You have been employed as a consultant to an actively managed equity fund. Your task is to write a critical essay evaluating the arguments for and against the efficient markets hypothesis and...

1 answer below »

You have been employed as a consultant to an actively managed equity fund. Your task is to write a critical essay evaluating the arguments for and against the efficient markets hypothesis and behavioural finance and the implications of these for the future direction of the fund.


Your essay should include (but not only be) a discussion of the work of Nobel Laureates Eugene Fama, Robert Schiller and Richard Thaler. You should utilise existing literature (scholarly journals) on market efficiency and behavioural finance as well as real world examples to support your arguments. Your essay should include a conclusion on the validity of market efficiency and any implications of your research for the future direction of the fund.




EFB201 Essay Semester Two 2018 Weighting = 40% Length = 2000 words (+/- 10%) Referencing = Any QUT accepted method of referencing is fine (e.g. Harvard, APA) Due Date = Friday 5 October uploaded to Blackboard Site by 11.59pm. You have been employed as a consultant to an actively managed equity fund. Your task is to write a critical essay evaluating the arguments for and against the efficient markets hypothesis and behavioural finance and the implications of these for the future direction of the fund. Your essay should include (but not only be) a discussion of the work of Nobel Laureates Eugene Fama, Robert Schiller and Richard Thaler. You should utilise existing literature (scholarly journals) on market efficiency and behavioural finance as well as real world examples to support your arguments. Your essay should include a conclusion on the validity of market efficiency and any implications of your research for the future direction of the fund. EFB201 Essay – Format 1. Introduction - Brief background to market efficiency, behavioural finance and active versus passive fund management 2. Detailed Discussion of Market Efficiency - Include research (e.g. journal articles) and real world examples (e.g. fund manager performance) that support or disagree with market efficiency generally and active fund management specifically. Include a discussion of Fama’s work. 3. Discussion of Behavioural Finance - Include research (e.g. journal articles) and real world examples (e.g. behaviour of markets) that support or disagree with behavioural finance. Include a discussion of Shiller and Thaler’s work. 4. Conclusion on market efficiency and recommendations for the firm. EFB201 Financial Markets (Sem. 2, 2018) Essay Criteria Sheet — 2. Essay (40%) Student Name: _______________________________________Student No: ______________________ Criteria 7 6 5 4<4 marks="" discipline="" knowledge="" [ks="" 1.1:="" demonstrate="" and="" apply="" integrated="" discipline="" knowledge="" across="" the="" broad="" field="" of="" business="" with="" depth="" in="" one="" or="" more="" core="" business="" disciplines]="" demonstrate="" knowledge="" and="" effective="" application="" of="" financial="" concepts="" and="" models="" (25%)="" outstanding="" range="" and="" depth="" of="" multiple="" links="" to="" suggested="" models="" and="" concepts.="" appropriate,="" high="" quality="" discipline="" literature="" has="" been="" incorporated.="" discussion="" demonstrates="" excellent="" ability="" to="" see="" how="" theories/models="" apply="" to="" practice.="" may="" be="" innovative="" and="" insightful="" in="" seeing="" how="" practice="" is="" informed="" by="" theory.="" significant="" use="" and="" synthesis="" of="" most="" suggested="" models="" and="" concepts.="" reference="" to="" good="" quality="" discipline="" literature.="" discussion="" includes="" the="" key="" action="" steps="" &="" demonstrates="" very="" good="" application="" of="" relevant="" theories/models="" to="" practice.="" generally="" uses="" concepts="" and="" models="" relevant="" to="" the="" topic.="" may="" be="" some="" problems="" e.g.