Vol. 4, No.

3 International Journal of Business and Management

Efficiency Hypothesis of the Stock Markets:

A Case of Indian Securities

Gagan Deep Sharma (Corresponding author)

Department of Management Studies
BBSB Engineering College
Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab, India
Tel: 91-9915-233-734 E-mail: angrishgagan@gmail.com

Mandeep Mahendru
Department of Management Studies
Gian Jyoti Institute of Management & Technology
Mohali, Punjab, India
Tel: 91-9872-896-504 E-mail: mandeep129@rediffmail.com
Abstract
The paper attempts to investigate the validity of the Efficient Market Hypothesis on the Indian Securities Market.
Initially, the paper discusses the definitions and types of the EMH, as also the literature available on the same. Taking a
sample of eleven securities listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), the oldest stock exchange of Asia, we apply
the runs tests and the autocorrelation tests in order to judge the efficiency of the Stock Markets. The Autocorrelation test
when directly applied to share prices gives conflicting results with Runs test and thus, making it difficult to reach a
definite conclusion. Then, the autocorrelation test is applied to first differenced series, which gives satisfactory results.
In a nutshell, it is observed that the effect of stock prices for the sample companies on future prices is very meager and
an investor cannot reap profits by using the share price data as the current share prices already reflect the effect of past
share prices.
Keywords: Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), Indian securities market, Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE),
Autocorrelation test, Runs test
1. Introduction
In the course of studying the Fundamental analysis, the investment projects are ranked by comparing factors like
economic influences, industry factors and pertinent company information such as product demand, earnings, dividends,
etc. Taking these factors into consideration, investors reach upon an intrinsic value for the firm’s securities. By
comparing these values with current prices of the security, the investment decisions are taken. The Fundamental
analysis, however, is criticized on the ground that all financial data and information of a given security is already
reflected in the market price of that security. Therefore we cannot rely much on the Fundamental analysis.
The Technical analysis, on the other hand, implies that by observing and studying the historical information about the
behavior of a given stock, one can predict the future price movements of the security. But the Technical analysis, too, is
not free from criticism. It is not by itself the road to the riches. It is the tool that should be used along with the
Fundamental analysis. Despite the assertions of Technicians, Technical Analysis is still an art. Its successful use shall
require talent, intuition, commonsense, experience and most importantly – the luck. All this calls for a theory that can
assist a potential investor in managing his portfolio. Efficient Market Theory is one such theory that aims to explain the
behavior of stock markets.
The efficient market hypothesis (EMH) is a backbreaker for forecasters. In its crudest form it effectively says that the
returns from speculative assets, are unforecastable. This is a venerable thesis, its earliest form appearing a century ago
as the random walk theory (Bachelier, 1964).
This paper is divided under eight parts. The first part gives the Introduction to the paper. The second part elaborates the

