THE ANALYSIS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BENCHMARK INDEX AND BIST INDICES BY SIMULTANEOUS QUANTILE REGRESSION

Öz

According to investors, interest rate and stock markets investments are substitutions and it is expected that they have negative correlation in economics theory. Benchmark Index is a type of sovereign bond interest rate which has 5-year coupon rate in Turkey. It is accepted as a proxy of market interest rate, since it is trading on secondary markets, very often. The aim of the study is to investigate the relationship between Benchmark Index and Borsa Istanbul indices which are XU100, XU30, XUTUM, XUMAL and XBANK for different parts of the indices’ conditional distribution by using simultaneous quantile regression technique. Findings indicate that the negative effect of benchmark index on Borsa Istanbul indices have different influence for high and low quantiles. The power of effect is stronger on XUMAL and XBANK indices than the others. Moreover, each index reacts differently to an economic shock on interest rate. Therefore, it is suggested that investors should revise their investment strategies in periods which the indices are low or high while they are managing their funds according to benchmark index predictions

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Benchmark Index, Borsa Istanbul Simultaneous Quantile Regression

GÖSTERGE FAİZ ORANI DALGALANMALARI VE BİST ENDEKSLERİ ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİNİN EŞANLI KANTİL REGRESYON İLE ANALİZİ

Öz

İktisat teorisinde, yatırımcılar açısından birbirine ikame olarak ifade edilebilecek faiz oranı ile sermaye piyasaları arasında negatif bir korelasyon beklenmektedir. Gösterge Faiz Oranı ise, vadesi 5 yıl olan ve yıllık kupon ödemesi yapılan Devlet Tahvili faizini ifade eden faiz oranıdır. İkincil piyasalarda en fazla işlem gören tahvil çeşitlerinden biri olduğu için gösterge faiz oranı, piyasalar tarafından referans olarak kullanılmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, gösterge faiz oranı ile Borsa İstanbul endeksleri (XU100, XU30, XUTUM, XUMAL ve XBANK) arasındaki ilişkiyi endekslerin farklı kantilleri için analiz etmektir. Analiz bulgularına göre, endekslerin yüksek ya da düşük olduğu dönemlerde gösterge faiz oranı hareketleri sermaye piyasalarını negatif ve farklı şiddetlerde etkilemektedir. Etkinin şiddeti mali ve bankacılık endekslerinde daha da artmaktadır. Ayrıca, ekonomide oluşan ani bir faiz şokuna da endeksler farklı şekilde tepki vermektedir. Bu açıdan yatırımcılara, gösterge faiz oranı tahminlerine göre yatırımlarını yönlendirirken endekslerin düşük ya da yüksek olduğu dönemlerde stratejilerini revize etmeleri önerilmektedir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gösterge Faiz Oranı, Borsa İstanbul, Eşanlı Kantil Regresyon Yöntemi

Kaynakça

1. Aktaş, Z., Alp, H., Gürkaynak, R., Kesriyeli, M. ve Orak, M. (2009) “Türkiye’de Para Politikasının Aktarımı: Para politikasının mali piyasalara etkisi”, İktisat, İşletme ve Finans Dergisi, 24 (278), 9-24.
2. Alam, M. ve Uddin, G. S. (2009) “Relationship between
3. Interest Rate and Stock Price: Empirical Evidence from Developed and Developing Countries” International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 51. Apergis, N. ve Eleftheriou, S. (2002) “Interest rates, inflation, and stock prices: the case of the Athens
4. Stock Exchange” Journal of Policy Modeling, 24, 231– Bae, S.C., (1990) “Interest rate changes and common stock returns of financial institutions: Revisited”
5. Journal of Financial Research, 13, 71-79. Basistha, A. ve Kurov, A. (2008) “Macroeconomic
6. Cycles and The Stock Market’s Reaction to Monetary Policy” Journal of Banking and Finance, 32(12), 2606
7. Bernanke, B.S. ve Kuttner, K.N. (2004) “What Explains
8. The Stock Market’s Reaction to Federal Reserve Policy” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper, 10402, http://www.nber.org/papers/ w10402, (25.05.2015).

