barnes_2003_abnormal returns in emerging equity markets_dissertation
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
1/215
INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, som e thesis anddissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9 black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
2/215produced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
3/215
BOSTON UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCE
Dissertation
ABNORMAL RETURNS IN EMERGING EQUITY MARKETS
by
MARK A. BARNES
B.A., The Johns Hopkins University. 1987
M.A.. The University of Texas at Austin. 1991
M.A.. Boston University. 1995
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor o f Philosophy
2003
p rod uced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
4/215
UMI Number: 3054524
Copyright 2002 by
Barnes, Mark Allan
All rights reserved.
_ ___ (ft
UMIUMI Microform 3054524
Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected againstunauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
rodu ced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
5/215
Copyright by
MARK A. BARNES
2002
rod uced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
6/215
Approved by
First Reader
Andrew M. Weiss, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
Second Readel
Third Reader
Jonathan Eaton, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
Pierre Perron, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
p rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
7/215
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I will take the rare opportunity to express appreciation publicly for the invaluable help
that I received while working on my doctorate . Foremost is Andy Weiss, who has given me
unreasonable amounts of support and encouragement over the years. Jonathan Eaton and
Pierre Perron kindly agreed to act as readers on my committee and gave many valuable
suggestions. I would also like to thank Simon Gilchrist and Jerome Detemple for serving
on my committee and putting up with my last minute scheduling.
My experience at the economics department was enriched by many professors and staff
members, but a few demand special recognition. I would like to thank Uncle Bob Rosenthal
for keeping an eye on all of us. and Russ Cooper for somehow making macroeconomics
funny. I would not have finished my dissertation without the help of Sam Holmes who
always managed to solve my problems.
A number of people have given me much needed encouragement at times. They include
Joao Ejarque. Melissa Hieger. David Stewart, and of course Lee McKee. Finally. I would
like to thank my parents, Emmett and LaNell Barnes, for provided unconditional support
from as early as I can remember.
iv
rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
8/215
ABNORMAL RETURNS IN EMERGING EQUITY MARKETS
(Order No. )
MARK A. BARNES
Boston University Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. 2003
Major Professor: Andrew M. Weiss, Professor of Economics
ABSTRACT
Understanding the risk and reward from investing in emerging equity markets is neces
sary for rational flows of equity financing to developing countries. Early research claimed
that investing in emerging markets significantly improved the performance of global stock
portfolios, but this may have been due to misinterpretations of the data.
In this dissertation, I analyze the period of financial liberalization of emerging markets,
including data up until Jun e 1997. By focusing on possible changes in the return patterns
directly associated with the emergence. I suggest that more modest expectations should
have been formed. In the first chapter. I present an introduction to the problem and a
literature review.
In the second chapter. I focus on ten markets that are found to have abnormally high
retu rns when analyzed using a simple Capital Asset Pricing Model. I find that most of
the abnormally high returns came either before the market opened to foreigners, or during
the liberalization period when changes in government policy opened the market to foreign
investors.
In the third chapter, I use a regime-switching model in which the probability of a change
in regime varies over the period. This approach provides a better explanat ion of why the
distribution of returns varies over time. I also present evidence that the abnormally high
returns are associated with the period around the time when the markets were opened to
outside investors.
In the fourth chapter, I use a regime-switching autoregressive conditional heteroskedas-
v
rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Furth er reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
9/215
ticity (ARCH) framework to model the variance of returns. This approach reduces the
effect of extremely large shocks, which are frequently seen in emerging markets. I present
evidence tha t a switching model tha t conditions the probability of switching on liberaliza
tion events provides better forecasts than commonly used models which do not allow for
such changes.
VI
p rodu ced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
10/215
Contents
1 Introduction and Literature Review 1
1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Emerging Markets and PortfolioDecisions............................................................. 2
1.2.1 International in ves tin g ............................................................................... 3
1.2.2 The problem of portfolio th eory ............................................................... -I
1.2.3 The problem of time-variation ............................................................... 7
1.2.4 The problem of outliers - an illu str at io n ................................................ 10
1.2.5 O u tlie rs .......................................................................................................... 12
1.2.6 Robust outlier iden tificatio n....................................................................... 15
1.2.7 Modeling ou tli e rs .......................................................................................... 25
1.3 Literature re v ie w ...................................................................................................... 28
1.3.1 Static characterization and portfolioconsequences............................... 29
1.3.2 Integration and asset p r ic in g .................................................................... 31
1.3.3 Time-varying integration .......................................................................... 33
1.3.4 Time-varying characte ristics....................................................................... 34
1.3.5 Single break in te g ra tio n .............................................................................. 35
1.3.6 Characterization of the emergencepro cess ................................................ 36
1.4 A description of thefollowingchapters .................................................................... 38
1.4.1 Time-varying pricing and liberalizationepisodes ................................... 38
1.4.2 Outliers and libera liza tion .......................................................................... 39
1.4.3 Switching vo latil ity ....................................................................................... 40
1.4.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................... 41
vii
p rod uced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
11/215
1.5 Appendix: Description of the outlier detection procedure ............................... 42
2 Exp ectations of Retu rns in Emerging Equity Markets 45
2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 45
2.1.1 Portfolio th e o ry ........................................................................................... 45
2.1.2 Related R es ea rc h ........................................................................................ 47
2.1.3 The problem: perceived m isp ric ing ......................................................... 50
2.2 Two approaches to explaining mispr icing........................................................... 54
2.2.1 Time varying p a ra m e te rs ........................................................................ 56
2.2.2 Liberalization ep iso de s............................................................................... 62
2.2.3 Results ........................................................................................................ 65
2.3 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 67
3 Ou tliers and Libe ralization in Em erging M arkets 72
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 72
3.2 Previous re se ar ch ..................................................................................................... 75
3.3 Discrete changes in policy and asset prices ...................................................... 77
3.4 Models and es tim at io n ........................................................................................... 87
3.5 Data and testing p ro c e d u re .................................................................................. 92
3.5.1 D a ta ............................................................................................................... 92
3.5.2 T e st in g ........................................................................................................ 92
3.6 Results........................................................................................................................ 95
3.6.1 Su m m ary ..................................................................................................... 95
3.6.2 Decomposition into a mixture of n o r m a ls ............................................. 97
3.6.3 Time variation of m o m e n ts ...................................................................... 99
3.7 Conclusions............................................................................................................... 107
4 A Regime-Sw itching Mod el of Conditional Variance in Emerging EquityMarkets 146
4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 146
4.1.1 Volatility c lu s te r in g .................................................................................. 147
4.1.2 Volatility in emerging markets ................................................................ 148
viii
p rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
12/215
4.2 A regime-switching ARCH m odel........................................................................ 150
4.2.1 A time-varying probability ex tensio n ...................................................... 155
4.3 Within-sample forecasting re su lts ........................................................................ 157
4.4 Out-of-sample forecasts ........................................................................................ 160
4.5 Conclusion and ex ten sio ns ..................................................................................... 163
5 Con clusion 173
A D ata Description 174
B Return Statistics 176
C Graphs of Statistics Tim e Series 177
D Curriculum V itae 192
be
p rod uced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
13/215
List of Tables
1.1 Outlier example 1 .................................................................................................... 11
1.2 Outlier example 2 .................................................................................................... 12