136
International Journal of Business and Management March, 2009

definition of Efficient Market Hypothesis; the third section of the paper explains the types of EMH and the empirical
tests for the same, fourth section presents the mathematical modeling of the EMH, fifth section reviews the literature on
EMH, sixth section explains the methodology of the paper, seventh section presents the findings and the eight section
concludes.
2. Definition of efficient market hypothesis
One of the famous definitions of EMH has been given by Jensen (1978). He opines:
“A market is efficient with respect to information
set )t if it is impossible to make economic
profits by trading on the basis of information set )t.”
Malkiel (1992) provides another closely related definition of EMH:
“A capital market is said to be efficient if it fully and correctly reflects all relevant information in determining security
prices. Formally, the market is said to be efficient with respect to some information set, )t, if security prices would be
unaffected by revealing that information to all participants. Moreover, efficiency with respect to an information set, )t,
implies that it is impossible to make economic profits by trading on the basis of )t.”
The primary role of the capital [stock] market is allocation of ownership of the economy’s capital stock. In general
terms, the ideal is a market in which prices provide accurate signals for resource allocation: that is, a market in which
firms can make productive-investment decisions, and investors can choose among the securities that represent
ownership of firms’ activities under the assumption that securities prices at any time ‘fully reflect’ all available
information. (Fama1970).
The link between an asset market that efficiently reflects available information (at least up to the point consistent with
the cost of collecting the information) and its role in efficient resource allocation may seem natural enough. Further
analysis has made it clear, however, that an informationally efficient asset market need not generate allocative or
production efficiency in the economy more generally. The two concepts are distinct for reasons to do with the
incompleteness of markets and the information-revealing role of prices when information is costly, and therefore
valuable (Stiglitz 1981).
Dyckman and Morse (1986) state "A security market is generally defined as efficient if (1) the price of the security
traded in the market act as though they fully reflect all available information and (2) these prices react instantaneously,
or nearly so, and in unbiased fashion to new information".
3. Types of efficient market hypothesis
The phrase "efficient market" used to describe the market price that fully reflects all available information was coined
by Fama (1970). Furthermore, he classifies the market efficiency into three levels on the basis of the information: Weak,
Semi-strong and Strong forms.
3.1 Weak-form efficient market hypothesis
The weak form of the theory also known as the ‘Random Walk’ says that the current price of the stocks already fully
reflect all the information that is contained in the historical sequence of the prices. In simpler words, we can say that the
price of a stock already stands adjusted to all the historical information available about it. Therefore there is no benefit,
so far as forecasting the future is concerned, in examining the historical sequence of prices. In an aggressive form, the
theory concludes that if there is no value in studying the past prices and part price changes, there is no value in the
technical analysis. Thus, the Random Walk Theory is a direct repudiation of the technical analysis.
This theory can further be explained with the help of an example. A close look at the stock prices sometimes reveals
day-of-the-week effects (stock prices may tend to rise on Monday and fall on Friday), time-of-the-year effects (stock
prices may tend to rise in January), and small firm effects (small-firm prices may typically rise by more than large-firm
prices). But little evidence exists that average investor can use these effects to earn above normal profits once
transaction costs such as brokerage are taken into account. In nutshell, the null hypothesis in this form of theory
maintains that an investor is not going to gain anything from the knowledge that he possesses about the historical
movements in the price of that stock.
Several studies address the issue of whether stock price behaviour is a random walk or not. Robert (1959) and Osborne
(1959) found that stock price movement follows a random walk. “The random walk hypothesis simply states that at a
given point in time, the size and direction of the next price change is random with respect to the knowledge available at
that point in time.” (Dyckman and Morse, 1986).
There have been four major methods to test the dependence of return on time (Weak-form of market efficiency): serial
correlation tests, filter rule test, cyclical tests, and volatility test.

