Figure 1.
Development of XU100 index and Covid-19 pandemic. Source: Bloomberg Terminal; MHT, 2020.
Citation: Joanna Faber, Krzysztof Brodzik. Air quality inside passenger cars[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2017, 4(1): 112-133. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2017.1.112
| [1] | Ming-Zhen Xin, Bin-Guo Wang, Yashi Wang . Stationary distribution and extinction of a stochastic influenza virus model with disease resistance. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(9): 9125-9146. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022424 |
| [2] | Tingting Xue, Xiaolin Fan, Zhiguo Chang . Dynamics of a stochastic SIRS epidemic model with standard incidence and vaccination. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(10): 10618-10636. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022496 |
| [3] | Fathalla A. Rihan, Hebatallah J. Alsakaji . Analysis of a stochastic HBV infection model with delayed immune response. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(5): 5194-5220. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021264 |
| [4] | Kangbo Bao, Qimin Zhang, Xining Li . A model of HBV infection with intervention strategies: dynamics analysis and numerical simulations. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(4): 2562-2586. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019129 |
| [5] | Yang Chen, Wencai Zhao . Dynamical analysis of a stochastic SIRS epidemic model with saturating contact rate. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(5): 5925-5943. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020316 |
| [6] | Helong Liu, Xinyu Song . Stationary distribution and extinction of a stochastic HIV/AIDS model with nonlinear incidence rate. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(1): 1650-1671. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024072 |
| [7] | H. J. Alsakaji, F. A. Rihan, K. Udhayakumar, F. El Ktaibi . Stochastic tumor-immune interaction model with external treatments and time delays: An optimal control problem. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(11): 19270-19299. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023852 |
| [8] | Tianfang Hou, Guijie Lan, Sanling Yuan, Tonghua Zhang . Threshold dynamics of a stochastic SIHR epidemic model of COVID-19 with general population-size dependent contact rate. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(4): 4217-4236. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022195 |
| [9] | Divine Wanduku . The stochastic extinction and stability conditions for nonlinear malaria epidemics. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(5): 3771-3806. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019187 |
| [10] | Xiaomeng Wang, Xue Wang, Xinzhu Guan, Yun Xu, Kangwei Xu, Qiang Gao, Rong Cai, Yongli Cai . The impact of ambient air pollution on an influenza model with partial immunity and vaccination. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(6): 10284-10303. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023451 |
The world has been faced with the Covid-19 common disease phenomenon recently. It originated from China at the end of 2019, spread to other countries, which are close to China in the first months of 2020, and has become pandemic in March 2020 (World Health Organization-WHO, 2020a). The Covid-19 pandemic has been influencing all countries deeply and negatively nowadays.
With the spreading of Covid-19 to countries, most economic and financial indicators have begun to deteriorate. In this context, negative developments have been seen in these indicators such as credit default swap (CDS) spreads, foreign exchange rates (FER), retention share, and net selling amount of foreign investors in equity markets, interest rates, and oil prices. All of these indicators are crucial in terms of roles and effects in economies (Orhan et al., 2019) because they affect foreign investment inflows to countries and investment decisions of foreign investors as well.
All countries pay attention to foreign investments. However, foreign investments have much more significance, especially in emerging countries. Emerging countries can mainly provide financing from external (international/foreign) sources because domestic savings are not sufficient to finance economic activities and growth. Hence, emerging countries try to attract much more foreign investments. By considering that there are two types of foreign investments, which are direct and portfolio (Karikari, 1992; Zengin et al., 2018), attracting more foreign direct investment is not easy because of the geopolitical and political considerations. On the other hand, stimulating foreign portfolio investments, which can be made via bonds, bills, and equities, is much easier concerning foreign direct investments.
Foreign investors consider the riskiness of countries in allocating funds among various asset opportunities to benefit from diversification (Dooley & Hutchison, 2009; Yang et al., 2018; Akhtaruzzaman et al., 2020a) in decreasing risks in the globalizing world. Besides, financial, fiscal, price, and macroeconomic stability in invested countries are significant for foreign investors. All these have a huge role in the financing and development of emerging countries via affecting the improvement of both the real and financial sectors.
Although increasing foreign investments is desired, there are also some arguments against the role of foreign investments in emerging countries. Especially, foreign portfolio investments have been criticized very often. Naturally, it is expected that foreign portfolio investments make effects on the financial markets (i.e. stock exchanges) of countries. Foreign investments affect the development of equity markets, prices, returns, and volatility (Hargis & Ramanlal, 1997; Bekaert & Harvey, 2003). However, the direction of foreign investment effects is not clear and crucial at this point. Levine & Zervos (1998), and Rogoff (1999) conclude that foreign capital inflows make a positive contribution to countries' growth and development. On the other hand, some have argued that retention share and net selling amount in this study have negative effects (Adabag & Ornelas, 2004) if foreign investors decrease the retention share and increase the net selling amount on emerging countries. Also, unfettered activities of foreign investors are evaluated as harmful by some researchers (Rodrik & Subramanian, 2009; Stiglitz, 2010).
On the other hand, there is a Covid-19 pandemic reality in the world that has been affecting all countries. There are nearly 9.9 million cases, and 497 thousand deaths because of the Covid-19 pandemic in the world as of 06.26.2020 (WHO, 2020b). Similarly, the Covid-19 pandemic increased in Turkey. Covid-19 has been determined on 03.10.2020 and the first death has occurred on 03.17.2020 in Turkey. Total cases have become 194.5 thousand and total deaths are 5 thousand in Turkey resulting from Covid-19 as of 06.26.2020 (Ministry of Health of Turkey-MHT, 2020).
