Next Article in Journal
Multi-Factor Cost Adjustment for Enhanced Export-Oriented Production Capacity in Manufacturing Firms
Previous Article in Journal
Road Freight Quality Management in Industry 4.0: International Experience and Perspectives in Kazakhstan
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysing Rational Bubbles in African Stock Markets: Evidence from Econophysics Frequency Domain Estimates and DCC MGARCH Model

1
Department of Economics, Bowen University, Iwo P.O. Box 284, Nigeria
2
Department of Finance, University of Lagos (UNILAG), Lagos P.O. Box 132, Nigeria
3
Amity Business School, Amity University Dubai, Dubai International Academic City, Dubai P.O. Box 345019, United Arab Emirates
4
Department of Accounting, School of Economics and Business, Telkom University, Bandung 40257, Indonesia
5
Department of Business Administration, College of Business, Al Ain University, Al Ain P.O. Box 64141, United Arab Emirates
6
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, School of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Walter Sisulu University, Eastern Cape 5117, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Economies 2024, 12(8), 217; https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12080217
Submission received: 5 June 2024 / Revised: 3 August 2024 / Accepted: 5 August 2024 / Published: 22 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Macroeconomics, Monetary Economics, and Financial Markets)

Abstract

:
The stock market operates on informed decisions based on information gathered from heterogeneous sources, encompassing diverse beliefs, strategies, and knowledge. This study examines the validity of rational bubbles in stock market prices, focusing on eight African stock markets: South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Egypt, Morocco, Mauritius, Ghana, and Botswana. Utilizing newly developed econophysics-based unit root tests and the Dynamic Conditional Correlation Multivariate Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity (DCC MGARCH) models, the authors analyzed daily data from 1996 to 2022. Our findings indicate that these markets experienced bubbles at various points, often followed by bursts. These bubbles coincided with significant economic changes, suggesting a strong link between stock market behavior and economic growth. For instance, financial crises, political instability, and global economic downturns significantly influenced bubble formation and bursts in these markets. The study reveals that market-specific events, such as regulatory changes and shifts in investor sentiment, also contributed to the occurrence of bubbles. Three key policy options are proposed to address bubbles in the studied markets including, enhancing regulatory frameworks to monitor and mitigate bubble formation, improving financial literacy among investors to promote informed decision-making, and strengthening economic policies to stabilize macroeconomic conditions and reduce vulnerability to external shocks. By implementing these measures, policymakers can enhance market stability and foster sustainable economic growth in African stock markets.
JEL Classification:
F1; F310; F32; G12; G15

1. Introduction

Literature has established that shocks to the stock market have significant implications for the economy, and their effects can be global as evidenced in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis (Lawal et al. 2018b). Several studies have attempted to examine the behaviour of the stock market using different methodologies to analyze several stock market data around the globe with different results. Some of these studies examined the efficient nature of the markets, mostly within the context of the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH), Random Walk Hypothesis (RWH), Mean Reversion, the Adaptive Market hypothesis among others (Lee et al. 2010; Stoian and Iorgulescu 2020; Durusu-Ciftci et al. 2019; Al-Khazali and Mirzaei 2017; Lawal et al. 2018b). Over the last two decades, there has also been an intensive and unconcluded debate on the validity of rational bubbles in stock markets (Balcilar et al. 2016; Virtanen et al. 2018; Escobari et al. 2017; Tran 2017). Evidence of the existence of rational bubbles implies there is no long-run relationship between stock prices and dividends. When a bubble and burst occur in the market, it could have overarching effect on the economy, as its impact is transmitted and spread through the mechanism of the enterprise/family balance effect, which could induce a spike in corporate liquidity risks, and banking and currency crises, with ultimate impact on financial security.
A bubble is a product of innovation that has created uncertainty about fundamental valuations. As noted by (Kruse et al. 2018), a bubble occurs when the market price of an asset exceeds its price determined by fundamental factors by a significant amount for a prolonged period. Umar et al. (2021) noted that detecting a bubble event will assist in predicting asset prices and their potential fluctuations. Having a better understanding of the bubble is key as evidence abounds that when the bubble bursts, it exerts turmoil on the financial market and the economy. When a bubble bursts, it exacerbates volatility, increases risks, leads to massive losses, destabilizes the market and increases the fragility of the overall financial system (Aharon et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2016; Lawal et al. 2022, 2019b).
According to (Phillips 2016; Tran 2017) speculative bubbles can be examined from five (interwoven) approaches: Excess volatility; Bubble premiums; Bubble specifications; Duration dependencies bubble; and rational bubbles. Other classifications according to (Balcilar et al. 2016) are Credit fuel bubbles and Irrational behaviour bubbles. Our focus in this study is to expand the frontier of knowledge on rational bubbles.
Understanding the dynamics of stock markets vis-a-vis the presence or otherwise of rational bubbles is important to various economic agents, especially investors (both institutional and private) as well as policymakers. Policymakers are often confronted with knowing what causes asset bubbles. What is the welfare effect of an asset bubble? Is the assets bubble profitable for the economy? If yes? What policies can be used to prevent a bubble from bursting? As noted by Miao et al. (2015) rational bubbles generate excessive investment (which could be inefficient) and reduce welfare. For policymakers, financial stability responsibility goes beyond characterizing a bubble or its collapse but entails real-time determination of whether or not a bubble is evolving.
To know what policy options are available to policymakers in handling a crisis resulting from a bubble burst, hence mitigating its impact on the financial market in particular, and the wider economy in general, it is important that policymakers have a good understanding of bubble build-up (Bell et al. 2022; Liu and Conlon 2018; Ayub et al. 2020; Okere et al. 2019). Over the years, concerted efforts have been deployed to understand the causes and consequences of the asset price bubble. For instance, Zhang and Zheng (2017), Kruse et al. (2018) and Lawal et al. (2019a) identified the role of the inflation rate, interest rate as well as other monetary policy tools in shaping the behaviour of asset prices bubble. They argued that if the natural rate is high in a period characterized by a low inflation rate, monetary policy intervention that targets a low interest rate will trigger a bubble in asset prices. Other factors are changes in the macroeconomic environment that drive up the GDP (Lawal et al. 2016; Acharya and Naqvi 2018); excess liquidity in the economy resulting from banking sector overaggressive lending cum with underpricing risk (Pérez-lechuga 2017); leverage effect (Balcilar et al. 2016; Versmissen and Zietz 2017). Knowing that bubbles may hurt the macro economy, the question is, what are the available policy responses to bubbles? Several policy options have been put forward. For instance, Dudley (2010) recommends the Bully Pulpit (announcement effect) approach that emphasises awakening the caution of the various economic agents to the dangers of the incipient bubble; Bernanke and Gertler (1999) suggest (the Jackson Hole consensus monetary policy easing) which recommends little or no restrictive monetary policy measure during the bubble formation and growth periods; Borio (2003) suggest the use of macro-prudential measures aimed at protecting against the effect of a bubble burst especially on financial instability.
The financial liberation exercise embraced by emerging economies led to foreign capital inflows with implications on the capital market development and economic growth. Evidence suggests that an unprecedented increase in capital inflows to developing economies may induce asset bubbles. Although the returns on investment in emerging economies are higher than those of developed economies, emerging markets are less studied.
Furthermore, large number of the studies on emerging economies focused on Asian and Latin American economies with little on African economies. This motivates our interest in African stock markets with a focus on the eight (8) largest markets on the continent.
As argued by (Virtanen et al. 2018; Chang et al. 2016; Hirano et al. 2015; Bejan and Bidian 2014), timely and precise detection of volatilities, bubbles and bursts facilitate competent macro-prudential actions against financial instabilities.
Most literature which investigates whether stock prices exhibit rational bubbles employed cointegration techniques like the Johnsen cointegration test, Johansen and Juselius (Claver et al. 2019; Guidi and Ugur 2014). These tests are linear and have lower power for any form of asymmetric adjustments thus yielding poor results when employed to measure equilibrium relationship. They also have lower power in the presence of misspecified dynamics (Enders and Lee 2012; Becker et al. 2004; Harvey et al. 2017). Ye et al. (2011) noted that linear models are inappropriate if prices are sticky in the downward direction without a corresponding upward movement. Recent methodologies adopted to examine the existence of rational bubbles in the stock market include the time domain (Phillips et al. 2015a, 2015b) that assumes the existence of a stochastic trend in data (SADF and GSADF); Markov–Switching model. Though these techniques offer better results than the existing linear models they are equally faced with the disadvantages of economic models resulting from the utilization of individualistic and equilibrium methodologies believed to be inadequate in the study of complex dynamics and social interactions (Bai et al. 2019; Kassouri 2022; Herzog 2007; Lawal et al. 2019a, 2018a). More so, it has been convincingly argued in the literature that econophysics frequency domain models offer a better analysis of data manipulation as they capture both the time and frequency domain property of the data generating set (see Aloui and Hkiri 2014).
Identifying and pinpointing the location of previous bubbles are essential for formulating macroprudential policies regulations and interventions that will mitigate future bubbles and bursts, hence preventing potential economic recession. To address the challenges associated with traditional models, the current study employed the econophysics frequency domain estimates developed by Herzog (2015). The model is preferable because it calibrates the impacting complex dynamics and social interaction of financial bubbles when examining complex financial dynamics. The model is efficient in identifying the structural break dates.
The motivation and justification for this study focus on the need to enhance the knowledge of bubble and their impact on asset prices, as they affect the financial system in particular, and the aggregate economy as a whole (Lawal et al. 2022). This is important for various economic agents especially investors (both institutional and private), policy makers and the academic community. This study, therefore, employed a novel econophysics frequency domain particle financial model to examine the existence of rational bubbles in the eight largest African Stock Markets. Having established the existence of bubbles in these markets, we further employed the dynamic conditional correlation multivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (DCC MGARCH) to examine the existence of interlink of bubbles in the studied economies. This study made five important contributions to the knowledge of rational bubbles in the asset price market: (i) we examine a large sample of stock price data, including the most recent and turbulent period of the COVID-19 global pandemic. This is essential in understanding the time-varying behaviour of asset prices; besides, the sample is made up of eight (8) Africa’s largest markets (BRVM (Bourse Régionale des Valeurs Mobilières) and Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange were dropped because of too many missing values for some years)). (ii) The methodology employed helps to identify structural breaks in the stock market price which is key to identifying or detecting bubble build-up in financial variables. (iii) We employed a DCC-MGARCH model to examine the existence of correlation of bubbles among the markets. This is important in knowing whether the bubbles in these markets are interdependent and, hence, possess a common source. (iv) advanced the frontier of knowledge on asset price bubbles within the context of the frequency domain model. (v) We offer some policy implications to various economic agents.
The rest of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides the literature review; Section 3 deals with methodology; Section 4 presents the results and Section 5 concludes the study.