="" limited="" use="" of="" most="" relevant="" literature;="" link="" to="" theory="" &="" models="" may="" be="" implicit="" or="" unclear.="" discussion="" demonstrates="" sound="" understanding="" of="" application="" to="" practice.="" has="" clearly="" incorporated="" some="" relevant="" literature="" and="" frameworks="" but="" may="" lack="" citations="" at="" crucial="" points.="" may="" be="" some="" limitations="" e.g.="" most="" obvious="" concepts="" only="" incorporated,="" and/or="" important="" omissions.="" may="" lack="" clear="" integration="" to="" appropriate="" theory="" throughout="" the="" submission.="" discussion="" demonstrates="" satisfactory="" understanding="" of="" application="" to="" practice.="" lack="" of="" application="" of="" models="" and="" concepts.="" may="" be="" few="" or="" no="" references="" to="" discipline="" concepts="" and="" literature.="" 10="" higher="" order="" thinking="" skills="" [ho="" 2.1:="" investigate="" real="" world="" business="" issues="" and="" situations="" through="" the="" effective="" analysis,="" evaluation="" and="" synthesis="" of="" theory="" and="" practice]="" critical="" analysis="" of="" topic,="" supported="" with="" theory="" (50%)="" takes="" account="" of="" complex="" context.="" evidence="" of="" creative="" and="" lateral="" thinking="" to="" address="" the="" purpose="" of="" the="" project="" in="" a="" comprehensive="" and="" imaginative="" way.="" well-developed="" rationale="" and="" arguments="" to="" support.="" recommendations="" or="" design="" or="" method="" comprehensively="" address="" the="" objectives.="" demonstrates="" high="" degree="" of="" knowledge="" of="" practical="" aspects,="" shows="" creativity="" in="" approach="" has="" addressed="" the="" purpose="" of="" the="" project="" coherently="" and="" with="" some="" attempt="" to="" demonstrate="" imagination.="" takes="" account="" of="" all="" key="" context="" factors="" and="" selects="" the="" major="" issues.="" rationale="" clearly="" follows="" from="" analysis="" of="" context.="" only="" minor="" issues="" related="" to="" analysis="" and="" implementation="" or="" level.="" recommendations="" or="" design="" or="" method="" show="" a="" very="" good="" understanding="" of="" the="" practical="" aspects="" and="" provide="" an="" excellent="" fit="" with="" all="" key="" objectives.="" has="" addressed="" the="" main="" purpose="" of="" the="" project="" in="" a="" proficient="" way.="" recognises="" defined="" context,="" understanding="" is="" clearly="" better="" than="" the="" basic="" level.="" may="" address="" some="" areas="" of="" the="" project="" at="" a="" higher="" level.="" recommendations="" or="" design="" or="" method="" are="" sound="" and="" should="" achieve="" the="" desired="" objectives.="" may="" contain="" some="" problems="" and/or="" omissions="" in="" recommendations,="" (e.g.="" level="" of="" impact="" or="" scope="" of="" recommendations),="" though="" generally="" relevant="" and="" show="" more="" insight="" than="" basic="" level.="" context="" acknowledged="" but="" not="" fully="" addressed="" –="" mechanical="" or="" basic="" level="" response.="" recommendations="" or="" design="" or="" method="" are="" satisfactory="" although="" may="" not="" be="" the="" most="" appropriate.="" there="" is="" clear="" evidence="" of="" a="" planned="" approach.="" has="" addressed="" the="" main="" purpose="" at="" a="" satisfactory="" level.="" may="" have="" some="" omissions="" or="" errors="" in="" focus.="" may="" lack="" clear="" reasons="" for="" all="" recommendations="" or="" design="" or="" methods.="" little="" or="" patchy="" relationship="" established="" to="" context.="" may="" fail="" to="" address="" some="" key="" issues="" explanation="" may="" lack="" coherence.="" may="" include="" lengthy="" descriptions="" without="" analysis="" of="" importance="" or="" influence.="" inadequate="" recommendations.="" little="" or="" no="" planning="" evident,="" will="" not="" achieve="" identified="" objectives.