While Covid-19 presents and continues to cause deaths, economic and financial indicators have been deteriorating in such an environment. Even, the pandemic causes unprecedented and destructive effects on economies and indicators (Goodell, 2020; Rizwan et al., 2020). Therefore, the Covid-19 pandemic should be considered in making any analysis, especially when examining macroeconomic and financial related issues such as the development of the main stock index. Also, it is seen that the level of economic activities has been decreasing in the time of Covid-19. Therefore, the negative effects of the pandemic have been felt deeply in emerging countries. In this context, Figure 1 presents the development of the XU100 index, cumulative cases, and deaths resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic in Turkey.
As Figure 1 shows, the XU100 index was relatively high before the Covid-19 pandemic times concerning in time of the Covid-19 pandemic. Also, total cumulative cases have reached 194.5 thousand and total deaths have become 5 thousand as of 06.26.2020 in Turkey.
Turkey has been taking measures to decrease the negative effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on the economy, corporations, households, and individuals which is similar to other countries affected by the pandemic (Akhtaruzzaman et al., 2020b; Gherghina et al., 2020; Kartal, 2020; Narayan et al., 2020; Phan & Narayan, 2020). Some of these measures could be summarized as local lockdowns, quarantines on residential areas, ban on flights, lowering the minimum payment requirements of credit cards, cash transfers to families in need, increasing the amount of funding markets by the central bank of the Republic of Turkey including buying governmental bonds, deferred credit payments to banks, deferred governmental (tax and social security premium) payments in various sectors, and minimum wage subsidies (Stanley, 2020; Official Gazette, 2020).
In summary, Turkey has been in the Covid-19 pandemic since 11.03.2020, there have been serious cumulative cases and deaths resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic, there is an important amount of foreign portfolio outflows from Turkey since the beginning of 2020, and the XU100 index has been decreasing and in low-level concerning before the Covid-19 pandemic period. The low-level of the stock exchange index causes the underpricing of Turkish assets and this situation is negative for Turkey. In this context, it could be beneficial to examine the effects of activities of foreign investors on the main stock exchange index in Covid-19 pandemic times and whether the effects of these factors vary according to period whether Turkey is in either before the Covid-19 pandemic period or in Covid-19 pandemic times. This determination could contribute to regulatory bodies to develop policies, take measures, and prevent the negative effects on main stock exchange indices. Hence foreign portfolio investments to Turkey via equities could be stimulated, and Turkey could have the opportunity to increase foreign portfolio inflows, and Turkish assets could be priced at their fair value that all affect the distribution of financial sources among alternative investment instruments including stock exchange.
The study aims to define the effects of activities of foreign investors on the XU100 index by performing the Engle-Granger cointegration test, the Toda-Yamamoto causality test, and MARS analysis. Daily data between 01.02.2020 and 06.26.2020, activities of foreign investors (retention share and net selling amount), and the presence of the Covid-19 pandemic are used for this aim. Turkey is focused on because of being a pioneering and leading emerging country and the main stock exchange index of Turkey decreased on average at an important amount during the Covid-19 pandemic period. Also, the main motivation of the study is that there are approximately Turkish Lira (TRY) 33 billion foreign portfolio outflows from Turkey stock market since 2020 beginning (Central Securities Depositories of Turkey-CSD, 2020) and whether the behavior of foreign investors are influential on the main stock exchange index of Turkey or not.
The main contributions of the study are that the study (ⅰ) is the pioneer study in Turkey examining the effects of foreign investors' activities on the main stock exchange index at Covid-19 age; (ⅱ) examines the XU100 index by focusing on mainly foreign investors' activities with using retention share and net selling amount as dependent variables; (ⅲ) performs Engle-Granger cointegration test and Toda-Yamamoto causality test. Also, the study employs the MARS method which is used for the first time to examine the changes of the XU100 index; (ⅳ) uses daily data between 01.02.2020 and 06.26.2020 which covers before and in time of the Covid-19 pandemic. Data for foreign retention share, which is calculated based on the openness of publicly traded companies in Borsa İstanbul (BIST), is also used for the first time.
The rest of the study is organized as follows. Part 2 explains the variables by benefitting from the literature, data, and methods used in the study. Part 3 presents the empirical results. Part 4 presents a findings-based discussion and policy implications. Part 5 concludes.
By considering that the study focuses on the effects of foreign investors' activities on the main stock exchange index, the XU100 index is used as a dependent variable because the XU100 index is the main stock exchange index in Turkey as in line with the studies of Kesik et al. (2016), and Kartal et al. (2020).
In the literature, some studies examine the causes of the main stock exchange indices' changes. In this context, a variety of macroeconomic and financial variables such as economic growth, foreign direct investments, foreign exchange rates, inflation, interest rates, money supply, production index, etc. are considered in these studies. For example, Kwon & Shin (1999) consider the production index, exchange rate, trade balance, and money supply. However, data for such variables are issued on a quarterly or monthly basis, and the study focuses on the Covid-19 pandemic times which requires working with the most recent (i.e. daily base) data. By considering this fact, Kartal et al. (2020) include CDS spreads, FER, foreign investors' retention share, and net selling amount as variables that have daily data. For these reasons, the mentioned macroeconomic variables are not considered and included in the study. Moreover, it is acknowledged that there is evolving literature concerning the Covid-19 pandemic and its effects on various economic and financial indicators.
