MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4320030582 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v14n12p92

The Impact of Interest Rates and Treasury Bill Yields on Stock Prices in Zambia

2022· article· en· W4320030582 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yordanos Gebremeskel, Levison Malawo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTreasuryStock (firearms)EconomicsInterest rateShort runMonetary economicsFinancial economicsEconometricsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper analyzes the short-run and long-run effects of interest rates and Treasury bill rates on stock prices on the Lusaka Securities Exchange (LuSE) using semi-annual data between January 2006 and January 2022. ARDL model is used after we proved that there is no ARCH effect on the dependent variable (LNLASI). The findings show that deposit interest rates had a significant but weak negative impact on stock prices in the short run but had a positive impact on the stock prices in the long run, lending interest rates on the other hand had an insignificant positive impact on stock prices but a negative impact on stock prices in the long run. Treasury bill yields were found to have a negative significant impact on stock prices but had an insignificant negative impact on stock prices in the long run. Moreover, we found co-integration between among the three variables which means that there is a long run equilibrium relationship. As a result, the study concludes that, in the long-run, interest rates and Treasury bill rates have a combined effect on stock prices.

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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance→Same topicFiscal Policy and Economic Growth→French-language works237,207→