="" 20="" professional="" communication="" [pc="" 3.1:="" use="" information="" literacy="" skills,="" and="" communicate="" effectively="" and="" professionally="" in="" written="" forms="" for="" diverse="" purposes="" and="" contexts]="" communicate="" clearly,="" concisely="" and="" professionally="" (25%)="" submission="" is="" a="" high="" quality,="" professional,="" detailed="" and="" coherent="" project="" report.="" no="" factual="" errors.="" no="" referencing="" errors="" and="" consistent="" method="" used="" throughout.="" any="" tables,="" figures="" or="" appendices="" are="" correctly="" identified="" &="" located.="" submission="" format="" is="" appropriate="" to="" the="" discipline="" and="" reports="" the="" project="" in="" a="" clear,="" concise="" &="" logical="" manner.="" no="" factual="" errors.="" correct="" referencing="" method="" with="" no="" errors.="" minimal="" errors="" in="" presentation="" of="" information.="" submission="" reports="" the="" project="" in="" a="" clear="" and="" concise="" manner="" with="" all="" relevant="" information.="" may="" be="" some="" minor="" problems="" in="" presentation="" or="" structure="" or="" coherence.="" no="" factual="" errors.="" referencing="" follows="" correct="" method="" with="" no="" errors.="" submission="" is="" satisfactory.="" may="" include="" some="" errors="" in="" structure,="" development="" of="" argument="" or="" presentation="" of="" information.="" may="" contain="" a="" minor="" factual="" error.="" referencing="" largely="" follows="" a="" consistent="" system,="" may="" contain="" a="" few="" errors.="" report="" may="" be="" poorly="" structured,="" disorganised="" or="" pitched="" at="" too="" low="" a="" level.="" may="" contain="" range="" of="" factual="" errors="" or="" unsubstantiated="" claims.="" language="" or="" presentation="" may="" be="" inadequate="" for="" professional="" standards.="" referencing="" may="" be="" absent="" or="" unsystematic.="" 10="" total="" marks:="" 40="" grade="" feedback="" 7="" overall="" your="" work="" demonstrates="" in="" an="" interesting="" or="" challenging="" way,="" originality="" based="" on="" proficiency="" in="" all="" the="" assessment="" task="" requirements.="" it="" also="" reflects="" consistent="" excellence="" in="" the="" application="" of="" relevant="" concepts,="" analysis,="" design/methodology="" and="" incorporation="" of="" relevant="" literature.="" 6="" overall="" your="" work="" demonstrates="" a="" comprehensive="" awareness="" and="" understanding="" of="" the="" set="" material.="" it="" also="" reflects="" proficiency="" in="" application="" of="" relevant="" concepts,="" analysis,="" design/methodology="" and="" relevant="" literature.="" 5="" overall="" your="" work="" demonstrates="" the="" ability="" to="" use="" and="" apply="" fundamental="" concepts="" and="" skills.="" it="" goes="" beyond="" mere="" replication="" of="" content="" knowledge.="" it="" reflects="" satisfactory="" and="" sometimes="" proficient="" application="" of="" relevant="" concepts,="" analysis,="" design/methodology="" and="" relevant="" literature.="" 4="" overall="" your="" work="" satisfies="" the="" basic="" learning="" requirements="" of="" the="" assessment="" item.="" it="" reflects="" satisfactory="" application="" of="" concepts,="" analysis,="" design/methodology="" and="" relevant="" literature.=""><4 overall your work does not satisfy the basic learning requirements of this assessment task. assessed by: (print) __________________________________________________________ semester: ________ year: ___________________ additional feedback __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ overall="" your="" work="" does="" not="" satisfy="" the="" basic="" learning="" requirements="" of="" this="" assessment="" task.="" assessed="" by:="" (print)="" __________________________________________________________="" semester:="" ________="" year:="" ___________________="" additional="" feedback="" __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________="" _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________="">
Answered Same DaySep 28, 2020EFB201

Answer To: You have been employed as a consultant to an actively managed equity fund. Your task is to write a...