On the other hand, foreign portfolio inflows, foreign investors' trading, and net selling amount of foreign investors in emerging economies are examined in various studies. Table 1 summarizes some of these studies.
| Authors | Year | Scope | Period | Method | Results |
| Clark & Berko | 1997 | Mexico | 1989/1–1996/3 | Regression | The increase in FPI causes an increase in stock prices. |
| Bekaert & Harvey | 1998 | 17 Emerging Countries | 1977–1996 | GARCH | Increasing flows have a high correlation with returns. |
| Dahlquist & Robertsson | 2004 | Sweden | 1993–1998 | VAR | Net purchases of foreign investors provide a permanent increase of stock prices. |
| Baklacı | 2007 | Turkey | 1997/1–2006/4 | Granger causality & OLS | There is a significant bilateral interaction between FPI and stock returns. |
| Boyer & Zheng | 2009 | United States | 1952–2004 | VAR & Regression | There is a significant positive relation between stock market returns and flows of foreign investors. |
| Sevil et al. | 2012 | Turkey | 2006/1–2010/4 | VECM & Granger causality | There is causality from foreign investors to market index return. |
| Vo | 2015 | Vietnam | 2006/2012 | GMM & Regression | Ownership of foreign investors decreases firm stock price volatility. |
| Kesik et al. | 2016 | Turkey | 2005/2015 | Granger causality | FPI have an increasing impact on XU100 index. |
| Liew et al. | 2018 | Malaysia | 2009/1–2016/12 | VAR & Granger causality | There is a one-way causality from gross inflows. |
| Topaloğlu et al. | 2019 | 7 Emerging Countries | 2005–2016 | Panel data analysis | There is a significant and positive nexus between FPI and stock market returns. |
| Angelovska | 2020 | Macedonia | 2005/1–2009/12 | Regression | Net inflows are connected with the rise of returns. |
| David et al. | 2020 | 11 Countries | 79 Trading Days | Threshold cointegration | Shocks caused by diseases have an important effect on stock indices. |
| Gupta & Ahmet | 2020 | India | 2002/1–2016/12 | ARDL | The performance of stock exchanges is one of the most important factors for FPI. |
| Kartal et al. | 2020 | Turkey | 2020/1–2020/5 | Machine learning | The retention amount of foreign investors is influential in both the pre-pandemic and the pandemic periods. |
| Kotishwar | 2020 | India | 2000/1–2019/12 | ARCH & OLS | FPI influence equity market volatility. |
| Note: ARCH = Auto regressive conditional heteroscedasticity; ARDL = Autoregressive distributed lag; FPI = Foreign portfolio inflows; GARCH = Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity; GMM = Generalized method of moments; OLS = Ordinary Least Squares; VAR = Vector autoregression; VECM = Vector error correction model. | |||||
DownLoad:
CSV
As Table 1 summarizes, various studies consider the effects of the foreign investors' activities on stock exchanges. These studies define that some of the foreign trading phenomena are not beneficial; foreign investors make the equity market more efficient and decrease the volatility in the long-run; the equity market index increases when foreign inflows increase. Therefore, it is most likely to make the effect of foreign investors' activities on the XU100 index. In this context, retention share and net selling amount of foreign investors are taken into account in the analysis as dependent variables by considering these studies since the study focuses on the effects of foreign investors' activities XU100 index. Besides, a positive relationship is expected between the XU100 index and retention share of foreign investors; and XU100 and net selling amount of foreign investors.
Moreover, as a black swan case, the Covid-19 pandemic is considered. It is acknowledged that there is a growing literature on the pandemic. By considering that stock market indices have been affected negatively by the pandemic (Adekoya & Kofi Nti, 2020; Al-Awadhi et al., 2020; Ali et al., 2020; Ashraf, 2020; Baker et al., 2020; Corbet et al., 2020; Engelhardt et al., 2020; Erdem, 2020; Gherghina et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2020; Mazur et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2020), the presence of the pandemic in Turkey, which was seen for the first time on 03.10.2020, is taken into consideration. We use the beginning date of the pandemic in Turkey.
Table 2 summarizes the details of the variables considered in the analysis.
| Variable | Symbol | Description | Effect | |
| Type | Name | |||
| Dependent | Main index | XU100 | The daily closing value of the BIST main index | |
| Independent | Retention share | FSHARE | Daily retention share of foreign investors in BIST (%) | + |
| Net selling | NETSELL | Daily net selling amount of foreign investors in BIST (TRY denominated amount) | - | |
| Covid-19 | COVID | 1: If Covid-19 exists, 0: otherwise | - | |
| Note: A positive (+) relationship means that XU100 increases when the independent variable increases. A negative (-) relationship means that XU100 decreases when the independent variable increases. | ||||
DownLoad:
CSV
This study focuses on Turkey by considering that there is a high amount of foreign portfolio outflows from the stock exchange since the 2020 year beginning and the main stock market index has decreased at an important amount. In this context, the study includes the period between 01.02.2020 and 06.26.2020. This period is selected to focus on the very recent period including Covid-19 pandemic times and the nearest period before the Covid-19 pandemic. Also, data for business days are considered because data of variables can be obtained only for the business day.
Data for the XU100 index are gathered from Bloomberg Terminal. Also, data for foreign investors' retention share and net selling amount are gathered from CSD (2020). Besides, data for Covid-19 situations are gathered from MHT (2020).
The first issue in the analysis is to test the stationarity of the variables to prevent spurious regression and misleading conclusions in turn. Although there is a variety of unit root tests to examine the stationary condition of the data set. Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) is employed in the study to examine the stationarity by considering that this is mostly used in financial time series and studies.
The hypotheses of the ADF test are expressed as follows:
■ H0: Series include unit root (non-stationary).
■ H1: Series include no unit root (stationary).
If test statistics (prob.) of ADF are lower or equal to 0.05, then the H0 hypothesis is rejected which means that the series is stationary.
