~D (b Cri CD CD 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~-4 CD ~~~~Z ~~~~.11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 0 OL~~~ -D 0 32Mo Pot.icY RESEARCH WORKING PAPER 1462 Summary findings World stock markets are booming. Between 1982 and * There are intuitively appealing correlations among 1993, stock market capitalization grew from $2 trillion indicators. For example, big markets tend to be less to $10 trillion, an average 15 percent a year. A volatile, more liquid, and less concentrated in a few disproportionate amount of this growth was in emerging stocks. Internationally integrated markets tend to be less stock markets, which rose from 3 percent of world stock volatile. And institutionally developed markets tend to he market capitalization to 14 percent in the same period. large and liquid. Yet there is little empirical evidence about how * The three most developed markets are in Japan, the important stock markets are to long-term economic United Kingdom. and the United States. The most development. Economists have neicher a common underdeveloped markets are in Colombia, Nigeria, concept nor a common measure of stock market Venezuela, and Zimbabwe. Malaysia, the Republic of development, so we know little about how stock market Korea, and Switzerland seem to have highly developed development affects the rest of the financial system or stock markets, whereas Argentina, Greece, Pakistan, and how corporations finance themselves. Turkey have underdeveloped markets. Markets tend to Demirgiiq-Kunt and Levine collected and compared , be more developed in richer countries, but mans markets many different indicators of stock market development commonly labeled "emerging" (for example, in Korea, using data on 41 countries from 19986 to 1993. Each Malaysia, and Thailand) are systematically more indicator has statistical and conceptual shortcomings, so developed than markets commonly labeled "developed" they used different measures of stock market size, (for example, in Australia, Canada, and many European liquidity, concentration, and volatility, of institutional countries). development, and of international integration. Their * Between 1986 and 1993, some markets developed goal: to summarize information about a variety of rapidly in size, liquidity, and international integration. indicators for stock market development, in order to Indonesia, Portugal, Turkey, and Venezuela experienced facilitate research into the links between stock markets, explosive development, for example. Case studies on the economic development, and corporate financing reasons for (and economic consequences of) this rapid decisions. They highlight certain important correlations: development could yield valuable insights. In the 41 countries they studied, there are enormous The level of stock market development is highly cross-country differences in the level of stock market correlated with the developmenit of banks, nonbank development for each indicator. The ratio of market financial institutions (finance companies, mutual funds, capitalization to CDP, for example, is greater than 1 in brokerage houses), insurance companies, and private five countries and less than 0.10 in five others. pension funds. This paper - a product of the Finance and Private Sector Development Division, Policy Research Department - is part of a larger effort in the departmnent to study stock market development. The study was funded by the Bank's Research Support Budget under the research project "Stock Market Development and Financial Intermediary Growth" (RPO 678- 37). Copies of the paper are available free from the World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433. Please contact Paulina Sintim-Aboagye, roonm N9-057, extension 38526 (58 pages). May 1995. The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. 'The papers carry the names of the authors and should be used and cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions are the authors' own and should not be attributed to the World Bank, its Executive Board of Directors, or any of its member c ountries. Produced by the Policy Research Dissenmination Center Stock Market Development and Financial Intermediaries: Stylized Facts Asl, Demirgiiu-Kunt and Ross Levine Finance and Private Sector Development Division Policy and Research Department World Bank The authors thank Gerard Caprio, Victor Ng, Sarath Rajapatirana and Dimitri Vittas for useful comments. ! 1 1. Introduction World stock markets are booming. Between 1982 and 1993, world stock market capitalization grew from $2 trillion to $10 trillion, which implies an average annual growth rate of 15%. Emerging stock markets composed a disproportionately large amount of this growth, rising from 3 percent to 14 percent of world stock market capitalization. Impressively, emerging market capitalization rose by a factor of 21 over this 11 -year period. The global growth of stock markets and the emerging market boom have attracted the attention of academics, practitioners, and policy makers. Many studies focus on measuring the benefits to holding a globally diversified portfolio,' and many countries are reformr.ing regulations and laws to foster capital market development and attract foreign portfolio flows.2 Yet, there exists very little empirical evidence on the importance of stock markets for long-run economic development.' At a more basic level, economists have neither a common concept nor a common measure of stock market development. Subsequently we know very little about how stock market development affects the rest of the financial svstem or how corporations finance themselves. For example, see Bosner-Neal, Brauer, and Wheatley (1990), Cho, Eun, and Senbet (1986). Errunza and Losq (1989, 1985a, 1985b) Errunza. Losq, and Padmanabhan (1992). Errunza and Senbet (1981), Gultekin, Gultekin, and Penati (1989), Jorion and Schwartz (1986). Korajczyk and Viallet (1989), Solnik (1974), Stehle (1977), and Wheatley (1988) 2 Net flows of private portfolio equity investment in developing countries rose about 21 fold from 1982 to 1993, equalling about $13 billion in 1993. 3 A growing theoretical literature suggests that a well-developed stock market may promote risk diversification, liquidity, information processing, and capital mobilization and that these services may accelerate long-run growth. See, Levine (1991), Greenwood and Smith (1994). Obstfeld (1994). 2 This paper collects and compares a broad array of stock market development indicators. Specifically, using data on 41 countries from 1986-1993, we examine different measures of stock market size, market liquidity, market concentration, market volatility, institutional development, and international integration. Since each indicator suffers from statistical and conceptual shortcomings, using a variety of indicators should provide a more accurate depiction of stock market development across countries. Furthermore, stock market development - like the level of economic development - is a complex and multi-faceted concept and no single measure will capture all aspects of stock market development. Thus, our goal is to produce a set of stylized facts about stock market development indicators that facilitates and stimulates research into the links between stock markets, economic development and corporate financing decisions. After describing each of the stock market development indicators, we examine the relationship among the stock market development indicators. We find enormous cross-country variation in the level of stock market development as measured by each indicator. For example, five countries have market capitalization to GDP ratios of greater than one, while five countries have market capitalization to GDP ratios of less than 0. 10. We also find attractive correlations among the indicators. For example, large stock markets are more liquid, less volatile, and more internationally integrated than smaller markets; countries with strong information disclosure laws, internationally accepted accounting standards, and unrestricted international capital flows tend to have larger and more liquid markets; countries with markets concentrated in a few stocks tend to have smaller, less liquid. and less internationally integrated markets; and internationally integrated markets are less volatile. Although many stock market development indicators are significantly correlated in an 3 intuitively plausible fashion, the individual indicators produce different country rankings. Thus, to produce an assessment of the overall level of "stock market development" across countries, we produce indexes of stock market development that average together the information contained in the individual indicators. We find that the most developed stock markets in the world are Japan, the United States, and Great Britain, while the most underdeveloped markets are Colombia, Venezuela, Nigeria. and Zimbabwe over 1986-1993. The data also suggest that Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea. Switzerland, and Malaysia have highly-developed stock markets, while Turkey, Greece, Argentina, and Pakistan have underdeveloped markets. Furthermore, although richer countries generally have more developed stock markets than poorer countries, many markets labeled "emerging" have more developed markets than France, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Sweden, and Norway. We also use the assortment of stock market indicators to evaluate which stock markets have been developing fastest over the last eight years. Using measures of size, liquidity, and international integration, Indonesia. Turkey, Portugal. and Venezuela stand-out as the most rapidly developing markets in the world. We hope to explore the causes and consequences of these explosive stock market growth experiences in future work. Besides collecting stock market development indicators and compiling stylized facts about these indicators, we examine the relationship between these stock market development indicators and measures of financial intermediary development. We ask, do countries with well- developed and efficient stock markets also have well-developed and efficient banks and nonbank 4 financial intermediaries?4 To shed some light on this question, we document the cross-country relationship between various measures of stock market development and different indicators of fnancial intermediary development. We find that the level of stock market development is highly correlated with the development and efficient functioning of banks, private nonbanks, and private insurance companies and pension funds. We hope that by assembling various indicators of stock market and financial intermediary development and by compiling a few stylized facts regarding these indicators, this paper will stimulate research on the relationships among stock markets, financial intermediaries and economic development. We organize the remainder of the paper as follows. Section II describes and presents indicators of stock market development. These include measures of stock market size, liquidity, volatility, concentration, institutional development, and asset pricing efficiency. Section III (a) ranks countries using the different stock market development indicators and (b) studies the correlation among the indicators. Section IV examines which countries have the fastest developing stock markets. Section V analyzes the links between stock market development and financial intermediary development. We use measures of the size of the banking system, the amount of credit going to private firns, the size of nonbank financial corporations, and the size of private insurance and pension companies. Section VrI summarizes the results. 4 Since debt and equity are frequently viewed as alternative sources of corporate finance, stock markets and banks are sometimes viewed as altemative vehicles for financing corporate investments. Consequently, we thought it would be valuable to document the cross-country ties between stock market development and financial intermediary development. 