137
 Vol. 4, No. 3 International Journal of Business and Management

3.1.1 Serial correlation tests

In order to test the independence between successive price changes, correlation tests are particularly appropriate. These
tests tend to determine when price changes or proportional price changes in some future period are related. If these
changes are correlated, points plotted on a graph will tend to lie along straight line. The test for this approach was
performed in daily return by Schwartz and Whitcomb (1977a, 1977b) and Rosenberg and Rudd (1982), who found that
the first order serial correlation of daily return residual from the market model is small but significantly negative.
3.1.2 Filter tests
The Filter rule operates as follows- If the daily closing price of a Security moves up at least ‘x’ percentage, buy the
security until the price moves down at least ‘x’ percentage from a subsequent high, at which time simultaneously sell
and go short. The short position should be maintained until the price rises at least ‘x’ percentage above a subsequent low,
at which time cover and buy. Now the question arises- what is the optimal size of ‘x’" If ‘x’ is too small (e.g., 0.5%),
then trading in the security will involve high transactional costs. On the other hand, if ‘x’ is too large, then many turning
points will be missed. The evidence shows that the size of filter is irrelevant because whatever be its size, no filter rule
can systematically generate excess returns over a ‘Buy & Hold’ strategy. This approach was investigated by Alexander
(1961), and Fama (1965), who found no abnormal return was generated.
3.1.3 Cyclical tests
This test involves Time Series study. Under this method, cyclical behaviour is studied by using Statistical methods.
Granger and Morgensterm (1963), Cross (1973), French (1980), Gibbons and Hess (1981) and Bonin and Moses (1974)
used these tests and investigated Day, Week and months of the year in stock behaviour, and in particular the effect of
Monday, Friday and January.
3.1.4 Volatility tests
The main assumption for the volatility test is that “expected returns are constant and the variation in stock prices is
driven entirely by shocks to expected dividends” (Fama, 1991). Grossman and Shiller (1981) attempt to use volatility
testing to examine whether the variation in expected return is rational. They found that the variation in expected return
is irrational.
3.2 Semi-strong form efficient market hypothesis
This form of the theory maintains that the current stock prices instantaneously and fully reflects all the public
information about the security such as corporate reports, corporate announcements, information related to corporate
dividend policies, forthcoming stock splits and so on. Thus the efforts by analysts and investors to acquire and analyze
public information will not yield consistently superior returns. As soon as the information becomes public, it will be
absorbed and reflected in the stock prices. If any such information does not lead to a change in security prices, then if
the semi-strong form EMH is true, we can infer that the news contain no relevant information. Thus it would be too late
for the investor to wait for the announcement to be reported in the financial press the next day.
The testing of Semi-strong form of EMH includes the testing of market reaction to accounting information, stock split,
and block trading.
3.2.1 Market reaction to accounting information
Wilson (1987) reported a positive association between total accruals and cash flow from operation with stock return.
His research concluded that total accruals and cash flow from operation taken together have incremental information
content beyond earnings. Judy Rayburn (1986) examined the ability of operation cash flow and accrual data in order to
explain the relative change in equity value (return). She observed that cash flow measures, aggregate accrual and
current accrual are consistent with the information set used in value equity security (Abnormal Return). Harmon (1984)
investigated the relative importance of earning versus fund flow, by examining the association between market reaction
with earnings variables and fund variables. He concluded that earnings are more associated with market reaction than
fund flows.
3.2.2 Stock Splits
Fama, Fisher, Jensen and Roll (1969) performed the first test for semi-strong market efficiency. They used risk-adjusted
return to test for market efficiency with respect to the announcement of stock split and found a considerable high
abnormal return prior to the announcement of stock split. On the other hand, after the stock split there is no
extraordinary return, and the situation returns to exactly what EMH predicted. Fama,.et al. (1969) and Charest (1978a)
found that market is efficient with respect to stock split information.
3.2.3 Block trades
When a large number of stocks are suddenly placed on the market for sale, it is called Block trading. Scholes (1972),
Kraus and Stoll (1972), Grier and Albin (1973), Carey (1977) and Hess and Frost (1982), investigate the effect of the

138
International Journal of Business and Management March, 2009

sudden sale of a large number of stocks in the market. They found that there is a significant drop in price, but after a
short period stock price rebounds to its prior level.
In a nutshell, the results from the empirical research are inconsistent with the semi-strong form market efficiency.
3.3 Strong form efficient market hypothesis
This form states that not only is the public information useless to the investor or analyst, but all the information is
useless. In other words, the current stock prices instantaneously and fully reflect all known information about the
securities including the privately available inside information. The markets are so efficient that not even someone with
the most valuable piece of inside information can trade profitably on the basis of it. As an example, even the
information about the forthcoming announcement by a Company regarding a split in its stock, cannot be used by an
investor to his advantage.
Testing the return that is earned by an insider tests the EMH in strong form, Penman (1982) examines the insider trading
around earning forecasting announcement. He found that insiders buy shares before the announcement and sell their
shares after the announcement, by which they can achieve high abnormal return. Therefore, insiders do indeed have
private information that is not impounded in the stock price.
4. Mathematical presentation of efficient market hypothesis
Fama (1970) gives the mathematical presentation of EMH in the following equations:
E( P j,t+ 1 / )t) = [1 + E( r j,t+ 1 / )t )] P jt (1)
Where,
E = Expected value operator.
Pjt = Price of Security j at time t.
Pj,t+1 = Price of Security j at time t+1 (including reinvestment of any intermediate cash income from securities.
rj,t+1 = One period percentage return=(Pj,t+1-Pjt)/Pjt.
ĭt = Symbol of whatever set of information assumed to be "fully reflected" on share price at time t.
Zj,t+1=r j,t+1- E(r j,t+1 / )t) (2)