9. Bohl, M.T., Siklos, P.L., ve Sondermann, D. (2008)
10. “Shocking Markets: European Stock Markets and the ECB’s Monetary Policy Surprises”, https:// www.wiwi.uni-muenster.de/me/downloads/ Veroeffentlichungen/Bohl-Siklos-Sondermann_ Shocking-Markets_14-April-08.pdf, (25.05.2015).
11. Bomfim, A. N. (2000) “Pre-Announcement Effects,
12. News and Volatility: Monetary Policy and the Stock Market” The Federal Reserve Board Finance and Economics Discussion Series, Volume: 2000-50.
13. Bomfim, A. N. (2003) “Monetary Policy and the Yield Curve” The Federal Reserve Board Finance and Economics Discussion Series, February 13, 2003.
14. Choi, J. J., Elyasiani, E. ve Kopecky, K. J. (1992) “The sensitivity of bank stock returns to market, interest and exchange rate risks” Journal of Banking and Finance, 16, 983-1004.
15. Duran, M., Özlü, P. ve Ünalmış, D. (2010) “TCMB Faiz
16. Kararlarının Hisse Senedi Piyasaları Üzerine Etkisi” Ehrmann, M. ve Fratzscher M. (2004) “Taking stock:
17. Monetary policy transmission to equity markets” Working Paper Series 354, European Central Bank. Elyasiani, E. ve Mansur, I. (1998) “Sensitivity of the bank stock returns distribution to changes in the level and volatility of interest rate: A GARCH-M model” Journal of Banking & Finance, 22, 535-563.
18. Fischbacher, U., Hens, T. ve Zeisberger, S. (2013) “The impact of monetary policy on stock market bubbles and trading behavior: Evidence from the lab” Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control, 37, 2104–2122.
19. Flannery, M. J. ve James, C. M. (1984) “The Effect of
20. Interest Rate Changes on the Common Stock Returns of Financial Institutions” The Journal of Finance, Vol. , No. 4, pp. 1141-1153.
21. Kasman, S., Vardar, G. ve Tunç, G. (2011) “The impact of interest rate and exchange rate volatility on banks’ stock returns and volatility: Evidence from Turkey”
22. Economic Modelling, 28, 1328–1334.
23. Kholodilin, K., Montagnoli, A., Napolitano, O. ve Siliverstovs, B. (2008) “Assessing the impact of the ECB’s monetary policy on the stock markets: A sectoral view” DIW Berlin German Institute for Economic
24. Research Discussion Papers, 814. Koenker, R. (2004) “Quantile regression for longitudinal data” Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 91(1): 74-89.
25. Koenker, R. ve Bassett, G. (1978) “Regression quantiles” Econometrica, 46: 33–50.
26. Koenker, R. ve Xiao, Z. (2004) “Unit root quantile regression inference” Journal of the American
27. Statistical Association, 99(467): 775-787. Koenker, R. ve Xiao, Z. (2006) “Quantile autoregression”
28. Journal of the American Statistical Association, (475): 980-1006.
29. Kwan, S. H. (1991) “Re-examination of Interest Rate
30. Sensitivity of Commercial Bank Stock Returns Using a Random Coefficient Model” Journal of Financial Services Research, 5, 61-76. Lee, J. ve Strazicich, M. C. (2001) “Break point estimation and spurious rejections with endogenous unit root tests” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 63 (5), 535-558.
31. Lee, J. ve Strazicich, M. C. (2003) “Minimum LM Unit
32. Root Test with Two Structural Breaks” Review of Economics and Statistics, 63, 1082-1089.
33. Lumsdaine, R. L ve Papell, D. H. (1997) “Multiple
34. Trend Breaks and the Unit Root Hypothesis” Review of Economics and Statistics, 79 (2), 212-218. Merton, R. C. (1973) “Theory of Rational Option
35. Pricing” The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring), pp. 141-183. Moya-Martínez, P., Ferrer-Lapena, R., Escribano-Sotos, F. (2015) “Interest rate changes and stock returns in
36. Spain: A wavelet analysis” BRQ Business Research Quarterly, 18, 95-110. Nasseh, A. ve Strauss, J. (2000) “Stock prices and domestic and international macroeconomic activity: a cointegration approach” The Quarterly Review of
37. Economics and Finance, 40, 229–245. Özün, A. ve Çifter, A. (2006) “Bankaların Hisse Senedi
38. Getirilerinde Faiz Oranı Riski: Dalgacıklar Analizi ile Türk Bankacılık Sektörü Üzerine Bir Uygulama” Bankacılar Dergisi, Sayı 59, ss. 3-15. Park, J. ve Choi, B. P. (2011) “Interest rate sensitivity of
39. US property/liability insurer stock returns” Managerial Finance, Vol. 37, Iss 2, pp. 134 – 150. Perron, P. (1989) “The Great Crash, the Oil Price Shock and the Unit Root Hypothesis” Econometrica, Vol:57, 1401.
40. Perron, P. (1997) “Further Evidence on Breaking Trend
41. Functions in Macroeconomic Variables” Journal of Econometrics, 80 (2), 355-385. Rigobon, R. ve Sack, B. (2004) “The Impact of Monetary
42. Policy on Asset Prices” Journal of Monetary Economics, (8): 1553-1575.
43. Ross, S. A. (1976) “The Arbitrage Theory of Capital
44. Asset Pricing” Journal of Economic Theory, 13, pp. 341- Sensoy, A. ve Sobaci, C. (2014) “Effects of volatility shocks on the dynamic linkages between Exchange rate, interest rate and the stock market: The case of
45. Turkey” Economic Modelling, 43, 448–457. Toraman, C. ve Başarır, Ç. (2014) “The long run relationship between stock market capitalization rate and interest rate: co-integration approach” Procedia
46. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 1070 – 1073.
47. Vithessonthia, C. ve Techarongrojwongb, Y. (2013) “Do monetary policy announcements affect stockprices in emerging market countries? The case of Thailand”
48. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 23, – 469. Wongswan, J. (2005) “The Response of Global Equity
49. Indexes to U.S. Monetary Policy Announcements” International Finance Discussion Papers (FED), 844. Zivot, E. ve Andrews, D.W.K. (1992) “Further Evidence on the great crash,the oilprice shock and the unit- root hypothesis” Journal of Business and Economic Statistic, Vol:10, 251-270.