1.3 Jarque-Berra test for n o rm a lity ........................................................................... 13
1.4 Return statistic s with and without outliers ..................................................... 18
1.5 Outlier s ta ti s ti c s .................................................................................................... 19
1.6 Identified ou tl ie rs .................................................................................................... 24
1.7 Hampel identifier critica l valu es ........................................................................... 44
2.1 Buckberg's b e t a s .................................................................................................... 50
2.2 Estimated a lp h a s .................................................................................................... 52
2.3 Estimated alphas and b e ta s ................................................................................. 53
2.4 Estimated alpha, beta, and d e l t a ........................................................................ 66
2.5 Stacked regression average alpha andpost-open d u m m y ................................. 68
2.6 Liberalization episodes used in chapter 2 ............................................................ 71
3.1 Portugal and Colombia liberalizationepisodes ................................................... 80
3.2 Examples of mixture d is tr ib u tio n s ..................................................................... 85
3.3 Model summary ..................................................................................................... 95
3.4 Estimated po (central mean) for the singleand three statemodels ............... 103
3.5 Liberalization episodes used in chapter 3 ............................................................ 109
3.6 Number of parameters, log likelihood. AIC. RAISE, andM A E ........................ 124
3.7 J-test ....................................................................................................................... 127
3.8 Davies test .............................................................................................................. 130
x
p rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
14/215
3.9 Moment matching s ta ti st ic s ................................................................................. 134
3.10 Transitional probabilities .................................................................................... 137
3.11 Coefficients and standard e rr o rs ........................................................................... 145
4.1 Measure of persistence (A) and percent reduction inmean absolute error . . 159
4.2 Out-of-sample forecast percent reductionin mean absolute e r r o r .................. 167
4.3 Liberalization episodes used in chapter 3 ........................................................... 172
B.l Basic statistics on monthly returns. Jan . 1980-June 1997 ............................... 176
xi
prod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
15/215
List of Figures
2.1 Alphas and betas. 36-month w in dow .................................................................. 58
2.2 Alphas and betas. 36-month w in dow ................................................................... 59
2.3 Alphas and betas. 36-month w in dow ................................................................... 60
2.4 Alphas and betas, 36-month w in dow ................................................................... 61
3.1 Examples of mixture d ist rib u tio n s ....................................................................... 84
3.2 Brazil: histogram of re tu rn s ................................................................................... 86
3.3 Chile: histogram of r e tu r n s ................................................................................... 97
3.4 Colombia: histogram of re tu rn s ............................................................................. 98
3.5 Colombia: time series of mixture densi ty ............................................................. 99
3.6 Portugal: one-step ahead return densities for a three-regime TVPmodel . . 100
3.7 Portugal. One-step ahead return density for a non-switchingm o d e l............... 101
3.8 Time series of mixtures for Argentina and B r a z il ........................................... 110
3.9 Time series of mixtures for Chile and Co lom bia .............................................. I l l
3.10 Time series of mixtures for Greece and India ................................................. 112
3.11 Time series of mixtures for Indonesia and J o r d a n ........................................... 113
3.12 Time series of mixtures for Korea and M ala ys ia .............................................. 114
3.13 Time series of mixtures for Mexico and N ig e r ia .............................................. 115
3.14 Time series of mixtures for Pakistan and the Philip pin es ............................... 116
3.15 Time series of mixtures for Portugal and T h a il a n d ........................................ 117
3.16 Time series of mixtures for Turkey and Venezuela ............................................ 118
3.17 Time series of mixtures for Zimbabwe and Fra nce ............................................ 119
3.18 Time series of mixtures for Germany and Ja p a n ............................................... 120
xii
p rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
16/215
3.19 Tim e series of mixtures for UK and US 121
C .l Total return index and total return: Argentina. Brazile. Chile. Colombia.
Greece, and India ..................................................................................................... 178
C.2 Total return index and tota l return: Indonesia, Jordan. Korea. Malaysia.
Mexico, and N ig e ri a ............................................................................................... 179
C.3 Total return index and total return: Pakistan. Philippines. Portugal. Thai-
land. Turkey, and Venezuela............................ 180
C.4 Total return index and total return: Z im ba bw e ............................................. 181
C.5 1-month statistics, trailing 36-month window: Argentina and Brazil . . . . 182
C.6 1-month statistics, trailing 36-inonth window: Chile and Colombia . . . . 183
C.7 1-month statistics, trailing 36-month window: Greece and I n d ia ................ 184
C.8 1-month statistics, trailing 36-month window: Indonesia and Jord an . . . . L85
C.9 1-month statistics, trailing 36-inonth window: Korea and Malaysia . . . . 186
C.10 1-month statistics, trailing 36-month window: Mexico and Nigeria . . . . 187
C .l l 1-month statistics , trailing 36-month window: Pakistan and Philippines . 188
C.12 1-month statistics, trailing 36-month window: Portugal and Thailand . . . 189
C.13 1-month statistics, trailing 36-month window: Turkey and Venezuela . . . . 190
C.14 1-month statistics, trailing 36-month window: Zim bab we ............................. 191
p rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
17/215
List of Abbreviations
A R ............................................................................................................................. Autoregression
ARMA ........................................................................................ Autoregressive Moving Average
AIC Akaike Information Criterion
ARCH Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity
CAPM ...............................................................................................Capital Asset Pricing Model
E A F E ...................................................................................... Europe. Australasia, and Far East
EM ...................................................................................................... Expectations-Maxirnization
G A RC H Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity
IFC ......................................................................................... International Finance Corporation
IFCG ......................................................................... International Finance Corporation Global
MAE .............................................................................................................. Mean Absolute Error
MLE Maximum Likelihood Estimation
MSCI ................................................................................ Morgan Stanley Capital International
RMSE ................................................................................................... Root Mean Squared Error
SVVARCH ....................................... Switching Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity
TVP ........................................................................................................ Time-varying probability
xiv
rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Furthe r reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
18/215
Chapter 1
Introduction and Literature
Review
1.1 Introduction
This dissertation presents a framework for the reevaluation of emerging equity markets.
Emerging markets have been presented as an attractive investment from a portfolio stand
point in both the academic and practitioner literature because of their distribut ion of
returns, or more specifically their joint distribution of returns w ith the world market. The
framework that I propose indicates that the standard characterization of emerging market
returns is an artifact of the process of emergenceof the markets. Th is is significant because
it means that expectations of returns that are based on the period of emergence will be
biased unless the peculiarit ies of the emergence are taken into account. In general, they
have not been.
In this introductory chapter. I go over the intuition of the problem of including emerging
markets in a global portfolio. I review the simplest one-factor asset pricing model tha t serves
as a basis for much of the analysis. I then show how the analysis can be severely affected
by outliers that are frequently seen in emerging markets, and I present some evidence that
the observed return distributions are dominated by outliers in many emerging markets. I
1
p rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Furthe r reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
19/215
review the literature on emerging markets that both shows that this bias was ignored in
much of the early research on emerging markets and that the framework proposed here ties
together many of the strands of the later literature. Finally, I briefly introduce the next
three chapters of the dissertation:
Chapter 2: I show that there are two problems with using the unconditional CAPM to
form expectations of excess returns:
1. there is time-variation in the estimated coefficients over the period, and
2. outlier returns associated with liberalization episodes disrupt the CAPM pricing
relationship.
Chapter 3: Using a time-varying probability switching model, I decompose the uncondi
tional univariate distribution of the returns into a mixture of normal distributions. I
show that this decomposition explains the time-variation of the moments, and that
the switching process is largely explained by liberalization periods in many of the
emerging markets.
