Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Efficient Markets and the Law: A Predictable Past and an Uncertain Future

Contents:

Author Info

  • Henry T.C. Hu

    ()
    (School of Law, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78705)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    This article analyzes the manifold situations in which the efficient-market hypothesis (EMH) has influenced—or has failed to influence—federal securities regulation and state corporate law, and the prospective roles for the EMH in these contexts. In federal securities regulation, the EMH has offered a theoretical construct to accompany the general belief in the value of accurate and complete information that has animated the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) since its creation. Specific applications of the EMH have been straightforward and predictable: For instance, its tenets as to market processing of public information helped motivate the streamlining of procedural requirements as to corporate disclosures and, more controversially, as to private securities class action lawsuits. In state corporate law, the EMH has influenced developments as to takeovers and the corporate objective. In contrast, the EMH and related learning have failed to sufficiently inform governmental actions to address financial illiteracy. Belief in the EMH and the value of efficient markets has weakened in the face of recent market anomalies and stress. The May 2010 flash crash is not easily reconciled with the EMH, and related phenomena such as high frequency trading involve an equity market microstructure far different from the microstructure at the time the EMH emerged. Actions motivated by the global financial crisis (GFC), such as the SEC short-selling ban in September 2008, arguably suggest a greater willingness to subordinate market efficiency in favor of other governmental goals. A range of important EMH-related issues loom beyond those associated with financial illiteracy, the equity market microstructure, and governmental goals. Foremost are those relating to the informational predicate on which market efficiency rests. One key aspect of the informational predicate relates to the disclosure challenges associated with financial innovations (such as asset-backed securities) and business entities heavily involved in financial innovation activities (such as certain money center banks). The “intermediary depiction model” that the SEC has always used is inadequate in financial innovation–related contexts. Another key aspect relates to the massive amounts of information that the Dodd-Frank Act requires to be provided to governmental bodies.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-financial-110311-101733
    Download Restriction: Full text downloads are only available to subscribers. Visit the abstract page for more information.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Annual Reviews in its journal Annual Review of Financial Economics.

    Volume (Year): 4 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 1 (October)
    Pages: 179-214

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:anr:refeco:v:4:y:2012:p:179-214

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: Annual Reviews 4139 El Camino Way Palo Alto, CA 94306, USA
    Web page: http://www.annualreviews.org

    Order Information:
    Web: http://www.annualreviews.org/action/ecommerce

    Related research

    Keywords: bank regulation; corporate governance; derivatives; disclosure; efficient market hypothesis; equity premium; ETFs; financial innovation; financial literacy; flash crash; global financial crisis; high frequency trading; informational asymmetry; equity market structure; retirement; Securities and Exchange Commission; securitization; short selling; systemic risk;

    Find related papers by JEL classification:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:anr:refeco:v:4:y:2012:p:179-214. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (http://www.annualreviews.org).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.