• Management & Information Systems Review
• /
• v.34 no.3
• /
• pp.17-39
• /
• 2015

This study examined the structural changes and volatility in the global stock markets using a Markov Regime Switching ARCH model developed by the Hamilton and Susmel (1994). Firstly, the US, Italy and Ireland showed that variance in the high volatility regime was more than five times that in the low volatility, while Korea, Russia, India, and Greece exhibited that variance in the high volatility regime was increased more than eight times that in the low. On average, a jump from regime 1 to regime 2 implied roughly three times increased in risk, while the risk during regime 3 was up to almost thirteen times than during regime 1 over the study period. And Korea, the US, India, Italy showed ARCH(1) and ARCH(2) effects, leverage and asymmetric effects. Secondly, 278 days were estimated in the persistence of low volatility regime, indicating that the mean transition probability between volatilities exhibited the highest long-term persistence in Korea. Thirdly, the coefficients appeared to be unstable structural changes and volatility for the stock markets in Chow tests during the Asian, Global and European financial crisis. In addition, 1-Step prediction error tests showed that stock markets were unstable during the Asian crisis of 1997-1998 except for Russia, and the Global crisis of 2007-2008 except for Korea and the European crisis of 2010-2011 except for Korea, the US, Russia and India. N-Step tests exhibited that most of stock markets were unstable during the Asian and Global crisis. There was little change in the Asian crisis in CUSUM tests, while stock markets were stable until the late 2000s except for some countries. Also there were stable and unstable stock markets mixed across countries in CUSUMSQ test during the crises. Fourthly, I confirmed a close relevance of the volatility between Korea and other countries in the stock markets through the likelihood ratio tests. Accordingly, I have identified the episode or events that generated the high volatility in the stock markets for the financial crisis, and for all seven stock markets the significant switch between the volatility regimes implied a considerable change in the market risk. It appeared that the high stock market volatility was related with business recession at the beginning in 1990s. By closely examining the history of political and economical events in the global countries, I found that the results of Lamoureux and Lastrapes (1990) were consistent with those of this paper, indicating there were the structural changes and volatility during the crises and specificly every high volatility regime in SWARCH-L(3,2) student t-model was accompanied by some important policy changes or financial crises in countries or other critical events in the international economy. The sophisticated nonlinear models are needed to further analysis.

• The Korean Journal of Financial Management
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.75-106
• /
• 2007

In this study, it is analyzed whether oil price plays a major role in the pricing return on Koran stock market and examined why the covariance risk between oil and return on stock is different in each industry. Firstly, this study explores whether the expected rate of return on stock is pricing due to global oil price factors as a function of risk premium by using a two-factor APT. Also, it is examined whether spill-over effects of oil price volatility affect the beta risk to oil price. Considering the asymmetry of oil price volatility, we use the GJR model. As a result, it shows that oil price is an independent pricing factor and oil price volatility transmits to stock return in only electricity and electrical equipment. Secondly, the two step-analyzing process is introduced to find why the covariance between oil price factor and stock return is different in each industry. The first step is to study whether beta risk exists in each industry by using two proxy variables like size and liquidity as control variables. The second step is to grasp the systematic relationship between the difference of liquidity and size and beta to oil price factor by using the panel-data model which can be analyzed efficiently using the cross-sectional data formed with time series. Through the analysis, we can argue that oil price factor is an independent pricing factor in only electricity and electrical equipment having the greatest market capitalization, and know that beta risk to oil price factor is a proxy of size in the other industries. According to the result of panel-data model, it is argued that the beta to oil price factor augments when market capitalization increases and this fact supports the first assertion. In conclusion, the expected rate of return of electricity and electrical equipment works as a function of risk premium to market portfolio and oil price, and the reason to make beta risk power differentiated in each industry attributes to the size.