Chapter 4: I model the volatility of returns in emerging markets using a time-varying
probability switching ARCH model that accommodates the large outlie r returns. This
model is shown to outperform the standard GARCH(1,1) model and the fixed switch
ing probability model in out-of-sample forecasting simulations.
1.2 Em erging M arkets and Portfolio D ecisions
Portfolio theory plays a major role in the flow of institutional money to emerging markets
because it provides an important role for emerging markets in a global portfolio. However,
several aspects of how emerging markets fit into a global portfolio have been misunder
stood by research on emerging markets. I tie the return distribution directly to the actual
emergence of the market, which results in an intuitive explanation for the change of the
distribution over time and for the difference between emerging and developed markets.
p rod uced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
20/215
3
This framework provides a better explanation for the pattern of returns and points
out some possible biases in emerging market data that have been ignored by much of the
existing research. Fundamental to this framework is an emphasis on outliers in the return
distribution . By associating these large price movements with changes in the underlying
investment environment brought on by changes in government policy, I show why we ob
served important non-normal and time-varying aspects of the distributions that are likely
to occur in all markets th at a re emerging. This simple und erstan ding of how emerging
markets are different from developed markets helps explain why formulaic application of
standard mean-variance portfolios techniques is not optimal.
Investors invest in emerging markets because of expectations that the emerging market
assets will enhance their portfolios. Generally, these expec tations are based on historical
da ta for tha t country and can be based on regression analysis or on simple characterizations
of the return distribution. Regression analysis relates the re turns to othe r variables, whereas
using the moments of the unconditional distribution is the simplest model that assumes
no other variable has information related to returns. In either case, oddities in the return
distr ibu tion itself will have importan t effects on the portfolio analysis. For this reason. I
focus on the distribution and only make tangential comments on the regression effects.
This focus on the re turn distr ibution is not too limiting, however. Much portfolio theory
uses only the join t distribution of asset retu rns to make decisions about asset allocation. In
this dissertation. I look at univariate distributions of emerging marke t returns in chapters 3
and 4, and the joint distribution of emerging market returns with the world market returns
in chapter 2.
1.2.1 Intern ational investing
The appearance of emerging equity markets as investment opportunities in the late 1980s
and early 1990s came at a time when portfolio investing was becoming more international in
its orientation. Investors had already broadened their investment horizon from the domestic
stock market to include stocks in othe r developed markets. In this case, the diversification
p rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
21/215
4
away from the domestic markets reduced the risk of portfolios by adding assets with low
covariances with the rest of the portfolio.
When emerging markets appeared, the typical question asked was. "are these jus t like
the other international stocks or are they fundamentally different?" In other words, did they
form a different asset class that could not be compared directly to the developed market,
or could they be compared? Did "emerging just mean "newor was there something
that set them apart from developed markets? These questions were important for both
the global investors and the emerging market economies themselves. Some preliminary
analysis1 suggested th at rebalancing global portfolios should result in the transfer of large
amounts of investment capital into emerging markets, with potentially large effects on the
developing economies.
There was some research in this early period that pointed out some of the differentiating
characteristics of emerging markets such as low liquidity, high transaction costs, and restric
tions on foreign ownership. However, much of the analysis focused on whether investing in
emerging equity markets was beneficial in a standard portfolio framework that implicitly
assumed that emerging markets could be compared directly to the existing markets. Given
tha t the appropriateness of portfolio analysis depends on the comparability of the markets,
a closer examination is warranted.
1.2 .2 The problem of portfol io theory
The portfolio problem is often expressed in a simple form
. ,3_ _ cv(r i,r rn)_ri Pir m (1-U
uar(rm)
where r, is the return to asset i and rm is the return to the market, and where both
are measured in excess of some risk-free rate of return. The /3 (or beta) notation is used
frequently to indicate the covariance risk of a particular asset. If asset i is a "high-beta
asset, then it will be highly correlated with the market and so will be a risky asset,
requiring a high ra te o f return to compensate the investor for holding the asset. Conversely,
lSee section 1.3.1 in the literature review below.
rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Furth er reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
22/215
a low beta asset is a good diversifier and so will have a low expected return in equilibrium.
To take into account possible deviations from this equilibrium relationship, an intercept
term is often included.
r i = a ,+ l3 lr m (1.2)
Here a (or alpha) refers to the return to the asset in excess of what is warranted by
its beta. If alpha is significantly positive, then the asset is a significant addition to the
portfolio because it increases the portfolio return above what is warranted by its effect on
the portfolio risk. In other words, an alpha significantly different from zero indicates tha t
the specified equilibrium relationship is not holding.
Herein lay the problem presented by emerging markets. The betas of many emerging
markets were low. indicating that these markets were not correlated with the world market,
and yet their returns were high, generating a high alpha. If this were true, emerging
markets would have presented something of a free lunch to international investors. There
are probably other explanations for the boom in emerging equity market investment in
the early 1990s. but this is the one frequently seen in the academic research on emerging
markets. Similarly, there are probably many contributing reasons for the emerging market
crash in 1997-1998; however, over-investment probably contributed to the crash and its
severity. From this point of view, an explanation of problems in the emerging market
analysis may shed light on these contributing factors. Furthermore, an understanding of
the first wave of emerging markets may help with interpreting the behavior of markets that
emerge in the future.
The first part of understanding the emerging market enigma is understanding the stan
dard equilibrium relationship given above. I need to make several preliminary caveats:
1. It is important to remember that a test of the relationship is a test of the jo in t
hypothesis of the pricing relationship and a number of assumptions, including that
the asset pricing relationship is correct, the market represents the correct portfolio,
and tha t expectations are formed rationally. For that reason, tests of asset pricing
rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Furth er reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
23/215
6
relationships are rarely conclusive. I am not particu larly interested in testing this
pricing relationship but ra th er I am interested in understanding how emerging markets
fit into a global portfolio framework. Because the simple portfolio relationship is a
reasonable approximation of equilibrium portfolio relationships. I will use it as an
indication that we do or do not understand emerging markets rather than conclusive
proof.
2. One critique of the simple framework is that it does not sufficiently take into account
exposure to other risk factors. A standard extension is a multifactor model written
as
r; = a, + ... + PktFk- (1.3)
Since a simple one-factor model illustrates my point. I will limit myself to a single
factor model.
My analysis of the portfolio relationship rests on expectat ions formation. Because we
do not know what the joint distribution of returns will be. we generally write
= < + f t t[rmt+1]. (1.4)
where Et indicates expectations take at time t.The expected return to the asset is a linear
function of the expected market retu rn. However, even this presupposes some knowledge
of at and Writing it out in full, we have
t[rit+i] = E t[ait+l] 4- Et[CaV u ^ [ r ^ ] . (1.5)oar(rm+i)
While expectations of the world return characteristics are certainly important. I will
focus on expectations of the emerging market returns and assume that expectations of the
world market are relatively accurate . Making this leap of faith, we can rewrite the equation
as
rod uced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
24/215
7
t [n t+ i] = + i?t[/?+i]rmt+l. (1.6)
The key is understanding how investors expect emerging market returns to behave in
the future. In a standard framework, unconditional covariance with the world market are
used to form expectations. However, if there is something abou t tha t historical da ta th at we
do not expect to see repeated in the future, then expectations using unconditional moments
may be biased. A more reasonable approach is to take into account time-variation in the
return process.
