Impact of Macroeconomic Variables On The Stock Market Prices of The Stockholm Stock Exchange

JNKPING INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL
JNKPING UNIVERSITY
Impact of Macroeconomic Variables on the Stock Market Prices of the

Stockholm Stock Exchange (OMXS30)
Masters Thesis within International Financial Analysis

Author:
Joseph Tagne Talla
Tutors:
Per-Olof Bjuggren, Louise Nordstrm
Jnkping
May 2013
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my supervisors Professor Per-Olof Bjuggren and Louise Nordstrm for their
invaluable contributions.
Jnkping, May 2013
Masters thesis in International Financial Analysis

Title:
Impact of Macroeconomic Variables on the Stock Market Prices of the Stockholm

Stock Exchange
Author:
Joseph Tagne Talla
Tutors:
Per-Olof Bjuggren, Louise Nordstrm
Date:
2013-05-17
Abstract
The key objective of the present study is to investigate the impact of changes in selected
macroeconomic variables on stock prices of the Stockholm Stock Exchange (OMXS30). To
estimate the relationship, unit root test, Multivariate Regression Model computed on Standard
Ordinary Linear Square (OLS) method and Granger causality test have been used. The time
period examined is 1993-2012 and all the tests are conducted based on monthly data. Based on
estimated regression coefficients and t-statistics, it is found that inflation and currency
depreciation have a significant negative influence on stock prices. In addition, interest rate is
negatively related to stock price change, but it is not significant in the model. On the other hand,
money supply is positively associated to stock prices although not significant. No unidirectional
Granger Causality is found between stock prices and all the predictor variables under study
except one unidirectional causal relation from stock prices to inflation.
Keywords: Macroeconomics variables, stock prices, OLS, Granger Causality test.
Abbreviations
ADF Augmented Dickey-Fuller
APT Asset Pricing Theory
CAPM Capital Asset Pricing Model
OMXS30........ OMX Stockholm 30
OLS Ordinary Least Square
Table of Contents
1
Introduction ..............................................................Erreur ! Signet non dfini.7

1.1
Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 7
1.2
Outline ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................... 9

2.1
The Efficient Market Hypothesis .................................................................................................. 9
2.2
The Arbitrage Pricing Theory. .................................................................................................... 10
Literature Review ............................................................................................ 12
Data and Methodology .................................................................................... 17
4.1
Variables description and Expectation ........................................................................................ 17
4.2
Data ............................................................................................................................................. 19
4.3
Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 20
Empirical Results ............................................................................................. 22

5.1
Unit Root Test ............................................................................................................................. 22
5.2
Regression Output (OLS) ............................................................................................................ 24
5.3
Residuals diagnostics .................................................................................................................. 26
5.3.1
Correlogram for the Residuals............................................................................................. 26
5.3.2
Serial Correlation LM Test .................................................................................................. 27
5.3.3
Heteroscedasticity Test........................................................................................................ 28
5.3.4
Normality Test ..................................................................................................................... 28
5.3.5
Granger Causality Test ........................................................................................................ 29
Discussion and Conclusion .............................................................................. 31

6.1
Further Research.......................................................................................................................... 31
References ......................................................................................................... 33
Appendix ........................................................................................................... 37
8.1
Appendix 1: ADF Test ................................................................................................................ 37
8.1.1
Stock Price (OMXS30) ....................................................................................................... 37
8.1.2
Consumer Price Index (CPI) ............................................................................................... 39
8.1.3
Money Supply (MS) ............................................................................................................ 41
8.1.4
Interest Rate (IR) ................................................................................................................. 44
8.1.5
Exchange Rate ..................................................................................................................... 46

5
8.2
Appendix 2: Eviews output Ordinary Linear Square Test .......................................................... 47
8.3
Appendix 3: Eviews output Granger Causality Tests.................................................................. 48
1 Introduction
A stock exchange market is the center of a network of transactions where buyers and sellers of
securities meet at a specified price. Stock market plays a key role in the mobilization of capital in
emerging and developed countries, leading to the growth of industry and commerce of the
country, as a consequence of liberalized and globalized policies adopted by most emerging and
developed government. Many factors can be a signal to stock market participants to expect a
higher or lower return when investing in stock and one of these factors are macroeconomic
variables. The change in macroeconomic variables can significantly impact stock price return.
The results of this empirical research help the reader to understand whether the movement of
stock prices of the Stockholm Stock Exchange (OMXS30) is subject to some macroeconomic
variables change. Investors will find this study as a helpful tool for them to identify some basic
economic variables that they should focus on while investing in stock market and will have an
advantage to make their own suitable investment decisions.
The present research considers four macroeconomic variables: Consumer Price Index (CPI) as
proxy for inflation rate, Exchange Rate (ER), Money Supply (MS), Interest Rate (IR) and on the
other hand Stockholm Stock Exchange indices in the form of OMXS30. In the study we use the
Ordinary Least Squared (OLS) to test the impact of macroeconomic variables on Stockholm
Stock Exchange Indices and vice versa (using the Granger causality test), based on monthly data
from January, 1993 to December, 2012. Besides, Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test to check
the stationarity of the data and diagnostic checking to check if residuals from the regression are
white noise.
The objective of this paper is to investigate the impact of macroeconomic variables on the stock
market prices of the Stockholm stock exchange during the period 1993-2012. This paper is a
complement to the existing literature. To our knowledge, the present research is the most recent
one that focuses on the Swedish stock market.
1.1
Limitations
Another three important macroeconomic variables that are commonly used in research to explain
changes in stock prices have been excluded from the present paper namely: Industrial Production,
7
Foreign Exchange Reserves and Oil Prices variables. The exclusion of the Industrial Production
and Oil Price variables was due to the lack of consistent data for the study period. However, the
Foreign Exchange Reserves variable was negative and insignificant when included in the
regression model and there was not previous research to attest to this finding of negative
relationship between foreign exchange reserves and stock prices. Besides, this result can be
explained by the fact that Sweden has a fluctuating exchange regime. Based on that, foreign
exchange reserves variable was excluded from the model and its exclusion did not affect the
regression and the residual diagnostic testing results.
1.2 Outline
The thesis is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the theoretical framework with respect to
both efficient market hypothesis and arbitrage pricing theory. Section 3 provides a literature
review and gives support to the variables considered in this research. Section 4 describes the data
and methodology used in the research. Section 5 focuses on the empirical results and discussions
of ADF test, regression analysis, diagnostic checking and Granger causality test. Section 6
provides a discussion as well as suggestions for further research and concludes this research.
2 Theoretical Framework
Different theoretical frameworks have been employed by many researchers to link changes in
macroeconomic variables with stock market returns. These include the semi strong efficient
market hypothesis developed by Fama (1970) and the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (APT) developed
by Ross (1976). These theories are discussed in this section as they relate the macroeconomic
variables to stock market return.
2.1
The Efficient Market Hypothesis
Popularly known as random walk theory, the efficiency market hypothesis assumes that market
prices should incorporate all available information at any point in time. The term efficient
market was first used by Eugene Fama (1970) who said that: in an efficient market, on the
average, competition will cause the full effects of new information on intrinsic values to be
reflected instantaneously in actual prices. Fama defined an efficient market as a market where
prices always reflect all available information. Indeed, profiting from predicted price
movements is unlikely and very difficult as the efficient market hypothesis suggests that the main
factor behind price changes is the arrival of new information.
However, there are different kinds of information that affect security values. Consequently, the
efficient market hypothesis is stated in three variations namely: the weak form hypothesis, semi
strong form hypothesis and the strong form hypothesis depending on what the term available
information means.
This paper focuses on the semi strong hypothesis since it is the most convenient for our study. As
a matter of fact, the semi strong hypothesis states that all publicly available information is already
incorporated into current prices; that is the asset prices reflect all available public information.
Indeed, the semi strong hypothesis is used to investigate the positive or negative relationship
between stock return and macroeconomic variables since it postulates that economic factors are
fully reflected in the price of stocks. Public information can also include data reported in a
companys financial statement, the financial situation of companys competitors, for the analysis
of pharmaceutical companies. Hence, information is public and there is no way to make profit
using information that everybody else knows. So the existence of market analysts is required to
be able to understand the implication of vast financial information as well as to comprehend
processes in product and input market.
9
2.2 The Arbitrage Pricing Theory.