5 H1. Stock Market Development Indicators This section presents and discusses an array of stock market development indicators. Specifically, we describe measures of (a) market size, (b) market liquidity, (c) market volatility, (d) market concentration. (e) asset pricing efficiency. (f) regulatory and institutional development, and (g) conglomerate indexes that aggregate the information contained in measures (a)-(f). We use data from the International Finance Corporation's Emerging Markets Data Base and the International Financial Statistics of the International Monetarn Fund. The data cover the 1986-1993 period for 41 countries. Table I lists the names of the countries. A. Stock Market Size The market capitalization ratio equals the value of listed shares divided by GDP and analysts frequently use the ratio as a measure of stock market size. In the rest of the paper, we refer to this measure as "market capitalization." In terms of economic significance, the assumption behind market capitalization is that market size is positively correlated with the ability to mobilize capital and diversify risk. As indicated in Table 1, South Africa, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Japan, and Singapore all had market capitalization ratios of greater than one over the 1986-1993 period, while Nigeria, Argentina, Indonesia, Colombia, and Turkey all had market capitalization ratios of less than 0.1 over the same period. We also include statistics on the number of listed companies as an additional measure of market size. While marginal differences in the number of listed companies are uninformative, extreme values can be useful. Specifically, it is not very interesting that Australia averaged 1,184 listed companies and Canada averaged 1,118 listed companies over the 1986-1993 period. 6 But, the fact that Finland and Zimbabwe had fewer than 70 listed companies suggests that these countries have very limited markets (Table 1). Similarly, the fact that Indonesia, Turkey, and Portugal saw the number of listed companies grow at over 20 percent per year over the 1986- 1993 period suggests rapid stock market development (Table 8). B. Liquidity While economists advance manv theoretical definitions of "liquidity," analysts generall) use the term "liquidity" to refer to the ability to easily buy and sell securities. A comprehensive measure of liquidity would quantify all the costs associated with trading, including the time costs and uncertainty of finding a counterpart and settling the trade. Since we want to compare liquidity across countries and since data is very limited, we simply use two measures of realized stock trading. Total value traded / GDP equals total shares traded on the stock market exchange divided by GDP. The total value traded ratio measures the organized trading of equities as a share of national output and therefore should positively reflect liquidity on an economy-wide basis. Japan, Hong Kong, Malaysia, the United States, and the United Kingdom all have total value traded/GDP ratios above 0.4, while Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Colombia, and Nigeria had total value traded/GDP ratio of about 0.01 over the 1986-1993 period. The total value traded/GDP ratio complements the market capitalization ratio. Although market capitalization may be large, there may be little trading. For example, South Africa and Chile have above average market capitalization but below average total value traded/GDP (Table l). Together, market capitalization and total value traded/GDP inform us about market size and liquiditv. 7 A second measure of liquidity is the turnover ratio. Turmove equals the value of total shares traded divided by market capitalization. High turnover is often used as an indicator of low transactions costs. Korea and Germany (largely reflecting massive trading around reunification) had turnover ratios above 0.9, while Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and South Africa had turnover ratios below 0.05. The turnover ratio complements market capitalization. A small but active market will have small market capitalization but high turnover. For example, Norway and India had below average market capitalization but above average turnover (Table 1). Altematively, South Africa's market capitalization to GDP ratio was the highest in the world while its turnover ratio was one of the smallest. Turnover also complements total value traded/GDP. While total value traded /GDP captures trading compared with the size of the economy, turnover measures trading relative to the size of the stock market. Put differently, a small, liquid market will have a high tumover ratio but a small total value traded/GDP ratio. For example, there was not much equity trading in Brazil relative to the size of its economy, but Brazil's turnover ratio was high, reflecting a small but active stock market. Alternatively, Malaysia had the third highest market capitalization and total value traded/GDP ratios over the 1986-1993 period but had below average turnover (Table 1). Thus, incorporating information on market capitalization, total value traded/GDP, and turnover provides a more comprehensive picture of development than the information provided by any single indicator. 8 C. Volatility We include a measure of stock market volatility, VOLATILITY. This indicator is a twelve-month rolling standard deviation estimate based on market returns. We cleanse the return series of monthly means and twelve months of autocorrelations using a procedure defined by Schwert (1989). We include this measure because of the intense interest in market volatility by the profession and practitioners. Although greater volatility is not necessarily a sign of more or less stock market development, we sometimes refer to "less volatility" as reflecting "greater stock market development" for simplicity. As with the other indicators, there are great cross-country differences in volatility. Whereas volatility in Pakistan, the United States, and the Netherlands averaged about 0.03 over the 1986-1993 period, volatility in Brazil and Argentina was above 0.25. D. Concentration In some countries a few companies dominate the market. To measure the degree of market concentration, we compute the share of market capitalization accounted for by the ten largest stocks and call this measure Concentration. The United States and Japan have very low concentration. The largest 10 stocks account for less than 20 percent of the markets. In contrast, concentration is three times larger in Venezuela. Argentina, and Colombia, where the concentration ratio averaged above 0.60 from 1986-1993 (Table 2). 9 E. Asset Pricing Academic researchers and market practitioners have devoted prodigious resources to measuring the degree of integration between national stock markets and gauging whether markets price risk efficiently. Analysts generally refer to countries that are more integrated into world capital markets and price risk more efficiently as "more developed." To measure asset pricing efficiency, we use estimates of asset mis-pricing computed by Robert Korajczyk (1994). Unfortunately, the data only permit computation of these asset pricing efficiency measures for 24 countries. As argued in Korajczyk and Viallet (1990, p. 555-557). the capital asset pricing model and arbitrage pricing model imply that the expected Teturn on each asset is linearly related to a benchmark portfolio or linear combination of benchmark portfolios. In domestic versions of these asset pricing models the benchmark portfolios include only securities traded on the local exchange, while the international versions include all securities. If the models are correct, then the benchmark portfolio or combination of portfolios, should explain all of the systematic expected returns on assets above the risk-free interest rate.' Thus, we term systematic deviations of expected returns as "risk mis-pricing" under the maintained hypothesis that the model is correct. Using different asset pricing models, Korajczyk (1994) computes the systematic deviation between actual returns and those implied by the models. The An and ICAPM are computed using an international arbitrage pricing model and international capital asset pricing model, respectively. Korajczyk (1994) computes the degree of risk mis-pricing between domestic stocks and the prices of risk in world capital markets using 5Since no asset is riskiess in real terms, Korajczvk and Viallet (1990) also test the restrictions implied by a zero-beta asset. 10 these two models. These risk mis-pricing indicators measure capital market integration; with no arbitrage, the price of risk should be equalized across national borders. Greater mis-pricing may reflect poor information about firms, high transactions costs, and official barriers to international asset trading. We refer to greater mis-pricing as indicating less stock market development. The APT and ICAPM mis-pricing indicators give similar country rankings. Brazil, Turkey, Mexico have relatively large mis-pricing values, while the United States, Japan. Jordan, and Pakistan yield mis-pricing estimates that suggest a high level of international integration. CAPM measures domestic market risk mis-pricing. Korajczyk (1994) fits a domestic- CAPM model to compute the degree of risk mis-pricing across stocks within the country. This indicator measures the efficiency of domestic risk pricing compared with a benchmark portfolio of domestic stocks. One shortcoming with this measure is that as a country becomes more integrated internationally, the relevant benchmark portfolio shifts away from being a benchmark of domestic assets. The relevant benchmark becomes more "internationalized." Thus, domestic risk mis-pricing as measured by CAPM may rise even as the stock market becomes more integrated and efficient. We include this measure for completeness but focus on the results using the international benchmark portfolios. These three mis-pricing indicators rely on the success of equilibrium models of asset pricing that investigators sometimes rejected as good representations of the pricing of risk. However, these measures allow us to incorporate indicators, albeit imperfect indicators, of the ability of agents to diversify risk domestically and internationally. Furthermore, we analyze the evolution of the degree of integration between each domestic market and the world market over time. I1 F Regulatory and Institutional Indicators Regulatory and institutional factors may influence the functioning of stock markets. For example, mandatory disclosure of reliable information about firms and financial intermediaries may enhance investor participation in equity markets. Regulations that instill investor confidence in brokers and other capital market intermediaries should encourage investment through and trading in the stock market. To measure regulatory and institutional features of emerging stock markets, we use indicators constructed by the International Finance Corporation (IFC). Specifically, we use seven regulatory-institutional indicators. The first indicator shows whether the firms listed in a stock market publish price-earnings information. The IFC gives a value of 0 or 1, where 1 indicates the information is comprehensive and published internationally. The second indicator measures accounting standards. The IFC assigns values of 0, 1, or 2, for countries with poor, adequate, or good (internationally accepted) accounting standards. The third indicator measures the Quality of investor protection laws as judged bv the IFC. where 0, 1. and 2 are used to indicate poor, adequate, or good investor protection laws. The fourth indicator shows whether the country has a securities and exchange commission or not. The fifth, sixth, and seventh indicator measure restrictions on dividend repatriation by foreign investors, capital repatriation by foreign investor, and domestic investments bv foreigners. The IFC assigns values of 0, 1, and 2, indicating whether capitals flows are restricted, have some restrictions, or are free, respectively. We also compute an average institutional indicator which simply averages the seven regulatory-institutional indicators. These indicators are available on an annual basis from 1986-1993 for twenty developing countries. 