1.2.3 Th e problem of time>variation
Much of the early research tha t found a high expected alpha simply used the historical mean,
standard deviation, and correlations in their calculations. For example in the World Bank
Econom ic Review special issue on emerging markets in 1995. the four papers dealing with
asset pricing issues show return statistics for the entire period from 1976 to the present, with
two of the four showing statistics on a subperiod beginning in 1985/6. While there is nothing
wrong with providing descriptive statistics, most of these papers assume that the return
process is stable over this period and so the historical statistic s are good approximations
of the expected returns at any point in time. While this may seem like an innocuous
assumption given our relative ignorance of returns in emerging markets, it is a misleading
assumption, as will be explained below.
Using the historical statistics in this context implicitly assumes that the re turn process
is stable in the sense that the expected distribution at every point is the same and equal to
the unconditional distr ibution , as is generally assumed in developed markets. Clearly this
is a courageous assumption, and I contend that it should be checked. In fact there have
been a number of papers th at have looked at the time variation of some of these statistics,
some of which are discussed in the literature review in section 1.3.1 below.
In general, these papers have not, however, attempted to relate the time variation to
expectations of excess retu rn (alpha). Furthermore, these papers generally have assumed
rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Furthe r reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
25/215
8
that there has been some change over the period but have not looked specifically at the
process of emergence. There have been a few papers that have looked broadly at the
process of emergence bu t have not gone back to look at the effect that it has on how
emerging markets have changed our expectations of excess retu rn. This d issertation looks
at this process of emergence.
The emergence of emerging equity markets can be described as the process through
which investing in the market by global investors becomes possible. For emergence, then,
at least two things need to happen:
1. the development of the equity market institu tions that allow for the trading of shares.
2. the opening of the market to foreigners, which includes not only pe rmitting the ac
quisition of stocks, but the sale and repatriation of returns in the investors preferred
currency.
By and large these things happen as a result of government action. These actions usually
have by-products such as changes in macroeconomic conditions, tax rates, and economic
growth that also affect the stock market if the financial system becomes more efficient.
Some of the results of emergence, then, for which we should look are the following:
The development of the stock market may make the financial system more efficient
which should contribute to economic growth. There is some evidence that the emer
gence does lower the cost of capital in the countries but the specific topic is beyond
the scope of this paper. See Bekaert and Harvey (2000) for a discussion.
The opening of the stock market has been shown by Suret and L'Her (1997) and Henry
(2000b) to be directly related to a one time appreciation of stock values as would be
expected if the local stocks are more highly valued by international investors than by
local investors due to their diversification characteristics.
The effect on the volatility of the market may be mixed. On one hand, the growth
of the market should result in the deepening of the market which should reduce the
p rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Furthe r reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
26/215
9
volatility often seen in thinly traded markets. On the other hand, the opening of the
market to potentially large inflows and outflows of interna tional capital could increase
volatility. In fact, in Bekaert and Harvey (1997), the authors find that volatility is
lower after liberalization, while in a later paper (Bekaert et al. (1998b)), the authors
find that returns are more volatile after integration.
The expected effect on the correlations is also mixed. Related economic liberalization
may open up the economy to global shocks which may increase correlations. Fur
thermore, to the degree that stock market correlations are driven by the common
reaction of global investors to impor tant shocks, correlations may increase. However,
to the extent that these economies are structurally different from developed market
economies, the exposure to shocks should be different and so correlations of emerg
ing markets with the world markets should still be lower than the correlation of the
developed markets with the world market.
The finding has generally been that while correlations with developed markets have
risen, they are still fairly low. See Bekaert and Urias (1999) and Bekaert et al. (1998b)
for example.
In this dissertation. I look at the last three of these and four points discuss how we may
expect the emergence to lead to different mean returns, volatilities, and correlations with
the world market. These changes could affect the retu rn process in different ways. If the
change is an evolutionary change, it may be that the process changes slowly from a pre
emergence patte rn to a post-emergence pa ttern. It could also be that there is a rapid change
at the time of emergence which appears as a struc tural break in the time series. In either
case, it could be that the emergence is characterized by large outliers as the market adapts
to importan t changes. Because this dissertation emphasizes outliers that appear during
the period of emergence, it is worth considering the intuition of outliers in the context of
portfolio decisions.
pr odu ced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
27/215
10
1.2 .4 Th e problem of out l iers - an i llustrat ion
To appreciate the significance of outliers in the context of portfolio analysis, it is important
to understand how outliers affect the measured statistics of returns in a small sample since
these statis tics can drive asset allocation. In some empirical studies, the tail observations
are not very important and can be dropped or winsorized. However, in a retu rn series, as
long as the returns are measured correctly, all of the observations are important for the
investor's overall return, so the tail observations cannot be ignored.
The effect of outliers on investors' portfolio decisions can be seen in the simple CAPM
model described above. The effect of a single outlier depends on its magnitude, its direction,
and whether it has the same sign as that period's world return . If an outlier is large, positive,
and has the same sign as the world return, then it will increase the measured beta of the
model, whereas if it has a sign opposite of the world return, it will reduce the measured
beta.
This effect is largely a small sample effect, but in terms of emerging markets, that is
still importan t since emerging markets have only a short history of returns.2 In Table (1.1).
I show the results of a simple simulation. Two return series are randomly generated using
the covariance structure of the Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) world index
and France - as a representative market, using data from 1988:1-1993:12. The series are 72
observations long which is six years using monthly returns.
I change one of the country's observations by setting it equal to the mean of the series
plus or minus some multiple of the standa rd deviation of the series. I then estim ate alpha
and beta . As shown in Table (1.1), the beta increases when the shock has the same same
sign as the world return , and decreases otherwise. It is interesting to note how much the
shock affects the measured beta. With a three standard deviation shock, the measured beta
varies between 0.489 and 0.659. and with a six standard deviation shock, the measured beta
varies between 0.407 and 0.736.
2 Actually, the discussion of outliers probably has wider relevance given th at beta is often measured over
a moving window of 5 years or so, which ensures a fairly small sample.
rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Furth er reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
28/215
11
Also, notice that the alpha varies between -0.184 and 0.464. which indicates that the
monthlyreturn for the country unexplained by its comovement with the world return ranged
from -18.4% to 46.6%.
Shock has same sign as world return
shock crs a 0 P mean a skewness kurtosis
0 0.140 0.571 -0.012 0.753 5.921 0.089 2.410
1 0.194 0.599 -0.008 0.836 5.969 0.063 2.3472 0.248 0.626 -0.004 0.919 6.099 0.119 2.368
3 0.302 0.653 -0.001 1.003 6.304 0.305 2.845
4 0.355 0.681 0.001 1.086 6.578 0.629 4.105
5 0.409 0.708 0.003 1.169 6.913 1.066 6.269
6 0.463 0.736 0.004 1.252 7.300 1.575 9.246
Shock has sign opposite the world return
shock
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
29/215
12
erally anticipated, with the effect of liberalization spread out over several months before
the official liberalization. Empirically, we see several emerging markets with consecutive
shocks, with the most notable example being Colombia. We would expect this to give these
countries an unusually high measured autocorre lation. There are also a few countries with
consecutive outliers of opposite sign, with the best example being Taiwan. We would expect
these to have lower measured autocorrelations than they would have otherwise.