Developed by Ross (1976), the Arbitrage Pricing Theory (ATP) is another way of linking
macroeconomic variables to stock market return. It is an extension of the Capital Asset Pricing
Model (CAPM) which is based on the mean variance framework by the assumption of the
process generating security. In other words, CAPM is based on one factor meaning that there is
only one independent variable which is the risk premium of the market. There are similar
assumptions between CAPM and APT namely: the assumption of homogenous expectations,
perfectly competitive markets and frictionless capital markets.
However, Ross (1976) proposes a multifactor approach to explaining asset pricing through the
arbitrage pricing theory (APT). According to him, the primary influences on stock returns are
some economic forces such as (1) unanticipated shifts in risk premiums; (2) changes in the
expected level of industrial production; (3) unanticipated inflation and (4) unanticipated
movements in the shape of the term structure of interest rate. These factors are denoted with
factor specific coefficients that measure the sensitivity of the assets to each factor. APT is a
different approach to determining asset prices and it derives its basis from the law of one price.
As a matter of fact, in an efficient market, two items that are the same cannot sell at different
prices; otherwise an arbitrage opportunity would exits. APT requires that the returns on any stock
should be linearly related to a set of indexes as shown in the following equation:
(1)
Where
= the expected level of return for stock i if all indices have a value of zero
= the value of the jth index that impacts the return on stock i
= the sensitivity of stock is return to the jth index
= a random error term with mean equals to zero and variance equal to
According to Chen and Ross (1986), individual stock depends on anticipated and unanticipated
factors. They believe that most of the return realized by investors is the result of unanticipated
events and these factors are related to the overall economic conditions. In fact, although asset
returns can also be affected by influences that are not systematic to the economy, returns on large
10
portfolios are mainly influenced by systematic risk because idiosyncratic returns on individual
assets are cancelled out through the process of diversification.
11
3 Literature Review
Founded in 1863, Stockholm Stock Exchange is the main securities market in Sweden. After
merging with OMX in 1998, Stockholm Stock Exchange is held today by the Nordic division of
the largest exchange holding company in the world, namely NASDAQ OMX. An overview of
Stockholm Stock Price Index is represented on figure 1 from 1993 to 2012 (monthly
representation). The measure of predictability and efficiency of stock returns has always been an
interesting topic for researchers, investors and government agencies.
Figure 1: Stockholm stock Price Index (1993-2012)
1992-01-31 2012-12-31 M OMX STOCKHOLM 30 (OMXS30) - PRICE INDEX
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Several researchers have centered their empirical studies on the relationship between stock
market movement and macroeconomic variables and this has been intensively examined in both
emerging and developed capital markets. Homa and Jaffe (1971), Hamburger and Kochin (1972)
find a positive relationship between money supply and stock prices. This result follows the ideas
of real activity economists who argue that if there is an increase in money supply; it means that
money demand is increasing which is a signal of an increase in economic activity. This increase
in economic activity implies higher cash flows, which causes stock prices to rise (Sellin, 2001).
Grossman and Shiller (1980) examine how historical movements can be justified by new
information. Using historical data from 1890-1979, they show evidence that stock price
movement can be attributed to real interest rate movement.
12
Another study is that of Chen, Roll and Ross (1986) who investigate the impact of
macroeconomic variables on stock prices. They employ seven macroeconomic variables to test
the multifactor model in the USA. They find that consumption market index and oil prices are not
related to financial market while industrial production, change in risk premium and twist in the
yield curve are significantly related to stock returns.
Gjerde and Saettem (1999) study the relation between stock returns and macroeconomic variables
in Norway. Their results show a positive relationship between oil price and stock returns as well
as real economic activity and stock returns. However, their study fails to show a significant
relation between stock returns and inflation.
Bhattacharya et. al. (2001) analyze the causal relationship between the stock Market and three
macroeconomic variables in India`s case using the Granger non-causality. These macroeconomic
variables are: exchange rate, foreign exchange reserves and trade balance. The results suggest
that there is no causal linkage between stock prices and the three variables under consideration.
In their study based on six Asian countries, Doong et al (2005) investigate the relationship
between stocks and exchange rates using the Granger causality test. According to their results,
there is a significantly negative relation between the stock returns and change in the exchange
rates for all the included countries except one.
Uddin and Alam (2007) examine the linear relationship between share price and interest rate as
well as share price and changes of interest rate. In addition, the also explore the association
between changes of share price and interest rate and lastly changes of share price and changes of
interest rate in Bangladesh. They find for all of the cases that Interest Rate has significant
negative relationship with Share Price and Changes of Interest Rate has significant negative
relationship with Changes of Share Price.
Geetha, Mohidin, Chandran and Chong (2011) investigate the relationship between stock market,
expected inflation rate, unexpected inflation rate, exchange rate, interest rate and GDP in the case
of Malaysia, US and China. They use cointegration test to determine the number of cointegrating
vectors, which shows the long-run relationship between the variables while the short-run
relationship was determined using the Vector Error Correction model. Their results indicate that
there is a long run cointegration relationship between stock markets and those variables in
13
Malaysia, US and China. On the other hand, there is no short run relationship between the stock
market, unexpected inflation, expected inflation, interest rate, exchange rate and GDP for
Malaysia and US using VEC. However, Chinas VEC result shows that there is a short-run
relationship between expected inflation rates and Chinas stock market.
Gay (2008) investigates the relationship between stock market index price and and the
macroeconomic variables of exchange rate and oil price for emerging countries (Brazil, Russia,
India, and China) using the Box-Jenkins ARIMA model. He finds no significant relationship
between respective exchange rate and oil price on the stock market index prices in any of the
emerging countries. He concludes that this result suggests that the markets of Brazil, Russia,
India, and China exhibit the weak-form of market efficiency.
Mohammad (2011) uses Multivariate Regression Model computed on Standard OLS formula and
Granger causality test to model the impact of changes in selected microeconomic and
macroeconomic variables on stock returns in Bangladesh. He examines monthly data for all the
variables under study covering the period from July 2002 to December 2009. The study finds a
negative relationship between stock returns and inflation as well as foreign remittance while
market Price/Earnings and growth in market capitalization have a positive influence on stock
returns. However, no unidirectional Granger Causality is found between stock returns and any of
the independent variables and the lack of Granger Causality reveals the evidence of an informally
inefficient market.
Mahedi (2012) examines the long-run relationship and the short-run dynamics among
macroeconomic variables and the stock returns of Germany and the United Kingdom. He uses the
Johansen Co-integration test to indicate the co-integrating relationship between the stock prices
and macroeconomic determinants. And then, he uses error-correction models to investigate both
the short-and long-term casual relationships and each case is examined individually. For
Germany case, the results show that the short-run causality runs from stock returns to inflation,
from money supply to stock returns and from industrial production to stock returns. The long-run
causality runs from inflation to stock returns and from exchange rate to stock returns. There is
only one short-and long-run relationship, that is from the stock returns to industrial production.
For the United Kingdom case, he finds that the short run causality run from stock returns to Tbill, from stock returns to money supply, from stock returns to exchange rate, exchange rate to
14
stock returns and stock returns to industrial production. The long run causality runs from inflation
to stock returns. The short and long-run causal relationship runs from stock returns to inflation,
from money supply to stock returns and from industrial production to stock returns. These results
indicate the existence of short-run interactions and long term causal relationship between both
Germany and the UK stock markets and the macroeconomic fundamentals.
Ray Sarbapriya (2012) uses a simple linear regression model and Granger causality test to
measure the relationship between foreign exchange reserves and stock market capitalization in
India. The results show that causality is unidirectional and it runs from foreign exchange reserve
to stock market capitalization and that foreign exchange reserves have a positive impact on stock
market capitalization in India.
Many other early studies of Lintner (1973), Jaffe and Mandelker (1977) and Fama and Schwert
(1977) examine the relationship between inflation and stock prices. Most of these studies test the
Fisher hypothesis which predicts a positive relationship between expected nominal returns and
expected inflation and their findings are inconsistent with the Fisher hypothesis. They all report a
negative linkage between stock returns and inflation. However, Firth (1979) observes a positive
relationship between nominal stock returns and inflation when studying the relationship between
stock market returns and rates of inflation in the United Kingdom.
Table 1: Impact of macroeconomic variables on stock market
Macroeconomic
variables
Inflation
Interest rate
Exchange rate
Positive
Negative
Insignificant
Firth (1979)
Lintner (1973)
Fama and Schwert
(1977)
Mandelker (1977)
Geetha, Mohidin,
Chandran and
Chong (2011)
Uddin and Alam
(2007)
Geetha, Mohidin,
Chandran and
Chong (2011)
Geetha, Mohidin,
Chandran and
Chong (2011)
Doong et al (2005)
Gjerde and
Saettem (1999)
15
Chen, Roll and

Ross (1986)
Bhattacharya et.
al.(2001)
Robert D. Gay
(2008)
Money Supply
Oil price
Homa and Jaffe

(1971)
Hamburger and
Kochin (1972)
Gjerde and Saettem
Mahedi (2012)
Chen, Roll and

