Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
GROUP
UTS BUSINESS SCHOOL
Dirk G Baur
Isaac Miyakawa
ISSN: 1837-1221
http://www.business.uts.edu.au/finance/
The Stock Market, the Real Economy and
Contagion
Dirk G. Baur
&
Isaac Miyakawa
UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney
Abstract
In this paper we analyze the link between stock market performance and macroe-
conomic performance for a large number of countries. We study the short-run and
long-run relationships and find that stock market returns do not coherently predict
future macroeconomic changes for the majority of countries, i.e. the estimates vary
considerably both across prediction horizons and across countries. Moreover, we test
whether the financial and real economy dynamic linkages increased in the financial
crisis in 2008 implying macro-financial contagion. The crisis-specific analysis of
macro-financial linkages broadens the perspective of existing studies of financial con-
tagion. Our findings indicate that the stock market does not merely reflect future
economic conditions but also influences them justifying policy responses as witnessed
during the 2008 financial and economic crisis.
JEL classification: C22; C32; E44; G01; G14; G15; G18
Keywords: global stock markets; real economic activity; predictive regressions; con-
tagion; financial crises; co-integration
corresponding author, address: PO Box 123, Broadway, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia Email:
dirk.baur@uts.edu.au
1
Money values do not simply mirror the state of affairs in the real world;
valuation is a positive act that makes an impact on the course of events. Mon-
etary and real phenomena are connected in a reflexive fashion; that is, they
George Soros
The above quote states that the stock market is not a sideshow that merely reflects the
state of the real economy but instead that it affects the real economy through valuation.
The valuation provided by the stock market feeds back into the real economy and creates
a reflexive relationship.
This relationship also highlights the importance of the efficiency of the stock market. If
the stock market is not efficient and if prices regularly deviate from their true values
including bubble episodes, the signals do not enhance the allocation of resources and a
Theoretically, equity prices should be related to future economic activity because a firms
projected earnings growth depends on the future state of the economy (e.g. see Fama,
1990, Hamilton and Lin, 1996 and Schwert, 1990 and for more recent studies MSCI Barra,
2010 and Cornell, 2010). In other words, a firms stock price is based on the discounted
sum of all future cash flows which depend on the state of the real economy. If there is
empirical evidence that equity valuations are related to future economic activity, the stock
market (if efficient) can be used as a signal and predictor of future economic conditions.
The relationship between economic growth and stock market growth is particularly vital
for countries in which future pensions are tied to the performance of the stock market.
Australia and its pension scheme superannuation is one example of such a country. The
strength of the relationship thus determines to which degree households are exposed to
2
If the stock market indeed signals future economic activity it will also influence it. For
example, if policy makers react to expected economic changes, e.g. a downturn, with
measures that counter the prediction the stock market does not only signal and predict
future economic performance but does also indirectly influence it. In this case, policy
makers influence the predicted value. Similarly, if households use the stock market as a
predictor of their future labor income, they might increase consumption levels in times of
rising stock prices thereby affecting the real economy and via a feedback effect the stock
market.2 Finally, if firms use high stock price valuations to issue more stock and use the
proceeds for investment the stock market will influence the real economy and not merely
Hence, if the stock market does not only provide a signal and predict future economic
activity but if the signal also influences this future economic activity through the behavior
of firms, investors and consumers then the signal can enhance a boom phase and similarly
from the stock market to the real economy. In contrast, policy makers can counteract
lowering interest rates or taxes in recession periods. They can thus use the signals from the
stock market to reduce the fluctuations of the real economy creating a negative feedback
effect.4
2
The signal quality of the stock market may appear to be more accurate than it actually is due to the
influence of the prediction on the predicted variables.
3
Morck, Shleifer and Vishny (1990) identify four theories and hypotheses that explain the correlation
between stock markets and subsequent investments. The hypotheses are The Passive Information Hy-
pothesis which defines the stock market as a sideshow with no impact on the real economic activity,
The Active Information Hypothesis which gives the stock market an active role in providing signals for
the real economy, The Financing Hypothesis which assumes the stock market provides equity capital to
firms and The Stock Market Pressure Hypothesis which assumes that managers (are forced to) react to
changes of the stock market value of their firms.
4
Predictions generally influence the behaviour of human beings. For example, if the weather forecast for
the next day predicts warm weather and sunny conditions, people will be influenced by this prediction and
make plans aligned to the weather conditions. Whilst the weather forecast influences human behaviour,
human behaviour does not immediately influence the weather conditions. This is a fundamental difference
to the stock market and real economy relationship. The weather is exogenous to the forecast while the real
economy is not exogenous to the stock market forecast (e.g. see Giroud et al. (2012) for an empirical study
of ski resorts using snow as an exogenous weather instrument). If the stock market predicts positive (macro-
)economic conditions in the future, people will not only be influenced by this prediction and potentially
3
The feedback effects are well captured by reflexivity as described by Soros (1988). To
identify feedback effects we focus on a period of financial turmoil and crisis and test
whether the relationship between the stock market and the real economy has intensified
during that period. This additional analysis can provide a justification for monetary and
fiscal policy changes as a response to stock market crashes or financial crises in general.
For example, many governments introduced special fiscal stimulus packages as a response
to the financial crisis in 2008 and major central banks significantly reduced the policy
interest rates to counteract the effects of the crisis. This response of policy makers to
significant changes in the stock markets is only justified if the stock market reflects real
We aim to contribute to the literature in two major respects. First, we analyze the short-
run and long-run dynamic (lead-lag) relationships between real economy performance and
stock market performance for a large sample of countries and secondly, we study macro-
financial contagion, i.e. the increasing correlation between the stock market (financial)
period relative to a tranquil pre-crisis period. The crisis-specific analysis extends exist-
ing studies on contagion in equity markets to a study of contagion with a broader, i.e.
macroeconomic focus.5 We believe, to the best of our knowledge, that we are the first to
We find that stock market changes reflect and predict future economic conditions measured
by Industrial Production (IP) and GDP. However, the prediction is incoherent, i.e. the
quality of the signal varies both across prediction horizons and countries. A co-integration
buy or invest more, they will also influence the predicted value.
5
The contagion literature is often based on an analysis of changes in the co-movement of stock market
indices in a crisis period relative to a tranquil pre-crisis period (e.g. see Baig and Goldfajn, 1999 and
Forbes and Rigobon, 2002). If the co-movement increases in the crisis period there is evidence of contagion.
Hence, in the context of this paper, if the co-movement between the stock market and the real economy
increases in a crisis triggered by the financial sector there is evidence for contagion of the real economy
well extending the usual and narrower analysis of stock or bond market contagion.
6
In a series of articles, Mian and Sufi (2009, 2010 and 2011) analyze macro-finance linkages with a focus
on the 2007-2008 US mortgage default crisis. In contrast to this study, they focus on the US and do not
analyze changes in macroeconomic aggregates and the equity market within a contagion framework.
4
analysis based on levels further reveals that there is no compelling evidence for a long-run
(equilibrium) relationship between the stock market and Industrial Production or GDP
for most countries. One major contribution to this finding is the excess volatility of stock
valuations compared to IP and GDP levels. Finally, we focus on the financial crisis in
2008 and demonstrate that the correlation between the stock market and real economic
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section I describes the econometric
framework to analyze the lead-lag, short-run and long-run relationships between the stock
market and the real economy. Section II contains the empirical analysis with a description
of the data and the presentation and discussion of the estimation results. Finally, section
I. Econometric Framework
This section first describes the theoretical basis for the econometric analysis and then
The value V of a firm is the sum of all expected future cash flows CF discounted with
the rate i:
X
K
E(CFt+k )
Vt = (1)
(1 + i)k
k=1
On the aggregate level using the assumption that future cash flows CF are related to the
future state of the economy X , the stock market value of all firms S is given by
X
K
St = k Xt+k (2)
k=1
The above model could be estimated within a regression framework but would not provide
the predictive power of the stock market in forecasting future states of the real economy.
5
In contrast, the following regression model assesses the predictive power of S for different
k with k > 0:
Xt+k = k St (3)
Note that Equations 1 and 2 imply a contemporaneous correlation equal to zero (0 = 0).
