British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 13
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
The Comparative Analysis of the Factors Affecting Securities Market of the Developed and
Emerging Economies: BRICS and Ukraine Case
Hnatyuk Rostyslav
PhD Student
Ivan Franko National University of L’viv
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
In the article we inquire into the international securities market which is a source of financial
development for the major part of the world economy. We perform linear correlation analysis in order to
determine the influence of the macroeconomic and institutional factors on the microstructural (internal)
determinants of securities market. We attempt to compare the results across developed and emerging
economies in order to find out the differences. We found that most of the relationships are consistent with
the theory. We also discovered that for development of emerging economies securities market the role of
institutional environment is much more important than macroeconomic indicators, whereas for developed
countries good performance of both is mostly equally essential.
Key words: institution, institutional factors, macroeconomic variable, securities market determinants
Introduction
The securities market is one of the most important sources of financing for most of the companies
in developed countries and quiet important for those from emerging economies. It allows accumulation of
vast amounts of financial resources relatively quickly and without attaching yourself to a particular bank
therefore allowing development of a particular project. In the last decades it is securities market that
became one of the most quick – booming and technologically intensive market in the world economy.
Since the beginning of XX economists believed that financial development may give an impetus for the
national economy growth. That is when scholars around the world started to research on what exactly
stimulates development of financial sector of economy and, particularly, securities market.
There is a vast volume of literature on the matter, but it is generally believed that there are specific
factors that influence securities market. We could unite all those factors in two big groups (El – Wassal,
2005): institutional and macroeconomic (which include factors of demand, supply and economic policies)
factors.
Scholars were always debating on the direction of the relationship between macroeconomic factors
and financial sector development indicators: whether it is a stable development of the national economy
that stimulates the rise of financial sector, or, perhaps, a strong financial market is a solid background for
the further economic growth (Kominek, 2003). Today we already know that both affect each other and
that sound economic policies require support of financial market, as well as the latter would not be able to
flourish without the former (Garcia, 2009). Thus securities market, as one of the most important part of
the financial market, is always influenced by macroeconomic and institutional factors. We strongly
believe that they define its path of development and that more information on those relationships could
give us more understanding and make policy implications.
The development of the securities market is a multilateral process: there are certain criteria that
determine its state. We propose to call them microstructural indicators. These are all indicators that define
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 14
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
the internal performance of the securities market: volume, volatility, liquidity, concentration, indices etc.
It is them, and the processes that they underline, that are influenced by institutional and macroeconomic
factors. In this article we will perform an analysis to understand how macroeconomic and institutional
environment affect microstructural indicators of securities market.
Literature review
There is a vast body of literature devoted to macroeconomic determinants of securities market
development. The majority of scholars in the literature reviewed believe that the main macroeconomic
indicators of securities market are GDP, inflation and unemployment rate, interest rates, money supply,
exchange rate, savings rate and foreign direct investment (FDI) (Tripathy, 2011). However, some
professionals who work in the sphere of finance reckon that it is futile to seek for a one particular
criterion that would completely and unambiguously explain the securities’ market movements as the
market situation is the result of the influence of different interrelated macroeconomic and institutional
indicators (Sandte, 2012).
Gross domestic product (GDP) and its increase published monthly, quarterly or annually describes
economic activity in the country and the pace of economic growth itself. The increment of GDP usually
means general tendency for improvement of companies’ situation across all the industries which will,
ceteris paribus, boost their profits. This affects the behavior of the investors and, as the result, companies’
share prices will increase which creates a direct relationship between the GDP growth rate and securities
market microstructural indicators. On the other hand, GDP decrease means that consumers will limit their
consumption and profits will plunge. The securities market will respond with a decrease of share prices.
There is a lot of research done that gives empirical evidence in support of this statement. Levine and
Zervos in their extensive research of 41 countries from 1976 till 1993 confirm that there is a robust
relationship between real GDP per capita and stock indices. In fact, the analysis of corresponding
literature shows that this assertion would be true for India (Ray, 2012), South Korea, Malaysia,
Philippines, Zimbabwe (Kominek, 2003), Kazakhstan (Oskenbayev, 2001), Slovakia (Hsing, 2013), Iran
(Faez, 2014), Czech Republic (Hsing, 2011), Argentina (Hsing, 2012), Kenya (Barasa, 2014), Namibia
(Eita, 2012), Lithuania (Pilinkus, 2009), Brasilia (Silveira dos Santos, 2013), Bulgaria (Hsing, 2011). The
research of securities market of 12 countries of Eastern Europe (Ukraine among them) also showed
positive relationships (Kurach, 2010). On the other hand, there is no consistent result for Chile, Columbia,
Greece, Pakistan and Venezuela (Kominek, 2003). Additionally, the analysis performed by Virtus Mutual
Funds contradicts the previously mentioned findings: the relationship between per capita GDP and stock
prices in 16 developed countries from 1900 to 2000 is negative, whereas the same connection is positive
for developing countries (from 1988 to 2000). Analysts believe there may be many various explanations
to that: multinational corporations could gain profits abroad; securities market does not represent the
whole economics because there are still state companies and new firms, etc. To conclude, the relationship
between GDP and securities market is quiet ambiguous. One cannnot for sure define the direction of the
relationship: it differs from country to country and depends on the time period.
Concerning the inflation rate, the increment of the prices on resources will make companies’ costs
increase as well, that is why here it will depend on the elasticity of the market and how far might
company go in transferring its costs on potential companies. If the company succeeds, it could win a
competition, make profits grow and, therefore, securities prices as well. On the other hand, some
economists believe that sometimes inflation could directly affect the increase of the securities prices as
unexpected inflation may augment company’s value itself (Paulo R. S at all, 2006). It is generally
considered that inflation affects negatively the whole financial market, not only because it makes share
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 15
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
prices plunge but also because it diminishes the return on investment. On the other hand, deflation will
positively affect financial market. There is empirical evidence on that. Al-Rjoub in his research of five
countries of the Middle East region found a robust negative statistical relationship between inflation and
stock prices (Mousa, 2012), as Oskenbayev for Kazakhstan (Oskenbayev, 2001). The analysis of Asian
securities market also correspond previous findings for Pakistan (Sohail, 2009), India (Patel, 2012; Naik,
2012), Sri – Lanka (Ray, 2012). The same is true for analogical research of the USA (Humpe, 2007),
Mexico, the United Kingdom, Italy, South Africa and Russia (Moazzami, 2010), Germany
(Masuduzzaman, 2012), Philippines (Murcia, 2014), Thailand (Forson, 2014), Iran (Faez, 2014), Czech
Republic (Hsing, 2011), Romania (Balint, 2010), Argentina (Hsing, 2012), Kenya (Barasa, 2014), Saud
Arabia (Kalyanaraman, 2014), Namibia (Eita, 2012), Kuwait (Al – Mutairu, 2007), Brazil (Silveira dos
Santos, 2013), Bulgaria (Hsing, 2011), Canada (Dadgostar), Sweden (Talla), China (Geetha, 2011). The
research of securities market of 12 countries of Eastern Europe (Ukraine among them) also showed a
negative relationship (Kurach, 2010). It is only in the case of Jordan that was not found any statistical
relationship (Mousa, 2012). As we see, almost in all the cases the strong statistical relationship is
negative.