Two consecutive identical shocks
shock cts Q 13 P mean a skewness kurtosis
0 0.262 0.544 0.007 0.845 5.876 0.060 2.462
1 0.426 0.546 0.057 1.011 5.969 0.008 2.3432 0.590 0.548 0.123 1.178 6.220 0.110 2.360
3 0.754 0.550 0.193 1.345 6.609 0.414 3.047
4 0.918 0.553 0.258 1.511 7.114 0.872 4.6065 1.083 0.555 0.313 1.678 7.713 1.401 6.850
6 1.247 0.557 0.356 1.844 8.385 1.932 9.440
Table 1.2: Outlier example 2. Alpha, beta, autocorrelation (p). and moments when adding
shocks to two consecutive observations. 72 observations.
1.2.5 Outl iers
Th e stand ard finding is tha t stock market returns are not normally distributed. I test for
normality using monthly return da ta for 20 emerging markets and 5 developed markets. The
emerging market data is from the International Finance Corporation's Emerging Market
Database, while the developed market data is from Morgan Stanley Capital International.
Tests of normality show that emerging market retu rns are not normally distributed. The
results for percent returns and log returns are show in Table (1.3). Normality is rejected
even when using log returns, although less so because it reduces the influence of the large
positive returns that are seen in the emerging market data . I will use percentage returnsrather than log returns in what follows and provide some evidence that the large positive
returns are interesting in their own right.
p rod uced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
30/215
13
Returns Log Returns
Country JB p-value JB p-value
Argentina 2004.9664 0.0000 291.1381 0.0000
Brazil 14.8491 0.0006 74.2198 0.0000
Chile 0.1316 0.9363 6.3144 0.0425
Colombia 152.8409 0.0000 71.2686 0.0000
Greece 488.2039 0.0000 173.7814 0.0000
India 29.6886 0.0000 13.8808 0.0010
Indonesia 0.1712 0.9180 0.3763 0.8285
Jordan 12.6885 0.0018 8.9265 0.0115
Korea 22.6990 0.0000 9.3407 0.0094
Malaysia 22.1099 0.0000 84.6089 0.0000
Mexico 130.1182 0.0000 1042.0557 0.0000
Nigeria 2121.0984 0.0000 4211.4708 0.0000
Pakistan 198.7556 0.0000 87.2724 0.0000
Philippines 57.4821 0.0000 37.3506 0.0000
Portugal 531.6033 0.0000 156.7812 0.0000
Taiwan 32.2870 0.0000 21.0684 0.0000
Thailand 62.5499 0.0000 163.5785 0.0000
Turkey 23.7839 0.0000 3.3469 0.1876Venezuela 45.1489 0.0000 252.0623 0.0000
Zimbabwe 40.7063 0.0000 26.5231 0.0000
Japan 4.9478 0.0843 11.2286 0.0036
France 42.8557 0.0000 116.7490 0.0000
Germany 11.7606 0.0028 20.5508 0.0000
UK 15.1477 0.0005 41.4398 0.0000
USA 191.6236 0.0000 421.1429 0.0000
Table 1.3: Jarqu e-Berra test for normality statis tic and p-value. for return s and log returns.
rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
31/215
14
Th e non-normality raises the possibility of outliers. Fi rs t, let me begin with an informal
definition of outlie r.3 An outlier is an observation that is located far away from the main
grouping of da ta. This definition is somewhat vague in that it does not mention conditioning
information. In the case of a simple univariate distribution, it means that the outliers lie
far away from mean of the d istribution. When there is oth er conditioning information, as
in the case of an estimated model, it must be that we have an outlier when the observation
does not follow the model well, meaning that it has a large forecast erro r.1 Clearly, this
raises the issue of specification. If there are outliers, should we try to build a be tte r model
that better forecasts outliers, or should we ignore the outliers in both the estimation and
the forecasting?
The treatm ent o f outliers is an important topic in all estimation, bu t I contend th at it
is especially interesting in financial markets. In many cases, outliers are of interes t because
they can have an unwanted effect on the estimation. In that case, once the outliers are
identified, they can be removed from the da ta set and th e estimation can proceed. In
finance, motives are less clear. If we know tha t there were very large negative or positive
returns in the data, tha t are not due to measurement or recording error,wewould somehow
like to include th at in our information set. It is not clear that investorswould take much
solace from being told that analysis was done only after removing all large gains and losses
from the da ta set. Basically, we do want to understand outliers in finance.
The handling of outliers in finance is somewhat confused. In developed markets, there is
evidence tha t there are sporad ic outliers in the return distribution , as shown by Table (1.5)
below. These are often stock marke t crashes, and their causes are not well understood .5
Indeed, so little is understood about them, that practitioners tend not to try to model
them, which can lead to somewhat of a schizophrenic approach in that they allow the
observation to influence the estimation but they do not try to differentiate the outliers
from the base observations in any way. The way that this is generally handled is to assume
3For more formed treatment o f outliers, see Gather and Becker (1997) and Barnett and Lewis (1984).
4 See West and Harrison (1997), p. 347 and following.
5See Kleidon (1995) for a discussion of the 1987 crash.
p rod uced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
32/215
15
that returns are drawn from a fat-tailed distribution, which means that we expect to see
outliers periodically, but are not able to explain why.
Emerging markets are somewhat different in that there are so many outliers, that there
is good reason to try to model them. Table (1.5) below shows tha t for many emerging
markets, roughly five percent of the observations are outliers. More importantly, I give
evidence below that these outliers are driving much of both the "stylized facts'' as well as
the ano malies seen in emerging market returns. It seems tha t th is gives sufficient reason
to try to unders tand the outliers. Below, I present a framework that attem pts to model
that outliers in a way that is both intuitive and informative.
1.2.6 R ob ust ou tl ier identi f ication
The identification of outliers is a topic with a long history. See Barnett and Lewis (1984)
and Gather and Becker (1997) for overviews. There are two main problems with identifying
outliers: maskingand swamping. In the case of masking, outliers disto rt the criteria used for
identifying outliers to such an extent tha t they are not identified as outliers. For example,
in the case of a univariate normal distribution, a reasonable statistic would be to look at
the t-statistic of the observation furthest from the mean and see if that could be considered
an outlier with a reasonable level of confidence:
j sr
wherex is the measured mean of the distribution and s x is the measure standard deviation.
The problem here is that if x} is indeed an outlier, it has an affect not only on x but
on sx . and it may well be that x3 is not signif icantly different from the mean x. A quick
fix is to drop observation j and look at the extreme studentized deviate statistic:
ESDm = max J ~J 3 - j
where x_j and s__, do not use observation Xj in their calculation. Obviously, the problem
here is that there may be other, related, outliers used in the calculations that prevent
Xj from being identified as an outlier. This problem is known as the masking problem
p rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
33/215
16
because the outliers mask their identi ties as outliers. This problem is especially important
with large outliers, as is seen in emerging markets returns. The swamping problem is the
reverse problem in which the presence of the outliers causes an observation x, that is not an
outlier to be identified as an outlier. This problem is less importan t in the case of emerging
markets.
While there are several methods for identifying outliers. I will use the method found to
be very robust in bo th Gather and Becker (1997) and Davies and Gather (1993). namely
the inward iterative procedure that uses the Hampel statistic, described briefly below. See
a short appendix beginning on page 42 for details. This method uses a robust measure of
location and spread:
, \xj - rued mlH A m= max =t
j MADm
where medm is the median of the distribu tion, and MADm is the median absolute deviation
from the median:
MADm = med{|xj - medm|}.