Literature Review

Recently, a new school of thought emerged with a focus on knowing whether significant deviation and decoupling exist between the fundamental values of assets and their actual market prices. These studies examine whether a long-run relationship exists between stock prices and dividends. They postulated that when no long-run relationship is established between the two, then rational bubbles exist. Some of these studies are briefly reviewed in this section.
For China, Lehkonen (2010) investigates the notion of rational bubbles in the Chinese stock markets and China-related share indices in Hong Kong by employing a duration dependence test to analyse both monthly and weekly abnormal market returns of the Shanghai, Shenzhen A-and-B-markets, the Hong Kong China enterprise and the China Affiliated Corporations indices. Findings from these studies reveal mixed results, for instance, results from the weekly data show that for all the mainland Chinese stock markets, evidence exists to establish the existence of rational bubbles whereas bubbles cannot be established when the analysis was conducted using monthly series. When the Hong Kong market was examined, evidence reveals that no traces of a bubble could be established. The study also noted market segmentation in mainland China has no effect on the existence or otherwise of bubbles. The study stressed the impact of the duration dependence test when examining bubbles and their effects on a given economy.
Ye et al. (2011) investigate the existence of rational bubbles in the G7 stock markets based on monthly data between January 2000 and June 2009 by employing a newly developed Fourier unit root test and a nonparametric rank test for cointegration. The study observed that the null of unit root test I(1) in stock prices can be rejected for stock markets of Canada, France, Italy and the UK, though the results as suggested by the rank test techniques show that stock market prices of all the studied economies lack evidence to support the existence or validity of rational bubbles.
Anderson and Brooks (2014) calibrated the impact of the microstructure components on the debate of a bubble’s existence. The study developed and tested an empirical asset pricing model that allows for speculative bubbles to affect stock returns by showing that stock that incorporates a larger bubble yields higher returns. The study further reveals that bubble deviation at the stock level rather than the industry or aggregate level is a priced source of risk separated from the standard market risk, size and value factors. The study noted that much of the common variation in stock returns that demonstrate a substantial relationship with market risk is largely influenced by the co-movement of bubbles rather than market fundamentals.
Herzog (2015) developed a mathematical model of financial bubbles based on an econophysics frequency domain model that identifies bubbles in asset price dynamics with news and without stochastic and martingale theory. The study utilized a new theoretical model to detect ex-ante financial bubbles. The study noted that agents identify bubbles only with a time delay and that the detention of bubbles are different from either the individual or the collective point of view. The author concludes that the properties and developments of financial bubbles are largely important in studying the existence of the behaviour of rational bubbles in asset prices.
Cho and McCallum (2015) developed a forward convergence model with a linear rational expectation refinement scheme and an associated no–bubble selection criterion to examine the existence or otherwise of rational bubbles in a typical stock market with a determinacy and indeterminacy framework. The study observed that a determinate solution is economically cogent for most of the cases investigated. The study also noted that models that are not forward-convergent lack economic solutions suggesting the absence of evidence of a bubble.
Chang et al. (2016) investigated the existence or otherwise of rational bubbles in the South African stock market by employing SADF and GSADF estimation techniques to analyze data on the Johannesburg stock exchange. The study observed that two bubbles existed from 2005 to 2006. This was traced to the influx of money from investors that led to the bidding up of prices of stocks above their justified fundamentals. This is the usual occurrence when there is a massive influx of cash into the stock market characterized by few investment options.
In a related development (Balcilar et al. 2016) examined the existence of bubbles in the South African stock market by employing three stylized or alternative models to analyse monthly data sourced from January 1954 to April 2015. These models control for nonlinearities inherent in asset price return by allowing for the existence of multiple regimes. The author reported that the bubble model is better off and fits the model than competing models. Furthermore, the study establish the existence of rational bubbles in the studied stock market. The authors concluded that rational bubbles established in the South African stock market are largely traced to either leveraged positions or irrational behaviour of investors in the South African market. However, though the models identify the bubbles based on probabilistic estimates, they could not specify what behaviour (credit-induced or herding behaviour) motivated the existence of a rational bubble in the South African stock market.
Chen et al. (2016) employed the momentum threshold unit root test (MTAR) and the logistic smooth transition momentum threshold (LNU–MTAR) unit root test that accounts for the nonlinearity properties of the data generating process to analyse data sourced from four international stock markets comprised of the US, Belgium, Denmark and Finland. The study examines the validity of rational bubbles’ existence in the selected stock markets, by testing for the presence of periodically collapsing bubbles. The study observed that the hypothesis of rational bubbles cannot be rejected and that evidence show that the hypothesis of periodic collapse of bubbles cannot be established when we allow for non-linear adjustment and structural breaks.
Liang et al. (2017) examined the validity of a rational bubbles hypothesis in a three-period market where investors are risk-averse, privately informed and heterogeneous expectations order, trade on private signals, and make decisions based on sentiment and sparsely based bounded rationality. The study observed that bounded rationality leads to mispricing and reduces over time, investor sentiment generates a higher significant impact than private signals, and optimistic investor sentiment stimulates hedging demand, thereby reducing price soaring. The result further stimulates the demanding effect of higher order expectations on price volatility and the heterogeneity expectation implies inconsistent investor behaviour in financial markets. The study concluded that investors’ expectation about the future price is distorted by their sentiment and bounded rationality, thus investors obtain a biased mean from the signal extraction.
For the Asian and Latin American stock markets, Tran (2017) employed the newly developed non-cointegration residual-augmented least squares (RALS) estimation techniques to analyse monthly data of price indexes and dividends to test for the existence of periodical collapsing stock price bubbles in the studied stock markets. The study observed that the hypothesis of the formation of bubbles cannot be rejected for the studied market. This development was traced to the impact of market openness in the studied economies.
For Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, Fry (2018) established robust evidence of the existence of rational bubbles in Bitcoin & Ethereum by developing a bespoke rational bubble technique that calibrates both heavy tail and the probability of a total collapse in asset prices into a model. The study emphasized the place of timely response to changes in asset characteristics as a haven for investors against the consequence of a bubble burst.
Farjam and Kirchkamp (2018) calibrated the impact of the interaction between human agents and machines in the study of rational bubbles. The authors examined the impact of algorithmic traders on human trading activities by separating the direct effects of algorithmic traders from the indirect effect of algorithmic traders by measuring the observed deviations from the fundamental value, speed of trading, volatility of prices and bid-ask period. The authors observed that the magnitude of the bubbles is smaller, and prices are relatively closer to the fundamental value when both the two sets of traders participate than when only human traders participate in the market.
Caspi and Graham (2018) extended the (Anderson and Brooks 2014) work by calibrating the use of book-to-market ratio into the study of a rational bubble with a focus on market microstructure that emphasized individual stock market behaviour rather than aggregate estimates when the validity of the rational bubble is considered. The study empirically investigates the validity of the rational bubble hypothesis for the Israeli stock market based on monthly data from July 1996 to August 2014 and observed that no evidence abounds to support the existence of a bubble.
Khan et al. (2022) employed the SADF and the GSADF models to examine the explosiveness of different energy prices based on data from January 2000 to September 2021, to know if bubbles exist. The study noted that bubbles are most explosive in the liquefied natural gas, with crude oil prices coming next, while coal prices lag during the period studied. The study noted that speculation, economics and political events are the major drivers of bubbles, with 2007–2008 and 2014–2015 global economic crises coinciding with bubbles. The results are agreeing with that of Umar et al. (2021) who documented the existence of multiple bubbles in crude oil prices, driven by global economic events.
Adewuyi et al. (2020) noted that detecting bubbles in metal prices is key to effective and efficient policy-making by various economic agents. The study employed a battery of unit root tests to analyse data from 1960 to 2017 and noted that the linearity and non-linearity components of the data generation set is key to detecting bubbles. The study showed that while bubbles are noted for some precious metals, some do not exhibit existence of bubble. Ozgur et al. (2021) further advanced the study of bubbles in metal prices by calibrating the impact of potential financial, real, and speculative factors on metal price bubbles. The study noted that the financial factors are more critical in predicting bubbles in the precious metal prices, followed by monetary policy rate, but ruled out speculative activity as a driver of bubble in the studied markets.
For the bitcoin industry, Yao and Li (2021) examined the existence of bubble by employing the Log-Periodic Power Law Singularity (LPPLS) to analyse the existence of bubble. The study began with the deployment of the Generalized Supremum Augmented Dickey-Fuller (GSADF) model, and noted that bubbles existed twice in the bitcoin industry between 2017 and 2019. To accurately identify the time of bubble burst, the study employed its main model, the LPPLS, and noted that bubble burst occurred on 25 November 2017 and 29 June 2019. The study concluded that the oscillating frequency of bubble in 2019 was low and unstable.
For the carbon markets, Xu and Salem (2021) noted that the immature market mechanism is the key driver of explosive bubbles in the Chinese carbon market. The study employed the GSADF, and noted that bubbles occur at five (5) different times.
Ma and Xiong (2021) employed the GSADF and the BSADF models to detect bubble existence in the future prices of six dominant nonferrous metals for the period 2014 to 2018. The study refutes the view that market fundamentals can exclusively drive future prices, questioning the validity of bubbles in the housing markets in the European Union based on data sourced between 1980Q1 and 2018Q4. The study noted that interest rate manipulation is key to controlling bubble behaviour in the housing market.
Wahab and Adewuyi (2021) noted that bubbles cannot be established in the prices of precious metals based on daily and weekly data from 1990 to 2021. The study employed a battery of unit root tests (with or without structural breaks). The study concluded that bubbles is slightly noted for platinum and silver.
Pedersen and Schütte (2020) noted that weaker evidence of bubbles exists in the housing sector, when compared with existing evidence among the OECD economies (see Caravello et al. 2023).
Khan and Köseoğlu (2020) noted that bubbles were discovered at four times between 1994 and 2020 in palladium price deviated from its fundamental value in the period 1997 to 1998, 1999 to 2001, 2011 and 2019 to 2020. These bubbles were motivated by geopolitical tension, supply deficit, low production and tight environmental regulations.
For the S&P 500, Nguyen and Waters (2022) documented the existence of multiple bubbles with two prominently associated with the Spanish Flu in 1917, and the 2008 housing crisis. This was in line with earlier findings of Shengquan, Wang and Chen (2019), who employed the panel logit model to analyse data set from 22 economies sourced from 2000Q1 to 2018Q3, and noted that bubbles exist in the studied economies, and the bubbles are driven by trading volume, price volatility, and credit (Dong et al. 2024).
Tarlie et al. (2022) varied the mean reversion speed in time based on an AR (1) process, enhancing the deployment of standard state space methods to detect multiple bubbles in the US stock market. The study identified five (5) periods of explosive dynamics based on data from 1881 to 2017. The study warned against folding of hands in tackling bubbles.
Bellón and Figuerola-Ferretti (2022) noted that a speculative bubble does not exist for the Ethereum blockchain, rather the explosive behaviour noticed in prices is a reflection of the abrupt rally demand for Ethereum Virtual Machine, given its usefulness in the development of the decentralized application (dApp) ecosystem.
From the reviews, it is evidence that: (i) the debate on the existence of rational bubbles in the stock market is inconclusive; (ii) examining the existence of rational bubbles is key to understanding market behaviour vis-a-vis aggregate economy; (iii) African stock market is less studied when it comes to discussions on stock market bubbles. These reasons, among others, motivate the current study.

