This article aims to provide empirical evidences to show if futures trading plays the very important role of price discovery and information transmission for spot[r]
(1)Price discovery and information transmission across stock index futures: Evidence from VN 30 Index Futures on Vietnam’s stock market
Nguyễn Thị Nhunga1, Trần Thị Vân Anha, Nguyễn Tố Ngaa, Vương Thùy Linha
a Faculty of Finance and Banking – University of Economics and Business (UEB) – Vietnam National University (VNU) Abstract: The introduction of the first tradable stock index futures of VN 30 is a very good
signal showing that Vietnam is starting to have a high-level financial market, which brings many expectations about sustainable and safe development of stock market However, risk conerns of this type of derivative products have been raising with many claims since then This article aims to provide empirical evidences to show if futures trading plays the very important role of price discovery and information transmission for spot market Using daily data collected about VN30 Index Futures, VN30 Index, VN-Index from August 10, 2017 to February 28, 2019 that is divided into sub-periods (Increase/Decrease/Recovery), the research verifies VN30 Index Futures’ role of price discovery and information transmission by applying Vector Error Correction Model (VECM) Empirical findings show that there is a stable equilibrium relationship between the two series groups (including VN30 Index Futures, VN30 Index and VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index) during sub-periods or spot and futures markets are integrated and synchronized In particular, VN30 Index Futures’ price discovery and information transmission is clearly seen when the market falls or doesn’t change a lot Keywords: VN30 Index Futures, Price discovery, Information transmission, Spot Futures
Interlinkages, Vector Error Correction Model (VECM), Vietnam’s Derivative Market, Emerging Market
1 Introduction
In August 2017, Vietnam’s derivatives market officially operated with the first tradable index futures of VN 30 This event marked Vietnam as the 42nd country in the World and the 5th country in ASEAN (after Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand) having this high-level financial market VN 30 Index Futures is expected to limit risks and diversify investment products, increase the liquidity and scale of the stock market as well as help the stock market to grow stably and safe, thereby increase its attractiveness to the investors
After more than a year of introduction in Vietnam’s stock market, VN 30 Index Futures has experienced impressive achievements There has been a continuous upward trend in both trading volume and trading value According to the data reported by Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange (HOSE) and Hanoi Stock Exchange (HNX), in 2018, this first product of derivative witnessed 19,697,764 negotiated contracts The average trading volume reached 78,791 contracts/session, nearly times higher than in 2017 The total value of transactions reached nearly 1.86 million billion VND in 2018, of which, July recorded an impressive number of 257,870 billion VND, 5.94 times higher than January (43,376 billion VND) Besides, the
(2)
number of trading account experienced a great increase of 3.4 times higher than the end of 2017
However, many investors still doubt the role of VN 30 Index Futures, which is believed containing many speculative factors Vietnam’s derivative market is dominated by individual investors (up to 99%) (Nguyễn, 2019), which is shown by the huge number of transactions but most of them are short terms and immediately closed in the same trading session The volume of transactions used for hedging is only around 3-4 billion USD, which accounts for only approximately 2% of the spot market portfolio Moreover, when VN30 Index Futures experienced the boom in trading volume, the spot market witnessed a sharp decline since the peak of 1,200 points of VN-Index in 2018 This market shock raised an argument about consequences of index futures for price volatility on stock market Many people have described Index Futures as “weapons of mass destruction” when referring previous crisis like tulip crisis in Holland or financial crisis of 2007-2008, etc In particular, these concerns are raising day by day when Vietnam intends to continue implementing futures contracts on government bonds in the coming time – according to the roadmap for derivative market development until 2020
The above practice provides an interesting experimental setting to examine if futures trading resulted in discovering price and transferring information to the spot market or not In line with this objective, the research has assessment about the role of VN30 Index Futures after 1.5 years implemented in Vietnam’s stock market, through three distinct phases, including: increase, decrease and recovery To our best knowledge, this is the first paper using daily data to investigate price discovery and information transmission by applying Vector Error Correction Model (VECM), between the VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index as well as VN30 Index In particular, different methods are used and compared to each other to exactly estimate VN30 Index Futures’ roles The findings of the paper will contribute to the literature review on derivatives generally and index futures particularly in emerging countries like Vietnam as well as in different phases of market development (namely increase, decrease and recovery periods) Moreover, the contributions of the study are framed in providing empirical evidences showing if stock index futures play an important role for promoting stable development of spot market These important insights will be germane to propose more appropriate solutions for complete futures market development in Vietnam in the coming time
After Introduction, the second part will review literaturely about index futures and their role for stock market Methodology and data used will be presented in the 3rd part following with the results explanation in the 4th part and a discussion in 5th part The last part will provide some conclusions
2 Literature Review
(3)The futures contracts are designed with the original purpose to meet the hedging needs (Gong et al, 2016) Individuals or organizations participate in a futures contract to prevent risks and protect themselves against adverse fluctuations that may change the value of their assets or debts, ensure the stability of futures cash flows In addition to this initial purpose, futures contracts also become an appropriate tool for speculating purposes and arbitraging transactions as risk loving investors often prefer the futures market to the spot market (Lean et
al, 2015) With low transaction prices and high leverage (Antoniou et al, 2005; Chen and
Gau, 2010), investment in futures market is less expensive than trading goods or assets on the underlying spot market Therefore, the potential profitability of transactions in the futures market also promises much higher than participating in the spot market and thus attracting many investors In addition, the futures market provides an additional channel of capital mobilization for businesses and governments, facilitating the deployment of new financial products as well as increasing the shock resistance of the financial system (Chui, 2010) In the futures market's activities, the price discovery and information transmission mechanisms are especially important functions
The emergence of the stock index futures market has led many debates about the relationship between the spot and futures market (Aloui et al, 2017; Bohl et al, 2015) as well as whether its appearance affects the stability of the financial market (Kutan et al, 2018; Jian
et al, 2018) Aloui et al (2017) note that the relationship between the spot-futures markets is
different due to the difference in the levels of economic development, i.e the intensity of information transmission between stock indexes and the stock index futures in developed markets may be higher than in emerging markets or due to the level of market openness and trading volumes on futures markets among countries
According to Bohl et al (2015), previous researches on the impact of the introduction of futures market on the underlying spot market led to two conflict results Bohl et al (2015) indicated that the introduction of the futures market in developed financial markets reduces the volatility of the underlying market because market participants are mostly institutional investors, who are well-informed and knowledgeable enough to make appropriate decisions to invest However, in emerging markets such as China, the introduction of futures increases the volatility of the underlying market because there are many individual investors, who have less knowledge and tend to invest in herds The comments on the behavior of private and institutional investors made by Bohl et al (2015) are similar to the ones by Barber and Odean (2008), Kaniel et al (2008)
(4)contract price is not necessarily the spot price in the future, but it also reflects the price that a market participant can expect for a transaction to perform later instead of accepting uncertain spot prices in the future The futures market price discovery function cannot directly make futures spot price forecasts; however, it provides valuable lead information about futures spot prices (Kang et al, 2013)