Only if there is a contemporaneous spillover from either the stock market to the real
economy or a feedback effect from the real economy to the stock market, a non-zero
contemporaneous correlation can originate. We will use this implication of the model to
Since both X and S are usually trending, non-stationary time-series the econometric
framework must account for this characteristic. Hence, section A focusses on the short-run
dynamics based on changes of the variables and Section B models the long-run dynamics
based on the levels. Finally, Section C presents a framework to analyze changes in the
A. Short-run Relationship
We analyze the relationship implied by Equation 3 with the following regression model
Xt+k = k + k St + et (4)
for k = 0, 1, 2, ...K where St denotes relative changes in the stock market at t and X
6
X
K X
K
St = a1 + b1,k Stk + c1,k Xtk + et (5)
k=1 k=1
X
K X
K
Xt = a2 + b2,k Stk + c2,k Xtk + et (6)
k=1 k=1
The model is estimated to analyze to what extent the inclusion of all lags of either S or X
The theory in Equation 1 and the derived Equations 2 and 3 predict that the coefficient
estimates b2,k are statistically significant and positive. Moreover, if there is lagged feedback
from X to S then we expect at least one of the coefficient estimates c1,k to be statistically
significant and positive. For example, if St2 predicts and influences Xt1 , this can result
B. Long-run Relationship
It can be assumed that stock market indices, IP and GDP levels are trending, non-
stationary and integrated time-series.9 Hence, instead of transforming the data to obtain
stationary series we can explicitly model the long-run relationship via co-integration. We
follow the approach of Engle and Granger (1987), i.e. establish that the time-series are
integrated of the same order and estimate the model124(4), pp. 1449-96.
St = Xt + et (7)
where St and Xt denote the level of the stock market index and IP or GDP of a specific
country at time t, respectively. If St and Xt are integrated of the same order and the error
7
vector [1, ].
One of the advantages of this methodology is that we can explicitly distinguish between
a long-run relationship between S and X and short-run dynamics, that is, deviations of
S and X from their long-run relationship. This advantage is particularly useful for the
crisis-specific analysis since statistically significant deviations over T periods (e.g. months)
We also estimate the vector error correction model (VECM) applying the Johansen
methodology (Johansen, 1995). The VECM avoids misspecification of the data generating
process if there are any lead-lag short-run dynamics such as those suggested by Equation
1. For those countries for which a cointegrating relationship is established through the
trace and maximum eigenvalue test statistics, the following VECM is estimated:
X
K X
K
[St , Xt ]0 = a + (St1 Xt1 ) + bi Sti + ci Xti + et (8)
i=1 i=1
where is the cointegrating matrix and a, bi and ci are vectors of coefficients. The lag
Our attention will focus on and whether deviations from the equilibrium have both an
errors (St1 Xt1 ) display a significant relationship with Xt there is a feedback effect
rejecting the sideshow hypothesis of the stock market. Similarly, if the stock market
accurately predicts the future state of the real economy but also influences it due to the
reactions of households and firms, a feedback effect from the real economy to the stock
this test does not provide a way to determine whether the stock market causes changes
in both equations of the VECM support the feedback hypothesis and reflexivity.
8
C. Crisis-specific Relationships - Contagion
There are many studies that analyze crisis-specific changes in linkages (correlations) among
stock markets, bond markets or between stocks and bonds (e.g. Baig and Goldfajn, 1999,
Bekaert, Harvey and Ng, 2005, Boyer, Kumagai and Yuan, 2006, Dungey and Martin, 2007
and Forbes and Rigobon, 2002). However, to the best of our knowledge there is no study
on crisis-specific changes of the link between stock markets and macroeconomic variables
representing real economic activity. The justification for such an analysis is similar to
the more established and narrower definitions which focus on the financial sector. If the
contemporaneous link between the stock market and the real economy becomes stronger
at times when there is a financial or economic crisis, investors who participate in the real
economy and the stock market are more severely affected than in a situation in which the
stock market and the real economy do not co-move contemporaneously. If the stock market
predicts future economic conditions but does not affect current economic conditions, a
stock market crisis or crash can be compensated with the income or profits generated
severe losses in the stock market and in lower profits or income (even unemployment) for
investors.
gion as the increase of the contemporaneous correlation between real economy performance
(macro) and stock returns (financial) during a financial crisis. Since the contempo-
the correlation in a crisis period indicates contagion. In other words, a positive change of
9
Crisis-specific correlation changes can be analyzed within the (i) short-run regression
framework and (ii) within the co-integration framework. The regression model based on
where Dt is a dummy variable that is equal to one if t lies within the crisis and zero
otherwise. A positive parameter c indicates that the link is stronger in the crisis period
We also estimate a VAR model that nests the parsimonious specification given by Equation
9.
X
K X
K X
4
Xt = a2 + b2,k Stk + c2,k Xtk + dk ln Stk Dtk + et (10)
k=1 k=1 k=0
There are two ways to analyze contagion within the co-integration framework (if the
involved series are indeed co-integrated). The first one is based on the model
St = Xt + Xt Dt + et (11)
There is evidence for a stronger temporary linkage between S and X if is positive and
from the long-run relationship (if such a relationship exists) coincides with a specific crisis
period. The residuals of a first-stage regression are tested for stationarity. If the null
et = 1 + 2 Dt + et (12)
If there is a significant deviation from the equilibrium relationship indicated by the coef-
10
ficient 2 it would justify policy action to bring variables back to equilibrium. However,
with contagion. Instead, the two-stage approach is better suited to analyze crisis-specific
A. Descriptive Statistics
This section presents the descriptive statistics of the stock market, GDP and Industrial
Production time-series for a sample of 32 industrial and emerging, large and small coun-
tries. Table I presents the descriptive statistics for monthly stock returns (first panel),
quarterly stock returns (second panel), monthly IP log differences (third panel) and quar-
terly GDP log differences (fourth panel). Monthly and quarterly stock returns are used
to align them with Industrial Production which is available at a monthly frequency and
GDP which is only available at a quarterly frequency. The sample period spans a 33-year
period from the first quarter in 1980 until the first quarter in 2013. Both the Industrial
Production and GDP indices are seasonally adjusted. All prices are real prices, i.e. the
nominal prices have been corrected for price level changes to remove a common factor in
the data that may introduce a spurious relationship between the series. The industrial
production series is a volume index and the stock index and GDP index are deflated with
Stock index data are the Datastream Total Market share indices and CPI series are from
the IMF International Financial Statistics database. The dataset of Industrial Production
and GDP indices are collated from multiple databases accessed through Datastream. For
each country, the database is chosen that provides the time series with the most complete
history.
11
A comparison of the average monthly stock returns with monthly Industrial Production
levels and quarterly stock returns with quarterly GDP levels reveals that monthly average
stock returns are larger and more volatile than IP and GDP figures. Figure 1 presents
examples and illustrates this finding for the stock market - GDP relationship of the US,
The Figure demonstrates that stock price growth and GDP growth co-move to some extent
but that stock prices are more volatile and at times significantly deviate from the GDP
growth path.
market returns are highly correlated with averages around 0.5 whilst the correlations
of GDP changes across countries are significantly lower on average, around 0.25. The
correlations of IP changes are similar to the monthly GDP correlations on average but
deviate significantly for some country pairs. Since stock market returns exhibit a greater
co-movement than GDP and IP changes across countries, the stock market - real economy
Tables II and III present the Phillips-Perron (PP) test statistics for each country. The
test statistics illustrate that all series based on log differences are stationary. Changes of
The descriptive statistics indicate that financial series are more volatile than macroeco-
nomic series and thus do not perfectly co-move. The following sections provide more
12
B. Short-run Relationship
This section reports the results of the contemporaneous and predictive correlation coef-
ficient estimates of the stock market (St) and the real economy (Xt+k ) proxied by GDP
and IP.
Table IV illustrates that the stock market is positively correlated with contemporaneous
and future GDP for the majority of countries. However, the correlations vary significantly
across countries and across time, i.e. across future periods k. The cross-sectional averages
of the contemporaneous and the predictive correlations are 0.114 and 0.208, 0.209, 0.133,
correlations for all k and highly significant and positive correlations for k = 1, 2, 3 whilst
Turkey exhibits negative correlations for k = 0, 2, 4 with only one significantly positive
Table V presents the results for industrial production (IP), i.e. the contemporaneous and
predictive correlation estimates between the stock market and IP for 12 months. The
table shows that there are clearly less statistically significant coefficient estimates for IP
than for GDP with most statistically significant estimates clustered for ks between k = 1
and k = 6.
Two contrasting examples are the US and Norway. Whilst the US correlation estimates are
positive and statistically significant for almost all months k (except 10 and 11), Norway
does not exhibit any statistically significant correlation estimate. Given Norways oil-
centered structure of the economy this result is perhaps not too surprising.
We can summarize the results by stating that significant predictive correlations with
GDP are more frequent across countries than predictive correlations with IP but that
13
the magnitude and the sign of the predictive correlations vary considerably both across
prediction horizons and countries. The results illustrate that the stock market signals
future changes of GDP and of IP in around two thirds of the countries. However, given
the heterogeneity of the estimates both across countries and across prediction horizons
we can conclude that the stock market fails to provide strong and unambiguous signals
for future changes in economic activity in at least half of the countries analyzed. Finally,
the significant contemporaneous correlations for some countries are not implied by the
theoretical relationship given by the discounted cash flow model described by Equation
1 and indicate that the stock market does not merely reflect and predict future economy
As an alternative to the predictive correlation analysis we also estimate the vector au-
Tables VI and VII present the estimation results for the stock market - GDP relationship
and Tables VIII and IX display the estimation result for the stock market - IP relationship.