2. Methodology

2.1. Data

Data for the current study were sourced from DataStream, a historical data archive. The frequency of the data is daily and covers from 4 January1996 to 31 December 2022 for the eight largest African markets1. The data considered numerous past and recent economic events including the most recent COVID-19 pandemic, hence accounting for the factors that trigger bubbles over the years. We denominated the stock market indices of the studied markets in US dollars to be able to facilitate effective comparisons of results, among the series and; second, allow international investors to appreciate the evolution of the first and second moment dynamics of the studied economies; third, to mitigate the impact of different inflation rates experienced individually by each of the economies. A critical review of African stock markets shows that except for South Africa, all stock markets in Africa are comparatively small, exhibit high volatility, low market capitalization, poor regulating system, weak investor base, and are characterized by some levels of illiquidity when compared with other stock markets in the world (Boamah et al. 2017a, 2017b; Gourène et al. 2019; Boako and Alagidede 2016). We adjust for thin trading to address the issues of biases induced by illiquidity and non-trading days of African stock markets.
As earlier stated, the current study followed (Herzog 2015; Bai et al. 2019; Kassouri 2022) to employ econophysics based financial bubbles techniques that calibrate the impact of complex dynamics and social interactions, to financial bubbles literature to analyze the complex financial dynamics.
The model was built on particle physics that relies on the interaction of single elements/agents that induce collective outcomes. The model stresses that the financial bubble represented by massive price increases/decreases is largely caused by many buying/selling players in a herd. It stresses that bubbles often occur without any significant changes in the fundamental values.
Unlike existing economic models that employed stochastic and martingale theory; which are often characterized by the use of individualistic and equilibrium methodology with a severe downside in understanding complex dynamics and social interactions, our econophysics frequency domain model provides brighter perspectives and high analytic power to analyze complex dynamic and social interactions. Our model stresses that a bubble can be characterized as a social interaction problem and not just induced by individual rationality or irrationality as claimed by stochastic techniques.
Drawing from social system theory, our model separates the behaviour of individual economic agents from that of the group, stressing that more buyers imply a higher trading density and higher risk for an exuberance under a group model, the reverse is the case from the individual perspective. It further implies that a high density connotes a small price movement with correspondingly lower risk and higher willingness to buy/sell assets. Financial bubbles are often induced by intermediation and imbalances in herding behaviour.
By factoring in time, (Herzog 2007; Kassouri 2022; Su et al. 2017) noted that more often financial bubbles are characterized by a negative benefit to loss (BLF), this suggests that good news induces a jump with a diminishing change of asses prices which indicates a lower probability of a bubble burst. The implication is that the market reaction time is shortened, with chances that a bubble could burst when small prices jump occurs. Under this condition, the nature of the market efficiency matters, for instance, efficient markets characterized by much news may witness small financial bubbles while inefficient markets characterized by asymmetric information may experience large financial bubbles.
The majority of the debate in literature is of the view that African stock markets are inefficient (see for instance (Lawal et al. 2018b; Gourène et al. 2019; Boamah et al. 2017a)). It is therefore important to account for the sources, types and signals of rational bubbles in these markets. This study attempts to fill this gap as we focus on economic events that signal the bubble build-up in the selected African stock markets. The study set out among others to challenge orthodox thinking on bubbles.

2.2. The Model

We begin our analysis by following (Herzog 2015; Lawal et al. 2019b; Wan 2024; Wang et al. 2020) to employ recently developed econophysics techniques to examine the existence or otherwise of a bubble in the studied African stock markets. Apart from examining the existence of a bubble in the market, it is important to know whether there is a correlation in the market. This is important, as it will show whether the sources of the bubble in the market are common or not. When the correlation among the market is less than the unconditional correlations, then these markets are said to operate independently of the other, hence, shocks that affect these markets are not the same. To account for this, we employed the DCC-MGARCH model following Fromentin (2022); Fromentin et al. (2024); Canh et al. (2019).

