3. Results
We start with descriptive statistics (see
Table 1).
As can be seen key data characteristics vary for different periods. In particular, the average values of returns tend to be negative in crisis periods and positive in non-crisis periods, which is consistent with existing evidence from other countries and aligns with the overall logic: the stock market grows during economic expansion and declines during economic crises. As for volatility (measured in
Table 1 by the parameter "standard deviation"), there is a general trend of decreasing this indicator, indicating a transition to a more efficient state of market functioning, which, due to a greater number of professional participants, reacts more adequately to various events without excessive price fluctuations. An increase in volatility is observed during times of crises which is a fairly typical reaction of the stock market.
Visual confirmation of these conclusions is provided in
Figure 1, where the dynamics of average values and standard deviations is present.
Absolute differences, even with visual confirmation of their existence, merely suggest potential distinctions among the data across diverse periods, because it may lack statistical significance for drawing about the belonging of the data to different populations.
To obtain evidence in favor of the statistical significance of the identified differences, a series of statistical tests are performed (both parametric and non-parametric to account for possible deviations of data from the normal distribution). The results of the ANOVA analysis (parametric test) and the Kruskal-Wallis tests (non-parametric) are provided in
Table 2.
As indicated, differences are statistically significant, meaning that not all of the analyzed periods belong to the same population. In other words, some periods demonstrated price behavior that was not typical compared to other periods.
However, based on the results from
Table 2, it is not possible to conclude which periods were typical and which were not. To address this question, additional analysis is conducted. Each individual sub-period is explored for differences from the general population (the population, in this case, consisted of all data except for the period being examined). To do this parametric t-tests and ANOVA analysis as well as non-parametric Mann-Whitney tests are used. Results are provided in
Table 3,
Table 4 and
Table 5 respectively.
The results of t-tests show that statistically significant differences are observed only during 2005-2007, and in all other periods the data behaved within the framework of the general population.
The data in
Table 4 confirm the results of the t-tests: the only period that statistically different from the general population was the period from 2005 to 2007.
ANOVA analysis and t-tests are parametric tests, so to avoid potential methodological biases associated with the normality/non-normality of data, a non-parametric Mann-Whitney test is used.
The results of the Mann-Whitney tests confirm the previous findings of parametric tests.
As an additional method to validate the obtained results, a regression analysis with dummy variables is employed. The results are presented in
Table 6.
The results of the regression analysis with dummy variables are in line with those from the statistical tests: the only period that statistically differs from overall data set is the period from 2005 to 2007.
Summarizing the analysis based on statistical tests and regression analysis with dummy variables, it can be concluded that the only case where data properties differ from general population was the period 2005-2007. Regarding the rest of the periods, despite crises or their resolutions, changes in the regulatory and economic landscape, the specificity of price behavior in the Ukrainian stock market remained relatively unchanged. In fact, there is a lack of evidence (except for the period 2005-2007) of qualitative transformations and evolution in the specificity of price fluctuations in the Ukrainian stock market.
A fundamentally different approach to analyzing market efficiency is the analysis of data persistence. The results of the R/S analysis for the whole dataset and sub-periods are presented in
Table 7.
Overall, the Ukrainian stock market is characterized by the presence of persistence (long-term memory), meaning that past prices contain information about the future prices, thus prices on such a market are fundamentally predictable. The visualization of the Hurst exponent dynamics with a trend line is provided in
Figure 2.
As can be seen, there is a certain trend in the dynamics of persistence in the Ukrainian stock market: a decrease in the Hurst exponent values. Essentially, this represents a shift in the specificity of price fluctuations from their fundamental predictability due to the presence of long-term memory to the random nature of price movements, which is typical for an efficient market. Therefore, we have confirmation in favor of certain evolutionary processes in the Ukrainian stock market: it transforms from less efficient state to more efficient one.
However, only there is only one period (from 2020 to 2022) which can be classified as non-persistent.
An important data property is type of data distribution (normal/not normal). The normality of data is one of the indicators of an efficient market. Accordingly, the "non-normality" of data is evidence in favor of market inefficiency. Changes in the behavior of this data property can be used as one of the signs of market evolution.
Preliminary conclusions about data normality can be made based on the analysis of descriptive statistics parameters kurtosis and skewness. Their presence within the range of [-1..1] is an indication of data normality. Going beyond this range raises doubts about the normality of data distribution.
In
Table 8 the values of kurtosis and skewness parameters for each of the analyzed sub-periods are provided.
Skewness across all periods is within the range [-1..1], which is an indication of data normality. However, kurtosis significantly exceeds this range in all cases, which, in turn, is a sign of data non-normality.
To eliminate this uncertainty, there are numerous statistical tests for assessing the conformity of data to a normal distribution. One of the most popular ones is the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Results are presented in
Table 9.