The coefficient estimates for lagged changes of GDP on stock market changes reveal a
declining average coefficient for increasing lags of GDP changes. The first lag generally
exhibits a positive coefficient while the higher lags display negative coefficients in the
majority of cases.
The coefficient estimates representing the influence of (lagged) stock market changes on
changes of GDP are generally positive and significant with coefficients decreasing for
increasing lag lengths. The stronger results for GDP being the dependent variable are
consistent with the predictive role of the stock market. Similarly, the weaker results for
the stock market being the dependent variable are aligned with the underlying theory.
14
The estimation results for IP present a similar picture. The average coefficient estimates
are generally positive for lagged stock market returns influencing IP changes. In contrast,
lagged IP changes only exhibit a positive influence on stock market returns for lags up to
three months.
The finding that stock returns can predict future changes in macroeconomic variables is
not surprising in the context of existing empirical literature that establishes the relevance
of various macroeconomic variables for future stock returns. For example, Cooper and
Priestley (2012) find that the worlds capital-output ratio is a strong predictor of future
stock market returns in six major stock markets. Rangvid (2006) arrives at a similar
conclusion across the US and G-7 countries yet uses the ratio of share prices to GDP.
Finally, we also estimated the model based on Equation 2. The structure of the equation
with the stock market returns on the left hand side of the equation perhaps better repre-
sents a role of the stock market that reflects future changes of GDP or IP rather than a
role that influences future changes. The coefficient estimates are fully consistent with the
theory. The further GDP or IP changes lie in the future the smaller (yet positive) is the
coefficient estimate.12
The next section analyzes the long-run relationship between stock markets and economic
activity based on the levels of the data in contrast to the changes analyzed in this section.
C. Long-run Relationship
This section presents the test results of a long-run and co-integrating relationship of
the stock market with GDP and IP. Table X presents the estimation results for GDP and
demonstrates that most countries do not display a long-run relationship between the stock
market and GDP. The table reports the Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) and the Phillips-
Perron (PP) test statistics. A rejection of the null hypothesis implies a stationary residual
12
Results are not reported due to space considerations.
15
series based on a regression of the logarithmic stock market index level on the logarithmic
GDP level. The null hypothesis is only rejected for Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark
and Turkey. Therefore, the stock market and GDP exhibit a long-run relationship in only
four countries.
The results for IP presented in Table XI illustrate that there are more long-run relation-
ships involving IP compared to GDP. Countries for which either the ADF test or the
PP test indicates rejection of the null hypothesis that there is no long-run relationship
between the stock market and IP are Canada, the US, Brazil, Denmark, France, Greece,
relationship using the Johansen (1995) technique. Consistent with the literature, this
We also estimate a vector error correction model (VECM) for the countries and variables
for which we find a co-integration relationship. The coefficient estimates measuring the
feedback effect, i.e. the error correction coefficients, are displayed in Table XIII and show
that there is a positive feedback effect both from the stock market to the macro-economy
The VECM provides a direct test for the sideshow hypothesis of the stock market. If
the influence of the error correction term in the output equation and in the stock market
equation is not statistically different from zero, the sideshow hypothesis cannot be re-
jected. The estimates presented in the table show that the coefficients are all statistically
significant clearly rejecting the sideshow hypothesis of the stock market and confirming
16
< Insert Table XIII about here >
A comparison of the short-run and long-run results indicates that a short-run rela-
tionship does not imply a long-run relationship. The finding that there is no long-run
relationship between the stock market and GDP or IP for most countries is surprising
and partly due to the greater volatility of the stock market compared to GDP or IP. The
Given the rather weak evidence for long-run relationships, the crisis-specific analysis of
macro-financial contagion focusses on models that are not based on a long-run equilibrium
or co-integration assumption.13
D. Macro-financial Contagion
This section presents the estimation results of crisis-specific changes of the stock market -
real economy relationships. If the contemporaneous correlation between the stock market
and real economic activity (GDP or IP) increases during a financial crisis, there is evidence
for a crisis-specific feedback between the stock market and the real sector consistent with
contagion.14
Tables XIV and XV present the estimation results for a test of macro-financial contagion.
The crisis period is defined from July 2008 to March 2009 following the timeline provided
by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS, 2009). Eleven out of 32 countries exhibit
positive and statistically significant coefficients representing contagion from the stock mar-
ket to the real economy. The results indicate that the relationship has strengthened in the
crisis period or originated if there was no relationship before the crisis. The cross-sectional
lation of the stock market with GDP (c) is presented in the last row of the tables and
estimated at 0.069. This cross-sectional estimate indicates that contagion is not only a
13
The finding that most countries do not exhibit an equilibrium relationship between financial and real
economy variables is consistent with the hypothesis that markets tend towards disequilibrium (Soros, 1988).
14
Recall that changes of stock market valuations should not contemporaneously affect GDP or IP levels
in normal periods and are inconsistent with the role of the stock market as a provider of signals to enhance
the future allocation of resources in an economy.
17
country-specific but also a systemic phenomenon. The results confirm that stock market
changes contemporaneously affect GDP changes during the crisis period consistent with
a feedback effect. Moreover, the results for k > 0 show that the predictive quality of the
stock market both increased for k = 1 and for k = 2 during the crisis.
Table XV presents the estimation results for IP. Ten out of 32 countries exhibit positive
and statistically significant coefficient estimates consistent with a feedback effect and
contagion. The cross-sectional average of the coefficients is positive (0.083) and indicates
systemic contagion. Furthermore, there is also evidence for crisis-specific changes of the
predictive correlations which are stronger than the contemporaneous estimates. The cross-
sectional average is 0.178 and 0.210 for k = 1 and k = 2, respectively. Around 20 countries
Note that the quality of a signal evidenced by the correlation should be relatively constant
to be reliable. If the quality of the signal increases in a crisis it can lead to an under- or
change and thereby closely followed the definitions for financial contagion. However, from
be similarly contagious. That is, if a negative shock propagates to next quarters GDP,
18
It is well established in the contagion literature that the evidence for contagion depends
on the definition of the crisis period (e.g. see Dungey and Martin, 2007). As a robustness
check we estimated the contagion model for a longer crisis period starting in July 2007
(Q3 2007) and ending in March 2009 (Q1 2009). Surprisingly perhaps, the results are
remarkably similar compared with the shorter crisis period. For example, the cross-
sectional average of the contemporaneous correlation is 0.068 for GDP and 0.055 for IP
for the longer crisis period compared to 0.069 and 0.083 for the shorter crisis period,
change is larger for the longer crisis period involving GDP but similar for IP. The complete
Finally, Tables XVIII-XXI report the coefficient estimates of the augmented VAR model
which fully support the main estimation results obtained with the more parsimonious
model.
Our findings have important implications for policy makers. If policy makers react strongly
to a financial crisis we would expect to find a weaker relationship between St and Xt (or
Xt+k ) during the crisis. Yet we observe the opposite: a strengthening of the contempora-
neous and the predictive relationships and thus macro-financial contagion, going against
what we expect from the policy maker response. This implies an increased influence of
In summary, almost all countries exhibit an increased correlation of the stock market
with either GDP or IP in the crisis period. Large industrial countries like the United
specific short-run deviation from the long-run relationship. However, this is not the usual interpretation of
contagion and merely indicates a deviation rather than a strengthening of a pre-existing relationship. Since
most countries do not display a long-run co-integration relationship between stock prices and macroeco-
nomic variables, a test of deviations from such a relationship is not performed.
17
Regarding the predictive relationships, it is also possible that investors are able to forecast cash flows
during crisis conditions more accurately than during normal conditions. However, given the increased level
of uncertainty during financial crisis or turmoil conditions we deem this scenario as highly unlikely.
19
States, Japan, the UK and Germany all display increased contemporaneous correlations
consistent with contagion from the stock market to the real economy.
This paper analyzed the short-run and long-run dynamic linkages between the stock mar-
ket and the real economy for a sample of 32 small and large, industrial and emerging coun-
tries. We find that the stock market reflects and signals future changes in real economic
activity for the majority of countries in the sample. However, the estimates vary signif-
icantly across countries and prediction horizons. Hence, the stock market provides only
incoherent signals across countries. We also find strong evidence for significant changes in
the contemporaneous and predictive correlations during the financial crisis in 2008 with
a similar heterogeneity across countries and prediction horizons. We argue that an in-
a form of contagion that is broader than more standard financial definitions of contagion.