E( Z j,t+1 / )t)= 0 (3)

Where Zj,t+1 is the unexpected (or excess) return of security j at time t+1, the difference between the observed return,
rj,t+1, and the expected return based on the information set ĭt.
5. Literature on Efficient Market Hypothesis
Many studies have been conducted internationally which have focused on the efficient market hypothesis (EMH).
However, the number of studies published on developing market is small in comparison to the volume of studies
published on developed markets. The literature published to date is in favour of weak form efficiency, though pockets of
inefficiency cannot be suppressed.
The general conclusion from numerous studies in developed countries is that the weak form of market efficiency holds
and that no exploitable patterns in past trading records exist. More recently, however, a number of studies have raised
questions about the degree of prevailing market efficiency and have pointed to some market inefficiencies based on
observations such as autocorrelation, the small-firm effect, the January-effect and the weekend-effect (Aga and
Kocaman, 2008).
Evidence from stock markets in developing countries is mixed. Dickinson and Muragu (1994) found evidence
consistent with the EMH in their study of the Nairobi Stock Exchange. Barnes (1986), on the other hand, in his study of
the Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange provided only limited support of the weak form of the EMH. Zychowicz et al. (1995)
concluded that on the Istanbul Stock Exchange, daily and weekly returns diverge from a random walk, while monthly
returns are consistent with weak form market efficiency.
Fama and French (1992) explained that Portfolios constructed from ‘value’ stocks appear to produce superior
investment returns over long horizons. Value stocks are those with high earnings, cash flows, or tangible assets relative
to the current share price. After controlling for firm size and the variance of portfolio returns, stocks with low
price-earnings ratios outperform the market.
Lakonishok, Shleifer and Vishny (1994) reach similar findings, and also present evidence that the variability of returns
from value portfolios is no greater than for glamour portfolios. Thus, the higher returns earned by value portfolios do
not appear to be due to a higher level of risk.

