¶ … Hilsenrath, suggests that there are several inferences, which can be drawn from the growing view that poorly informed investors can make markets less efficient than suggested by the "free market" theories of the 1980s. According to the author, the first major implication is that behaviorist theories were now gaining wider acceptance in mainstream economics. Second, the fact that investors can be irrational implies that governments may have to re-evaluate issues such as market regulation and Social Security privatization. Third, if markets are sometimes inefficient, corporations would now have to rethink the way they judge management performance and compensation so that executives become less focused on stock price movements. Fourth, the fact that irrational investor behavior can lead markets astray does not, however, mean that the global emphasis on free markets and open economies will be reversed. For, all it really signifies is that the efficient market theory does not hold valid in its purest form. Thus, in the final analysis, the author implies that the recent swing towards behaviorist views merely means that efficient market theorists are now seriously thinking about some of the issues raised by behaviorists.
The recent admission that markets can be less than efficient, in my view, bodes well for the future. For it is likely to lead to more realistic measures of corporate performance, as well as economic theories and management, which may succeed in preventing markets from either overheating or crashing. Ironically, by recognizing that human behavior is often driven by bounded rationality, willpower, and self-interest, economists may now be able to develop models that, in fact, result in markets that are more efficient. In effect, I believe that the answer to current issues lies in efficient market and behavioral economists being able to find a meeting ground especially since both now concede that investors can be irrational, and that the market is not easy to beat!
Works Cited
Hilsenrath, J. "As Two Economists Debate Markets, The Tide Shifts." The Wall Street
Journal. New York: October 18, 2004, p. A1.
