Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T00:32:43.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taxation, regulation and the information efficiency of the Berlin stock exchange, 1892–1913

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2008

SERGEY GELMAN  and
CARSTEN BURHOP
SERGEY GELMAN
Affiliation:
International College of Economics and Finance, State University – Higher School of Economics, Pokrovskij bulvar, 11, 109028 Moscow, Russia, sgelman@hse.ru
CARSTEN BURHOP
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods, Kurt-Schumacher-Str. 10, 53113, Bonn, Germany, burhop@coll.mpg.de
Get access

Abstract

In this article, we investigate the information efficiency of the Berlin stock exchange using returns of a new daily stock-market index for the years 1892–1913. We focus on the impact of the 1896 stock exchange law and of the increases of the stock-market turnover tax in 1894 and 1900 on information efficiency. We fit an ARMA(0,1)-GARCH(1,1) model to the data and search for structural breaks. This approach yields no convincing evidence that the tax increases had a negative influence on weak information efficiency. In addition, the restriction of derivative trading by the 1896 stock exchange law did not result in measurable changes in the autocorrelation of daily returns.

Type
Research Article
Information
European Review of Economic History , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , April 2008 , pp. 39 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahn, D.-H., Boudoukh, J., Richardson, M. and Whitelaw, R. F. (2002). Partial adjustment or stale prices? Implications from stock index and futures returns autocorrelations. Review of Financial Studies 15, pp. 665–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, D. W. K. (1993). Tests for parameter instability and structural change with unknown change point. Econometrica 61, pp. 821–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, D. W. K. and Fair, R. C. (1988). Inference in nonlinear econometric models with structural change. Review of Economic Studies 55, pp. 615–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bai, J. (1997). Estimation of a change point in multiple regression models. Review of Economics and Statistics 79, pp. 551–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bai, J. and Perron, P. (2003). Critical values for multiple structural tests. Econometrics Journal 6, pp. 72–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltzer, M. (2006). Cross-listed stocks as an information vehicle of speculation: evidence from European cross-listings in the early 1870s. European Review of Economic History 10, pp. 301–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battini, N. and Nelson, E. (2001). The lag from monetary policy actions to inflation: Friedman revisited. International Finance 3, pp. 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belter, K., Engsted, T. and Tanggaard, C. (2005). A new daily dividend-adjusted index for the Danish stock market, 1985–2002: construction, statistical properties, and return predictability. Research in International Business and Finance 19, pp. 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berglund, T. and Liljeblom, E. (1988). Market serial correlation on a small security market: a note. Journal of Finance 42, pp. 111–18.Google Scholar
Bollerslev, T. (1987). A conditionally heteroskedastic time series model for speculative prices and rates of return. Review of Economics and Statistics 69, pp. 542–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudoukh, J., Richardson, M. and Whitelaw, R. (1994). A tale of three schools: insights on autocorrelations of short-horizon stock returns. Review of Financial Studies 7, pp. 539–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, M., Jegadesh, N. and Swaminathan, B. (1993). Investment analysis and the adjustment of stock prices to common information. Review of Financial Studies 6, pp. 799–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. Y., Lo, A. W. and MacKinley, A. C. (1997). The Econometrics of Financial Markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, L. and Neal, L. (1998). Micro rules and macro outcomes: the impact of micro structure on the efficiency of security exchanges, London, New York, and Paris 1800–1914. American Economic Review 88, pp. 40–5.Google Scholar
Dimson, E. and Marsh, P. (2001). UK financial market returns, 1955–2000. Journal of Business 74, pp. 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donner, O. (1934). Die Kursbildung am Aktienmarkt. Berlin: Hanseatische Verlagsanstalt Hamburg.Google Scholar
Enders, W. (1995). Applied Econometric Time Series. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Engsted, T. and Tanggaard, C. (2004). The comovement of US and UK stock markets. European Financial Management 10, pp. 593–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eube, S. (1998). Der Aktienmarkt in Deutschland vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg – Eine Indexanalyse. Frankfurt am Main: Fritz Knapp Verlag.Google Scholar
Fama, E. (1970). Efficient capital markets: a review of theory and empirical work. Journal of Finance 25, pp. 383–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiteni, I. (2002). Robust estimation of structural break points. Econometric Theory 18, pp. 349–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiteni, I. (2004). τ-estimators of regression models with structural change of unknown location. Journal of Econometrics 119, pp. 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fohlin, C. (2002). Regulation, taxation, and the development of the German universal banking system, 1884–1913. European Review of Economic History 6, pp. 221–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fohlin, C. (2007). Finance Capitalism and Germany's Rise to Industrial Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehrig, T. and Fohlin, C. (2006). Trading costs in early securities markets: the case of the Berlin stock exchange 1880–1910. Review of Finance 10, pp. 587–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerlach, W. (1905). Die deutsche Börsensteuergesetzgebung. Tübingen: Buchdruckerei von H. Laupp jr.Google Scholar
Granger, C. and Ding, Z. (1996). Varieties of long memory models. Journal of Econometrics 73, pp. 61–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, R. S. (1999). Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic: English banking concentration and efficiency, 1870–1914. European Review of Economic History 3, pp. 323–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, R. S. (2002). New indices of British equity prices, 1870–1913. Journal of Economic History 62, pp. 121–46.Google Scholar