139
 Vol. 4, No. 3 International Journal of Business and Management

Poshakwale (1996) presented evidence concentrating on the weak form efficiency and on the day of week effect in the
Bombay Stock Exchange under the consideration that variance is time dependent. Moving from its traditional
functioning to that required by the opening of the capital markets, the BSE has presented different patterns of stock
returns and supports the validity of day of the week effect. The frequency distribution of the prices in BSE does not
follow a normal or uniform distribution, which is also confirmed by the non-parametric KS Test. The results of runs test
and serial correlation coefficients tests indicate nonrandom nature of the series and, therefore, violation of weak form
efficiency in the BSE. The other null hypothesis that there is no difference between the returns achieved on different
days of the week is also rejected, as there is clear evidence that the average returns are different on each day of the week.
The weekend effect is evident as the returns achieved on Fridays are significantly higher compared to rest of the days of
the week. However, the results presented in the study are not adjusted for transaction costs. Nor have the results been
adjusted for non-synchronous trading which may influence the serial correlation coefficients.
Beechey, Gruen and Vickery (2000) concluded that the efficient market hypothesis is almost certainly the right place to
start when thinking about asset price formation. Both academic research and asset market experience, however, suggest
that it does not explain some important and worrying features of asset market behaviour.
Timmermann and Granger (2004) observed that there are likely to be short-lived gains to the first users of new financial
prediction methods. Once these methods become more widely used, their information may get incorporated into prices
and they will cease to be successful. This race for innovation coupled with the market’s adoption of new methods is
likely to give rise to many new generations of financial forecasting methods.
Hadi (2006) identified EMH and provided some detail on the types of EMH, as well as identifying the empirical
research that tested weak, semi-strong and strong forms of market efficiency. Accounting market based research more
often assumes that market is efficient in semi-strong form, and the reason for this is that financial reports are considered
public information once they are released to the market. He provided empirical evidence from the Jordanian market that
showed that the security market reacted with mixed signal on releasing profitability, liquidly, and solvency information.
6. Methodology
The paper takes a sample of eleven securities listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE). The Bombay Stock
Exchange is known as the oldest exchange in Asia. It traces its history to the 1850s, when stockbrokers would gather
under banyan trees in front of Mumbai's Town Hall. The location of these meetings changed many times, as the number
of brokers constantly increased. The group eventually moved to Dalal Street in 1874 and in 1875 became an official
organization known as 'The Native Share & Stock Brokers Association'. In 1956, the BSE became the first stock
exchange to be recognized by the Indian Government under the Securities Contracts Regulation Act.
BSE as a brand is synonymous with capital markets in India. The BSE SENSEX is the benchmark equity index that
reflects the robustness of the economy and finance. At par with international standards, BSE has been a pioneer in
several areas. SENSEX is an index of thirty securities.
The paper concentrates on the shares of eleven companies. These include – ACC, Bajaj Auto, Bharti Airtel, Cipla, Dr.
Reddy’s Labs, Grasim, HDFC Bank, Hindalco, Maruti Suzuki, Satyam Computers, and Wipro. All of these are listed on
the Bombay Stock Exchange. Out of these companies, ACC, Bharti Airtel, Grasim, HDFC Bank, Hindalco, Maruti
Suzuki, Satyam Computers, and Wipro are included in the thirty companies forming part of SENSEX. Cipla and Dr.
Reddy’s Labs are not included in the index stocks of BSE, but they are the index stocks of NSE’s Nifty. Bajaj Auto,
though listed on both NSE and BSE, is not the index stock at either of the two exchanges. The time duration of the
study is June 30, 2007 to October 27, 2007.
7. Findings
The research used Runs Test and Autocorrelation Test in order to test the Efficient Market Hypothesis of the Indian
securities. The findings of the two tests are shown hereunder:
7.1 Runs Test
Here, the null hypothesis to be tested is that the share prices do not make pattern i.e.
Ho = The prices do not make pattern
The null hypothesis considered here is common for all the sample companies.
The null hypothesis Ho is accepted if the value of Z is less than 1.96 and it is rejected if the value of Z exceeds 1.96.
Where, Z = (r-µr)/ır
Where ‘r’ is no. of runs.

