The Relationship Between Geopolitical Risk Index and Sectoral Index Returns

Öz

This study investigates the relationship between the Turkish GPR index and sectoral index returns for the period 2000/1-2024/9. A cointegration relationship was found between the variables. As a result of PNARDL analysis, it is determined that short-run shocks are eliminated in the long run. Positive shocks in the GPR index are found to decrease the sectoral index values, while negative shocks are found to increase them. The Wald test reveals that there is an asymmetric relationship between the GPR index and the sectoral index. When the results of PNARDL analysis for each sector are analyzed, it is determined that an increase in geopolitical risks in the short term causes a decline in many sectors, while short-term negative shocks in geopolitical risks affect fewer sectors. In the long run, only increases in geopolitical risks have a negative impact on some sectors. Bidirectional causality is found between positive shocks in geopolitical risks and the sectoral index and bidirectional causality between negative geopolitical risks and the sectoral index from the sectoral index to geopolitical risks.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Geopolitical Risk Index (GPR)
• Sectoral Index
• Granger Causality
• PNARDL
• Cointegration

Destekleyen Kurum

The authors acknowledge that they received no external funding in support of this research.

Etik Beyan

We accept that this study is an original research article prepared in accordance with scientific ethical rules and scientific method, it has not been published or presented in any other journal, the ethical and scientific responsibility belongs to all authors of the article.

Jeopolitik Risk Endeksi ile Sektörel Endeks Getirileri Arasındaki İlişki

Öz

Çalışmada, 2000/1-2024/9 dönemleri arası Türkiye GPR endeksi ile sektörel endeks getirileri arasındaki ilişki araştırılmıştır. Değişkenler arasında eşbütünleşme ilişkisi belirlenmiştir. PNARDL analizi sonucunda, kısa dönemli şokların uzun dönemde giderildiği belirlenmiştir. GPR endeksinde yaşanan pozitif şokların sektörel endeks değerlerini azalttığı, negatif şokların ise artırdığı tespit edilmiştir. Wald testi sonucunda GPR endeksi ile sektörel endeks arasında asimetrik ilişki olduğu belirlenmiştir. Her bir sektör için PNARDL analiz sonuçları incelendiğinde, kısa vadede jeopolitik risklerde artışın birçok sektörde düşüşe neden olduğu, jeopolitik risklerdeki kısa vadeli negatif şokların ise daha az sayıda sektörü etkilediği belirlenmiştir. Uzun vadede, sadece jeopolitik risklerdeki artışların bazı sektörler üzerinde negatif etkisi olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Jeopolitik risklerdeki pozitif şoklar ile sektörel endeks arasında çift yönlü ve negatif jeopolitik risk ile sektörel endeks arasında sektörel endeksten jeopolitik riske doğru olduğu nedensellik tespit edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Jeopolitik Risk Endeksi (GPR)
• Sektörel Endeks
• Granger Nedensellik
• PNARDL
• Eşbütünleşme

Destekleyen Kurum

Yazarlar, bu araştırmayı desteklemek için herhangi bir dış fon almadıklarını kabul ederler

Etik Beyan

Bu çalışmanın bilimsel etik kurallara ve bilimsel yönteme uyularak hazırlanan özgün nitelikte bir araştırma makalesi olduğunu, başka hiçbir dergide yayınlanmadığını veya sunulmadığını, etik ve bilimsel açıdan sorumluluğun makalenin tüm yazarlarına ait olduğunu kabul ederiz.