Ross (1986)
Robert D. Gay
(2008)
(1999)
Foreign exchange
reserves
Ray Sarbapriya
(2012)
Industrial production
Mahedi (2012)
Chen, Roll and Ross
(1986)
Bhattacharya et.
al.(2001)
16
4 Data and Methodology

4.1 Variables description and Expectation
Dependent variable; OMX Stockholm 30 (OMXS30)
The OMX Stockholm 30 is a stock market index for the Stockholm Stock Exchange. It is the
market value weighted index of the 30 stocks that have the largest trading volume on the
Stockholm Stock Exchange.
Consumer Price Index (CPI)
Consumer price index is used as a proxy for inflation. The relationship between inflation and
stock returns can be positive or negative depending on whether the economy is facing unexpected
or expected inflation. Expected inflation happens when demand exceeds supply, causing an
increase in prices to stimulate more supply. Since this is expected by the firms, increase in prices
would also increase their earnings which would lead to them paying more dividends and hence
increase the price of their stocks as well. On the other hand when inflation is unexpected, an
increase in price will lead to the increase in cost of living and this will shift resources from
investment to consumption. Indeed, as inflation increases, nominal interest rates will also
increase. The discount rate used to determine intrinsic values of stocks will therefore increase,
and thus this will reduce the present value of net income leading to lower stock prices. Moreover,
if the price elasticity of demand for the firms products is high, a rise in inflation may cause a
decline in a firms sales and net income, and thus its stock price.
This negative relationship between unexpected inflation and stock prices is hypothesized by
Fama (1981) as a function of the relationship between unexpected inflation and real activity in
the economy. This research is based on APT, which is built on the relationship between the
unexpected changes in economy and stock returns, thus inflation is expected to be negatively
associated to stock prices.
Interest Rate (IR)
The money market rate is considered as a proxy for interest rate. The money market is a segment
of the financial market in which financial instruments with high liquidity and very short
maturities are traded. The money market is used by participants as a means of borrowing and
17
lending in the short term, from several days to just under a year. An increase in the interest rate
will result in falling stock prices due to the fact that high interest rate will increase the
opportunity cost of holding money, causing substitution of stocks for interest bearing securities.
Interest rate is one of the important macroeconomic variables and is directly related to economic
growth. From the point of view of a borrower, interest rate is the cost of borrowing money while
from a lenders point of view, interest rate is the gain from lending money. The interest rate is
expected to be negatively associated to stock returns.
Exchange Rate (ER)
The next macroeconomic variable used in this study is the exchange rate which in this case is the
bilateral nominal rate of exchange of the Swedish krona (SEK) against one unit of a foreign
currency, Euro (). The reason is that Eurozone countries are the main market for Swedish
foreign trade. An increase in exchange rate (depreciation) will cause a decline in stock prices
because of expectations of inflation. Moreover, heavy importer companies will suffer from higher
costs due to a weaker domestic currency and will have lower earnings, and lower share prices. As
a result, the stock market, which is a collection of a variety of companies, trends to react
negatively to currency depreciation.
However, domestic exporters benefit from currency
depreciation because it causes domestic products to become cheaper to foreign clients. So on

macroeconomic level, currency depreciation will boost the domestic export industry and depress
the import industry. Overall, the effect of exchange rate on stock prices can be either a positive or
a negative relationship. Based on Doong et al (2005) work, we assume the negative relationship
is predominant.
Money Supply (MS)
The form of money supply called M0 is defined as the non-bank sectors holdings of notes and
coins. It is calculated by subtracting the notes and coins held by banks from the total quantity of
Riksbank notes and coins in circulation. An increase in the money supply is frequently assumed
to positively affect stock prices. When money stock grows, it stimulates the economy which leads
to greater credit being available to firms to expand production and then increases sale resulting in
increased earnings for firms. This results in better dividend payments for firms leading to an
increase in the price of stocks. However, money supply can also be negatively associated to stock
prices. To illustrate this argument, we first go through the link between money supply and
18
inflation, since the expansion of the money supply is positively related to inflation in the
economy which would increase the nominal risk free rate (Fama, 1981). This increase in the
nominal risk free rate will lead to a rise in the discount rate which leads to a fall in return. A
positive relationship between money supply and stock price is expected in this study.
Table 2: Regression Variables
Explanations
Variables
Data source and

Period
Dependent variable
Expected sign of
coefficient
OMXS30
The OMX
Nasdaq OMX, Jan
Stockholm 30 is a
1993 - Dec 2012,
stock market index
monthly.
for the Stockholm
Stock Exchange, in
Swedish Krona.
Independent variables
CPI
The Consumer Price

Index (CPI) is the
most common
measure of inflation.
Index ranges from 0
to 100 with high
rating means high
inflation.
Money market rate
as a proxy to interest
rate. Monthly
average of daily rates
for day-to-day
interbank loans (%)
Exchange rate,
Swedish krona
(SEK) against one
unit of Euro ().
Statistics Sweden
(SCB), Jan 1993 Dec 2012, monthly.
International
Financial Statistics
(IMF), Jan 1993 Dec 2012, monthly.
WM/Reuters, Jan
1993 - Dec 2012,
monthly.
Money supply (M0),

millions Swedish
Krona.
Sveriges Riksbank,
Jan 1993 - Dec 2012,
monthly.
IR
ER
MS
Na
4.2 Data
The objective of this paper is to empirically examine the impacts of some macroeconomic factors
on the stock market returns of the Stockholm stock exchange (OMXS30). In this study, stock
price index (OMXS30) is considered as the dependent variable. On the other hand, based on
19
previous studies, four macro-economic variables namely Consumer Price Index (CPI), Call
Money Rate (IR), Exchange Rate (ER) and Money Supply (MS) are used as predictor variables.
The study examines monthly data for all the variables under study covering the period from
January 1993 to December 2012 (240 monthly observations) which are collected from the
Thomson Reuters Financial Datastream.
Table 3 presents the summary of descriptive statistics for the selected dependent and independent
variables under study. 240 monthly observations of all the variables have been examined to
estimate the following statistics. The mean describes the average value in the series and Std.
Deviation measures the dispersion or spread of the series. The maximum and minimum statistics
measures upper and lower bounds of the variables under study during our chosen time span.
Table 3: Descriptive statistics for 1993-2012
Mean
Minimum
Maximum
LOMXS30
762,1750
174,1300
1433,080
Std.
Deviation
308,3970
LCPI
275,8629
241,0000
315,4900
21,32207
LIR
3,895542
0,350000
10,90000
2,353708
LER
9,137867
8,139000
11,46000
0,519209
LMS
83 727,82
58 646,00
100 883,0
13 218,25
240
4.3 Methodology
Two main econometric models are conducted in this study: the Ordinary Least Squared (OLS) to
test the relationship between the macroeconomic variables and the stock price index (OMXS30),
and Granger Causality test to examine the relation between individual explanatory variables and
OMXS30 (either unidirectional, bidirectional or no relation).
However, it is important to keep in mind that time series data analysis is subject to the problem of
spurious regression if the data is non-stationary, resulting in unreliable results of the models
constructed. So to avoid spurious regression, the unit root test (Augmented Dickey Fuller test)
will be conducted first to check if the time series data is stationary. If the test shows that the data
is non-stationary, the first difference of the variables will be employed before conducting the
20
OLS method and the Granger Causality Test. The multivariate regression is developed in the
following equation:
(2)
Firstly, all the variables under study are transformed into the logarithmic form. Then, because of
the existence of a unit root in all the variables data series (Tables 4 and 5), the first difference of
logarithm of all the variables and the second difference of the logarithm of money supply are
used.
21
5 Empirical Results
5.1 Unit Root Test
When dealing with time series data, it is important to examine the existence of unit root in the
data series. If the variable is not stationary, we can obtain a high
although there is no
meaningful relation between variables. A non-stationary process generates the problem of

spurious regression between unrelated variables. Before running our linear regression and
Granger causality test, we need to test for Unit root and make sure that we are dealing with
stationary data before using it. There are numerous unit root tests and one of the most popular
among them is the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test. Augmented Dickey -Fuller (ADF) is an
extension of Dickey -Fuller test.
The null and alternative hypotheses are as follows:
Unit root
[Variable is not stationary]
No unit root
[Variable is stationary]
If the coefficient is significantly different from one (less than one) then the hypothesis that y
contains a unit root is rejected. Rejection of the null hypothesis denotes stationarity in the series.
If we dont reject the null hypothesis, we conclude we have a unit root. Before running ADF test,
we plot the variable to check if there is a trend and use the Elder and Kennedy unit root model
selection approach. OMXS30, CPI MS and IR are growing as we can see respectively from
figures 4a, 5a, 6a and 7a (Appendix 1). So the ADF test is run at level with trend and intercept as
summarized in table 4.
By looking at the results, it appears that the p-values for all the included variables in our research
are greater than the critical value (5%). So we cannot reject the null hypothesis and we must
therefore conclude that four variables out of five which are growing are non-stationary, meaning
that those variables follow a random walk with drift and no time trend. This implies that we need
to take the first difference of those variables before they can be run in the regression model
22
Table 4: ADF test result at level, trend, intercept