12 Table 3 summarizes the institutional and regulatory indicators. There is substantial variation across countries and indicators. For example, Jordan freely allows international capital flows cross its borders, but does not publish regular price-earnings information and has poor accounting standards. India has accounting standards of internationally accepted quality, but restricts capital inflows and the repatriation of capital and dividends. Nigeria tightly restricted capital flows over most of the period and did not publish price-earnings on firms in a comprehensive and internationally accepted manner. In contrast, Malaysia, Mexico, Korea, Brazil, and Chile have very high institutional indicators. G. Correlations and Rank Correlations Among the Stock Market Development Indicators Table 4 provides the correlations among many stock market development indicators, and Table 5 provides the rank correlations. The first number is the correlation, the second number is the P-value (a value of less than 0.05 indicates the correlation is significant at the 0.05 level), and the third number gives the number of observations used in computing the correlation. When we have 25 or fewer observations, we term a P-value of less than 0.10 as "significant." When we have more than 25 observations, "significant" refers to P-values of less than 0.05. Since the correlation and rank correlation are very similar, we simply refer to the correlations in Table 4 and make six points. First, while the two measures of market liquidity, total value traded/GDP and turnover, are significantly positively correlated, the correlation coefficient is only 0.50. Thus, while the degree of trading relative to the size of the economy is significantly correlated with the degree of trading relative to the size of the market, the two 13 liquidity measures do not move one for one. Total value traded/GDP and turnover provide complementary information about stock market liquidity as discussed above. Second, market size is significantly positively correlated with total value traded/GDP and the average institutional indicator and significantly negatively correlated with risk mis-pricing and volatility. Countries with big stock markets have less volatile, more efficient stock markets with a high volume of trading relative to GDP. Third, countries with highly concentrated markets also have markets that are underdeveloped using the other indicators. Specifically, market concentration is significantly negatively correlated with market size and market liquidity, and significantly positively correlated with risk mis-pricing. Fourth, note that countries that have stock markets that are more integrated internationally - as measured by low APT and ICAPM values - also have less volatile stock returns. Fifth, countries with well-developed regulatory and institutional systems as defined by the IFC tend to have large, liquid stock markets. Finally, although many stock market development indicators are significantly correlated in intuitively attractive ways, the correlation coefficients are frequently below 0.60. The correlations suggest that the different indicators capture different aspects of stock market development. To measure how well stock markets function in general, i.e., to compute an index of overall "stock market development," we need to incorporate the information contained in a broad selection of these indicators. 14 Eml. Which Stock Markets are Most Developed? In the last section, we examined the level of stock market development indicator-by- indicator. We now address a related question: which stock markets are most developed overall? To do this, we construct conglomerate indexes of stock market development that aggregate the informnation contained in the individual indicators. We then use these conglomerate indexes to rank countries in terms of overall stock market development. A. The Indexes To compute conglomerate indexes of stock market development, we average the means- removed values of particular stock market development indicators. Specifically, when we construct INDEX-I - which aggregates information on market capitalization, total value traded/GDP, and turnover, we follow a two-step procedure. First, for each country i we compute the means-removed market capitalization, total value traded/GDP, and turnover ratios. We define the means-removed value of variable X for country i as X(i)m = [X(i) - mean(X)] / [ABS( mean(X))]. where ABS (z) refers to the absolute value of z. For mean (X), we use the average value of X across all countries over the 1976-93 period. Note, for the risk mis-pricing measures (APT and ICAPM) and the market concentration where larger number refer to less stock market development, we multiply the indicator numbers by negative 1 before computing the means-removed values. Second, we take a simple average of the means- removed market capitalization, total value traded, and turnover ratios to obtain an overall index of stock market development, INDEX-1. INDEX-2 combines INDEX-I with the APT mis-pricing measure to obtain an overall indicator of stock market development that incorporates international integration. INDEX-2 only 15 includes the 23 countries with APT estimates. In contrast, INDEX-2A takes the average for the 41 country sample. For countries with no APT values, INDEX-2A computes the average based on the means-removed values of the other three indicators: market capitalization, total value traded/GDP, and turnover. INDEXEs-3 and 3A are very similar to INDEXEs-2 and 2A. IDEX-3 combines INDEX-I with the ICAPM mis-pricing measure. INDEX-3 only includes the 23 countries with ICAPM mis-pricing estimates. INDEX-3A, however, takes the average for the 41 country sample. For countries with no ICAPM values, INDEX-2A computes the average based on the means-removed values of the other three indicators: market capitalization, total value tradedlGDP, and turnover. Finally, INDEX-4 averages the means-removed values of market capitalization, total value traded, turnover, APT mis-pricing, and market concentration. We only compute this index for the 21 countries with data on all five underlying indicators. B. Stock Market Development Rankings Table 6 gives the country-by-country values and rankings for the six INDEXES. While there are variations in country rankings from INDEX-I through INDEX-4, the INDEXES are verv highly correlated. Table 7 shows that the INDEXES have correlation coefficients of 0.99. Thus, the various conglomerate INDEXES give very similar country rankings. Here we briefly summarize the results from INDEX-I and INDEX-4. Consider first INDEX-4, which aggregates the largest number of individual stock market development indicators but also has the fewest countries. The INDEX-4 variable says that Japan, 16 the United States, Great Britain, and Korea have the most developed stock markets when aggregating information on market size, liquidity, international integration, and market concentration. Colombia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe have the lowest four rankings in this 21 country sample. Next, consider INDEX-1 that aggregates the least information but includes the most countries (41) with data on all the underlying indicators (see Figure 1). INDEX-I ranks Japan, Hong Kong, Germany, Great Britain, the United States, Korea, Singapore, and Malaysia as having very highly developed stock markets when aggregating information on market size and liquidity. INDEX-1 implies that Nigeria, Colombia, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe, have the least- developed stock markets. As noted above, Germany's high ranking is strongly influenced by the tumultuous years surrounding re-unification when there was an explosion of equity transactions.6 )While it is difficult to answer unambiguously the question posed at the start of this section - which stock markets are most developed?, our evaluation of the indexes presented in Table 6 suggests the following conclusion. The three most developed markets are Japan, the United States, and Great Britain. The most underdeveloped markets are Colombia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe. Furthermore, the data suggest that Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea, Switzerland, and Malaysia have highly-developed stock markets, while Turkey, Greece, Argentina, and Pakistan have underdeveloped markets. Before concluding this section, we want to make two additional points. First, there is a close correspondence between income per capita and stock market development. To illustrate 6 If Germany's two years of exceptionally high trading are removed in computing its averages over the 1986-93 period, Germany falls from the top ten. 17 this point, we rank the 41 countries by GDP per capita. We then divide the sample into groups of 1 1, 10. 10, and 10 countries based on these GDP per capita rankings. The first group has average GDP per capita of about $800, the second group $3.350, the third group $12,480 and the last group $19,670. In Figure 2, we then plot the value of INDEX- I for each of these income groups. As depicted, poorer countries have lower stock market development than richer countries on average.7 Second, there are important exceptions. Frequently, many markets termed "emerging" - such as Korea, and Malaysia, and Thailand - are uniformly ranked higher than markets termed "developed" - such as France, the Netherlands. Australia. Canada. Sweden, and many other European countries. IV Which Stock Markets are Developing Most Rapidly? In the last section, we ranked countries according to their average levels of stock market development over the 1986-1993 period. We now address the question, which stock markets are developing most rapidly? To do this, we rank countries according to how fast their stock markets are developing. We use the growth rates of the individual indicators to compute the speed of stock market development. A. The Growth Rates of Individual Stock Market Development Indicators Table 8 presents the average annual growth rates of the individual stock market development indicators over the 1986-1993 period. Given the large number of indicators, we do 7 This same story holds for the other [NDEXES and when using the World Bank's classification of countries: low, middle, and high income countries. 18 not systematically describe the information in Table 8. Instead, we highlight three points. First, in terms of market size, Indonesia and Turkey boomed over this period growing at average annual rate of more than 100% per year! As a benchmark, United States market capitalization grew at 4% annual rate over the 1986-1990 period. At the other extreme, Finland, Japan. Germany, Sweden, New Zealand, and Italy saw their market capitalization ratios shrink over the 1986-1993 period. Using another measure of market size, Indonesia. Turkey, Portugal, and Thailand saw the number of listed companies grow at an annual rate of over 18%. Second, as measured by total value traded/GDP, Indonesia, Portugal, and Turkey, Venezuela, and Greece experienced rapid liquidity growth (>200%), while Japan and Italy weathered rapid declines (= -10%). As with total value traded, the turnover measure of liquidity identifies Indonesia as the fastest growing market in terms of liquidity. Third, some cross-country quandaries emerge from studying stock market growth. Consider, for example, the cases of Mexico and Portugal. Both countries liberalized their capital markets and privatized public enterprises and both countries experienced very rapid improvements in international integration (as measured by the APT mis-pricing indicator). In terms of market volatility, Mexico saw rapid declines in return volatility as it liberalized its economy and privatized state enterprises. In contrast, stock return volatility in Portugal exploded as it liberalized its capital markets and privatized its public enterprises. Another noteworthy difference between the two countries is that while market concentration has grown dramatically in Mexico, it shrunk steadily in Portugal. We hope to explore - and motivate others to explore - the reasons underlying these differences in future work. 19 B. Growth Rates of Stock Market Development Indicators We found it difficult to assess which markets experienced the most rapid overall development using individual stock market development indicators. Thus, we now evaluate the growth rate of overall stock market development indexes. We compute five conglomerate indexes of stock market development that are very simnilar to the ones used in the previous section. In the previous section, the goal was to compare the level of stock market development across countries. Here, however, we seek to measure the growth rate of each country's level of overall stock market development. Consequently, we now use the growth rate of each country's stock market indicator. Then, we average these growth rates to compute an overall index of stock mark-et development. Specifically, when we construct INDEX-I - which aggregates information on market capitalization, total value traded/GDP, and turnover, we compute the average annual growth rate for market capitalization, total value traded/GDP, and turnover ratios for each country. We then take a simple average of the growth rates to obtain an overall index of stock market development for each country. This index allows us examine the growth rate of each country's overall level of stock market development. As before, we compute five different INDEXES. Here we use the samne names because they include the same individual stock market indicators as in Section III. Thus, INDEX-2 combines the growth rates of market capitalization, total value traded/GDP, turnover, and the APT mis-pricing measure. INDEX-2 only includes countries with APT mis-pricing estimates. As before. [NDEX-2A takes the average for the 41 country sample. If data are not available on APT mis-pricing, INDEX-2A simply averages across the growth rates of market capitalization, 20 total value traded/GDP, and turnover. INDEXEs-3 and 3A are the same as INDEXEs-2 and 2A except that INDEX-3 and 3A use the ICAPM mis-pricing measure instead of the APT mis- pricing measure. Finally, INDEX4 averages the annual growth rates of market capitalization, total value traded, turnover, APT mis-pricing, and market concentration. We only compute this index for the 21 countries with data on all five underlying indicators for the 1986-93 period. Table 9 reports the INDEXES of overall stock market growth and Figure 3 illustrates this grow-th using INDEX-1 . The main findings are straightforward. Regardless of the index we look at, Indonesia, Turkey, Portugal and Venezuela have experienced the most rapid overall stock market development over the last 18 years. While these markets began the period with underdeveloped markets, other countries with similarly underdeveloped stock markets, like Colombia, Pakistan, and Zimbabwe did not enjoy the explosive development experienced by Indonesia, Turkey, Portugal, and Venezuela. We plan to investigate both the underlying causes of this rapid development and the economic consequences of rapid stock market development in future research.! ' We also investigated whether initially under-developed stock markets grow faster. These results are reported in Table I0. There is mixed evidence in support of convergence. Initially small markets grow faster but liquidity does not rise significantly. Initially volatile markets that poorly price risk tend to grow larger but not necessarily more liquid. 