Econophysics Frequency Domain Estimation Techniques

In presenting our econophysics frequency domain model, we assume that p i ( f , t ) denote financial asset price dynamics, given that i is a function of assets that depends on two variables: the fundamental price vector f and time t . Here, the benefit-loss-rate (BLR) for each asset is defied by v i = 𝜕 p i ( f , t ) / 𝜕 t .
Given the fact that a functional relationship exists between BLF and each trading density and trading volume we have
q p , t = ρ p , t u p , t
where q p , t is the BLF, ρ p , t is trading volume while u p , t represents trading density.
Calibrating the impact of news into the model in Equation (2), we followed Herzog (2015) by utilizing the idea of jump-discontinuity2 such that
N t = p a p b ρ ( p , t ) d p
Relying on Equation (1), we manipulate Equation (2) to derive the d t yields such that
d d t = p ( a ) p ( b ) ρ p , t d p = q p a , t ρ p b , t d p a d t q p a , t ρ p b , t d p b d t
Given the assumption that the trading density changes on both sides of the interval at equal measure such that d p a d t   = d p b d t = d p s d t , let Equation (3) = 0, such that d p s d t ρ p a , t ρ p b , t = q p b , t q ( p b , t ) and transform the results, such that we obtain
d p s d t = [ q p a , t q p b , t ] [ ρ p a , t ρ p b , t ] = [ q ] [ ρ ]
where [q] = q p s , t q ( p s + , t ) and [ ρ = ρ p s , t ρ p s + , t . When we substitute Equation (4) back into Equations (3) and (2), it yields
d p s d t = [ q p a , t q p b , t ] ρ p a , t ρ p b , t = ρ m a x u m a x ρ 0 U ( ρ 0 ) ρ m a x ρ 0
This implies that a financial bubble is characterized by a negative BLF when accounting for time, such that
ρ 0 , t = ρ 0 + ϵ f ( 0 )
Since f 0 = ρ 1 0 , t . To compute the first derivative, we calibrate the properties of the function
d d t p ( a ) p ( b ) ρ ( p , t ) d p = q p a , t d p a d t q p b , t d p b d t
alongside Equation (5) such that the evolution of asset price with news and yields is as follows
p s = ρ 0 μ ρ 0 ρ m a x ρ 0 t
In other to examine the existence of interlink between bubble periods across the markets, we followed (Engle and Sheppard 2001; Engle 2002, 2009; Vrontos et al. 2003; Escobari et al. 2017; Akkoc and Civcir 2019) to adopt a DCC MGARCH by taking the logarithmic of the closing prices of each of the stock prices. The prices of the series are adjusted for seasonal effects characterized by fluctuations in the prices arising from noise and suspicious trading, by subtracting the price (in log form) of each series on day t of the previous year prior to other estimations.
The choice of the DCC-GARCH model was informed by its superiority over alternative models like GARCH, EGARCH et al. For instance, the model allows for correlation matrix to depend on the time, and have clear computational strength such that the number of parameters to estimate in the correlation process does not depend on the number of series to be correlated. Unlike in the CCC model, where the conditional correlation matrix of the residuals from the conditional mean model is constant over time, the DCC is time-varying in an autoregressive way.
DCC model accounts for the correlation between asset returns as a function of their past volatility and correlation among them. The ability of the DCC estimation techniques to model the interrelationship among the markets has significant policy implications. For instance, it has significant impact on globalization or convergence of the African economies, especially during the period of international instability. The movement can serve as the platform or transmission channel for negative impulses that distort the real sector, with severe consequences for economic management as a policy tool. It is therefore important to timely identify the interdependencies among stock markets, with a proper analysis of their strength, to effectively manage the risk associated with financialization of the economy. To achieve this objective, the study employed the DCC-GARCH model to estimate the time-varying conditional correlation in the markets. The existence of interrelationships among the markets suggests that events in any of the markets are shaped and are being shaped by events in other markets.
The DCC-MGARCH model possesses the ability to capture the volatility correlation between two series in two ways: directly, through its conditional variance; and indirectly, through its conditional covariances. Besides, the techniques can examine volatility spillover from one series to another. When the conditional correlation in a series increases over time, the series becomes more integrated.
Following Sajid et al. (2022); Fromentin (2022); Fromentin et al. (2024), we expressed the DCC MGARCH model is as follows:
r t = μ + α r i 1 + ε t
where ε t = H t 1 / 2 z t is employed to estimate the residuals in Equation (9), given that H t is the conditional covariance matrix for r t and z t , where H t is a n × 1 vector of i , i , d random errors.
The conditional covariance matrix ( n × n ) is defined as:
H t = D t R t D t
where D t is the diagonal matrix with at time-varying conditional standard deviation. The matrix D t   i s such that
D t = d i a g ( h 1 , t 1 2 , h n , t 1 2 )
R t is the time varying conditionl correlation matrix of the returns on an asset and it is present as follows:
R t = d i a g ( q 1 , t 1 2 , q n , t 1 2 ) Q t d i a g ( q 1 , t 1 2 , q n , t 1 2 )
The components of H t matrix is expressed as follows:
h i , t = ω i + α i ε i , t 1 2 + β i h i , t 1
The asymmetric positive definite matrix Q t in (3) is expressed as
Q t = 1 θ 1 θ 2 Q _ + θ 1 z t 1 + θ 2 Q t 1
where Q _ is the standard residuals n × n unconditional correlation matrix z i , t   z i , t = ε i , t h i , t . The non-negative θ 1 and θ 2 parameters are linked by the exponential smoothing process of the DCC model.

3. Results

We present the results of the descriptive statistics in Table 1. The results of the Kurtosis and Skewness as presented show that the series is skewed towards the right. Evidence from the Jarque-Bera normality test show that the series is non-normally distributed an indication that the series are fat-tailed with a probability of extreme values higher than the normal distribution.
First, we examine the presence of a unit root in the series by employing the traditional unit root tests, ADF, PP, & KPSS. We also examined the existence of cointegration among the series. If we reject the null hypothesis of non-cointegration, then rational bubbles do not exist, acceptance of the null hypothesis of non-cointegration suggests that rational bubbles do exist (Lawal et al. 2022; Khan et al. 2022).
The results of the unit root test for the studied African economies are presented in Table 2. The results suggest that the null hypothesis of a unit root is not rejected for all the series in level, and they are stationary in the first difference. The results rule out the possibility of a speculative bubble in these economies. The results suggest that the series follows the random walk procedure.
Extant literature notes that traditional unit root tests failed to account for structural breaks, are weak in detecting rational bubbles in stock prices, that when structural breaks exist, the power to reject a unit root decreases, and that when we ignore structural breaks, we will erroneously accept the null hypothesis of a unit root. To address this, we followed (Jun et al. 2019; Lawal et al. 2022) to employ the Fourier function unit root test. The study began with a search for the best frequency, based on the fact that we have no prior knowledge as to the number of structure breaks in the series. Enders and Lee (2009) noted that a single frequency is capable of capturing a series of large breaks, therefore our Fourier function is estimated for each integer K = 1, …, 5.
The results of the Fourier unit estimate are presented in Table 3. In the table, the residual sum of squares (RSS) shows that a single frequency (1) is appropriate for the series. Similarly, both the sine and cosine term are fit for the model, based on the significant f(k) statistic. The (TLM (k)) suggests that non-stationary is established in the model. The results also show that own bubble transmission is statistically significant for the series. It can also be deduced that the current conditional volatility for each of the series is significantly influenced by past values and innovations from other economies. The results have implications for arbitrage in the economies studied.
Having suspect the existence of random walk in the series, the study further examined the validity of rational bubbles in these markets, by employing the econophysics frequency domain estimates, as outlined in Equation (8), which is the crux of our study.
The results of the beginning and end dates of the identified bubbles in the series are presented in Table 4. From the results, it can be deduced that the pattern of bubbles in each of these series differs from one another, though the dates or periods appear to be similar. For instance, though Egypt, Kenya, Ghana, Nigeria, and South Africa markets exhibit bubbles in the early 1990s, the underlying factors responsible for bubbles in these markets differ. The first Egyptian market bubble spanned from 1991M3 to 2004M10. This could be traced to the implementation of a series of reforms aimed at meeting the terms of international institutions, lenders and donors which translate to an increase in GDP per capita (PPP) from USD1355 in 1981 to USD2525 in 1991, USD3686 in 2001 to USD4051 in 2004. The identified increase in GDP per capita snowballed into the capital market with upward shifts in asset prices for these periods. The bubble hitherto experienced burst by the effect of the global economic meltdown of 2008–2009 that resulted in foreign investors exists the Egypt stock market, surging domestic inflationary pressure that led to upward movement in overnight spending by the monetary authority by 0.25% on 10th Feb. 2008 and subsequent 0.5% increase every month and the Arab-uprising of 2011.
The bubble noted in the 2016 M11 to 2018M5 coincided with the announcement by the monetary authority to adjust a floating exchange rate regime which attracts foreign trade in the stock market.

4. Discussion

The 1999–2000 and 2002–2004 bubble dates for Morocco coincide with reforms introduced by the government that among other things opened the economy for foreign investors’ participation, and lowered the inflation rate. Other possible influence includes privatization of state-owned enterprises, large government spending, exchange rate anchor initiatives and well- managed monetary policy that saw inflation in 2002 quite below 2%.
The bubble dates of 1996M3 to 1996M12 coincided with the effect of major economic reforms like the elimination of price controls, import licensing, removal of foreign exchange controls, and privatization of state-owned entities among others in 1993, which leads to an increase in GDP growth rate to about 4% for the studied period. The second bubble dates from 2000M2 to 2001M12 and coincided with another economic reform which attracted USD307 million facilities from both the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to the Kenyan economy, which stimulate investment into the stock exchange. Another bubble was witnessed from 2003M2 to 2008M11. It also coincided with upward swings in the economy resulting from a series of economic reforms initiated by the Mwai Kibaki-led administration that opened the economy to foreign participation, especially the stock market.
For Botswana, the expansion in the Orapa 2000 project opened the economy, such that the GDP and per capita doubled with a snowball effect on the capital market, this bubble burst due to slow economic growth recorded in the years 2005 to 2008. The 2008/2009 global economic meltdown severely affected the economy and the stock market, this almost eroded the gains of the earlier bubble periods with a contraction of about 5.2% in the economy. From 2010M2 to 2015M11, the stock market witnessed some bubbles. During this period, the market experienced about a 24% increase in stock return, which coincided with some reforms such as stable currency and lack of exchange rate control. Other supporting factors include the implementation of a Central Securities Depository by the Security Exchange Commission, which aided the flow of remittance from abroad, and the role of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which eliminates all tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade in 2012 among the 11 signatory economies, this aided inflows of fund into the stock market.
The bubble periods noted to exist for Ghana were from 2005 to 2008 and 2010 to 2014. These periods also coincided with some key events in the Ghanaian economy. For instance, the 2005–2008 period coincided with the impact of the 2005 debt cancellation by creditors’ nations to Ghana, the re-denomination of the Ghana’s currency in 2007, and the Banking Amendment Act of 2007, which offers a general banking license to qualified banks in Ghana. The 2010 to 2014 bubbles were largely influenced by an increased in market capitalization to about GH57.2 billion in 2012. These events among others increased investors’ confidence in the economy and rubbed on the stock market.
For Nigeria, the 1999–2002 bubble coincided with the change in power (movement from military to democratic rule) which boast investors’ confidence in the Nigerian economy. It also coincides with an aggressive drive by public policy makers to attain privatization of government entities. The bubble period of 2004–2007 coincides with the banking sector recapitalization exercise of 2004–2005, which led to upward movement in stock returns. Though 2004 to 2007 was almost short-lived by the impact of the 2007/2008 global financial crisis, another bubble was triggered from 2012 to 2014 largely by reforms in the economy. Another contributing factor was the effort to re-base the Nigerian economy in the year 2014.
The South African stock market is the largest in the regime. The results as presented in Table 2, shows that bubbles were noted at five (5) different periods. 1998, 2001, 2003, 2008, and 2016 unlike other economies where bubbles lag across years, bubbles in the S/A market are short-lived and last within a year. This suggests that the South African market is relatively efficient compared with others (Balcilar et al. 2016).
Discussing our results within the context of existing literature, it can be deduced that our results contradict the finding of Ye et al. (2011), Cho and McCallum (2015), Chen et al. (2016), Caspi and Graham (2018) for the G7 stock markets, for a typical market, some selected economies including the US, Belgium, Denmark and Finland, and the Israeli market respectively. However, our results support the earlier findings of Chang et al. (2016) for South Africa, Balcilar et al. (2016) also for South Africa, Tran (2017) for Asian and Latin American economies, and Fry (2018) for Bitcoin prices.