Null hypothesis
P value
LOMXS30 is nonstationary
LCPI is non-
0,4113
Null
hypothesis
Do not reject
0,0567
Do not reject
Results
LOMXS30 is nonstationary
LCPI is nonstationary
stationary
LMS is non-
0,9999
Do not reject
LMS is non-stationary
0,0989
Do not reject
LIR is non-stationary
stationary
LIR is nonstationary
The only variable left is the ER variable which is not growing (Figure 8a, Appendix 1). So we
run the ADF test only at level, with intercept and no trend as we can see the result from table 5.
Table 5: ADF Test at level, intercept
LER
0,1356
Do not reject
LER is
nonstationary
Since the p-value (0.1356) is greater than the critical value (5%), we cannot reject the null
hypothesis and we can conclude that ER variable is following a pure random walk.
Following the results from table 4 and 5, the remedy is to take the first difference of all the
variables before using them in the regression model. Table 6 is the summary of such test. The pvalues of four out of five variables included in our regression are less than the critical value (5%).
In other words, the p-values of OMXS30, CPI, IR and EP are less than 5%, meaning that we
reject the null hypothesis. We can conclude that those variables are stationary at first difference.
It is easy to see that the trend on OMXS30, CPI and IR variables is removed when taking their
first difference as we see in their respective figures 4b, 5b, 7b (Appendix 1).
However, the p-value for MS is greater than critical level, 25, 39%
5%, we cannot reject the
null hypothesis and we conclude that MS is non-stationary at first difference and it follows a pure
random walk at first difference since it is not growing (Figure 6b, Appendix 1).
23
Table 6: ADF test at
difference
Null hypothesis
P-value
Results
0,0000*
Null
hypothesis
Reject
LOMXS30 is not
stationary
LCPI is not
0,0135*
Reject
LCPI is stationary
LMS is not stationary
0,2539
Do not reject
LMS is non-stationary
LER is not stationary
0,0000*
Reject
LER is stationary
LIR is not stationary
0,0002*
Reject
LIR is stationary
LOMXS30 is stationary
stationary
(*) means significant at 5% critical level
The results of ADF test at first difference conclude that all variables are stationary, except MS.
So we need to run ADF test at second difference at level for MS variables since it follows a pure
random walk at first difference. From table 7, we can see that the p-value (0%) is less than
critical level (5%). We reject the null hypothesis and conclude that MS variable is stationary at
second difference.
Table 7: ADF test at
difference
Null hypothesis
P value
Null hypothesis
Results
LMS is not stationary
0,0000*
Reject
LMS is
stationary
5.2 Regression Output (OLS)

Our OLS equation is as follows:
Where D is the first difference and DD is the second difference. The model output is summarized
in table 8.
Table 8: The Effects of Macroeconomic Variables on Stock Market Prices

Variable
Coefficient
t-Statistic
Probability
0,008853
2,233070
0,0265
24
DLCPI
2,066528
2,069061*
0,0396
DDLMS
0,119401
1,215672
0,2253
DLIR
0,048940
1,043833
0,2976
DLER
1,190890
5,493487*
0,0000
R-squared
0,128075
Adjusted R-
0,113106
squared
F-statistic
8,556205
238
Note: DLOMXS30, DLCPI, DLIR and DLER denote the first difference of the log values of
stock price index (OMXS30), consumer price index, interest rate, exchange while DDLMS
denotes the second difference of the log value of money supply. (*) sign means significant at
5% critical level.
Table 8 presents the output of the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) method to show the impact of the
macroeconomics variables on stock market prices. I can be noticed that both the predicted and all
the predictor variables are log-transformed. This is associated with the price elasticity meaning
that the percentage change in Y is caused by one percentage change in X. For example in the case
of this study, 1% change in inflation will cause stock prices to decrease by 206%. The output
from table 8 shows a significant relationship between inflation (DLCPI) and stock price index
(since its p-value 0.0396 is less than 5%). The negative sign of the coefficients means that
increase in inflation will cause stock price to fall. This is consistent with the previous evidence of
a negative and significant linkage between inflation and stock returns (Lintner, 1973; Fama and
Schwert, 1977). Another negative significant linkage is found between exchange rate and stock
prices as it can be seen on its negative coefficient sign and its p-value (0.0000<0.05). This means
that depreciation of currency will cause the stock price to fall and this result confirms early
evidence (Doong et al, 2005). Although the other macroeconomic variables are not significant,
their coefficient signs confirm our expectations. Indeed, the money supply coefficient is positive,
meaning that an increase in money supply will cause the price to increase as well. The negative
coefficient sign of the interest rate means that an increase in the interest rate will cause the stock
price to decrease.
25
5.3 Residuals diagnostics

To confirm and trust the T-test results from our OLS regression, we have to make sure that the
residuals are white noise. Residuals from a regression should never contain any systematic
information, since this is a sign that this information is not included in the regression model.
5.3.1 Correlogram for the Residuals
Figure 2: correlogram for the Residuals
Date: 05/15/13 Time: 17:05
Sample: 1993M03 2012M12
Included observations: 238
Autocorrelation
.|.
.|.
.|*
.|.
.|.
.|*
.|.
.|.
.|.
*|.
.|.
.|.
*|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|*
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
*|.
.|.
.|.
*|.
.|.
*|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Partial Correlation
.|.
.|.
.|*
.|.
.|.
.|*
.|.
.|.
.|.
*|.
.|.
.|.
*|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|*
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
*|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
.|.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
AC
PAC
0.038
-0.007
0.137
0.035
0.028
0.092
-0.047
0.045
0.022
-0.073
0.062
0.067
-0.107
-0.006
-0.040
0.019
-0.029
-0.006
0.074
-0.028
-0.011
0.023
0.044
0.034
0.005
0.000
-0.009
-0.140
-0.043
-0.019
-0.078
0.003
-0.067
-0.007
0.042
-0.030
0.038
-0.009
0.138
0.024
0.029
0.074
-0.062
0.045
-0.007
-0.066
0.058
0.052
-0.089
-0.017
-0.056
0.053
-0.046
0.018
0.091
-0.049
0.017
0.000
0.041
0.033
-0.004
0.008
-0.038
-0.166
-0.016
-0.047
-0.046
0.049
-0.060
0.054
0.015
0.008
26
Q-Stat
0.3533
0.3660
4.9348
5.2256
5.4179
7.5181
8.0672
8.5731
8.6972
10.049
11.004
12.134
15.033
15.042
15.443
15.540
15.763
15.772
17.194
17.394
17.426
17.570
18.092
18.404
18.412
18.413
18.433
23.757
24.271
24.368
26.054
26.056
27.295
27.308
27.794
28.056
Prob
0.552
0.833
0.177
0.265
0.367
0.276
0.327
0.380
0.466
0.436
0.443
0.435
0.305
0.375
0.420
0.486
0.541
0.608
0.577
0.627
0.685
0.731
0.752
0.783
0.824
0.860
0.890
0.694
0.715
0.755
0.719
0.761
0.747
0.785
0.802
0.825
Figure 2 is the Eviews output of correlogram for the residuals. We cannot see any pattern in the
SAC or SPAC which ensures the robustness of the results.
5.3.2
Serial Correlation LM Test
The presence of serial correlation is examined by Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test.

