Capital markets integration and cointegration: Testing for the correct specification of stock market indices

Agoraki, Maria-Eleni K.; Georgoutsos, Demetris A.; Kouretas, Georgios P. Article Capital markets integration and cointegration: Testing for the correct specification of stock market indices Journal of Risk and Financial Management Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Agoraki, Maria-Eleni K.; Georgoutsos, Demetris A.; Kouretas, Georgios P. (2019) : Capital markets integration and cointegration: Testing for the correct specification of stock market indices, Journal of Risk and Financial Management, ISSN 1911-8074, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 12, Iss. 4, pp. 1-20, https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm12040186 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/239056 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Journal of Risk and Financial Management Article Capital Markets Integration and Cointegration: Testing for the Correct Specification of Stock Market Indices Maria-Eleni K. Agoraki 1, Dimitris A. Georgoutsos 2and Georgios P. Kouretas 3,4,* 1Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Peloponnese Antikalamos, GR-24100 Kalamata, Greece; [email protected] 2Department of Accounting and Finance, Athens University of Economics and Business, 76 Patission Street, GR−10434 Athens, Greece; dgeor[email protected] 3IPAG Business School, 184 Boulevard Saint-Germain, FR-75006 Paris, France 4 Department of Business Administration, Athens University of Economics and Business, 76 Patission Street, GR−10434 Athens, Greece *Correspondence: kour[email protected] Received: 2 October 2019; Accepted: 6 December 2019; Published: 9 December 2019   Abstract: In this paper we develop a comprehensive Vector Autoregression Model consisting of five variables; the stock market and price indices of pairs of countries, as well as their bilateral nominal exchange rate. Then, we show that under certain long-run restrictions, our approach encompasses a large number of specifications encountered in the voluminous literature on testing for capital integration with cointegration techniques. This approach minimizes the risk of accepting the null of no cointegration between the equity price indices because of the introduction of additional stochastic trends through the transformation of those indices on a “real or nominal US dollar” basis. Furthermore, other interesting long run specifications emerge either with I(1) only stochastic shocks or with the presence of some I(2) disturbances characterizing the system. We apply the testing methodology on monthly data for the US, UK, Germany, and Japan for the period January 1980–May 2019. The main findings provide partial support in favor of cointegration, and therefore for capital markets integration, among stock market indices when proper attention is given to issues like the identification and temporal stability of the cointegration vectors as well as the choice of units that the stock indices are expressed in. Keywords: International stock markets; I(2) cointegration analysis; common trends; identification; purchasing power parity; temporal stability JEL Classification: G15; G12; G32 1. Introduction As an outcome of the various stock market crashes that the world has experienced over the last 40 years a voluminous literature has been produced with the intension to examine the possible existence of long-run co-movements among the major stock markets of the world. The results of this examination were of obvious interest to both academic researchers and investment managers. If the evidence was favorable to these co-movements, then the diversification of portfolios could not be risk reducing for investors with a holding period longer than the time needed for the markets to adjust to their equilibrium path. Moreover, this evidence would constitute an empirical rejection of the efficient markets hypothesis under which two (or more) asset prices that are determined in efficient J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019,12, 186; doi:10.3390/jrfm12040186 www.mdpi.com/journal/jrfm J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019,12, 186 2 of 20 markets cannot be cointegrated (Granger 1986, p. 218) 1 . It has also been claimed that the existence of cointegration is linked to the concept of capital markets integration. This can be explained by the increased synchronization of macroeconomic policies and /or the reduction of equity risk premia as a result of the international diversification of equity portfolios, which limits the number of undiversifiable risks to be remunerated. Capital market integration would therefore imply that the same model of required returns applies to all assets, regardless of where they are traded (Taylor and Tonks 1989)2. The main analytical framework within which the investigation of the above problem has been conducted is provided by cointegration theory 3 . The initial evidence supplied by Kasa (1992) was strongly in favor of the presence of a single common stochastic trend that drove the quarterly stock price indices of five countries, namely, the U.S., Canada, Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom, for the period 1974:1 to 1990:3. Those findings came under criticism because they had been derived by an arbitrary increase of the number of lags in the VAR model with no adjustment of the critical values of the relevant tables (Richards 1995). If that had been done, then there would have been no evidence of a common stochastic trend. Later studies produced conflicting evidence on the issue, where the number of cointegrating vectors among the stock market indices varied substantially, meaning that no identification of the system was possible. For instance, Jeon and Chiang (1991) examine aggregate stock market indices for the U.S., the U.K., Germany and Japan over the period 1975:1–1990:3 and are able to show the existence of a single common stochastic trend, especially for sub-samples covering most of the 1980s. In stark contrast, Francis and Leachman (1998) study produced a single cointegrating vector among the stock market indices of Germany, Japan, the U.K., and the U.S. for the period 1974:1–1990:8. This result is not easily interpretable since it implies three stochastic trends that are not readily identifiable, given that the data have been converted into their real U.S. dollars equivalent. This conversion introduces stochastic trends into the system that might be associated with the exchange rates, while on the other hand it removes stochastic