The empirical results of price discovery effect i.e the lead-lag relationship between spot and futures markets are mixed and diverse Booth et al (1999) have argued that futures markets play an important price discovery role for spot markets because of low transaction costs, the ready availability of short positions, low margins, and rapid execution (Booth et al, 1999) Other researchers such as Hong et al (2017), Gong et al (2016), Antoniou et al (2005), Antoniou et al (1995), Nieto et al (1998), Tse (1995) also found that the futures market is a leader in price discovery In contrast Yang et al (2012), Judge and Reancharoen (2014) and Chen and Gau (2009) indicated the leading role of stock markets Many studies such as Jian et
al (2018), Kutan et al (2018), Charteris & Musazdiruma (2017), Kang et al (2013) argued that
there is bi-directional causal relationship between futures and spot markets
Regarding to relationship between the spot-futures market, the mechanism of information transmission is a matter of interest to many researchers According to Liu and An (2011) informationally linked markets refers to markets in which traded assets are fundamentally related to each other However, they also argued that although in those markets are interrelated, but they still have different information transmission mechanism due to different transaction costs, regulations, liquidities and other institutional factors.According to Ross's study (1989), the futures trading can increase information flow leading more volatility in spot market (Ross, 1989) This conclusion was also consistent with the results of the researches conducted by Aloui et al (2017), who investigated the dynamic link between stock indices and the stock index futures in 11 countries In most cases, transactions in the futures market are often more active than the underlying market so that information from this market is often more reliable than information on the spot market In addition, due to its lower trading cost the futures market attracts many investors so that new information being first created in the futures market before transferred to the spot market (Cox, 1976; Charteris and Masadziruma, 2017) Therefore, Cox (1976) concluded that futures transactions would speed up the transmission of information to spot markets This statement was also shared by other researchers such as Antoniou and Holmes (1995), Harris (1989), Chang et al (1999)
(5)Table 1: Impact of stock index futures’ introduction
Impact Research Methodology
Pr ice Disc ov er y P osit ive
Hong et al (2017) Error Correction Model (ECM) Gong et al (2016) Thermal optimal path method Antoniou et al (2005),
Antoniou & Homes (1995)
GARCH model
Nieto et al (1998) Johansen cointegration methodology
Tse (1995) Error correction model
Vector autoregressive method
Ne
ga
ti
ve
Yang et al (2012) GARCH model
Judge and Reancharoen (2014) Error correction model (ECM) Chen & Gau (2009) Microstructure Model Hasbrouck
(1995)
Ne
utra
l
Jian et al (2018) Multivariate CoVaR model Kutan et al (2018) Positive feedback model
GjR-Garch Model
Charteris & Musazdiruma (2017) GARCH model, EGARCH model
Kang et al (2013) Bivariate GARCH model
Liu & An (2011) MGARCH model
In for m at ion t ran smissi on P osit ive
Aloui et al (2017) Wavelet Methodology
Antoniou et al (2005) Antoniou & Holmes (1995)
GARCH model
Cheng et al (1999) Single factor returns generating model
Cox (1976) Efficient market model
Ne
ga
ti
ve Bohl et al (2015),
Bologna & Cavallo (2002)
GARCH, GJR-GARCH EGARCH models
Ne
utra
l
Kutan et al (2018) Positive feedback model GjR-GARCH Model Charteris & Musazdiruma (2017)
Spyrous (2005)
Baldauf & Santoni (1991)
GARCH model
Liu & An (2011) MGARCH model
Source: Authors
(6)Vietnam is a typical case showing the impact of futures market introduction on the spot underlying market The majority of market participants in Vietnam are small investors so that low transaction prices and high leverage make investment in futures market cheaper than investing in spot market, which have become an important reason for attracting investors Although the futures market in Vietnam has been in operation for only 1.5 years, it has clearly demonstrated the positive role of the price discovery function as well as supporting destabilization hypothesis This is also the general conclusion of many studies on the impact of futures market implementation in emerging countries Going back to the reality in Vietnam, while the futures market is continuously developing, there is a decline in the underlying market This has led to many concerns about the role of the futures market as a risk management tool for the stability of Vietnam's stock market Therefore, the goal of our research is to evaluate this issue comprehensively
3 Methodology
3.1 Research Design
In fact, VN30 Index is a market-capitalization weighted index which measures the performance of 30 large cap and high liquidity stocks from VN-All share It is expected to reflect truly the market movement Because of its effective performance benchmark, the research believes that it is necessary to refer VN-Index when evaluating the role of VN30 Index Futures That’s why, in line with objective of testing if futures trading resulted in destabilizing the spot market or not, the study investigates the relationship between VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index as well as VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index
Besides, the spot-futures relationship separately focusses on price discovery and information transmission as indicated in Figure Based on above-mentioned literature review, the research chooses Vector Error Correction Model (VECM) to investigate price discovery and information transmission of VN30 Index Futures on Vietnam’s spot stock market In fact, Vector Error Correction Model allows estimating the short-run and long-run relationships between VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index as well as VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index Vector Error Correction Model (VECM) is tested on EViews
3.2 Data description
Price Discovery and Information Transmission
(Vector Error Correction Model – VECM)
VN30 Index Futures
VN-Index
VN30 Index
Source: Authors
(7)In Vietnam, four VN30 Index Futures contracts with different expired dates are traded simultaneously at any given point The four-expired dates are correspondent to the third Thursday of the current month, the next month, and the subsequent two quarter-ending months Investors are required to pay an initial margin of 10% of the purchase price for securities For instance, an investor wants to purchase a contract VN30F1706 which is priced at 70.000.000 VND, he/she can enter into that position by depositing an initial margin requirement of 7.000.000 VND In terms of orders, there are limit order, market order, ATO and ATC In particular, Vietnam determines the price fluctuation range of 7%
The study uses daily close prices of VN30 Index Futures, VN30 Index and VN-Index The sample period spans August 10, 2017 to February 28, 2019 with 388 trading days The data is obtained from official sites of Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange (HOSE) and Hanoi Stock Exchange (HNX) Figure shows the daily movements of VN30 Index Futures, VN30 Index and VN-Index over the sample period It is clearly seen that there are three distinct phases in the price patterns over period from August 10, 2017 to February 28, 2019 On April 10, 2018, VN-Index, VN30 Index and VN30 Index Futures reach a peak of 1,198.12, 1,168.06 and 1,185.18 accordingly, gaining about 60% of its value in comparison with the moment of launching VN30 Index Futures The next period from April 10 to July 11, 2018 is marked by a reduction of 25% in the stock market This is followed by an accumulation phase for recovery
Given this trend, the study will investigate price discovery and information transmission between the VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index as well as VN30 Index by dividing the sample period into three sub-periods, including: Period A: 10/08/2017 to 10/04/2018; Period B: 11/04/2018 to 11/07/2018 and Period C: 12/07/2018 to 28/02/2019 Table reports summary statistics for the stocgbk index and futures daily return series for each six months in the sample period (Panel A) and corresponding statistics for each of the three sub-periods in the sample period (Panel B) It is obviously seen that returns for VN30 Index Futures is closer to VN30 Index than VN-Index for all periods In particular, it is interesting to observe that the
600.00 800.00 1,000.00 1,200.00
8/10/2017 11/10/2017 2/10/2018 5/10/2018 8/10/2018 11/10/2018 2/10/2019
VN30 Index Future VN30 Index VN-Index
Source: HOSE and HNX
(8)index futures have the highest maximum returns for every six months as well as every sub-period
Table 2: Statistics of VN-Index, VN30 Index and VN30 Index Futures Return Series
Period Max (%) Average (%) Min (%) Standard Deviation (%) VN30 Index Futures VN30 Index VN-Index VN30 Index Futures VN30 Index VN-Index VN30 Index Futures VN30 Index VN-Index VN30 Index Futures VN30 Index VN-Index
Panel A: Every six months
10/08/2017-10/02/2018 3.93 2.78 2.86 0.25 0.23 0.21 -4.83 -5.08 -5.10 1.32 1.04 1.07
11/02/2018-11/08/2018 4.23 3.81 3.77 -0.05 -0.03 -0.02 -4.67 -4.45 -4.34 1.80 1.65 1.55
12/08/2018-28/02/2019 3.60 3.15 2.93 -0.03 -0.03 0.00 -4.98 -4.79 -4.84 1.11 1.06 1.01