Residuals for OLS output is tested for serial correlation, using the following hypothesis:
: No
autcorrelation
Autocorrelation
Table 9: Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test
F-statistic
Obs*R-squared
0.180342
0.371034
Prob. F(2,231)
Prob. Chi-Square(2)
0.8351
0.8307
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID
Method: Least Squares
Date: 05/15/13 Time: 17:07
Sample: 1993M03 2012M12
Presample missing value lagged residuals set to zero.
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
C
DLER
DLIR
DDLMS
DLCPI
RESID(-1)
RESID(-2)
-2.51E-05
0.006635
0.001296
-0.003736
0.034184
0.039047
-0.008835
0.003979
0.218884
0.047124
0.098794
1.003992
0.066153
0.066265
-0.006303
0.030314
0.027493
-0.037821
0.034048
0.590251
-0.133322
0.9950
0.9758
0.9781
0.9699
0.9729
0.5556
0.8941
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
0.001559
-0.024375
0.058130
0.780575
342.9720
0.060114
0.999126
Mean dependent var

S.D. dependent var
Akaike info criterion
Schwarz criterion
Hannan-Quinn criter.
Durbin-Watson stat
-3.13E-18
0.057434
-2.823294
-2.721169
-2.782136
1.997244
Table 9 is the summary of the serial correlation LM test from Eviews. The p-value is 83.51%
which is greater than critical value, 5%. We cannot reject the null hypothesis and we can
conclude for the absence of autocorrelation.
27
5.3.3
Heteroscedasticity Test
This test is important to confirm the robustness of the OLS output since we cannot rely on them
in the presence of heteroscedasticity. The hypotheses are:
No heteroscedasticity
Heteroscedasticity
Table 10 summarizes the Eviews output from the Heteroscedasticity test. The p-value is 0, 7134
which is greater than critical value, 5%. So we cannot reject the null hypothesis and we can
conclude that homoscedasticity is present, and thus OLS t-test results can be trusted.
Table 10: Heteroscedasticity Test: Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey
F-statistic
Obs*R-squared
Scaled explained SS
0.530595
2.148355
2.649181
Prob. F(4,233)
Prob. Chi-Square(4)
Prob. Chi-Square(4)
0.7134
0.7085
0.6181
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID^2
Date: 05/15/13 Time: 17:10
Sample: 1993M03 2012M12
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
C
DLER
DLIR
DDLMS
DLCPI
0.003168
0.020543
-0.001944
-0.004601
0.095540
0.000363
0.019840
0.004291
0.008989
0.091410
8.730136
1.035418
-0.453121
-0.511804
1.045175
0.0000
0.3015
0.6509
0.6093
0.2970
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
5.3.4
0.009027
-0.007986
0.005301
0.006549
911.8852
0.530595
0.713366
Mean dependent var

S.D. dependent var
Schwarz criterion
Durbin-Watson stat
0.003285
0.005280
-7.620884
-7.547937
-7.591485
1.755580
Normality Test
This test is important to find out whether the error term follows normal distribution and the
hypotheses are stated as follows:
28
Residuals are normally distributed

Residuals are not normally distributed
Figure 3 shows the Eviews output. The histogram shows that residuals are not normally
distributed. The non-normality of residuals is also confirmed by the Jarque-Bera test since the pvalue (0, 005193) is smaller than the critical value at the 5% level. So, the null hypothesis can be
rejected, thus residuals are not normally distributed. The non-normal behavior observed can be
explained by the fact that consumer price index increases continuously during the period of
examination (appendix Figure 5a) compared to the other variables where we can observe some
upward or downward movements over the 20-year time span.
Although the residuals are non-normally distributed, we can rely on our t-tests results since we
use a reasonably large sample in our linear regression.
Figure 3: Histogram of residuals and Jarque-Bera test
24
Series: Residuals
Sample 1993M03 2012M12
Observations 238
20
16
12
Mean
Median
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
Skewness
Kurtosis
-3.13e-18
0.001095
0.139142
-0.180475
0.057434
-0.427880
3.573224
Jarque-Bera
Probability
10.52070
0.005193
0
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
From our diagnostic checking results, we can assume that residuals from our linear regression are
white noise, meaning that they do not contain any systematic information. However, in reality it
is hard to find a model with completely white noise residuals; this is confirmed by the normality
test where we found that residuals are not normally distributed.
5.3.5 Granger Causality Test
The Granger Causality test is a statistical hypothesis test to determine whether one time series is
significant in forecasting another. This test aims at determining whether past values of a variable
help to predict changes in another variable (Granger, 1988). In addition, it also says that variable
29
Y is Granger caused by variable X if variable X assists in predicting the value of variable Y

(Sarbapriya, 2012).
In our empirical research, the Granger Causality test is conducted to study the causal relationship
between the macroeconomic variables and the Stockholm Stock Exchange. By applying the ADF
test, the first difference of four variables and second difference MS is performed to obtain
stationary variables before using them on Granger causality test. Table 11 below reports the
Granger causality test results with a lag of 4 as the lag selection.
We can conclude that there is a unidirectional relationship between inflation rate (CPI) and stock
price since we reject the null hypothesis that DLCPI does not Granger Cause DLOMXS30; the
p-value (1,75%) is less that the critical value (5%). This means that that inflation Granger causes
stock price.
The overall Granger Causality test reveals that only inflation granger causes the stock prices
while the stock prices do not affect any of the four macroeconomic variables included in the
research.
Table 11: Test for Granger Causality between Stock Index and the Macroeconomic
Variables
Null Hypothesis
P-Value Result
Relationship
DLCPI does not Granger Cause DLOMXS30
0,0175*
Reject
DLOMXS30 does not Granger Cause DLCPI
0,5930
Do not reject
DDLMS does not Granger Cause DLOMXS30
0,7617
Do not reject No relation
DLOMXS30 does not Granger Cause DDLMS
0,3645
Do not reject
DLER does not Granger Cause DLOMXS30
0,6741
DLOMXS30 does not Granger Cause DLER
0,1719
Do not reject
DLIR does not Granger Cause DLOMXS30
0,2604
DLOMXS30 does not Granger Cause DLIR
0,1403
Do not reject
30
Unidirectional
relation
6 Discussion and Conclusion

The role of the stock market in the economy is to raise capital and also to ensure that the funds
raised are utilized in the most profitable opportunities. This empirical report performs the
necessary analysis to answer whether changes in the identified macroeconomic variables affect
stock prices of the Stockholm Stock Exchange. The research employs regression analysis and
Granger causality test to examine these relationships. The linear regression test results show that
high inflation and Swedish krona depreciation against the Euro are negatively and significantly
related to the stock prices of the Stockholm Stock Exchange (OMXS30). Besides inflation and
exchange rate, there is also a negative but insignificant relationship between interest rate and
stock price.
The negative relationship between inflation and stock price can be explained by the fact that
additional funds flow due to inflation increase the supply in the stock market while the demand
side remains unaffected. This static condition on the demand side of the security market puts
downward pressure on the stock price. It is important for investors to follow the CPI because
periods of high inflation make difficult the market conditions. Besides, deprecation of Swedish
krona (exchange rate) and high interest rate decrease the flow of capital and this will also
decrease the additional funds flowing in the stock market. On the other hand, a positive
relationship is found between stock price and money supply although it is insignificant.
Furthermore, the Granger causality test shows that inflation is the only macroeconomic variable
that causes stock price while stock price has no effect on any of the macroeconomic variables.
On the basis of the above overall analysis, it can be concluded that two out of the four selected
macroeconomic variables are relatively significant and likely to influence the stock prices of the
Stockholm Stock Exchange. These macroeconomic variables are inflation and exchange rate. The
evidence of this study is consistent with other similar studies. However, the results from this
empirical research should not be a conclusive indicator for investment.
6.1 Further Research