The unemployment rate influence on securities market is rather ambiguous. On one hand, the
increment of the people unemployed means that the company theoretically is cutting the costs. On the
other hand, high redundancy means that national economy is working not as smooth as it should. Cutting
the costs by resigning people is one of the most distinctive features of the economic recession due to the
fact that it means not only overall unpleasant situation in the business, but also a decrease in the
purchasing power of consumers and, therefore, companies’ earnings. That will negatively affect securities
market. The research performed by John Boyd, however, shows that there is a bright side of the
unemployment: high unemployment rate means a forthcoming decrease of the interest rates which
positively affects securities market (Gonzalo, 2011). Nevertheless, it also has a dark side: drop in future
profits and dividends to be paid. According to Boyd, everything depends on the current business cycle: if
national economy is on the rise, the factor of decreased interest rates will overbalance the future profits
drop and the situation on the securities market will, in fact, improve. If the economy is in the decline, the
opposite will happen and securities market will soar dramatically. This was also approved by a different
research performed by Gonzalo and Taramonti. Negative relationship between unemployment and stock
market is observed in Romania (Balint, 2010), Lithuania (Pilinkus, 2009) and other countries. But
generally, it is impossible to straightforwardly define how unemployment rate influences securities
market as it depends on the current business cycle stage of the country.
There are also other factors that could potentially affect securities market. Interest rate is one of
them. The decrease in interest rates leads to the reduction of the costs of new borrowings which allows
companies to develop today with a hope to receive returns on investments in the future in the form of
profits (Tripathy, 2011). Obviously, this should rise the stock value. At the same time, the majority of the
investors borrow money to buy securities, which means that the increase in the interest rates will inflate
the cost of new borrowings for them and, therefore, decrease the demand on stocks and the securities
prices will plunge (Tripathy, 2011). This relationship was empirically confirmed by many research of the
following countries: India (Ray, 2012), Pakistan (Sohail, 2009), Sri – Lanka (Ray, 2012), Malaysia
(Vejzagic, 2013), Slovakia (Hsing, 2013), USA (Humpe, 2007), Czech Republic (Hsing, 2011),
Kazakhstan (Oskenbayev, 2001), Romania (Balint, 2010), Namibia (Eita, 2012), Kuwait (Al – Mutairu,
2007), Lithuania (Pilinkus, 2009), Brasilia (Silveira dos Santos, 2013), Sweden (Talla), Bulgaria (Hsing,
2011). The negative relationship was also approved in a research on developed and developing countries
for Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Germany, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico,
Philippines, South Africa, Spain and Venezuela (Hsing, 2012). On the other hand, the influence of the
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 16
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
interest rates was considered to be insignificant for China (Garza-Garcia & Yue, 2010). There are cases
when the relationship proves to be direct, USA for instance, but it only means the time lag between the
FRS measures and its effect (Wood, 2010).
The money supply growth rate is also considered to be a determinant of securities market
development. Ben Bernanke and Kenneth Kuttner (2005) believe that the money supply influences the
securities prices through the monetary transmission mechanism and interest rates (Maskay, 2007). The
shrinkage of the money supply gives rise to the real interest rates which also may increase the Central
bank discount rate and, through the transmission, decrease the value of the securities and other financial
assets. Thus between the money supply growth rate and securities market indicators exists a direct
relationship. This tendency is confirmed in the research performed for India (Singh, 2014), Kazakhstan
(Oskenbayev, 2001), China (Garza-Garcia & Yue, 2010), Pakistan (Sohail, 2009), Malaysia (Vejzagic,
2013), The United Kingdom and Germany (Masuduzzaman, 2012), Thailand (Forson, 2014), Argentina
(Hsing, 2012), Kenya (Barasa, 2014), Saud Arabia (Kalyanaraman, 2014), Namibia (Eita, 2012), Kuwait
(Al – Mutairu, 2007), Lithuania (Pilinkus, 2009), Bulgaria (Hsing, 2011), Canada (Hsing, 2012), Sweden
(Talla). On the other hand, Mukherjee and Nake believe that economic impetus that is created by the
money supply expansion may actually neutralize the negative stock prices effect (Al-Jafari, 2011). This
idea was empirically proved by Patra and Poshakwale when researching the Athens’ stock exchange and
also in Japan (Humpe, 2007). Nevertheless, there is much more empirical evidence that the money supply
is significantly and positively related to securities prices.
Exchange rate, along with three main macroeconomic variables, is one of the most important
determinants of financial market in general. The exchange rate volatility directly affects the international
competitiveness of the particular country (Tripathy, 2011). Currency appreciation leads to the decrease of
the export as the goods of the native companies’ becomes more expensive and harder to sell. This will
influence the profits of these companies and other companies whose business is related to the export-
oriented spheres of the national economy. That will make securities prices plunge. The exchange rate
depreciation should do the vice versa. It is understandable that the effect of the ex-rate volatility is not
that obvious as not all the companies are engaged in export operations. Various economists have different
view on the matter. Granger at all found out mixed results: there is no relationship between the ex-rate
and securities’ prices in Japan and Indonesia, whereas there is a robust inverse relationship between these
in Korea, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Thailand and Taiwan (Tripathy, 2011). The same nature of the
relationship is observed for India (Singh, 2014), Pakistan (Sohail, 2009), Turkey in almost all the sectors
of the economy (Ozlen, 2014), Malaysia (Vejzagic, 2013), Ghana (Adjasi, 2008), USA (Sariannidis,
2010), The United Kingdom and Germany (Masuduzzaman, 2012), Romania (Balint, 2010), Namibia
(Eita, 2012), Philippines (Murcia, 2014), Lithuania (Pilinkus, 2009), Bulgaria (Hsing, 2011), Brasilia
(Silveira dos Santos, 2013), Canada (Hsing, 2012), Sweden (Talla), China (Garza-Garcia & Yue, 2010).
The overwhelming majority of the empirical works suggests a strong inverse relationship, though in rare
cases (Argentina (Hsing, 2012)) it was direct.
Foreign direct investment (FDI) is a powerful toll that could boost the economy, mainly through the
financial market. The direction of the relationship is debated by many scholars. The specialists of the
World Bank believe that FDI inflows expand the securities market as the investors are usually coming
from the developed countries where it is a tradition to be listed on the local exchange, so they increase the
quantity of the listing companies. More economically logical assumption is that the need of increase of
the investment volumes makes the local elites to stimulate the government to change the law in order to
create more favorable investment climate, which, in turn, improves the overall situation on the securities
market (Tchana, World Bank). At any rate, the existence of the relationship is confirmed by empirical
research of India (Singh, 2014), Pakistan (Zafar, 2013), Philippines (Murcia, 2014), Brasilia (Silveira dos
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 17
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
Santos, 2013), Iran (Faez, 2014). The majority of the works acknowledge the existence of the
bidirectional relationship: securities market and FDI affect each other simultaneously.
The macroeconomic indicators defined may influence the securities market in a different way. We
strongly believe that its effect will be defined by the market mechanism and its efficiency in particular
country. It will also depend on the peculiarities of the local economic system, local securities market
environment and even traditions. There must be employed an individual approach to the analysis of each
market and country. Potential investor or trader should carefully consider his investment decisions based
on macroeconomic environment as, as we saw, it may be ambiguous and represent the securities market
current situation in a very misleading way.