Panel B: Sub-periods
10/08/2017
-10/04/2018 3.93 3.81 3.77 0.28 0.28 0.27 -4.83 -5.08 -5.10 1.31 1.07 1.10 11/04/2018-
11/07/2018 4.23 3.67 3.45 -0.47 -0.43 -0.45 -4.67 -4.45 -4.34 2.16 1.97 1.81 12/07/2018
-28/02/2019 3.60 3.15 2.93 0.03 0.02 0.05 -4.98 -4.79 -4.84 1.11 1.05 0.99
Source: Authors
3.3 Methods of Data Analysis
Firstly, the study tests each series for stationarity of VN30 Index Futures and VN30
Index as well as VN-Index by applying the unit root test to the residuals from this regression, called Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test
Call:
There are also three basic regression models as follows:
No constant, no trend:
Constant, no trend: Constant and trend: There are two hypotheses:
is considered as coefficient in results extracted from EViews Software In other words, if t-Statistic is bigger than on Kendall’s tau table, the hypothesis is rejected and otherwise
In addition, the research tries to find out the regression between and as well as
and which is presented in following equations:
(9)
The higher and is, the better the intercept and slope coefficients are In other words, this regression shows a significant relationship between the two variables
Secondly, the study also determines Optimal Lag by using the Akaike Selection
Criterion (AIC) In detail, the lag length is selected when this criterion has the smallest value, because it can make sure the stability of the model
Thirdly, the research tries to find out if the two series (VN30 Index Futures and VN30
Index as well as VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index) are co-integrated in each sub-period sample by using Johansen Co-integration Test with criteria, including maximal eigen value test and trace test There are two hypotheses:
: No co-integrating equation between VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index or between VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index
: Co-integrating equation between VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index or between VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index
The research will reject hypothesis if the value of the Trace and Max statistics is more than 5% critical value otherwise
Fourthly, based on the econometrics of co-integrated vector autogestions that Engle and
Granger (1987) referred, the research investigates price discovery through Vector Error Correction Model (VECM) In other words, the study tries to show how VN30 Index and VN-Index change while VN30 VN-Index Futures is volatile
We have to investigate two price vectors, including:
[ ]
[ ]
There is an estimated VECM as below:
∑ ∑ [1]
Cointegrating equation (long-run model):
[2]
While:
Y is P1 or P2 X is P0
The first above model incorporates both the short-run and long-run dynamics while the second equation only refers long-run dynamics P1 and P0 as well as P2 and P0 has a long-run relationship only when the coefficient of the co-integrating equation is between -1 and at a statistical significance The coefficient of ETC measures the speed at which the dependent variable returns to equilibrium after a change in independent variable (P0) Moreover, the
research still determines if there is a shot-run a relationship between P1 and P0 as well as P2
and P0 by using Wald Test and Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correction LM Test Finally, the
(10)4 Empirical Results
Appendices 1, and show the results of Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test With 388
observations, VN30 Index Futures, VN30 Index and VN-Index have p-value and t-Statistic as bellow:
VN30 Index Futures: p-value = 0.9515 > , t-Statistic = -0.919502, t-Statistic = -3.982074 <0 at 1% and | | | | | | | |
VN30 Index: p-value = 0.9772 > , tStatistic = 0.615743, tStatistic = -3.981949 <0 at 1% and | | | | | | | |
VN-Index: p-value = 0.9682 > , t-Statistic = -0.746066, t-Statistic = -3.981949 <0 at 1% and | | | | | | | |
It is clearly seen that VN30 Index Futures, VN30 Index and VN-Index experience constant and trend stationarity with negative t-Statistic at about the 1% level
Besides, by using regression analysis, the research has functions referring the relationship between VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index as well as VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index as bellow:
It is clearly seen that of 0,9873 and of 0,953 [shown in Appendices & 5] indicate a significant relationship between the two variables In other words, VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index as well as VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index seem to be so closely aligned
According to Appendix 6, is the best optimal lag for the first sub-period while the second and third sub-periods receive the optimal lag of
In terms of co-integration, Trace and Max-Eigenvalue test indicate co-integrating equations at the 0.05 level between VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index, VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index [Table and Table 4] In the long-run, VN30 Index Futures experiences a positive impact on VN30 Index and VN-Index The null hypothesis of no co-integration is rejected against the alternative of a co-integrating relationship in the model In the other words, this means that these indices exhibit a long-run relationship, satisfying requirements of Vector Error Correction Model (VECM)
Table 3: Trace and Max-Eigenvalue test for VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index Unrestricted Cointegration Rank Test (Trace)
Hypothesized Trace 0.05
No of CE(s) Eigenvalue Statistic Critical Value Prob.**
None * 0.047222 19.17645 15.49471 0.0133
At most 0.001434 0.552558 3.841466 0.4573
Unrestricted Cointegration Rank Test (Maximum Eigenvalue)
(11)No of CE(s) Eigenvalue Statistic Critical Value Prob.**
None * 0.047222 18.62389 14.26460 0.0096
At most 0.001434 0.552558 3.841466 0.4573
1 Cointegrating Equation(s): Log likelihood -2776.142
Normalized cointegrating coefficients (standard error in parentheses)
VN30_INDEX VN30_INDEX_FUTURES
1.000000 -0.943999
(0.02650) Adjustment coefficients (standard error in parentheses)
D(VN30_INDEX) 0.024923
(0.05039)
D(VN30_INDEX_FUTURES) 0.141552
(0.05623)
Source: Results calculated from EViews Software
Table 4: Trace and Max-Eigenvalue test for VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index Unrestricted Cointegration Rank Test (Trace)
Hypothesized Trace 0.05
No of CE(s) Eigenvalue Statistic Critical Value Prob.**
None 0.028351 11.94458 15.49471 0.1596
At most 0.002262 0.871805 3.841466 0.3505
Unrestricted Cointegration Rank Test (Maximum Eigenvalue)
Hypothesized Max-Eigen 0.05
No of CE(s) Eigenvalue Statistic Critical Value Prob.**
None 0.028351 11.07277 14.26460 0.1506
At most 0.002262 0.871805 3.841466 0.3505
1 Cointegrating Equation(s): Log likelihood -2805.025
Normalized cointegrating coefficients (standard error in parentheses)
VN_INDEX VN30_INDEX_FUTURES
1.000000 -0.929120
(0.05973) Adjustment coefficients (standard error in parentheses)
D(VN_INDEX) 0.020273
(0.02902)
D(VN30_INDEX_FUTURES) 0.074826
(0.03261)
Source: Results calculated from EViews Software
(12)VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index, VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index contains coefficients (from to 6) Table summarizes equations about estimated VECM and co-integrating (long-run model)
Table 5: Estimated VECM and cointegrating equation (long-run model)
Estimated VECM with P1/P2 as target variable Cointegrating equation (long-run model) VN30 Index and VN30 Index Futures
First sub-period (10/08/2017 -10/04/2018) – 24.94102 Estimated equation:
D(P1) = C(1)*( P1(-1) - 0.958223297798*P0(-1) - 24.9410238488 ) + C(2)*D(P1(-1)) + C(3)*D(P0(-1)) + C(4)
Second sub-period (11/04/2018- 11/07/2018) – 215.8693 Estimated equation:
D(P1) = C(1)*( P1(-1) - 0.775645053007*P0(-1) - 215.869328825 ) + C(2)*D(P1(-1)) + C(3)*D(P1(-2)) + C(4)*D(P0(-1)) + C(5)*D(P0(-2)) + C(6)
Third sub-period (12/07/2018 -28/02/2019) – 0.170651 Estimated equation:
D(P1) = C(1)*( P1(-1) - 1.00517679944*P0(-1) - 0.170651069946 ) + C(2)*D(P1(-1)) + C(3)*D(P1(-2)) + C(4)*D(P0(-1)) + C(5)*D(P0(-2)) + C(6)
VN-Index and VN30 Index Futures
First sub-period (10/08/2017 -10/04/2018) – 0.072784 Estimated equation:
D(P2) = C(1)*( P2(-1) - 0.997169843843*P0(-1) - 0.0727835852093 ) + C(2)*D(P2(-1)) + C(3)*D(P0(-1)) + C(4)
Second sub-period (11/04/2018- 11/07/2018) – 184.6331 Estimated equation:
D(P2) = C(1)*( P2(-1) - 0.824206884672*P0(-1) - 184.633121377 ) + C(2)*D(P2(-1)) + C(3)*D(P2(-2)) + C(4)*D(P0(-1)) + C(5)*D(P0(-2)) + C(6)
Third sub-period (12/07/2018 -28/02/2019) – 207.5733 Estimated equation:
D(P2) = C(1)*( P2(-1) - 0.810212007088*P0(-1) - 207.573296217 ) + C(2)*D(P2(-1)) + C(3)*D(P2(-2)) + C(4)*D(P0(-1)) + C(5)*D(P0(-2)) + C(6)
Source: Results calculated from EViews Software