Besides macroeconomic conditions, there are many other factors that affect the prices of stocks
and its movements. A host of such factors are found in the microeconomic variables. The idea is
31
that the performance of particular companies and their results matter in determining the price of a
stock. Indeed, high corporate profits lead to higher stock prices due to high demand. Moreover
rumors of positive news for firms and the re-purchase of shares listed give a positive impact and
lead to higher stock prices. Thus for further study, we could discuss the role of micro economic
factors on stock price and how an investor can reduce microeconomic risk by undertaking a
strong portfolio diversification strategy
32
7 References
Abeyratna G., Anirut P., and David M. P. (2004) Macro-economic Influences on the Stock
Market Evidence from an Emerging Market in South Asia Journal of Emerging Market
Finance, December 2004,, Vol. 3, no. 3, 285-304.
Ajayi R.A. and Mougoue M. (1996) On the Dynamic Relation between Stock Prices and
Exchange rates The Journal of Financial Research 19, 193-207.
Avneet K. A., Chandni M., and Saakshi C. (2012) A Study of the effect of Macroeconomic
Variables
on
Stock
Market:
Indian
Perspective.
Electronic
copy
available
at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2178481.
Bahmani-Oskooee M., and Sohrabian A. (1992) Stock prices and the effective exchange rate of
the dollar Applied Economics, 24 (4): 459-64.
Bhattacharya B, Mookherjee J (2001), Causal relationship between and exchange rate, foreign
exchange reserves, value of trade balance and stock market: case study of India. Department of
Economics, Jadavpur University, Kolkata, India.
Barro R. J. (1990) The Stock Market and Investment Review of Financial Studies 3, 115131.
Barro R. J. (1974) Are Government Bonds Net Worth? Journal of Political Economy 82, pp.
1095-1117.
Blanchard O.J. (1987) Vector Autoregressions and Reality: Comment Journal of Business and
Economic Statistics, 1987, Vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 449-451.
Chen, N. F., Richard Roll and Stephen A. Ross (1986) Economic Forces and the Stock Market,
Journal of Business, 59, pp. 383-403.
Choi D., and Jen F. (1991) The relation Between Stock Returns and Short-Term Interest Rates
Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 1991, Vol. 1, pp. 75-89.
Connor G., and Korajczyk A. R. (1993) The Arbitrage Pricing Theory and Multifactor Models
of Asset Returns Working paper # 139.
33
Conover M. C., Jensen G. R., and Johnson R. R. (1998) Monetary Environments and
International Stock Returns, Journal of Banking and Finance, 1999, Vol. 23, pp. 1357-1381.
Cooper, R.V. (1974) Efficient Capital Markets and the Quantity Theory of Money, Journal of
Finance, 24, pp. 887-921.
Darat, A.F. and Mukherjee T. K. (1987) The Behaviour of a Stock Market in a Developing
Economy, Economic Letters, 22, 273-278.
Darrat, A. F. (1990a). Stock Returns, Money and Fiscal Deficits, Journal of Financial and
Quantitative Analysis 25, 387-398.
Dhakal, D., M. Kandil, and S. C. Sharma (1993) Causality between the Money Supply and
Share Prices: A VAR Investigation Quarterly Journal of Business and Economics 32, 5274.
Dickey, D.A, Fuller, W.A. (1979) Distributions of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time
Series with a Unit Root, Journal of American Statistical Association 74:366, pp. 427-481.
Doong, S.-Ch., Yang, Sh.-Y., Wang, A., (2005) The dynamic relationship and pricing of stocks
and exchange rates: Empirical evidence from Asian emerging markets, Journal of American
Academy of Business, Cambridge, Vol.7, No1, pp.118-23.
Elton, J. E., Gruber, M. J., Brown, S. J. and Goetzmann, W. N., (2010) Modern Portfolio Theory
and Investment Analysis, 8th International student edition, John Wiley & Sons.
Fama, E. (1970) Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work The
Journal of Finance, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 383-417.
Fama, E.F. (1981) Stock returns, real Activity, Inflation, and Money, The American Economic
Review, 71(4), 545-565.
Fama, E., F, (1990) Stock returns, expected returns, and real activity, The Journal of Finance
45, 1089-1108.
Fama, E. F. and K. R. French (1989) Business Conditions and Expected Returns on Stocks and
Bonds, The Journal of Financial Economics 25, 2349.
34
Fama, E.F. and Schwert, W., (1977), Asset returns and inflation, Journal of Financial
Economics, Vol. 5, pp. 115-46.
Firth, M., (1979), The relationship between stock market returns and rates of inflation, Journal
of Finance, Vol. 34, 743-49.
Geetha C., Mohidin R., Chandran V. V., and Chong V. (2011) The Relationship between
Inflation and Stock Market: Evidence from Malaysia, United States and China. International
Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2011, pp. 01-16.
Gjerdr, Oystein and Frode Saettem (1999), Causal Relation among Stock Returns and
Macroeconomic Variables in a Small, Open Economy, Journal of International Financial
markets, Institutions and Money, Vol. 9, pp. 61-74.
Gujrati, D.N. and D.C. Porter (2009) Basic Econometrics, Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, USA.
Granger, C. W. J. (1981), Some properties of Time Series Data and their use in Econometric
Model Specification, Journal of Econometrics, Annals of Applied Econometrics, 16: 121-30.
Granger, C.W.J (1986), Developments in the Study of Cointegrated Economic Variables,
Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, nr. 48.
Grossman, S.J and Shiller R.J. (1981) The Determinants of the Variability of Stock Market
Prices, The American Review 1981, Vol. 71, No. 2, pp. 222-227.
Hamburger Michael J. and Levis A. Kochin (1971) Money and Stock Prices: The Channels of
Influences, The Journal of Finance, 27(2): 231-249.
Homa, Kenneth E. and Dwight M. Jaffee. 1971. The Supply of Money and Common Stock
Prices, Journal of Finance, 26(5): 1045-1066.
Jaffe, J.F. and Mandelker, G., (1977) The Fisher Effect for risky assets: An empirical
investigation, Journal of Finance, Vol. 32, 447-58.
Jensen G. R., Mercer J. M., Johnson R. R. (1995) Business Conditions, Monetary Policy, and
Expected Security Returns, Journal of Financial Economics, 1996, Vol. 40, pp. 213-237.
35
Lintner, J., (1973), Inflation and common stock prices in a cyclical context, National Bureau of
Economic Research Annual Report.
Mahedi Masuduzzaman (2012) Impact of the Macroeconomic Variables on the Stock Market
Returns: The Case of Germany and the United Kingdom, Global Journal of Management and
Business Research.
Mohammad, B.A. (2011) Impact of Micro and Macroeconomic Variables on Emerging Stock
Market Return: A Case on Dhaka Stock Exchange (DSE), Interdisciplinary Journal of Research
in Business.
Roll, Richard (1977) A critique of the asset pricing theory's tests, Journal of Financial
Economics, March 1977, p. 129.
Roll, Richard and Stephen Ross (1980) An empirical investigation of the arbitrage pricing
theory, Journal of Finance, Dec 1980, p. 1073.
Roll, Richard and Stephen Ross (1984) The Arbitrage Pricing Theory Approach to Strategic
Portfolio Planning, Financial Analysts Journal, Vol. 40, No. 3 (May-June 1984), pp. 14-99 +
22-26.
Sellin, Peter (2001) Monetary Policy and the Stock Market: Theory and Empirical Evidence.,
Journal of Economic Surveys, 2001, 15 (4), pp. 491-541.
Sarbapriya, Ray (2012) Foreign Exchange Reserve and its Impact on Stock Market
Capitalization: Evidence from India, Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, Vol.2, No.2,
2012.
Uddin, M. G. S. and Alam, M. M. (2007) The Impacts of Interest Rate on Stock Market:
Empirical Evidence from Dhaka Stock Exchange, South Asian Journal of Management and
Sciences, 1(2), 123-132.
36
Appendix
8.1 Appendix 1: ADF Test

8.1.1 Stock Price (OMXS30)
Figure 4a: Data graph set at level
Figure 4b: Data graph set at first difference
LOMXS30
DLOMXS30
7.6
.20
7.2
.15
.10
6.8
.05
6.4
.00
6.0
-.05
5.6
-.10
5.2
-.15
4.8
-.20
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
1994
2012
1996
1998
2000
Table 12a: Unit Root test at level

Null Hypothesis: LOMXS30 has a unit root
Exogenous: Constant, Linear Trend
Lag Length: 0 (Automatic - based on SIC, maxlag=14)
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic

Test critical values:
1% level
5% level
10% level
t-Statistic
Prob.*
-2.338122
-3.996918
-3.428739
-3.137804
0.4113
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values.
Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Equation

Dependent Variable: D(LOMXS30)
Date: 05/08/13 Time: 15:06
Sample (adjusted): 1993M02 2012M12
Included observations: 239 after adjustments
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
LOMXS30(-1)
C
@TREND(1993M01)
-0.028889
0.188962
6.18E-05
0.012356
0.073084
8.80E-05
-2.338122
2.585527
0.702575
0.0202
0.0103
0.4830
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
0.033618
0.025429
0.060934
0.876254
331.0969
Mean dependent var

S.D. dependent var
Schwarz criterion
37
0.007730
0.061724
-2.745581
-2.701943
-2.727996
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
4.104967
0.017683
Durbin-Watson stat
1.828865
Table 12b: Unit Root test at First Difference

Null Hypothesis: DLOMXS30 has a unit root
Exogenous: Constant

1% level
5% level
10% level
t-Statistic
Prob.*
-14.19131
-3.457747
-2.873492
-2.573215
0.0000

Dependent Variable: D(DLOMXS30)
Date: 05/08/13 Time: 15:06
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
DLOMXS30(-1)
C
-0.915322
0.006658
0.064499
0.004012
-14.19131
1.659553
0.0000
0.0983
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
0.460440
0.458154
0.061414
0.890129
327.3431
201.3934
0.000000
Mean dependent var

S.D. dependent var
Schwarz criterion
Durbin-Watson stat
38
-0.000382
0.083432
-2.733976
-2.704797
-2.722216
1.992694
8.1.2 Consumer Price Index (CPI)

Figure 5a: Data graph set at Level

DLCPI
LCPI
.015
5.76
5.72
.010
5.68
.005
5.64
.000
5.60
-.005
5.56
-.010
5.52
-.015
5.48
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
1994
1996
1998
Table 13a: Unit Root test at level

Null Hypothesis: LCPI has a unit root

1% level
5% level
10% level
t-Statistic
Prob.*
-3.379350
-3.998997
-3.429745
-3.138397
0.0567