Engle-Granger cointegration test, which focuses on the long-term relationship among the variables of time-series, includes two steps procedure. In the first step, the stationarity of variables should be provided. After that, regression is applied. Residuals of the regression model are again examined in terms of stationarity by performing unit root tests. If residuals are stationary, then there is a long-term relationship (cointegration) between variables. In other words, these variables move together.
In the second step, the short-term relationship is analyzed with the estimation of an error correction model (ECM). Residual of the regression model could be used to estimate ECM if variables have a long-term relationship (Granger, 1969; Engle & Granger, 1987).
The hypotheses of the Engle-Granger cointegration test are expressed as follows:
■ H0: Variables are not cointegrated (Residuals of OLS include unit root).
■ H1: Variables are cointegrated (Residuals of OLS do not include unit root).
If test statistics (prob.) of the Engle-Granger cointegration test are lower or equal to 0.05, then the H0 hypothesis is rejected which means that there is causality between variables used in the analysis.
Cointegration tests are applied to analyze the long-term relationship between the main stock exchange index and the activities of foreign investors. Cointegration tests are much more appropriate compared to vector autoregression models because they can explore the dynamic co-movements between variables (Mukherjee & Naka, 1995). Therefore, cointegration tests are applied in the study.
Toda & Yamamoto causality test is employed to examine the relationship between variables. Unlike other causality tests, Toda & Yamamoto causality test does not require the stationary situation for variables to be used in the analysis (Dinçer et al., 2020). This is important because using the first difference of variables in the analysis may cause a lack of information and variables may be non-stationary (Tayyar, 2018).
There are two steps in applying the test. In the first step, the unit root test is applied to variables and the maximum cointegration degree (d) is determined. After that, lag lengths (k) are defined. In the second step, "k+dmax" lag formula is applied for estimation (Toda & Yamamoto, 1995).
The hypotheses of the Toda & Yamamoto causality test are expressed as follows:
■ H0: α1i = 0 and α2i = 0 (there is no causality from Y to X).
■ H1: α1i ≠ 0 and α2i ≠ 0 (there is causality from Y to X).
If test statistics (prob.) of Toda & Yamamoto causality test are lower or equal to 0.05, then the H0 hypothesis is rejected which means that there is causality between variables.
As a nonparametric regression modeling of high dimensional data to estimate underlying functional relationships between variables, the MARS method is firstly introduced by Friedman (1991). The main advantage of MARS is that this method does not require any pre-assumption although linear model regressions require some pre-assumptions.
There are two-steps in the MARS method. In the first step, the algorithm starts from a constant term that is the mean of the dependent values. In the second step, the piecewise linear segments, known as basis functions (BFs), are iteratively added to the model.
BFs are dependent on spline functions that are defined on a given segment and the end points of the segment are called knots. The forward step finds the potential knots to improve the performance and leads to overfitting.
A general MARS model could be formulated as in the equation below (Friedman, 1991):
| Y_t=B0+∑Kk=1anBn(Xt)+ϵ | (1) |
in which Y is the dependent variable and X represents independent variables. B0 denotes the constant term and Bn(Xt) describes the basis function that is estimated by minimizing the residual sum of squares. an shows the coefficient of nth basis functions (Friedman, 1991). In the backward stepwise stage (pruning stage), it can be eliminated the redundant knots that have the least contribution to the complex model by using Generalized Cross-Validation (GCV). The best model is selected according to the highest coefficient of determination (R2) and the lowest GCV value (Hastie et al., 2009).
Before Covid-19 pandemic times, daily data includes 48 observations from 01.02.2020 and 03.09.2020. On the other side, daily data includes 74 observations that occurred between 03.10.2020 and 06.26.2020 which is related to Covid-19 pandemic times. Figure 2 shows the development of the retention share and net selling amount of foreign investors in Turkey.
As Figure 2 presents, the retention share of foreign investors has been decreasing from 65.9% to 52.4%. Besides, there are net selling amounts for all days except for a few days. These two figures imply that foreign investors' activities have not been supporting the XU100 index. Especially, foreign investors have been taking back their investments from Borsa İstanbul since the beginning of Covid-19 pandemic times in Turkey. As a result of this approach, retention share has been decreasing constantly.
Table 3 summarizes the descriptive statistics of the variables in both periods.
| Period Variable | Before Covid-19 | Covid-19 | |||||
| XU1001 | FSHARE2 | NETSELL3 | XU1001 | FSHARE2 | NETSELL3 | ||
| Mean | 117,361.9 | 61.01856 | 215.9715 | 100,021.8 | 56.56831 | 234.6904 | |
| Median | 119,408.5 | 60.73146 | 258.8678 | 99,069.46 | 57.31724 | 278.9121 | |
| Maximum | 123,556.1 | 65.85941 | 786.5698 | 115,338.9 | 60.72814 | 1109.929 | |
| Minimum | 103,524.0 | 58.88518 | −1029.742 | 84,246.17 | 52.37000 | -485.1429 | |
| Std. Dev. | 4,931.612 | 1.547033 | 324.5663 | 85, 17.130 | 2.988219 | 263.4816 | |
| Skewness | -0.982580 | 1.401699 | -1.151931 | 0.041302 | -0.114845 | -0.297241 | |
| Kurtosis | 3.089060 | 5.100109 | 5.810881 | 2.087917 | 1.440857 | 4.418486 | |
| Jarque-Bera | 7.739573 | 24.53900 | 26.41767 | 2.586051 | 7.658022 | 7.293661 | |
| Probability | 0.020863 | 0.000005 | 0.000002 | 0.274439 | 0.021731 | 0.026074 | |
| Observations | 48 | 48 | 48 | 74 | 74 | 74 | |
| Note: 1 The dependent variable; 2 %; 3 million TRY. | |||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
Before Covid-19 pandemic times, the XU100 index is 117,362 on average but it decreased to 103,524 level at the minimum and has reached 123,556 at the maximum. Besides, the retention share of foreign investors is 61% on average. The share decreased to 58.89% at the minimum and reached 65.86% at the maximum. Besides, the net selling amount of foreign investors became TRY 215.9 million on average. On the other hand, in Covid-19 pandemic times, the XU100 index is 100,021 on average but it decreased to 84,246 level at the minimum and increased 115,339 at the maximum. Besides, the retention share of foreign investors is 56.57% on average. The share decreased to 52.37% at the minimum and reached 60.73% at the maximum. Besides, the net selling amount of foreign investors is TRY 234.7 million on average. The descriptive statistics show that the figures for XU100, FSHARE, and NETSELL vary for the period whether Turkey is in the Covid-19 pandemic or not.