(13)period (or the second sub-period) experiences the highest coefficient of the co-integrating equation for both pairs (VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index, VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index) while the lowest level happens in the increased period This means that the long-run relationship between VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index as well as VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index become stricter when the spot market goes down In comparison with the co-efficiency between VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index, the coefficient of the co-integrating equation between VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index is always higher while a drop or recovery of stock market but lower when there is an upward trend in market In other words, VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index become witnesses of much stronger co-integration when the market falls In contrast, the co-integration between VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index is higher than between VN30 VN-Index Futures and VN 30 VN-Index in case of development of market In the other words, concerning the speed at which the dependent variable (VN30 Index or VN-Index) returns to equilibrium after a change in independent variable (VN30 Index Futures), VN30 Index and VN-Index experience the highest level in the second sub-period, when the market is downwards and the lowest rate while there is an upward trend in spot market After a change in VN30 Index Futures, VN-Index returns to equilibrium more quickly than VN30 Index only when the market develops
In brief, there is a long-run relationship between VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index as well as VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index It is recognized more clearly when the market grows down or doesn’t change a lot The co-integration between VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index is only deeper than between VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index when the market increases
Moreover, based on p-value [shown in appendices from to 12], it is clearly seen that there is a short-run relationship between VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index as well as VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index Similar to the long-run relationship, the short-run one experiences the differences between VN30 Index and VN-Index in each sub-period The scenario is the same for the short-run relationship in comparison with the long-run one And
Source: Authors
Figure 3: The coefficient of ETC ( )
-0.040088 -0.416242
-0.243575
-0.073972 -0.338162
-0.097897
-0.45 -0.4 -0.35 -0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05
First sub-period (10/08/2017 -10/04/2018) Second sub-period (11/04/2018- 11/07/2018) Third sub-period (12/07/2018 -28/02/2019)
(14)Stability Diagnostics indicates that blue trendline are between red boundary The VECM is said to be dramatically stable at about the 5% level
5 Discussion and policy implications
Vector Error Correction Model shows a stable equilibrium relationship between VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index, VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index This empirical evidence supports theories about the role of derivative instruments generally and index futures particularly In fact, traders prefer investing in diversified portfolio corresponding to index because stock index futures are financial instruments thanks to their lower costs of trading and greater leverage potential futures markets This research results are totally consistent with findings shown by Tse (1995), Nieto et al (1998), Antoniou and Homes (1995), Antoniou et
al (2005), Gong et al (2016) and Hong et al (2017)
In addition, VN30 Index Futures’ importance for VN30 Index is clearer than for VN-Index In a negative or neutral trend of movement, VN30 Index returns to equilibrium rapidly after a change in VN30 Index Futures It seems to be evident because VN30 Index is underlying asset of VN30 Index Futures Naturally, VN30 Index Futures has a closer relation with VN30 Index than with VN-Index However, when the market goes up, VN-Index returns to equilibrium more rapidly than VN30 Index but at the lowest speed The long-run relationship between VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index indicates VN30 Index’s capacity as an effective performance benchmark and a measure of market efficiency in Vietnam stock market
The VN30 Index Futures’ role of price discovery and information transmission witnesses the best level when the market downturns or doesn’t change a lot (or stay unchangeable) and vice versa This reflects investors' psychology in Vietnam stock market In fact, the impact of psychological factors on the market has been very complicated The Vietnamese financial market always contents many high unstable factors, causing market panic as well as making many difficulties for implementing macroeconomic policies Vietnam stock market is considered as a market of individual investors who follows the psychology of the crowd Most of domestic individual don’t deeply receive and understand market information or consult news published by domestic and foreign experts They are less sensitive to market information Therefore, they participate to the market with high risks and short-term vision In addition, the current information is considered incomplete Many rumors affect investors' psychology, causing confusion and Crowd psychology as observed in the previous period
(15)behavioral finance theory and feedback trading model showed that many Vietnamese investors' psychology may be affected and lead to acts of selling securities, both in the underlying market and in the derivative market The role of VN30 Index’s price discovery and information transmission is expressed the best during the period of market decline
6 Conclusion
The introduction of VN30 Index Futures in 2018 August in Vietnam marked the appearance of derivative market in Vietnam It is a very good sign of a growing maturity in the national financial market VN30 Index Futures is expected to play a stabilizing role in the stock market Evidently, the debate about the spot-futures relationships has been raising since this derivative product was introduced on Vietnam’s stock market
The study provides the first empirical evidences about a stable equilibrium relationship between the two series groups (including VN30 Index Futures, VN30 Index and VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index) during period from 10 August 2017 to 28 February 2019 By using Vector Error Correction Model (VECM), the research demonstrates higher coefficient of the cointegrating equation and higher coefficient of ETC ( ) when spot-market grows down or doesn’t change a lot The ability of VN30 Index Futures’ price discovery role is reduced while there is an upward trend in spot market Moreover, the relationship between VN30 Index Futures and VN30 Index is stricter than that of VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index while the market is reduced or recovered and vice versa Therefore, it is clearly seen that the research contributes to enrich the existing empirical evidence on price discovery and information transmission between stock indices and stock index Futures in emerging countries like Vietnam The study results are very significant in the context where many claims and concerns about risks brought by this type of derivative products have been raising since it first trading Investors as well as policy makers can refer these proofs to believe in VN30 Index Futures in particular and derivatives in general, and then continue to develop different other derivative products on Vietnam’s stock market in the coming time
However, it is obviously seen that the research is executed in a short period from VN30 Index Futures’ first trading to February 29, 2019 and only focus on the role of price discovery and information transmission while this product still plays other important roles like hedging or risk management or reducing the costs of trading Therefore, the research results cannot fully reflect the total nature of VN30 Index Futures on Vietnam’s stock market There is a need for further follow-up studies with deep analysis, highly specific recommendations and longer (richer) sample of data about all roles of VN30 Index Futures as well as financial behaviors of investors who are trading in Vietnam Stock Market
References
Aloui, C, Hkiri, B., Lau, M C.K, Yarovaya, L (2017) Information transmission across stock indices and stock index futures: international evidence using wavelet framework
(16)Antoniou, A., Holmes, P (1995) Futures trading and spot price volatility: evidence for the FTSE-100 stock index futures contract using GARCH Journal of Banking and Finance,
Vol 19, 151-166
Antoniou, A., Koutmos, G., Periclic, A (2005) Index futures and positive feedback trading: evidence from major stock exchanges Journal of Empirical Finance, 219-238
Antonious, A., Holmes, O., Priestley, R (1998) The effects of stock index fureres trading on stock index volatility: An analysis on the asymmetric response of volatility to News
Journal of Futures Markets, Vol 18, 151 - 166
Bae, S., Kwon, T., Park, J (2004) Futures Trading, Spot Market Volatility and Market Efficiency: The case of Korean Index Futures Markets Journal of Futures Markets,
Vol 24, 1195-1228
Baldauf, B., Santoni, G (1991) Stock price volatility: Some evidence from ARCH model
Journal of Futures Markets, Vol 11, 191-200
Barber, B.M., Odean, T (2008) All that glitters: The effect of attention and news on the buying behavior of individual and institutional investors Review of Financial Studies, 785-818
Bohl, M.T., Diesteldorf J., Siklos, P (2015) The effect of index futures trading on volatility: Three markets for Chinese stocks China Economic Review, Vol 34, 207-224