Dependent Variable: D(LCPI)
Date: 05/08/13 Time: 15:05
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
LCPI(-1)
D(LCPI(-1))
D(LCPI(-2))
D(LCPI(-3))
D(LCPI(-4))
D(LCPI(-5))
D(LCPI(-6))
D(LCPI(-7))
D(LCPI(-8))
D(LCPI(-9))
D(LCPI(-10))
D(LCPI(-11))
D(LCPI(-12))
-0.062361
0.076480
-0.003993
0.060000
-0.041234
0.098577
0.174093
0.097530
-0.100681
0.008292
-0.065693
0.021451
0.453105
0.018453
0.061712
0.062184
0.061247
0.061320
0.059815
0.060284
0.061132
0.061567
0.061434
0.061549
0.061714
0.062955
-3.379350
1.239306
-0.064218
0.979641
-0.672441
1.648046
2.887886
1.595390
-1.635314
0.134974
-1.067324
0.347587
7.197310
0.0009
0.2166
0.9489
0.3284
0.5020
0.1008
0.0043
0.1121
0.1035
0.8928
0.2870
0.7285
0.0000
39
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
C
@TREND(1993M01)
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
0.342300
6.78E-05
0.455612
0.419662
0.003056
0.001979
1000.164
12.67346
0.000000
0.101116
2.02E-05
3.385223
3.357009
Mean dependent var

S.D. dependent var
Schwarz criterion
Durbin-Watson stat
0.0008
0.0009
0.001100
0.004011
-8.679856
-8.453538
-8.588534
1.891394
Table 13b: Unit root test at first difference

Null Hypothesis: DLCPI has a unit root
Exogenous: Constant

1% level
5% level
10% level
t-Statistic
Prob.*
-3.358253
-3.459231
-2.874143
-2.573563
0.0135

Dependent Variable: D(DLCPI)
Date: 05/08/13 Time: 15:05
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
DLCPI(-1)
D(DLCPI(-1))
D(DLCPI(-2))
D(DLCPI(-3))
D(DLCPI(-4))
D(DLCPI(-5))
D(DLCPI(-6))
D(DLCPI(-7))
D(DLCPI(-8))
D(DLCPI(-9))
D(DLCPI(-10))
D(DLCPI(-11))
D(DLCPI(-12))
C
-0.723163
-0.165876
-0.202589
-0.192171
-0.266742
-0.212837
-0.053967
0.025794
-0.108493
-0.149503
-0.248080
-0.263714
0.168842
0.000767
0.215339
0.213223
0.202566
0.191045
0.181621
0.173083
0.166606
0.157323
0.143267
0.125576
0.108681
0.089662
0.069071
0.000319
-3.358253
-0.777947
-1.000116
-1.005894
-1.468670
-1.229685
-0.323918
0.163957
-0.757281
-1.190544
-2.282651
-2.941199
2.444470
2.406206
0.0009
0.4375
0.3184
0.3156
0.1434
0.2202
0.7463
0.8699
0.4497
0.2352
0.0234
0.0036
0.0153
0.0170
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
0.675635
0.655744
0.003094
0.002029
992.4756
Mean dependent var

S.D. dependent var
Schwarz criterion
40
-3.29E-06
0.005272
-8.659076
-8.447184
-8.573565
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
33.96799
0.000000
Durbin-Watson stat
2.025150
8.1.3 Money Supply (MS)


DLMS
LMS
11.6
.12
11.5
.08
11.4
.04
11.3
11.2
.00
11.1
-.04
11.0
10.9
-.08
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
1994
1996
1998
2000
Figure 6c: Data graph set at second difference

DDLMS
.10
.05
.00
-.05
-.10
-.15
-.20
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Table 14a: Unit root test at level

Null Hypothesis: LMS has a unit root

1% level
5% level
10% level
t-Statistic
Prob.*
1.153678
-3.998997
-3.429745
-3.138397
0.9999

Dependent Variable: D(LMS)
Date: 05/08/13 Time: 15:01
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
41
Prob.
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
LMS(-1)
D(LMS(-1))
D(LMS(-2))
D(LMS(-3))
D(LMS(-4))
D(LMS(-5))
D(LMS(-6))
D(LMS(-7))
D(LMS(-8))
D(LMS(-9))
D(LMS(-10))
D(LMS(-11))
D(LMS(-12))
C
@TREND(1993M01)
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
0.012705
-0.194199
-0.153366
-0.104475
-0.102580
-0.116333
-0.061414
-0.083419
-0.043951
-0.063902
-0.111102
-0.090414
0.736823
-0.133221
-7.16E-05
0.819492
0.807572
0.010403
0.022942
722.0731
68.74731
0.000000
0.011013
0.049617
0.049583
0.049550
0.048886
0.048791
0.048984
0.048580
0.048045
0.046897
0.045831
0.045049
0.043197
0.120549
3.44E-05
1.153678
-3.913928
-3.093099
-2.108451
-2.098362
-2.384333
-1.253751
-1.717142
-0.914790
-1.362618
-2.424152
-2.007003
17.05740
-1.105118
-2.078582
Mean dependent var

S.D. dependent var
Schwarz criterion
Durbin-Watson stat
0.2499
0.0001
0.0022
0.0362
0.0371
0.0180
0.2113
0.0874
0.3613
0.1744
0.0162
0.0460
0.0000
0.2704
0.0389
0.001440
0.023714
-6.229719
-6.003401
-6.138396
2.197766

Null Hypothesis: DLMS has a unit root
Exogenous: Constant

1% level
5% level
10% level
t-Statistic
Prob.*
-2.077954
-3.459101
-2.874086
-2.573533
0.2539

Dependent Variable: D(DLMS)
Date: 05/08/13 Time: 15:02
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
DLMS(-1)
D(DLMS(-1))
D(DLMS(-2))
D(DLMS(-3))
D(DLMS(-4))
D(DLMS(-5))
D(DLMS(-6))
-0.496402
-0.623308
-0.698767
-0.724025
-0.747705
-0.785072
-0.766876
0.238890
0.221541
0.205643
0.190926
0.176362
0.160822
0.144662
-2.077954
-2.813504
-3.397968
-3.792173
-4.239596
-4.881614
-5.301171
0.0389
0.0054
0.0008
0.0002
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
42
D(DLMS(-7))
D(DLMS(-8))
D(DLMS(-9))
D(DLMS(-10))
D(DLMS(-11))
C
-0.772039
-0.739469
-0.730786
-0.772972
-0.797253
0.000362
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
0.930032
0.926108
0.010522
0.023693
718.4132
237.0439
0.000000
0.126651
0.107656
0.086601
0.062900
0.036328
0.000800
-6.095783
-6.868812
-8.438530
-12.28884
-21.94611
0.452186
Mean dependent var

S.D. dependent var
Schwarz criterion
Durbin-Watson stat
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.6516
0.000367
0.038709
-6.215095
-6.018952
-6.135948
2.267276
Table 14c: Unit root test at second difference

Null Hypothesis: DDLMS has a unit root
Exogenous: Constant

1% level
5% level
10% level
t-Statistic
Prob.*
-14.47642
-3.459231
-2.874143
-2.573563
0.0000

Dependent Variable: D(DDLMS)
Date: 05/08/13 Time: 15:03
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
DDLMS(-1)
D(DDLMS(-1))
D(DDLMS(-2))
D(DDLMS(-3))
D(DDLMS(-4))
D(DDLMS(-5))
D(DDLMS(-6))
D(DDLMS(-7))
D(DDLMS(-8))
D(DDLMS(-9))
D(DDLMS(-10))
D(DDLMS(-11))
C
-14.00613
11.76581
10.49057
9.230660
7.986648
6.739393
5.544024
4.379441
3.285571
2.242790
1.199476
0.174398
-0.000515
0.967513
0.912289
0.846878
0.771368
0.687349
0.596365
0.500154
0.402986
0.307751
0.218507
0.137373
0.064287
0.000698
-14.47642
12.89702
12.38734
11.96661
11.61949
11.30079
11.08463
10.86748
10.67606
10.26418
8.731499
2.712804
-0.737762
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0072
0.4615
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
0.977896
0.976650
Mean dependent var

S.D. dependent var
43
-3.29E-05
0.068529
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
0.010472
0.023357
716.3657
785.2555
0.000000

Schwarz criterion
Durbin-Watson stat
-6.224475
-6.027719
-6.145072
2.035609
8.1.4 Interest Rate (IR)


DLIR
LIR
.6
2.5
2.0
.4
1.5
.2
1.0
0.5
.0
0.0
-.2
-0.5
-.4
-1.0
-1.5
-.6
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
1994
1996
1998
2000

Null Hypothesis: LIR has a unit root
Exogenous: Constant

1% level
5% level
10% level
t-Statistic
Prob.*
-2.578167
-3.457865
-2.873543
-2.573242
0.0989

