MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2572190409 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v9n2p1

Effects of Macroeconomic Volatility on Stock Prices in Kenya: A Cointegration Evidence from the Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE)

2017· article· en· W2572190409 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muinde Patrick Mumo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsCointegrationMoney supplyEconometricsSpurious relationshipShort runVolatility (finance)Interest rateError correction modelUnit rootStock (firearms)Monetary economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the effects of macroeconomic volatility on stock prices via selected macro variables using the Johansen co-integration methodology. Time series data was obtained from the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) and the Central Bank of Kenya (CBK) for the period 1998-2015. Macro variables studied include inflation, money supply, exchange rates and interest rates against the NSE 20 share index. The study exploits the presence of unit roots of order 1(1) on the data set to apply the Johansen procedure and the Vector Error Correction Model (VECM) for data analysis. The study finds both a long-run equilibrium relationship between stock prices and the macroeconomic variables and between inflation and other macro variables. Specifically, and contrary to earlier evidence on the Kenyan market, the results suggest a negative long-run equilibrium relationship between money supply and stock prices. Inflation shows negative but insignificant relationship. Exchange rates and interest rates show a positive relationship. The short-term dynamics from the VECM support earlier documented evidence, implying the earlier evidence reflect short-run and not long-run dynamics.The study concludes that the effects of inflation seem to outweigh any possible gains from money supply on aggregate firm output in the long-run. Also, the study adduces evidence of possible spurious problems on earlier documented evidence from the reviewed studies that could be attributable to non stochastic processes in the models used. A robustness check using a multivariate approach points to this and confirms the co-integration results.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207