21 V. Is Stock Market Development Linked to the Rest of the Financial System? We now turn to this paper's final question: Do countries with well developed stock markets also have well-developed banks and nonbank financial intermediaries? To address this question, we fist need measures of financial intermediary development. Thus, this section's first subsection discusses our measures of the (a) size of the financial system, (b) size and efficiency of the banking system, (c) size of nonbank financial corporations, and (d) size of private insurance and private pension funds. The second subsection then examines the correlation between stock market and financial intermediary development. We find a strong positive relationship between stock market development and financial intermediary development. A. Financial Intermediary Indicators A.1. Financial system development: Based on work by King and Levine (1993), we use three measures of financial system development. The measure M3/GDP equals liquid liabilities of the financial intermediaries divided by GDP. Basically, this indicator measures M3 divided by GDP. It is a measure of the overall size of the formal financial system. If the size of the financial system is positively related to the provision of financial services, then M3/GDP should be a good indicator of the provision of financial intermediary services. OLLY equals M3-M1/GDP and thus subtracts narrow money from the M3/GDP measure of financial interrnediary size. QLLY measures quasi-liquid liabilities. Analysts sometimes use QLLY instead of M3/GDP, because MI /GDP represents highly liquid bank deposits and therefore may not be as closely associated with efficient financial intermediation as longer-tern 22 investments in financial intermediaries. Thus, QLLY focuses on measuring longer-term liabilities - quasi-liquid liabilities: M3-Ml. Since liquid and quasi-liquid liabilities that finance government deficits may not reflect the provision of efficient financial intermediary services (such as acquinrng information about firms, monitoring managers, and facilitating transactions and risk diversification), we also compute the variable PRIV/GDP. PRIV/GDP equals the ratio of domestic credit to private firms divided by GDP.9 Table 11 indicates that Hong Kong, Japan, and Switzerland have well-developed financial system as measured by M3/GDP, QLLY, and PRIV/GDP. In contrast. Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Nigeria had very underdeveloped financial systems as revealed by these three indicators over the 1986-1993 period. A.2. Bank development: To measure the level of development of the banking system we use BY/GDP, which equals the ratio of the total claims of deposit money banks to GDP. The three countries with the largest BY/GDP variables are Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Japan. At the other extreme, Colombia, Nigeria, and Argentina had the lowest ratio of bank credit to GDP 9 Unfortunately, while the Intemational Financial Statistics classifies credit as "claims on the private sector," some of these claims in some countries include credit to public enterprises. 23 over the 1986-1993 period. Also, we compute a measure of banking "efficiency." SPREAD equals the difference between bank lending and borrowing rates.'" A3. Nonbank development: We also measure the size of nonbank financial corporations, such as finance companies, mutual funds, brokerage houses, etc. PNB/GDP equals private nonbank financial intermediary assets divided by GDP. The four countries with the largest ratio of nonbank financial intermediary assets to GDP were Sweden, Singapore, Korea, and the United States. Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, and the Netherlands had very low values of PNB/GDP over the 1986-1993 period." AŁ4. Insurance and Pension Companies: Finally, we measure the size of private insurance and pension companies. INPE/GDP equals private insurance company and pension fund assets divided by GDP. The three countries with the largest ratio of private insurance company and pension fund assets to GDP were the Netherlands, Great Britain, and the United States. the Philippines, Thailand, and Pakistan had very low INPE/GDP ratios. ' This measure may not accurately capture banking efficiency because the interest rate data may not accurately reflect borrowing and lending costs. SPREAD also will not provide accurate information on how well banks monitor firm managers, nor will SPREAD capture government intervention in the banking system in an very informative way. But, SPREAD is widely used and availabe across countries. We include it for completeness. For better measures of financial repression for a few select countries see Giovannini and De Melo (1993). lWe collected data on private nonbank financial corporations, insurance companies, and pension funds from individual country reports, including documents published by Ministries of Finance, Central Banks, and regulatory agencies. 24 B. Correlations Among Financial Intermediary Indicators Table 12 presents the correlations among the financial intermediary indicators discussed above. The measures of financial system size, M3/GDP, QLLY, and PRIV/GDP are very highly correlated. The correlation coefficients are 0.79 or higher and significant at the 0.01 level. The correlations between the financial system size indicators and indicators of the size of banks, private nonbanks, and private insurance and pension companies are not as strong. While all of the correlations are positive, many are not significant. Furthermore, of those that are significant, the correlation coefficient is frequently below 0.50. While positively related. the different financial intermediary indicators give different country rankings of financial intermediary development. These differences reflect different financial structures across countries, where we define "financial structure" as the combination of financial intermediaries and financial markets that compose a country's financial system.t2 For example, while countries with big financial systems have big banks and nonbank financial corporations, the correlation between financial system size and private insurance and pension companies is not strong. 12 Differences in financial structure may reflect legal differences. For exarnple, countries with universal banking as distinct from the more segreated legal and regulatory impediments of the United States may develop different combinations of financial intermediaries. The overall size of the financial system across countries with different financial structures, however, may be similar and the provision of financial services to investors and firms may also be similar. 25 C. Financial Intermediary Development Indicators Since we want to compare an overall measure of financial intermediary development with our stock market development indicators, we now construct conglomerate indexes of financial intermediary development. Using the same procedure for constructing conglomerate indexes discussed above, this section constructs three different financial intermediary INDEXES. We call these FINDEX- 1, FINDEX-2, and FINDEX-3. FINDEX- I averages the means-removed values of M3/GDP and PRIV/GDP. Thus, FINDEX-1 is a conglomerate index of the overall size of the financial system, particularly the financial system financing of the private sector. FINDEX-2 averages the means-removed values of M3/GDP, PRIV/GDP, PNB/GDP, and INPE/GDP. FINDEX-2 aggregates information on financial system size and both private nonbanks and private insurance companies and pension funds. FINDEX-3 combines the means- removed values of BY/GDP, PNB/GDP, and INPE/GDP. Thus, FINDEX-3 focuses on combining information on the size of the banking system, the size of private nonbank financial corporations, and private insurance companies and pension funds. Table 13 provides the country rankings and the values of these FINDEXES over the 1986-1993 period. The FINDEXES are highly correlated with correlation coefficients above 0.74 and P-values less than 0.01 (Table 14). The results in Table 11 on FINDEX-3 - which aggregates information on banks, private nonbanks, private insurance companies, and private pension funds - suggest that the top 5 financial intermediary countries are Switzerland, Sweden, Luxembourg, Australia, and 26 Singapore. The bottom 5 countries in terms of average financial intermediary development over the 1986-1993 period are Colombia, Pakistan, Philippines, Turkey, and Mexico." D. Stock Market Development and Financial Intermediary Development Armed with the financial intermediary indicators and financial intermediary conglomerate indexes we can now shed some empirical light on the question, Do countries with well-developed stock markets also have well-developed banks and nonbank financial intermediaries? The answer that emerges from Tables 15, 16, 17, and 18 is yes. Table 15 presents the correlations between individual stock market indicators and individual indicators of financial intermediary development. Table 16 provides rank correlations. Instead of describing the statistics in detail, we simply highlight three points. First, stock market size and liquidity (as measured by total value traded/GDP) are positively correlated with all of the financial intermediary indicators and significantly correlated with all of the financial intermediary indicators except INPE/GDP (the assets of private insurance and pension companies divided by GDP). Second, volatility is significantly negatively correlated with all the financial intermediary indicators except for PNB/GDP (private nonbank assets/GDP). Thus, countries with well-developed financial intermediaries, large banks, and large private insurance companies and pension funds tend to have less volatile stock markets. Third, countries with 13 We prefer FINDEX-3 to the other financial intermediary indexes because it combines information on particular financial intermediaries: banks, nonbanks, insurance companies, and pension funds. The other INDEXES mix informnation on particular intermediaries with information on intermediary liabilities and the measures of liabilities span across different types of intermediaries. 