Dependent Variable: D(LIR)
Date: 05/08/13 Time: 15:17
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
LIR(-1)
D(LIR(-1))
D(LIR(-2))
C
-0.014248
0.296381
0.454985
0.013960
0.005526
0.057978
0.058129
0.007511
-2.578167
5.111939
7.827099
1.858625
0.0105
0.0000
0.0000
0.0643
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
0.443244
0.436075
Mean dependent var

S.D. dependent var
44
-0.008658
0.083713
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
0.062865
0.920805
321.4538
61.83178
0.000000

Schwarz criterion
Durbin-Watson stat
-2.678935
-2.620402
-2.655343
2.101240

Null Hypothesis: DLIR has a unit root
Exogenous: Constant

1% level
5% level
10% level
t-Statistic
Prob.*
-4.577098
-3.457865
-2.873543
-2.573242
0.0002

Dependent Variable: D(DLIR)
Date: 05/08/13 Time: 14:57
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
DLIR(-1)
D(DLIR(-1))
C
-0.258343
-0.442473
-0.002245
0.056443
0.058621
0.004161
-4.577098
-7.547983
-0.539488
0.0000
0.0000
0.5901
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
0.381814
0.376531
0.063619
0.947073
318.1206
72.26353
0.000000
Mean dependent var

S.D. dependent var
Schwarz criterion
Durbin-Watson stat
45
-0.000119
0.080571
-2.659245
-2.615346
-2.641551
2.074114
8.1.5
Exchange Rate
LER
DLER
2.45
.08
2.40
.06
2.35
.04
2.30
.02
2.25
.00
2.20
-.02
2.15
-.04
2.10
-.06
2.05
-.08
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002

Null Hypothesis: LER has a unit root
Exogenous: Constant

1% level
5% level
10% level
t-Statistic
Prob.*
-2.426166
-3.457630
-2.873440
-2.573187
0.1356

Dependent Variable: D(LER)
Date: 05/08/13 Time: 14:32
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
LER(-1)
C
-0.050037
0.110527
0.020624
0.045616
-2.426166
2.422967
0.0160
0.0161
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
0.024235
0.020118
0.017562
0.073094
627.9237
5.886284
0.016007
Mean dependent var

S.D. dependent var
Schwarz criterion
Durbin-Watson stat
46
-0.000112
0.017741
-5.237855
-5.208763
-5.226132
1.939537
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012

Null Hypothesis: DLER has a unit root
Exogenous: Constant

1% level
5% level
10% level
t-Statistic
Prob.*
-15.52755
-3.457747
-2.873492
-2.573215
0.0000

Dependent Variable: D(DLER)
Date: 05/08/13 Time: 14:37
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
DLER(-1)
C
-1.003017
-0.000255
0.064596
0.001146
-15.52755
-0.222318
0.0000
0.8243
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
0.505350
0.503254
0.017677
0.073749
623.7370
241.1049
0.000000
Mean dependent var

S.D. dependent var
Schwarz criterion
Durbin-Watson stat
-0.000161
0.025082
-5.224681
-5.195502
-5.212921
2.008000
8.2 Appendix 2: Eviews output Ordinary Linear Square Test

Table 17: Ordinary Linear Square Test
Dependent Variable: DLOMXS30
Date: 05/15/13 Time: 16:21
Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.
C
DLER
DLIR
DDLMS
DLCPI
0.008853
-1.190890
-0.048940
0.119401
-2.066528
0.003965
0.216782
0.046885
0.098218
0.998776
2.233070
-5.493487
-1.043833
1.215672
-2.069061
0.0265
0.0000
0.2976
0.2253
0.0396
47
R-squared
Adjusted R-squared
S.E. of regression
Sum squared resid
Log likelihood
F-statistic
Prob(F-statistic)
0.128075
0.113106
0.057925
0.781794
342.7864
8.556205
0.000002
Mean dependent var

S.D. dependent var
Schwarz criterion
Durbin-Watson stat
0.007309
0.061508
-2.838541
-2.765594
-2.809142
1.923415
8.3 Appendix 3: Eviews output Granger Causality Tests

Table 18: Granger causality tests
Pairwise Granger Causality Tests
Date: 05/15/13 Time: 16:32
Sample: 1993M01 2012M12
Lags: 4
Null Hypothesis:
Obs
F-Statistic
Prob.
DLCPI does not Granger Cause DLOMXS30

DLOMXS30 does not Granger Cause DLCPI
235
3.06201
0.69950
0.0175
0.5930
DLER does not Granger Cause DLOMXS30

DLOMXS30 does not Granger Cause DLER
235
0.58462
1.61287
0.6741
0.1719
DLIR does not Granger Cause DLOMXS30

DLOMXS30 does not Granger Cause DLIR
235
1.32775
1.74816
0.2604
0.1403
DDLMS does not Granger Cause DLOMXS30

DLOMXS30 does not Granger Cause DDLMS
234
0.46457
1.08535
0.7617
0.3645
DLER does not Granger Cause DLCPI

DLCPI does not Granger Cause DLER
235
0.41512
0.26841
0.7977
0.8981
DLIR does not Granger Cause DLCPI

DLCPI does not Granger Cause DLIR
235
4.47235
0.30250
0.0017
0.8761
DDLMS does not Granger Cause DLCPI

DLCPI does not Granger Cause DDLMS
234
7.43796
29.6546
1.E-05
8.E-20
DLIR does not Granger Cause DLER

DLER does not Granger Cause DLIR
235
1.28290
2.89778
0.2775
0.0229
DDLMS does not Granger Cause DLER

DLER does not Granger Cause DDLMS
234
0.73560
0.65910
0.5685
0.6210
DDLMS does not Granger Cause DLIR

DLIR does not Granger Cause DDLMS
234
0.59499
0.34375
0.6666
0.8482
48

Impact of Macroeconomic Variables On The Stock Market Prices of The Stockholm Stock Exchange

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Impact of Macroeconomic Variables On The Stock Market Prices of The Stockholm Stock Exchange

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

JNKPING INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SCHOOL

Impact of Macroeconomic Variables on the Stock Market Prices of the

Masters Thesis within International Financial Analysis

Joseph Tagne Talla

Per-Olof Bjuggren, Louise Nordstrm

Masters thesis in International Financial Analysis

Impact of Macroeconomic Variables on the Stock Market Prices of the Stockholm

Joseph Tagne Talla

Per-Olof Bjuggren, Louise Nordstrm

Keywords: Macroeconomics variables, stock prices, OLS, Granger Causality test.

Introduction ..............................................................Erreur ! Signet non dfini.7

Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................... 9

The Efficient Market Hypothesis .................................................................................................. 9

The Arbitrage Pricing Theory. .................................................................................................... 10

Literature Review ............................................................................................ 12

Data and Methodology .................................................................................... 17

Variables description and Expectation ........................................................................................ 17

Empirical Results ............................................................................................. 22

Unit Root Test ............................................................................................................................. 22

Regression Output (OLS) ............................................................................................................ 24

Residuals diagnostics .................................................................................................................. 26

Correlogram for the Residuals............................................................................................. 26

Serial Correlation LM Test .................................................................................................. 27

Normality Test ..................................................................................................................... 28

Granger Causality Test ........................................................................................................ 29

Discussion and Conclusion .............................................................................. 31

Appendix 1: ADF Test ................................................................................................................ 37

Stock Price (OMXS30) ....................................................................................................... 37

Consumer Price Index (CPI) ............................................................................................... 39

Money Supply (MS) ............................................................................................................ 41

Interest Rate (IR) ................................................................................................................. 44

Exchange Rate ..................................................................................................................... 46

Appendix 2: Eviews output Ordinary Linear Square Test .......................................................... 47

Appendix 3: Eviews output Granger Causality Tests.................................................................. 48

The Efficient Market Hypothesis

2.2 The Arbitrage Pricing Theory.

Chen, Roll and

Homa and Jaffe

Chen, Roll and

4 Data and Methodology

However, domestic exporters benefit from currency

depreciation because it causes domestic products to become cheaper to foreign clients. So on

Data source and

The Consumer Price

Money supply (M0),

meaningful relation between variables. A non-stationary process generates the problem of

[Variable is not stationary]

Table 4: ADF test result at level, trend, intercept

5%, we cannot reject the

Table 6: ADF test at

LMS is not stationary

LER is not stationary

LIR is not stationary

(*) means significant at 5% critical level

LMS is not stationary

(*) means significant at 5% critical level

5.2 Regression Output (OLS)

Table 8: The Effects of Macroeconomic Variables on Stock Market Prices

5.3 Residuals diagnostics

Serial Correlation LM Test

The presence of serial correlation is examined by Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test.

Mean dependent var

Mean dependent var