140
International Journal of Business and Management March, 2009

It can be seen from Table-1 that the value of Z is 0.687 for the share prices of ACC from July 2007 to October 2007. This
value of Z is less than 1.96. So, the null hypothesis Ho is accepted i.e. the share prices do not make pattern. Share prices of
ACC move randomly.
The calculated value of Z is 0.277 for the share prices of Bajaj Auto from July 2007 to October 2007. This value of Z is
less than 1.96 and hence the null hypothesis considered in this case is also accepted. Share prices of Bajaj Auto move
randomly i.e. share prices of this company do not make any pattern.
In case of Bharti Airtel, the calculated value of Z is -0.517 which is negative. Clearly it is less than 1.96. So, it shows that
share prices of Bharti Airtel do not make pattern and these prices move randomly. It also shows that share market of
Bharti Airtel is weak form efficient.
It is clear from Table-1 that the value of Z is -0.707 which is much less than 1.96. As the value of Z less than 1.96 accepts
the null hypothesis Ho, therefore, null hypothesis that the share prices do not make pattern is accepted. It means that share
prices of Cipla move randomly.
It is clear from Table-1 that the value of Z coefficient for Dr. Reddy’s lab is 0. This value of Z is not in comparison with
1.96. So, share prices of dr. Reddy’s Lab also do not make any pattern and these share prices move randomly.
Similarly, in case of Grasim, the calculated value of Z coefficient is-0.533. The value of Z coefficient less than 1.96
accepts the null hypothesis Ho, that share prices do not make pattern. Here, the value of Z is less than 1.96, so the hull
hypothesis is accepted i.e. share prices do not make any pattern and move randomly.
In case of HDFC bank, the calculated value of z is -7.74. This value of Z is not within +1.96 and -1.96. So, the null
hypothesis that share prices do not make pattern is rejected. Share prices of HDFC bank make pattern and do not move
randomly.
The calculated value of Z is 0 for Hindalco. This value of Z is again less than 1.96. Here, null hypothesis is accepted which
shows that share prices of Hindalco move randomly and these do not make any pattern.
The value of Z is 0.686 for Maruti Suzuki. Again value of Z coefficient is less than 1.96. It shows that null hypothesis that
share prices do not make any pattern is accepted i.e. share prices of Maruti Suzuki move randomly.
Similarly, in case of Satyam and Wipro, the value of Z coefficient is 0.287 and 0.686 respectively. The value of Z is less
than in both the Cases. It implies that null hypothesis is accepted for both the companies. The share prices of both Satyam
and Wipro do not make any pattern and move randomly.
At the end, the analysis of Runs test shows that in every case the null hypothesis is accepted except one i.e. HDFC bank.
It means share prices of the sample companies do not make any pattern and hence move randomly except HDFC bank.
7.2 Autocorrelation Test
Autocorrelation test is applied to weekly share prices of different sample companies and also to the first differences of
share prices of different sample companies. In autocorrelation test, lag t is correlated with lag t+1, lag t+2, lag t+3 and so
on. In the same way, lag t+1 is correlated with lag t+2, lag t+3, lag t+4 and so on. The auto correlation test applied
directly to the weekly share prices of different sample companies did not give satisfactory results. So, the autocorrelation
test has been applied on first differenced series of share prices of different sample companies.
Table 2 shows that lag1 is autocorrelated with lag2, lag3………….lag16. Lag2 is autocorrelated with lag3,
lag4………lag16. In the same way, lag3 is autocorrelated with lag4, lag5 and so on. Similarly, all the different lags are
autocorrelated with other lags.
Here, the autocorrelation of lag1 is checked with lag2, lag3……..lag16. Now, form table-2, it is clear that sometimes the
value is near to 1 i.e. 0.915 and sometimes it is near to 0 i.e. 0.393 and sometimes it is in middle i.e. 0.556. As the value
varies up to extremes i.e. form 0.915 to 0.393, it means the share prices do not move in any pattern, instead these move
randomly.
Now, if lag2 is autocorrelated with lag3, lag4……lag16 then it is clear from table-2, that sometimes the value is near to 1
i.e. 0.82 and sometimes it is 0.47 and sometimes near to 0 i.e. 0.178. So, all these varied values show that share prices
move randomly and do not make any pattern.
Similarly in all the cases, when lag t is autocorrelated with other lags values change randomly showing that share prices do
not make any pattern and move randomly.
It can be observed that the autocorrelation coefficient in most cases is near to 0.5, which indicates that the prices in lag t do
not correlated with prices in lag t+1, lag t+2 and so on. Thus, it can be inferred that the effect of stock prices for the sample
companies on future prices is insignificant, and investors cannot reap profits by using the share price data as the current
share prices already reflect the effect of past share prices.

