Emrah İsmail ÇEVİK

4131

Borsa İstanbul Zayıf Formda Etkin mi? Markov-Switching ADF Testi Yaklaşımı

Hisse senedi fiyatlarının bütünleşme derecesi etkin piyasalar hipotezi ile doğrudan ilişkilidir ve söz konusu hipoteze göre, piyasaların zayıf formda etkin olarak adlandırılabilmesi için fiyatların tesadüfü yürüyüş özelliği sergilemesi gerekmektedir. Bu çalışmada Borsa İstanbul 100 endeksinin bütünleşme derecesi rejimlere bağlı olarak Markov-Switching ADF (MS-ADF) birim kök testi ile araştırılmıştır. MS-ADF testi sonucuna göre, Borsa İstanbul’da zayıf formda etkin piyasalar hipotezinin geçerliliğinin rejimlere göre farklılaştığı belirlenmiştir. Bu sonuçlara göre, yüksek volatilite rejiminde zayıf formda etkinlik sağlanırken, düşük volatilite rejiminde piyasasının zayıf formda etkin olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Is the Istanbul Stock Exchange Weak Form Efficient? A Markov-Switching ADF Test Approach

The integration order of stock prices is related to the efficient market hypothesis and the hypothesis suggest that the stock market can be named as efficient when stock prices exhibit random walk properties. In this study, we examine regime-dependent integration order of Istanbul Stock Exchange 100 index by means of Markov-Switching ADF (MS-ADF) test. MS-ADF test result indicates that the validity of weak form efficient market hypothesis is regime-dependent. These findings suggest that while weak form efficiency is provided in high volatile regime, the market is not weak form efficient in the low volatility regime.
PDF