We reckon that macroeconomic environment is complemented by the institutional determinants. We
must not research them separately as together taken they create a synergy effect. Unfortunately, there is
not enough literature and research done on the problems of institutional environment of securities market.
In the works found all institutional determinants are divided into three big groups: regulatory and legal
framework, market infrastructure and other factors (El – Wassal, 2013). The fringe that separates these is
quiet thin so, at times, it is complicated to transfer this or that determinant to one of those groups.
Regulatory and legal framework is the key factor for the securities market functioning. It exists to
provide the proper understanding of the rules of the game between the players and to ensure trade
transparency. It is the framework’s job to organize the process of creation of the information channels
between the market subjects to receive full, time – keeping and true information. Regulators are supposed
to model the mechanisms that assure that the information received is valid and correct for the decision
making (Stijn, 2007). In fact, the main purpose of the regulatory and legal framework of the securities
market is to produce an environment where the subjects of market infrastructure can act transparently,
honestly and at the same time not overloaded with regulations. In its very essence, it must provide valid
market price formation, taking into account all the market subjects, limiting possible speculations but not
binding them with a pile of unnecessary norms and laws because this slows down the market growth and
potential investments. This can be measured with a group of important indicators that would define
whether or not the regulatory and legal framework works well.
First of all, it is the investor’s rights protection and rule of law. In order to create a stable market,
the government must make sure that the potential investors are protected against financial fraud,
unauthorized manipulations with the insider information and speculation that could be performed by
professional market players. Many scholars believe that, ceteris paribus, the market with superior
investor’s rights protection system is more efficient and performs better. La Porta et al prove that the
countries with better investors’ rights protection have securities market that is more independent from the
influence of politics and generally has more chance to attract funds (La Porta et al, 1999). The research on
securities market of 46 developing countries, where in order to estimate the level of investors’ protection
were used Shareholder’s Protection Index and Quality of Law Enforcement from Doing Business, shows
that, on average, 1% increase in the value of the Index will cause Market capitalization to GDP ratio grow
by 10% (Komijani et al, 2012).
Similar research was conducted to analyse countries of Sub-Saharan Africa: the results show that in
many of those improvement of investor’s protection and generally rule of law will positively affect the
securities market (Anayiotos et al, 2009). The same would be fair for MENA region countries (Cherif et
al, 2014). It is also proved by the overarching research performed by Johansson et al, where it is
confirmed the positive influence of improved investors’ protection and rule of law on the development of
financial market across 98 countries of the world, including Ukraine (Johansson et al, 2013). Scholars
conclude that the rule of law is one of the most important determinants of the securities market
capitalization.
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 18
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
One more indicator is a Regulatory quality. It captures perceptions of the ability of the government
to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations that permit and promote private sector
development (according to The World Bank). This group of institutional factors also includes transparent
corporate governance – the range of structure and rules which ensure that managers act in the best
interests of shareholders (Stijn, 2007). It is closely related to the rule of law and could be considered as
part of it, although very important for the securities market. It is also linked to adoption and
implementation of laws that regulate activities of the companies and banks on securities market, creation
of reliable accounting standards and also relevant regulation and protection of contract enforcement.
Market infrastructure is an important factor of the securities market development: without
appropriate infrastructure, the progress at any market is doubtful. Here we refer to both physical –trading,
depositaries – and electronic – payments systems, clearing, etc – infrastructure. Presence of market
intermediaries encourages investors as it facilitates search of the necessary transparent information.
Additionally, the market requires secondary market subjects – consultants, actuaries, technical specialists,
rating agencies. They accelerate the information flow between the main market players, which gives them
confidence in reliability of the particular market.
All the other institutional factors, which did not fit in the first two, are considered to be classified in
the thirds and last group. This is due to the fact that it is hard to refer those to particular group as they are
very different.
The first among them is political stability. As securities market is mainly considered to be a long –
run investment, it is important for a potential investor that a certain degree of political stability in a
country does not negatively affect financial market and assets. The countries with permanent political
instability, such as Ukraine, usually have quiet depressed securities markets. Political instability threatens
investors and either makes them transfer their assets abroad (as we saw it happened and is still happening
in Russia in 2014 - 2015) or invest in alternative sources of return (banks, precious metals, currency etc).
Political stability plays a major role in securities market development across MENA region countries
(Cherif et al, 2014). Johansson et al prove that political stability drastically affects securities market
capitalization: the more the country is politically stable, the higher its market capitalization (Johansson et
al, 2013). Perotti et al believe that resolving political issues and decreasing political risk improves
securities market performance in developing countries (Perotti et al, 2001).
One more factor that affects securities market is the level of corruption. In general terms,
international organization Transparency International defines it as “the abuse of entrusted power for
private gain”. It always leads to irrational use of scarce resources and, therefore, decelerates the economic
growth and aggravates securities market performance. There are numerous studies that provide evidence
of negative relationship between corruption and securities market. Results of the research in Sub-Saharan
Africa show that corruption is the biggest decelerator of the securities market development in the region
(Anayiotos et al, 2009). In MENA countries the effect of corruption is so destructive that it counters the
positive tendencies in the development of bank sector (Cherif et al, 2014). The study of 42 developing
countries also proves that securities market performance is under severe negative influence of corruption
(Ayaydin, 2013). It is obvious that decrease of corruption positively affects securities market as it allows
the investor to save on investment – related affairs and act transparently: it has the same influence as
political stability.
There is a huge number of institutional factors that might influence securities market. We believe
that the best estimates of these are provided by the World Bank. The Worldwide Governance Indicators,
except mentioned above, includes also Government Effectiveness and Voice and Accountability
(Kaufmann, 2010).
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 19
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
Government effectiveness resembles “perceptions of the quality of public services, the quality of
the civil service and the degree of its independence from political pressures, the quality of policy
formulation and implementation, and the credibility of the government's commitment to such policies”.
Stable economy is the foundation for the development of any market and securities market is not an
exception. Sound, predictable, transparent and coherent monetary, fiscal and external economic policies
might spur positive investment decisions that will improve the performance of securities market.
Voice and Accountability is also considered to be important institutional factor as, according to
World bank, it is “capturing perceptions of the extent to which a country's citizens are able to participate
in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free
media”. It is believed that, ceteris paribus, countries with relatively higher degree of economic, political
and social freedom develop faster and more efficient than those with relatively lower one. This can be
explained by the fact that higher degree of economic freedom fills the market with confidence as it means
that investors will not be suppressed with abnormal regulations. We believe that institutional environment
must appropriate investor’s confidence. Safe harbor for the money is the highest value for investors’
decision making.
There are, of course, other factors that might theoretically influence securities market. Nevertheless,
in our research we concentrated our attention on the analysis of the main ones.
Data and methodology
In order to understand the relationship between macroeconomic and institutional indicators on one
side and microstructural – on the other, we will create linear multifactor correlation models. In these
models macroeconomic and institutional factors will be considered to be exogenous, independent
variables whereas microstructural – endogenous variables of the country’s securities market.
