Market Integration and Contagion

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Market Integration and Contagion

Text of Market Integration and Contagion

  • Market Integration and ContagionAuthor(s): GeertBekaert, CampbellR.Harvey, and AngelaNgSource: The Journal of Business, Vol. 78, No. 1 (January 2005), pp. 39-69Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/426519 .Accessed: 05/12/2015 12:02

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

    .

    JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

    .

    The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TheJournal of Business.

    http://www.jstor.org

    This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Sat, 5 Dec 2015 12:02:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

  • #04445 UCP: BN article # 780102

    Geert BekaertColumbia University and National Bureauof Economic Research

    Campbell R. HarveyDuke University and National Bureauof Economic Research

    Angela NgHong Kong University of Science and Technology

    Market Integration and Contagion*

    I. Introduction

    Contagion in equity markets refers to the notionthat markets move more closely together duringperiods of crisis. One of the most interesting as-pects of the contagion debate is the disagreementover a precise definition. Forbes and Rigobon(2001) declare that there is no consensus on ex-actly what constitutes contagion or how it shouldbe defined. Rigobon (2002) states paradoxi-cally, . . .there is no accordance onwhat contagionmeans.What is clear is that contagion is not simply

    revealed by increased correlation of market re-turns during a crisis period. From a completelystatistical perspective, one would expect higher

    (Journal of Business, 2005, vol. 78, no. 1)B 2005 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.0021-9398/2005/7801-0001$10.00

    39

    * This work is partially supported by the earmarked grant ofthe Research Grants Council of Hong Kong. We have greatlybenefited from the comments of an anonymous referee. We ap-preciate the comments of Joe Chen, Monika Piazzesi, AndrewFrankel, the participants at the 2002 European Finance Associ-ation meetings in Berlin and the 2003 Econometric Societymeetings in Washington, D.C. Ka-Chun Ip, Ching-Ka Chui, andSangeetha Ramalingam provided excellent research assistance.Geert Bekaert acknowledges the support of a NSF research grant.Contact the corresponding author at gb241@columbia.edu.

    Contagion is usuallydefined as correlationbetween markets inexcess of that implied byeconomic fundamentals;however, there isconsiderabledisagreement regardingthe definition of thefundamentals, how theymight differ acrosscountries, and themechanisms that linkthem to asset returns.Our research starts with atwo-factor model withtime-varying betas thataccommodates variousdegrees of marketintegration. We applythis model to stockreturns in three differentregions: Europe,Southeast Asia, andLatin America. Inaddition to examiningcontagion during crisisperiods, we documenttime variation in worldand regional marketintegration and measurethe proportion ofvolatility driven byglobal, regional, andlocal factors.

    This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Sat, 5 Dec 2015 12:02:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

  • #04445 UCP: BN article # 780102

    correlations during periods of high volatility.1Forbes and Rigobon

    (2002) present a statistical correction for this conditioning bias andargue that there was no contagion during the three most recent crises.We define contagion as excess correlation, that is, correlation over

    and above what one would expect from economic fundamentals. Un-fortunately, there is disagreement on the definitions of the fundamen-tals, the potential country-specific nature of the fundamentals, and themechanism that links the fundamentals to asset correlation.Our paper takes an asset pricing perspective to the study of conta-

    gion. For a given factor model, increased correlation is expected if thevolatility of a factor increases. The size of the increased correlationdepends on the factor loadings. Contagion is simply defined by thecorrelation of the model residuals.By defining the factor model, we avoid a problem with the bias

    correction for correlations that Forbes and Rigobon (2002) propose, abias correction that does not work in the presence of common shocks.Defining the factor model does mean that we effectively take a stand onthe global, regional, and country-specific fundamentals, as well as themechanism that transfers fundamentals into correlation. Of course, anystatements on contagion are contingent on the correct specification ofthe factor model; therefore, we start with a model that has the maxi-mum flexibility.We apply a two-factor model with time-varying loadings to small