Robustness Check

For the robustness check, we employed the non-parametric rank test for cointegration that captures both the linear and nonlinear properties of the series (Hou et al. 2024; Chaouali et al. 2024). For the Rank tests, the null hypothesis is rejected in favour of the alternatives hypothesis, if the critical value exceeds the test statistics. We present the results in Table 5; the length was selected by using the Akaike information criteria (AIC). The results as presented suggest that evidence abounds to show that rational bubbles exist in the series. We accept the null hypothesis for the studied market because the test statistics are larger than the critical values at 1% level of significance. It therefore, established the existence of a cointegrating relationship between prices and fundamentals of the eight African stock markets. The results of the non-parametric rank test are in line with that of our main model- The Econophysics frequency domain unit root test, and validate our results.
As displayed in Table 1 and Table 2, for both mean and variance, the series are non-linear, with evidence suggesting problems of heteroscedasticity and serial autocorrelation. This provides good ground for the employment of the DCC-MGARCH model to account for bubble clustering in asset prices. Besides, the model can account for market dynamics (Lean and Teng 2013).
Given the results from our econophysics frequency domain model suggest the existence of bubbles in the studied economies, we proceed to investigate the existence of a correlation of bubbles among the markets by employing a DCC-MGARCH model. Panel A of Table 6 presents the results of the DCC-MGARCH model. From the results, it can be deduced that all the correlations among ARCH(1), GARCH(1) and ARCH are positive and statistically significant at 1% in line with the GARCH(1,1) conditions. The implication is that higher errors and error variances in the previous period are associated with higher error variances in the current period. Furthermore, the value of ARCH(1) is quite larger than the values of GARCH(1) suggesting that the market volatility at present is largely influenced by previous period volatility. Panel B of Table 3 presents the results of the quasi-correlations between the DCC-MGARCH. From the results, it can be deduced that the correlation among the series is high and positive, suggesting that African markets are not efficiently diversified. The results presented show that the correlation among bubbles in the series is less than the unconditional correlations. This play down the possibility of the existence of interdependence among the bubble periods across the economies studied as well as evidence of clusters of prices, these markets seem to operate independently of one another in terms of exposure to bubble periods and the shocks that affect these markets differ.
Figure 1 presents a graphical explanation of the behaviour of the African stock market over the studied period. A threshold above 100 basis points (10%) is the threshold for identifying a bubble. A critical look at the figure shows that some economies took large values from 2000 to 2001 and around 2016. These extreme values coincide with reforms and innovations in the economies studied, pointing to the existence of bubbles. For instance, the extreme spark in curve peaking at 1.4 for Botswana, coincides with the expansion of the Orapa 2000 project that opened up the economy (the stock market inclusive), to the influx of foreign capital. The 2015/2016 surge/peaking at 0.4 resulted from an unprecedented increase in market return to the tune of 24%, thanks to stable currency, among others.
For Mauritius, the upward movement in the years 2002 to 2008 coincided with the political crisis that comove with the economy. This impact seriously on the Africa’s most developed economy. Egypt spark as captured in the figure suggest that the basis point increased during the periods 2008 to 2010, 2011 to 2013, 2014 to 2015. These periods coincide with the global financial crisis of the year 2007/2008, the Arab Spring of 2010/2011, the Syrian civil war, and the Lehman shock, among others. It can be deduced that bubbles in these markets follow a pattern, and no evidence exists to show the presence of spillover in these markets. This aligns with the findings of (Lean and Teng 2013).

5. Conclusions

This study examined the existence of bubbles in the stock markets of eight Africa’s largest markets. We employed econophysics based financial bubbles techniques and DCC MGARCH estimation techniques to a dataset sourced from 04 January1996 to 31 December 2022. The study observed that the studied markets are thin in nature and are characterized by some measure of illiquidity. The study contributes to the existing literature in three folds; Methodology, Data coverage; and policy implications.
Previous studies focus on the aftermath of bubbles: burst or structural breaks, whereas understanding bubble behaviour entails knowing the buildup dates, based on the fact that it is easier to manipulate the effect of a bubble burst at the bubble build-up stage than after a market crash. The result shows that African stock markets at various stages experience bubbles which were followed by a burst. We also noted that bubbles coincide with significant changes in the economic growth of the studied economies suggesting that crashes in the market do not only relate to the financial system but the entire economy.
The results obtained in the current study have some policy implications for various economic agents. As earlier noted, when asset prices bubble burst, its effects impact negatively on the financial system, and of course the aggregate economy. Policy makers are therefore expected to pay attention to the growth rate of asset prices. Following (Borio 2003; Dudley 2010; Evanoff et al. 2012), this study recommends five clear-cut policy options for the monetary authorities in Africa. First, the bully pulpit approach advocates the need to identify the assumptions that drive the rapid increase in stock prices and challenge the accuracy of these assumptions. The effectiveness of this policy instrument depends on the credibility of the monetary policy authority in the eyes of the economic agents in the economy (Virtanen et al. 2018). If the monetary policy makers are perceived as experts who know their onions and can carefully explain the risks associated with the perceived bubble, chances are high that overreaction-induced investments will be reduced, thus mitigating the bubble-building process.
The second policy option is to adopt the use of monetary policy3 tools that ‘lean against’ incipient stock price bubbles by pursuing a slightly tighter measure. This could be by a way of taking out insurance against the risk that an increase in stock prices is a bubble, which when burst will have a significant impact on the economy (Chang et al. 2016; Bejan and Parkin 2015; Bejan and Bidian 2014). The third policy option is the use of macroprudential tools (like countercyclical capital requirements, credit constraints, credit-to-gross domestic product (credit-to-GDP) ratio monitoring as well as margin requirements) which aim at protecting against disruption in the financial system. This could be by way of enhancing the capacity of financial system resilience when a bubble burst. The macroprudential tools could also be tailored to limit the magnitude of prospective bubbles.
Fourth, the investing public is advised to employ a conscious approach to investment during bubble periods, to mitigate welfare loss arising from the burst that usually follows a bubble.
Fifth, the existence of bubbles in these markets suggest that the markets are inefficient, hence provides room for arbitrage, with the possibility of investors making abnormal profit. This sounds good for the investing public. It is also important to note that the existence of a bubble points to the inefficient nature of the markets studied. This suggest that the markets can serve as catalyst for growth in the studied economies. Policymakers are therefore encouraged to develop policies that will stimulate the markets, and provide safety nets that will mitigate the effects of bubble bursts, which always succeed bubbles. As noted by Jahan-Parvar and Waters (2010), proper policy response is crucial to asset bubbles given the recent financial crises, hence policymakers should go beyond monitoring market fundamentals in conducting monetary policy, as proactive positive policy actions are required.
The academic community is encouraged to deploy more efforts to understand the presence and causes of bubbles in asset bubbles and their impact on the economy.
On the interconnectivity between the markets, as evidenced by the results of the DCC-MGARCH model, investors in these markets tend to have an informational advantage in their home markets. As noted by Brennan and Cao (1997), and Ye et al. (2011), when favourable news becomes more available in the home market, foreign investors raise their valuation more than domestic investors, because domestic investors naturally have precise information, and may receive the market news earlier.
The study is without limitations, for instance, it only focused on bubbles in African stock markets. Future research may look into stock market behaviour in other economies, energy prices in Africa and other economies, and other commodity prices related to the bubble, among others. Besides, the methodology employed could be expanded. Other estimation techniques could also be employed to examine the existence of a bubble in asset prices.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.I.L., M.I.T. and D.T.A.; methodology, A.I.L.; software, A.I.L. and D.T.A.; validation, A.I.L., A.A., H.A.R. and E.O.; formal analysis, A.I.L.; investigation, E.O.; resources, M.I.T. and D.T.A.; data curation, A.I.L. and D.T.A.; writing—original draft preparation, A.I.L. and M.I.T.; writing—review and editing, H.A.R., D.T.A. and A.A.; visualization, A.A. and D.T.A.; supervision, A.I.L., D.T.A. and M.I.T.; project administration, M.I.T. and D.T.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

https://solutions.refinitiv.com/datastream (accessed on 21 August 2023).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Notes

1
Botswana, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria and South Africa (BRVM (Bourse Régionale des Valeurs Mobilières) and Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange were dropped because of too many missing values for some years)). S&P started recording daily data for most African stock markets in the mid-1995.
2
A jump simply implies a trading stop or news.
3
Experts have raised concern about the ability of monetary policy tools effectiveness in tackling bubbles because they are blunt instruments designed to influence the aggregate level of economic activities and not usually sectorial activities.