___

  • 1. Assoe, K.G.. (1998). Regime-Switching in Emerging Stock Market Returns. Multinational Finance Journal, 2: 101-132.
  • 2. Atan, S.D., Özdemir, Z.A. ve Atan, M.. (2009). Hisse Senedi Piyasasinda Zayif Formda Etkinlik: İMKB Üzerine Ampirik Bir Analiz. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 24 (2): 33-48.
  • 3. Buguk, C. ve Brorsen, B.W.. (2003). Testing Weak-Form Market Efficiency: Evidence from the Istanbul Stock Exchange. International Review of Financial Analysis, 12: 579-590.
  • 4. Camacho, M.. (2011). Markov-Switching Models and the Unit Root Hypothesis in Real US GDP. Economics Letters, 112: 161-164.
  • 5. Cevik, E.I. ve Dibooglu, S.. (2013). Persistence and Non-Linearity in US Unemployment: A Regime-Switching Approach. Economic Systems, 37(1): 61-68.
  • 6. Çevik, E.I., Atukeren, E. ve Korkmaz, T.. (2013). Nonlinearity and Nonstationarity in International Art Market Prices: Evidence from Markov-Switching ADF Unit Root Tests. Empirical Economics, 45(2): 675-695.
  • 7. Chan, K.C., Gup, B.E. ve Pan, M.S.. (1992). An Empirical Analysis of Stock Prices in Major Asian Markets and the United States. The Financial Review, 27(2): 289-307.
  • 8. Chan, K.C., Gup, B.E. ve Pan, M.S.. (1997). International Stock Market Efficiency and Integration: A Study of Eighteen Nations. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 24(6): 803-813.
  • 9. Chen, S.W. ve Lin, S.M.. (2014). Non-linear Dynamics in International Resource Markets: Evidence from Regime Switching Approach. Research in International Business and Finance, 30: 233–247.
  • 10. Chen, S-W.. (2008). Non-stationarity and Non-Linearity in Stock Prices: Evidence from the OECD Countries. Economics Bulletin, 3(11): 1-11.
  • 11. Chen, S-W.. (2010). Regime Non-Stationarity and Non-Linearity in Inflation Rates: Evidence from OECD Countries. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 46: 47-57.
  • 12. Chua, C.L. ve Suardi, S.. (2007). Markov-Switching Mean Reversion in ShortTerm Interest Rates: Evidence from East Asian Economies. Economic Record, 83: 383-397.
  • 13. Davies, R.B.. (1987). Hypothesis Testing When The Nuisance Parameter Is Present Only Under The Alternative. Biometrika, 74: 33-43.
  • 14. Dickey, D. A. ve Fuller, W.A.. (1979). Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with A Unit Roo. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74: 427-431.
  • 15. Fama, E.F. ve French, K.R.. (1988a). Dividend Yields and Expected Stock Returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 22: 3-25.
  • 16. Fama, E.F. ve French, K.R.. (1988b). Permanent and Temporary Components of Stock Prices. Journal of Political Economy, 96: 246-273.
  • 17. Fama, F.E.. (1970). Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work. The Journal of Finance, 25(2): 383-417.
  • 18. Fawson, C., Glover, T.F., Fang, W. ve Chang, T.. (1996). The Weak-Form Efficiency of the Taiwan Share Market. Applied Economics Letters, 3(10): 663-667.
  • 19. Gozbasi, O., Kucukkaplan, I. ve Nazlioglu, S.. (2014). Re-examining the Turkish Stock Market Efficiency: Evidence from Nonlinear Unit Root Tests. Economic Modelling, 38: 381-384.
  • 20. Hall, S.G., Psaradakis, Z. ve Sola, M.. (1999). Detecting Periodically Collapsing Bubbles: A Markov-Switching Unit Root Test. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 14: 143-154.
  • 21. Hamilton, J.D.. (1994). Time Series Analysis. Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey. 22. Holmes, M.J.. (2008). Real Exchange Stationarity in Latin America and Relative Purchasing Power Parity: Regime Switching Approach. Open Economics Review, 19(2): 261-275.
  • 23. Holmes, M.J.. (2010). Are Asia-Pacific Real Exchange Rates Stationary? A Regime-Switching Perspective. Pacific Economic Review, 15(2): 189-203.
  • 24. Kanas, A. ve Genius, M. (2005). Regime (non)Stationarity in the US/UK Real Exchange Rate. Economics Letters, 87: 407-413.
  • 25. Kanas, A.. (2006). Purchasing Power Parity And Markov Regime Switching. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 38: 1669-1687.
  • 26. Kanas, A.. (2009). Real Exchange Rate, Stationarity, and Economic Fundamentals. Journal of Economics and Finance, 33, 393-409.
  • 27. Kapetanios, G., Shin, Y. ve Snell, A.. (2003). Testing for a Unit Root in the Nonlinear STAR Framework. Journal of Econometrics, 112(2): 359-379.