27 stock markets thai internationally integrated tend to have large financial systems and banks than less internationally integrated markets. Using the stock market conglomerate INDEXES and the financial intermediary conglomerate FINDEXES, the strong positive correlation between stock market development financial intermediary development emerges even more strongly. As shown in Table 17, stock market INDEXES are all significantly correlated with financial intermediary FINDEXES at the 0.01 level. Figure 4 illustrates this correlation using INDEX-I and FINDEX-3. Furthermore, measures of stock market inefficiency as represented APT, ICAPM, and CAPM, are positively correlated with banking inefficiency as measured by interest rate spread. Even with about 20 observations, CAPM and ICAPM are significantly negatively correlated with SPREAD. Stock market development (including measures of risk pricing efficiency) and financial intermediary development (including measures of banking efficiency) go hand-in-hand. VI. Conclusions Having collected and summarized information on a wide assortment of indicators of stock market size. liquidity, efficiency, volatility, concentration, and the development of the regulatory system, we review five findings. (1) In the 41 country that we study, there are enormous cross-country differences in the level of stock market development for each particular indicator. For example, the ratio of market capitalization to GDP is greater than 1 in five countries and less than 0.10 in five countries. (2) There are intuitively appealing correlations among the individual stock market 28 development indicators. For example, big markets tend to be less volatile, more liquid, and less concentrated in a few stocks. Internationally integrated markets tend to be less volatile, and institutionally developed markets tend to be large and liquid. (3) Aggregating together the individual stock market development indicators. we find that the three most developed markets are Japan, the United States, and Great Britain. The most underdeveloped markets are Colombia, Venezuela, Nigeria, and Zimbabwe. The data also suggest that Korea, Switzerland, and Malaysia have highly-developed stock mark-ets, while Turkey, Greece, Argentina, and Pakistan have underdeveloped markets. Furthermore, while richer countries generally have more developed stock markets than poorer countries, many markets labeled "emerging" - such as Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea, Malaysia, and Thailand - are systematically more developed than markets labeled "developed" - such as France, the Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Sweden, and Norway. (4) Over the 1986-1993 period, some markets exhibit very rapid development in terms of size, liquidity, and intemational integration. Specifically, Indonesia, Turkey, Portugal, and Venezuela have experienced explosive development. Future case studies into the underlying causes of this rapid development and the economic consequences of rapid stock market development could yield valuable insights. 29 (5) We find that across countries, the level of stock market development is highly correlated with the development of the banks, nonbanks, and insurance companies, and private pension funds. In this paper, the goal has not been to test specific hypotheses rigorously. Rather, our objectives have been to compare different stock market development indicators, highlight some important correlations, and most importantly stimulate future research into the links between stock market development and economic development. 30 REFERENCES Atje, Raymond, and Boyan Jovanovic, 1993, "Stock Markets and Development," European Economic Review, April, 37(2/3), p. 632-640. Bencivenga. Valerie R.; Smith, Bruce D.; and Starr, Ross M., 1994, "Transactions Costs, Technological Choice, and Endogenous Growth," Center for Analytic Economics Working Paper, May. Black, F., 1974, International capital market equilibrium with investment barriers, Journal of Financial Economics, Dec., 337-352 Bonser-Neal. C., G. Brauer, R. Neal, and S. Wheatley, 1990, Intemational investment restrictions and closed-end country fund prices, Journal of Finance 45, 523-547. Claessens, Stijn, Susmita Dasgupta, and Jack Glen, 1994, The cross-section of stock returns: Evidence from the emerging markets, Working paper, The World Bank. Cho, D.C., C.S. Eun and L.W. Senbet, 1986, International arbitrage pricing theory: An empirical investigation, Journal of Finance 41, no. 2, June, 313-329. Errunza, V. and E. Losq, 1989, Capital flow controls, intemational asset pricing and investors' welfare: A multi-country framework, Joumal of Finance 44, no. 1, 1025-1038. Errunza, V.. and E. Losq, 1985a, Intemational asset pricing under mild segmentation: Theory and test, Journal of Finance 40, no. 1, March, 105-124. Errunza, V., and E. Losq, 1985b, The behavior of stock prices on LDC markets, Journal of Banking and Finance 9, 561-575. Errunza, Vihang, Etienne Losq, and Prasad Padmanabhan, 1985, Tests of integration, rnild segmentation and segmentation hypotheses, Journal of Banking and Finance 16, 949-972. Errunza, V.. and L. Senbet, 1981, The effects of international operations on the market value of the firm: Theory and evidence, Journal of Finance 36, May, 401-417 Greenwood, J. and B. Smith, 1994, "Financial Markets in Development and the Development of Financial Markets," forthcoming Journal Economic Dynamics and Control. 31 Gultekin, Mustafa N., N. Bulent Gultekin, and Alessandro Penati, 1989, Capital controls and international capital market segmentation: The evidence from the Japanese and American stock markets, Journal of Finance 44 849-869. Jorion, P. and E. Schwartz, 1986, Integration vs. segmentation in the Canadian Stock Market, Journal of Finance 41, no. 3, 603-612 Korajczyk, Robert A., 1994, "Measuring Integration of Developed and Emerging Stock Markets," Northwestern University, mimeo. Korajczyk, Robert A., and Claude J. Viallet, 1989, An empirical investigation of international asset pricing, Review of Financial Studies 2, 553-585. Levine, Ross, 1989, An international arbitrage pricing model with PPP deviations, Economic Inquiry 27, 587-599. Levine, Ross, 1991, "Stock Markets, Growth, and Tax Policy," Journal of Finance, September 46(4), p. 1445-65. Levine, Ross, and Sara Zervos, 1995, "Stock Markets and Banks: Revving the Engines of Growth," World Bank, mimeo. Levine, Ross, and Sara Zervos, 1995, "International Capital Flow Liberalization and Stock Market Development: A Cross-Country Event Study," World Bank, mimeo. Obstfeld, Maurice, 1994,"Risk-Taking, Global Diversification, and Growth," American Economic Review, December, 84(5), p. 1310-1329. Ross, S., 1976, The arbitrage theory of capital asset pricing, Journal of Economic Theory 13, Dec., 341-360. Schwert, G. William, 1989, Why does stock market volatility change over time?, Journal of Finance, 44(5), p.1 l 15-1153. Senbet, L., 1979, International capital market equilibrium and multinational firm financing and investment policies, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 14, no.3, Sept., 455- 480. Solnik, B.H., 1974, The international pricing of risk: An empirical investigation of the world capital market structure, Journal of Finance, 29, 365-378. Stehle, R., 1977, An empirical test of the alternative hypothesis of national and international pricing of risky assets, Journal of finance, 32, 493-502. 32 Stulz, R., 1981a, A model of international asset pricing, Journal of Financial Economics 9, 383403 Stulz, R., 198 lb, On the effects of barriers to intemational investment. Journal of Finance 36, no. 4, Sept., 923-934. Wheatley, S., 1988, Some tests of intemational equity market integration, Journal of Financial Economics 21, 177-213. 33 Table 1: Stock Market Development Indicators, Size and Tumover, 1986-1993 .. I ~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~ I I. _________ ___________I__ Market ITotal Value I i Number of i _ Tumover I Capitalization Traded/GDP Listed Companies I j _ _ _ _ i_ _ _ _ I I _ _ I _ _ _ South Africa 1.54 Japan 0.62'United States 7087 Gemiany 1.47 Hong Kong 1 1.36 Hong Kong 0.59 India 4614IKores 0.93 Malaysia i 1.28 Malaysia 0.46IJapan 2027iIsrael I 0.72 Japan 1.08 United States L 0.41 1Great Britain 1932lThailand I 0.70 Singapore 1.041Great Britain L 0.41 jAustraliaa 1184IAusbia j 0.69 Great Britain 0.92 jKorea 0.37'Canada | 1118 United States 1 0.65 Switzerland 0.77 Singapore j 0. ISouth Afnca | 700IMexico 1 0.56 United States I 0.64lGermany 1 0.35i France 641 Japan 0.54 Jordan 0.57RSwitzerland 0.31 iBrazil 5791lndia I 0.50 Austalia ! 0.54jThailand 0.221Korea 1 576 jNorway 1 0.48 Chile 1 0.52 Netherlands I 021 IGermany I 551 Barazil 1 0.48 Netherlands ! 0.49 Australia 0.17IPakistan 1.487 Hong Kong 0.44 Canada 0.48 Canada I 0.15 1Spain 3831 Gret Britain 0.4 Sweden i 0.46jJordan I 0.131Hong Kong 318|Nethenands 0.41 Korea 0.40 Israel | 1 !Israel 312ISwilzer1and I 0.39 New Zealand 0.391 Sweden j 0.10 Malaysia 291 France 0.35 hailand t 0.361Norway 0.O91Denmark 267ISpain | 0.35 Belgium I 0.36 France 0-0O9l Nethertands I239 1Singapore 1 0.34 DOernmarkn 0.28 Medco 0.09 I O taly ± 227 Argentina j 0.34 France 0O27ISpain 0081New Zealand 226ICanda | 0.31 Spain 025ISouth Afnca | 0.08IChile | 225lAutradlia 0.31 Gerffnany0 , 0.24lAustria j 0.07!Thailand 2lTurkey 1 028 Philippines 0.24|Denmark j 0.07:Luxemtnoury | 205lDenmark 0.24 Mewdco 0.22'New Zealand i 0.06iTaiwan j 19711y 0.24 Israel 0.21 IIndia 0.06iMexzco |193Sweden 0.24 Finland 0.19|Brazil I O-iArgentina I 187IMalaysma 0.24 Norway 0.19IFinland 0.O4lBelgium | 182l1ndoneaia OZ3 Zimbabwe 0.18IBelgium 0.04lSwitzertand i 176Philippines I 0.23 Itaty 0.1611taly 0.04; Portugal I 162IJordan 0.22 Portugal 0.16IChile 0.04-Philippines i 1521Finland 0.21 India 0.16Phiiippines 0 0.04 Singapore 1471Portugal j 0.20 Greece 0.12lPorxugal 0.03 Sweden 133INew Zealand 1 0.17 Pakistan 0.11 ITurkey 0.03-Nigena 127IVenezuela | 0.15 Brazil 0.1 1 Argentna j 0-02'Greece 126IGreece j 0.13 Austria 0.10lVenezuela I 0.02:Norway 1 1261Belgium i 0.12 Venezuela 0.1011ndonesia 0.02 Jordan 1031Pakistan | 0.08 Turkey 0.081Greece I 0.02 Turkey 91 Chile 0.08 Colombia 0.07lPakistan 0.01:Indonesia 91 Colombia 0.07 Indonesia 0.06iZimbabwe I '-01 Austria 901ISouth Africa 0.05 Argentina 0.061Colombia 0.01 Colombia j87Zimbabwe 0.03 Nigeria 0.04_Nigera 0.00!Venezuela 82tNigera 0.01_ II Finland F 621 I ~~~~Zimbabwe I571 ____ i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I i_ _I Market capitanon is the value of stocks divided by GDP. Total vaiue traded/GDP is total value of traded shars j divided by GDP. Number of shares listed are the number of shares listed on the exchange. Tumover is given by | tctal value traded divided by market capritazation. All values are 1986-1993 averages. I i 34 Table 2: Stock Market Development Indicators, 1986-1993 1 Volatility, Concentration, Insttutions, lnternational Integration _ _ _ _ _ _ I I I i_ I, I___ Volatility | Market lnstitutional IAPT ; ICAPM ; Concentration lindicator j Mis-Pricing IMis-Pricing _ Pakistan 0.03 United States 0.14jMalaysia I 1.63|Japan I 2.39IJordan 205 United States 0.03:Japan - 0.19 jMexico 1.61]Jordan 2.551Pakistan 215 Netherlands 0.03;India 0.221 Korea 1.551Pakistan j 2.59IUnited States 224 Portugal 0.03;Great Britain 0.24lBrazii 1.54jUnited Stat 2.71 iJapan 226 Canada 0.04iPakistan 0.251Chile I 1.52iGreat Brtai I 2.941Malaysia 2.45 Belgium 0.04;France 1 0.261Portugal j 1.37IThailand 3.12lGreat Britain 2.56 Jordan 0.041Brazil 1 0.261Thailand I 1.3611ndia 1 3.331India 2.89 Switzerland 0.04,Canada I 0.2711ndia 1.34INigena 1 3.66 Indonesia-+ 3.03 Great Britain 0.04iKorea i 0.28 Philippines j 1.321Indonesia 3.68 Korea 3.18 Germany 0.04 Mexico I 361Argentina 1.16 1Kora 3.73)Thailand j 3.18 Australia 0.04IThailand I 0.36|Colormbia 1.16lMalaysia I 3.90INigeria | 372 Japan 0.041Malaysia I 0.36iJordan ! 1.16lPorwugal 1 4.02jAustralia 4.14 Finland j 0.05iTaiwan 0.40jPaidstan I 1.09lAustralia I 4.941Chile 4.25 Austria 0.05iPortugal 0.41 Turkey 1.06 jArgentina 4.98 jTaiwan 4.54 France j 0.05iGernany 0.41 IVenezuela I 1.00jPhiiippines i 5.261Colombia 4.82 New Zealand T 0.05 Zimbabwe I 0.44ITaiwan 0.98|Greece I 5.29IPhilippines | 4.90 Malaysia I 0.05;Greece 0.4711ndonesia 0.96 jChile I 5.56!Venezueia I 5.15 Israel 0.06;Turkey 0.50 Greece 0.77Zimbabwe 5.57lZimbabwe 5.18 Spain I 0.06IChile 0.50jimbabwe 0.66IColombia 5.621Greece 5.23 Italy I 0.06.Switeriand 1 0.50] Nigeria 0.64jTaiwan 5.681Portugal 5.28 Ireland 0 0.06 Nigena I 0.51 iMexoco I 5.94IMeco r 5 Sweden 0.06 Philippines | 0.521 |Turkey I 6.38ITurkey i 6.66 Colombia I 0.06 Jordan I 0.59I IVenezuela j 6.67 IBrazil 1 6.92 India T 0.06 Venezuela I 0.63! Brazil 7.26 Argentina 11.58 Chile 1 0.06;Argentina 0.641 1 Thailand I 0.07 Colombia 1 0.741 I _ i_i Norway 1 0.07 I _ I I Zmbabwe I 0.07 i _ - ! i i Philippines 0.08 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Korea 0.08 1 1 _ __i_I Greece 0.10 i 1 __ __i Mexico j0.10i Iii Venezuela 0.13 i i I_i Taiwan I0.15 I i I _ Turkey 0.17 1_! I I _ I Brazil 0.25 I r _ _ Argentina i 0.34 ! . I i I Volatility is twelve-month rolling standard deviabon estimate based on market retums. ____I Instittional indicator is an average of institutional indicators given in Table 3. Market concentration is the share of market capitaliation held by ten largest stocks. I i __I APT and ICAPM mispricing indicators are obtained from Korajeyk (1994). 