Bologna, P, Cavallo, L (2002) Does the Introduction of Index Futures EffectivelyReduce Stock Market Volatility? Is the Futures Effect Immediate? Evidence from the Italian Stock Exchange Using GARCH’, (3): 183–92 Applied Financial Economics, Vol 12, 183 - 192
Booth, G.G., Raymond, W.S., Tse, Y (1999) Price Discovery in the Germany equity derivtives market Journal of Futures Markets, Vo 19, 619-643
Chang, E.C., Cheng, J.W., Pinegar, J.M (1999) Does futures trading increase market volatility? The case of the Nikkei stock index futures markets Journal of Banking and
Finance, 727-753
Charteris, A., Musadziruma, A (2017) Feedback trading in stock index futures: Evidence from South Africa Research in International Business and Finance, 1289-1297
Chen, Y.L, Gau, Y.F (2009) Tick sizes and relative rates of price discovery in stock, futures, and options markets: Evidence from the Taiwan stock exchange Journal of Futures
Markets, 29, 74-93
Chen, Y.L., Gau, Y.F (2010) News announcements and price discovery in foreign exchange spot and futures markets Journal of Banking and Finance, Vol 34, 1628-1636
Chui, M (2010) Derivatives Markets, Products and Participants: An Overview IFC Bulletin, 3-11
Cox, C (1976) Futures trading and market information Journal of Political Economy, Vol
84, 1215-1236
(17)Gong, C.C., Ji, S., Su L.L, Ren, F (2016) The lead-lag relationship between stock index and stock index futures: a thermal optimal path method Physica A, 63-72
Harris, L (1989) The October 1987 S&P 500 Stock Futures Basis Journal of Finance, 77-99
Hong, M., Ramchander, S., Wang, T., Yang, D (2017) Role of index futures on China's stock market: Evidence from price discovery and volatility spillover Pacific-Basin
Finance Journal, Vol 44, 13-26
Jian, Z., Wu, S., Zhu, Z (2018) Asymmetric extreme risk spillovers between the Chinise stock market and index futures market: An MV-CAViaR based intraday CoVaR approach Emerging Markets Review, Vol 37, 98-113
Judge, A., Reancharoen, T (2014) An empirical examination of the lead–lag relationship between spot and futures markets: Evidence from Thailand Pacific-Basin Finance
Journal, 29, 335-358
Kang, S.H., Cheong, C., Yoon, S.M (2013) Intraday volatility spillovers between spot and futures indices: Evidence from the Korean stock market Physica A, Vol 392, 1795-1802
Kaniel, R., Saar, G., Titman, S (2008) Individual Investor trading and stock returns Journal
of Finance, Vol 63, 273-310
Kutan, A.M., Shi, Y., Wei, M., Zhao, Y (2018) Does the introduction of index futures stabilize stock markets? Further evidence from emerging markets International Review
of Economics and Finance, 183-197
Lean, H.H., McAleer, M., Wong, W.K (2015) Preferences of risk-averse and risk-seeking investor for oil spot and futures before, during and after the Global Financial Crisis
International Review of Economics & Finance, Vol 40, 204-216
Liu, Q., An, Y (2011) Information transmission in informationally linked markets: Evidence from US and Chinese commodity futures markets Journal of International Money and
Finance, Vol 30, 778-795
Moffat, M (2018) ThoughCo Retrieved from The Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test: https://www.thoughtco.com/the-augmented-dickey-fuller-test-1145985
Nguyễn, T M (2019, 28) Tin nhanh chứng khoán Retrieved from Hạn chế nhà đầu tư cá nhân thị trường chứng khốn phái sinh liệu có khả thi?: https://tinnhanhchungkhoan.vn/chung-khoan/han-che-nha-dau-tu-ca-nhan-tren-thi-truong-chung-khoan-phai-sinh-hien-nay-lieu-co-kha-thi-258443.html
Nieto, M.L, Fernandez, A., Munoz, M.J (1998) Market efficiency in the Spanish derivatives markets: An empirical analysis International Advances in Economic Research, Vol 4, 349-355
Ross, S (1989) Information and volatility: the no-arbitrage martingale approach to timing and resolution irrelevancy Journal of Finance, Vol 44, 1-17
Santos, J (2002) In a study for US grain prices, argues that the evolution of futures markets is the principal reason why commodity spot price volatility diminished Journal of
(18)Spyrou, S (2005) Index Futures trading and spot price volatility Journal of Emerging
Market Finance, Vol 4, 151-167
Tse, T (1995) Lead‐ lag relationship between spot index and futures price of the nikkei stock average Journal of forecasting, Vol 14, 553-563
WFE (2019, Feb 12) 2018 Full Year Market Highlight Retrieved March 8, 2019, from
www.world-exchanges.org/storage/app/media/uploaded-files/WFE%202018%20FY%20Market%20Highlights%20FINAL%20PDF%20VERSI ON%2012.02.19.pdf
WFE (2019, Feb 12) 2018 Full Year Market Highlights Retrieved March 8, 2019, from
www.world-exchanges.org/storage/app/media/uploaded-files/WFE%202018%20FY%20Market%20Highlights%20FINAL%20PDF%20VERSI ON%2012.02.19.pdf
Yang, J., Yang, Z., Zhou, Y (2012) Intraday pice discovery and volatility transimission in stock index and stock index futures market: Evidence from China Journal of Futures
(19)Appendix 1: Unit root analysis of VN30 Index Futures series
Null Hypothesis: VN30_INDEX_FUTURES has a unit root Exogenous: Constant, Linear Trend
Lag Length: (Automatic - based on SIC, maxlag=16)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -0.919502 0.9515
Test critical values: 1% level -3.982074
5% level -3.421539
10% level -3.133553
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Equation
Dependent Variable: D(VN30_INDEX_FUTURES) Method: Least Squares
Sample (adjusted): 388
Included observations: 385 after adjustments
Variable Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob
VN30_INDEX_FUTURES(-1) -0.005988 0.006512 -0.919502 0.3584
D(VN30_INDEX_FUTURES(-1)) -0.046926 0.050512 -0.928989 0.3535
D(VN30_INDEX_FUTURES(-2)) 0.199173 0.050292 3.960307 0.0001
C 6.720445 6.335016 1.060841 0.2894
@TREND("1") -0.007424 0.006336 -1.171693 0.2421
R-squared 0.049032 Mean dependent var -0.446299
Adjusted R-squared 0.039022 S.D dependent var 14.01369
S.E of regression 13.73755 Akaike info criterion 8.091046
Sum squared resid 71713.75 Schwarz criterion 8.142386
Log likelihood -1552.526 Hannan-Quinn criter 8.111408
F-statistic 4.898185 Durbin-Watson stat 1.991679
Prob(F-statistic) 0.000733
Source: Results calculated from EViews Software
Appendix 2: Unit root analysis of VN30 Index series
Null Hypothesis: VN30_INDEX has a unit root Exogenous: Constant, Linear Trend
Lag Length: (Automatic - based on SIC, maxlag=16)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -0.615743 0.9772
Test critical values: 1% level -3.981949
5% level -3.421478
10% level -3.133517
(20)Sample (adjusted): 388
Included observations: 387 after adjustments
Variable Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob
VN30_INDEX(-1) -0.003869 0.006284 -0.615743 0.5384
C 5.082810 6.144677 0.827189 0.4086
@TREND("1") -0.009601 0.005702 -1.683735 0.0930
R-squared 0.007870 Mean dependent var -0.417468
Adjusted R-squared 0.002703 S.D dependent var 12.49337
S.E of regression 12.47648 Akaike info criterion 7.893289
Sum squared resid 59774.38 Schwarz criterion 7.923974
Log likelihood -1524.351 Hannan-Quinn criter 7.905456
F-statistic 1.523012 Durbin-Watson stat 2.013995
Prob(F-statistic) 0.219368
Source: Results calculated from EViews Software
Appendix 3: Unit root analysis of VN-Index series
Null Hypothesis: VN_INDEX has a unit root Exogenous: Constant, Linear Trend
Lag Length: (Automatic - based on SIC, maxlag=16)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -0.746066 0.9682
Test critical values: 1% level -3.981949
5% level -3.421478
10% level -3.133517
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Equation Dependent Variable: D(VN_INDEX) Method: Least Squares
Sample (adjusted): 388
Included observations: 387 after adjustments
Variable Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob
VN_INDEX(-1) -0.004732 0.006342 -0.746066 0.4561
C 5.615799 6.423686 0.874233 0.3825
@TREND("1") -0.008077 0.005725 -1.410805 0.1591
R-squared 0.005779 Mean dependent var -0.496227
Adjusted R-squared 0.000601 S.D dependent var 12.36556
S.E of regression 12.36184 Akaike info criterion 7.874828
Sum squared resid 58681.03 Schwarz criterion 7.905514
Log likelihood -1520.779 Hannan-Quinn criter 7.886996
F-statistic 1.116093 Durbin-Watson stat 2.054727
Prob(F-statistic) 0.328617
(21)
Appendix 4: Regression between VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index
Source: Authors Source: Authors
(22)Appendix 6: Optimal lag selection VN30 Index Futures and VN 30 Index in the 1st sub-period
VAR Lag Order Selection Criteria Endogenous variables: P1 P0 Exogenous variables: C Date: 04/02/19 Time: 16:06 Sample: 8/10/2017 4/10/2018 Included observations: 159
Lag LogL LR FPE AIC SC HQ
0 -1648.138 NA 3543764 20.75645 20.79506 20.77213
1 -1155.356 966.9682 7574.246* 14.60825* 14.72406* 14.65528*
2 -1152.328 5.865323 7667.681 14.62048 14.81350 14.69886
3 -1151.253 2.055366 7955.623 14.65727 14.92749 14.76701
4 -1150.064 2.244510 8242.951 14.69263 15.04005 14.83371
5 -1148.309 3.266610 8480.774 14.72087 15.14550 14.89331
6 -1147.864 0.817319 8871.173 14.76558 15.26742 14.96937
7 -1143.125 8.583031 8792.604 14.75629 15.33533 14.99144
8 -1135.339 13.90747* 8387.989 14.70867 15.36491 14.97516
* indicates lag order selected by the criterion
LR: sequential modified LR test statistic (each test at 5% level) FPE: Final prediction error
AIC: Akaike information criterion SC: Schwarz information criterion HQ: Hannan-Quinn information criterion
VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index in the 1st sub-period
VAR Lag Order Selection Criteria Endogenous variables: P2 P0 Exogenous variables: C Date: 04/02/19 Time: 16:05 Sample: 8/10/2017 4/10/2018 Included observations: 159
Lag LogL LR FPE AIC SC HQ
0 -1696.279 NA 6493097 21.36200 21.40061 21.37768
1 -1176.031 1020.864 9823.909* 14.86832* 14.98413* 14.91535*
2 -1172.692 6.468674 9906.209 14.87663 15.06964 14.95501
3 -1171.963 1.394408 10323.00 14.91777 15.18799 15.02750
4 -1168.670 6.212569 10416.60 14.92667 15.27409 15.06775
5 -1166.092 4.798874 10606.75 14.94456 15.36919 15.11699
6 -1165.063 1.890249 11013.78 14.98192 15.48376 15.18571
7 -1156.590 15.34788 10415.27 14.92566 15.50470 15.16080
8 -1150.502 10.87339* 10150.57 14.89940 15.55564 15.16589
* indicates lag order selected by the criterion
LR: sequential modified LR test statistic (each test at 5% level) FPE: Final prediction error
AIC: Akaike information criterion SC: Schwarz information criterion HQ: Hannan-Quinn information criterion
VN30 Index Futures and VN 30 Index in the 2nd sub-period
(23)Lag LogL LR FPE AIC SC HQ
0 -534.2827 NA 368339.4 18.49251 18.56356 18.52018
1 -449.3254 161.1259 22590.99 15.70088 15.91403 15.78390
2 -439.8685 17.28328* 18728.68* 15.51271* 15.86796* 15.65108*
3 -436.1521 6.535777 18941.23 15.52249 16.01983 15.71621
4 -434.5076 2.778608 20599.28 15.60371 16.24316 15.85279
5 -431.1515 5.439151 21151.33 15.62591 16.40746 15.93034
* indicates lag order selected by the criterion
LR: sequential modified LR test statistic (each test at 5% level) FPE: Final prediction error
AIC: Akaike information criterion SC: Schwarz information criterion HQ: Hannan-Quinn information criterion
VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index in the 2nd sub-period
VAR Lag Order Selection Criteria Endogenous variables: P2 P0 Exogenous variables: C Date: 04/02/19 Time: 16:02 Sample: 4/11/2018 7/11/2018 Included observations: 58
Lag LogL LR FPE AIC SC HQ
0 -526.4523 NA 281178.5 18.22249 18.29354 18.25017
1 -446.0692 152.4507 20191.61 15.58859 15.80174* 15.67162
2 -439.8587 11.35020* 18722.33* 15.51237* 15.86762 15.65074*
3 -437.1816 4.707950 19625.74 15.55799 16.05533 15.75171
4 -436.9028 0.471008 22372.91 15.68631 16.32575 15.93538
5 -435.5694 2.161073 24631.93 15.77826 16.55980 16.08268
* indicates lag order selected by the criterion
LR: sequential modified LR test statistic (each test at 5% level) FPE: Final prediction error
AIC: Akaike information criterion SC: Schwarz information criterion HQ: Hannan-Quinn information criterion
VN30 Index Futures and VN 30 Index in the 3rd sub-period
VAR Lag Order Selection Criteria Endogenous variables: P1 P0 Exogenous variables: C Date: 04/02/19 Time: 15:56 Sample: 158
Included observations: 150
Lag LogL LR FPE AIC SC HQ
0 -1256.585 NA 66528.27 16.78114 16.82128 16.79744
1 -991.0956 520.3596* 2036.248 13.29461 13.41503* 13.34353* -986.6917 8.514159 2025.391* 13.28922* 13.48993 13.37076
3 -982.9698 7.096356 2033.091 13.29293 13.57392 13.40709
4 -980.0965 5.401861 2064.179 13.30795 13.66923 13.45473
5 -977.5749 4.673295 2105.776 13.32767 13.76923 13.50706
6 -976.3807 2.181431 2186.799 13.36508 13.88692 13.57708
7 -975.1330 2.245982 2269.603 13.40177 14.00390 13.64640
8 -973.3793 3.109907 2340.045 13.43172 14.11413 13.70897
(24)LR: sequential modified LR test statistic (each test at 5% level) FPE: Final prediction error
AIC: Akaike information criterion SC: Schwarz information criterion HQ: Hannan-Quinn information criterion
VN30 Index Futures and VN-Index in the 3rd sub-period
VAR Lag Order Selection Criteria Endogenous variables: P1 P0 Exogenous variables: C Date: 04/02/19 Time: 15:48 Sample: 158
Included observations: 150
Lag LogL LR FPE AIC SC HQ
0 -1256.585 NA 66528.27 16.78114 16.82128 16.79744
1 -991.0956 520.3596* 2036.248 13.29461 13.41503* 13.34353* -986.6917 8.514159 2025.391* 13.28922* 13.48993 13.37076
3 -982.9698 7.096356 2033.091 13.29293 13.57392 13.40709
4 -980.0965 5.401861 2064.179 13.30795 13.66923 13.45473
5 -977.5749 4.673295 2105.776 13.32767 13.76923 13.50706
6 -976.3807 2.181431 2186.799 13.36508 13.88692 13.57708
7 -975.1330 2.245982 2269.603 13.40177 14.00390 13.64640
8 -973.3793 3.109907 2340.045 13.43172 14.11413 13.70897
* indicates lag order selected by the criterion
LR: sequential modified LR test statistic (each test at 5% level) FPE: Final prediction error
(25)Appendix 7: VN30 Index and VN30 Index Futures in the first sub-period Vector Error Correction Estimates
Date: 04/19/19 Time: 08:44
Sample (adjusted): 8/14/2017 4/10/2018 Included observations: 165 after adjustments Standard errors in ( ) & t-statistics in [ ]
Cointegrating Eq: CointEq1
P1(-1) 1.000000
P0(-1) -0.958223
(0.02226) [-43.0480]
C -24.94102
Error Correction: D(P1) D(P0)
CointEq1 -0.040088 0.139366
(0.06836) (0.08267)
[-0.58639] [ 1.68576]
D(P1(-1)) -0.024964 0.051903
(0.13744) (0.16620)
[-0.18164] [ 0.31229]
D(P0(-1)) -0.032062 0.017684
(0.11392) (0.13777)
[-0.28144] [ 0.12836]
C 2.714864 2.444492
(0.87701) (1.06058)
[ 3.09559] [ 2.30487]
R-squared 0.005439 0.021548
Adj R-squared -0.013093 0.003316
Sum sq resids 19285.76 28204.19
S.E equation 10.94474 13.23561
F-statistic 0.293494 1.181901
Log likelihood -626.9219 -658.2805
Akaike AIC 7.647539 8.027642
Schwarz SC 7.722834 8.102938
Mean dependent 2.564061 2.628030
S.D dependent 10.87379 13.25761
Determinant resid covariance (dof adj.) 6683.168
Determinant resid covariance 6363.063
Log likelihood -1190.807
Akaike information criterion 14.55523
Schwarz criterion 14.74347
Error Correction Model
Dependent Variable: D(P1) Method: Least Squares Date: 04/19/19 Time: 09:19
Sample (adjusted): 8/14/2017 4/10/2018 Included observations: 165 after adjustments
(26)Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob
C(1) -0.040088 0.068363 -0.586389 0.5584
C(2) -0.024964 0.137435 -0.181644 0.8561
C(3) -0.032062 0.113922 -0.281441 0.7787
C(4) 2.714864 0.877010 3.095591 0.0023
R-squared 0.005439 Mean dependent var 2.564061
Adjusted R-squared -0.013093 S.D dependent var 10.87379
S.E of regression 10.94474 Akaike info criterion 7.647539
Sum squared resid 19285.76 Schwarz criterion 7.722834
Log likelihood -626.9219 Hannan-Quinn criter 7.678104
F-statistic 0.293494 Durbin-Watson stat 1.984260
Prob(F-statistic) 0.830058
Wald Test:
Equation: Untitled
Test Statistic Value df Probability
t-statistic -0.281441 161 0.7787
F-statistic 0.079209 (1, 161) 0.7787
Chi-square 0.079209 0.7784
Null Hypothesis: C(3)=0 Null Hypothesis Summary:
Normalized Restriction (= 0) Value Std Err
C(3) -0.032062 0.113922
Restrictions are linear in coefficients
Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test:
F-statistic 0.730154 Prob F(1,160) 0.3941
Obs*R-squared 0.749550 Prob Chi-Square(1) 0.3866
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID Method: Least Squares Date: 04/19/19 Time: 15:09 Sample: 8/14/2017 4/10/2018 Included observations: 165
Presample missing value lagged residuals set to zero
Variable Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob
C(1) -0.035873 0.080274 -0.446881 0.6556
C(2) -1.064172 1.252961 -0.849326 0.3970
C(3) -0.052487 0.129510 -0.405272 0.6858
C(4) 2.861503 3.461905 0.826569 0.4097
RESID(-1) 1.122133 1.313219 0.854490 0.3941
R-squared 0.004543 Mean dependent var 6.35E-16
Adjusted R-squared -0.020344 S.D dependent var 10.84417
S.E of regression 10.95392 Akaike info criterion 7.655107
(27)Log likelihood -626.5463 Hannan-Quinn criter 7.693313
F-statistic 0.182538 Durbin-Watson stat 2.003627
Prob(F-statistic) 0.947194
-40 -30 -20 -10 10 20 30 40
M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M1 M2 M3 M4
2017 2018
(28)Appendix 8: VN30 Index and VN30 Index Futures in the second sub-period Vector Error Correction Estimates
Date: 04/02/19 Time: 14:20
Sample (adjusted): 4/16/2018 7/11/2018 Included observations: 60 after adjustments Standard errors in ( ) & t-statistics in [ ]
Cointegrating Eq: CointEq1
P1(-1) 1.000000
P0(-1) -0.775645
(0.05631) [-13.7737]
C -215.8693
Error Correction: D(P1) D(P0)
CointEq1 -0.416242 -0.259996
(0.21501) (0.23200)
[-1.93590] [-1.12067]
D(P1(-1)) -0.197878 -0.084612
(0.41819) (0.45123)
[-0.47318] [-0.18751]
D(P1(-2)) 0.182524 0.333804
(0.37745) (0.40727)
[ 0.48357] [ 0.81961]
D(P0(-1)) 0.178409 -0.075543
(0.38673) (0.41729)
[ 0.46133] [-0.18104]
D(P0(-2)) 0.078644 0.004312
(0.35744) (0.38568)
[ 0.22002] [ 0.01118]
C -3.153310 -3.795859
(2.68605) (2.89829)
[-1.17396] [-1.30969]
R-squared 0.099901 0.128148
Adj R-squared 0.016559 0.047421
Sum sq resids 20897.92 24330.86
S.E equation 19.67228 21.22667
F-statistic 1.198681 1.587420
Log likelihood -260.7281 -265.2910
Akaike AIC 8.890937 9.043033
Schwarz SC 9.100372 9.252468
Mean dependent -4.217833 -4.460417
S.D dependent 19.83720 21.74860
Determinant resid covariance (dof adj.) 14872.72
Determinant resid covariance 12046.90
Log likelihood -452.1695
Akaike information criterion 15.53898
(29)Error Correction Model
Dependent Variable: D(P1) Method: Least Squares Date: 04/02/19 Time: 14:22
Sample (adjusted): 4/16/2018 7/11/2018 Included observations: 60 after adjustments
D(P1) = C(1)*( P1(-1) - 0.775645053007*P0(-1) - 215.869328825 ) + C(2) *D(P1(-1)) + C(3)*D(P1(-2)) + C(4)*D(P0(-1)) + C(5)*D(P0(-2)) + C(6)
Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob
C(1) -0.416242 0.215012 -1.935905 0.0581
C(2) -0.197878 0.418189 -0.473178 0.6380
C(3) 0.182524 0.377450 0.483573 0.6306
C(4) 0.178409 0.386728 0.461329 0.6464
C(5) 0.078644 0.357436 0.220024 0.8267