The main hypothesis of our survey are as follows:
in developed countries (such as the USA, the UK, Japan and Germany) macroeconomic variables
are more important determinants of securities market than institutional factors as these countries
possess institutes and institutions that have already completely formed and successfully regulate the
economic environment;
in developing countries (such as Brazil, India, China, South Africa and Ukraine) institutional factors
are much more important determinants of securities market than macroeconomic variables due to
the fact that these countries have their market economy only emerging, institutes and institutions
did not reach their fruition. Thus, any drastic changes of the institutional environment have a robust
effect and impinge on unstable economic system, which in the end reflects on securities market.
Using a variety of macroeconomic variables and institutional factors listed above we will perform
an econometric survey of these securities markets. All the variables are considered to be independent. Our
dependent variables include: Stock market capitalization to GDP (%) and Quantity of officially listed
companies as determinants of the size of a particular securities market; Stock market total value traded to
GDP (%) as well as Stock market turnover ratio (%) as determinants of the liquidity of a particular
securities market.
The Data for analysis is represented by the World bank statistics and comprises a period from 2004
to 2013 for the UK, the USA, Japan, Germany, Brazil, India, China, South Africa and Ukraine. We
presume that the model does not have autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity and the relationship between
dependent and independent variables is linear. The models were created in a way that minimizes the
multicollinearity of the independent variables. Taken into account the fact that all the regression equations
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 20
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
are only an estimate of the real regression coefficients and other regression elements, we exclude the
errors from the analysis, considering them to be absent.
The regression equation will be as follows:
Log Ỹi = a0 + CoC a1+ RQ a2+ PS a3+ GE a4+RoL a5+VaA a6+ GDP a7+ CPI a8+ UR a9+ ExR a10+
+ RIR a11+ MS a12+ FDI a13+ GrS a14,
(1)
where:
Log Ỹi – logarithm of the theoretical value of the dependent variable i;
a0 – zero regression coefficient;
Zai – actual values of independent variable Z with pertinent regression coefficient ai.
Method of logarithms is used in order to be able to present the results of our research. In our case,
any change of a particular independent variable Zai by one point, in case all the other remain stable,
results in change of dependent variable Log Ỹi by ai multiplied by 100%.
Results
Results of multi correlation models with pertinent correlation and determination coefficients, as
well as corresponding p-values for every variable are represented in tables 1-8.
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 21
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
Table 1. Stock market capitalization to GDP (%) and macroeconomic and institutional factors
(developed countries)
Country
Variable
US
A
JA
PA
N
GE
RM
AN
Y
UK
Zero regression coefficient (а0) 15,82* 9,66** -2,9* 3,19***
Control of Corruption (CoC) -0,63* 2,25***
Requlatory Quality (RQ) -2,24* 2,44*
Political stability (PS) -1,35*** 0,21*** 0,11
Government Effectiveness (GE) 2,74***
Rule of Law (RoL)
Voice and Accountibility (VaA) -0,40 -5,55***
GDP (GDP) -0,03 х10-11
* -0,01 х10-11
***
Inflation Rate (CPI) -0,08* -0,15** -0,07***
Unemployment Rate (UR) -0,05* -0,26**
Exchange Rate (per 1 USD) (ExR) 1,69*
Real Interest Rate (RIR)
Growth of Money supply М2 (MS)
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) -0,09 х10
-11 * -1,27 х10
-11 **
-0,3 х10-11
*
-0,03х10-11
**
Gross savings as a % of GDP (GrS) 0,08* 0,02 -0,02*** -0,02
Correlation coefficient (r) 0,99 0,99 0,99 0,99
Determination coefficient (R2) 0,98 0,93 0,95 0,93
F significance of the model (F sign) 0,01* 0,05** 0,01* 0,05**
Note: value *denotes significance at 1% level, ** at 5% level, *** at 10% level respectively.
High values of determination and correlation coefficients denote that chosen independent factors
explain a great part of resulting variable variance, which we believe to be the sign of high adequacy of the
models. F statistics has very low values, which means that all the coefficients of the models are not
occasional mathematical deviation.
It is obvious from the Tables that models for developing countries are much more accurate than for
developed ones. If we go into more detail, we can notice that correlation coefficients in models for
developing countries are also more accurate than those for developed countries.
In Table 1 we see the results of correlation between macroeconomic and institutional variables and
stock market capitalization to GDP (%). From the table we can see that in case of stock market
capitalization to GDP we cannot confirm our hypothesis about the developed countries: we see that, even
though macroeconomic factors, such as FDI, inflation rate and savings rate, are important determinants of
capitalization, institutional factors, such as control of corruption, regulatory quality and political stability,
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 22
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
are also a vital part of capitalization dynamics. In fact, we can even see that, judging from values,
institutional factors are more crucial for capitalization of securities market in developed countries.
Table 2. Stock market capitalization to GDP (%) and macroeconomic and institutional factors
(developing countries)
Country
Variable
IND
IA
CH
INA
SA
R
UK
RA
INE
Zero regression coefficient (а0) -8,25* -4,94** 14,25* -13,86*
Control of Corruption (CoC) 4,12*
Requlatory Quality (RQ) 5,75*
Political stability (PS) 0,27
Government Effectiveness (GE) 2,34* 3,29* -0,36
Rule of Law (RoL) 2,41* 1,72***
Voice and Accountibility (VaA) 2,36*
GDP (GDP) 0,08 х10
-11 *
-0,02 х10-11
* 0,1 х10-11
***
Inflation Rate (CPI) -0,11* -0,06*
Unemployment Rate (UR) -0,26** -0,13*
Exchange Rate (per 1 USD) (ExR) 0,04** 0,25*
Real Interest Rate (RIR) -0,13*
Growth of Money supply М2 (MS) -0,04**
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) 1 х10-11
*
Gross savings as a % of GDP (GrS) -0,06*** -0,08*
Correlation coefficient (r) 0,99 0,98 0,99 0,99
Determination coefficient (R2) 0,96 0,90 0,97 0,94
F significance of the model (F sign) 0,006* 0,007* 0,005* 0,003*
Note: value *denotes significance at 1% level, ** at 5% level, *** at 10% level respectively.
On the other hand, we do confirm our hypothesis for developing countries in the Table 2: in the
table we see that government effectiveness, rule of law and voice and accountability are decisive
determinants of capitalization. Values of these coefficients as well as some other institutional factors are
much higher than values of macroeconomic determinants. Among macroeconomic factors the most
important for developing countries securities market in terms of capitalization are inflation and
unemployment rate, exchange rate, GDP. Nevertheless, the institutional environment affects securities
market capitalization tens of times stronger than macroeconomic factors. We reckon that this is a proof of
our hypothesis.
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 23
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
Table 3. Quantity of officially listed companies and macroeconomic and institutional factors
(developed countries) Country
Variable
US
A
JA
PA
N
GE
RM
AN
Y
UK
Zero regression coefficient (а0) 1,55* 1,12 0,51 0,28
Control of Corruption (CoC) 0,41*** -0,14
Requlatory Quality (RQ) 0,13* 0,46 0,90*
Political stability (PS)
Government Effectiveness (GE) 0,02
Rule of Law (RoL) 0,65*
Voice and Accountibility (VaA)
GDP (GDP) -0,002 х10-11
*
Inflation Rate (CPI) -0,03* -0,11* 0,23**
Unemployment Rate (UR) -0,05* -0,20* 0,01*** 0,03***
Exchange Rate (per 1 USD) (ExR) 1,07** 3,11**
Real Interest Rate (RIR) -0,04* 0,07** 0,1**
Growth of Money supply М2 (MS) -0,04** 0,01**
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) 0,02 х10
-11 * -0,44 х10
-11 -0,06 х10
-11
-0,03х10-11
**
Gross savings as a % of GDP (GrS) -0,01* 0,03**
Correlation coefficient (r) 0,99 0,97 0,98 0,99
Determination coefficient (R2) 0,99 0,83 0,88 0,99
F significance of the model (F sign) 0,01* 0,05** 0,03** 0,04**
Note: value *denotes significance at 1% level, ** at 5% level, *** at 10% level respectively.