1 1 1 All values are 1986-1993 averages. I i _ _ __._ _ Table 3: lInstitutIonal lindicators - 1988-1993 Averages ________________ _____ _____ - ~~~~ ~~~ ~~2 3 -- 4 -~ 5 6____7 _ niagular Accountiing Ohiallty of_____ Sectirillo. -__________i of] ___Averaga___ puiblicallon standards investor exchango iidn Capital Entry Institutional of ple yield _____ protection commission rpapt. repat. ___Indicator_____ Malaysia _ __ 1.00 2,00 ___2.00 0.38 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.63 Mexico ___ 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.61 Korea 1.00 _ 2.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.63 ___ 1.25 1.56 11,11111 0.71, 2.00~~~~~~~~~~6 2.01.02 .00 1.50 I 1.0 I.tei' Chlile 0.88 ______2.00 2.00 _ _ 1-.00 ___ 1.75 1.00 2.00 _____1.52 Po-rtugal______ -0.7 1 _1.114 1.00 ____ 1.00 1.71 2.00 2.00 ____1.37 Thiailand _____1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.76 1.75 2.00 _ _ 1.36 India__________ ~~~~0.50 ___2.00 __ 2.00 ___~ 1.00 _ 1.38 1.60 __ 1.00 _ __ 1.34 ___ Philippines ___ 0.88 1.75 1.00 1.00 1,75 _1.75 1.13 1.32 Jordan ___0.00 0.25 1.01_10 .01.88 2.00 _ __ 1.16 Colombia ___ ~~~~~0.25 f __ _ _ 1,00 __ _ __ _ _1.00 _ _ 1 .00 - 1 -.38 -2.00 1-.50 ____ __ .16_ Argentina 0.25 1.00 ____ 1.00 ___ 1.00 1.25 1.63 2.00 _____1.16 Pakistan 0.13 - 1.00 _ ____ 1.00 1.00 1__V5 V0 1.60 I __0 1.09 iTurk-oy 0,5. 67 -- 0."7 5 02 1 .00- 1.75- _1.756 1, 3 8- 1.0-6- Indoniesia . 100 - 0.16 0.83 -.1001.29 1,29 1.71 - 104 V_Ole'zunla __ ---0.25 __ 1.00 --1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.75 1.00 Taiwani 0___76 ___ 0.25 0.13 ____ 1.00 1.63 2.00 1.13 0.98 ___ Greece ~~~~~~~~0.6-7 _0_.4 3 _ __ 0. 1-4 ____ 0.1 4 1.13 1.00 1.88 0.77 __ Zimbab_weO _0. 1-3- 1_.00_ - 1.00 -1.00 ~ 0.1i3 0_._256 _ 1._13 0.-6-6 Nigeria ____ ~~~~~~0.00 1.00 ____ 1.00 ___1.00 0.75 0.75 0.00 0.64 riluiiu I I iiclitii,,ii 2~-0_ ar9 0 110 1003 atiruluu. InI 4uuit yuuir clIfIIIIIH calli tku thiu rilluwilnu vallueu: Columntt (2) 0_= publlsfied, 1 co,nprhelnislva anid pubtisliod isItrnatllialiy JI___ Columnns (3) and M4, 0 =poor, 1 = adequate, 2-=good, -of in-tern-a-tion-all-y acceptable qualityty__ ___ Column (5) 1 = functioning securities exchange comnmission or similar government agency, 0 =no_agency Column 1) =rsrce,I=some restrictions, 2 _free_______ ___ ...-___ _ _I_ _II1i T Iaaveraaa0fC_--fj1nii~_(2 6 A s--I-- -0 ,Ii j-, a- -b I o_ _ The table is based on thea Information provided in the IFC's Factbook. - -.----_ __-___________ Table 4: Correlations of Stock Market Indicators, 1986-1 993 ____ ________Market Total Value Turnover APT ICAPM Volatility Market Instltutional ____Capltalization -Traded/GDP _______Mis-Pricing Mis-Pricing _______Concentration Development Market _____ 1 0.74 0.01 -0.47 .0.52 -0.37 -0.38 0.51 Capitalization __0 0 0.196 0.02 - 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.02 __ ~~~ ~~~~41 _ 41 '41 _ _ 2323 35 _ 25 19 Total Value _______I 0.5 -0.54 -.9-0.29 -.20.57 Traded __ _ _ _0 -_ _ _ _0 0.01 0.02 __0.09 -_ _ 0.01 _ _0.01 __ _____- ___-- -- -- ~~41 4-1 ____ _ 2-3 -23 _ _35 25 _ __19_ Turnover- 1 - ~ -0.26 -0.13 -0.04 -0.4 0.61 _________ ____ __________ ~~~~~0 0.22 0.54 0.83 0.05 0.01 ___________ ____________ _________ ~41 23 23 35 25 19 APT __ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ 1 0.88 0.58 0.47 0 MIS-Ptleln_ ___ - 0 0 _ _ __ 0 0.03 __ _0.99 -- . - .-~~~~.-. .-...- . -.--.- -- ~~~~~~24 _ _ _ _ 24 22 22 20 IC-APM_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 1 0.88 0.5 -0.05 Mis-Pricing _______ ______ _____ _______ _____ 0 0 0.02 0.85 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _24 22 2 2 2 0 Volatility --1 0.32 -0.06 _________ __________ ______ _________ ~~~~~0 0.12 0.81 _______ ___________ ____ _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~~37 25 18 Market ______ ___ _ ____ _ ____1 -0.39 Co-ncenrArallon- 0 0.1 26 19 Institutional _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Development _ _ ____ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ _ __ __ _ _ 0 P-valu-esand number of obser-vations are given in ita-lics. Variable definitlons are given In Tables I anid 2. _______ Table 5: Rank Correlatilons at Stock Market_Development Indicators 1986-1993 _____ _______________ Market ____Total Value ___Turnover - APT ICAPM Volatillty Market Institutional Capitalization Traded/GDP ______Mis-Pricing Mis-Pricing ______ Concentration Development M-arket 10. Oi 0~. 2 _ _ -0.44 -0.54 -0.51 -0.43 0.62 Capiliali-zai11lon- 0 0~.~2 __ ,-aI_00-3 0.01 0 0.03 0 41 41 __ 47 23 ___ 23 35 25 19 Ttal t - Valu - -- 1 - 0.69 - --0.42 -0.43 -0.4 -0.56 0.83 Tra-de-d -__- - - .0 0.05 0.04 0.02 0 0 41 41 23 __ 23 35 25 19 Tu- rnover __ _ __ __ 02 __ -.3__0-0.56 0.62 0 ~~~~0.24 0.54 0.99 0 0 -~~~ ___ __________ - ~~~~~~~~~-41 -23 -. -23 ___ -_35 -- -25 - 19 - --------.-- ..--~~~-..----. 1- ~ 0.8 5 0.76 0.43 0 Mis-Pricing ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 0 00 0.0 5 0.99 24 24 22 22 20 - ICAPM ____ ___ ________ ___ __________ ______ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~1 0.76 0.43 -0.03 Mis-Pricing -0 0 0.05 0.89 ______ ~~~~~~~~~~~~24 22 22 20 Volatility _ _ _ _ ___ _ ___ _ _ _ __1 0.36 -0.1 8 0 0.08 0.48 37 25 18 M arket _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __1 -0.42 Concentration _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ 0 0.07 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 62 61 9 Instituitional --i Dovolopenont ___.- _ 0 P-values and number of o-bservations are given In italics. Variable definitions are as given in Tables 1 and 2. ________________ 38 Table 6: Stock Market Development Aggregate Indexes I I I I_ _ I_I INDEX1: jINDEX2: INDEX3: | INDEX4: MCAP, TVT, TOR IINDEX 1 + APT JINDEX 1 + ICAPM IINDEX 2 + Concentrabon Japan 2.02 Japan 1.63IJapan I 1.63IJapan 1.41 Hong Kong 2.01 United State 1.01 IUnited State| 1.03lUnited State 0.94 Germany 1.38iGreat Britai 1.01 IGreat Britai I 1.2OGreat Britai 0.89 Great Britai F 1.231Korea 0.84[Korea I 0.85IKorea 0.73 United Statel 1.21 Malaysia 0.721 Malaysia I 0.791 Malaysia 0.60 Korea | 1.05 Thailand 0.361Thailand I 0.36jThailand 0.31 Singapore I 1.04jAustralia I 0.12 Austaia I 0.15jIndia -0.01 Malaysia 0.901Jordan I 0.04lJordan 0.07jJordan -0.06 Switzerland I 0.751india F -0.131india -0.1 1Mexico -0.11 South Africaj 0.481Mexico -0.161Mexico I -0.171Brazil -0.23 Thailand I 0.38lBrazil -0.38 1 Chile -0.34l Pakistan -0.33 Netherlandsl 0.321Chile I -0.401 Brazil -0.37jPortugal -0.34 Australia I 0.191Portugal -0.421Philippines I -0.42IChile -0.37 Canada I 0.091Philippines -0.431 Indonesia r -0.481 Philippines -0.40 Israel I 0.08|Argerntna T -0.471 Portugal -0.49iArgentina 1 -0.50 Jordan -0.081Pakistan I -0.51 Pakistan -0.49gGreece -0.52 Sweden 1 -.10.1ndonesia 1 -0.521Greece j -0.60ITurkey 1 -0.54 Mexico I -0.141Greece I -0.61 IVenezuela 1 -0.61 IZimbabwe -0.56 Austria ] -0.151Turkey -0.61 ITurkey | -0.621Nigeria -0.59 Norway i -0.l8lNigena -0.67lZimbabwe -0.66 Venezuela -0.66 France -0.21 jZimbabwe j -0.67 Nigeria -0.67IColombia -0.73 Spain I -0.25lVenezuela I -0.68lColombia -0.681 _ India -0.26 Colombia -0.71 lArgentina F -0.871 j Brazil -0.291 NewZealani -0.331 i _ _ Denmark I -0.371 1 _ 1 F _ i i Chile -0.461 1 _ [ I Belgium -0.471 1 _ Italy -0.51 _ _ I _ _ Finland -0.53i _ _ I I I Philippines -0.541 ' I i Argentna -0.591 _ 1 F _ Portugal -0.611 1 1 i Turkey -0.611 . _ I j Indonesia -0.711 L | I i Greece -0.731 i i _ _I Venezuela -0.74 Zimbabwe -0.81! I Pakistan j -0.821 1 . I Colombia I -0. 881 _ [ I Nigeria ! -0.961 j 1 i I Aggregate indexes combine different indicators. INDEX 1 is the average of market caprtaliation. total value tradedJGDP and tumover. INDEX 2 adds APT mispncng to INDEX 1. INDEX 3 adds ICAPM mispricing to INDEX 1. INDEX 4 adds market concentrabon to INDEX 2. Exac caJicuaton of indexes are discussed in the text. Definrtions of indicators are as given in Tables 1 and 2. 1 I 39 Table 6 (cont): Stock Market Development Aggregate Indexes I _ I Aveaging over Stock Market Indicators 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i I I1 _ _I INDEX 2A: | INDEX 3A: I I _ INDEX 1 + APT | IINDEX 1 + ICAPM T___ j _ Hong Kong r 2.01 Hong Kong T 2.011 Japan 1.63 Japan I_1.631 Germany 1.38IGermany 1 1.381 j Singapore 1.04jSingapore 1.04, 1 __ Unrted States 1.01 fUnited States 1.031 j Great Brrtain 1.01 iGreat Britain 1.021 j _ Korea 0.84 Korea I 0.85o 1 . - Switzerland 0.75|Malaysia 0.791 Malaysia 0.721Swvtzerland 0.75 1 _ South Africa 0.481South Africa 0.481 j Thaiand 0.361Thailand I 0.361 j Netherlands 0.321 Netherlands 0.321 _ Australia 0.12|Australia 0.151 Canada 0.09lCanada 0.091 j Israel 0.081 Israel 0.081 1 Jordan 0.04lJordan 0.071 _ Sweden -0.l _Sweden I -0.101 1 India -0.131india I -0.111 Austria -0.15lAustria I -0.15! 1 Mexico -0.161Moxico -0.17_ 1 Norway -0.181Norway -0.181 ! France -0.21 France -0.21 _ Spain I -0.25 ISpain -0.251 _________ Now Zealand I -0.33 New Zealand i -0.331 Denmark i -0.37CilChe -0.341 Brazil | 4.381Brazil , 0 .37_ _ .GhDe -0.401 Denmark -0.371 Portugal 1 -0.421 Philippines -0.421 1 _ Philippines I -0.431BeIgium -0.471 T Belgium 1 -0.47 1 Indonesia -0.48 i Argentina i -0.47 j Portugal -0.491 j j Pakistan i -0.51 iPakistan -0.491 - italy -0.51 Iitaly -0.511 _ __ Indonesia -0.52IFinland -0.531 1 Finland I -0.53Greoce 1 -0.601 1 Greece I -0.61 IVenezueia -0.61 i _ Turkey I -0.61 Turkey -0.621 1 I_ Nigeria ! -0.67 Zimbabwe -0.661 r Zimbabwe I -0.671Nigeria -0.671 'I Venezuela -0.681Colombia I -0.681 1 i Colombia | -0.71 Argentina -0.871 i i _ _ _ _ _ _ I I . I _ _ INDEX 2A is caloalted a INDEX 2. however the everege does not incdude APTI miasncing when it is not avaiable. j Similatly INDE) 3A is calcukted as INDEX 3 except when ICAPM is not avaiable. Then, the index value equals that of INDEX 1. Detailed discuamon of the c lcuLiion of indexes are given in text. I I I Table 7: Correlations of Stock Market Indexes, 1986-1993 INDEX 1 INDEX2 INDEX3 INDEX4 INDEX2A INDEX3A IN6E-X 1 .00.000 0.00 0.99 ._.__ . .. ... . __ .__ .0 0 0 0 0 0 41 23 23 21 41 41 INDEX2 _1 0.99 1.00 1 0.99 __ .._ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _0 0 0 0 0 23 23 21 23 23 INDEX3 1 0.99 0.99 1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~~~~~~~~~~0 0 0 0 _. .-- . . . _ . . . _ _. __23 21 23 23 .,.. .......... . . . .. .._ ........ _..._ . _......___. _. _. .... INDEX4.11 0.99 Co ____ ~~~~~0 0 0 _ _ .... __ _ ____ _. _ _ ___. 21 21 21 INDEX2A 1 1 0 0 41 41 INDEX3A - _ 1 ____ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ________ 0_ ° _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ____ _ __________._. 41 P-values and number of observations are given In Italics. Variable definitlons are as given In Table 6. 41 Table 8: Growth of Stock Market Development Indicato, 1986-1 993 Growth Market Growth Number Growth Total I Growth I Growth Volatility Capitalization Listed Companies Value Traded I GDP Turnover j Indonesia 1.89 Indonesia 0.37 Indonesia j 17.74 Indonesia 1.82 Mexico -0.06 Turkey 1.02 Turkey 0.23 Portugal I 3.25 Luxembourg 1 1.66 Germany 1-0.05 Argentina 0.87 Portugal- 0.20 Turkey 2.87 Belgium 1.54 Malaysia j-0.05 Venezuela 0.66 Thailand 0.18 Venezuela 2.77 Netherlands 1.39 New Zealand -0.03 Philippines 0.61 Israel 0.15 Greece 1 2.50 Austria i 0.91 Australia I -0.02 Thailand 0.57 Luxembourg 0.12 Austria _ 1.48 Turkey 1 0.65 Ialy I -0.02 Israel 0.53 Taiwan 0.12 Malaysia 1 1.31 Israel 1 0.54 Jordan r-0.02 Portugal 0.51 Korea 0.09 Argentina 1.18 Venezuela i 0.48 Belgium -0.02 Greece 0.51 Hong Kong 0.09 Thailand I 0.76 Norway j 0.45 United Stes 5 -0.02 Mexico | 0.49 Malaysia | 0.09 Norway 0.67 Singapore ! 0.43 Taiwan , -0.02 Colombia 1 0.42 Pakistan 0.08 Mexico 0.62 Greece 0.43 Paistan I-0.01 Austria 0.37 Nigeria T 0.08 Jordan 1 0.58 Malaysia ; 0.40 Netherlands -0.01 Zimbabwe i0.35 Austria 1 0.06 Philippines 0.57 Denmark 0.38 ZImbabwe 0.00 Malaysia 0.34 Swizeriand 0.06 Denmark 1 0.55 Portugal i 0.35 Grat Britain I 0.00 India 0.32 Singapore 0.06 Colombia 0.54 Germany 0.30 Thailand I 0.01 Brazil 0.30 France 0.05 Israel j 0.50 Switerland 1 0.29 Chile T0.01 Korea 0.28 Greece | 0.05 Zimbabwe 1 0.45 Hong Kong t 0.25 Phiippines 0.01 Pakistan 0.27 Philippines j0.05 Korea j 0.43 Finland 0.24 Korea I 0.01 Chile 0.27 Italy | 0.05 Pakistan 0.40 Jordan i 0.24 Switzerland I 0.02 Jordan [0.12 South Africa 10.04 Singapore j 0.34 Taiwan 0.17 Spain j 0.03 Nigeria I 0.10 Netherlands 0.04 Brazil 0.34 Argentina 0.17 Ireland 1 0.03 Switzerland j 0.07 Mexico 0.04 Hong Kong i 0.31 ltaly 0.16 Canada I 0.03 France F 0.07 Finland 0.03 Chile I 0.27 Great Britain I 0.10 Norway 10.03 Denmark F 0.06 Spain 0.03 Gerrnany 0.26 New Zealand 0.10 Buzil 1 0.04 Norway I 0.06 Chile [_0.03 Nigeria 0.23 Spain 0.10 Israel 0.04 Hong Kong 1 0.06 Gerrmany 0.02 New Zealand ! 