141
 Vol. 4, No. 3 International Journal of Business and Management

8. Conclusion
The research examined the weak-form efficiency of eleven (11) securities listed on the Bombay Stock exchange (BSE)
using weekly data from July 2007 to October 2007. The Runs Test and Autocorrelation Tests were used as means of
determining whether the BSE was efficient in weak-sense. The Autocorrelation test when directly applied to share
prices gives conflicting results with Runs test and thus, making it difficult to reach a definite conclusion. Then, the
autocorrelation test is applied to first differenced series, which give satisfactory results. Therefore, though the results
lead us into believing that the BSE is weak form efficient, yet we choose to remain cautious in letting our belief
transcend into a generalization.
The findings of this study indicate that the BSE needs to strengthen its regulatory capacity to boost investors’
confidence. This would involve them being more stringent in enforcing financial regulations, performing regular market.
Thus, at the end it can be inferred that the effect of stock prices for the sample companies on future prices is very
meager and an investor cannot reap profits by using the share price data as the current share prices already reflect the
effect of past share prices.
References
Aga, Mehmet., and Berna Kocaman. (2008). Efficient Market Hypothesis and Emerging Capital Markets: Empirical
Evidence from Istanbul Stock Exchange. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, Issue 13, pp.
131-144.
Barnes, P. (1986). Thin Trading and Stock Market Efficiency: The Case of Kuala Lumpur Stock Exchange. Journal of
Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Winter), pp. 609-617.
Beechey, M., D Gruen, and J Vickery. (2000). The Efficient Market Hypothesis: A Survey. Economic Research
Department, Reserve Bank of Australia.
Bonin, Joseph M. and Edward A. Moses. (1974). Seasonal Variations in Prices of Individual Dow Jones Industrial
Stocks. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, pp 963-991.
Carey, Kenneth J. (1977). Nonrandom Price Changes in Association with Trading in Large Blocks: Evidence of Market
Efficiency in Behaviour of Investor Returns. Journal of Business, Vol. 50, No. 4, pp. 407-414.
Charest, Guy. (1978a). Split Information, Stock Returns and Market Efficiency I. Journal of Financial Economics, Vol.
6, Issue 2-3, pp. 265-296.
Cross, F. (1973). The Behavior of Stock Prices on Friday and Monday. Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp.
67-69.
Dickinson, J. P., and K. Muragu. (1994). Market Efficiency in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Nairobi Stock
Exchange. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Vol. 21, No. 1 (January), pp. 133-150.
Dyckman, Thomas R. and Dale Morse. (1986). Efficient Capital Markets and Accounting: A Critical Analysis.
Prentice-Hall.
Fama, E. F. (1965). The Behavior of Stock Market Prices. Journal of Business, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 34-105.
Fama, E. F., Lawrence Fisher, Jensen, and Roll. (1969). The Adjustment of Stock Price to New Information.
International Economic Review, Vol. 10, No.1, pp. 1-21.
Fama, E. F. (1970). Efficient Capital Markets: a Review of Theory and Empirical Work. The Journal of Finance, Vol.
25, Issue 2, pp 383–417.
Fama, E. F. (1991). Efficient Capital Markets II. The Journal of Finance, Vol. 46, Issue 5, pp. 1575-1617.
Fama, E. F. and K. French. (1992). The Cross-Section of Expected Stock Returns. The Journal of Finance, Vol. 47,
Issue 2, pp. 427–465.
Gibbons, Michael R. and Patrick Hess. (1981). Day of the Week Effects and Asset Returns. Journal of Business, Vol.
54, No. 4, pp. 579-595.
Granger, C. and O. Morgenstein. (1963). Spectral Analysis of New York Stock Prices. Kyklos, Vol. 16, Issue 1, pp.
1-27.
Grier, Paul C. and Peter S. Albin. (1973). Nonrandom Price Changes in Association with Trading in Large Blocks.
Journal of Business, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 425-435.
Grossman, Sanford, J and Robert J. Shiller. (1981). The Determinants of the Variability of Stock Market Prices.
American Economic Review, Vol. 71, No. 2 pp. 222-227.
Hadi. (2006). “Review of Capital Market Efficiency: Some Evidence from Jordanian Market”. International Research
Journal of Finance and Economics, Issue 3, pp. 13-27.