Results from
Table 9 confirm the normal distribution of the data. Normal distribution was typical for all periods, implying that there were no radical changes in the behavior of this data property in the Ukrainian stock market from 1999 to 2022.
One of the main criticisms against the Efficient Market Hypothesis is the presence of anomalies – typical patterns in price behavior that should not exist in an efficient market but have been empirically identified by researchers. Anomalies range from calendar anomalies (month-of-the-year effect, day-of-the-week effect, Halloween effect, holiday effect, etc.) to anomalies related to small firms and price patterns emerging after abnormal price fluctuations, etc.
Therefore, studying price anomalies can provide additional information about the market efficiency. The presence of anomalies evidence in favor of market inefficiency, while the absence supports market efficiency.
Plastun et al. (2019) explored calendar anomalies in the U.S. stock market and showed that anomalies lost their strength with the development of the U.S. stock market and almost completely disappeared at the beginning of the 21st century. Thus, investigating price anomalies over different periods can offer valuable insights into the evolution and current state of the market in terms of efficiency.
Considering the specifics of the data used in this study (daily data over 2–5-year periods), it is impossible to analyze most anomalies due to their requiring a different data periodicity (monthly, for example) or a larger dataset. However, some anomalies can be explored with statistically significant results. One such anomaly is the day-of-the-week effect—one of the most well-known calendar anomalies studied on various markets (stock, currency, commodity, cryptocurrency) in different countries (U.S., Japan, China, etc.) and groups of countries (developed, emerging).
The first step in the analysis for the presence of this anomaly is the visual inspection of average daily returns for specific days of the week (
Figure 3).
As can be seen, the only day when price dynamics was consistently positive (prices increased) was Friday, aligning perfectly with the classical day-of-the-week effect. Regarding another classical feature of the day-of-the-week effect—price declines on Mondays—this effect was vividly observed only in the first and last of the analyzed periods (1995-1999 and 2020-2022, respectively). For the rest of the days, the data were mixed. In certain periods, the dynamics on specific days appeared anomalously strong compared to other days. For instance, the price decline on Tuesdays during the 2008-2009 period, in absolute terms, was several times greater than the average dynamics on any other day of the week.
Based on visual analysis it can’t be concluded whether the observed differences are statistically significant. Therefore, the next stage of the analysis involves the use of statistical tests to answer the question of whether the differences are statistically significant. For these purposes both parametric and non-parametric tests are employed.
The results of the t-test are presented in
Table 10.
t-test results evidence in favor of the absence of statistically significant differences in the price dynamics on different days of the week. All days belong to the same population, indicating that the day-of-the-week effect in the Ukrainian stock market is not confirmed for any of the analyzed periods.
The next parametric test used for additional verification is the ANOVA analysis. The results are presented in
Table 11.
The results of the ANOVA analysis are in line with those obtained from the t-tests, confirming that no statistically significant differences are detected and providing no evidence of the existence of a day-of-the-week effect in the Ukrainian stock market.
Next step is the use of non-parametrical Kruskal-Wallis Tests (
Table 12).
The results of the Kruskal-Wallis tests in general confirmed the conclusions of parametric tests with one exception: during the period 2020-2022, statistically significant differences were observed between different days of the week. However, this conclusion does not specify which days of the week differ from the others.
To clarify this point additional research for this period is provided. Visual analysis (see
Figure 4) indicates that Monday is characterized by an anomalously strong price movement compared to other periods, namely a decline in prices.
As can be seen, returns on Monday were much lower compared with the other days of the week. To see whether this difference is statistically significant parametric ANOVA analysis and non-parametric Mann-Whitney tests are applied. The results of the ANOVA analysis are presented in
Table 13.
The results of
Table 13 confirm the conclusions of the ANOVA analysis for all days provided in
Table 11 – there are no statistically significant differences between individual days of the week.
As for the non-parametric Mann-Whitney tests, they are presented in
Table 14.
Non-parametric tests, unlike parametric ones, indicate that returns on Mondays and Wednesdays differ from the typical price behavior throughout the week. Therefore, there is evidence supporting a day-of-the-week effect during the period 2020-2022, characterized by a presence of negative returns in prices on Mondays and a tendency for the market to demonstrate positive dynamics on Wednesdays.
Considering that throughout all other periods, starting from 1995-1999, anomalies were entirely absent, it can be argued that there is a certain degradation of the Ukrainian stock market from the point of its efficiency.
In general, the analysis of anomalies has shown that the stock market in Ukraine was quite immune to the day-of-the-week effect. There are no specific trends in their development depending on the period. Thus, the hypothesis that the evolution of the stock market led to an increase in its efficiency in terms of the presence of fewer anomalies has not been confirmed.