Table 4 presents the results of the ADF unit root test in both periods.
| Period | Variable | ADF Test | |
| Level (Prob.) | 1st Difference (Prob.) | ||
| Before Covid-19 | XU100 | 0.9562 | 0.0002 |
| FSHARE | 0.2782 | 0.0002 | |
| NETSELL | 0.0003 | 0.0000 | |
| In Covid-19 | XU100 | 0.9449 | 0.0000 |
| FSHARE | 0.8625 | 0.0089 | |
| NETSELL | 0.0231 | 0.0000 | |
DownLoad:
CSV
Before Covid-19 pandemic times, the probability values of the XU100 index and retention share of foreign investors are greater than 0.05. Therefore, these variables have a unit root and are non-stationary. On the other hand, the first difference of the variables has probability values that are lower than 0.05 meaning that they are stationary. In other words, the null hypothesis of one unit root against the alternative of stationarity cannot be rejected in levels of variables, but is rejected in their first differences, I (1). Therefore, the first differences of these variables are used in the analysis. Moreover, the net selling amount of foreign investors are stationary at levels. The stationarity condition of all variables is the same for in Covid-19 pandemic times.
Considering the stationarity results of the dataset which present that variables are stationary at different levels, it is decided to apply Toda & Yamamoto causality test. Moreover, MARS analysis is performed to examine the consistency of results.
In the context of the Engle-Granger cointegration test, the regression model is applied first and the stationarity of residuals is examined secondly. Table 5 shows the results of the unit root test for residuals for the period which is before the Covid-19 pandemic.
| Period | Variable | ADF Test (Prob.) |
| Before Covid-19 | XU100 & FSHARE | 0.0002 |
| XU100 & NETSELL | 0.0009 | |
| Covid-19 | XU100 & FSHARE | 0.0000 |
| XU100 & NETSELL | 0.0001 |
DownLoad:
CSV
As can be seen from Table 4, the probability values of the ADF test for residuals are lower than 0.05 which shows that there is a long-term cointegration between the XU100 index and the retention share of foreign investors. Besides, there is a long-term cointegration between the XU100 index and the net selling amount of foreign investors. Therefore, the XU100 index and retention share of foreign investors are cointegrated and move together in the long-run. Similarly, the XU100 index and net selling amount of foreign investors are cointegrated and moved together in the long-run. These findings are similar for both before the Covid-19 pandemic and in Covid-19 pandemic times.
In the context of the Toda-Yamamoto causality test, maximum cointegration degree (d) and lag lengths (k) are determined firstly and estimation is applied by using "k+dmax" formula. Table 6 shows the results of the lag length determination and maximum cointegration degree.
| Period | Variable | Lag Lengths (k) | Maximum Cointegration (dmax) | Estimation Degree (k+dmax) | |
| Before Covid-19 | XU100 & FSHARE | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| XU100 & NETSELL | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Covid-19 | XU100 & FSHARE | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| XU100 & NETSELL | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
DownLoad:
CSV
By considering the results in Table 5, the estimation degree is determined as 2 for retention share and as 1 for the net selling amount of foreign investors in the period which is before the Covid-19 pandemic. On the other hand, the estimation degree is determined as 3 for retention share and as 2 for net selling amount of foreign investors in the period which is in the Covid-19 pandemic.
Table 7 shows the results of the Toda-Yamamoto causality test.
| Period | Variable | Estimation Degree (k+dmax) | Prob. | Result |
| Before Covid-19 | FSHARE XU100 | 2 | 0.6940 | No Causality |
| NETSELL XU100 | 1 | 0.3609 | No Causality | |
| Covid-19 | FSHARE XU100 | 3 | 0.4120 | No Causality |
| NETSELL XU100 | 2 | 0.2685 | No Causality |
DownLoad:
CSV
According to the results in Table 6, there is no causality from the retention share of foreign investors and the net selling amount of foreign investors to the XU100 index in both periods. On the other hand, the probability values of the test imply that there is a nexus from the independent variables to the XU100 index at low confidence intervals. Moreover, the probability values of the test prove that there is an increasing role in the index from before the pandemic to the pandemic period. The results are important because the retention share of foreign investors and the net selling amount of foreign investors could be much more influential on the index when they are evaluated with the other indicators that are included in the analysis.
MARS method creates 4 models and BF1 is determined as the best model based on GCV and R2 statistics for the period which is before Covid-19 pandemic times. Table 8 presents the details of the variables' importance and Table 9 shows the details of the best model.
| Variable | Importance Level | −GCV |
| FSHARE | 100.000 | 0.248383E+08 |
| NETSELL | 0.000 | 0.198267E+08 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Basis Functions | Details | Coefficient |
| Constant | 114,549.0783 | |
| BF9 | max(0, FSHARE − 59.550) | 1,856.921 |
| F Test: 21.274 (0.000) Adjusted R2: 0.301 | ||
DownLoad:
CSV
According to the best model, the most significant variable on the XU100 index is the retention share of foreign investors in time which is before the Covid-19 pandemic.