References

  1. Acharya, Viral, and Hassan Naqvi. 2018. On Reaching for Yield and the Coexistence of Bubbles and Negative Bubbles. Journal of Financial Intermediation 38: 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Adewuyi, Adeolu O., Bashir A. Wahab, and Olusegun S. Adeboye. 2020. Stationarity of prices of precious and industrial metals using recent unit root methods: Implications for markets’ efficiency. Resources Policy 65: 101560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Aharon, David Y., Ilanit Gavious, and Rami Yosef. 2010. Stock Market Bubble Effects on Mergers and Acquisitions. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 50: 456–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Akkoc, Ugur, and Irfan Civcir. 2019. Dynamic Linkages between Strategic Commodities and Stock Market in Turkey: Evidence from SVAR-DCC-GARCH Model. Resources Policy 62: 231–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Al-Khazali, Osamah, and Ali Mirzaei. 2017. Stock Market Anomalies, Market Efficiency and the Adaptive Market Hypothesis: Evidence from Islamic Stock Indices. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money 51: 190–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aloui, Chaker, and Besma Hkiri. 2014. Co-Movements of GCC Emerging Stock Markets: New Evidence from Wavelet Coherence Analysis. Economic Modelling 36: 421–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Anderson, Keith, and Chris Brooks. 2014. Speculative Bubbles and the Cross-Sectional Variation in Stock Returns. International Review of Financial Analysis 35: 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ayub, Bilal, Nader Naderpajouh, Frank Boukamp, and Tony Mcgough. 2020. Housing Market Bubbles and Urban Resilience: Applying Systems Theory. Cities 106: 102925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bai, Lan, Xuhui Zhang, Yuntong Liu, and Qian Wang. 2019. Economic Risk Contagion among Major Economies: New Evidence from EPU Spillover Analysis in Time and Frequency Domains. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 535: 122431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Balcilar, Mehmet, Rangan Gupta, Charl Jooste, and Mark E. Wohar. 2016. Periodically Collapsing Bubbles in the South African Stock Market. Research in International Business and Finance 38: 191–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Becker, Ralf, Walter Enders, and Stan Hurn. 2004. A General Test for Time Dependence in Parameters. Journal of Applied Econometrics 19: 899–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bejan, Camelia, and Florin Bidian. 2014. Bubbles and Trading in Incomplete Markets. Journal of Mathematical Economics 53: 137–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bejan, Vladimir, and William S. Parkin. 2015. Examining the Effect of Repressive and Conciliatory Government Actions on Terrorism Activity in Israel. Economics Letters 133: 55–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bell, Adrian R., Chris Brooks, and Helen Killick. 2022. Research in International Business and Finance the First Real Estate Bubble? Land Prices and Rents in Medieval. Research in International Business and Finance 62: 101700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bellón, Carlos, and Isabel Figuerola-Ferretti. 2022. Bubbles in ethereum. Finance Research Letters 46: 102387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bernanke, Ben, and Mark Gertler. 1999. Monetary Policy and Asset Price Volatility. Kansas City: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City. [Google Scholar]
  17. Boako, Gideon, and Paul Alagidede. 2016. African Stock Markets Convergence: Regional and Global Analysis. Finance Research Letters 18: 317–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Boamah, Nicholas Addai, Edward J. Watts, and Geoffrey Loudon. 2017a. Financial Crisis, the Real Sector and Global Effects on the African Stock Markets. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 65: 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Boamah, Nicholas Addai, Geoffrey Loudon, and Edward J. Watts. 2017b. Structural Breaks in the Relative Importance of Country and Industry Factors in African Stock Returns. Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 63: 79–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Borio, Claudio. 2003. Towards a Macroprudential Framework for Financial Supervision and Regulation? CESifo Economic Studies 49: 181–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Brennan, Michael J., and H. Henry Cao. 1997. International portfolio investment flows. The Journal of Finance 52: 1851–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Canh, Nguyen Phuc, Udomsak Wongchoti, Su Dinh Thanh, and Nguyen Trung Thong. 2019. Systematic Risk in Cryptocurrency Market: Evidence from DCC-MGARCH model. Finance Research Letters 29: 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Caravello, Tomas E., Zacharias Psaradakis, and Martin Sola. 2023. Rational bubbles: Too many to be true? Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 151: 104666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Caspi, Itamar, and Meital Graham. 2018. Testing for Bubbles in Stock Markets with Irregular Dividend Distribution. Finance Research Letters 26: 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chang, Victor, Russell Newman, Robert John Walters, and Gary Brian Wills. 2016. Review of Economic Bubbles. International Journal of Information Management 36: 497–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chaouali, Imen, Mehdi Ben Jebli, and Tarek Ghazouani. 2024. Investigating the dynamic effects of service value added on CO2 emissions: Novel insights from a non-parametric approach. Journal of Environmental Management 365: 121553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Chen, Shyh-wei, Chi-sheng Hsu, and Zixong Xie. 2016. Are There Periodically Collapsing Bubbles in the Stock Markets? New International Evidence. Economic Modelling 52: 442–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cho, Seonghoon, and Bennett T. McCallum. 2015. Refining linear rational expectations models and equilibria. Journal of Macroeconomics 46: 160–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Claver, Jimbo Henri, Bruno Dinga, Fono Louis, Shu Felix, and Andjiga Gabriel. 2019. Cointegration Analysis of Major African Stock Markets. International Journal 7: 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Dong, Feng, Yang Jiao, and Haoning Sun. 2024. Bubbly booms and welfare. Review of Economic Dynamics 53: 71–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dudley, William C. 2010. William C Dudley: Asset Bubbles and the Implications for Central Bank Policy. New York: The Economic Club of New York, pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  32. Durusu-Ciftci, Dilek, M. Serdar Ispir, and Dundar Kok. 2019. Do stock markets follow a random walk? New evidence for an old question. International Review of Economics & Finance 64: 165–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Enders, Walter, and Junsoo Lee. 2009. The Flexible Fourier Form and Testing for Unit Roots: An Example of the Term Structure of Interest Rates. Working Paper. Tuscaloosa: Department of Economics, Finance & Legal Studies, University of Alabama. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255670614_The_Flexible_Fourier_Form_and_Testing_for_Unit_Roots_An_Example_of_the_Term_Structure_of_Interest_Rates (accessed on 5 August 2024).
  34. Enders, Walter, and Junsoo Lee. 2012. A Unit Root Test Using a Fourier Series to Approximate Smooth Breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 74: 574–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Engle, Robert. 2002. Dynamic conditional correlation: A simple class of multivariate generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity models. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 20: 339–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Engle, Robert F. 1982. Autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity with estimates of the variance of United Kingdom inflation. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 50: 987–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Engle, Robert F. 2009. Anticipating Correlations: A New Paradigm for Risk Management. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  38. Engle, Robert F., and Kevin Sheppard. 2001. Theoretical and Empirical Properties of Dynamic Conditional Correlation Multivariate GARCH. Mimeo. San Diego: UCSD. [Google Scholar]
  39. Escobari, Diego, Sergio Garcia, and Cristhian Mellado. 2017. Identifying Bubbles in Latin American Equity Markets: Phillips-Perron-Based Tests and Linkages. Emerging Markets Review 33: 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Evanoff, Douglas D., George G. Kaufman, and Anastasios G. Malliaris. 2012. Asset Price Bubbles: What Are the Causes, Consequences, and Public Policy Options? Chicago Fed Letter, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, Issue Nov. Available online: https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2012/cflnovember2012-304-pdf.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2024).