trends that are associated with domestic growth components that manifest themselves through the price level. Serletis and King (1997) have studied the problem for the case of ten European Union stock markets for the period 1971:1–1992:1. They supply evidence in favor of eight cointegrating vectors instead of nine that the condition for multi-country convergence would imply. They attributed this failure to the fact the Greek capital market had not been integrated with the rest of the European Union prior to that point. Crowder and Wohar (1998) employed the same data base as Kasa (1992) and showed that the system is better characterized by four common stochastic trends. This result has been rationalized not just on the evidence of the Johansen type cointegration tests, but also from the recursive analysis of the alternative cointegrating systems. Fraser and Oyefeso (2005) also examine the long-run interrelationships of the European capital markets and they conclude that although cointegration exists, the gains from diversification are short-lived since the adjustment to the common trend is very fast. Moreover, Ceylan (2006) assesses the long-term stock market integration with the European Union and the US in the cases of Eastern European countries over the period 2000–2005. The Johansen cointegration tests he applies provide no support for the existence of a long-run equilibrium. Worthington et al. (2003) have also used cointegration analysis 1 This argument follows from the evidence linking cointegration and error correction that leads to the predictability of at least one of the asset prices. Those results apply strictly however on total returns (i.e., cum dividend) or otherwise on non-interest/dividend paying assets (Richards 1995). The efficiency hypothesis can still be preserved, in the presence of cointegration, if the error correction is a proxy for a risk premium. 2 The general tendency is to draw a distinction between tests for capital integration and those for the existence of common trends. The important implication of integrated capital markets is the equalization among countries of marginal rates of substitution in consumption both inter-temporally and across states of nature (Lucas 1982;Kasa 1995). But even then the existence of a common model of required returns is not sufficient to generate cointegrating relationships. The cumulative stochastic errors, if they are found to be I(1), of each one of the assets return series must be cointegrated as well (Richards 1995). 3 In this paper we focus on results derived from the multivariate cointegration analysis of Johansen (1988). However, the first strand of papers examining cointegration between stock prices employed the Engle and Granger (1987) methodology (see e.g., Arshanapalli and Doukas 1993;Chan et al. 1992). J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019,12, 186 3 of 20 in order to assess the degree of integration between European financial markets before and after the introduction of the single currency. They conclude that there has been an increase in European financial integration, both within and outside the single currency area, immediately after the implementation of the Maastricht treaty. Caporale et al. (2016) use an extended sample that covers the recent global financial crisis and apply fractional cointegration techniques on the S&P 500 and the Euro Stoxx 50 indices. They conclude that fractional cointegration and mean reverting errors can be found on all sub-samples before March 2009. After that date the pattern of co-movement that existed before the crisis disappeared, and the authors attribute this finding to the divergent monetary and fiscal policies that U.S. and E.U. have adopted in order to contain the consequences of the crisis. A common feature of several of the above mentioned studies has been the transformation of the data into their “real or nominal dollar” equivalent value using the spot exchange rates and the U.S. consumer price index. 4 This has been rationalized on the grounds that returns must be “covered” against exchange rate risk or else a model for the pricing of the exchange rate risk would be needed to test the “integration” hypothesis (Kasa 1995). However, it is worth noting that the use of data on a “real or nominal dollar” basis for the cointegration analysis presupposes the satisfaction of certain restrictions on the variables appearing in the cointegrating space. If this is not supported empirically, then the use of transformed data might introduce additional stochastic trends which drive the obtained results. Therefore, the failure to obtain meaningful long run relationships among the equity indices can be attributed to the adopted transformation and not to the intrinsic properties of those indices. In the present paper, we provide a systematic way of testing for common trends where we estimate the vector autoregressive (VAR) model in its most general form and then we test it down to the specifications employed by most researchers in the area. It is shown that the transformation of the indices into their “real dollar” equivalent is superfluous for the long-run properties of the model, and that what is needed is a mere transformation to a “nominal US dollar” basis. Moreover, it is shown that this is just one of the possible specifications of the model. Another interesting specification, within the I(1) environment, would imply that if the Purchasing Power Parity is a valid model for the exchange rate determination, then we should test for cointegration among the indices in nominal domestic currency terms. The set of possible alternative specifications increases substantially if we allow for the presence of I(2) components in the model. The analysis is conducted within the context of cointegration and therefore we examine the existence of long-run relationships between the stock price indices, the bilateral exchange rates and the corresponding consumer price indices of the U.S., the U.K., Germany and Japan. Our testing approach departs from previous ones in a number of ways. First, we provide an analysis which allows us to reveal the existence of I(2) and I(1) components in a multivariate context and is based on a testing methodology suggested by Johansen (1992a,1995a,1997) and extended by Paruolo (1996) and Rahbek et al. (1999) This analysis is conducted by testing successively less and less restricted hypotheses according to the Pantula (1989) principle. Additionally, we apply an approach suggested by Juselius (1995) that is based on the roots of the companion matrix and allows us to make firmer