Macro-financial contagion implies that the stock market does not only signal future eco-
nomic performance but does also contemporaneously affect the real economy. Despite its
importance regarding diversification and policy responses, this form of contagion has not
been analyzed in the literature before. The existence of macro-financial contagion is bad
news for investors, firms and households with exposure to both the stock market and the
real economy. If share prices and real economic activity decline in times of a financial
crisis the combined effects are more severe compared to a situation in which no contagion
existed. On the other hand, the stronger contemporaneous signal may help policy makers
to timely react to shocks affecting the real economy. The policy responses during the 2008
financial and economic crisis provide an example. To summarize, our findings indicate
that the stock market is not a sideshow but instead affects the real economy. Future
research could investigate the question whether the precision or mere existence of a stock
20
References
Baig, T. and I. Goldfajn (1999), Financial market contagion in the Asian crisis. IMF
Bekaert, G., Harvey, C.R. and A. Ng (2005), Market Integration and Contagion. The
BIS (2009), The international financial crisis: timeline, impact and policy responses in
Asia and the Pacific. Bank for International Settlements August 2009.
Boyer, B.H., Kumagai, T. and K. Yuan (2006), How Do Crises Spread? Evidence from
Cornell (2010), Economic Growth and Equity Investing. Financial Analysts Journal 66
(1), 54-64.
Cooper I. and R Priestley (2012), The World Business Cycle and Expected Returns.
Dungey, M. and V.L. Martin (2007), Unravelling financial market linkages during crises.
Fama, E.K. (1990), Stock returns, expected returns, and real activity. Journal of Finance
45, 1089-1108
57 (5), 2223-2261.
Giroud, X., Mueller, H.M., Stomper, A. and A. Westerkamp (2012), Snow and Leverage,
Hamilton, J.D. and G. Lin (1996), Stock market volatility and the business cycle, Journal
21
Johansen, S. (1995), Likelihood-based Inference in Cointegrated Vector Autoregressive
Mian, A.R. and A. Sufi (2009), The Consequences of Mortgage Credit Expansion: Evi-
dence from the U.S. Mortgage Default Crisis, Quarterly Journal of Economics 124(4),
1449-1496.
Mian, A.R., Sufi, A. and F. Trebbi (2010), The Political Economy of the U.S. Mortgage
Mian, A.R. and A. Sufi (2011), House Prices, Home Equity-Based Borrowing, and the
Morck, R., Shleifer, A. and R.W. Vishny (1990), The Stock Market and Investment: Is
MSCI Barra (2010), Is there a link between GDP growth and equity returns? Research
Rangvid, Jesper (2006), Output and Expected Returns, Journal of Financial Economics,
81, 595-624.
Schwert, G.W. (1989), Why does stock market volatility change over time? Journal of
Schwert, G.W. (1990), Stock returns and real activity: a century of evidence. Journal of
Shiller, R. (1981), Do Stock Prices Move Too Much to be Justified by Subsequent Changes
22
Table I
Descriptive Statistics of Log-Returns Data
Descriptive statistics of log-returns data.
23
(continued)
Mean S.D. Min. Max. Skew. Kurtosis
PORTUGAL 0.00 0.11 0.29 0.34 0.20 0.19
ROMANIA 0.01 0.23 0.83 0.59 0.62 1.70
SLOVENIA 0.01 0.12 0.45 0.24 0.92 1.87
SPAIN 0.00 0.12 0.34 0.33 0.28 0.22
SWEDEN 0.02 0.14 0.40 0.36 0.72 0.82
UNITED.KINGDOM 0.01 0.08 0.23 0.19 0.54 0.35
INDIA 0.01 0.20 0.50 1.02 1.20 5.94
JAPAN 0.01 0.11 0.40 0.24 0.56 0.74
KOREA 0.01 0.17 0.41 0.63 0.44 1.44
TURKEY 0.01 0.23 0.68 0.67 0.04 0.50
AUSTRALIA 0.01 0.09 0.49 0.24 1.41 5.56
ISRAEL 0.00 0.12 0.39 0.26 0.64 0.24
RUSSIAN.FEDERATION 0.01 0.24 0.66 0.61 0.49 0.89
Monthly Industrial Production Log Returns)
CANADA 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.19 0.63
MEXICO 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.01 1.29
UNITED.STATES 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.02 1.15 5.17
BRAZIL 0.00 0.03 0.27 0.22 1.38 23.71
AUSTRIA 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.07 0.12 0.76
BELGIUM 0.00 0.03 0.25 0.22 0.47 14.45
BULGARIA 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.11 0.22 6.09
CZECH.REPUBLIC 0.00 0.04 0.26 0.21 0.26 12.79
DENMARK 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.14 0.04 3.87
FINLAND 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.15 0.22 7.82
FRANCE 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.23 1.17
GERMANY 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.12 0.13 8.74
GREECE 0.00 0.03 0.14 0.19 0.49 6.47
HUNGARY 0.00 0.03 0.14 0.10 0.53 2.30
IRELAND 0.01 0.05 0.22 0.14 0.56 2.64
ITALY 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.03 1.34
LUXEMBOURG 0.00 0.04 0.19 0.12 0.24 1.72
NETHERLANDS 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.14 0.07 3.30
NORWAY 0.00 0.04 0.39 0.34 0.74 26.74
PORTUGAL 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.11 0.12 1.38
ROMANIA 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.08 0.92 6.34
SLOVENIA 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.06 1.92 9.56
SPAIN 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.21 2.51
SWEDEN 0.00 0.03 0.26 0.25 0.34 47.08
UNITED.KINGDOM 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.49 1.62
INDIA 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.46 2.52
JAPAN 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.06 2.82 22.45
KOREA 0.01 0.02 0.12 0.14 0.66 7.04
TURKEY 0.00 0.06 0.26 0.18 0.52 2.51
ISRAEL 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.47 1.17
RUSSIAN.FEDERATION 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.15 0.37 9.06
Quarterly Gross Domestic Product (Log Returns)
CANADA 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 1.12 1.89
MEXICO 0.01 0.03 0.16 0.04 2.53 9.72
UNITED.STATES 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 1.05 2.77
BRAZIL 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.25 0.04
AUSTRIA 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.35
BELGIUM 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.11 0.10
BULGARIA 0.00 0.09 0.40 0.27 1.41 6.31
CZECH.REPUBLIC 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.14 2.68 11.51
DENMARK 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.49 0.45
FINLAND 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.39 0.94
(continued)
24
(continued)
Mean S.D. Min. Max. Skew. Kurtosis
FRANCE 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.30 0.28
GERMANY 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.02 1.35 3.33
GREECE 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.10
HUNGARY 0.00 0.03 0.11 0.05 1.51 4.26
IRELAND 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.08 0.34 1.62
ITALY 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.15 2.11
LUXEMBOURG 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.54 3.15
NETHERLANDS 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.99 2.04
NORWAY 0.01 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.46 2.10
PORTUGAL 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.15 0.18
ROMANIA 0.01 0.13 0.43 0.47 0.32 3.69
SLOVENIA 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.39 0.29
SPAIN 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.19
SWEDEN 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.99 1.46
UNITED.KINGDOM 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.80 0.42
INDIA 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.13
JAPAN 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.07 0.38
KOREA 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.05 1.15 4.27
TURKEY 0.00 0.08 0.18 0.53 2.40 14.31
AUSTRALIA 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.94
ISRAEL 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.23 0.55
RUSSIAN.FEDERATION 0.02 0.17 0.65 0.71 0.20 5.16
25
Table II
Phillips Perron: Stationarity Testing
Phillips Perron testing on quarterly stock index and GDP. The test statistic is presented with the number
of optimal lags in parentheses. The alternative hypothesis is that the data is stationary.
