Indexed metadata

Efficient or Fractal Market Hypothesis? A Stock Indexes Modelling Using Geometric Brownian Motion and Geometric Fractional Brownian Motion

Vasile Brătian, Ana-Maria Acu, Camelia Oprean-Stan, Emil Dinga, Gabriela-Mariana Ionescu

Source record

Source: Crossref

Published: Nov 22, 2021

DOI: 10.3390/math9222983

Open original source ↗

Source abstract

In this article, we propose a test of the dynamics of stock market indexes typical of the US and EU capital markets in order to determine which of the two fundamental hypotheses, efficient market hypothesis (EMH) or fractal market hypothesis (FMH), best describes market behavior. The article’s major goal is to show how to appropriately model return distributions for financial market indexes, specifically which geometric Brownian motion (GBM) and geometric fractional Brownian motion (GFBM) dynamic equations best define the evolution of the S&P 500 and Stoxx Europe 600 stock indexes. Daily stock index data were acquired from the Thomson Reuters Eikon database during a ten-year period, from January 2011 to December 2020. The main contribution of this work is determining whether these markets are efficient (as defined by the EMH), in which case the appropriate stock indexes dynamic equation is the GBM, or fractal (as described by the FMH), in which case the appropriate stock indexes dynamic equation is the GFBM. In this paper, we consider two methods for calculating the Hurst exponent: the rescaled range method (RS) and the periodogram method (PE). To determine which of the dynamics (GBM, GFBM) is more appropriate, we employed the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) method. The simulation results demonstrate that the GFBM is better suited for forecasting stock market indexes than the GBM when the analyzed markets display fractality. However, while these findings cannot be generalized, they are verisimilar.

Evidence graph

No public relationships recorded yet.

Integrity note: This page is a factual metadata record created by deterministic ingestion. It is not a claim that the work moves a mathematical frontier or has been independently verified.