Sarabjeet answered on Oct 01 2020
148 Votes
Running head: EMH and BF     
EMH and BF     
Efficient markets hypothesis and behavioral finance 
Student Name
University Name
Unit Name
Unit Code
Introduction
The goal of equity funds is to maximize profits and avoid the deficit of investors or customers. In a volatile market environment, it's not easy to make the right decisions every time. Therefore, for equity fund researchers, it is necessary to understand how price changes in the market and what decisions should be considered to maximize the profi
ts from the market. In addition, there are two practical theories: the efficient market hypothesis and the behavioral financial assumption (Ardalan, 2018).
EMH, which states that stock prices can reflect all available information in the market. According to this theory, market efficiency has three different levels: weak form efficiency, formal efficiency, semi-strength and strong form efficiency. In weak efficiencies, the market can reflect all past information; it means that technical analysis based on past price forecast prices cannot be used. In the semi-strong form efficiency, not only the past information but also all public information (Blau, 2018). This means that only internal information can be used to get unusual profits. However, internal information is difficult to access. In the powerful form information, it indicates that all information is included. Nothing can be used to get an abnormal return. Another hypothesis of the theory is that new information is unpredictable, which means that the impact of new information is unclear, and luck is the only possible reason for investors to make a profit (Borges, 2010).
In the case of behavioral meaning, it focuses on analyzing individual psychological features and how it affects the characteristics of investors such as investors, analysts and portfolio managers. Identifying portfolio discrepancy can be explained by various psychological features (Brown, 2010). One of the related theories is named as Behavioral Finance Hypotheses. It focuses on identifying and recognizing the importance of cognitive factors that affect the rational behavior of investors (Charles, Darné & Fouilloux, 2012).
Market efficiency describes the range of which all available information is accurate and quickly embedded in the price. If the market is completely effective, then the price should be randomly and therefore unpredictable. Apart from this, in spite of business strategy, investors cannot get unusual returns without transaction costs. However, due to market friction, it is not present in theoretically legitimate market reality, which leads to temporary wage between transaction value and effective value. If the academic concept of efficiency creates a map for physician’s perception then inability to represent an intermediary opportunity exploits merchants. Efficiency refers to that degree whose prices are similar to running randomly in different time horizons. In this sense, different types of efficiency measures have been developed to show the deviation of the transaction value from the effective price. Keeping in mind the previous research, we focus on the four commonly used metrics to assess the speed at which information is included in the price i.e. auto correction; Variation ratio; Delay coefficient; and pricing errors (Kim & Kim, 2013).
This essay will evaluate the standpoint of the two Nobel Laureates, Eugene Fama and Richard Thaler, on market efficiency and behavioral finance respectively. The implications of these views for the fund will be illustrated at the end of this essay as well.
Detailed Discussion of Market Efficiency
Market efficiency describes the extent to which available information is precisely and quickly embedded in the price. If the market is fully effective, the price should go randomly and therefore unpredictable. In addition, regardless of the trading strategy, investors can't get abnormal returns without transaction costs. However, due to market friction, this theoretically valid market does not exist in reality, which leads to a temporary wedge between a transaction price and the effective price (Kuo, Shi & Shen, 2012). If the academic concept of performance maps is from a practical perspective, disability is an arbitrage opportunity that takes advantage of traders. From a large number of experienced literary perspectives, we measure market efficiency in three ways: 1) Random Walking; 2) trade policy; 3) Transaction expenses. Efficiency refers to the degree to which prices are similar to random walks in different time horizons. In this sense, a variety of efficiency measures have been developed to reflect the deviation of the transaction price from the effective price. In keeping with previous research, we focus on four commonly used metrics to assess the speed at which information is included in the price, i.e. autocorrelation; variance ratio; delay coefficient; and pricing errors (Le, 2012).
Market efficiency refers to the extent to which market prices reflect all available relevant information. If the market is valid, then all information...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here