Countries Log Stock Index Stock Index Returns Log GDP GDP Growth
CANADA 2.928(4) 9.528(4) 2.548(4) 6.066(4)
MEXICO 2.353(4) 8.714(3) 2.177(4) 9.593(4)
UNITED.STATES 1.831(4) 10.433(4) 1.189(4) 9.390(4)
BRAZIL 3.111(3) 7.186(3) 2.838(3) 7.442(3)
AUSTRIA 2.078(4) 8.795(4) 1.299(4) 11.844(4)
BELGIUM 2.068(4) 10.270(4) 1.391(4) 7.194(4)
BULGARIA 0.930(3) 4.429(3) 3.465(3) 11.699(3)
CZECH.REPUBLIC 2.149(3) 8.991(3) 2.488(3) 10.453(3)
DENMARK 3.487(4) 8.403(4) 1.287(4) 11.333(4)
FINLAND 1.548(4) 8.935(3) 1.685(4) 8.630(4)
FRANCE 1.947(4) 10.659(4) 0.918(4) 8.007(4)
GERMANY 2.152(3) 8.956(3) 3.337(3) 9.540(3)
GREECE 1.419(4) 9.252(3) 0.094(4) 14.048(4)
HUNGARY 2.262(3) 8.882(3) 0.497(3) 11.619(3)
IRELAND 1.571(4) 9.865(4) 0.099(4) 13.197(4)
ITALY 2.506(4) 10.091(4) 1.381(4) 11.876(4)
LUXEMBOURG 2.322(3) 8.220(3) 2.232(4) 11.956(4)
NETHERLANDS 1.599(4) 9.851(4) 1.074(4) 9.662(4)
NORWAY 3.120(4) 10.927(4) 2.119(4) 9.448(4)
PORTUGAL 1.900(3) 8.058(3) 0.760(4) 8.761(4)
ROMANIA 1.956(3) 6.641(3) 3.324(3) 14.220(3)
SLOVENIA 0.966(3) 4.705(3) 0.656(3) 7.328(3)
SPAIN 1.650(4) 10.724(4) 0.311(4) 12.553(4)
SWEDEN 2.962(4) 10.027(4) 2.187(4) 9.406(4)
UNITED.KINGDOM 2.119(4) 9.729(3) 0.015(4) 9.569(3)
INDIA 2.984(3) 9.438(3) 2.033(3) 7.919(3)
JAPAN 2.367(4) 10.333(4) 1.052(4) 12.256(4)
KOREA 2.822(4) 9.944(4) 0.038(4) 9.415(4)
TURKEY 3.652(4) 9.597(3) 5.703(3) 11.904(3)
AUSTRALIA 2.990(4) 11.070(4) 2.193(4) 8.653(4)
ISRAEL 2.648(3) 8.712(3) 2.395(3) 7.908(3)
RUSSIAN.FEDERATION 1.906(3) 7.634(3) 3.744(3) 13.733(3)
26
Table III
Phillips Perron: Stationarity Testing
Phillips Perron testing on monthly stock index and Industrial Production. The test statistic is presented
with the number of optimal lags in parentheses. The alternative hypothesis is that the data is stationary.
27
Table IV
( ln St , ln GDPt+k )
( ln St , ln GDPt+k ) for k {0, 1, 2, 3, 4}. Quarter to quarter log-changes are used.
k
Countries 0 1 2 3 4
CANADA 0.269 0.390 0.388 0.293 0.097
MEXICO 0.183 0.330 0.229 0.041 0.141
UNITED.STATES 0.119 0.223 0.268 0.250 0.098
BRAZIL 0.209 0.342 0.186 0.108 0.028
AUSTRIA 0.150 0.270 0.122 0.069 0.120
BELGIUM 0.247 0.300 0.178 0.095 0.123
BULGARIA 0.158 0.188 0.169 0.071 0.184
CZECH.REPUBLIC 0.055 0.022 0.036 0.190 0.204
DENMARK 0.016 0.255 0.234 0.070 0.195
FINLAND 0.215 0.314 0.329 0.419 0.312
FRANCE 0.107 0.259 0.201 0.148 0.095
GERMANY 0.166 0.076 0.278 0.081 0.074
GREECE 0.028 0.104 0.373 0.023 0.117
HUNGARY 0.122 0.071 0.199 0.190 0.003
IRELAND 0.119 0.167 0.158 0.152 0.124
ITALY 0.003 0.123 0.145 0.330 0.048
LUXEMBOURG 0.201 0.278 0.070 0.020 0.091
NETHERLANDS 0.164 0.228 0.240 0.222 0.166
NORWAY 0.125 0.315 0.199 0.046 0.146
PORTUGAL 0.222 0.243 0.243 0.211 0.157
ROMANIA 0.196 0.212 0.364 0.245 0.140
SLOVENIA 0.305 0.467 0.427 0.348 0.297
SPAIN 0.064 0.120 0.248 0.082 0.184
SWEDEN 0.171 0.215 0.416 0.224 0.059
UNITED.KINGDOM 0.176 0.180 0.096 0.218 0.054
INDIA 0.405 0.109 0.184 0.134 0.134
JAPAN 0.130 0.067 0.206 0.140 0.249
KOREA 0.124 0.337 0.069 0.050 0.053
TURKEY 0.065 0.116 0.090 0.198 0.018
AUSTRALIA 0.057 0.125 0.325 0.147 0.316
ISRAEL 0.087 0.207 0.012 0.325 0.049
RUSSIAN.FEDERATION 0.138 0.264 0.345 0.113 0.213
Average 0.114 0.208 0.209 0.133 0.104
28
Table V
( ln St , ln IPt+k )
( ln St , ln IPt+k ) for k {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12}. Month to Month log-changes are used.
k
Countries 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
CANADA 0.000 0.134 0.139 0.185 0.089 0.145 0.148 0.013 0.182 0.080 0.126 0.049 0.0
MEXICO 0.070 0.119 0.052 0.198 0.137 0.038 0.036 0.014 0.002 0.025 0.053 0.043 0.0
UNITED.STATES 0.067 0.101 0.172 0.286 0.189 0.120 0.157 0.125 0.111 0.061 0.073 0.123 0.1
BRAZIL 0.083 0.106 0.270 0.072 0.196 0.044 0.122 0.033 0.060 0.098 0.071 0.038 0.0
AUSTRIA 0.010 0.063 0.087 0.045 0.135 0.035 0.058 0.012 0.037 0.057 0.067 0.014 0.0
BELGIUM 0.062 0.039 0.086 0.032 0.076 0.001 0.026 0.006 0.007 0.008 0.002 0.038 0.0
BULGARIA 0.163 0.146 0.060 0.226 0.208 0.097 0.024 0.199 0.057 0.111 0.020 0.079 0.1
CZECH.REPUBLIC 0.036 0.039 0.135 0.012 0.148 0.000 0.005 0.055 0.082 0.066 0.014 0.169 0.0
DENMARK 0.047 0.027 0.026 0.079 0.033 0.069 0.110 0.007 0.011 0.000 0.066 0.001 0.0
FINLAND 0.009 0.066 0.079 0.143 0.050 0.111 0.066 0.026 0.090 0.074 0.039 0.126 0.0
0.085 0.088
29
FRANCE 0.025 0.065 0.102 0.041 0.051 0.041 0.009 0.077 0.044 0.043 0.0
GERMANY 0.199 0.119 0.124 0.139 0.173 0.106 0.073 0.021 0.102 0.011 0.072 0.013 0.0
GREECE 0.020 0.039 0.048 0.028 0.050 0.031 0.154 0.028 0.062 0.004 0.031 0.003 0.1
HUNGARY 0.092 0.044 0.094 0.076 0.091 0.002 0.071 0.069 0.060 0.017 0.180 0.053 0.0
IRELAND 0.018 0.018 0.009 0.083 0.035 0.012 0.126 0.048 0.009 0.031 0.119 0.017 0.0
ITALY 0.015 0.087 0.123 0.019 0.129 0.087 0.042 0.024 0.092 0.045 0.036 0.058 0.0
LUXEMBOURG 0.050 0.002 0.048 0.015 0.005 0.139 0.066 0.094 0.098 0.019 0.065 0.016 0.0
NETHERLANDS 0.044 0.039 0.075 0.023 0.080 0.106 0.005 0.048 0.015 0.040 0.024 0.063 0.0
NORWAY 0.049 0.054 0.038 0.056 0.010 0.047 0.005 0.054 0.050 0.029 0.001 0.059 0.0
PORTUGAL 0.002 0.012 0.052 0.013 0.080 0.004 0.035 0.002 0.070 0.003 0.029 0.008 0.0
ROMANIA 0.016 0.009 0.277 0.012 0.076 0.048 0.028 0.031 0.048 0.055 0.051 0.027 0.0
SLOVENIA 0.154 0.193 0.239 0.031 0.153 0.157 0.125 0.018 0.131 0.093 0.092 0.032 0.0
SPAIN 0.014 0.050 0.143 0.041 0.092 0.015 0.101 0.060 0.080 0.060 0.011 0.103 0.0
SWEDEN 0.001 0.016 0.137 0.105 0.119 0.041 0.036 0.048 0.120 0.059 0.054 0.012 0.0
UNITED.KINGDOM 0.104 0.056 0.020 0.082 0.143 0.064 0.029 0.062 0.054 0.040 0.104 0.029 0.0
INDIA 0.031 0.160 0.005 0.083 0.127 0.050 0.011 0.007 0.129 0.010 0.029 0.080 0.0
JAPAN 0.113 0.075 0.116 0.081 0.125 0.116 0.055 0.015 0.000 0.075 0.049 0.086 0.0
KOREA 0.075 0.146 0.136 0.033 0.072 0.049 0.005 0.062 0.016 0.045 0.034 0.014 0.0
(contin
(continued)
k
Countries 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
TURKEY 0.057 0.041 0.105 0.076 0.005 0.001 0.123 0.054 0.005 0.068 0.043 0.103 0.0
ISRAEL 0.004 0.029 0.042 0.065 0.202 0.014 0.040 0.021 0.050 0.039 0.049 0.042 0.0
RUSSIAN.FEDERATION 0.284 0.223 0.040 0.030 0.132 0.053 0.046 0.193 0.079 0.169 0.106 0.128 0.1
Average 0.054 0.066 0.094 0.073 0.097 0.048 0.049 0.015 0.051 0.030 0.047 0.022 0.0
30
Table VI
VAR model: Stock Market and GDP
X
4 X
4
Quarterly changes. ln St = a + bk ln GDPtk + ck ln Stk + et .