conclusions about the rank of the cointegration space. Second, since in a multivariate framework a vector error correction model may contain multiple cointegrating vectors, following Johansen and Juselius (1994) and Johansen (1995b), we impose independent linear restrictions on the coefficients of the accepted cointegrating vectors in order to identify them. Third, given that at least one statistically significant cointegrating vector has been found we examine the stability of the long-run relationships through time. The evidence that two or more stock indices are cointegrated, might be exploitable by the investors only if this evidence is sample independent. In the literature this issue has not been examined formally until now with the 4 Serletis and King (1997) have transformed their data into “real deutschemark” units. In other studies, the stock indices are expressed in local, nominal, currency terms (e.g., Calvi 2010). J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019,12, 186 4 of 20 exception of the aforementioned study by Crowder and Wohar (1998), and the papers by Rangvid (2001) and Garcia Pascual (2003). There are several interesting findings that stem from our estimation approach. First, for each bilateral case, we find evidence of one cointegrating vector between the domestic and U.S. price indices, the exchange rate, and the corresponding stock price indices. On the face of this evidence, we conclude that four (or alternatively three) I(1) stochastic trends drive the system while the presence of I(2) stochastic trends lacks any statistical support. Second, for each bilateral exchange rate, we reject the scenario that differences of stock indices require the I(1) deviations from PPP in order to be stationary. Third, we reject the scenario that stock markets are cointegrated when converted to nominal U.S. dollars (i.e., that prices are long-run excluded). Four, for all three cases under examination we were unable to reject the over-identified restrictions for the scenario that exchange rates are long-run excluded and stock market indices in real terms are cointegrated. Five, we were also unable to reject the over-identified restriction that prices and exchange rates are long-run excluded and that indices in nominal domestic currencies are cointegrated. Finally, the application of the stability tests shows that cointegration is established in the early 1990s that might be attributed to the existence of some coordination policy among the countries involved in the aftermath of the October 1987 stock market crisis. The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2we present various models, with an economic reasoning, that are encompassed by our generic modeling approach. Section 3presents the econometric methodology. Section 4discusses the data and presents the empirical results while our conclusions are given in Section 5. 2. Testing for Common Trends in an Integrated Framework 2.1. Treating the Variables as I(1) Consider a 5-dimensional vector autoregressive (VAR) model that in error correction form is given by ∆zt= k−1 X i=1 Γi∆zt−i+Πzt−1+γDt+µ+εt,t=1, . . . ,T(1) where, zt=hpt,it,et,pf t,if t,i and p(pf) stands for the logarithm of the consumer price index of the domestic economy (the country of the base currency, i.e., the U.S. dollar in our case), e is the logarithm of the units of the local currency per one dollar, and i(if) is the domestic (the base country, i.e., the U.S.) stock market index expressed in nominal domestic currency terms. Also, we consider that zk+1 , . . . , z0 are fixed and εt∼Niidp( 0, Σ) . The adjustment of the variables to the values implied by the steady-state relationship is not immediate for a number of reasons like imperfect information or costly arbitrage. Therefore, the correct specification of the dynamic structure of the model, as expressed by the parameters (Γ1 , . . . , Γk−1 , γ) , is important in order for the equilibrium relationship to be revealed. The matrix Π=αβ0 defines the cointegrating relationships, β , and the rate of adjustment, α , of the endogenous variables to their steady-state values. Both matrices, α and β , are of dimension ( 5 ×r) where r stands for the number of cointegrating vectors. Dt is a vector of non-stochastic variables, such as centered seasonal dummies which sum to zero over a full year by construction and are necessary to account for short-run effects which could otherwise violate the Gaussian assumption, and/or intervention dummies; µis a drift and Tis the sample size. The interesting problem is to determine the restrictions that model (1) should satisfy in order to derive, if possible, long-run specifications which are common in the literature. Furthermore, in anticipation of the empirical results, those restrictions should comply with interesting economic J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019,12, 186 5 of 20 scenarios that are better understood through the moving average (MA) representation of zt . This representation of model (1) for the case of I(1) variables is given by: zt=CXt i=1εi+Cµt+CΦXt i=1Di+C∗(L)(εt+µ+ΦDt) + Z0(2) where C=β⊥(α0 ⊥Γβ⊥)−1α0 ⊥ , C∗(L) is a polynomial in the lag operator L , Z0 is a function of the initial values and α⊥ , β⊥ are both ( 5 ×( 5 −r)) matrices orthogonal to α and β , respectively (Johansen 1991). In the MA representation ( α0 ⊥Pε ) determine the (5−r) stochastic trends while β⊥ determines the variables that are being influenced by them. The realization at time tof the variables in zt is determined by a stochastic trend component, described by the first term of Equation (2), a deterministic trend component, the cumulated value of the non-stochastic variables D t , a stationary component and the initial values. 