C(6) -3.153310 2.686053 -1.173957 0.2456
R-squared 0.099901 Mean dependent var -4.217833
Adjusted R-squared 0.016559 S.D dependent var 19.83720
S.E of regression 19.67228 Akaike info criterion 8.890937
Sum squared resid 20897.92 Schwarz criterion 9.100372
Log likelihood -260.7281 Hannan-Quinn criter 8.972859
F-statistic 1.198681 Durbin-Watson stat 1.973295
Prob(F-statistic) 0.322266
Wald Test:
Equation: Untitled
Test Statistic Value df Probability
F-statistic 0.107972 (2, 54) 0.8978
Chi-square 0.215945 0.8977
Null Hypothesis: C(4)=C(5)=0 Null Hypothesis Summary:
Normalized Restriction (= 0) Value Std Err
C(4) 0.178409 0.386728
C(5) 0.078644 0.357436
Restrictions are linear in coefficients
Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test:
F-statistic 1.930456 Prob F(2,52) 0.1553
Obs*R-squared 4.146991 Prob Chi-Square(2) 0.1257
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID Method: Least Squares Date: 04/02/19 Time: 14:24 Sample: 4/16/2018 7/11/2018 Included observations: 60
Presample missing value lagged residuals set to zero
(30)C(1) 0.190568 0.294584 0.646906 0.5205
C(2) -0.567437 0.637018 -0.890770 0.3772
C(3) 0.732810 0.526148 1.392782 0.1696
C(4) 0.398080 0.440552 0.903594 0.3704
C(5) 0.202459 0.367777 0.550494 0.5843
C(6) 3.586351 3.970707 0.903202 0.3706
RESID(-1) 0.122071 0.558756 0.218470 0.8279
RESID(-2) -1.034782 0.527739 -1.960783 0.0553
R-squared 0.069117 Mean dependent var 7.34E-15
Adjusted R-squared -0.056195 S.D dependent var 18.82025
S.E of regression 19.34183 Akaike info criterion 8.885983
Sum squared resid 19453.52 Schwarz criterion 9.165229
Log likelihood -258.5795 Hannan-Quinn criter 8.995211
F-statistic 0.551559 Durbin-Watson stat 1.986819
(31)Appendix 9: VN30 Index and VN30 Index Futures in the third sub-period Vector Error Correction Estimates
Date: 04/02/19 Time: 14:33 Sample (adjusted): 158
Included observations: 155 after adjustments Standard errors in ( ) & t-statistics in [ ]
Cointegrating Eq: CointEq1
P1(-1) 1.000000
P0(-1) -1.005177
(0.03233) [-31.0902]
C -0.170651
Error Correction: D(P1) D(P0)
CointEq1 -0.243575 0.045839
(0.13778) (0.14456)
[-1.76781] [ 0.31710]
D(P1(-1)) 0.195839 0.329381
(0.17583) (0.18447)
[ 1.11383] [ 1.78557]
D(P1(-2)) -0.078640 -0.081310
(0.16858) (0.17687)
[-0.46649] [-0.45973]
D(P0(-1)) -0.221257 -0.360162
(0.18088) (0.18977)
[-1.22323] [-1.89789]
D(P0(-2)) 0.282943 0.285022
(0.16830) (0.17657)
[ 1.68120] [ 1.61421]
C -0.303877 -0.311057
(0.73460) (0.77071)
[-0.41366] [-0.40360]
R-squared 0.097540 0.100436
Adj R-squared 0.067256 0.070249
Sum sq resids 12453.18 13707.53
S.E equation 9.142123 9.591500
F-statistic 3.220839 3.327161
Log likelihood -559.8742 -567.3118
Akaike AIC 7.301603 7.397572
Schwarz SC 7.419413 7.515382
Mean dependent -0.294452 -0.308387
S.D dependent 9.465983 9.947256
Determinant resid covariance (dof adj.) 1831.722
Determinant resid covariance 1692.656
Log likelihood -1016.010
Akaike information criterion 13.29045
(32)Error Correction Model
Dependent Variable: D(P1) Method: Least Squares Date: 04/02/19 Time: 14:34 Sample (adjusted): 158
Included observations: 155 after adjustments
D(P1) = C(1)*( P1(-1) - 1.00517679944*P0(-1) - 0.170651069946 ) + C(2) *D(P1(-1)) + C(3)*D(P1(-2)) + C(4)*D(P0(-1)) + C(5)*D(P0(-2)) + C(6)
Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob
C(1) -0.243575 0.137783 -1.767813 0.0791
C(2) 0.195839 0.175825 1.113827 0.2671
C(3) -0.078640 0.168579 -0.466488 0.6415
C(4) -0.221257 0.180878 -1.223235 0.2232
C(5) 0.282943 0.168298 1.681197 0.0948
C(6) -0.303877 0.734597 -0.413665 0.6797
R-squared 0.097540 Mean dependent var -0.294452
Adjusted R-squared 0.067256 S.D dependent var 9.465983
S.E of regression 9.142123 Akaike info criterion 7.301603
Sum squared resid 12453.18 Schwarz criterion 7.419413
Log likelihood -559.8742 Hannan-Quinn criter 7.349455
F-statistic 3.220839 Durbin-Watson stat 1.988800
Prob(F-statistic) 0.008625
Wald Test:
Equation: Untitled
Test Statistic Value df Probability
F-statistic 3.829597 (2, 149) 0.0239
Chi-square 7.659195 0.0217
Null Hypothesis: C(4)=C(5)=0 Null Hypothesis Summary:
Normalized Restriction (= 0) Value Std Err
C(4) -0.221257 0.180878
C(5) 0.282943 0.168298
Restrictions are linear in coefficients
Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test:
F-statistic 0.215374 Prob F(2,147) 0.8065
Obs*R-squared 0.452862 Prob Chi-Square(2) 0.7974
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID Method: Least Squares Date: 04/02/19 Time: 14:35 Sample: 158
Included observations: 155
Presample missing value lagged residuals set to zero
(33)C(1) -0.020256 0.201178 -0.100687 0.9199
C(2) 0.053584 0.295343 0.181430 0.8563
C(3) -0.115360 0.246506 -0.467982 0.6405
C(4) -0.030135 0.237957 -0.126640 0.8994
C(5) -0.013722 0.224312 -0.061172 0.9513
C(6) -0.008564 0.746263 -0.011476 0.9909
RESID(-1) -0.029102 0.385913 -0.075410 0.9400
RESID(-2) 0.149298 0.249777 0.597725 0.5509
R-squared 0.002922 Mean dependent var -9.64E-15
Adjusted R-squared -0.044558 S.D dependent var 8.992487
S.E of regression 9.190648 Akaike info criterion 7.324483
Sum squared resid 12416.80 Schwarz criterion 7.481563
Log likelihood -559.6475 Hannan-Quinn criter 7.388286
F-statistic 0.061535 Durbin-Watson stat 1.973053
(34)Appendix 10: VN-Index and VN30 Index Futures in the first sub-period Vector Error Correction Estimates
Date: 04/19/19 Time: 09:50
Sample (adjusted): 8/14/2017 4/10/2018 Included observations: 165 after adjustments Standard errors in ( ) & t-statistics in [ ]
Cointegrating Eq: CointEq1
P2(-1) 1.000000
P0(-1) -0.997170
(0.03804) [-26.2131]
C -0.072784
Error Correction: D(P2) D(P0)
CointEq1 -0.073072 0.035938
(0.04794) (0.05640)
[-1.52428] [ 0.63723]
D(P2(-1)) -0.128959 -0.022076
(0.12383) (0.14568)
[-1.04144] [-0.15154]
D(P0(-1)) 0.022958 0.053496
(0.10817) (0.12725)
[ 0.21225] [ 0.42039]
C 2.857903 2.543690
(0.90782) (1.06800)
[ 3.14810] [ 2.38172]
R-squared 0.026330 0.003385
Adj R-squared 0.008187 -0.015186
Sum sq resids 20756.50 28727.77
S.E equation 11.35440 13.35790
F-statistic 1.451258 0.182256
Log likelihood -632.9851 -659.7980
Akaike AIC 7.721031 8.046036
Schwarz SC 7.796327 8.121332
Mean dependent 2.582061 2.628030
S.D dependent 11.40117 13.25761
Determinant resid covariance (dof adj.) 8604.693
Determinant resid covariance 8192.553
Log likelihood -1211.656
Akaike information criterion 14.80795
Schwarz criterion 14.99619
Error Correction Model
Dependent Variable: D(P2) Method: Least Squares Date: 04/19/19 Time: 10:03
Sample (adjusted): 8/14/2017 4/10/2018 Included observations: 165 after adjustments
(35)Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob
C(1) -0.073072 0.047939 -1.524285 0.1294
C(2) -0.128959 0.123829 -1.041436 0.2992
C(3) 0.022958 0.108167 0.212250 0.8322
C(4) 2.857903 0.907819 3.148100 0.0020
R-squared 0.026330 Mean dependent var 2.582061
Adjusted R-squared 0.008187 S.D dependent var 11.40117
S.E of regression 11.35440 Akaike info criterion 7.721031
Sum squared resid 20756.50 Schwarz criterion 7.796327
Log likelihood -632.9851 Hannan-Quinn criter 7.751596
F-statistic 1.451258 Durbin-Watson stat 1.993275
Prob(F-statistic) 0.229952
Wald Test:
Equation: Untitled
Test Statistic Value df Probability
t-statistic 0.212250 161 0.8322
F-statistic 0.045050 (1, 161) 0.8322
Chi-square 0.045050 0.8319
Null Hypothesis: C(3)=0 Null Hypothesis Summary:
Normalized Restriction (= 0) Value Std Err
C(3) 0.022958 0.108167
Restrictions are linear in coefficients
Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test:
F-statistic 0.048642 Prob F(1,160) 0.8257
Obs*R-squared 0.050146 Prob Chi-Square(1) 0.8228
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID Method: Least Squares Date: 04/19/19 Time: 14:48 Sample: 8/14/2017 4/10/2018 Included observations: 165
Presample missing value lagged residuals set to zero
Variable Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob
C(1) -0.011015 0.069326 -0.158885 0.8740
C(2) -0.142213 0.656670 -0.216568 0.8288
C(3) -0.014962 0.127953 -0.116933 0.9071
C(4) 0.404096 2.046002 0.197505 0.8437
RESID(-1) 0.158840 0.720208 0.220548 0.8257
R-squared 0.000304 Mean dependent var -8.45E-16
Adjusted R-squared -0.024688 S.D dependent var 11.25007
S.E of regression 11.38810 Akaike info criterion 7.732848
Sum squared resid 20750.19 Schwarz criterion 7.826968
Log likelihood -632.9600 Hannan-Quinn criter 7.771055
F-statistic 0.012160 Durbin-Watson stat 1.998617
(36)-40 -30 -20 -10 10 20 30 40
M8 M9 M10 M11 M12 M1 M2 M3 M4
2017 2018
(37)Appendix 11: VN-Index and VN30 Index Futures in the second sub-period Vector Error Correction Estimates
Date: 04/02/19 Time: 14:25
Sample (adjusted): 4/16/2018 7/11/2018 Included observations: 60 after adjustments Standard errors in ( ) & t-statistics in [ ]
Cointegrating Eq: CointEq1
P2(-1) 1.000000
P0(-1) -0.824207
(0.04834) [-17.0508]
C -184.6331
Error Correction: D(P2) D(P0)
CointEq1 -0.338162 -0.127215
(0.22906) (0.26535)
[-1.47631] [-0.47943]
D(P2(-1)) -0.398425 -0.217485
(0.40386) (0.46785)
[-0.98654] [-0.46487]
D(P2(-2)) 0.019779 0.042390
(0.37158) (0.43045)
[ 0.05323] [ 0.09848]
D(P0(-1)) 0.288373 0.014005
(0.35156) (0.40726)
[ 0.82026] [ 0.03439]
D(P0(-2)) 0.192538 0.238654
(0.33494) (0.38801)
[ 0.57484] [ 0.61507]
C -3.902071 -4.087229
(2.53382) (2.93525)
[-1.53999] [-1.39246]
R-squared 0.094271 0.107296
Adj R-squared 0.010407 0.024638
Sum sq resids 18564.52 24912.78
S.E equation 18.54150 21.47901
F-statistic 1.124093 1.298071
Log likelihood -257.1762 -266.0001