0.20 Sweden 0.09 Austria 1 0.04 United Staes | 0.04 Japan I 0.02 Great Britain 0.20 South Africa 0.08 Finland 0.05 South Africa 0.04 Zimbabwe I 0.02 Finland 0.19 Zimbabwe 0.06 Japan 1 0.06 Singapore 0.04 India j 0.02 India 0.16 Australia 0.06 Greece 1 0.08 Great Britain 1 0.03 Canada I 0.01 South Africa 0.13 France 0.06 Sweden I 0.08 Australia 1 0.02 Venezuela t 0.01 Netherlands 1 0.13 Thailand 0.05 Argentina 0.09 Netherlands I 0.01 Australia 0.00 France 0.09 Canada 0.05 India I 0.09 Belgium 0.00 Jordan I 0.00 Spain 0.09 United States 0.02 France I 0.10 Spain 0.00 Denmark I -0.01 Austraiia 0.08 Mexico I 0.01 Turkey i 0.13 Canada 0.00 Colombia l-.o001 Switerland i 0.05 Nigena ! -0.01 Colombia I 0.15 Finiand I -0.02 United States -0.01 United States i 0.04 Korea i -0.01 Venezuela 1 0.27 Japan 1 -0.03 Brazil 1 -0.01 Belgium 0.01 Colombia i -0.03 Portugal I 0.85 Germany I -0.03 Belgium I -0.02 Canada f 0.01 Philippines I -0.06 Sweden I-0.05 Norway [-0.03 Sweden -0.02 Japan -0.07 New Zealand I-0.05 Great Britain -0.03 Japan -0.12 India ! -0.08 Italy I-0.10 Argentina I-0.03 Italy -0.14 Pakistan I -0.09 Sweden I-0.05 Brazil -0.11 New Zealand -0.11 Chile I _____ i 42 Table 8 (cont): Growth of Stock Market Development Indicators, 1986-1993 1 l~~~~ ~~ ~ [_l I.I Growth ICAPM Growth APT Growth CAPM' IGrowth j Growth Instftutional j_________ __________ _ IConcentration jDevelopment Indonesia -0.26 Mexico l-0.15 Indonesia -0.15 Thailand -0.12 Turkey 0.29 Portugal -0.26 Portugal -0.14 Japan l-0.11 Japan 1-0.09 Greece 0.22 Japan -0.07 Japan -0.10 Portugal l-0.10 Malaysia j-0.08 Venezuela 0.17 Mexico -0.07 India -0.06 Mexico 1-0.03 Zimbabwe 1-0.07 Nigeria 0.11 Malaysia -0.02 Brazil !-0.03 Chile -0.01 Jordan -0.05 Zimbabwe 0.11 Philippines | 0.00 United States ! -0.02 Malaysia 1 0.01 Taiwan -0.03 Argentina j 0.09 Great Britain 0.00 Great Britain -0.02 Colombia j0.02 Portugal -0.03 Pakistan I 0.09 India 0.00 Australia 4 -0.01 Brazil 0.02 Germnany |-0.02 Taiwan 0.09 Korea 0.01 Nigeria -0.01 Philippines 0.02 Nigeria 0.00 Philippines 0.06 Austalia Zimbabwe -0.01 India 0.02 Greece 0.00 Colombia 0.05 United States I 0.01 Chile 0.00 Taiwan 1 0.02 Venezuela 0.00 Thailand j 0.04 Zimbabwe |_0.04 Korea 1 0.03 United States 1 0.02 India [0.00 Jordan 0.04 Brazil 0.05 Philippines I 0.04 Pakistan 0.03 Turkey 0.01 Mexicq _0_04 Chile 0.06 Malaysia 1 0.04 Korea I 0.03 Great Britain 1 0.02 Brazil I 0.04 Nigeria 0.06 Venezuela i 0.04 Australia |0.03 Chile 0.02 Korea 1 0.03 Thailand 0.09 Taiwan : 0.05 Zimbabwe I 0.04 United States j 0.02 Chile 1 0.03 Taiwan 0.12 Colombia i 0.09 Great Britain 10.04 Switzerland 1 0.02 India 0.02 Greece | 0.13 Argentina 0.14 Venezuela 1 0.09 Colombia I 0-05 Portugal 1 0.02 Turkey 1 0.14 Indonesia 0.14 Nigeria 0.10 France I 0.06 Malaysia 0.01 Jordan 0.16 Turkey 0.14 Greece 0.11 Philippines ! 0.07 Indonesia -0.06 Venezuela 0.24 Pakistan 0.16 Thailand | 0.12 Brazil 1 0.07 l Pakistan 0.25 Thailand 0.17 Jordan I 0.14 Argentina 1 0.08 Colombia 1 0.27 Greece 0.19 Turkey 0.16 Pakistan 0.08 Argentina 1 0.43 Jordan 0.26 Argentina 1 0.32 Korea 0.09 Canada j 0.09 _ i__________ _ _ _ _ ________________ ____________ _ _ _ _ M exico I 0.23 1 Growth rates are the average annual arowth rates. Indicamor definitions are as given in Tables 1 and 2. i 43 Table 9: Growth rate of Stock Market Indexes, 1986-1993 1 I I _ _ I-1 Growth of INDEX I Growth of INDEX 2 Growth of INDEX 3 Growth of INDEX 4 I , II indonesia 1 7.15 Indonesia | 5.33llndonesia 5.43jTurkey I 1.13 Turkey 1.51 Turkey 1.10jTurkey 1.10 Portugal 1.04 Portugal I 1.37 Portugal j 1.061 Portugal 1.09 Venezuela 0.98 Venezuela 1.30 Venezuela 0.97'Venezuela 0.92 Greece i 0.86 Greece I 1.15 Greece 0.81 IGreece 0.83 Argentina I 0.54 Austria 0.92 Argentna 0.52!Malavsia 0.52 Malaysia 0.53 Argentina 0.74 Malaysia T 0.501Argentina 0.45 Thailand 0.37 Malaysia i 0.68 Mexico 0.327Thailand 0.32 Philippines 0.26 Israel 0.52 Thailand- 0.301 Mexico j 0.30 Jordan | 0.25 Belgium 0.52|Philippines 0.271Philippines 0.28 Zimbabwe j 0.23 Netherlands 0.51 IZimbabwe | 0.22lZlmbabwe T 0.21 Mexico 0.22 Thailand 0.46|Colombia | 0.21 iJordan 0.19 Colombea 0.22 Norway 0.39 Jordan I 0.171Korea o.17Korea | 0.15 Mexico 0.37 [Korea [ 0.171Colombia 0.17 Germany 0.14 Philippines 0.37IBrazil 0.141Brazil 0.12 Pakistan 0.13 Denmark 0.3311ndia 0.12Jlndia 0.10 Brazil 0.12 Jordan 0.31 Pakistan 0.11 jChile 0.O9lChile 0.10 Colombia I 0.31 Chile i 0.11 IPakistan 0.08 IIndia 0.10 Zimbabwe 1 0.29 Great Britain 0.O91Great Britain | 0.081Switzertand 0.10 Singapore 0.27 Nigeria 0.08 Nigeria 0.06 Nigeria 0.08 Korea 0.23 Australia 0.041Australia I 0.04 Great Briain 0.08 Hong Kong 0.20 United States 0.03;United States! 0.02 France 0.04 Pakistan 0.20IJapan -0.03 iJapan j -0.041 United States 0.02 Birazil 0.181 jJapa Canada -0.01 Germany 0.17 _i I_Japan j -0.03 Chile 0.14 _ _ i Switzerland 0.14 _ | i Finland 0.14j j1-_j____ India 0.141 _ i ; Great Britain 0.111 i 1 I I Nigeria 0.11j South Africa 0.091 _ _ i _ New Zealand 0.09 1 ! I _ _ France 0.07 j __I __ Spain 0.061 j _ 1_iI Australia 0.051 I United States 0.031 _ I _ i Canada 0.021 1 I i Sweden 0.01 1 _ I _ i Italy -0.031 j 1 i_i_I Japan -0.071 i i _ _ _ _ _ _I_ _ _ _ _ _ i I _ __i 44 Table 9 (contInued): Growth rate of Stock Market Indexes, 1986-1993 I ~ _ _ _ I l _ _ I __ _ ! Growth of INDEX ZA IGrowth of INDEX 3A I I Indonesia I 5.33 Indonesia 5.431 Turkey 1.10 Turkey 1 1.10_ Portugal 1.06 Portugal J 1.091 Venezuela 0.97 Austria 0.921 Austria 0.92 Venezuela 1 0.921_ Grce1 0.81 Greece 1 0.831 1 Argentina 0.52|Belgium 0.521 1 Belgium 10.521srael 0.521 _ Israel 1 0.52 Malaysia 0.521 Netheriands 0.51 0Netherlands 0.511 Mabaysia i 0.50!Argentina 1 0.451 Norway 0.39 Norway 0.391 Denmark 0.331Denmark I 0.33 Mexico - 0.32 Thailand 1 0.321 - _ Thaiiand 0.30IMexico 1 0.301 1 Philippines 0.271Philippines 0.28| 1 Singapore 0.27ISingapore 0.271 1 Zimbabwe 0.22!Zimbabwe 0.211 1 Colombia I 0.21 IHonk Kong 0.201 Honk Kong ! 0.20 Jordan j 0.19! Gemnany 0.17LColombia ] 0.171 _ ! Jordan I 0.17lGerrnany ! 0.171 _ Korea I 0.17! Korea 1 0.171 j Brazil 0. 141 Switeriand 0.14!1___ Switzertand 0.14IFinland I0.141 ___ Finland 0.14 Brazil 0.121 i India 0.12India 1 0.101 ! Chile | 0.11 !Chile 0.091 I Pakistan i 0.111NewZealand 0.09! Great Britain ! 0.09 South Africa ! 0.09! New Zealand 0.09 1Great Britain 0.081 South Africa 0.09 IPakistan 0.081 Nigeria 1 0.081France 0.071 1 France i 0.071Spain 0.061 1 Spain 0.06 1 Nigeria 1 0.06 ! i Austalia | 0.04 Australia I 0.041 United States 0. 03 Canada 0.021 Canada 0.02 United States 0.021 Sweden 0.01 lSweden 0.011 Italy | -0.03 1 Italy -0.03! Japan -0.03 Japan I -0.041 1 Growth rate of indexes are obtained by averaging the growth rates of different stock market indicators deoending on the index. Indexes are as defined in Table 6. 45 Table 10: Correlations of Initial Stock Market Development and Growth of the Stock Market, 1986-1993 INITIAL DEVELOPMEN IMarket Total Value Tumover IVoiatility jMis-Pricing JMis-Pricing Mis-Pricing ICapitalization Traded I |ICAPM IAPT IDCAPM __ ._ __ Growth -0.47j -0.41 -0-251 0.59 0.59 0.41 -0.03 Market 0.00 0.01o 0.121 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.90 Capitalization 411 40 40 i 32 201 20] 20 I I 7-_ T I I Growth -0.251 -0.231 -0281 0.22 0.091 0.171 -0.27 Value 0.121 0.161 0.081 0.231 0.721 0.471 0.26 Traded 411 40] 401 321 201 201 20 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T _ _ _ Growth -0.091 -0.171 -0.331 -0.171 -0.06j -0.021 -0.38 Tumover O.59g 0.301 0.031 0.341 0.81 0.941 0.09 411 401 421 321 21 211 21 . ~ ~_ _ I 1- _ _ I _ _ _ 1 _ 1 1_ _ Growth -0.281 -0.18 -0-25 j 0.081 0.151 0.221 -0.07 Volatility 0.111 0.311 0. 14! 0.65j 0.521 0.341 0.78 351 341 35! 331 201 201 20 _ __ __ _ _ I _ __ _ I1 _ I _ _I _ Growth -0.221 -0.241 -0.131 0.38j 0.471 -0.01! -0.26 ICAPM 0.321 0.271 0.55 i 0.121 0.031 0.981 0.25 Mis-Pricing 231 231 241 181 211 211 21 Growth -0.241 -0.391 -0.37! 0.051 -0.021 -0.471 -0.57 APT 0.281 0.071 0.07; 0.861 0.951 0.03! 0.01 Mls-Pricing 231 231 24 181 211 21 21 _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ ___ I ,__ _ _ Growth -0.231 -0.311 -0.18i 0.571 0.59! -0.201 -0.38 DCAPM 0.291 0.141 0.411 0.01o 0.00! 0.391 0.09 Mis-Pricing 231 23! 24 e18 211 211 21 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I_ I _ _ _ _ _ I I_ _ I __ _ Initial development is defined as the 1986 values of stock market indicators. The P-values and ! numbers of osservatons are given in italics. I I i_i 46 Table 11: Financial Intermediary Indicators 1986-1993 _ 1 | M31GDP IQLLY PRIVIGDP Hong Kong 3.91 Hong Kong i 3.53(Switzerland 3.14 Japan 3.57 Japan 3.001 Japan 2.27 Switzerland 2.83 Switzerland 2.261 Great Britain 1.97 Jordan 2.40|Singapore 1.80Ta,wan 1.80 Taiwan 2.38 Malaysia I 1.51 (Gernany 1.80 Luxembourg 2.368Taiwan 1.49|France 1.77 Singapore 2.261Austria 1 1.441Singapore 1.64 Malaysia 1.89(Jordan 1 1.41 IFinland 1.60 Austria 1.72|Greece I 1.21 Netherlands 1.53 Netherlands 1.61 1Israel i 1.19jUnited States 1.42 Great Britain 1.59jNetherlands 1.16(Austzia 1 1.36 Greece 1.54lThailand 1 1.121Malaysia 1.33 Italy 1.47| United States - 0.991 Spain 1.31 Poritgal | 1.47jCanada 1 0.971Norway 1 1.27 Spain 1.44jGermany I 0.94iJordan 1 1.24 France 1.361Portugal 0.931Australia | 1.07 Germany 1.34?Great Britain 0.92ilsrael 1.01 United States 1.33 jSpain 0.90 1Thailand 0 0.99 Thaiand 1.31 lAust-alia 0.89iKorea T 0.99 Israel 1 1.30(France 0.871Sweden 0.98 Canada 1.27(Finland 0.821Denmark 0.98 Norway _ 1.261Korea 0.78jChile 0.93 Denmark Ij 1.1911taly i 0.75 1New Zealand I 0.92 Ausaa 1 1.131South Africa 0.721Canada 0.86 Finland 1 .101Zimbabwe 0.701Portugal 0.84 South Africa I 1.061 Ireland 0.641South Afnca 0.74 Now 7ealand 1.03 Denmark 0.6211taly 0.71 Zimbabwe 0.96 Chile 0.61 (Indonesia I 0.66 Korea 0.96 1New Zealand 0.61 iBelgium 0.61 Swveden I0.961Norway 0.61 IPakistan i 0.55 Belgium 0.94 Ijndia 0.57IIreland 0.52 Ireland 0.88(Venezuela 0.55 lndia 0.51 India 0.87(Belgium 0.551Greece i 0.45 Venezuela I O.BOIPhilippines 0.48lVenezuela 0.40 Pakistan 0.791indonesia 0.441Turkey 0.36 Chile 1 0.72 Turkey 0.41 Philippines i 0.34 Indonesia 0.65jMexico 0.29 Mexico 0.29 Philippines 0.63(Colombia 0.281 Brazil 0.29 Turkey 0.61 IPakistan 0.25 iArgentina 0.26 Nigeria 1 0.48)Nigena 0.23 1Colombia 0.25 Colombia 0.471Argentina 0.15 Zimbabwe 1 0.24 Mexico 0.421Brazil 0.14,Nigena I 0.24 Brazil 0.261 Argentina 0.231 __ ! ~I __ _ _ M13GDP is the ratio of liquid liabilities to GDP. QLLY is the (M3-Ml) to GDP. ! IPRIV(GDP is the ratio of domestic credit to private sector to GDP. I 47 Table 11 (cont): Financial lntfrmediary Indicator 1986-1993 I _ I~BY/GDP SPREAD PNB/GDP tINPE/GDP Switzerland 3.26 Switzerland 0.87 Sweden 0.89 Netheriands 1.08 Luxembourg ! 2.59 Canada 1.38 Singapore 0.84 Great Britain 0.92 Japan 2.58 Great Britain 1.82 Korea 0.55 United States 0.67 Austria 2.39 Luxembourg 2.31 United States 0.53 Sweden T 0.56 Germany 2.16 Malaysia 2.68 Australia 0.45 Denmark 0.54 Taiwan 2.10 Korea 2.90 Canada 0.42 Canada 0.48 Israel j 2.07 United States 3.00 Venezuela 0.40 Japan I 0.43 France I 2.00 India 3.00 Malaysia 0.39 Australia 0.35 Netherlands 1.97 Singapore 3.02 Iltaly 0.33 Fmiland 0.33 Great Britain 1.97 South Africa 3.20 |France r 0.28 Germany | 0.33 Spain 1.89 Japan i 3.31 jSpain 0.24 IFrance 0.20 Singapore i 1.87 Finland | 3.55sFinland 0.211Korea i 0.14 Malaysia I 1.61 Thailand | 3.60 Thailand 0.15 Singapore 0.11 Finland i 1.60 Zimbabwe I 3.901Zimbabwe 0.13 Malaysia 0.10 Norway 1.57 Norway r 4.21 Denmark 0.12 Spain 0.08 Jordan 1.52 Indonesia r 4.23 Great Britain 0.08Jordan 0.07 Portugal 1.49 New Zealand j 4.49 Jordan 4 0.08 Italy | 0.06 Sweden 1.41 Spain 4.59 Mexico 0.08 Colombia 0.03 Thailand 1.23 Nigeria 4.601Nigeria 0.08 Mexico 0.02 Belgium 1.20 Philipoines I 5.04 Philippines I 0.07!Philippines | 0.01 Denmark I 1.20 Ireland r 5.lojColombia I 0.06IThailand I 0.01 Australia j 1.19 Germany 5.15 Indonesia I 0.021Pakistan 0.00 New Zealand I 1.10 Denmark 5.35 Pakistan 0.011 Italy 1.01 Jordan 1 5.56 Turkey 0.011 1 Korea 1.00 Sweden 5.68 Netherlands O.OOj _ L United States I 0.99 Belgium | 5.701 Greece 0.95 Portugal 5.961 i i Canada 1 0.93 Australia 6.281 ! i i Chile 0.90 Nethenands 1 6.921 | j ii Ireland 1 0.87 Chile I 6.961 _ I South Africa i 0.78 Greece j 7.191 1 _ __ Pakistan 0.70 Italy 7.341 T i I India 0.68 Colombia 1 9.701 _ _ Indonesia 0.65 France 1 10.571 _ 1 Turkey 0.54 Mexico 13.761 j__'i_i Brazil 0.51 Turkey 19.501 , i_ _ Philippines 0.48 Israel j 20.951 i _ _ I Mexico 0.48 Argentna 1 45.281 __i _ I Zimbabwe 0.451 1 1 I i i Venezuela 0.451 i i I _ i Argentina 0.37 Nigeria j 0. 