k=1 k=1
Countries b1 b2 b3 b4
CANADA 0.903 1.615 1.046 1.095
MEXICO 0.112 0.726 0.771 0.076
UNITED.STATES 1.939 0.466 0.164 0.085
BRAZIL 0.724 1.442 1.131 2.229
AUSTRIA 2.424 1.587 2.610 1.425
BELGIUM 1.485 1.806 0.934 2.138
BULGARIA 1.350 1.647 0.075 1.957
CZECH.REPUBLIC 0.002 1.106 0.742 0.374
DENMARK 0.115 0.154 0.308 0.411
FINLAND 3.061 2.426 0.995 0.668
FRANCE 3.492 1.589 0.510 0.814
GERMANY 1.729 1.926 1.534 0.353
GREECE 0.934 1.352 0.314 0.312
HUNGARY 1.530 0.792 0.204 0.908
IRELAND 0.821 0.425 0.674 0.098
ITALY 2.965 0.957 1.852 0.266
LUXEMBOURG 0.488 0.027 0.068 0.016
NETHERLANDS 0.317 1.798 1.129 0.895
NORWAY 0.108 0.354 0.091 0.272
PORTUGAL 0.166 0.941 0.830 0.923
ROMANIA 0.474 0.897 0.339 0.130
SLOVENIA 0.456 1.507 0.149 0.988
SPAIN 0.857 1.100 0.785 0.487
SWEDEN 2.060 1.073 1.444 2.714
UNITED.KINGDOM 0.537 0.798 0.314 0.159
INDIA 0.612 1.730 0.079 1.289
JAPAN 0.627 1.828 1.179 1.127
KOREA 2.956 3.934 1.306 1.494
TURKEY 0.135 0.296 0.187 0.010
AUSTRALIA 0.532 1.347 1.232 0.931
ISRAEL 1.257 0.692 0.126 0.267
RUSSIAN.FEDERATION 0.517 0.305 0.390 0.670
Average 0.901 0.418 0.433 0.315
31
Table VII
VAR model: Stock Market and GDP
X
4 X
4
Quarterly changes. ln GDPt = a + bk ln GDPtk + ck ln Stk + et .
k=1 k=1
Countries c1 c2 c3 c4
CANADA 0.034 0.027 0.020 0.001
MEXICO 0.042 0.032 0.003 0.036
UNITED.STATES 0.015 0.016 0.014 0.001
BRAZIL 0.038 0.012 0.015 0.009
AUSTRIA 0.018 0.008 0.003 0.008
BELGIUM 0.014 0.003 0.001 0.003
BULGARIA 0.024 0.011 0.004 0.024
CZECH.REPUBLIC 0.000 0.002 0.015 0.027
DENMARK 0.027 0.023 0.002 0.021
FINLAND 0.019 0.011 0.018 0.004
FRANCE 0.010 0.006 0.002 0.001
GERMANY 0.009 0.022 0.007 0.007
GREECE 0.008 0.043 0.009 0.019
HUNGARY 0.012 0.030 0.018 0.014
IRELAND 0.015 0.012 0.008 0.002
ITALY 0.009 0.013 0.018 0.002
LUXEMBOURG 0.068 0.013 0.012 0.025
NETHERLANDS 0.024 0.020 0.016 0.007
NORWAY 0.047 0.024 0.003 0.023
PORTUGAL 0.025 0.010 0.008 0.003
ROMANIA 0.026 0.078 0.033 0.040
SLOVENIA 0.036 0.013 0.005 0.009
SPAIN 0.006 0.024 0.007 0.008
SWEDEN 0.015 0.028 0.010 0.006
UNITED.KINGDOM 0.022 0.015 0.020 0.004
INDIA 0.022 0.043 0.013 0.031
JAPAN 0.003 0.017 0.011 0.023
KOREA 0.045 0.000 0.001 0.003
TURKEY 0.045 0.027 0.060 0.014
AUSTRALIA 0.013 0.031 0.010 0.035
ISRAEL 0.025 0.002 0.034 0.013
RUSSIAN.FEDERATION 0.127 0.093 0.148 0.069
Average 0.026 0.019 0.012 0.012
32
Table VIII
VAR model: Stock Market and IP
X
12 X
12
Monthly changes. ln St = a + bk ln IPtk + ck ln Stk + et .
k=1 k=1
FRANCE 0.344 0.271 0.184 0.116 0.120 0.349 0.099 0.390 0.171 0.404
GERMANY 0.454 0.350 0.121 0.076 0.133 0.183 0.172 0.271 0.077 0.154 0.063 0.119
GREECE 0.380 0.684 0.524 0.929 0.400 0.018 0.015 0.194 0.087 0.083 0.460 0.003
HUNGARY 0.045 0.159 0.110 0.010 0.096 0.365 0.539 0.003 0.038 0.114 0.048 0.546
IRELAND 0.119 0.098 0.109 0.018 0.122 0.044 0.162 0.109 0.045 0.023 0.006 0.100
ITALY 0.496 0.250 0.033 0.233 0.071 0.088 0.349 0.284 0.067 0.630 0.145 0.308
LUXEMBOURG 0.026 0.097 0.027 0.020 0.184 0.109 0.045 0.028 0.244 0.018 0.006 0.102
NETHERLANDS 0.042 0.099 0.183 0.191 0.199 0.150 0.210 0.249 0.153 0.343 0.159 0.207
NORWAY 0.048 0.011 0.317 0.167 0.132 0.027 0.064 0.031 0.034 0.018 0.002 0.009
PORTUGAL 0.185 0.113 0.020 0.104 0.013 0.028 0.177 0.003 0.189 0.114 0.030 0.005
ROMANIA 0.531 1.527 1.284 1.600 0.288 0.079 0.442 1.182 0.522 1.001 1.060 0.618
SLOVENIA 0.130 0.279 0.346 0.160 0.208 0.139 0.099 0.018 0.335 0.051 0.053 0.119
SPAIN 0.609 0.639 0.582 0.329 0.200 0.177 0.563 0.473 0.586 0.355 0.048 0.116
SWEDEN 0.031 0.096 0.087 0.014 0.036 0.205 0.148 0.309 0.034 0.568 0.181 0.244
UNITED.KINGDOM 0.420 0.285 0.551 0.338 0.481 0.606 0.078 0.058 0.115 0.436 0.454 0.084
INDIA 0.071 0.074 0.413 0.116 0.559 0.323 0.587 0.067 0.332 0.109 0.686 0.818
JAPAN 0.011 0.218 0.286 0.075 0.049 0.085 0.099 0.124 0.007 0.094 0.208 0.083
KOREA 0.367 0.345 0.021 0.019 0.106 0.176 0.474 0.408 0.031 0.052 0.509 0.339
(continued)
(continued)
b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 b8 b9 b10 b11 b12
TURKEY 0.315 0.015 0.121 0.133 0.303 0.170 0.014 0.010 0.058 0.157 0.311 0.526
ISRAEL 0.178 0.041 0.013 0.131 0.175 0.494 0.594 0.697 0.090 0.092 0.044 0.082
RUSSIAN.FEDERATION0.173 0.043 0.788 0.334 0.214 0.222 0.140 0.483 0.474 0.687 1.224 0.074
Average 0.172 0.231 0.127 0.116 0.062 0.138 0.120 0.211 0.133 0.230 0.177 0.025
34
Table IX
VAR model: IP and Stock Market
X
12 X
12
Monthly changes. ln IPt = a + bk ln IPtk + ck ln Stk + et .
k=1 k=1
FRANCE 0.012 0.016 0.010 0.016 0.007 0.004 0.007 0.010 0.010 0.017 0.012 0.003
GERMANY 0.036 0.025 0.032 0.027 0.031 0.006 0.012 0.025 0.005 0.021 0.008 0.029
GREECE 0.012 0.008 0.012 0.007 0.014 0.035 0.004 0.020 0.008 0.017 0.014 0.034
HUNGARY 0.022 0.044 0.033 0.040 0.006 0.019 0.017 0.022 0.002 0.050 0.005 0.006
IRELAND 0.008 0.054 0.082 0.013 0.024 0.095 0.009 0.022 0.003 0.148 0.003 0.083
ITALY 0.006 0.030 0.003 0.018 0.015 0.006 0.004 0.007 0.009 0.013 0.002 0.011
LUXEMBOURG 0.025 0.040 0.013 0.032 0.107 0.024 0.087 0.038 0.021 0.059 0.053 0.043
NETHERLANDS 0.012 0.053 0.036 0.051 0.089 0.050 0.004 0.002 0.020 0.005 0.036 0.047
NORWAY 0.021 0.019 0.060 0.004 0.011 0.012 0.025 0.042 0.010 0.014 0.028 0.019
PORTUGAL 0.015 0.030 0.019 0.045 0.008 0.032 0.004 0.038 0.004 0.014 0.023 0.049
ROMANIA 0.011 0.045 0.018 0.023 0.016 0.010 0.008 0.003 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.020
SLOVENIA 0.048 0.130 0.037 0.011 0.003 0.042 0.107 0.039 0.023 0.051 0.017 0.024
SPAIN 0.009 0.032 0.005 0.027 0.016 0.024 0.016 0.011 0.021 0.002 0.021 0.027
SWEDEN 0.000 0.027 0.033 0.036 0.009 0.003 0.002 0.026 0.011 0.016 0.007 0.009
UNITED.KINGDOM 0.027 0.010 0.030 0.034 0.023 0.011 0.013 0.011 0.010 0.026 0.008 0.008
INDIA 0.040 0.012 0.016 0.033 0.013 0.006 0.006 0.029 0.008 0.008 0.019 0.004
JAPAN 0.013 0.028 0.017 0.031 0.031 0.003 0.003 0.007 0.026 0.016 0.031 0.001
KOREA 0.039 0.036 0.018 0.028 0.026 0.004 0.023 0.011 0.020 0.007 0.009 0.018
(continued)
(continued)
c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 c7 c8 c9 c10 c11 c12
TURKEY 0.018 0.069 0.055 0.036 0.015 0.064 0.010 0.018 0.027 0.029 0.025 0.026
ISRAEL 0.000 0.023 0.021 0.078 0.010 0.017 0.008 0.026 0.008 0.017 0.007 0.015
RUSSIAN.FEDERATION 0.042 0.033 0.004 0.051 0.004 0.022 0.010 0.011 0.034 0.037 0.002 0.012
Average 0.016 0.028 0.024 0.026 0.016 0.015 0.002 0.012 0.009 0.019 0.005 0.011
36
Table X
ADF/PP tests on residuals of log-levels regressions
Respectively, the first and second columns show results of ADF and PP tests over residuals of ln(stock(t)) =
a + bln(GDPt ) + et .
37
Table XI
ADF/PP tests on residuals of log-levels regressions
Respectively, the first and second columns show results of ADF and PP tests over residuals of ln(stock(t)) =
a + bln(IPt ) + et .
38
Table XII
Johansen test
This table displays the optimal VECM lag length (p) as determined by the SBIC with a VAR as well as the max and trace test statistics to determine the rank (r)
of the Johansen cointegrating matrix ().
Stock market & Industrial Production Stock Market & Gross Domestic Product
Countries p trace (r = 0) trace (r 1) max (r = 0) max (r = 1) p trace (r = 0) trace (r 1) max (r = 0) max (r = 1)
CANADA 4 9.503 1.621 7.882 1.621 2 16.627 0.027 16.600 0.027
MEXICO 2 6.159 2.048 4.111 2.048 2 10.038 1.283 8.755 1.283
UNITED.STATES 4 13.541 1.676 11.865 1.676 2 11.795 2.758 9.037 2.758
BRAZIL 2 25.132 0.783 24.348 0.783 2 10.614 0.003 10.611 0.003
AUSTRIA 3 9.813 0.354 9.458 0.354 2 20.109 2.034 18.074 2.034
BELGIUM 3 7.173 0.911 6.262 0.911 2 23.854 0.996 22.858 0.996
BULGARIA 2 14.639 2.216 12.423 2.216 2 9.861 3.624 6.236 3.624
CZECH.REPUBLIC 2 11.720 0.791 10.929 0.791 2 31.034 3.699 27.335 3.699
DENMARK 2 20.779 3.578 17.201 3.578 2 28.072 2.531 25.540 2.531
FINLAND 2 15.103 1.302 13.801 1.302 2 13.471 1.504 11.967 1.504
39
41
Table XIV
ln GDPt = a + b ln Stk + c ln Stk Dtk + et .
Quarterly changes. Dummy D equal to one during Q3 and Q4 of 2008.
42
Table XV
ln IPt = a + b ln Stk + c ln Stk Dtk + et .
Monthly changes. Dummy D equal to one from July to December 2008.
43
Table XVI
ln GDPt = a + b ln Stk + c ln Stk Dtk + et .
Quarterly changes. Dummy D equal to one from Q3 2007 to Q1 2009.
44
Table XVII
ln IPt = a + b ln Stk + c ln Stk Dtk + et .
Monthly changes. Dummy D equal to one from July 2007 to January 2009.
45
Table XVIII
VAR-X type model.
X
4 X
4 X
4
Quarterly changes. Dummy D equal to one during Q3 to Q4 2008. ln GDPt = a + bk ln GDPtk + ck ln Stk + dk ln Stk Dtk + et .
k=1 k=0 k=0
FINLAND 0.006 0.017 0.014 0.060 0.009 0.058 0.016 0.059 0.002 0.054
FRANCE 0.001 0.024 0.008 0.055 0.006 0.026 0.001 0.017 0.000 0.004
GERMANY 0.005 0.009 0.000 0.158 0.014 0.026 0.007 0.038 0.005 0.081
GREECE 0.010 0.065 0.024 0.210 0.060 0.171 0.016 0.015 0.018 0.004
HUNGARY 0.021 0.001 0.004 0.087 0.023 0.028 0.017 0.023 0.006 0.018
IRELAND 0.007 0.002 0.020 0.045 0.019 0.019 0.012 0.054 0.001 0.044
ITALY 0.001 0.059 0.005 0.005 0.012 0.062 0.019 0.074 0.001 0.005
LUXEMBOURG 0.046 0.099 0.066 0.057 0.021 0.185 0.015 0.180 0.026 0.046
NETHERLANDS 0.017 0.023 0.013 0.003 0.010 0.091 0.015 0.040 0.006 0.005
NORWAY 0.013 0.008 0.032 0.101 0.018 0.084 0.002 0.110 0.014 0.055
PORTUGAL 0.024 0.048 0.024 0.011 0.015 0.002 0.016 0.052 0.005 0.016
ROMANIA 0.008 0.134 0.001 0.211 0.090 0.068 0.012 0.028 0.000 0.038
SLOVENIA 0.029 0.029 0.010 0.046 0.006 0.048 0.003 0.008 0.000 0.018
SPAIN 0.006 0.073 0.005 0.099 0.027 0.094 0.002 0.029 0.002 0.035
SWEDEN 0.012 0.002 0.014 0.143 0.028 0.082 0.010 0.011 0.007 0.004
UNITED.KINGDOM 0.015 0.215 0.014 0.163 0.007 0.214 0.023 0.133 0.001 0.047
INDIA 0.034 0.109 0.004 0.155 0.042 0.123 0.014 0.098 0.032 0.045
(continued)
(continued)
k=0 k=1 k=2 k=3 k=4
Countries c d c d c d c d c d
JAPAN 0.012 0.054 0.004 0.045 0.014 0.002 0.013 0.033 0.026 0.074
KOREA 0.011 0.134 0.049 0.033 0.004 0.069 0.007 0.053 0.002 0.031
TURKEY 0.013 0.192 0.044 0.161 0.018 0.121 0.063 0.082 0.021 0.009
AUSTRALIA 0.003 0.033 0.011 0.025 0.026 0.064 0.011 0.035 0.037 0.079
ISRAEL 0.018 0.039 0.048 0.162 0.009 0.039 0.034 0.014 0.014 0.060
RUSSIAN.FEDERATION 0.015 0.014 0.075 0.220 0.070 0.007 0.085 0.089 0.017 0.030
Average 0.011 0.018 0.018 0.055 0.018 0.024 0.011 0.008 0.009 0.016
47
Table XIX
VAR-X type model.
X
4 X
4 X
4
Quarterly changes. Dummy D equal to one during Q3 2007 and Q1 of 2009. ln GDPt = a + bk ln GDPtk + ck ln Stk + dk ln Stk Dtk + et .
k=1 k=0 k=0
FINLAND 0.004 0.011 0.014 0.115 0.011 0.066 0.017 0.034 0.004 0.012
FRANCE 0.000 0.018 0.005 0.104 0.005 0.037 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.002
GERMANY 0.005 0.055 0.004 0.123 0.012 0.000 0.009 0.082 0.007 0.001
GREECE 0.010 0.024 0.023 0.177 0.061 0.196 0.016 0.053 0.018 0.012
HUNGARY 0.020 0.033 0.001 0.095 0.019 0.026 0.017 0.028 0.008 0.015
IRELAND 0.004 0.128 0.012 0.119 0.011 0.080 0.010 0.052 0.002 0.010
ITALY 0.001 0.068 0.004 0.003 0.009 0.054 0.021 0.095 0.001 0.024
LUXEMBOURG 0.042 0.116 0.066 0.027 0.016 0.121 0.019 0.217 0.027 0.049
NETHERLANDS 0.016 0.050 0.012 0.040 0.008 0.094 0.015 0.073 0.006 0.005
NORWAY 0.012 0.049 0.035 0.072 0.017 0.038 0.003 0.077 0.014 0.048
PORTUGAL 0.020 0.036 0.028 0.012 0.015 0.027 0.017 0.042 0.006 0.008
ROMANIA 0.032 0.123 0.009 0.113 0.103 0.060 0.015 0.024 0.004 0.130
SLOVENIA 0.033 0.045 0.021 0.028 0.001 0.044 0.008 0.011 0.007 0.013
SPAIN 0.003 0.009 0.001 0.072 0.025 0.016 0.001 0.012 0.003 0.022
SWEDEN 0.012 0.014 0.013 0.065 0.028 0.003 0.010 0.067 0.006 0.039
UNITED.KINGDOM 0.009 0.044 0.001 0.128 0.001 0.139 0.020 0.142 0.001 0.095
INDIA 0.050 0.036 0.010 0.044 0.047 0.004 0.016 0.119 0.033 0.037
(continued)
(continued)
k=0 k=1 k=2 k=3 k=4
Countries c d c d c d c d c d
JAPAN 0.011 0.056 0.005 0.057 0.011 0.031 0.014 0.054 0.026 0.028
KOREA 0.009 0.116 0.046 0.017 0.004 0.058 0.005 0.038 0.004 0.003
TURKEY 0.008 0.017 0.048 0.012 0.020 0.107 0.062 0.036 0.020 0.091
AUSTRALIA 0.004 0.074 0.014 0.034 0.029 0.001 0.009 0.063 0.037 0.073
ISRAEL 0.016 0.010 0.042 0.079 0.007 0.022 0.035 0.018 0.009 0.038
RUSSIAN.FEDERATION 0.027 0.057 0.080 0.142 0.065 0.082 0.081 0.093 0.006 0.095
Average 0.010 0.017 0.018 0.050 0.018 0.018 0.010 0.011 0.008 0.001
49
Table XX
VAR-X type model.
X
12 X
12 X
12
Monthly changes. Dummy D equal to one during Q3 to Q4 2008. ln IPt = a + bk ln IPtk + ck ln Stk + dk ln Stk Dtk + et . Four lags are presented
k=1 k=0 k=0
for space considerations, but 12 lags are included in the estimations.
DENMARK 0.013 0.071 0.011 0.006 0.015 0.072 0.028 0.092 0.013 0.310
FINLAND 0.002 0.082 0.006 0.035 0.001 0.127 0.026 0.690 0.002 0.053
FRANCE 0.006 0.108 0.002 0.191 0.009 0.133 0.003 0.163 0.009 0.233
GERMANY 0.014 0.230 0.016 0.076 0.004 0.260 0.019 0.490 0.034 0.027
GREECE 0.002 0.093 0.009 0.084 0.013 0.043 0.027 0.219 0.002 0.030
HUNGARY 0.004 0.105 0.008 0.062 0.014 0.257 0.019 0.142 0.033 0.213
IRELAND 0.131 0.135 0.027 0.158 0.053 0.071 0.082 0.334 0.026 0.098
ITALY 0.010 0.108 0.003 0.108 0.020 0.182 0.003 0.167 0.017 0.070
LUXEMBOURG 0.062 0.075 0.016 0.508 0.013 0.610 0.018 0.730 0.041 0.035
NETHERLANDS 0.000 0.047 0.002 0.000 0.024 0.172 0.028 0.007 0.054 0.112
NORWAY 0.050 0.122 0.026 0.072 0.021 0.022 0.059 0.053 0.003 0.013
PORTUGAL 0.010 0.037 0.011 0.048 0.035 0.105 0.013 0.327 0.017 0.127
ROMANIA 0.005 0.043 0.046 0.143 0.019 0.114 0.014 0.034 0.026 0.018
SLOVENIA 0.013 0.100 0.006 0.217 0.029 0.733 0.062 0.606 0.011 0.461
SPAIN 0.007 0.150 0.000 0.151 0.030 0.152 0.010 0.168 0.026 0.143
SWEDEN 0.014 0.167 0.002 0.045 0.009 0.238 0.021 0.386 0.033 0.097
UNITED.KINGDOM 0.011 0.041 0.016 0.060 0.001 0.127 0.009 0.054 0.025 0.148
(continued)
(continued)
k=0 k=1 k=2 k=3 k=4
Countries c d c d c d c d c d
INDIA 0.007 0.000 0.028 0.033 0.003 0.089 0.004 0.115 0.031 0.066
JAPAN 0.017 0.060 0.000 0.127 0.014 0.185 0.002 0.179 0.003 0.457
KOREA 0.017 0.181 0.032 0.416 0.024 0.471 0.010 0.094 0.033 0.162
TURKEY 0.007 0.199 0.015 0.042 0.060 0.360 0.049 0.054 0.038 0.243
ISRAEL 0.018 0.337 0.005 0.395 0.043 0.267 0.018 0.323 0.082 0.395
RUSSIAN.FEDERATION 0.011 0.081 0.011 0.191 0.026 0.185 0.007 0.027 0.028 0.119
Average 0.007 0.035 0.004 0.057 0.012 0.187 0.011 0.169 0.020 0.054
51
Table XXI
VAR-X type model.
X
12 X
12 X
12
Monthly changes. Dummy D equal to one during Q3 2007 to Q1 2009. ln IPt = a + bk ln IPtk + ck ln Stk + dk ln Stk Dtk + et . Four lags are
k=1 k=0 k=0
presented for space considerations, but 12 lags are included in the estimations.
DENMARK 0.012 0.040 0.013 0.060 0.015 0.003 0.035 0.019 0.009 0.130
FINLAND 0.002 0.196 0.007 0.009 0.002 0.347 0.022 0.429 0.005 0.091
FRANCE 0.000 0.117 0.005 0.033 0.007 0.149 0.004 0.079 0.005 0.206
GERMANY 0.021 0.099 0.014 0.157 0.011 0.123 0.010 0.316 0.025 0.196
GREECE 0.000 0.017 0.007 0.136 0.012 0.015 0.026 0.082 0.001 0.093
HUNGARY 0.000 0.128 0.009 0.064 0.008 0.293 0.013 0.174 0.029 0.121
IRELAND 0.147 0.110 0.001 0.009 0.098 0.102 0.053 0.139 0.016 0.002
ITALY 0.013 0.052 0.001 0.029 0.017 0.155 0.004 0.155 0.013 0.182
LUXEMBOURG 0.031 0.234 0.008 0.097 0.018 0.555 0.012 0.316 0.076 0.512
NETHERLANDS 0.007 0.085 0.001 0.052 0.019 0.151 0.037 0.122 0.056 0.006
NORWAY 0.050 0.087 0.033 0.071 0.021 0.037 0.063 0.074 0.010 0.084
PORTUGAL 0.014 0.061 0.020 0.042 0.009 0.131 0.009 0.101 0.014 0.229
ROMANIA 0.006 0.010 0.056 0.088 0.019 0.073 0.019 0.029 0.028 0.010
SLOVENIA 0.010 0.057 0.021 0.054 0.055 0.282 0.026 0.032 0.024 0.026
SPAIN 0.001 0.138 0.002 0.054 0.025 0.225 0.007 0.114 0.019 0.159
SWEDEN 0.017 0.008 0.001 0.037 0.009 0.094 0.020 0.165 0.032 0.052
UNITED.KINGDOM 0.008 0.036 0.015 0.057 0.001 0.119 0.014 0.000 0.019 0.154
(continued)
(continued)
k=0 k=1 k=2 k=3 k=4
Countries c d c d c d c d c d
INDIA 0.014 0.032 0.030 0.045 0.009 0.058 0.010 0.039 0.029 0.029
JAPAN 0.018 0.060 0.003 0.098 0.016 0.084 0.004 0.233 0.007 0.131
KOREA 0.018 0.004 0.028 0.257 0.026 0.174 0.008 0.045 0.031 0.005
TURKEY 0.001 0.074 0.020 0.112 0.057 0.132 0.051 0.077 0.029 0.253
ISRAEL 0.028 0.012 0.002 0.086 0.041 0.023 0.025 0.029 0.074 0.101
RUSSIAN.FEDERATION 0.017 0.006 0.009 0.110 0.031 0.147 0.009 0.060 0.029 0.058
Average 0.005 0.019 0.005 0.049 0.008 0.142 0.013 0.085 0.015 0.094
53
Figure 1. Stock market - GDP relationship for the US (top graph), Brazil
(centered graph) and Turkey (bottom graph). The graphs illustrate the evo-
lution of the stock market index (real prices, solid line) and the GDP (real
prices, dashed line) from 1980 to 2013.
! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! !
!
$'""""" '""
&#"
$%"""""
&""
$""""""
%#"
)"""""
%""
("""""
$#"
'"""""
$""
%"""""
#"
" "
54