Akaike AIC 8.772540 9.066669
Schwarz SC 8.981974 9.276103
Mean dependent -4.399667 -4.460417
S.D dependent 18.63874 21.74860
Determinant resid covariance (dof adj.) 15471.08
Determinant resid covariance 12531.58
Log likelihood -453.3528
Akaike information criterion 15.57843
(38)Error Correction Model
Dependent Variable: D(P2) Method: Least Squares Date: 04/02/19 Time: 14:26
Sample (adjusted): 4/16/2018 7/11/2018 Included observations: 60 after adjustments
D(P2) = C(1)*( P2(-1) - 0.824206884672*P0(-1) - 184.633121377 ) + C(2) *D(P2(-1)) + C(3)*D(P2(-2)) + C(4)*D(P0(-1)) + C(5)*D(P0(-2)) + C(6)
Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob
C(1) -0.338162 0.229059 -1.476309 0.1457
C(2) -0.398425 0.403862 -0.986537 0.3283
C(3) 0.019779 0.371584 0.053229 0.9577
C(4) 0.288373 0.351563 0.820260 0.4157
C(5) 0.192538 0.334943 0.574836 0.5678
C(6) -3.902071 2.533822 -1.539994 0.1294
R-squared 0.094271 Mean dependent var -4.399667
Adjusted R-squared 0.010407 S.D dependent var 18.63874
S.E of regression 18.54150 Akaike info criterion 8.772540
Sum squared resid 18564.52 Schwarz criterion 8.981974
Log likelihood -257.1762 Hannan-Quinn criter 8.854461
F-statistic 1.124093 Durbin-Watson stat 1.933929
Prob(F-statistic) 0.358765
Wald Test:
Equation: Untitled
Test Statistic Value df Probability
F-statistic 0.366305 (2, 54) 0.6950
Chi-square 0.732610 0.6933
Null Hypothesis: C(4)=C(5)=0 Null Hypothesis Summary:
Normalized Restriction (= 0) Value Std Err
C(4) 0.288373 0.351563
C(5) 0.192538 0.334943
Restrictions are linear in coefficients
Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test:
F-statistic 0.635458 Prob F(2,52) 0.5338
Obs*R-squared 1.431456 Prob Chi-Square(2) 0.4888
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID Method: Least Squares Date: 04/02/19 Time: 14:27 Sample: 4/16/2018 7/11/2018 Included observations: 60
Presample missing value lagged residuals set to zero
(39)C(1) -0.029958 0.337151 -0.088858 0.9295
C(2) -0.408667 0.601495 -0.679419 0.4999
C(3) 0.199533 0.538339 0.370645 0.7124
C(4) 0.046827 0.410315 0.114124 0.9096
C(5) 0.122715 0.356096 0.344612 0.7318
C(6) -0.157513 4.645476 -0.033907 0.9731
RESID(-1) 0.393960 0.622284 0.633087 0.5295
RESID(-2) -0.401797 0.514682 -0.780670 0.4385
R-squared 0.023858 Mean dependent var -7.11E-16
Adjusted R-squared -0.107546 S.D dependent var 17.73846
S.E of regression 18.66795 Akaike info criterion 8.815060
Sum squared resid 18121.61 Schwarz criterion 9.094306
Log likelihood -256.4518 Hannan-Quinn criter 8.924288
F-statistic 0.181559 Durbin-Watson stat 1.970544
(40)Appendix 12: VN-Index and VN30 Index Futures in the third sub-period Vector Error Correction Estimates
Date: 04/02/19 Time: 14:36 Sample (adjusted): 158
Included observations: 155 after adjustments Standard errors in ( ) & t-statistics in [ ]
Cointegrating Eq: CointEq1
P2(-1) 1.000000
P0(-1) -0.810212
(0.14259) [-5.68209]
C -207.5733
Error Correction: D(P2) D(P0)
CointEq1 -0.097897 -0.038483
(0.05240) (0.05645)
[-1.86810] [-0.68168]
D(P2(-1)) 0.237658 0.351783
(0.14807) (0.15951)
[ 1.60505] [ 2.20542]
D(P2(-2)) -0.001104 0.054754
(0.15102) (0.16269)
[-0.00731] [ 0.33655]
D(P0(-1)) -0.228819 -0.391557
(0.14321) (0.15427)
[-1.59778] [-2.53805]
D(P0(-2)) 0.213972 0.166633
(0.14473) (0.15591)
[ 1.47840] [ 1.06875]
C -0.493507 -0.172235
(0.72185) (0.77761)
[-0.68367] [-0.22149]
R-squared 0.094318 0.097381
Adj R-squared 0.063926 0.067092
Sum sq resids 11852.02 13754.09
S.E equation 8.918732 9.607774
F-statistic 3.103383 3.215032
Log likelihood -556.0397 -567.5746
Akaike AIC 7.252125 7.400963
Schwarz SC 7.369935 7.518773
Mean dependent -0.571290 -0.308387
S.D dependent 9.218240 9.947256
Determinant resid covariance (dof adj.) 2252.063
Determinant resid covariance 2081.084
Log likelihood -1032.021
Akaike information criterion 13.49704
(41)Error Correction Model
Dependent Variable: D(P2) Method: Least Squares Date: 04/02/19 Time: 14:38 Sample (adjusted): 158
Included observations: 155 after adjustments
D(P2) = C(1)*( P2(-1) - 0.810212007088*P0(-1) - 207.573296217 ) + C(2) *D(P2(-1)) + C(3)*D(P2(-2)) + C(4)*D(P0(-1)) + C(5)*D(P0(-2)) + C(6)
Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob
C(1) -0.097897 0.052405 -1.868096 0.0637
C(2) 0.237658 0.148069 1.605049 0.1106
C(3) -0.001104 0.151023 -0.007309 0.9942
C(4) -0.228819 0.143211 -1.597776 0.1122
C(5) 0.213972 0.144732 1.478397 0.1414
C(6) -0.493507 0.721845 -0.683674 0.4952
R-squared 0.094318 Mean dependent var -0.571290
Adjusted R-squared 0.063926 S.D dependent var 9.218240
S.E of regression 8.918732 Akaike info criterion 7.252125
Sum squared resid 11852.02 Schwarz criterion 7.369935
Log likelihood -556.0397 Hannan-Quinn criter 7.299977
F-statistic 3.103383 Durbin-Watson stat 2.008688
Prob(F-statistic) 0.010764
Wald Test:
Equation: Untitled
Test Statistic Value df Probability
F-statistic 3.184739 (2, 149) 0.0442
Chi-square 6.369478 0.0414
Null Hypothesis: C(4)=C(5)=0 Null Hypothesis Summary:
Normalized Restriction (= 0) Value Std Err
C(4) -0.228819 0.143211
C(5) 0.213972 0.144732
Restrictions are linear in coefficients
Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test:
F-statistic 0.220849 Prob F(2,147) 0.8021
Obs*R-squared 0.464341 Prob Chi-Square(2) 0.7928
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID Method: Least Squares Date: 04/02/19 Time: 14:39 Sample: 158
Included observations: 155
Presample missing value lagged residuals set to zero
(42)C(1) 0.024053 0.065768 0.365725 0.7151
C(2) 0.205016 0.342598 0.598414 0.5505
C(3) -0.052970 0.257617 -0.205615 0.8374
C(4) 0.018227 0.148219 0.122973 0.9023
C(5) 0.066344 0.176607 0.375659 0.7077
C(6) 0.106749 0.749417 0.142443 0.8869
RESID(-1) -0.240105 0.362742 -0.661917 0.5091
RESID(-2) -0.012130 0.233894 -0.051859 0.9587
R-squared 0.002996 Mean dependent var -1.38E-16
Adjusted R-squared -0.044481 S.D dependent var 8.772752
S.E of regression 8.965738 Akaike info criterion 7.274931
Sum squared resid 11816.52 Schwarz criterion 7.432011
Log likelihood -555.8072 Hannan-Quinn criter 7.338734
F-statistic 0.063100 Durbin-Watson stat 1.970188
(43)Appendix 13: Unit root analysis of return series of VN30 Index Futures, VN30 Index and VN-Index
Null Hypothesis: R_VN30_INDEX_FUTURES_ has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: (Automatic - based on SIC, maxlag=16)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -11.61835 0.0000
Test critical values: 1% level -3.447125
5% level -2.868829
10% level -2.570719
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values
Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Equation
Dependent Variable: D(R_VN30_INDEX_FUTURES_) Method: Least Squares
Date: 06/12/19 Time: 17:19 Sample (adjusted): 387
Included observations: 385 after adjustments
Variable Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob
R_VN30_INDEX_FUTURES_(-1) -0.845966 0.072813 -11.61835 0.0000
D(R_VN30_INDEX_FUTURES_(-1)) -0.203494 0.049863 -4.081036 0.0001
C 0.000556 0.000713 0.780059 0.4358
R-squared 0.550609 Mean dependent var 2.41E-06
Adjusted R-squared 0.548256 S.D dependent var 0.020777
S.E of regression 0.013964 Akaike info criterion -5.696842
Sum squared resid 0.074492 Schwarz criterion -5.666037
Log likelihood 1099.642 Hannan-Quinn criter -5.684625
F-statistic 234.0198 Durbin-Watson stat 1.987743
Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000
Null Hypothesis: R_VN30_INDEX_ has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: (Automatic - based on SIC, maxlag=16)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -11.87774 0.0000
Test critical values: 1% level -3.447125
5% level -2.868829
10% level -2.570719
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values
Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Equation Dependent Variable: D(R_VN30_INDEX_) Method: Least Squares
Date: 06/12/19 Time: 17:14 Sample (adjusted): 387
Included observations: 385 after adjustments
Variable Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob
(44)D(R_VN30_INDEX_(-1)) -0.157522 0.050225 -3.136324 0.0018
C 0.000577 0.000641 0.900012 0.3687
R-squared 0.517023 Mean dependent var 2.61E-06
Adjusted R-squared 0.514494 S.D dependent var 0.018014
S.E of regression 0.012552 Akaike info criterion -5.910106
Sum squared resid 0.060185 Schwarz criterion -5.879302
Log likelihood 1140.695 Hannan-Quinn criter -5.897889
F-statistic 204.4641 Durbin-Watson stat 2.016365
Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000
Null Hypothesis: R_VN_INDEX_ has a unit root Exogenous: Constant
Lag Length: (Automatic - based on SIC, maxlag=16)
t-Statistic Prob.*
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test statistic -11.91224 0.0000
Test critical values: 1% level -3.447125
5% level -2.868829
10% level -2.570719
*MacKinnon (1996) one-sided p-values
Augmented Dickey-Fuller Test Equation Dependent Variable: D(R_VN_INDEX_) Method: Least Squares
Date: 06/12/19 Time: 17:21 Sample (adjusted): 387
Included observations: 385 after adjustments
Variable Coefficient Std Error t-Statistic Prob
R_VN_INDEX_(-1) -0.858895 0.072102 -11.91224 0.0000
D(R_VN_INDEX_(-1)) -0.161695 0.050205 -3.220707 0.0014
C 0.000620 0.000618 1.002645 0.3167
R-squared 0.525264 Mean dependent var -1.30E-05
Adjusted R-squared 0.522778 S.D dependent var 0.017494
S.E of regression 0.012085 Akaike info criterion -5.985967
Sum squared resid 0.055789 Schwarz criterion -5.955163
Log likelihood 1155.299 Hannan-Quinn criter -5.973750
F-statistic 211.3289 Durbin-Watson stat 2.020066