331 |_|____ I BY/GDP is the ratio of the total ciaims of deposit banks to GDP. SPREAD is the difference between bank lending and borrowing rates. PNB/GDP is the assets of private non-bank institutions divided by GDP. INPEIGDP is the assets of private insurance and pension funds divided by GDP. Table 12: Correlatlons of Financlal Intermediary Indicators _ M31GDP BYIGDP PRIVGDP QLLY PNBIGDP INPE/GDP M3/GDP 1.00 0.83 0.81 0.97 0.32 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.42 44 43 42 42 25 22 BYIGDP 1.00 0.93 0.81 0.29 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.06 43 42 41 25 22 PRIV/GDP __________ _______ 1.00 0.79 0.32 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.02 ... _. ____ ... .. _._. . . ..... . __ _. _ . 42 41 25 22 LLY 1-00 - 0.58 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.40 42 24 21 PNBIGDP . 1.00 0.04 ______ 0.00 0.86 __________ 25 20 INPEIGDP 1.00 0.00 l__________ 22 P-values and number of observations are given In ialics. Indicators are as defined In Table 11. 49 Table 13: Financial Intermediary Indexes 1986-93 j _ IFINDEX1 jFINDEX2 FINDEX3 Hong Kong 1.45 Singapore 0.70 Swi2erland j 1.39 Japan 1.31 Sweden 0.67 Sweden j 1.04 Taiwan 0.64 United States I 0.59 Luxemboug 0.94 Singapore 0.56 Netherlands 0.53 Australia 0.75 Great Britain 0.45 Great Britain 0.53 Singapore 0.68 Jordan 0.42 Canada 0.27 Netherlands 0.65 Netherlands 0.34 Austria 0.23 Japan 0.62 France 0.31 Malaysia I 0.10 United States 0.60 Gernany 0.301France . 0.09 Great Britin 0.55 Malaysia 0.29 Finland 0.03 Israel 0.54 Australia 0.23 Korea 0.02 Tawian 0.51 United States I 0.141Denmark !-0.02 Ausra 0.34 Fintand 0.121Spain i -0.15 Canada 0.32 Spain I 0.11 IJordan i -0.16 Gerrnany 1 0.31 Norway 0.03Iltaly ! -0.17jNorway | 0.16 Thailand -0.02|Thaiiand I -0361rtugal i 0.11 Canada -0.06 Pakistan -0.72 Korea 0.08 Portugal I -0.06 Philippines I -0.73 IFrance | 0.06 Israel j -0.07IMexico I -0.771Denmark ! 0.01 Ausria -0.121Colombia -0.78jFinland I 0:01 Denmark I -0.121 Malaysia | 0.00 Italy 1 -0.131 Venezueba -0.06 New Zealand | -0.20! _ Belgium -0.06 Koma -0.211 Span -0.14 Sweden -0.211 New Zealand | -0.19 Greec -0.231 i Raly -0.23 South Afnca I -0.231 Greece -0.30 Chile I -0.29i Chile 1 -0.32 Belgium | -0.351 Ireland -0.36 nia -0.4 South Africa 1 -0.39 Ireland -0.451 Jordan 1 -0.45 Indonesia -0.461 lThadand -0.48 Pakistan -0.461 jindia r -0.48 Zimbabwe -0.521 Brazil -0.58 Venezuela -0.521 1 Zimbabwe 1 -0.59 Turkey -0.591 !Indonesia 1 -0.72 Philippines I -0.61l !Argentina I -0.72 Nigeria -0.71T I Nigeria -0.72 Mexico -0.711 j Mexico -0.77 Colombia -0.721 ITurkey 1 -0.78 Brazil I -0.751 I Philippines -0.78 Argentina -0.791 Pakistan -0.81 __________ _ i IColombia | -0.82 FINDEXI Financial Inefmediary I 1 is the average of M3(GDP am PRM/GDP.FINDEX2 Fiancal Interyn 2. iSe averge of M3IGDP. PRIVIGDP. Privae nonbankaiGDP and Private InMurance and PensionIGDP. FINDE Fancial irmediary Index 3i the avere BY/GDP. Private non-banks/GDP and Prvate lnsume and Poea ior/GDP. FINDE) does not nCkide the iast two tenns if Cata are not available. Exact calouation of the indexes ar discussd in t text. Definitons are as given in Table 11. Table 14: Correlatlons Among Financlal Intermediary Inidexes .- _ ,_ FINDEXI _ _ FINDEX2 _ FINDEX3 FINDEXI 1.00 0.74 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 _____ ______ 42 ____ 20 42 FINDEX2 _ _ 1.00 0.98 0.00 oob0 __ _ _ _ _ _._ _ __ _____ O. 20 FiNDEX3 ..______________ ._____. _____. ____0__ 1.00 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 0 .0 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 3 P-values and number of observations are given In Italics. Indexes are as defined In Table 13. 0 Table 1 6: CorrelatIoins betweeni financial InterimedIary lindlcators and stock market: lIdicators. ______________ ____M3IGOP BYIGDP PRIVIGOP QLLY PNBIGDP INPEIGDP Maikot 0.06 0.40 0.52 06. 7 _ 0.47 0.29 CapitalIzatIon ~~0.00 ___0.01 ____0j0 0.00 0.02 0.20 __ _____________ - - 41 40 40 __ _ _ _ _ 40 25 22 Total Value 0.75 0.58 0.70 0.78 0.46 0.33 Traded _ _0.00 0.00 _ ____ 0.00 0. 00 0.0 0.14 41 _ _ ~40 40 4 0__ ____ 25 ___ -22 Tu-rn-o ver 0.18 _ _0.42 0.38 0.22 0.27 0.11 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.16 -_ 0.20 0.61 _____ ________ ~4 1 __4 0 4 0 40 2 5 2 2 APT mlspriclng -- -0.49 _ -0.48 -0.54 -0.45 -0.06 -0.40 0.01 - 0.02 0.0i -.0 0.84 ___0.20 24 ---24 24 ___ 24 _ ___ 16 12 ICAPM inlsprlclng _ ~ -0.51 -0.47 --0.65 -0.46 _ -023 -0.38 ____ ~~~~0.01 0.02 0.01 ___ 0.02 0.39 0.22 ______________ ~~24 -- 24 24 - 24 16 12 Volatility __-0.41 ___-0.42 -0.40 -0.37 -0.12 -0.52 ___________ ______ 0.0121 ___0.01 0.01 0.03 0.60 0.02 ____ _____ ~~~37 ___37 37 36 21 20 Market .-0.24 -0.28 -0.32 -0.24 -0.42 -0.56 Concentration __0.24 0.16 0.11 0.23 0.11 0.04 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-- -__ - ~~26 --26 _ 26 __ _ 26 __16 14 Institutional -0.05 ___0.21 0.26 0.04 0.42 0.51 Indlcator 0.64 ___0.37 0.27. 0.66 0.15 0.20 ______________ ~~~20 __ _20 20 20 13 6 P1 values and numiber of observations are given In Italics. Financial Inlemiedlary Indicators are defined In Tabl II and stock market Indicators are defined In Tables i and 2. Table 16: Rank Correlations Between Financial Intermnediary Indicatorm end Stock Market indIcatoms______________ M3IGDP BYIGDP ___PRIVIGOP QLLY PNBIGDP INPEJGDP Market 0.61 0.54 0.67 0.66 0.52 0.53 Capitalization 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 41 40 40 40 25 _ 22 Total Value 0.66 0.70 0.81 0.72 0.53 0.48 Traded 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 ______ ~~~ ~~41 __40 40 40 25 ________22 Turnover _______ 0.32 ________ ~0.49 0.52 0.38 0.32 0.27 ____________ ~~~~0.04 _ __ 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.22 _________________ ~~~41 40 40 40 25 22 APT mispricing -0.50 -0.50 -0.55 -0.39 -0.08 -0.28 -.~~~~~~~~~~0.01 0.01 ___ 0.01 0.00 0.77 -_____ 0.38 24 2 24 24 to __ 12 ICAPM inisprlcing -0.57 -0.54 -0.66 -0.46 -0.18______ -0.24 ____________ ~~~0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.51 0.44 24 24 24 24 __ 18 12 Volailty-0.50 -0.50 -0.63 -0.42 -0.03 -0.49 ________________ ~~0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.91 0.03 _________________ ~~~37 37 37 36 21 20 Market ____-0.27 -0.42 ___ -0.44 -0,23 -0.31 -0.53 Co-ncentratIon 0. 18 0.03 ____0.02 0.26 __ 0.16 -- 0.05 26 _ 26 ____ ~~~26. 28 18 14 Institutional -0.06 0.31 0.33 0.10 0.36 0.49 Indicator 0.52 0.18 0.15 0.87 0.22 0.22 _________________ ~~~20 20 20 20 138 P1 values and number of obsauvatlons are given In Nalics. Financial Inlermediary Indicators are as defined In Table I I and stock market Indicators are defined in Tables 1 and 2. Table 17: CorrelatIons Between financial Intermediary and stock market Indexes . . INDEXI INDEX2 INDEX3 INDEX4 INDEX2A INDEX3A FINDEXi 0.72 0.83 0.84 0.81 0.72 0.73 ____o.o0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40 23 23 21 40 40 FINDEX2 0.67 0.B0 0.80 0.02 0.65 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ________ ____ 20 11 11 10 20 20 FINDEX3 0.62 0.79 0.79 0.80 0.61 0.61 _________ ~~0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40 23 23 21 40 40 P-values and number of observalions are given In italics. Indexes Indude Indicators as defined In Table _ 6 and 13. Exact calculalions of the Indexes are given In the text. Table 18: Correlations of Stock Market and Financial Intermnediary Inefficlency, 1986-1993 __ Spread APT DCAPM ICAPM MIs-Pricing MIs-Pricing MIs-Pricing Spread 1 0.2 0.48 0.81 0 0.39 0.03 0 39 21 21 21 APT 1 0.68 0.68 Mis-Prlcling_0 0 0 ________ _ ________________ 24 24 24 DCAPM _ 1 0.75 Mis-Pricing 0 0 _..____ 24 24 U ICAPM -_ _1 Mis-Pricing 0 _ ~~~~~~~~~~24 P-values and number of observallons are given In italics. Spread Is the difference between bank lending and borrowing rates. Figure 1 Stock Market Development 2.50 J pan Hong Kong 2.00 1.50 Germany U.K. U.S. orea 1.00 Singaporo E Malaysia @ CL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~U 0. 41 ~~~~~~~~South oL 0.50 l l oAfrica X I l | g Thailand 0 0.00 _ _ 1 1 -0.50 Vonezue l Zimbabwe -1.00 Pakistan -1.00 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cliiiiigeria Figure 2 Stock Market Development and GDP per capita 0.40 0.30 0.20 x -0.10 C 0.0 c ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~$12,480 $19,670 L 0. -0.10 0 Z -0.20 -0.30 U) -0.40 -0.50 -0.60 GDP per capita Figure 3 Rate of Stock Market Development 8.00 7.00 Indonesia 6.00 5.00 x 0 la L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~n _ 4.00 0 .c 3.00 2.00 urkey Portugal Venezuela 1.00 1100 111|1.1111111111111....... ...... U.S Canada 0.00 -.9wedWn. Italy apan -1.00 Figure 4 Stock Market and Financial Intermediary Development 2.5 Japan 2 0S 1 1.5 { Germany c 0 U.K. x ++ U.S. c 1 * Korea * Singapore Switzerland E Malaysla 0 a + 0.5 @M - * ~~~-0.5 * 0.5 1 * 1 5 Mexico * * * 0 P llppines urkey : * Argentina * + * Indonesia * F lakistan * ~uIui,p* + Zimbabwe Nigeria Financial Intermediary Development Index, Flndex 3 Policy Research Working Paper Series Contact Title Author Date for paper WPS1 437 Travel Mode Substitution in Sao Joffre Swait March 1995 C. Jones Paulo: Estimates and Implications Gunnar S. Eskeland 37699 for Air Pollution Control WPS1438 Trade Reform, Efficiency, and Growth Ejaz Ghani March 1995 A. Nokhostin Carl Jayarajah 34150 WPS1439 Nontariff Barriers Africa Faces: What Azita Amjadi March 1995 S. Lipscomb Did the Uruguay Round Accomplish, Alexander Yeats 33718 and What Remains to Be Done? WPS1440 Poverty and Social Transfers in Christiaan Grootaert March 1995 N. Sachdeva Poland 82717 WPS1441 The Significance of Credits and Douglas Galbi March 1995 N. Castillo Subsidies in Russian Agricultural 33490 Reform WPS1442 Energy Price Increases in Einar Hope March 1995 C. Jones Developing Countries: Case Studies Balbir Singh 37699 of Colombia, Ghana, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, and Zimbabwe WPS1443 Policy-Based Finance, Financial Dimitri Vittas April 1995 P. Infante Regulation, and Financial Sector Akihiko Kawaura 37642 Development in Japan WPS1444 Roads, Lands, Markets, and Kenneth M. Chomitz April 1995 E. Schaper Deforestation: A Spatial Model David A. Gray 33457 of Land Use in Belize WPS1445 Human Capital and Industry Wage Chris N. Sakellariou April 1995 I. Conachy Structure in Guatemala 33669 WPS1446 Review of Integrated Approaches Donna J. Lee April 1995 C. Spooner to River Basin Planning, Ariel Dinar 32116 Development, and Management WPS1447 Environmental Inspections and Benot Laplante April 1995 E. Schaper Emissions of the Pulp and Paper Paul Rilstone 33457 Industry: The Case of Quebec WPS1448 Environmental Regulation and Susmita Dasgupta April 1995 E. Schaper Development: A Cross-Country Ashoka Mody 33457 Empirical Analysis Subhendu Roy David Wheeler WPS1449 Worker Displacement during the Peter Orazem April 1995 J. Prochnow-Walker Transition: Experience from 37466 Slovenia Policy Research Working Paper Series Contact Title Author Date for paper WPS 1450 Social Safety Net and the Poor Fareed M. A. Hassan May 1995 F. Smith during the Transition: The Case of R. Kyle Peters, Jr. 36072 Bulgaria WPS1451 Tunisia's Insurance Sector Dimitri Vittas May 1995 P. Infante 37642 WPS1452 The 1985-94 Global Real Estate Bertrand Renaud May 1995 R. Garner Cycle: Its Causes and Consequences 37670 WPS1453 Air Pollution and Mortality: Results Bart Ostro May 1995 C. Bernardo from Santiago, Chile Jose Miguel Sanchez 37699 Carlos Aranda Gunnar S. Eskeland WPS1454 Child Labor: A Review Christiaan Grootaert May 1995 M. Youssef Ravi Kanbur 34614 WPS1455 Tentative First Steps: An Assessment Bernard Hoekman May 1995 F. Hatab of the Uruguay Round Agreement 35835 on Services WPS1456 Equity Markets, Transaction Costs, Valerie R. Bencivenga May 1995 P. Sintim-Aboagye and Capital Accumulation: An Bruce D. Smith 38526 Illustration Ross M. Starr WPS1457 Does Decentralization Increase Antonio Estache May 1995 WDR Spending on Public Infrastructure? Sarbajit Sinha 31393 WPS1458 Credit Policies: Lessons from East Dimitri Vittas May 1995 P. Infante Asia Yoon Je Cho 37642 WPS1459 Pension Funds in Central Europe Dimitri Vittas May 1995 P. Infante and Russia: Their Prospects and Roland Michelitsch 37642 Potential Role in Corporate Government WPS1460 Efficiency and Equity Considerations Yacov Tsur May 1995 C. Spooner in Pricing and Allocating Irrigation Ariel Dinar 32116 Water WPS1461 Stock Market Development and Firm Asli Demirgucj-Kunt May 1995 P. Sintim-Aboagye Financing Choices Vojislav Maksimovic 38526 WPS1462 Stock Market Development and Asli Demirgu,c-Kunt May 1995 P. Sintim-Aboagye Financial Intermediaries Ross Levine 38526