Kaynakça

1. Adel, S., Triki, M. B., ve Abderzag, F. T. (2021), Does Geopolitical Risk and Investors' Sentiment Matter for Turkish Stock Returns?, Journal of Economic Cooperation & Development, 42(1), s.1-30.
2. Adra, S., Gao, Y., Huang, J., ve Yuan, J. (2023), Geopolitical Risk and Corporate Payout Policy, International Review of Financial Analysis, 87, 102613, s.1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102613
3. Akdağ, S., Yıldırım, H., ve Kesebir, M. (2019), Jeopolitik Risk ile Borsa Endeksleri Arasındaki İlişki: Panel Eşbütünleşme ve Panel Nedensellik Analizi, (Ed.: İnanır, E., Köse, O., ve Ulutürk Y.), Siyasi, Sosyal ve Kültürel Yönleriyle Türkiye ve Rusya, s. 57-72. Berikan Yayınevi.
4. Antonakakis, N., Gupta, R., Kollias, C., ve Papadamou, S. (2017), Geopolitical Risks and the Oil-Stock Nexus Over 1899–2016, Finance Research Letters, 23, s.165-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2017.07.017
5. Apergis, E., & Apergis, N. (2016), The 11/13 Paris Terrorist Attacks and Stock Prices: The Case of The International Defense Industry, Finance Research Letters, 17, s.186-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2016.03.002.
6. Apergis, N., Bonato, M., Gupta, R., ve Kyei, C. (2018), Does Geopolitical Risks Predict Stock Returns and Volatility of Leading Defense Companies?, Evidence from a nonparametric approach. Defence and Peace Economics, 29(6), s.684-696. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2017.1292097.
7. Arin, K. P., Ciferri, D., ve Spagnolo, N. (2008), The Price of Terror: The efFects of Terrorism on Stock Market Returns and Volatility, Economics Letters, 101(3), 164-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2008.07.007
8. Balcilar, M., Bonato, M., Demirer, R., ve Gupta, R. (2018), Geopolitical Risks and Stock Market Dynamics of The BRICS, Economic Systems, 42(2), s.295-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2017.05.008