In Table 3 we see the results of correlation between macroeconomic and institutional variables and
quantity of officially listed companies. We can conclude from the results depicted in this Table 2 that we
cannot confirm our hypothesis for developed countries for quantity of listed companies as well. Both
macroeconomic variables, such as unemployment rate, real interest rate and FDI that seem to be crucial
for all the analysed developed countries, and institutional factors, such as control of corruption and
regulatory quality, are deemed to play equal role in defining dynamics of the quantity of listed companies
in developed countries.
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 24
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
Table 4. Quantity of officially listed companies and macroeconomic and institutional factors
(developing countries) Country
Variable
BR
AZ
IL
IND
IA
CH
INA
SA
R
UK
RA
INE
Zero regression coefficient (а0) 2,53* 5,43* 2,55* -2,31* 0,74***
Control of Corruption (CoC) 0,31* 0,67*
Requlatory Quality (RQ) 0,21*** 0,42* 0,20
Political stability (PS) 0,66*
Government Effectiveness (GE) 0,50*
Rule of Law (RoL)
Voice and Accountibility (VaA) 0,53**
GDP (GDP) -0,02 х10
-
11 *
-0,02 х10-
11 *
0,006 х10-11
*
-0,2 х10-11
*
Inflation Rate (CPI) -0,02* 0,01* -0,002**
Unemployment Rate (UR) -0,21* -0,09* -0,10*
Exchange Rate (per 1 USD) (ExR) -0,07*
Real Interest Rate (RIR) -0,01* 0,005 -0,01** -0,03*
Growth of Money supply М2 (MS) -0,003 0,001***
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) 0,2 х10
-11
*
0,02 х10-11
*
Gross savings as a % of GDP (GrS) -0,01* -0,01*
Correlation coefficient (r) 0,99 0,99 0,99 0,99 0,99
Determination coefficient (R2) 0,98 0,97 0,99 0,99 0,98
F significance of the model (F sign) 0,002* 0,003* 0,0005* 0,001* 0,001*
Note: value *denotes significance at 1% level, ** at 5% level, *** at 10% level respectively.
On the contrary, in developing countries (Table 4) we also do not see a big difference between the
influence of macroeconomic and institutional variables on the quantity of listed companies. Even though
values of institutional factors are higher and their significance is more robust, we believe that it is not
enough to justify our hypothesis. Thus, in this case we reject our hypothesis, believing it to be not
relevant when it comes to quantity of listed companies. It might be also the case that this particular
indicator of securities market performance has limited descriptive power and is not describing the real
market situation. This should be considered in the following surveys on securities market institutional
environment.
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 25
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
Table 5. Stock market turnover ratio (%) and macroeconomic and institutional factors (developed countries)
Country
Variable
US
A
JA
PA
N
GE
RM
AN
Y
UK
Zero regression coefficient (а0) 9,39* 11,01* 2,84** 15,92*
Control of Corruption (CoC)
Requlatory Quality (RQ) 0,23
Political stability (PS) -0,51*
Government Effectiveness (GE) 0,35
Rule of Law (RoL) 1,15**
Voice and Accountibility (VaA) -1,10 -3,30* -2,91*
GDP (GDP) 0,04 х10-11
-0,007х10-11
Inflation Rate (CPI) -0,02 0,01
Unemployment Rate (UR)
Exchange Rate (per 1 USD) (ExR) -3,56* 0,02 1,99*** -2,82**
Real Interest Rate (RIR) -0,03 0,05**
Growth of Money supply М2 (MS) 0,06*** 0,03* 0,02*
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) -0,1 х10-11
*** -15х10-11
**
Gross savings as a % of GDP (GrS) -0,07*** -0,06**
Correlation coefficient (r) 0,96 0,93 0,93 0,99
Determination coefficient (R2) 0,81 0,70 0,70 0,99
F significance of the model (F sign) 0,07*** 0,06*** 0,06*** 0,02**
Note: value *denotes significance at 1% level, ** at 5% level, *** at 10% level respectively.
In Table 5 we see the results of correlation between macroeconomic and institutional variables and
stock market turnover ratio (%). From the table we can see that in case of turnover ratio we cannot
confirm our hypothesis about the developed countries. In fact, rule of law and voice and accountability
seem to be crucial determinants of securities market institutional environment. Thus, we can argue that
institutional environment in developed countries might be sometimes even more decisive for securities
market. However, exchange rate is also an important indicator for turnover ratio in developed countries
securities market. That is why we cannot confirm our hypothesis: institutional environment and
macroeconomic variables seem to be almost equally important for securities market with a small
prevalence of institutional factors.
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 26
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
Table 6. Stock market turnover ratio (%) and macroeconomic and institutional factors (developing countries)
Country
Variable
BR
AZ
IL
IND
IA
CH
INA
SA
R
UK
RA
INE
Zero regression coefficient (а0) 0,62 3,46 2,94*** 0,39** -32,59**
Control of Corruption (CoC) 0,14* 8,02**
Requlatory Quality (RQ) 1,37*** -1,39**
Political stability (PS) 0,16 -0,67* 1,15**
Government Effectiveness (GE)
Rule of Law (RoL) 1,08* 0,33*
Voice and Accountibility (VaA) 1,40***
GDP (GDP) -0,04 х10
-11
*
-0,09 х10-
11 *
0,006 х10-11
*
0,03 х10-11
*
3,7 х10-11
***
Inflation Rate (CPI) 0,01 0,04* -0,05**
Unemployment Rate (UR) -0,13*** -0,44* -0,61* 1,85
Exchange Rate (per 1 USD) (ExR) -0,30**
Real Interest Rate (RIR) -0,01*** -0,06*
Growth of Money supply М2 (MS) -0,01
-
0,0007*** 0,01***
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI)
Gross savings as a % of GDP
(GrS) -0,06** -0,08*
Correlation coefficient (r) 0,97 0,99 0,98 0,99 0,97
Determination coefficient (R2) 0,82 0,98 0,85 0,99 0,84
F significance of the model (F
sign) 0,05** 0,003* 0,04** 0,0001* 0,05**
Note: value *denotes significance at 1% level, ** at 5% level, *** at 10% level respectively.
On the contrary, we might confirm our hypothesis concerning analysed developing countries in
Table 6. As we see in the results, almost all securities markets of developing countries, except for South
African, are greatly influenced by control of corruption, regulatory quality and political stability. In fact,
institutional factors influence stock market turnover ratio tens of times stronger than macroeconomic
factors. Even though macroeconomic determinants do also play a role in developing dynamics of stock
market turnover ratio, it is not that robust. GDP, inflation rate, unemployment rate and money supply
growth are supposed to be the best macroeconomic determinants of stock market turnover ratio in
developing countries.
