ARBITRAGE PRICING MODEL IN RELATION TO EFFICIENT MARKET HYPOTHESES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this thesis is to distinguish between efficient and inefficient markets and check the validity and efficiency of Arbitrage Pricing Theory in these markets (United States and Hong Kong).
 In order to distinguish between efficient and inefficient markets, Durbin Watson Autocorrelation tests were applied on 12 stock exchanges name EUROPE, HONG KONG, INDIA, TAIWAN, AMSTERDAM, MALAYSIA, UNITED STATES, CANADA, TOKYO, AUSTRALIA, AUSTRIA, and SWITZERLAND. Furthermore, the efficiency was further checked through comparison of the market and locally listed mutual funds. After the selection of Hong Kong and United States Stock Exchanges, 10 macroeconomic variables (Inflation, Short Term Interest Rate, Long Term Interest Rate, Exchange Rate, Money Supply, Gold Prices, Oil Prices, Industrial Production Index, Market Return and Unemployment Rate were tested upon so that the APT model could be constructed. Tests like Normality and Multi-co-linearity were performed. Principle Component Analysis was used to reduce the number of variables. After all the above mentioned tests 4 variables were chosen to represent the APT in both the Hong Kong and United States Stock Exchanges. Lastly OLS Regression was applied to study the effect of these macroeconomic variables on the stock prices.
 The results showed that Hong Kong Stock Exchange was the most efficient while United States Stock Exchange fell in the inefficient category. The efficiency of APT was proven through the analysis of the value of R2. This value proved that when similar model of APT is applied in two different stock exchanges, the results would be more efficient in an efficient market like Hong Kong.
 This is the first attempt at constructing an APT Model based on the economic conditions in one country and applying the same model in a highly efficient market; in order to relate the performance of APT with market efficiency.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".