9. Bekar, E. (2022), The Relationship Between Geopolitical Risks and Housing Returns in Türkiye: Evidence from The Cross-Quantilogram, International Econometric Review, 14(2), 59-71. https://doi.org/10.33818/ier.1167057
10. Blackburne III, E. F., ve Frank, M. W. (2007), Estimation of Nonstationary Heterogeneous Panels, The Stata Journal, 7(2), s.197-208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X070070020
11. Bouras, C., Christou, C., Gupta, R., ve Suleman, T. (2019), Geopolitical Risks, Returns, and Volatility in Emerging Stock Markets: Evidence from a Panel GARCH Model, Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 55(8), s.1841-1856. https://doi.org/10.1080/1540496X.2018.1507906
12. Bouri, E., Demirer, R., Gupta, R., ve Marfatia, H. A. (2019), Geopolitical Risks and Movements in Islamic Bond And Equity Markets: a Note, Defence and Peace Economics, 30(3), s.367-379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2018.1424613
13. Böyükaslan, A., Demirer, R., Ergüney, E. B., ve Gursoy, S. (2024), Geopolitical Risks and the Energy-Stock Market Nexus: Evidence from Turkiye, Borsa Istanbul Review, 24(1), s.73-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2023.10.012
14. Caldara, D., ve Iacoviello, M. (2022), Measuring Geopolitical Risk, American Economic Review, 112(4), s.1194-1225. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20191823
15. Das, D., Kannadhasan, M., ve Bhattacharyya, M. (2019), Do The Emerging Stock Markets React to International Economic Policy Uncertainty, Geopolitical Risk and Financial Stress Alike?, The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 48, s.1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2019.01.008
16. Doğan, E. ve Afşar, A. (2021), Politik ve Jeopolitik Riskler Hisse Senedi Piyasalarını Nasıl Etkiler: Yükselen Piyasa Ekonomilerinden Ampirik Kanıtlar, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi, 16(3), s.688 – 704. https://doi.org/10.17153/oguiibf.952112
17. Doğru, E. (2024), Belirsizliklerin Finansal Piyasalara Simetrik ve Asimetrik Etkisi: BIST Ulaştırma Endeksi Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Journal of Transportation and Logistics, 9(1), s.97-111. https://doi.org/10.26650/JTL.2024.1394834
18. Fan, J., Liao, Y., ve Yao, J. (2015), Power Enhancement in High‐Dimensional Cross‐Sectional Tests, Econometrica, 83(4), s.1497-1541. https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA12749
19. Feng, S., Li, G., Tong, T., ve Luo, S. (2020), Testing for Heteroskedasticity in two-Way Fixed Effects Panel Data Models, Journal of Applied Statistics, 47(1), 91-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/02664763.2019.1634682
20. Granger, C. W. J. ve Yoon, G. (2002), Hidden cointegration, University of California.
21. Güngör, S., ve Erer, E. (2022), Küresel ve Ülkeye Özgü Jeopolitik Risklerin Hisse Senedi Piyasalarına Doğrusal Olmayan Etkileri, Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(26), s.858-892. https://doi.org/10.36543/kauiibfd.2022.035
22. Hoque, M. E., ve Zaidi, M. A. S. (2020), Global and Country-Specific Geopolitical Risk Uncertainty and Stock Return of Fragile Emerging Economies, Borsa Istanbul Review, 20(3), s.197-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2020.05.001
23. İltaş, Y. (2020), Farklı Risk Türleri ve Borsa Endeksi Arasındaki İlişki: Türkiye İçin Nedensellik Testleri, Business and Economics Research Journal, 11(2), s.371-384. DOI: 10.20409/berj.2020.255
24. Juodis, A., ve Reese, S. (2022), The Incidental Parameters Problem in Testing for Remaining Cross-Section Correlation, Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 40(3), s.1191-1203. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2021.1906687
25. Juodis, A., Karavias, Y., ve Sarafidis, V. (2020), A Homogeneous Approach to Testing for Granger Non-Causality in Heterogeneous Panels, Empirical Economics, 60(1), s.93-112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01970-9
26. Kao C. (1999), Spurious Regression and Residual-Based Tests for Cointegration in Panel Data, J Econ, 90(1), s.1– 44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00023-2
27. Karataş, A. R., & Ergül, M. (2023). Türkiye’de Ekonomik Büyüme, Finansal Gelişme ve Ticari Açıklık: Genişletilmiş ARDL ile Kanıtlar, Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(Özel Sayı), s.222-236.
28. Khan, A. W., Khan, A. U., ve Gul, C. (2023), Does Inflation affect Poverty in South Asia? Panel ARDL and NARDL Analysis from 2001-2021, Global Management Journal for Academic & Corporate Studies, 13(2), s.111-134. DOI:10.59263/gmjacs.13.02.2023.356
29. Kilian, L., ve Ohanian, L. E. (2002), Unit roots, Trend Breaks, and Transitory Dynamics: A Macroeconomic Perspective, Macroeconomic Dynamics, 6(5), s.614-632. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1365100501010094
30. Kumar, S., Jain, R., Balli, F. ve Billah, M. (2023), Interconnectivity and investment Strategies Among Commodity Prices, Cryptocurrencies, and G-20 Capital Markets: A Comparative Analysis During Covid-19 and Russian- Ukraine war, International Review of Economics and Finance, 88, 547-593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2023.06.039
31. Li, C., Hassan, H., ve Khan, T. M. (2024), How Effectively Does The NARDL Approach Analyze and İnterpret the Modern Dynamics of Entrepreneurship, Financial İnclusion, and Environmental Sustainability?, A new look at China’s economy. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-024- 03022-7
32. Lo, A.W. (2004), The Adaptive Markets Hypothesis, The Journal of Portfolio Management, 30(5), 15-29.
33. Munir, K. (2023), Energy Use and Environmental Degradation in Europe: Evidence from Panel Nonlinear ARDL, Quality & Quantity, 57(3), s.2529-2543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01473-y
34. Narayan, P. K. (2005), The Saving and Investment Nexus for China: Evidence from Cointegration Tests, Applied Economics, 37(17), s.1979-1990. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840500278103