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 27
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
Table 7. Stock market total value traded to GDP (%) and macroeconomic and institutional factors (developed countries)
Country
Variable
US
A
JA
PA
N
GE
RM
AN
Y
UK
Zero regression coefficient (а0) -2,42 9,05** -13,86* 21,13*
Control of Corruption (CoC) 0,63** 3,25*
Requlatory Quality (RQ) 0,85** -0,40*
Political stability (PS) -0,50*
Government Effectiveness (GE) -2,04*
Rule of Law (RoL)
Voice and Accountibility (VaA) -4,18*
GDP (GDP) 0,09 х10-11
** -0,09 х10-11
* -0,05х10-11
*
Inflation Rate (CPI) -0,10** -0,06 -0,23* 0,01
Unemployment Rate (UR) 0,22*
Exchange Rate (per 1 USD) (ExR) 0,05** -10,84*
Real Interest Rate (RIR) -0,14*
Growth of Money supply М2 (MS) 0,02*** 0,08*** 0,02*
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) 0,2 х10-11
* -0,06х10-11
**
Gross savings as a % of GDP (GrS) -0,08* -0,09*** -0,23*
Correlation coefficient (r) 0,98 0,98 0,99 0,99
Determination coefficient (R2) 0,87 0,83 0,99 0,99
F significance of the model (F sign) 0,03** 0,03** 0,001* 0,01*
Note: value *denotes significance at 1% level, ** at 5% level, *** at 10% level respectively.
In Table 7 we see the results of correlation between macroeconomic and institutional variables and
stock market total value traded to GDP (%). Results indicate that total value traded to GDP is almost
equally influenced in both developed and developing countries. Thus, we reject our hypothesis. GDP,
inflation rate, money supply growth and savings rate seem to be crucial macroeconomic determinants of
developed countries stock market liquidity. Nevertheless, in case of Japan, Germany and the UK we
might conclude that voice and accountability, control of corruption and government effectiveness
respectively play a much stronger role for the liquidity of their stock markets.
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 28
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
Table 8. Stock market total value traded to GDP (%) and macroeconomic and institutional factors (developing countries)
Country
Variable
BR
AZ
IL
IND
IA
CH
INA
SA
R
UK
RA
INE
Zero regression coefficient (а0) -4,32** 3,74* -19,07* 4,06** 7,34*
Control of Corruption (CoC) 0,28 0,51***
Requlatory Quality (RQ) -0,28
Political stability (PS)
Government Effectiveness (GE) 3,89* 1,70*
Rule of Law (RoL) 2,66* 3,86*
Voice and Accountibility (VaA) 2,13* 0,91***
GDP (GDP) -0,02 х10
-11
-0,08 х10-11
*
0,02 х10-11
*
0,1 х10-11
**
1,1 х10-11
*
Inflation Rate (CPI) 0,03**
Unemployment Rate (UR) -0,57* -0,18*
Exchange Rate (per 1 USD) (ExR) 0,66*
Real Interest Rate (RIR) -0,01*** -0,04 0,06*
Growth of Money supply М2 (MS) -0,02* -0,01** 0,01*
Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) 0,6 х10
-11
*** 0,6 х10-11
*
0,9 х10-11
***
-6,1 х10-
11 *
Gross savings as a % of GDP (GrS) -0,04*** -0,06*
Correlation coefficient (r) 0,99 0,99 0,99 0,99 0,99
Determination coefficient (R2) 0,93 0,95 0,99 0,99 0,98
F significance of the model (F sign) 0,01* 0,01* 0,0006* 0,001* 0,003*
Note: value *denotes significance at 1% level, ** at 5% level, *** at 10% level respectively.
On the other hand, we might confirm our hypothesis about developing countries from Table 8.
Government effectiveness, rule of law and voice and accountability seem to have a robust impact on
developing countries stock market liquidity. As with the other liquidity criteria, institutional factors
influence stock market turnover ratio tens of times stronger than macroeconomic factors. However,
macroeconomic variables also play a role in definition of securities market liquidity. For instance, GDP as
well as FDI seem to be determinative for almost all developing countries analysed. Real interest rate and
money supply growth have also an impact but it does not seem to hold in all the developing countries. All
coefficients are statistically significant which means that all the relationships do have a real sense and are
not simply mathematical deviations.
Over the course of our survey we found that in some cases our hypothesis is true whereas in the
other – partially true or absolutely false. In our opinion, the relationships found should be analysed in the
following research in order to understand the economic underpinning of those. We, however, did not set a
goal to do that.
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 29
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
Conclusions
In this paper we analysed the relationship between institutional and macroeconomic variables on
one side and microstructural indicators of securities market – on the other. In the course of our survey a
set of developed and developing countries were analysed. We were able to confirm our hypothesis for
some of them and rejected – for the others. The crucial conclusions derived from our survey might be
presented in the table 9.
Table 9. Hypothesis confirmation in developed and developing countries
Microstructural
indicator of securities
market
Developed countries: the USA,
Japan, Germany, the UK
Developing countries: Brazil,
India, China, South Africa and
Ukraine
Importance of
institutional
variables
Importance of
macroeconomic
variables
Importance of
institutional
variables
Importance of
macroeconomic
variables
Stock market
capitalization to GDP
(%)
More important
than
macroeconomic
Less important
than institutional
More important
than
macroeconomic
Less important
than
institutional
Quantity of officially
listed companies
Relatively equal
role
Relatively equal
role
Relatively equal
role
Relatively equal
role
Stock market turnover
ratio (%)
Relatively equal
role with a bit
stronger impact
Relatively equal
role with a bit
weaker impact
More important
than
macroeconomic
Less important
than
institutional
Stock market total value
traded to GDP (%)
More important
than
macroeconomic
Less important
than institutional
More important
than
macroeconomic
Less important
than
institutional
The results clearly reveal that our hypothesis about developing countries is very much accurate:
almost in all the cases the influence of the institutional environment is more robust than macroeconomic
determinants. In our opinion it is an important policy implication for the developing countries. It means
that a way to improve the securities market conditions in developing countries might be reforms that aim
on improving the institutional environment in the first place.
On the contrary, our hypothesis for the developed countries is false: institutional environment is
either playing equal role with macroeconomic environment or is more important. Thus, we believe that
developed countries should also take measures to ensure that their institutional environment is well –
managed.
In the light of the above mentioned, it is important to stress that the effect of institutional
environment on securities market in researched countries is greatly underestimated. Even though
additional study on the other countries is required to confirm the thesis, in our opinion, institutional
environment plays a major role in securities market development and dynamics. We believe it to be a
crucial determinant that must be taken into account at all times when researching securities market.
Following surveys might include the causes of such a relationship: though we all intuitively understand
how institutions improve securities market, it is important to thoroughly explain the mechanism that is
underpinning these economic processes and its nature.
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 30
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
References
1. Kamal Amin El – Wassal. The Development of Stock Market: In Search of a Theory /Kamal
Amin El – Wassal// International Journal of Economic and Financial Issues. – 2013. – Vol. 3, № 3, p. 606
– 624.
2. Zbigniew Kominek. Stock market and industry growth: an eastern European perspective /
Zbigniew Kominek // European Bank for reconstruction and development, - 2003. Working paper № 81.