  • 28. Karadağlı, E.C. ve Omay, N.C.. (2012). Testing Weak Form Market Efficiency of Emerging Markets: A Nonlinear Approach. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, 7 (3): 228-234.
  • 29. Kılıç, S.B.. (2005). Test of the Weak Form Efficient Market Hypothesis for the Istanbul Stock Exchange by Markov Chains Methodology. Çukurova Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(1): 333-342.
  • 30. Kılıç, Y. ve Buğan, M.F.. (2016). The Efficient Market Hypothesis: Evidence from Turkey. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 6(10): 262-272.
  • 31. Krolzig, H.. (1997). Markov-Switching Vector Autoregressions Modeling, Statistical Inference, and Application to Business Cycle Analysis. Springer, Berlin. 32. Kruse, R., Frömmel, M. ve Menkhoff, L.. (2012). What Do We Know About Real Exchange Rate Nonlinearities?. Empirical Economics, 43: 457-474.
  • 33. Kruse, R.. (2011). A New Unit Root Test against ESTAR Based On A Class of Modified Statistics. Statistical Papers, 52(1): 71-85.
  • 34. Lee, J. ve Strazicich M.C.. (2003). Minimum Lagrange Multiplier Unit Root Test with Two Structural Breaks. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85: 1082.
  • 35. Li M-Y.L. ve Lin H-W.W.. (2004). Estimating Value-at-Risk via Markov Switching ARCH Models: An Empirical Study on Stock Index Returns. Applied Economics Letters, 11: 679-691.
  • 36. Li, M-Y.L.. (2007). Volatility States and International Diversification of Inter-national Stock Markets. Applied Economics, 39: 1867-1876.
  • 37. Lo, A.W. ve MacKinlay A.C.. (1988). Stock Market Prices Do Not Follow Random Walks: Evidence from a Simple Specification Test. Review of Financial Studies, 1: 41-66.
  • 38. Lumsdaine, R.L. ve Pappell, D.H.. (1997). Multiple Trend Breaks and the Unit Root Hypothesis. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 79: 212-218.
  • 39. Maitland-Smith, J.K ve Brooks, C.. (1999). Threshold Autoregressive and Markov Switching Models: An Application to Commercial Real Estate. Journal of Property Research, 16: 1-19.
  • 40. Mishra, A., Mishra, V. ve Smyth, R.. (2015). The Random-Walk Hypothesis on the Indian Stock Market. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 51(5): 879-892.
  • 41. Narayan, P.K. ve Smyth, R.. (2004) Is South Korea’s stock market efficient?. Applied Economics Letters, 11: 707-710.
  • 42. Nelson, C.R., Piger, J. ve Zivot E.. (2001). Markov Regime Switching and UnitRoot Tests. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 19(4): 404-415.
  • 43. Ozdemir, Z.A.. (2008). Efficient Market Hypothesis: Evidence from A Small Open-Economy. Applied Economics, 40: 633-641.
  • 44. Perron, P.. (1989). The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock, and the Unit Root Hypothesis. Econometrica, 57: 1361-1401.
  • 45. Poterba, J.M. ve Summers L.H.. (1988). Mean Reversion in Stock Prices: Evidence and Implication. Journal of Financial Economics, 22: 27-59.
  • 46. Rahman, A. ve Saadi, S.. (2008). Random Walk and Breaking Trend in Financial Series: An Econometric Critique of Unit Root Tests. Review of Financial Economics, 17: 204-212.
  • 47. Schaller, H. ve van Norden, S.. (1997). Regime Switching in Stock Markets Returns. Applied Financial Economics, 7: 177-191
  • 48. Shen, X. ve Holmes, M.J.. (2014). Do Asia-Pacific Stock Prices Follow A Random Walk? A Regime Switching Perspective. Applied Economics Letters, 21(3): 189-195.
  • 49. Wang, P. ve Theobald, M.. (2008). Regime-Switching Volatility of Six East Asian Emerging Markets. Research in International Business and Finance, 22(3): 267-283.
  • 50. Zivot, E. ve Andrews, D.W.K.. (1992). Further Evidence on the Great Crash, the Oil-Price Shock and the Unit Root Hypothesis. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10: 251-270.
BDDK Bankacılık ve Finansal Piyasalar Dergisi-Cover
  • ISSN: 1307-5705
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yıllık
  • Başlangıç: 2007
  • Yayıncı: Bankacılık Düzenleme ve Denetleme Kurumu
Arşiv
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Gayrimenkul Yatırım Ortaklığı Pay Getirilerini Etkileyen Faktörlerin Araştırılması

Serkan Yılmaz KANDIR, Ecem ÖZHAN

Ülke Kredi Notlarının CDS Primleri Üzerindeki Etkisi: BRICS Ülkeleri ve Türkiye Üzerine Bir Uygulama

Ömer İSKENDEROĞLU, Asuman BALAT

Borsa İstanbul Zayıf Formda Etkin mi? Markov-Switching ADF Testi Yaklaşımı

Emrah İsmail ÇEVİK