2.1.1. Scenario I: One Cointegrating Vector, Four Common Stochastic Trends This scenario could be associated with the model where there is a co-movement in the long run between the stock market indices in nominal dollar terms. This specification implies a single cointegrating vector (0, 1, − 1, 0, − 1) among the variables hpt,it,et,pf t,if ti that is exactly equivalent, from the long-run point of view, to having that (i−e−pf) and (if−pf) cointegrated with a vector (1, − 1), i.e., the indices in real U.S. dollars, since the U.S. price index, (pf) appears in both variables. In this scenario, when the variables are I(1), the transformation in the real dollar terms of the indices is considered to be superfluous. In this specification the model is driven by four common stochastic trends, ( α0 ⊥Pε ), that can be associated with disturbances in the exchange rate as well as the domestic and U.S. price and the stock market indices, ( uit =α0 ⊥iεjt , i= 1, . . . , 4, j= 1, . . . , 5). The system in (2) then can be written as:  pt it et pf t if t  =  c11 c12 c13 c14 c21 c22 c23 c24 c31 c32 c33 c34 c41 c42 c43 c44 c51 c52 c53 c54   Pt k=1u1k Pt k=1u21k Pt k=1u3k Pt k=1u4k  +stationary components. (3) The single cointegrating vector of this case is consistent with the satisfaction of the restrictions c21 =c31 +c51 , c22 =c32 +c52 , c23 =c33 +c53 , c24 =c34 +c54 . Those restrictions imply that the effect, for example, of the first common stochastic trend, Pt k=1u1k , on the level of the domestic and the U.S. stock market indices will differ by an amount that has been absorbed by changes in the level of the exchange rate. 5 In a similar way we can interpret the effects on the stock markets indices of the other three shocks. The situation we examine here might be representative of two economies with insignificant bilateral trade relationships which would make the existence of PPP less likely to exist. 6 On the other hand, the long run specification is consistent with considerable integration of the capital markets in the sense that the equity market indices, denominated in the same currency, cannot deviate in the long run. Another interesting scenario that is often encountered in the literature requires that the stock market indices, in local currency terms, be cointegrated while the exchange rate and the price indices are missing from the cointegrating vector, i.e., (0, 1, 0, 0, − 1),(Corhay et al. 1993;Arshanapalli and 5 In this case it might be more realistic to restrict the impact on the U.S. price index and have the exchange rate absorb all of the shock (i.e., c51 = 0, c21 =c31 ). As a matter of fact, the common trends in (2) are over-identified and up to three restrictions can be imposed without changing the likelihood function. 6 Since the two prices indices are excluded from the cointegrating vector. Therefore, deviations from PPP have no impact, in the long-run, on the behavior of the two equity market indices. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019,12, 186 6 of 20 Doukas 1993). In this case the effect of any shock on each one of the two stock markets will be the same while the exchange rate is not a determinant, in the long run, of this relationship. In this situation the imports and exports of each country are not dependent, in a crucial way, on the other country and therefore deviations from Purchasing Power Parity are not expected to influence the relative stock market valuations of the two countries. Moreover, the companies listed in the two stock indices share common international activities and are therefore affected by the same shocks (Bracker et al. 1999) . A variation of this model would be one where cointegration exists between the stock price indices expressed in real domestic currency terms. In this case the cointegrating vector would be (−1, 1, 0, 1, −1) and the exchange rate would be long-run excluded. In the same vein, there are some other specifications that have an interesting economic interpretation. For instance, there might be a case where no variable is long-run excluded and therefore the cointegrating vector would be ( − 1, 1, 1, 1, − 1) or that i−if−p−e−pf∼I(0) . This specification implies that stock indices’ deviation from stationarity is fully captured by the deviation from stationarity of the “law of one price”. Therefore, a persistent positive deviation of the local stock market index, from the U.S. one, is being explained by the “loss” of the purchasing power of the domestic currency, relative to the U.S. dollar. 2.1.2. Scenario II: Two Cointegrating Vectors, Three Common Stochastic Trends This model is consistent with a co-movement, in the long run, on the one hand of the domestic and the U.S. price indices, i.e., the PPP holds, and on the other hand of the nominal value of the two stock price indices. This case might exemplify two economies with similar production and consumption patterns that compete internationally in both the goods and the capital markets so that their price indices are equalized. Under this specification the two cointegrating vectors could be (1, 0, − 1, − 1, 0) and (0, 1, 0, 0, − 1) among the variables hpt,it,et,pf t,if ti where we have three common stochastic trends that drive the system. The law of one-price guarantees that the competitiveness of the companies in the two countries cannot change since a positive, for example, productivity shock in the domestic economy which lowers the prices will be accompanied by an equi-proportionate appreciation of its currency visà -vis the U.S. dollar. Similarly, a positive demand shock in the U.S. will leave the international competitiveness of its companies unaltered, since an increase in the U.S. price level will be accompanied with a devaluation of the U.S. dollar. Therefore, part of the increase in the demand will be satisfied from foreign companies and consequently the stock market boost will be spread among the U.S. and its competitors. The system in (2) can then be written in this case as:  pt it et pf t if t  =  c11 c12 c13 c21 c22 c23 c31 c32 c33 c41 c42 c43 c51 c52 c53   Pt k=1u1k Pt k=1u21k Pt k=1u3k  +stationary components. (4) The two cointegrating vectors in this case are consistent with the satisfaction of the restrictions c11 =c31 +c41,c12 =c32 +c42,c13 =c33 +c53 and c21 =c51,c22 =c52,c23 =c53. Another possibility under this scenario is that the two cointegrating vectors are (1, 0, −1, −1, 0) and (0, 1, − 1, 0, − 1) among the variables hpt,it,et,pf t,if ti . The first one represents the presence of the PPP in absolute terms, as before, but the second one implies that the two stock market indices are cointegrated when expressed in nominal U.S. dollar terms. This is the case we referred to at the beginning of this section of the paper where it is equivalent to testing for cointegration between the two stock market indices when they are expressed in real U.S. dollar currency terms. Finally, a variation of this model could have been one where the two cointegrating vectors are (1, 0, − 1, − 1, 0) and (−1, 1, 0, 1, −1) . In this specification, the second vector implies cointegration between the two stock market indices in real local currency terms. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019,12, 186 7 of 20 2.2. Treating Prices as I(2) The characterization of the stochastic properties of the data as being integrated of order two, one or zero is an issue that can be settled through empirical investigation rather than on “theoretical” grounds (Juselius 1999). If the chosen data set spans a short period of time, then it is more likely for some series, like the price level, to be characterized as I(2) processes since there are not enough turning points in the sample. The same series when studied for its stochastic properties over a longer sample period will be more likely characterized as an I(1) process. The problem of cointegration within this more general framework was initially studied by Johansen (1997) who has shown that the moving average representation is given by: zt=C2 t X s=1Ps i=1εi+C21 2µt2+C2ΦPt s=1Ps i=1Di+ C1Pt i=1(εi+ΦDt)+ C∗(L)(εt+µ+ΦDt) + B0+A0t (5) where C2=β2 ⊥Ψ−1α200 ⊥ and Ψ , C1 are functions of the parameters of the model. α200 ⊥ represents the matrix of the coefficients of the common I(2) trends while β2 ⊥ define the sensitivity of the variables in zt to the common trends. The space spanned by the (5 × 1) vector zt can be decomposed into r stationary directions, β , and ( 5 −r) nonstationary directions, β⊥ , and the latter into the directions (β1 ⊥ , β2 ⊥) , where β1 ⊥=β⊥η is of dimension ( 5 ×xs1) and β2 ⊥=β⊥(β0 ⊥β⊥)−1η⊥ is of dimension ( 5 ×xs2) and s1+s2= 5 −r . If (r>s2) then the r cointegrating vectors can be decomposed into (r−s2) directly cointegrating vectors, β0 , which according to Engle and Granger (1987) definition are CI(2,2), and s2 multicointegrating vectors β1. The properties of the process are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. Long-term relations in the I(2) framework. Direction Dimension Stationary Process β0 0zt~I(0)r−s2, if (r>s2) β0 1zt~I(1)s2β0 1zt+k0∆zt~I(0) β0 ⊥1zt~I(1)s1β0 ⊥1∆zt~I(0) β0 ⊥2ztt ~I(2)s2β0 ⊥2∆2ztt ~I(0) Under this statistical specification two models appear likely to occur. In both of them the aggregate demand shock accumulates twice to form the I(2) common stochastic trend of the prices. As far as the I(1) level is concerned, one expects to find either three stochastic trends in which case there will be two cointegrating vectors one of which will be a multicointegrating one, or four stochastic trends which are consistent with a single multicointegrating relationship. 2.2.1. Scenario I: One Cointegrating Vector, Three I(1) and One I(2) Common Stochastic Trends Under the first economic scenario the model in (5) can be written more clearly as follows:  pt it et pf t if t  =  C2,1 0 0 C2,4 0  Σt s=1Σs i=1εi+  c11 c12 c13 c21 c22 c23 c31 c32 c33 c41 c42 c43 c51 c52 c53   Σt k=1u1k Σt k=1u2k Σt k=1u3k  +stat.and detr.components (6) One plausible multicointegrating vector could be ni−if−(p−e−pf)−β(∆p−∆pf)o ~I(0), where the following coefficient restrictions should be satisfied: c2i−c5i−(c1i−c3i−c4i)+β(c2,1 −c2,4) = 0 , i=1, 2, 3 . This characterization implies a dynamic long-run steady state relation where stock price J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019,12, 186 8 of 20 indices differ by the deviation of prices from their Purchasing Power Parity level as well as the inflation rates differential. This could be exemplified by the case where the two countries follow different macroeconomic policies which are reflected to their corresponding inflation rates. Since stock market prices incorporate future expectations, the argument is that inflation rates differentials are reflected in stock market valuations. 2.2.2. Scenario II: Two Cointegrating Vectors, Two I(1) and One I(2) Common Stochastic Trends The stochastic trend components of this case can be seen from:  pt it et pf t if t  =  C2,1 0 0 C2,4 0  Σt s=1Σs i=1εi+  c11 c12 c21 c22 c31 c32 c41 c42 c51 c52  "Σt k=1u1k Σt k=1u2k#+stat.and detr.components (7) A strong candidate for the directly cointegrating vector of this case is the PPP hypothesis (p−e−pf) ~I(0). The multicointegrating relationship could relate the stock market indices to the inflation rates differential, i.e., (i−if−β(∆p−∆pf)) , and the coefficient restrictions can be derived in a similar way to the ones presented for the other cases. The explanation for the presence of the inflation rates differential resembles to the one given above, but in this case, it directly influences the stock market indices which are not affected by deviations from the Purchasing Power Parity. 3. Econometric Methodology We will briefly discuss the estimation procedure starting from the most general case within the framework of Johansen (1988,1991) multivariate cointegration methodology as it was extended in Johansen (1992a,1995a,1997) and Paruolo (1996) and Rahbek et al. (1999) to take into account the stochastic properties of I(2) variables. If we allow the parameters of model (1), θ= (Γ1 , . . . . . . , Γk−1,Π , γ , µ , Σ) , to vary unrestrictedly, this model then corresponds to the I(0) model. The I(1) and I(2) models are obtained if certain restrictions are satisfied. Thus, the higher-order models are nested within the more general I(0) model. It has been shown (Johansen 1991) that if zt∼I( 1 ) , then that matrix Π has reduced rank r<p , and there exist p×r matrices α and β such that Π=αβ0 . Furthermore, Ψ=α0 ⊥(Γ)β⊥ has full rank, where Γ=− k−1 P i=1 Γi and a⊥ and β⊥ are p×(p−r) matrices orthogonal to α and β , respectively. Following this parameterization, there are r linearly-independent stationary relations given by the cointegrating vectors β and p−r linearly-independent non-stationary relations that define the common stochastic trends of the system. The I(2) model is defined by the first reduced rank condition of the I(1) model and Ψ=α0 ⊥Γβ⊥=ϕη0 is of reduced rank s1 , where ϕ and η are (p−r)×s1 matrices and s1<(p−r) . Following Rahbek et al. (1999), we outline a representation of the restricted VAR model (2) which allows the observed process zt to have (at most) linear deterministic trends and some or all components I(2) 7 .Johansen (1991) shows how the model can be written in a moving average form, while Johansen (1997) derives the FIML solution to the estimation problem for the I(2) model. Furthermore, Johansen (1995a) provides an asymptotically equivalent two-step procedure that computationally is simpler. In a multivariate context a vector error correction model may contain multiple cointegrating vectors, and in such a case the individual cointegrating vectors are under-identified in the absence of 7 In general if zt∼I( 2 ) then the unrestricted linear regressor, µ1t , allows for cubic trends while the constant regressor, µ0 , allows for quadratic ones. Rahbek et al. (1999) show that to guarantee linear trends in all linear combinations of zt we must impose restrictions on both µ1 and µ0 . Finally, Rahbek et al. (1999) provide a likelihood ratio (LR) test, which is asymptotically χ2(r)distributed, to examine whether the linear trend significantly enters the cointegrating vector. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019,12, 186 15 of 20 J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21 (b) (c) Figure 2. The Test of Constancy of Beta 1 is the 5% significance level. (a) U.K.–U.S. case. (b) Germany– U.S. (c) Japan–U.S. (a) (b) Figure 2. The Test of Constancy of Beta 1 is the 5% significance level. ( a ) U.K.–U.S. case. ( b ) Germany–U.S. (c) Japan–U.S. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 21 (b) (c) Figure 2. The Test of Constancy of Beta 1 is the 5% significance level. (a) U.K.–U.S. case. (b) Germany– U.S. (c) Japan–U.S. (a) (b) Figure 3. Cont. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019,12, 186 16 of 20 J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 21 (c) Figure 3. The Eigenvalue Test U.K.–U.S. case. (a) Test for lambda 1 and for lambda 2 Germany–U.S. case. (b) Test for lambda 1 and for lambda 2 Japan–U.S. case. (c) Test for lambda 1 and for lambda 2. To assess the statistical properties of the chosen variables the test statistics reported in Table 5 and 6 are useful. The test of long-run exclusion is a check of the adequacy of the chosen measurements and shows that none of the variables can be excluded from the cointegration space. The test for stationarity indicates that none of the variables can be considered stationary under any reasonable choice of r . Finally, the test of weak exogeneity shows that the U.K. stock price and consumer price indices for the U.S./U.K. case, the U.S. stock price index for the Germany/U.S. case and the Yen/dollar exchange rate and the Japanese consumer price index can be considered weakly exogenous for the long-run parameters β . All three tests are χ 2 distributed and are constructed following Johansen and Juselius (1990, 1992). Furthermore, Tables 5 and 6 presents diagnostics on the residuals from the cointegrated VAR model that indicates that they are i.i.d. processes since no evidence of serial correlation was detected in each bilateral case. This provides further support for the hypothesis of a correctly specified model. Table 5. Statistical Properties and Misspecification Tests of the Model. (a) Tests for long-run exclusion, stationarity, and weak exogeneity. (a) Tests for Long-Run Exclusion, Stationarity, and Weak Exogeneity Long-Run Exclusion Stationarity Weak Exogeneity US/UK US/GE US/JP US/UK US/GE US/JP US/UK US/GE US/JP p 3.39 * 15.32 * * 20.60 * 22.47 * 11.71 * 2.77 4.69 * 0.62 i 0.97 * 11.61 * 6.63 * 14.77 * 23.01 * 24.11 * 9.08 * 4.43 * 14.78 * e 5.84 * 0.05 * 14.02 * 40.83 * 25.88 * 15.52 * 3.30 7.27 * 1.52 f p 1.08 * 16.73 * 7.22 * 11.76 * 18.50 * 12.72 * 13.33 * 9.43 * * f i 2.47 * 0.16 * 9.29 * 25.16 * 19.525 * 14.73 * 1.67 3.49 8.72 * Notes: The long-run exclusion restriction and the weak exogeneity tests are χ 2 distributed with two degrees of freedom and the 5% critical level is 5.99, and the stationarity test is a χ 2 distributed with four degrees of freedom and the 5% critical level is 9.49. An (*) denotes statistical significance at the 5 percent critical level. Table 6. Statistical Properties and Misspecification Tests of the Model. (b) Multivariate Residuals Diagnostics. (b) Multivariate Residuals Diagnostics Case L-B(117) LM(1) LM(4) χ 2 (10) U.S–U.K 1960.46(0.00) 34.39(0.69) 40.92(0.26) 1023.49(0.00) U.S.–Germany 1784.33(0.00) 36.95(0.41) 38.12(0.31) 490.69(0.00) U.S.–Japan 1000.49(0.00) 35.19(0.62) 29.84(0.46) 351.53(0.00) Figure 3. The Eigenvalue Test U.K.–U.S. case. ( a ) Test for lambda 1 and for lambda 2 Germany–U.S. case. (b) Test for lambda 1 and for lambda 2 Japan–U.S. case. (c) Test for lambda 1 and for lambda 2. To assess the statistical properties of the chosen variables the test statistics reported in Table 5and Table 6are useful. The test of long-run exclusion is a check of the adequacy of the chosen measurements and shows that none of the variables can be excluded from the cointegration space. The test for stationarity indicates that none of the variables can be considered stationary under any reasonable choice of r . Finally, the test of weak exogeneity shows that the U.K. stock price and consumer price indices for the U.S./U.K. case, the U.S. stock price index for the Germany/U.S. case and the Yen/dollar exchange rate and the Japanese consumer price index can be considered weakly exogenous for the long-run parameters β . All three tests are χ2 distributed and are constructed following Johansen and Juselius (1990,1992). Furthermore, Tables 5and 6presents diagnostics on the residuals from the cointegrated VAR model that indicates that they are i.i.d. processes since no evidence of serial correlation was detected in each bilateral case. This provides further support for the hypothesis of a correctly specified model. The final stage of our analysis deals with the issue of the economic identification of our system. We test all four scenarios which we fully analyzed in Section 2.1 for the I(1) case. The results of the estimated restricted vectors along with the likelihood ratio test for the acceptance of the overidentifying restrictions, for the U.S./U.K., the U.S./Germany, and the U.S./Japan case, are given in Table 7. For each bilateral exchange rate, we reject the scenario that differences of stock indices require the difference from PPP to be stationary. In the same vein, we also reject the scenario that stock markets are cointegrated when converted to nominal USD (prices are long-run excluded). On the contrary for all three cases under examination, we were unable to reject the over-identified restrictions for the scenario that exchange rates are long-run excluded and stock market indices in real terms are cointegrated. Furthermore, we were also unable to reject the over-identified restriction that prices and exchange rates are long-run excluded and that indices in nominal domestic currencies are cointegrated. According to the evidence, we reject the joint restrictions on the single cointegrating vector that is contradictory to the specification and results derived in studies like the ones by Arshanapalli and Doukas (1993) and Richards (1995). Those results bring on the forefront the issue of identification in the cointegration analysis; having found a number of cointegrating vectors has little implication for the statistical determination of co-movements between two or more stock market indices if it is not identified with the theoretical structure. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019,12, 186 17 of 20 Table 5. Statistical Properties and Misspecification Tests of the Model. (a) Tests for long-run exclusion, stationarity, and weak exogeneity. (a)Tests for Long-Run Exclusion, Stationarity, and Weak Exogeneity Long-Run Exclusion Stationarity Weak Exogeneity US/UK US/GE US/JP US/UK US/GE US/JP US/UK US/GE US/JP p3.39 * 15.32 * * 20.60 * 22.47 * 11.71 * 2.77 4.69 * 0.62 i0.97 * 11.61 * 6.63 * 14.77 * 23.01 * 24.11 * 9.08 * 4.43 * 14.78 * e5.84 * 0.05 * 14.02 * 40.83 * 25.88 * 15.52 * 3.30 7.27 * 1.52 pf1.08 * 16.73 * 7.22 * 11.76 * 18.50 * 12.72 * 13.33 * 9.43 * * if2.47 * 0.16 * 9.29 * 25.16 * 19.525 * 14.73 * 1.67 3.49 8.72 * Notes: The long-run exclusion restriction and the weak exogeneity tests are χ2 distributed with two degrees of freedom and the 5% critical level is 5.99, and the stationarity test is a χ2 distributed with four degrees of freedom and the 5% critical level is 9.49. An (*) denotes statistical significance at the 5 percent critical level. Table 6. Statistical Properties and Misspecification Tests of the Model. (b) Multivariate Residuals Diagnostics. (b)Multivariate Residuals Diagnostics Case L-B(117) LM(1) LM(4) χ2(10) U.S–U.K 1960.46(0.00) 34.39(0.69) 40.92(0.26) 1023.49(0.00) U.S.–Germany 1784.33(0.00) 36.95(0.41) 38.12(0.31) 490.69(0.00) U.S.–Japan 1000.49(0.00) 35.19(0.62) 29.84(0.46) 351.53(0.00) Notes: L-B is the multivariate version of the Ljung-Box test for autocorrelation based on the estimated autoand cross-correlations of the first [T/4=117] lags distributed as a χ2 with 2825 degrees of freedom. LM(1) and LM(4) are the tests for firstand fourth-order autocorrelation distributed as χ2 with 25 degrees of freedom and χ2 is a normality test which is a multivariate version of the Shenton-Bowman test. Numbers in parentheses refer to marginal significance levels. Table 7. Tests of overidentified restrictions on zt=pt,it,et,pf t,if t,cons tan t . Scenario I: one cointegrating vector, four I(1) common stochastic trends. Case 1(a). U.S.–U.K. β0=[1, 1, −1, −1, −1, 0.002],Q(5) =53.91(0.0000) β0=[0, 1, −1, 0, −1, −0.009 ]Q(5) =54.31(0.0000) β0=h−1, 1, 0 1 −1 0.05 iQ(5) =9.51 (0.0642) β0=[0, 1, 0, 0, −1, 0.08 ]Q(5) =8.46 (0.1752) U.S.–Germany β0=[1, 1, −1, −1, −1, 0.010],Q(5) =29.83 (0.0000) β0=[0, 1, −1, 0, −1, −0.015]Q(5) =33.35 (0.0000) β0=h−1, 1, 0 1 −1 0.056 iQ(5) =7.31 (0.0941) β0=[0, 1, 0, 0, −1, 0.03]Q(5) =9.02 (0.0833) U.S.–Japan β0=[1, 1, −1, −1, −1, 0.012],Q(5) =44.18(0.0000) β0=[0, 1, −1, 0, −1, −0.022]Q(5) =41.29(0.0000) β0=h−1, 1, 0 1 −1 0.058 iQ(5) =6.38 (0.1348) β0=[0, 1, 0, 0, −1, 0.011 ]Q(5) =10.28 (0.057) Notes: Q denotes a likelihood ratio test for overidentifying restrictions as suggested by Johansen and Juselius (1994) and is distributed as a χ2 with the corresponding degrees of freedom given in parentheses. The last column refers to the estimate of the trend. Numbers in brackets denote marginal significance levels. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019,12, 186 18 of 20 5. Conclusions In this paper, we analyze the implications for the identification of common stochastic trends among stock price indices by using a model where the transformation of the data to a domestic or U.S. dollar—nominal or real—basis is decided statistically and not imposed a priori. By applying a general VAR model where all the relevant variables (stock indices, consumer price indices and the exchange rate) are included, we show that the expected results from the cointegration analysis differ substantially. By examining the MA representation of a VAR system among the exchange rate, the stock market and consumer price indices we attempt to offer a structural interpretation of alternative long-run relationships. Also, by allowing for the presence of I(2) variables, we enrich the set of possible specifications of the long-run co-movements among the stock price indices. The analysis was conducted using monthly data for the U.S., the U.K., Germany, and Japan for the period January 1980 to May 2019. Several developments in the econometrics of non-stationarity and cointegration were applied and a number of novel results stem from our analysis. First, this paper tested for the existence of I(2) and I(1) components in a multivariate context and the joint hypothesis of either one or two cointegrating vectors and the presence of a significant deterministic trend in the cointegrating vector could not be rejected although the hypothesis of at least one I(2) component was rejected in all three cases. Second, we tested for parameter stability and it was shown that both the dimension of the cointegration rank as well as the loadings to the cointegrating vectors and possibly the vectors themselves were sample dependent. Furthermore, the stability analysis revealed that cointegration was established during the early 1990s in all three cases, which provides support to the argument that the stock markets have become more integrated since a smaller number of stochastic trends drives the system. Finally, for a given cointegration rank we formally imposed independent and linear restrictions on each vector in order to identify our system. The test statistics of the overidentified restrictions were partially positive to the existence of some form of capital market integration, in the sense that cointegration existed between the stock market indices expressed in nominal terms or in real domestic currency terms, for the U.S./U.K., U.S./Germany, and U.S. /Japan cases. Author Contributions: M.-E.K.A., D.A.G., G.P.K. are all responsible for the writing—original draft preparation; writing—review and editing; for setting up the methodology, collecting the data and conducting the formal analysis. Funding: This research received no external funding. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Arshanapalli, Bala, and John Doukas. 1993. International stock market linkages: Evidence from the preand post-October 1987 period. Journal of Banking and Finance 17: 193–208. [CrossRef] Bracker, Kevin, Diane Scott Docking, and Paul D. Koch. 1999. Economic determinants of evolution in international stock market integration. Journal of Empirical Finance 6: 1–27. [CrossRef] Calvi, Rossella. 2010. Assessing Financial Integration: A Comparison between Europe and East Asia. Working Paper 423. Brussels: European Economy. Caporale, Gulglielmo Maria, Luis A. Gil-Alana, and James C. Orlando. 2016. Linkages between the US and European Stock Markets: A Fractional Cointegration Approach. International Journal of Finance and Economics 21: 143–53. [CrossRef] Ceylan, Onay. 2006. A Co-integration Analysis Approach to European Union Integration: The Case of Acceding and Candidate Countries. European Integration Online Papers 10: 7. Chan, Kam C., Benton E. Gup, and Ming-Shiun Pan. 1992. An empirical analysis of stock prices in major Asian markets and the United States. The Financial Review 27: 289–307. [CrossRef] Corhay, A., A. Tourani Rand, and J.-P. Urbain. 1993. Common stochastic trends in european stock markets. Economics Letters 42: 385–90. [CrossRef] Crowder, William J., and Mark Wohar. 1998. Cointegration, Forecasting and International Stock Prices. Global Finance Journal 9: 181–204. [CrossRef] J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019,12, 186 19 of 20 Dornbusch, Rudiger. 1989. Real exchange rates and macroeconomics: A selected survey. Scandinavian Journal of Economics 91: 401–32. [CrossRef] Engle, Robert F., and C.W.J. Granger. 1987. Cointegration and error correction: Representation estimation and testing. Econometrica 55: 251–76. [CrossRef] Francis, Bill B., and Lori L. Leachman. 1998. Superexogeneity and the dynamic linkages among international equity markets. Journal of International Money and Finance 17: 475–92. [CrossRef] Fraser, Patricia, and O. Oyefeso. 2005. US, UK and European stock and market integration. Journal of Business Finance and Accounting 32: 161–81. [CrossRef] Garcia Pascual, A. 2003. Assessing European stock markets (co)integration. Economics Letters 78: 197–203. [CrossRef] Gonzalo, Jesus. 1994. Comparison of five alternative methods of estimating long-run equilibrium relationships. Journal of Econometrics 60: 203–33. [CrossRef] Granger, C.W.J. 1986. Developments in the study of cointegrated economic variables. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 48: 213–28. [CrossRef] Hansen, Henrik, and Soren Johansen. 1993. Recursive Estimation in Cointegrated VAR-Models. Working Paper. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, Institute of Mathematical Statistics. Hansen, Henrik, and Soren Johansen. 1999. Some tests for parameter constancy in cointegrated VAR-models. Econometrics Journal 2: 306–33. [CrossRef] Jeon, Bang Nam, and Thomas C. Chiang. 1991. A system of stock prices in world stock exchanges: Common stochastic trends for 1975–1990? Journal of Economics and Business 43: 329–38. [CrossRef] Johansen, Soren. 1988. Statistical analysis of cointegrating vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 12: 231–54. [CrossRef] Johansen, Soren. 1991. Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. Econometrica 59: 1551–80. [CrossRef] Johansen, Soren. 1992a. A representation of vector autoregressive processes integrated of order 2. Econometric Theory 8: 188–202. [CrossRef] Johansen, Soren. 1992b. Determination of cointegration rank in the presence of a linear trend. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 54: 383–97. [CrossRef] Johansen, S. 1995a. A statistical analysis of cointegration for I(2) variables. Econometric Theory 11: 25–29. [CrossRef] Johansen, Soren. 1995b. Identifying restrictions of linear equations with applications to simultaneous equations and cointegration. Journal of Econometrics 69: 111–32. [CrossRef] Johansen, Soren. 1997. A Likelihood analysis of the I(2) model. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 24: 433–62. [CrossRef] Johansen, Soren, and Katarina Juselius. 1990. Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration—with applications to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 52: 169–210. [CrossRef] Johansen, Soren, and Katarina Juselius. 1992. Testing structural hypotheses in a multivariate cointegration analysis of the PPP and the UIP for UK. Journal of Econometrics 53: 211–44. [CrossRef] Johansen, Soren, and Katarina Juselius. 1994. Identification of the long-run and the short-run structure: An application to the ISLM model. Journal of Econometrics 63: 7–36. [CrossRef] Juselius, Katarina. 1995. Do purchasing power parity and uncovered interest rate parity hold in the long-run? An example of likelihood inference in a multivariate time-series model. Journal of Econometrics 69: 211–40. [CrossRef] Juselius, Katarina. 1999. Models and relations in economics and econometrics. Journal of Economic Methodology 6: 259–90. [CrossRef] Kasa, Kenneth. 1992. Common stochastic trends in international stock markets. Journal of Monetary Economics 29: 95–124. [CrossRef] Kasa, Kenneth. 1995. Comovements among national stock markets. In Economic Review. San Francisko: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Leachman, Lori L., and Bill B. Francis. 1995. Long run relations among the G-5 and G-7 Equity Markets: Evidence on the Plaza and Louvre Accords. Journal of Macroeconomics 17: 551–77. [CrossRef] Lee, Tae Hwy, and Yiuman Tse. 1996. Cointegration tests with conditional heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics 73: 401–10. [CrossRef] J. Risk Financial Manag. 2019,12, 186 20 of 20 Lucas, Robert E. 1982. Interest rates and currency prices in a two-country world. Journal of Monetary Economics 10: 335–59. [CrossRef] Pantula, Sastry G. 1989. Testing for unit roots in time series data. Econometric Theory 5: 256–71. [CrossRef] Paruolo, Paolo. 1996. On the determination of integration indices in I(2) Systems. Journal of Econometrics 72: 313–56. [CrossRef] Rahbek, Anders, Hans Cristian Konsted, and Clara Jorgensen. 1999. Trend-stationarity in the I(2) cointegration model. Journal of Econometrics 90: 265–89. [CrossRef] Rangvid, Jesper. 2001. Increasing convergence among European stock markets? A recursive common stochastic trends analysis. Economic Letters 71: 383–89. [CrossRef] Reimers, H.-E. 1992. Comparison of tests for multivariate Co-integration. Statistical Papers 33: 335–59. [CrossRef] Richards, Anthony J. 1995. Co-movement in national stock market returns: Evidence of predictability but not cointegration. Journal of Monetary Economics 36: 631–54. [CrossRef] Serletis, Apostolos, and Martin King. 1997. Common stochastic trends and convergence of European union stock markets. The Manchester School 65: 44–57. [CrossRef] Sims, Christopher A. 1980. Macroeconomics and reality. Econometrica 48: 1–48. [CrossRef] Taylor, Mark, and Ian Tonks. 1989. The internationalisation of stock markets and the abolition of U.K. exchange control. Review of Economics and Statistics 71: 332–336. [CrossRef] Worthington, Andrew C., Masaki Katsuura, and Helen Higgs. 2003. Financial Integration in European Equity markets: The Final Stage of Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) and its Impact on Capital Markets. Economia 54: 79–99. © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).