Adjusted R2 of the best MARS model is 0.301 before Covid-19 pandemic times. These results imply that only the variables used in the analysis, which are retention share and net selling amount of foreign investors, explain 30.1% changes in the XU100 index.
On the other hand, MARS creates 17 models and BF2 is selected as the best model based on GCV and R2 statistics for the period which is in Covid-19 pandemic times. Table 10 presents the details of the variables' importance.
| Variable | Importance Level | −GCV |
| FSHARE | 100.000 | 0.735352E + 08 |
| NETSELL | 45.652 | 0.286564E + 08 |
DownLoad:
CSV
Also, Table 11 presents the details of the best model.
| Basis Functions | Details | Coefficient |
| Constant | 103,278.07 | |
| BF1 | max(0, FSHARE − 53.780) | - |
| BF2 | max(0, 53.780 − FSHARE) | 7,685.579 |
| BF3 | max(0, NETSELL + 485.140) * BF1 | −2.215 |
| F Test: 150.531 (0.000) Adjusted R2: 0.804 | ||
DownLoad:
CSV
According to the best model, the most significant variable on the XU100 index is the retention share of foreign investors at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic. This result is also similar to the before Covid-19 pandemic times. However, there is an important difference that the net selling amount of foreign investors affects the XU100 index in the time of the Covid-19 period. Moreover, MARS determines that there are interactions between FSHARE and NETSELL in the time of the Covid-19 pandemic.
The adjusted R2 of the best MARS model is 0.804 in the time of the Covid-19 pandemic. These results imply that only the variables used in the analysis, which are retention share and net selling amount of foreign investors, explain 80.4% changes in the XU100 index.
In the study, the Engle-Granger cointegration test, Toda-Yamamoto causality test, MARS analysis are performed to examine the changes in the XU100 index by taking into consideration the retention share and net selling amount of foreign investors as independent variables. Engle-Granger cointegration test shows that the XU100 index is cointegrated with retention share and net selling amount of foreign investors in the long-term. However, the Toda-Yamamoto causality test presents that this relationship between the XU100 index and the independent variables is not at the level of causality. Moreover, MARS analysis defines that although the retention share of foreign investors is influential on the XU100 index for the period which is before the Covid-19 pandemic, however, net selling amount of foreign investors is also influential for the period which is in Covid-19 pandemic.
The analysis results define that the XU100 index is affected by the activities of foreign investors before and in Covid-19 pandemic times. The retention share of foreign investors is influential for both periods according to all methods used. This result is consistent with Kartal et al. (2020). Also, the effect of the net selling amount of foreign investors is increased in Covid-19 pandemic times as expected. However, it was not influential on the XU100 index before the Covid-19 pandemic according to the results of MARS. This result is not consistent with Kartal et al. (2020) that who determine that it is effective on the index although its effect is low. Moreover, there is not a causality relationship between the XU100 index and independent variables according to the Toda-Yamamoto causality test. When we evaluate all these results obtained from the test, they imply that although the activities of foreign investors affect the XU100 index, these are not the sole and main determinants of the XU100 index. Therefore, other determinants, which are not included in the study, should be taken into consideration to determine how the XU100 index change over before the pandemic and the pandemic periods.
By taking into consideration the analysis results, it could be recommended that the critical barriers in independent variables should not be exceeded. In other words, the retention share of foreign investors should be kept above 53.78%, and the net selling amount of foreign investors should be kept under the TRY 485 million so as not to cause a decreasing effect on the XU100 index. However, this should be not provided by increasing legal barriers and restricting the elbowroom of foreign investors such as prohibiting the short-selling. Instead, the attention of foreign investors should be increased by applying structural reforms like a positive real interest rate instead of a negative real interest rate and foreign portfolio inflows should be steered up in turn. By considering that Turkey is in time of Covid-19, and Turkey has not the capacity to lower the negative effects of global factors, Turkey could focus on macroeconomic and market variables which are mostly under the control of the country.
Also, other policies could be developed and applied by Turkish regulatory authorities. In such a process, the relationship between variables should be considered as MARS analysis shows because there is an interaction between the retention share and net selling amount of foreign investors. Therefore, the outcomes of measures to be taken on XU100 should be predicted before implementation.
The study examines the effects of foreign investors' activities on the main stock exchange indices by using Turkey's data before and in the time of the Covid-19 Pandemic. That is why because emerging countries need foreign financing sources, foreign portfolio investments have significance for these countries, equity investments are one of the important foreign portfolio investment tools to be used, and there is a Covid-19 pandemic since 03.10.2020 in Turkey. In this context, the XU100 index as a dependent variable, and retention share and net selling amount of foreign investors as independent variables are used, presence of Covid-19 pandemic is considered, and daily data between 01.02.2020 and 06.26.2020 (including 122 observations) is analyzed with performing Engle-Granger cointegration test, Toda-Yamamoto causality test, and MARS analysis.
As a result of the analysis, the findings reveal that the effects of retention share and net selling amount of foreign investors on the XU100 index vary according to period whether Turkey is in Covid-19 time or not according to the results of MARS. Besides, the power of effects varies according to period. Moreover, the results imply that the Covid-19 pandemic causes the increasing effect of the net selling amount of foreign investors on the XU100 index. On the other hand, there is not a relationship between the index and independent variables at the causality level which is surprising because it is expected that there could be a relationship at the causality level which reflecting a strong effect. Turkey could decrease the outflows of foreign investments from the stock exchange and prevent the underpricing of assets in turn.
