In 2000, ATI's chairman (and his wife) donated ATI shares they both owned to charity. The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) later sued the chairman and his wife of avoiding $7 million in losses and maximizing charitable tax benefits by donating the shares ahead of a May 2000 profit warning. The OSC is basing this lawsuit on the assumption that:

Question options:

	a. the efficient market hypothesis does not hold at all, given the ATI shares had not yet fallen price in advance of the profit warning.
	b. the strong form of the efficient market hypothesis does not hold as a non-insider such as the OSC would not have know about the upcoming ATI profit warning.
	c. the strong form of the efficient market hypothesis does not hold as the chairman deliberately donated the shares before the profit warning, and obtained a charitable tax benefit based on the ATI stock price before the profit warning was released.
	d. the strong form of the efficient market hypothesis does hold as the chairman deliberately donated the shares before the profit warning, and obtained a charitable tax benefit based on the ATI stock price before the profit warning was released.
	e. the strong form of the efficient market hypothesis does hold as the chairman donated the shares before but unaware of the upcoming profit warning, and obtained a charitable tax benefit based on the ATI stock price before the profit warning was released.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Q1 c the strong form of the efficient market hypothesis does not hold as the chairman deliberately donated the shares before the profit warning and ob... View the full answer