    stock markets in three regions: Europe, Southeast Asia, and LatinAmerica. The two factors are the U.S. equity market return and a re-gional equity portfolio return. Our framework nests three models: aworld capital asset pricing model (CAPM), a CAPM with the U.S.equity return as the benchmark asset, and a regional CAPM with aregional portfolio as the benchmark. We test the asset pricing specifi-cations by adding local factors.Segmentation and integration play a critical role in our tests. If

    the countries in a particular region are globally integrated for most ofthe sample period but suddenly see their intraregional correlations risedramatically during a regional crisis, our test rejects the null hypothe-sis of no contagion. If, however, these countries do not follow a globalCAPM but rather a regional CAPM, the increased correlations maysimply be a consequence of increased factor volatility.Our volatility model is related to Bekaert and Harvey (1997) and

    Ng (2000) in that equity return volatilities follow univariate generalized

    1. See Stambaugh (1995); Boyer, Gibson, and Loretan (1999); Loretan and English(2000); Forbes and Rigobon (2002); and early work by Pindyck and Rotemberg (1990,1993). Work linking news, volatility, and correlation includes King and Wadhawani (1990);Hamao, Masulis, and Ng (1990); and King, Sentana, and Wadhwani (1994).

    40 Journal of Business

    This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Sat, 5 Dec 2015 12:02:51 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

  • #04445 UCP: BN article # 780102

    autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (GARCH) processes withasymmetry. Hence, negative news regarding the world or regionalmarket may increase volatility of the factor more than positive newsand lead to increased correlations between stock markets.

    2Moreover,

    our model incorporates time-varying betas, where the betas are influ-enced by the trade patterns. Chen and Zhang (1997) find that the cross-market correlations of stock returns are related to external trade amongcountries.Previous studies on international market linkages focused mainly on

    one source of risk or on the effects of a single international market(often the U.S. or world market) on other stock markets.

    3In fact, a con-

    temporaneous paper (Tang 2001) uses a definition of contagion similarto the one we propose but restricts the model to a world CAPM. Ourstructure, which allows world market integration to be a special case,bears some resemblance to the setup in Chan, Karolyi, and Stulz (1992).However, the existing literature has focused primarily on world marketintegration, and regional integration has been scarcely discussed. Ex-ceptions include Engle and Susmel (1993), who group the data accord-ing to time zones and search for common regional news factors, Cheung,He, and Ng (1997), who examine common predictable components in re-turns within a region, and Baele (2004), who examines regional stockmarket integration in Europe.Our main contribution is to examine periods of crises and investigate

    whether our model can generate sudden increases in correlations acrosscountries. Our approach, however, produces many other useful em-pirical tests and implications. Indeed, our framework provides a naturaltest for world and regional market integration. In addition, we analyzethe time variation and cross-sectional patterns in regional versus worldmarket correlations, addressing the question of whether correlationsbetween country returns and the world or regional market have in-creased over time. Finally, we measure the proportions of variancedriven by global, regional, and local factors and how these proportionschange through time.The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section II

    presents the empirical model specifications and several testable hy-potheses. Section III describes the data and presents the empiricalresults. Some conclusions are offered in the final section.

    2. Longin and Solnik (1995) report an increase in cross-country correlation during vol-atile periods. Other empirical studies (for example, Erb, Harvey, and Viskanta 1994 and DeSantis and Gerard 1997) find different correlations in up and down markets, while Longinand Solnik (2001), Ang and Bekaert (2002), Ang and Chen (2002), and Das and Uppal(2004) document higher correlations in bear markets.3. See, for example, Hamao, Masulis, and Ng (1990); Bekaert and Hodrick (1992);

    Bekaert and Harvey (1995, 1997); Karolyi (1995); Karolyi and Stulz (1996); Hartmann,Straetmans, and de Vries (2001); and Connolly and Wang (2003).

    41Market Integration and Contagion

    This content downloaded from 23.235.32.0 on Sat, 5 Dec 2015 12:02:51 PMAll us