  41. Farjam, Mike, and Oliver Kirchkamp. 2018. Bubbles in Hybrid Markets: How Expectations about Algorithmic Trading Affect Human Trading. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 146: 248–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fromentin, Vincent. 2022. Time-varying causality between stock prices and macroeconomic fundamentals: Connection or disconnection? Finance Research Letters 49: 103073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fromentin, Vincent, Bruno Pecchioli, and David Moroz. 2024. Time-varying causality among whisky, wine, and equity markets. Finance Research Letters 63: 105345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Fry, John. 2018. Booms, Busts and Heavy-Tails: The Story of Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Markets? Economics Letters 171: 225–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gourène, Grakolet Arnold Z., Pierre Mendy, and Gilbert Marie N. Ake. 2019. Multiple Time-Scales Jean-paul Analysis of Global Stock Markets Spillovers Effects in African Stock Markets. International Economics 157: 82–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Guidi, Francesco, and Mehmet Ugur. 2014. An Analysis of South-Eastern European Stock Markets: Evidence on Cointegration and Portfolio Diversification Benefits. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money 30: 119–36. [Google Scholar]
  47. Harvey, David I., Neil M Kellard, Jakob B. Madsen, and Mark E. Wohar. 2017. Long-Run Commodity Prices, Economic Growth, and Interest Rates: 17th Century to the Present Day. World Development 89: 57–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Herzog, Bodo. 2015. An Econophysics Model of Financial Bubbles. Natural Science 7: 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Herzog, Sergio. 2007. An Empirical Test of Feminist Theory and Research: The Effect of Heterogeneous Gender-Role Attitudes on Perceptions of Intimate Partner Violence. Feminist Criminology 2: 223–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hirano, Tomohiro, Masaru Inaba, and Noriyuki Yanagawa. 2015. Asset Bubbles and Bailouts. Journal of Monetary Economics 76: S71–S89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hou, Peng, Shuang Luo, Siming Liu, Yong Tan, and David Roubaud. 2024. Time-varying impacts of green credit on carbon productivity in China: New evidence from a non-parametric panel data model. Journal of Environmental Management 360: 121132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jahan-Parvar, Mohammad R., and George A. Waters. 2010. Equity price bubbles in the Middle Eastern and North African financial markets. Emerging Markets Review 11: 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Jun, Doobae, Changmo Ahn, Jinsu Kim, and Gwangil Kim. 2019. Signal analysis of global financial crises using Fourier series. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 526: 121015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kassouri, Yacouba. 2022. Boom-bust cycles in oil consumption: The role of explosive bubbles and asymmetric adjustments. Energy Economics 111: 106006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Khan, Khalid, and Sinem Derindere Köseoğlu. 2020. Is palladium price in bubble? Resources Policy 68: 101780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Khan, Khalid, Chi Wei Su, and Adnan Khurshid. 2022. Do booms and busts identify bubbles in energy prices? Resources Policy 76: 102556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kruse, Robinson, Hendrik Kaufmann, and Christoph Wegener. 2018. Bias-Corrected Estimation for Speculative Bubbles in Stock Prices. Economic Modelling 73: 354–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Lawal, Adedoyin Isola, Abiola A. Babajide, Tony Ikechukwu Nwanji, and Damilola Eluyela. 2018a. Are Oil Prices Mean Reverting? Evidence from Unit Root Tests with Sharp and Smooth Breaks. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy 8: 292–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lawal, Adedoyin Isola, Adedoyin Isola, Russel Olukayode Somoye, and Abiola A. Babajide. 2018b. Are African Stock Markets Efficient? Evidence from Wavelet Unit Root Test for Random Walk. Economics Bulletin 37: 2665–79. Available online: http://www.accessecon.com/Pubs/EB/2017/Volume37/EB-17-V37-I4-P239.pdf (accessed on 5 August 2024).
  60. Lawal, Adedoyin Isola, Adeniyi Olayanju, Afeez Adebare Salisu, Abiola John Asaleye, Olatunde Dahunsi, Oluwasogo Dada, Oluwasola Emmanel Omoju, and Olabisi Rasheedat Popoola. 2019a. Examining Rational Bubbles in Oil Prices: Evidence from Frequency Domain Estimates. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy 9: 166–73. Available online: https://www.econjournals.com/index.php/ijeep/article/view/7463 (accessed on 5 August 2024).
  61. Lawal, Adedoyin Isola, Ezekiel Oseni, Bukola B. Lawal-adedoyin, Abigail O. Dicktonye, and Elizabeth B. Ogunwole. 2022. Examining Rational Bubbles in Global Natural Gas Prices: Evidence from Frequency Domain Estimates. Energy Strategy Reviews 44: 100979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lawal, Adedoyin Isola, Oluwasola Emmanuel Omoju, Abiola Ayopo Babajide, and Abiola John Asaleye. 2019b. Testing mean-reversion in agricultural commodity prices: Evidence from wavelet analysis. Journal of International Studies 12: 100–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lawal, Adedoyin Isola, Tony I. Nwanji, Abiola Asaleye, and Victor Ahmed. 2016. Economic Growth, Financial Development and Trade Openness in Nigeria: An Application of the ARDL Bound Testing Approach. Cogent Economics & Finance 4: 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lean, Hooi Hooi, and Kee Tuan Teng. 2013. Integration of world leaders and emerging powers into the Malaysian stock market: A DCC-MGARCH approach. Economic Modelling 32: 333–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lee, Darren D., Jacquelyn E. Humphrey, Karen L. Benson, and Jason Y. K. Ahn. 2010. Socially responsible investment fund performance: The impact of screening intensity. Accounting & Finance 50: 351–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Lehkonen, Heikki. 2010. Bubbles in China. International Review of Financial Analysis 19: 113–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Liang, Hanchao, Chunpeng Yang, Rengui Zhang, and Chuangqun Cai. 2017. Bounded rationality, anchoring-and-adjustment sentiment, and asset pricing. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance 40: 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Liu, Feng, and John R. Conlon. 2018. The simplest rational greater-fool bubble model. Journal of Economic Theory 175: 38–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ma, Richie Ruchuan, and Tao Xiong. 2021. Price explosiveness in nonferrous metal futures markets. Economic Modelling 94: 75–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Miao, Jianjun, Pengfei Wang, and Jing Zhou. 2015. Asset Bubbles, Collateral, and Policy Analysis. Journal of Monetary Economics 76: S57–S70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nguyen, Quynh Nhu, and George A. Waters. 2022. Detecting periodically collapsing bubbles in the S&P 500. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 83: 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Okere, Wisdom, Damilola Felix Eluyela, Adedoyin Ishola Lawal, Ibidunni Oyebisi, Oluwasegun Eseyin, Olabisi Popoola, and Toluwalase Eniola Awe. 2019. Foreign Expatriates on Board and Financial Performance: A Study of Listed Deposit Money Banks in Nigeria. Journal of Social Sciences Research 5: 418–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ozgur, Onder, Veli Yilanci, and Fatih Cemil Ozbugday. 2021. Detecting speculative bubbles in metal prices: Evidence from GSADF test and machine learning approaches. Resources Policy 74: 102306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pedersen, Thomas Quistgaard, and Erik Christian Montes Schütte. 2020. Testing for explosive bubbles in the presence of autocorrelated innovations. Journal of Empirical Finance 58: 207–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Pérez-lechuga, Gilberto. 2017. Impact of the Stock Market Capitalization and the Banking Spread in Growth and Development in Latin American: A Panel Data Estimation with System GMM. Contaduría y Administración 62: 1427–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Phillips, Peter C. B. 2016. Modeling Speculative Bubbles with Diverse Investor Expectations. Research in Economics 70: 375–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Phillips, Peter C. B., Shuping Shi, and Jun Yu. 2015a. Testing for Multiple Bubbles: Historical Episodes of Exuberance and Collapse in the S&P 500. International Economic Review 56: 1043–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Phillips, Peter C. B., Shuping Shi, and Jun Yu. 2015b. Testing for Multiple Bubbles: Limit Theory of Real-time Detectors. International Economic Review 56: 1079–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sajid, Ali, Naveed Raza, Xuan Vinh Vo, and Van Le. 2022. Modelling the joint dynamics of financial assets using MGARCH family models: Insights into hedging and diversification strategies. Resources Policy 78: 102861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Stoian, Andreea, and Filip Iorgulescu. 2020. Fiscal policy and stock market efficiency: An ARDL bounds testing approach. Economic Modelling 90: 406–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Su, Chi Wei, Kai Hua Wang, Hsu Ling Chang, and Adelina Dumitrescu-Peculea. 2017. Do Iron Ore Price Bubbles Occur? Resources Policy 53: 340–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Tarlie, Martin B., Georgios Sakoulis, and Roy Henriksson. 2022. Stock market bubbles and anti-bubbles. International Review of Financial Analysis 81: 101235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Tran, Thi Bich Ngoc. 2017. Speculative Bubbles in Emerging Stock Markets and Macroeconomic Factors: A New Empirical Evidence for Asia and Latin America. Research in International Business and Finance 42: 454–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Umar, Muhammad, Chi-wei Su, Syed Kumail, Abbas Rizvi, and Oana-ramona Lobont. 