3. Valeriano F.Garcia. Macroeconomic determinants of stock market development / Valeriano
F.Garcia, Lin Lui // Journal of Applied Economics. – 2009. – Vol.2, № 1.
4. Naliniprava Tripathy. Causal Relationship between Macro - Economic indicators and stock
market in India/ Dr. Naliniprava Tripathy//Asian Journal of Finance and Accounting. - 2011. – Vol. 3,
№1.
5. Holger Sandte. Stock market vs GDP growth: a complicated mixture/ Holger Sandte// BNY
Mellon Asset Management. - 2012.
6. Sarbapriya Ray. Testing Granger Causal Relationship Between Macroeconomic Variables and
Stock Price Behaviour: Evidence from India/ Sarbapriya Ray// Advances in Applied Economics and
Finance (AAEF). – 2012. – Vol. 3, №1. p. 470 – 481.
7. Yessengali Oskenbayev . The impact of macroeconomic indicators on stock exchange
performance in Kazakhstan/ Yessengali Oskenbayev, Mesut Yilmaz, Dauren Chagirov// African Journal
of Business and Management. – 2001. – Vol. 5, №7.
8. Yu Hsing. Impact of macroeconomic variables on the stock market in Slovakia and policy
implications/ Yu Hsing// Economics & Economy. – 2013. – Vol. 1, №1, p. 7 – 16.
9. Ali Faez. Investigating the role of foreign direct investment on stock market: evidence from
Tehran stock exchange/ Ali Faez and others// Journal of Applied Science and Agriculture. – 2014. – Vol.
9(6), p. 2492 – 2500.
10. Yu Hsing. Effect of Macroeconomic Variables on the Stock Market: The Case of The Szech
Republic/ Yu Hsing// Theoretical and Applied Economics. – 2011. – Vol. XVIII, № 7 (560), p. 53 – 64.
11. Yu Hsing. Macroeconomic determinants of stock market index for a Major Latin American
country and policy implications/ Yu Hsing, Michael C. Budden, Antoinette S. Phillips// Macrothink
Institute – Business and Economic Research. – 2012. – Vol. 2, №1, p. 1 – 10.
12. Job Wanjala Barasa. Macroeconomic determinants of stock market performance in Kenya:
Case of Nairobi Securities Exchange. – 2014. Internet resource:
http://erepository.uonbi.ac.ke/handle/11295/74949.
13. Joel Hinaunye Eita. Modelling Macroeconomic Determinants Of Stock Market Prices: Evidence
From Namibia/ Joel Hinaunye Eita// Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR). – 2012. – Vol. 28, №
5, p. 871 – 884.
14. Donatas Pilinkus. The short-run relationship between stock market prices and macroeconomic
variables in Lithuania: an application of the impulse response function/Donatas Pilinkus, Vytautas
Boguslauskas// Economics of Engineering Decisions. – 2009. – Vol. 5.
15. Allan Silveira dos Santos. Interaction between Macroeconomics Variables and IBOVESPA,
Brazilian Stock Market Index: an Analysis from a VEC Model/ Allan Silveira dos Santos, Angelo
Rondina Neto, Eliane Araujo, Luma De Oliveira , Mateus Boldrine Abrita// Transnational Corporations
Review. – 2013. – Vol. 5, Issue 4, p. 81 – 95.
16. Yu Hsing. IMPACTS OF MACROECONOMIC VARIABLES ON THE STOCK MARKET IN
BULGARIA AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS/ Yu Hsing// East –West Journal of Economics &
Business. – 2011. – Vol. 14, Issue 2, p. 41 – 53.
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 31
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
17. Radoslaw Kurach. Stock market development in CEE countries – the panel data analysis/
Radoslaw Kurach// EKONOMIKA. – 2010. – Vol.89 (3), p. 20 – 29.
18. Levine, R. and Zervos, S., (1996) “Stock Market Development and Long-Run Growth” World
Bank Economic Review, 10(2), pp. 323-39.
19. Mohamed Khaled Al-Jafari. Investigating the relationship between stock market returns and
economic variables: evidence from developed and emerging markets/ Mohamed Khaled Al-Jafari, Rashed
Mohammed Salameh, Mohammad Rida Habbash// International Research Journal of Finance and
Economics. – 2011. – Issue 79.
20. The Myth of GDP and stock market returns// Virtus Mutual Funds. – 2009.
21. Terra, Paulo R. S. The Stock Returns-Inflation Causality Revisited: Analyzing the Evidences for
31 Developed and Emerging Countries./ Bruno Breyer Caldas and Paulo Renato Soares Terra//
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) Working paper. – 2006.
22. Shukairi Nori Mousa. The relationship between inflation and stock prices (case of Jordan)/
Shukairi Nori Mousa, Waleed al Safi, Abdul Baset Hasoneh, Marwan Mohammad Abo-orabi// IJRRAS. –
2012. – Vol. 10, №1.
23. Nadeem Sohail. Long – Run and Short – Run Relationship between Macroeconomic Variables
and Stock Prices in Pakistan/ Nadeem Sohail, Zakir Hussain// Pakistan Economic and Social Review. –
2009. – Vol. 47, №2, p. 183 – 198.
24. Samveg Patel. The effect of macroeconomic determinants on the performance of the Indian
stock market/ Samveg Patel// NMIMS Management Review. – 2012. – Vol. XXII, p. 117 – 127.
25. Pramod Kumar Naik. The Impact of Macroeconomic Fundamentals on Stock Prices Revisited:
Evidence from Indian Data// Pramod Kumar Naik, Puja Padhi// Eurasian Journal of Business and
Economics. – 2012. – Vol. 5 (10), p. 25 – 44.
26. Dr. Aurangzeb. Factors affecting performance of stock market: evidence from South Asian
countries/ Dr. Aurangzeb// International journal of academic research in business and social sciences, -
2012. Vol. 2, №9.
27. Andreas Humpe. Can macroeconomic variables explain long term stock market movement? A
comparison of the US and Japan/ Andreas Humpe, Peter Macmillan// Centre for Dynamic
Macroeconomic Analysis Working paper Series. – 2007. – 07/20, p. 1 – 23.
28. Bakhtiar Moazzami. Stock market and inflation: evidence from 12 developed and emerging
economies/ Bakhtiar Moazzami// International Business and Economics Research Journal. – 2010. – Vol.
9, №11.
29. Mihedi Masuduzzaman. Impact of the macroeconomic variables on the stock market returns: the
case of Germany and the United Kingdom/ Mihedi Masuduzzaman// Global journal of management and
business research. – 2012. – Vol. 12, issue 16, p. 22 – 34.
30. John Murcia. Macroeconomic Estimation of Selected Philippine Stock Market Indices/ John
Vianee B. Murcia// Southern Asian Interdisciplinary Research Journal. – 2014. – Vol. 2, №1, p. 10 – 18.
31. Joseph Ato Forson. Selected Macroeconomic Variables and Stock Market Movements:
Empirical Evidence from Thailand/ Joseph Ato Forson, Jakkaphong Janrattanagual// Contemporary
Economics. – 2014. – Vol. 8, Isuue 2, p. 154 – 174.
