regulatory reform and has decreased since 2008. A Diebold and Mariano (1995) test is used to assess whether the revealed autocorrelation provides an effective basis for predicting price deviations from trend on the basis of their own history. Predictive effectiveness is found at a horizon of one trading day. We conclude that this market has not shown weak-form efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Vince, Daly & Paytakhti Oskooe, Seyyed Ali, 2015. "Stock market efficiency in Iran: unit root testing with smooth structural breaks and non-trading days," Economics Discussion Papers 2015-6, School of Economics, Kingston University London.
    • Handle: RePEc:ris:kngedp:2015_006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.kingston.ac.uk/32404/1/2015_006.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Diebold, Francis X & Mariano, Roberto S, 2002. "Comparing Predictive Accuracy," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 134-144, January.
    2. Zivot, Eric & Andrews, Donald W K, 2002. "Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock, and the Unit-Root Hypothesis," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 25-44, January.
    3. Francis X. Diebold, 2015. "Comparing Predictive Accuracy, Twenty Years Later: A Personal Perspective on the Use and Abuse of Diebold-Mariano Tests," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(1), pages 1-1, January.
    4. Perron, Pierre, 1989. "The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(6), pages 1361-1401, November.
    5. Junsoo Lee & Mark C. Strazicich, 2003. "Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 85(4), pages 1082-1089, November.
    6. Stephen Leybourne & Paul Newbold & Dimitrios Vougas, 1998. "Unit roots and smooth transitions," Journal of Time Series Analysis, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(1), pages 83-97, January.
    7. Fama, Eugene F, 1970. "Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 25(2), pages 383-417, May.
    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. Nima Nonejad, 2024. "Point forecasts of the price of crude oil: an attempt to “beat” the end-of-month random-walk benchmark," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 67(4), pages 1497-1539, October.
    2. Akdoğan, Kurmaş, 2020. "Fundamentals versus speculation in oil market: The role of asymmetries in price adjustment?," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    3. Nazif Durmaz & Hyeongwoo Kim & Hyejin Lee & Yanfei Sun, 2023. "Trend Breaks and the Persistence of Closed-End Mutual Fund Discounts," Auburn Economics Working Paper Series auwp2023-03, Department of Economics, Auburn University.
    4. repec:idn:journl:v:1:y:2019:i:sp1:p:1-26 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Tolga Omay & Muhammad Shahbaz & Chris Stewart, 2021. "Is there really hysteresis in the OECD unemployment rates? New evidence using a Fourier panel unit root test," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 48(4), pages 875-901, November.
    6. Franses,Philip Hans & Dijk,Dick van & Opschoor,Anne, 2014. "Time Series Models for Business and Economic Forecasting," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521520911, September.
    7. John D. Levendis, 2018. "Time Series Econometrics," Springer Texts in Business and Economics, Springer, number 978-3-319-98282-3, December.
    8. Stéphane Goutte & David Guerreiro & Bilel Sanhaji & Sophie Saglio & Julien Chevallier, 2019. "International Financial Markets," Post-Print halshs-02183053, HAL.
    9. Hepsag, Aycan, 2017. "A unit root test based on smooth transitions and nonlinear adjustment," MPRA Paper 81788, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Elie Bouri & Tsangyao Chang & Rangan Gupta, 2016. "Testing the Efficiency of the Wine Market using Unit Root Tests with Sharp and Smooth Breaks," Working Papers 201664, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    11. Giorgio Canarella & Stephen Miller & Stephen Pollard, 2012. "Unit Roots and Structural Change," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(4), pages 757-776, March.
    12. Omay, Tolga & Shahbaz, Muhammad & Stewart, Chris, 2021. "Is There Really Hysteresis in OECD Countries’ Unemployment Rates? New Evidence Using a Fourier Panel Unit Root Test," MPRA Paper 107691, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 10 May 2021.
    13. Durusu-Ciftci, Dilek & Ispir, M. Serdar & Kok, Dundar, 2019. "Do stock markets follow a random walk? New evidence for an old question," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 165-175.
    14. Müge Özdemir, 2022. "Analyzing the Efficient Market Hypothesis with the Structural Break and Nonlinear Unit Root Tests: An Application on Borsa Istanbul," EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, Istanbul University, Faculty of Economics, vol. 0(37), pages 257-282, December.
    15. Paresh Kumar Narayan & Russell Smyth, 2005. "Are OECD stock prices characterized by a random walk? Evidence from sequential trend break and panel data models," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(8), pages 547-556.
    16. Jamaladeen Abubakar & K. Jothi Sivagnanam, 2017. "Fisher’s Effect: An Empirical Examination Using India’s Time Series Data," Journal of Quantitative Economics, Springer;The Indian Econometric Society (TIES), vol. 15(3), pages 611-628, September.
    17. Alper Kara & Dilem Yildirim & G. Ipek Tunc, 2023. "Market efficiency in non-renewable resource markets: evidence from stationarity tests with structural changes," Mineral Economics, Springer;Raw Materials Group (RMG);Luleå University of Technology, vol. 36(2), pages 279-290, June.
    18. Hepsag, Aycan, 2017. "New unit root tests with two smooth breaks and nonlinear adjustment," MPRA Paper 83353, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Geoffrey Ngene & Kenneth A. Tah & Ali F. Darrat, 2017. "The random-walk hypothesis revisited: new evidence on multiple structural breaks in emerging markets," Macroeconomics and Finance in Emerging Market Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 88-106, January.
    20. Yilanci, Veli & Aydin, Mücahit & Aydin, Mehmet, 2019. "Residual Augmented Fourier ADF Unit Root Test," MPRA Paper 96797, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Adewuyi, Adeolu O. & Wahab, Bashir A. & Adeboye, Olusegun S., 2020. "Stationarity of prices of precious and industrial metals using recent unit root methods: Implications for markets’ efficiency," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Market efficiency; Unit root tests; Structural breaks; Non-trading days;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C22 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes
    • G12 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Asset Pricing; Trading Volume; Bond Interest Rates
    • O16 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Financial Markets; Saving and Capital Investment; Corporate Finance and Governance

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ris:kngedp:2015_006. 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: Andrea Ingianni (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sekinuk.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.