2021. Driven by Fundamentals or Exploded by Emotions: Detecting Bubbles in Oil Prices. Energy 231: 120873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Versmissen, James, and Joachim Zietz. 2017. Is There a Leverage Target for REITs? Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 66: 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Virtanen, Timo, Eero Tölö, Matti Virén, and Katja Taipalus. 2018. Can Bubble Theory Foresee Banking Crises? Journal of Financial Stability 36: 66–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Vrontos, Ioannis D., Petros Dellaportas, and Dimitris N. Politis. 2003. A full-factor multivariate GARCH model. Econometrics Journal 6: 311–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wahab, Bashir A., and Adeolu O. Adewuyi. 2021. Analysis of major properties of metal prices using new methods: Structural breaks, non-linearity, stationarity and bubbles. Resources Policy 74: 102284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Wan, Junmin. 2024. Bubble occurrence and landing. Journal of Financial Stability 70: 101210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Wang, Shengquan, and Langnan Chen. 2019. Driving factors of equity bubbles. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance 49: 304–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wang, Yilin, Zeming Zhang, Xiafei Li, Xiaodan Chen, and Yu Wei. 2020. Dynamic return connectedness across global commodity futures markets: Evidence from time and frequency domains. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 542: 123464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Xu, Yingying, and Sultan Salem. 2021. Explosive behaviors in Chinese carbon markets: Are there price bubbles in eight pilots? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 145: 111089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Yao, Can-Zhong, and Hong-Yu Li. 2021. A study on the bursting point of Bitcoin based on the BSADF and LPPLS methods. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance 55: 101280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ye, Yonggang, Tsangyao Chang, Ken Hung, and Yang Cheng Lu. 2011. Revisiting Rational Bubbles in the G-7 Stock Markets Using the Fourier Unit Root Test and the Nonparametric Rank Test for Cointegration. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 82: 346–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Zhang, Mu, and Jie Zheng. 2017. A robust reference-dependent model for speculative bubbles. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 137: 232–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Bubbles in African Stock Markets.
Figure 1. Bubbles in African Stock Markets.
Economies 12 00217 g001
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.
Parameters/SeriesSouth AfricaNigeria EgyptBotswana MoroccoGhanaKenyaMauritius
Mean49.13943.31448.24149.93147.9948.1848.4144.016
Standard Deviation28.45629.52127.41131.48130.35430.41131.21027.382
Minimum10.34510.51110.81111.19019.2849.67810.21111.011
Maximum157.83158.711158.012156.97156.93190.211158.114158.62
Skewness1.1901.21411.34211.3411.01211.5921.2991.923
Kurtosis0.1580.1680.1660.1740.17500.17010.17110.1734
Jarque-Bera1648.3960 ***1649.416 ***1647.341 ***1644.304 ***1640.311 ***1647.312 ***1639.311 ***1661.011 ***
Ljung–Box Q-statistics24.093 *** (12)32.088 *** (15)25.107 *** (12)18.765 *** (15)22.982 ** (12)19.644 *** (12)26.055 *** (18)23.053 *** (15)
Engle (1982) ARCH test55.022 *** (12)62.044 *** (12)25.107 *** (18)38.115 *** (12)47.112 ** (12)8.906 *** (16)46.026 *** (12)31.073 *** (12)
Lag length in parentheses. ***, ** represents 1%, 5% significance levels respectively.
Table 2. Univariate unit root tests.
Table 2. Univariate unit root tests.
SeriesLevelsFirst Differences
ADFPPKPSSADFPPKPSS
South Africa−2.503−2.1150.622 ***−10.443 ***−10.107 ***0.083
Nigeria−2.771−2.4530.559 ***−10.094 ***−10.155 ***0.076
Egypt−2.288−2.2670.889 ***−11.037 ***−11.094 ***0.049
Botswana−2.104−2.7800.903 ***−13.098 ***−14.055 ***0.055
Morocco−2.255−2.0980.917 ***−11.098 ***−13.077 ***0.069
Ghana−2.088−2.3040.443 ***−10.098 ***−10.177 ***0.167
Kenya−2.509−2.4080.089 ***−12.098 ***−12.039 ***0.087
Mauritius−2.155−2.0060.459 ***−13.078 ***−13.655 ***0.085
Note: *** represents 1% significance level.
Table 3. Unit root test with a nonlinear Fourier function.
Table 3. Unit root test with a nonlinear Fourier function.
SeriesResidual Sum of Squares (RSS) k F ( k ) Number   of   Lags   of   Δ S t τ L M ( k )
South Africa0.1481173.803 ***3−1.866
Nigeria0.6551205.554 ***2−1.409
Egypt0.8771155.033 ***3−1.402
Botswana0.1651161.275 ***3−1.711
Morocco0.5441180.332 ***2−1.455
Ghana0.7871206.098 ***3−1.806
Kenya0.7711165.099 ***3−1.564
Mauritius0.6341183.087 ***3−1.733
Note: *** represents 1% significance level.
Table 4. Results of the Econophysics frequency domain estimates (Equation (8)).
Table 4. Results of the Econophysics frequency domain estimates (Equation (8)).
SeriesBeginning DatesEnding Dates
Egypt13 March 199924 October 2004
2 February 200918 December 2010
4 November 201628 May 2018
Morocco 13 January199915 May 2000
1 August 199618 December 1996
2 February 20009 December 2001
Botswana9 February 20006 August 2005
1 February 201030 November 2015
Ghana 3 April 20053 May 2008
1 June 20103 November 2014
Nigeria 8 August 199921 December 2002
1 December 20048 August 2007
5 May 20128 August 2014
South Africa3 April 199810 October 1998
4 June 200112 October 2001
10 March 200313 August 2003
11 September 200812 October 2008
4 February 201610 October 2016
Kenya4 September 199612 December 1996
1 July 200011 December 2001
5 May 200312 October 2008
6 June 201412 August 2018
Mauritius5 February 200016 October 2005
6 October 200730 September 2010
7 March 201210 October 2015
Table 5. Results of rank test estimates.
Table 5. Results of rank test estimates.
Panel A: Linear Model
SeriesRank Test StatisticLinear Score Test Statistic
South Africa1.10561 ***4.0087603 ***
Nigeria0.97633 ***0.7865509 *
Egypt0.91089 ***1.954407 ***
Botswana0.81712 ***4.006591 ***
Morocco0.82771 ***0.754493 ***
Ghana0.52433 ***2.876601 ***
Kenya0.71891 ***0.743388 ***
Mauritius0.71166 ***1.89056 ***
Critical value (%)
100.05143.05
50.09514.62
10.04336.76
Panel B: Nonlinear Model
SeriesRank Test StatisticsNonlinear Score Test Statistic
South Africa0.82935 ***4.006629 ***
Nigeria0.89169 **0.677702 ***
Egypt0.90322 **1.872034 ***
Botswana0.94625 **0.987232 ***
Morocco0.82999 ***1.908821 ***
Ghana0.744662 ***0.788292 ***
Kenya0.964461 ***1.872209 ***
Mauritius0.983385 *1.859663 ***
Critical value (%)
100.03563.99
50.01984.73
10.01777.06
Note: *, **, *** represents 1%, 5%, 10% significance levels.
Table 6. DCC-MGARCH model results.
Table 6. DCC-MGARCH model results.
Panel A: Dynamic Conditional Correlation MGARCH Model
SeriesSouth AfricaNigeriaEgyptBotswanaMoroccoGhanaKenyaMauritius
Cons1.292 a
[0.007]
1.261 a
[0.006]
1.241 a
[0.022]
1.206
[0.006]
1.401 a
[0.014]
1.014 a
[0.020]
1.414 a
[0.012]
1.843 a
[0.016]
L1arch0.941 a
[0.038]
0.913 a
[0.038]
0.849 a
[0.030]
0.914 a
[0.029]
0.941
[0.051]
0.721 a
[0.039]
0.821 a
[0.044]
0.928 a
[0.042]
L2garch0.250 a
[0.023]
0.2419
[0.024]
0.214 a
[0.014]
0.239 a
[0.023]
0.204 a
[0.024]
0.341 a
[0.017]
0.290 a
[0.019]
0.214 a
[0.027]
Cons arch0.008 a
[0.001]
0.009 a
[0.001]
0.016 a
[0.002]
0.007 a
[0.001]
0.061 a
[0.005]
0.042
[0.005]
0.009 a
[0.001]
0.044 a
[0.004]
N
Log likelihood3994.7
Lamda1
(0.006)
0.289 a
Lamda2
(0.006)
0.711 a
Panel B: The Estimated Conditional Quasi-Correlation in DCC MGARCH Model
CorrelationsSouth AfricaNigeriaEgyptBotswanaMoroccoGhanaKenyaMauritius
South Africa-
Nigeria0.764 a
[0.031]
-
Egypt0.643 a
[0.036]
0.614 a
[0.049]
-
Botswana0.624 a
[0.040]
0.572 a
[0.051]
0.643 a
[0.052]
-
Morocco0.562 a
[0.041]
0.561 a
[0.061]
0.610 a
[0.048]
0.622 a
[0.041]
-
Ghana0.598 a
[0.043]
0.621 a
[0.070]
0.572 a
[0.081]
0.601 a
[0.048]
0.524 a
[0.058]
-
Kenya0.608 a
[0.041]
0.591 a
[0.046]
0.589 a
[0.052]
0.548 a
[0.064]
0.701 a
[0.062]
0.543 a
[0.0049]
-
Mauritius0.566
[0.042]
0.553
[0.054]
0.543
[0.053]
0.540
[0.0501]
0.538
[0.0498]
0.531
[0.0477]
0.511
[0.049]
-
a represents 1% significance level.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lawal, A.I.; Oseni, E.; Ahmed, A.; Riyadh, H.A.; Tabash, M.I.; Abaver, D.T. Analysing Rational Bubbles in African Stock Markets: Evidence from Econophysics Frequency Domain Estimates and DCC MGARCH Model. Economies 2024, 12, 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12080217

AMA Style

Lawal AI, Oseni E, Ahmed A, Riyadh HA, Tabash MI, Abaver DT. Analysing Rational Bubbles in African Stock Markets: Evidence from Econophysics Frequency Domain Estimates and DCC MGARCH Model. Economies. 2024; 12(8):217. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12080217

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lawal, Adedoyin Isola, Ezeikel Oseni, Adel Ahmed, Hosam Alden Riyadh, Mosab I. Tabash, and Dominic T. Abaver. 2024. "Analysing Rational Bubbles in African Stock Markets: Evidence from Econophysics Frequency Domain Estimates and DCC MGARCH Model" Economies 12, no. 8: 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12080217

APA Style

Lawal, A. I., Oseni, E., Ahmed, A., Riyadh, H. A., Tabash, M. I., & Abaver, D. T. (2024). Analysing Rational Bubbles in African Stock Markets: Evidence from Econophysics Frequency Domain Estimates and DCC MGARCH Model. Economies, 12(8), 217. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies12080217

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop