Weak EMH and Canadian stock markets: evidence from linear and nonlinear unit root tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to test the weak form of the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) using monthly data from 2004M08 to 2018M04 for two Canadian stock indices: the Islamic (DJICPI) and the conventional (CCSI). This paper investigates whether Islamic and/or conventional stock market would be efficient through the non-stationarity test of the stock indices. Design/methodology/approach The authors conduct the linearity test of Harveyet al.(2008) to identify whether the considered series has linear or nonlinear behavior. If the time series exhibits nonlinear evolution, then the authors apply nonlinear unit root tests (three KSS type tests and Sollis tests). Findings Linearity test results say that LCCSI has nonlinear behavior, while Dow Jones Islamic Canadian Price Index, LDJICPI, is a linear process. Then, the findings of this paper show that only Canadian Islamic Price Index (DJICPI) has the characteristics of random walk indicating that only conventional stock markets are inefficient. The major implication is that in Canada, fund managers and investors can (cannot) enjoy excess returns to their investment in conventional (Islamic) stock market. Originality/value Numerous empirical studies of the weak EMH are carried out within a linear framework. However, stock indices can show nonlinear behavior as a result of 2008 global financial crisis. To contribute to the existing literature on the Islamic and conventional stock market efficiency, the authors take into account both structural breaks and nonlinearity. Thus, as a testing strategy for weak EMH, the authors perform (Harveyet al., 2008) linearity test to examine the presence of nonlinear behavior and correct for outliers effect when it is needed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".