142
International Journal of Business and Management March, 2009

Hess, Alan C. and Peter A. Frost. (1982). Tests for Price Effects of New Issues of Seasoned Securities. The Journal of
Finance, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 11-25.
Jensen, M. (1978). Some anomalous evidence regarding market efficiency. Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 6,
Issues 2-3, pp 95– 101.
Kraus, Alan and Hans R. Stoll. (1972). Price Impacts of Block Trading on the NYSE. The Journal of Finance, Vol. 27,
Issue 3, pp. 569-588.
Lakonishok, J., A Shleifer, and R Vishny. (1994). Contrarian Investment, Extrapolation and Risk. The Journal of
Finance, Vol. 49, Issue 5, pp 1541–1578.
Malkiel, B. (1992). Efficient market hypothesis. New Palgrave Dictionary of Money and Finance, London: Macmillan.
Penman, Stephen H. (1982). Insider Trading and the Dissemination of Firms' Forecast Information. Journal of Business,
Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 479-503.
Poshakwale, Sunil. (1996). Evidence on Weak Form Efficiency and Day of the Week Effect in the Indian Stock Market.
Finance India, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 605-616.
Rayburn, Judy. (1987). The Association of Operating Cash Flow and Accruals with Security Return. Journal of
Accounting Research, Vol. 24, pp. 112-133.
Roberts, Harry V. (1959). Stock-Market Patterns and Financial Analysis: Methodological Suggestions. The Journal of
Finance, Vol. 14, Issue 1, pp. 1-10.
Rosenberg, Barr and Andrew Rudd. (1982). Factor-Related and Specific Returns of Common Stocks: Serial Correlation
and Market Inefficiency. The Journal of Finance, Vol. 37, Issue 2, pp. 543-554.
Scholes, Myron S. (1972). The Market for Securities: Substitution Versus Price Pressure and the Effects of Information
on Share Prices. Journal of Business, Issue 45, No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Schwartz, Robert A. and David K. Whitcomb. (1977). Evidence on the Presence and Causes of Serial Correlation in
Market Model Residuals. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, pp. 291-311.
Schwartz, Robert A. and David K. Whitcomb. (1977). The Time Variance Relationship: Evidence on Autocorrelation in
Common Stock Return. The Journal of Finance, Vol. 32, Issue 1, pp. 41-55.
Stiglitz, JE. (1981). The Allocation Role of the Stock Market: Pareto Optimality and Competition. The Journal of
Finance, Vol. 36, Issue 2, pp. 235–251.
Timmermann, Allan., and Clive.W.J. Granger. (2004). Efficient Market Hypothesis and forecasting. International
Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 20, Issue 1, pp. 15-27.
Wilson, Peter G. (1987). The Incremental Information Content of the Accrual and Funds Components of Earnings After
Controlling for Earnings. Accounting Review, Vol. LXII. No. 2, pp. 293-305.
Zychowicz, E.J., M. Binbasioglu, and N. Kazancioglu. (1995). The Behavior of prices on the Istanbul Stock Exchange.
Journal of International Financial Markets, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 89-101.
Table 1. Values of Z coefficient for sample companies
Name of the company Values of Z coefficient
ACC 0.687
Bajaj Auto 0.277
Bharti Airtel -0.5173
Cipla -0.707
Dr. Reddy’s Lab 0
Grasim -0.533
HDFC -7.74
Hindalco 0
Maruti Suzuki 0.684
Satyam 0.287
Wipro 0.686

143
 Vol. 4, No. 3 International Journal of Business and Management

Table 2. Values of autocorrelation coefficients for sample companies

Col Col Col Col Col Col Col Col Col Col Col Col Col Col Col
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Col 1
1
Col 0.72 1
2
Col 0.68 0.38 1
3
Col 0.60 0.60 0.69 1
4
Col 0.57 0.47 0.58 0.92 1
5
Col 0.92 0.82 0.69 0.71 0.68 1
6
Col 0.39 0.19 0.57 0.19 0.26 0.41 1
7
Col 0.89 0.78 0.69 0.86 0.79 0.91 0.21 1
8
Col 0.66 0.64 0.80 0.96 0.87 0.78 0.28 0.86 1
9
Col 0.69 0.84 0.36 0.49 031 0.75 0.17 0.68 0.52 1
10
Col 0.83 0.85 0.58 0..82 0.82 0.92 0.40 0.91 0.82 0.70 1
11
Col 0.72 0.18 0.38 0.26 0.38 0.58 0.28 054 0.28 0.36 0.49 1
12
Col 0.64 0.77 0.16 0.28 0.36 0.67 0.48 0.55 0.29 0.61 0.75 0.35 1
13
Col 0.77 0.72 0.80 0.88 0.83 0.85 0.49 0.89 0.89 0.57 0.89 0.34 0.58 1
14
Col 0.69 0.33 0.94 0.53 0.49 0.68 0.74 0.61 0.65 0.30 0.55 0.46 0.28 0.75 1
15
Col 0.78 0.37 0.71 0.75 0.81 0.75 0..29 0.82 0.77 0.37 0.74 0.78 0.27 0.71 0.66
16

144