In the study, Turkey is examined because there is quite volatile behavior in the XU100 index, retention share, and net selling amount, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. By taking measures to decrease the negative effects, Turkey could attract more foreign portfolio investments. Also, additional analysis for Turkey at the end of the Covid-19 pandemic would contribute to the literature, and new policy proposals could be recommended based on the results of forthcoming studies. On the other hand, including different country groups like Venezuela, Argentina, Ukraine, which have some problems in terms of foreign investments, could help extend current literature. Similar results are expected for these countries and other emerging countries as well. On the other hand, the cointegration between the variables could be at the causality level which reflects that those countries are much more dependent on foreign portfolio inflows. Moreover, new variables could be included in the new analysis, and other methods like machine learning algorithms, neural networks, threshold cointegration model, and wavelet coherence approach could be applied in forthcoming studies.
The author declares no conflicts of interest in this paper.
| [1] | Glader A (2012) Chemical emissions from building structures – Emission sources and their impact on indoor air. Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Umeå, Sweden. |
| [2] | Levin H (2003) Indoor air pollutants. Part 1: general description of pollutants, levels and standards. Ventilation Information Paper 2. |
| [3] | Minister of Supply and Services, Canada (1995) Exposure guidelines for residential indoor air quality. A Report of the Federal-Provincial Advisory Committee on Environmental and Occupational Health. |
| [4] | Report No 19, EUR 17675 EN (1997) Total volatile organic compounds (TVOC) in indoor air quality investigations. European Collaborative Action 'Indoor Air Quality & its Impact on Man', Luxembourg. |
| [5] | ISO 16000-6:2011: Determination of volatile organic compounds in indoor and test chamber air by active sampling on Tenax TA® sorbent, thermal desorption and gas chromatography using MS or MS-FID. |
| [6] |
Jones AP (1999) Indoor air quality and health. Atmos Environ 33: 4535-4564. doi: 10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00272-1
|
| [7] |
Weschler ChJ, Nazaroff WW (2008) Semivolatile organic compounds in indoor environments. Atmos Environ 42: 9018-9040. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.052
|
| [8] | Heinzow B, Sagunski H (2009) Evaluation of indoor air contamination by means of reference and guide values: the German approach, In: Salthammer T, Uhde E, Organic indoor air pollutants 2 ed. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH, 189-211. |
| [9] | Sărbu I, Sebarchievici C (2011) Olfactory comfort assurance in buildings, In: Mazzeo N (ed.), Chemistry, emission control, radioactive pollution and indoor air quality, InTech, 407-428. |
| [10] | Dinh TV, Choi IY, Son YS, et al. (2016) Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in surface coating materials: their compositions and potential as an alternative fuel. J Environ Manage 168: 157-164. |
| [11] | Selected pollutants (2010) WHO Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality, WHO. |
| [12] |
Schupp T, Bolt HM, Jaeckh R, et al. (2006) Benzene and its methyl-derivatives: Derivation of maximum exposure levels in automobiles. Toxicol Lett 160: 93-104. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2005.06.012
|
| [13] | Wadge A, Salisbury J (1997) Benzene. National Environmental Health Monographs. Air Series No. 2, Department of Human Services, Australia, Glenelg Press. |
| [14] | World Health Organization (1999) Indoor air quality: organic pollutants. EURO Reports and Studies 111, Copenhagen, Denmark. |
| [15] | Mapou AEM, Shendell DG, Therkorn JH (2006) Aldehydes in passenger vehicles: An analysis of data from the RIOPA study 1999-2001. Atmos Environ 79: 751-759. |
| [16] | Air Quality Sciences, Inc. (2006) Indoor air quality hazards of new cars. Marietta, USA. |
| [17] | Xu B, Wu Y, Gong Y, et al. (2016) Investigation of volatile organic compounds exposure inside vehicle cabins in China. Atmos Pollut Res 7: 215-220. |
| [18] |
Kalman EL, Löfvendahl A, Winquist F, et al. (2000) Classification of complex gas mixtures from automotive leather using an electronic nose. Anal Chim Acta 403: 31-38. doi: 10.1016/S0003-2670(99)00604-2
|
| [19] |
Wensing M, Uhde E, Salthammer T (2005) Plastic additives in the indoor environment – flame retardants and plasticizers. Sci Total Environ 339: 19-40. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2004.10.028
|
| [20] | Johansson I (1999) The role of volatile organic compounds in the assessment of indoor air quality. Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. |
| [21] |
Delahunty CM, Eyres G, Dufour JP (2006) Gas chromatography-olfactometry. J Separ Sci 29: 2107-2125. doi: 10.1002/jssc.200500509
|
| [22] |
Bartsch J, Uhde E, Salthammer T (2016) Analysis of odour compounds from scented consumer products using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and gas chromatography-olfactometry. Anal Chim Acta 904: 98-106. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2015.11.031
|
| [23] |
Mølhave L, Clausen G, Berglund B, et al. (1997) Total volatile organic compounds (TVOC) in indoor air quality investigations. Indoor Air 7: 225-240. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0668.1997.00002.x
|
| [24] |
Mandalakis M, Stephanou EG, Horii Y, et al. (2008) Emerging contaminants in car interiors: evaluating the impact of airborne PBDEs and PBDD/Fs. Environ Sci Technol 42: 6431-6436. doi: 10.1021/es7030533
|