The algorithm is iterative in that it tests the largest outlier, and if that observation is
outside the confidence interval, it is dropped from the observation sample and the procedure
is repeated for the next largest outlier. The m subscript refers to the reduced sample. This
continues until the observation is not significantly far from the median. The test statistic
details are given in Davies and Gather (1993).
In Table (1.4), I show the measured return moments with and without the outliers
identified using the robust outlier identification algorithm discussed above.6 Note the large
difference in the moments for most of the emerging markets. Table (1.5) shows the number
of observations in the full data set, the number of identified observations, the number of
outliers as a percentage of the total observations, and the arithmetic and geometric means
of the outliers. Several results stand out:
6N'ote that I am assu ming norm ality and using percent returns for doing the tests. Using log returns
does not change the qualitative results of the tests.
p rodu ced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
34/215
17
for many of the emerging markets, there is a marked difference between the moments
measured over the entire data set and those on the subsample that drops the outliers.
for some of the emerging markets, outliers make up a large percentage of the tota l
number of observations.
for most of the emerging markets, especially those with multiple outliers, the mean
of the outliers is very large and positive.
there is considerable difference not only between the emerging and developed markets,
but also among emerging markets.
This last poin t warrants some expansion. We can make some broad characterizations
of the differences:
Developed markets: These tend to have fewer outliers, and the outliers tend to be
negative. This results in the unconditional distr ibution having a negative skewness.
Emerging markets similar to developed markets: There are a few emerging mar
kets tha t have a pa ttern similar to the developed markets. Specifically. Chile. In
donesia, and Malaysia have few outliers and they tend to be negative. Mexico and
Venezuela are the only other emerging markets with a negative outlier mean.
Prototypical emerging markets: Most emerging markets do have many outliers that
have a positive mean. The best examples of this group are Argentina. Greece, and
Portugal.
High variance emerging markets: Other emerging markets do not have clear outliers
but do have a high variance. The best examples are Brazil and Turkey.
Clearly, for some of the emerging markets, outliers do notseem to be much of a problem.
Much of the rest of this dissertation focuses on the outlier problem, so the results for some
of the emerging markets are weak precisely because there was not much of a problem from
the beginning.
p rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Furthe r reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
35/215
18
Out l i e rs dropp ed Full da ta se t
Count ry m ean
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
36/215
19
C ountry to ta l obs o utlie r obs o u tlie rs as % of obs ari th. mean geo. mean
Argentina 209 11 5.26 53.37 27.94
Brazil 209 4 1.91 25.27 11.25
Chile 209 I 0.48 -28.03 -28.03
Colombia 150 5 3.33 33.06 32.95
Greece 209 S 3.83 30.32 27.16
India 209 5 2.39 8.70 5.02
Indonesia 90 0 0.00
Jo rd an 209 10 4.78 3.17 2.34
Korea 209 4 1.91 26.20 26.17
M alaysia 150 1 0.67 -30.59 -30.59
Mexico 209 6 2.87 -17.44 -26.51
Niger ia 150 19 12.67 0.09 -8.15
Pakistan 150 s 5.33 14.19 12.53
Phil ippines 150 6 4.00 15.35 t0.83
Portugal 137 12 8.76 19.45 15.67
Taiwan 150 7 4.67 20.18 13.65
Thai land 209 i 3.35 3.55 0.12
Thrkey 126 3 2.38 65.18 65.08
Venezuela 150 4 2.67 -0.39 -12.54
Zim babwe 209 4 1.91 5.78 0.64
Avg E merging 175 6.25 3.66 13.02 7.66
Ja p an 209 1 0.48 -24.51 -24.51
France 209 6 2.87 -12.55 -13.69
Germanv 209 5 2.39 -2.87 -4.40
UK 209 2 0.96 -19.16 -19.23
USA 209 2 0.96 -3.83 -5.49
Avg D eveloped 209 3.2 1.53 -12.58 -13.46
Table 1.5: Total number of observations, number of identified outliers, outliers as per
centage of total observations, arithmetic mean, and geometric mean of identified outliers.
Averages for emerging markets and developed markets are a rithmetic means of the num bers
presented.
p rod uced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
37/215
20
In Table (1.6) I show some detail on the specific outliers that are found. Notice tha t
while there are many examples of consecutive outliers, it is interesting to note that for many
countries the outliers are clustered in a few periods, even if they are not in consecutive
months. The effect on the statistics can also be seen on time-series graphs in an appendix
beginning on page 177.
Identified outlier returnsArgentina (y =0.53 . ct =14.78 )
Month Return cts from y
1980:2 59.08 3.96
1981:4 -45.02 3.08
1985:6 91.55 6.16
1985:8 128.11 8.64
1989:6 178.11 12.021989:7 -64.95 4.43
1989:8 45.92 3.07
1989:9 95.15 6.40
1990:1 -53.97 3.69
1991:3 57.08 3.83
1991:8 95.96 6.46
Brazil (y =2.47 a =15.86 )
Month Return as from y
1986:3 57.53 3.47
1988:3 52.62 3.16
1989:4 47.82 2.86
1990:3 -56.89 3.74
Chile {y =1.93 . a =8.54 )
Month Return cts from y
1983:1 -28.03 3.51
Colombia (y =1.77 . a =6.56 )
Month Return cts from y
1987:9 22.89 3.22
1991:10 34.56 5.00
1991:11 37.08 5.38
1991:12 37.34 5.42
1992:1 33.42 4.83
Greece (y =-0.27 . a =7.37 )Month Return cts from y
1987:1 30.94 4.23
1987:3 26.34 3.61
1987:9 38.06 5.20
continued on nextpage
prod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
38/215
21
continued from previous page
1988:1 -30.81 4.14
1989:9 42.87 5.85
1990:4 58.58 7.98
1990:6 43.67 5.961991:2 32.89 4.50
India (p =1.18 . o =7.94 )
Month Return os from p
1990:7 26.30 3.16
1992:3 35.27 4.29
1992:5 -24.38 3.22
1996:5 -24.29 3.21
1996:6 30.59 3.70
Indonesia (p =0.78 . o =8.45 )
Month Return os from p
NoneJordan (p =0.51 . o =3.91 )
Month Return os from p
1981:1 -12.14 3.24
1981:7 13.18 3.24
1981:11 14.43 3.57
1985:6 12.18 2.99
1985:7 13.26 3.26
1989:2 -12.81 3.41
1989:7 16.15 4.01
1989:8 -12.23 3.26
1990:1 12.56 3.081990:8 -12.85 3.42
Korea {p =0.66 , o =7.74 )
Month Return C7S from p
1980:4 22.03 2.76
1981:1 25.57 3.22
1981:6 30.62 3.87
1992:10 26.58 3.35
Malaysia (p =1.43 . o =7.01 )
Month Return os from p
1987:10 -30.59 4.57
Mexico (p =2.49 . o =10.53 )Month Return os from p
1982:12 -46.61 4.66
1987:10 -42.47 4.27
1987:11 -59.32 5.87
1988:1 39.60 3.52
continued onnext page
rodu ced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
39/215
22
continuec from previous page
1988:2 39.33 3.50
1994:12 -35.21 3.58
Nigeria (p =2.11 , a =4.49 )
Month Return crs from p.1986:9 -15.52 3.93
1986:10 -56.04 12.96
1987:1 24.48 4.99
1987:2 -11.42 3.02
1987:3 -12.60 3.28
1987:4 -18.20 4.53
1987:6 38.89 8.20
1989:1 -19.86 4.90
1991:9 18.83 3.73
1992:3 -42.26 9.89
1992:12 -13.04 3.381993:2 -28.57 6.84
1993:4 57.55 12.36
1993:9 -15.02 3.82
1994:1 99.47 21.70
1995:3 -70.25 16.13
1995:5 17.03 3.33
1995:6 22.97 4.65
1995:7 25.26 5.16
Pakistan {p =0.50 . a =5.08 )
Month Return crs fromp
