Blindfolded monkeys or financial analysts: who is worth your money? New evidence on informational inefficiencies in the U.S. stock market
Giuseppe Pernagallo and
Papers from arXiv.org
The efficient market hypothesis has been considered one of the most controversial arguments in finance, with the academia divided between who claims the impossibility of beating the market and who believes that it is possible to gain over the average profits. If the hypothesis holds, it means, as suggested by Burton Malkiel, that a blindfolded monkey selecting stocks by throwing darts at a newspaper's financial pages could perform as well as a financial analyst, or even better. In this paper we use a novel approach, based on confidence intervals for proportions, to assess the degree of inefficiency in the S&P 500 Index components concluding that several stocks are inefficient: we estimated the proportion of inefficient stocks in the index to be between 12.13% and 27.87%. This supports other studies proving that a financial analyst, probably, is a better investor than a blindfolded monkey.
Date: 2019-04, Revised 2019-10
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Published in Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 2019
Downloads: (external link)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1904.03488 Latest version (application/pdf)
Journal Article: Blindfolded monkeys or financial analysts: Who is worth your money? New evidence on informational inefficiencies in the U.S. stock market (2020)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:arx:papers:1904.03488
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Papers from arXiv.org
Bibliographic data for series maintained by arXiv administrators ().