Grossman, S. and Stiglitz, J. (1980). On the impossibility of informationally efficient markets. American Economic Review 70, pp. 393–408.Google Scholar
Gu, A. Y. and Finnerty, J. (2002). The evolution of market efficiency: 103 years daily data of the Dow. Review of Quantative Finance and Accounting 18, pp. 219–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, J. D. (2000). Time Series Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, J. D. and Herrera, A. M. (2004). Oil shocks and aggregate macroeconomic behavior: the role of monetary policy. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 36, pp. 265–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawawini, G. (1980). Intertemporal cross dependence in securities daily returns and the short-term intervailing effect on systematic risk. Journal of Financial and Quantative Analysis 15, pp. 139–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hecht, F. (1903). Die Katastrophe der Leipziger Bank. In Verein für Socialpolitik, (eds.), Die Störungen im deutschen Wirtschaftsleben während der Jahre 1900, vol. 6: – Geldmarkt. Kreditbanken. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Hong, H., Lim, T. and Stein, J. C. (2000). Bad news travels slowly: size, analyst coverage, and the profitability of momentum strategies. Journal of Finance 55, pp. 265–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, H. and Stein, J. C. (1999). A unified theory of underreaction, momentum trading, and overreaction in asset market. Journal of Finance 54, pp. 2143–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, H. and Stein, J. C. (2007). Disagreement and the stock market. Journal of Economic Perspectives 21, pp. 109–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, H., Torous, W. and Valkanov, R. (2007). Do industries lead stock markets? Journal of Financial Economics 83, pp. 367–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, M., Sentana, E. and Wadhwani, S. (1994). Volatility and links between national stock markets. Econometrica 62, pp. 901–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knipper, C. (1902). Der Berliner Effektenhandel unter dem Einflusse des Reichs-Börsengesetzes vom 22. Juni 1896. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
Koutmos, G. (1997). Feedback trading and the autocorrelation pattern of stock returns: further empirical evidence. Journal of International Money and Finance 16, pp. 625–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lo, A. and MacKinlay, C. (1988). Stock market prices do not follow random walk: evidence from simple specification test. Review of Financial Studies 1, pp. 41–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lo, A. and MacKinlay, C. (1990). When are contrarian profits due to stock market overreaction? Review of Financial Studies 3, pp. 175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longin, F. and Solnik, B. (1995). Is the correlation in equity returns constant: 1960–1990? Journal of International Money and Finance 14, pp. 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mech, T. (1993). Portfolio return autocorrelation. Journal of Financial Economics 34, pp. 307–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, J. C. (1992). Die Entstehung des Börsengesetzes vom 22. Juni 1896. St Katharinen: Scripta Mercaturae Verlag.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. (1902). Die deutschen Börsensteuern 1881–1900: Ihre Geschichte und ihr Einfluss auf das Bankgeschäft. Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta'sche Buchhandlung Nachfolger.Google Scholar
Michie, R. C. (1986). The London and New York stock exchanges, 1850–1914. Journal of Economic History 46, pp. 171–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, L. and Davis, L. (2005). The evolution of the rules and regulations of the first emerging markets: the London, New York, and Paris stock exchanges, 1792–1914. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 45, pp. 296–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ogden, J. (1997). Empirical analyses of three explanations for the positive autocorrelation of short-horizon stock index returns. Review of Quantative Finance and Accounting 9, pp. 203–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohtani, K. and Kobayashi, M. (1986). A bounds test for equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regression models under heteroskedasticity. Econometric Theory 2, pp. 220–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perron, P. and Qu, Z. (2006). Estimating restricted structural change models. Journal of Econometrics 134, pp. 373–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pöhler, H. (1930). Die Börsenumsatzsteuer – Eine finanzwissenschaftliche Studie. Münster: Verlag August Baader.Google Scholar
Riesser, J. (1912). Die deutschen Großbanken und ihre Konzentration. 4th edn. Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fischer.Google Scholar
Ronge, U. (2002). Die langfristige Rendite deutscher Standardaktien. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Säfvenblad, P. (1997). Learning the true index level: index return autocorrelation in an REE auction market. Stockholm School of Economics: Working Paper 190.Google Scholar
Säfvenblad, P. (2000). Trading volume and autocorrelation: empirical evidence from the Stockholm Stock Exchange. Journal of Banking and Finance 24, 1275–1287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sentana, E. and Wadhwani, S. B. (1992). Feedback traders and stock return autocorrelations: evidence from a century of daily data. Economic Journal 102, pp. 415–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shleifer, A. and Vishny, R. (1997). The limits of arbitrage. Journal of Finance 52, pp. 35–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snowden, K. A. (1987). American stock market development and performance, 1871–1929. Explorations in Economic History 24, 327–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snowden, K. A. (1990). Historical returns and security market development, 1872–1925. Explorations in Economic History 27, pp. 381–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stillich, O. (1909). Die Börse und ihre Geschäfte. Berlin: Verlag von Karl Curtius.Google Scholar
Vogelvang, B. (2005). Econometrics. London: Pearson.Google Scholar
Weigt, A. (2005). Der deutsche Kapitalmarkt vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg – Gründerboom, Gründerkrise und Effizienz des deutschen Aktienmarktes bis 1914. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Verlag.Google Scholar
Wetzel, C. (1996). Die Auswirkungen des Reichsbörsengesetzes von 1896 auf die Effektenbörsen im Deutschen Reich, insbesondere auf die Berliner Fondsbörse. Münster: LIT Verlag.Google Scholar