1991:7 19.68 3.77
1991:11 35.27 6.84
1991:12 31.42 6.08
1992:4 16.41 3.13
1992:7 -15.82 3.21
1993:12 25.76 4.97
1996:7 -16.06 3.26
1997:1 16.85 3.22
Philippines {p =2.52 , a =8.00 )
Month Return crs fromp
1986:2 31.42 3.62
1986:9 33.92 3.93
1987:6 42.41 4.991987:9 -24.03 3.32
1990:9 -29.30 3.98
1993:12 37.67 4.40
Portugal (p =0.91 , cr =6.42 )
continued on next page
rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Furthe r reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
40/215
23
continued from previous page
Month Return crs from p
1986:3 27.67 4.17
1987:1 34.91 5.29
1987:3 24.96 3.751987:4 36.99 5.62
1987:5 24.72 3.71
1987:7 22.72 3.40
1987:8 35.78 5.43
1987:9 70.84 10.89
1987:10 -20.67 3.36
1987:11 -29.30 4.70
1987:12 -24.26 3.92
1989:9 29.02 4.38
Taiwan (p.=1.81 . a =11.04 )
Month Return as from p
1987:4 38.87 3.36
1987:8 34.71 2.98
1987:9 53.34 4.67
1987:10 -35.52 3.38
1990:8 -34.14 3.25
1993:2 34.29 2.94
1993:12 49.69 4.33
Thailand (p =1.28 , a =6.49 )
Month Return as from p
1982:9 19.66 2.83
1987:9 22.99 3.35
1987:10 -33.82 5.411990:9 -22.50 3.66
1993:10 32.24 4.77
1993:12 26.24 3.85
1996:10 -19.96 3.27
Turkey (p =2.09 . a =17.65 )
Month Return as from p
1987:7 69.31 3.81
1989:9 69.13 3.80
1997:1 57.11 3.12
Venezue a (p =2.48 . a =11.29 )
Month Return as from p1985:12 -49.79 4.63
1990:3 48.55 4.08
1990:8 45.88 3.85
1995:11 -46.22 4.31
continued on next page
p rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
41/215
continued from previous page
Zimbabwe (p =1.34 , ct =8.79 )
Month Return as from p
1981:9 -27.91 3.33
1984:6 -25.15 3.011985:5 45.98 5.08
1994:2 30.21 3.29
Japan (p =1.38 . ct =7.10 )
Month Return cts from p
1990:3 -24.51 3.65
France (p =1.41 . ct =5.47 )
Month Return cts from p
1980:3 -17.38 3.44
1981:5 -26.92 5.18
1982:6 -18.37 3.62
1987:10 -17.73 3.501988:2 20.48 3.49
1990:8 -15.40 3.08
Germany {p =1.14 . ct =5.42 )
Month Return cts from p
1980:3 -16.14 3.19
1985:12 18.18 3.14
1986:5 -16.02 3.16
1986:8 19.03 3.30
1987:10 -19.41 3.79
UK {p =1.27 . ct =5.31 )
Month Returncts
from p1981:9 -15.93 3.24
1987:10 -22.40 4.46
USA {p=1.12 . ct =3.62 )
Month Return cts from p
1987:1 13.96 3.55
1987:10 -21.62 6.28
Table 1.6: All month returns found to be outliers using the
inward iterative algorithm using the Hampel statistics, with
a significance level of 0.01 (a = a.v = 0.01). Data are from
1980:1-1997:6. where available. The mean {p) and standard
deviation (cr) are calculated after dropping outliers.
p rod uce d with permissio n of the copyright owner. Furth er reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
42/215
25
1 .2 .7 M ode l ing out l iers
There are two fundamental issues involved when modeling outliers: bias and efficiency. If
there is some way to model outliers and it is not done, it can affect the results differentlydepending on the natu re of the outliers. Consider the case in which a single variable could
be used to explain the outliers, bu t the variable is not used. Th is omission produces an
omitted variable bias. If any of the explanatory variables are correlated with the omitted
variable, their coefficients will be biased. If the outliers are not correlated with any of the
included explanatory variables, the effect of the outliers will not affect any of the estimated
explanatory variable coefficients. However, the intercept will pick up the effect of the
outliers and so may be "biased in the sense that the "unexplainable part of the variance
is not measured correctly. Estimation will be less efficient, of course, relative to the correct
explanatory variable being included.
Again, relating this result to financial outliers, in the case of developed markets, we
do not know what causes the outliers and so we do not include any explanatory variables.
We may suppose that this does not bias estimation (much) but we know that it decreases
efficiency relative to including a good explan atory variable. Unfortunately, we do not have a
good explana tory variable. In the case of emerging m arkets, it may well be that we do have
a reasonably good explanatory variable. Not including it not only decreases the efficiency
of the estim ation bu t can have a bias on the estim ated coefficients. In the simple case in
which only the intercept is affected, it is affected depending on the relation of the outliers
to the estimated intercept. Note in Table (1.6) tha t the average outlier return for most
emerging markets is positive and generally large. This indicates tha t these outliers bias
the estimated base retu rn of emerging markets in the da ta set upward if the outliers can
be explained. The point here is that failing to expla in the outliers can have an important
impact on our understanding of emerging market returns.
This dissertation focuses on using the history of the emergence to help explain the
retu rn distr ibu tion , including the outliers. Since what follows uses the term "liberalization
throughout, I will first clarify how I use it.
p rod uced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
43/215
26
There are many different types of liberalizations that are seen in emerging markets.
Since I am focusing on equity markets, I will try to limit my discussion of liberalization to
those that have a fairly direct impact on the equity markets. However, this is easier said than
done. While some liberalization policies, such as removing restrictions on foreign ownership
of domestic stocks or reducing capital gains taxes, are directly related to the equity market,
others a re not as clear. For example, liberalization of the exchange rate system may not
have a direct effect on the stock market, but does have an effect on foreigners?being able
to transfer their stock market returns back to their home currency, and so affects the value
of stocks for foreign investors. Therefore, I do look at changes in exchange rate regime.
Similarly, privatiza tion of government-owned companies may not have a direct impact on
the functioning of the stock market, but can have a large effect on the stock market being
an integral part of the financial system because these privatized stocks make up the core
of the stock market in many emerging markets.
On the other hand, some liberalization policies, such as trade liberalization, may have
some indirect affects on the equity market either through effects on economic growth or
through the effect of share prices affected by the trade liberalization, b ut I do not include
such liberalization episodes in my discussion.
Another aspect of liberalization that needs explanation is the timing. In the context
of equity markets, liberalization is the set of policies that reduce frictions in the equity
market. Not only may this include many different types of policies, as discussed above, but
the tim ing can vary significantly. We can consider the levelof liberalization to be between
limits of zero and one, with zero being a level that precludes the functioning of the market,
and one being a theoretical absence of frictions. Liberalization, then , is the sequence of
policies th at increase the liberalization level.