35. Pedroni, P. (2001), Fully Modified OLS for Heterogeneous Cointegrated Panels, in Baltagi, B. H., Fomby, T. B., & Carter Hill, R. (Ed.), Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels (pp. 93-130). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
36. Peon, D., Antelo, M. ve Calvo, A. (2019), A Guide on Empirical Tests Of The EMH, Review of Accounting and Finance, 18(2), 268-295. https://doi.org/10.1108/RAF-02-2016-0031
37. Pesaran, M. H. (2007), A Simple Panel Unit Root Test in The Presence of Cross‐Section Dependence, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), s.265-312. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
38. Pesaran, M. H. (2015), Testing Weak Cross-Sectional Dependence in Large Panels, Econometric Reviews, 34(6- 10), s.1089-1117. https://doi.org/10.1080/07474938.2014.956623
39. Pesaran, M. H. (2021), General Diagnostic Tests for Cross-Sectional Dependence in Panels, Empirical Economics, 60(1), s.13-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-020-01875-7
40. Pesaran, M. H., ve Xie, Y. (2021), A Bias-Corrected CD Test for Error Cross-Sectional Dependence in Panel Data Models with Latent Factors, arXiv: 2109.00408, [ekonomi.EM]. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2109.00408
41. Pesaran, M. H., ve Yamagata, T. (2008), Testing Slope Homogeneity in Large Panels, Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), s.50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
42. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., ve Smith, R. J. (2001), Bounds Testing Approaches to The Analysis of Level Relationships, Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), s.289-326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
43. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., ve Smith, R. P. (1999), Pooled Mean Group Estimation of Dynamic Heterogeneous Panels, Journal of the American statistical Association, 94(446), s.621-634.
44. Polat, M., Alptürk, Y., ve Gürsoy, S. (2021), Impact of Geopolitical Risk on BIST Tourism Index and Tourist Arrivals in Turkey, Journal of Tourism Theory and Research, 7(2), s.77-84. https://doi.org/10.24288/jttr.926617
45. Qamruzzaman, M., ve Jianguo, W. (2020), The Asymmetric Relationship between Financial Development, Trade Openness, Foreign Capital Flows, and Renewable Energy Consumption: Fresh Evidence from Panel NARDL Investigation, Renewable Energy, 159, s.827-842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.06.069
46. Rehman, M. U., Ghardallou, W., Ahmad, N., Vo, X. V., ve Kang, S. H. (2024), Does Effect of Risk and Uncertainties on US Sectoral Returns Differ Across Different İnvestment Horizons and Market Conditions, Risk Management, 26(4), 1-49. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41283-023-00134-0
47. Saint Akadiri, S., Eluwole, K. K., Akadiri, A. C., ve Avci, T. (2020), Does Causality between Geopolitical Risk, Tourism and Economic Growth Matter? Evidence from Turkey, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 43, s.273-277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2019.09.002.
48. Shin, Y., Yu, B., ve Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014), Modelling Asymmetric Cointegration and Dynamic Multipliers in a Nonlinear ARDL Framework, (Ed.: R., Horrace, W.) Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt, s.281-314, Springer.
49. Smales, L. A. (2021), Geopolitical Risk and Volatility Spillovers in Oil and Stock Markets, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 80, s.358-366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2021.03.008
50. Swamy, P. (1971), Statistical Inference in Random Coeefficient Regression Models, Springer.
51. Tatoğlu, G. Y. (2024), Panel Zaman Serileri Analizi Stata Uygulamalı, İstanbul: Beta Yayıncılık.
52. Triki, M. B., ve Maatoug, A. B. (2021), The GOLD Market as a Safe Haven Against the Stock Market Uncertainty: Evidence from Geopolitical Risk, Resources Policy, 70, 101872, s.2-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101872
53. Ulusoy, M. K. (2019), The Causal Relationship Between Economic Policy Uncertainty and Stock Market Returns, Atatürk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 23, 2239–2251.
54. Ünal, A. E., ve Süsay, A. (2021), Güven, Volatilite, Belirsizlik Endeksleri ve Seçilmiş Ekonomik Göstergeler ile Türkiye Kredi Risk Primi Arasındaki Nedensellik İlişkisi, Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (60), s.25-41. https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.880540
55. Vurur, N. S., ve Özdemir, L. (2023), Küresel ve Türkiye Jeopolitik Risklerin BİST Turizm Endeksine Etkisinin Karşılaştırılması, Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari İncelemeler Dergisi, (C-iasoS 2022 Özel Sayısı), s.163-174. https://doi.org/10.18092/ulikidince.1224580
56. West S.G., Finch, J.F. ve Curran, P.J. (1995), Structural Equation Models With Nonnormal Variables: Problems and Remedies, (Ed.:, R.H. Hoyle), Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, İssues and Applications. s.56-75, Newbery Park: CA: Sage.
57. Wu, T. P., Liu, S. B., ve Hsueh, S. J. (2016), The Causal Relationship Between Economic Policy Uncertainty and Stock Market: A Panel Data Analysis, International Economic Journal, 30(1), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/10168737.2015.1136668.
58. Xiao, J., Karavias, Y., Juodis, A., Sarafidis, V., ve Ditzen, J. (2023), Improved Tests for Granger Noncausality in Panel Data, The Stata Journal, 23(1), s.230-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X2311620
59. Yiğituşağı, M., ve Erkan, A. (2024), Seçili Risk ve Belirsizlik Endeksleri İle Gelişmekte Olan Ülke Borsaları Arasındaki İlişkiler: Ekonometrik Bir Uygulama, İKSAD Publishing House.
60. Zheng, J., Wen, B., Jiang, Y., Wang, X., ve Shen, Y. (2023), Risk Spillovers Across Geopolitical Risk and Global Financial Markets, Energy Economics, 127, 107051, s.1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2023.107051.