32. Cristina Balint. The Correlation between Macroeconomic Variables and The Bucharest Stock
Exchange Share Prices/ Cristina Balint// Finances – Challenges of the Future. – 2010. – Vol. 1, Issue 12
p. 189 – 195.
33. Lakshmi Kalyanaraman. Macroeconomic Forces and Stock Prices: Some Empirical Evidence
from Saudi Arabia/ Lakshmi Kalyanaraman, Basmah Al Tuwajri// International Journal of Financial
Research. – 2014. – Vol. 5, № 1, p. 81 – 92.
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 32
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
34. Abdullah Al – Mutairu. Macroeconomic Determinants Of The Behavior of Kuwait Stock
Exchange/ Abdullah Al – Mutairu, Husain Al – Omar// Studies in Business and Economics. – 2007. –
Vol. 13, № 1, p. 39 – 50.
35. Bahram Dadgostar. Dynamic Relationship Macroeconomic Variables and the Canadian Stock
Market/ Bahram Dadgostar, Bakhtiar Moazzami// Electronic resource: http://na-
businesspress.homestead.com/dadgostarweb.pdf.
36. Joseph Tagne Talla. Impact of Macroeconomic Variables on the Stock Market Prices of the
Stockholm Stock Exchange (OMXS30)/ Joseph Tagne Talla// Jonkoping International Business School.
Electronic resource: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:630705/FULLTEXT02.
37. Caroline Geetha. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INFLATION AND STOCK MARKET:
EVIDENCE FROM MALAYSIA, UNITED STATES AND CHINA/ Caroline Geetha, Rosle Mohidin,
Vivin Vincent Chandran, Victoria Chong// International Journal of Economics and Management
Sciences. – 2011. – Vol. 1, №. 2, p. 01–16.
38. Jesus Gonzalo. The reaction of stock market returns to anticipated unemployment/ Jesus
Gonzalo, Abderrahim Taamouti// Economic Department, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid Working
paper. – 2011.
39. Mirza Vejzagic. Relationship between Macroeconomic Variables And Stock Market Index: Co
– Integration Evidence from FTSE Bursa Malaysia Hyjrah Shariah Index/ Mirza Vejzagic, Hashem
Zarafar// Asian Journal of Management Sciences & Education. – 2013. – Vol. 2, №4, p. 94 – 108.
40. Garza-Garcia. International determinants of stock market performance in China: a cointegration
approach/ Garza-Garcia, Yue// Centre for global finance. – 2010. – № 03/10.
41. Tim Wood. US interest rates, the Fed and Stock market/ Tim Wood// The Market Oracle. –
2010. – December 12.
42. Biniv Maskay. Analyzing the effect of change in money supply on stock prices/ Biniv Maskay//
The Park Place Economist. – 2007. – Vol. XV, p. 72-79.
43. Pooja Singh. An Empirical Relationship between Selected Indian Stock Market Indices and
Macroeconomic Indicators/ Pooja Singh// IMPACT: International Journal of Research in Business
Management. – 2014. – Vol. 2. issue 9, p. 81 – 92.
44. Sherife Ozlen. The effects of domestic macroeconomic determinants on stock returns: a sector
level analysis/ Sherife Ozlen// European journal of economic studies. – 2014. – Vol. 8, №2, p. 75 – 84.
45. Charles Adjasi. Effect of Exchange Rate Volatility on The Ghana Stock Exchange/ Charles
Adjasi, Simon K. Harvey, Daniel Agyapong// African Journal of Accounting, Economics, Finance and
Banking Research. – 2008. – Vol. 3, №3, p. 28 – 47.
46. Nikolaos Sariannidis. A GARCH Examination of Macroeconomic Effects on The U.S. Stock
Market: A Distinction Between the Total Market Index and The Sustainability Index/ Nikolaos
Sariannidis, Grigoris Giannarakis, Nicolaos Litinas, George Conteos// European Research Studies. –
2010. – Vol. XIII, Issue 1, p. 129 – 142.
47. Mehwish Zafar. Determinants of stock market performance in Pakistan/ Mehwish Zafar//
Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary research in business. – 2013. – Vol. 4, №9, p. 1017 – 1026.
48.Fulbert Tchana. Stock – markets lead to more FDI...or is it vice – versa? Electronic resource:
http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/stock-markets-lead-more-fdior-it-vice-versa.
49. Kamal Amin El – Wassal. The Development of Stock Market: In Search of a Theory /Kamal
Amin El – Wassal// International Journal of Economic and Financial Issues. – 2013. – Vol. 3, № 3, p. 606
– 624.
British Journal of Economics, Finance and Management Sciences 33
March 2016, Vol. 11 (1)
© 2016 British Journals ISSN 2048-125X
50. Claessens Stijn. Corporate governance reform issues in the Brazilian equity markets/ Claessens
Stijn, Klingebiel Daniela, Lubrano Mike// International Research Journal of Finance and Economics. –
2007. – Vol. 8, p. 245 – 276.
51. Rafael La Porta. Investor Protection: Origins, Consequences, and Reform/ Rafael La Porta,
Florencio Lopez-deSilanes, Andrei Shleifer, Robert W. Vishny// Financial Sector Discussion Sector №1.
– 1999, Washington D.C.: World Bank.
52. Akbar Komijani. Analysis of the Role of Protecting Shareholders Rights in Expanding Stock
Market in a Selected Developing Countries/ Akbar Komijani, Habib Soheili Ahmadi// International
Journal of Business and Social Science. – 2012. – Vol. 3, № 17, p. 223 – 228.
53. George C. Anayiotos. Institutional Factors and Financial Sector Development: Evidence from
Sub-Saharan Africa/ George C. Anayiotos, Hovhannes Toroyan// IMF Working Paper. – 2009. – №
09/258, p. 1 – 26.
54. Mondher Cherif. Institutional Determinants of Financial Development in MENA Countries/
Mondher Cherif, Christian Dreger// DIW Berlin Discussion papers. – 2014. – № 1422, p. 1 – 15.
55. Daniel Johansson. The Determinants of Stock Market Development: Implications of a Dynamic
Panel Data Model/ Daniel Johansson, Andreas Schou Kongstad// Land University MSc in Finance Thesis.
– 2013. – 52 p.
56. Enrico C. Perotti. Privatization, political risk and stock market development in emerging
economies/ Enrico C. Perotti, Pieter van Oijen// Journal of International Money and Finance. – 2001. –
Vol. 20, p. 43 – 69.
57. Transparancy International. Електронний ресурс: http://www.transparency.org/what-is-
corruption/#define.
58. Hasan Ayaydin. Corruption, banking sector and stock market development: A Panel data
Analysis/ Hasan Ayaydin, Nuri Baltaci// International Association of Social Science research. – 2013. –
Vol. 1, Issue 2, p. 94 – 99.
59. Daniel Kaufmann. The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues/
Daniel Kaufmann, Aart Kraay, Massimo Mastruzzi// The World Bank Development Research Group. –
2010. – Policy Research Working Paper 5430, p. 29.
60. World Bank Statistics. Retrieved from:
http://databank.worldbank.org/data//reports.aspx?source=2&country=&series=NY.GNS.ICTR.ZS&perio
d=
Author: Hnatyuk Rostyslav, Ukraine, PhD student at Ivan Franko national university of L’viv,
faculty of economics, department of economic theory. E-mail: [email protected].
Top Related