Two aspects of these liberalization policies need addressing. Firstly, the policies do not
all have the same importance, as measured by the effect on the stock market. Specifically,
there is one very important liberalization episode that I refer to as the "opening that allows
foreigners to invest in the stock market. I consider this to be th e most importan t single
p rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
44/215
27
liberalization policy, although its analysis is complicated by the fact that in some countries
it is accomplished all at once, and in other countries (e.g. Korea) it is accomplished step
by step.
Secondly, it is not the case that the policy changes must always increase the level of
liberalization, meaning that the history of the liberalization level is not necessarily non
decreasing. Periodically, we may see policies that reduce the level of liberalization, such as
an increase in the restrictions on share-holders.
There is an important assumption implicit in my dissertation: that in the countries in
my dataset, there is a tendency to liberalize. I can speculate that this is generally true,
but it is probably unprovable. and also is not something I can address with my da taset.
My dataset, however, has the characteristic that it is made up of all the markets that were
deemed to be emerging markets by the IFC at the end of the data period (June 1997).
That in itself implies that there was some degree of liberalization in the history because
the 'emergence refers to the market going from submerged or closed, to being open. This
emergence was largely a result of changes in government policies that have increased the
liberalization level of the market.
The result of these two aspects of liberalization (the primacy of 'opening and the
tendency to liberalization) imply that if countries have just begun liberalizing, they are
more likely to liberalize more in the future: and that if countries have liberalized to the
point of having very developed markets, they are less likely to have important liberalization
policies in the future. In the simple case of opening, if markets have not opened, they are
likely to open in the future, whereas if they have already opened, they are not likely to open
again in the future. While it is possible that a country closes and therefore can re-open
in the future, we will know that this is the case and can condition on the knowledge.
p rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
45/215
28
1.3 Literature review
The simulation and statistics presented in the previous section indicate that outliers are
prevalent in emerging markets and that this likely has an important effect on portfolio
analysis. In this section. I present a review of literature on emerging markets to give
context for this focus on outliers.
In the ten years or so in which significant research on emerging markets has been done,
there have been several phases through which the research has gone. They can be grouped
in the following categories:
Static characterization and portfolio consequences: Preliminary research merely char
acterized the historical (unconditional) returns of emerging markets. Closely related
were papers tha t used these static characterizations to sup por t th at emerging markets
would significantly enhance a global portfolio.
Integration and asset pricing: The promise of enhanced portfolios raised the important
question of whether emerging markets were integrated with the world market. If they
were not. then it may not even be possible to invest in the markets. Furthermore, if
standard asset pricing models did not hold then investors lacked an understanding of
how to value emerging market assets. These papers raised the possibility of important
changes in the return process.
Time-varying integration: Because many of the tests for integration were rejected, re
search was done that tested for time-varying integration.
Tim e-varying characteristics: Related to modeling time-varying integration but less
ambitious were papers that merely looked at time-variation in the return character
istics of emerging markets, although they did not focus on outliers.
Single break integration: One strand of research to emerge assumed that there was a
quick switch from being to segmented to being integrated. Realizing that the early
data would be characterized by a segmented return process, the researchers sought to
p rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Furthe r reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
46/215
29
find the date of the integration and then look at the emerging market characteristics
since then.
Characterization o f the emergence process: This research finds that there is evidence
that the emergence of emerging markets was over a long period of time and so was
not a sharp break between being segmented and being integrated. By studying the
emergence process in detail, the researchers hope to understand how expectations of
current and future emerging markets should be formed.
These categories are in rough chronological order, although there are some papers that
do not easily fit into one or more of the categories. Below. I give a quick review of some of
the more relevant papers.
1.3.1 Sta tic characterization and portfol io con sequ ences
The early articles looked at the characteristics of emerging market returns without dealing
with the influence of outliers. Much of the early work cited below is by practitioners who
were excited about the portfolio enhancing possibilities of emerging markets.
In Claessens et al. (1993), the authors look at a number of return anomalies and at
retu rn predictability in emerging markets. Using IFC data through 1992. they find that
anomalies that are often seen in developed markets are not present in emerging markets
bu t they do find indications of predictability in emerging markets. The most important
source of predictability is simply first-order autocorrelation, which is significantly positive
in a number of markets.
In Speidell and Sappenfeld (1992). the authors point out the importance of global
diversification. They then show that given the apparent rising correlation between the
EAFE (the Morgan Stanley Capital International's Europe, Australasia, and Far East
index) markets and the U.S. market, emerging markets should play a larger role in a global
portfolio because of their low correlations with the developed markets.
Wilcox (1992) gives intuitive explanations for his optim istic view of emerging market
investing. While he does discuss the standard risk-reward reasons, he also looks at three
rod uce d with permission of the copyright owner. Furth er reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
47/215
30
other reasons:
1. that global value investors will benefit from the relatively new and inefficient markets
that are dominated by momentum traders.
2. that an u nderstandin g of economic development can give global investors bette r fore
casts due to the importance of economic growth on emerging markets.
3. tha t the secular move away from managed economies toward market-oriented economies
will present more opportunities for global investors knowledgeable about emerging
markets.
In an early practitioners ' article. Divecha et al. (1992) expresses the basic argument for
including emerging markets in a global portfolio:
Even though emerging markets are risky individually. low correlations be
tween them and with developed markets lead to risk reduction for modest in
vestments. As these markets develop greater links (financial and trade) with
the developed markets, they will undoubtedly become more highly correlated.
Thus, there is a "diversification free lunch" currently available - one should
indulge while the opportunity exists, (p. 50)
They also point out that the stock level correlations within countries are very high, in
dicating that country selection is much more important than stock selection in emerging
markets.
In Errunza (1994). the author makes a general case for the inclusion of emerging markets
in a global portfolio and also looks at how their inclusion should be implemented. He points
to a number of studies that support this view and sums up the results:
All of these studies use efficient frontiers, factor analysis, or asset pricing
models. Thus, there is robust evidence of the benefits of EM [emerging market]
diversification over the last two decades for different sets of markets, varying
pr odu ced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
-
7/24/2019 Barnes_2003_Abnormal Returns in Emerging Equity Markets_Dissertation
48/215
31
time periods, many types of data and sources, and different methodologies. The
major findings over the period 1960-1990 are:
1. EM diversification would have been beneficial in terms of both increased
returns and reduced risk.
2. The domestic system atic risk has been higher than ma jor developed mar
kets (DMs) but not necessarily the smaller developed markets.
3. The return correlations vis-a-vis developed markets have been low. and at
time negative. Among themselves, the EMs are essentially uncorrelated.
1.3.2 Integration and asset pricing
Early excitement in emerging market portfolio possibilities was tempered by a wave of
more academic research on whether emerging markets were " integrated- with world equity
marke ts. While the precise definition of 'integra tion ' varied from paper to paper, the
idea is that if markets were integrated with the world market, then frictions would be low
enough that investors could include these assets in their portfolio. Conversely, if they were
segmented, then frictions existed that prevented their inclusion and they could not be used
by global investors to improve thei r portfolios.
The results of this research were somewhat mixed. The majority of evidence seemed to
indicate th at the emerging markets were not integrated with the world market. However,
many of the authors began to point out that there seemed to be some time-variation in the
process, so it may have been the case that emerging marke ts were becoming more integrated.
Nevertheless, most of the analysis took a static view of emerging market characteristics .
Two very important collections of this research came out of the World Bank. In 1993.
a collection of working papers edited by Claessens and Gooptu was published (Claessens
and Gooptu (1993)). In 1995, a issue of the World Bank Economic Review was dedicated
to eme