In the context of market efficiency, ...[Fill in the blank]

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Insider trading profits contradict the strong-form efficiency claim because the strong form asserts that prices reflect all information, public and private.

1. Relevant knowledge points and concepts
- Weak-form efficiency: asset prices fully reflect all past market data (historical prices/volumes); technical trading should not earn abnormal profits.
- Semi-strong-form efficiency: prices fully reflect all publicly available information (financial reports, news); only private information could yield abnormal profits.
- Strong-form efficiency: prices reflect all information, public and private (including insiders’ information); no one, not even insiders, can earn consistent abnormal returns.

2. Complete reasoning process (step by step)
- Start with the definition of strong-form efficiency: if true, even insiders cannot systematically earn positive abnormal returns from private information because that information is already incorporated into prices.
- Observation: insiders generate positive profit from trading on private information.
- Logical implication: since insiders can and do earn abnormal returns, prices do not fully reflect private information.
- Therefore the market cannot be strong-form efficient.

3. Calculations / intermediate steps
- No numerical calculations are required. The proof is logical: strong-form efficiency ⇒ no insider profits. Observed insider profits ⇒ contradiction to strong-form efficiency.

4. Why the correct answer is correct
- Option d states that positive profit from insiders’ trading activities suggests the market is inefficient in the strong form. This directly follows from the definition of strong-form efficiency: insiders should not be able to earn abnormal returns if the market were strong-form efficient. Their ability to do so indicates private information is not incorporated into prices.

5. Why the other options are incorrect
- Option a: Profits from size and momentum strategies indicate market inefficiency in the weak form (past price patterns or cross-sectional regularities), not evidence of weak-form efficiency. So the statement claiming those profits suggest efficiency is incorrect.
- Option b: “None of the options” is wrong because option d is a valid implication.
- Option c: A gradual price increase after a positive earnings surprise signals a delayed reaction to public information, which contradicts semi-strong efficiency (prices should adjust rapidly to public news). So c is incorrect.

6. Conclusion
- The correct choice is d. This matches the provided answer: "the positive profit from insiders’ trading activities suggests that the market is inefficient in the strong form."

In the context of market efficiency, ...[Fill in the blank]单项选择题

类似问题

Grossman-Stiglitz paradox implies that...[Fill in the blank]

In the context of market efficiency, the market is...[Fill in the blank]

In the context of market efficiency, the market is...[Fill in the blank]

According to the semi-strong form of Efficient-market hypothesis, which of the following statements is correct?[Fill in the blank]

In a semi-strong form efficient market, investors can consistently earn abnormal returns by trading on publicly available information such as earnings announcements and annual reports.[Fill in the blank]

Which of the following contradicts the proposition that the stock market is weakly efficient?[Fill in the blank]

Assume that a company announces unexpectedly high earnings in a particular quarter. In an efficient market one might expect __________.[Fill in the blank]

The semistrong-form of the EMH states that __________ must be reflected in the current stock price.[Fill in the blank]

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单