| [25] | Yoshida T, Matsunaga I, Tomioka K, et al. (2006) Interior air pollution in automotive cabins by volatile organic compounds diffusing from interior materials: I. Survey of 101 types of Japanese domestically produced cars for private use. Indoor Built Environ 15: 425-444. |
| [26] |
Jo WK, Yu CH (2001) Public bus and taxicab drivers' exposure to aromatic work-time Volatile Organic Compounds. Environ Res A 86: 66-72. doi: 10.1006/enrs.2001.4257
|
| [27] |
Batterman SA, Peng ChY, Braun J (2002) Levels and composition of volatile organic compounds on commuting routes in Detroit, Michigan. Atmos Environ 36: 6015-6030. doi: 10.1016/S1352-2310(02)00770-7
|
| [28] |
Jo WK, Choi SJ (1996) Vehicle occupants' exposure to aromatic Volatile Organic Compounds while commuting on an urban-suburban route in Korea. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 46: 749-754. doi: 10.1080/10473289.1996.10467509
|
| [29] | Weisel CP (2005) Automobile, bus and rail passenger air quality. In: Martin Hocking, editor, The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 4H: 317-334. |
| [30] |
Jo WK, Park KH (1998) Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in automobile's cabins while commuting along a Korean urban area. Environ Int 24: 259-265. doi: 10.1016/S0160-4120(98)00004-X
|
| [31] |
Riediker M, Williams R, Devlin R, et al. (2003) Exposure to particulate matter, volatile organic compounds and other air pollutants inside patrol cars. Environ Sci Technol 37: 2084-2093. doi: 10.1021/es026264y
|
| [32] |
Jo WK, Park KH (1999) Concentrations of volatile organic compounds in the passenger side and the back seat of automobiles. J Expo Anal Environ Epid 9: 217-227. doi: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500041
|
| [33] | Grabbs JS, Corsi RL, Torres VM (2000) Volatile organic compounds in new automobiles: screening assessment. J Environ Eng 974-977. |
| [34] |
Schlink U, Rehwagen M, Damm M, et al. (2004) Seasonal cycle of indoor-VOCs: comparison of apartments and cities. Atmos Environ 38: 1181-1190. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2003.11.003
|
| [35] |
Yoshida T, Matsunaga I (2006) A case study on identification of airborne organic compounds and time courses of their concentration in the cabin of a new car for private use. Environ Int 32: 58-79. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2005.04.009
|
| [36] | Ilgen E, Levsen K, Angerer J, et al. (2001) Aromatic hydrocarbons in the atmospheric environment. Part III: personal monitoring. Atmos Environ 35: 1265-1279. |
| [37] |
Chien YCh (2007) Variations in amounts and potential sources of volatile organic chemicals in new cars. Sci Total Environ 382: 228-239. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2007.04.022
|
| [38] |
You KW, Ge YS, Hu B, et al. (2007) Measurement of in-vehicle volatile organic compounds under static conditions. J Environ Sci 19: 1208-1213. doi: 10.1016/S1001-0742(07)60197-1
|
| [39] | Cho Y, Park DS, Kwon SB (2015) Characterization of VOC emissions from interior materials of railroad passenger cabin and preparation of environment-friendly interior materials. Korea Railroad Research Institute. |
| [40] |
Fedoruk MJ, Kerger BD (2003) Measurement of volatile organic compounds inside automobiles. J Expo Anal Environ Epid 13: 31-41. doi: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500250
|
| [41] | Fung W, Hardcastle M (2001) Textiles in automotive engineering. The Textile Institute, Cambridge, England: Woodhead Publishing Ltd. |
| [42] | Tucker WG (2001) Volatile organic compounds, In: Spengler JD, Samet JM, McCarthy JF, editors, Indoor Air Quality Handbook, The McGraw – Hill Companies Inc., 31.1-31.20. |
| [43] |
Yeganeh B, Haghighat F, Gunnarsen L, et al. (2006) Evaluation of building materials individually and in combination using odour threshold. Indoor Built Environ 15: 583-593. doi: 10.1177/1420326X06072735
|
| [44] |
Setnikova I (2014) Impact of indoor surface material on perceived air quality. Mat Sci Eng C 36: 1-6. doi: 10.1016/j.msec.2013.11.032
|
| [45] | Kataoka H, Ohashi Y, Mamiya T, et al. (2012) Indoor air monitoring of volatile organic compounds and evaluation of their emission from various building materials and common products by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Advanced Gas Chromatography – Progress in Agricultural, Biomedical and Industrial Applications. InTech. |
| [46] |
Wolkoff P (1999) How to measure and evaluate volatile organic compound emissions from building products. A perspective. Sci Total Environ 227: 197-213. doi: 10.1016/S0048-9697(99)00019-4
|
| [47] | Zabiegała B (2006) Organic compounds in indoor environments. Pol J Environ Stud 15: 383-393. |
| [48] |
Lin CC, Yu KP, Zhao P, et al. (2009) Evaluation of impact factors on VOC emissions and concentrations from wooden flooring based on chamber tests. Build Environ 44: 525-533. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.04.015
|
| [49] | Faber J, Brodzik K, Łomankiewicz D, et al. (2012) Temperature influence on air quality inside cabin of conditioned car. Combust Engines 2: 47-56. |
| [50] | Van der Wal JF, Hoogeveen AW, Wouda P (2012) The influence of temperature on the emission of volatile organic compounds from PVC flooring, carpet, and paint. Indoor Air 7: 152-159. |
| [51] | Wypych G (2013) Handbook of odors in plastic materials. ChemTec Publishing, Toronto. |
| [52] | Mitchell G, Higgitt C, Gibsion LT (2014) Emissions from polymeric materials: Characterised by thermal desorption-gas chromatography. Polym Degrad Stabil 107 Z: 328-340. |
| [53] | Yoshida T, Matsunaga I, Tomioka K, et al. (2006) Interior air pollution in automotive cabins by volatile organic compounds diffusing from interior materials: II. Influence of manufacturer, specifications and usage status on air pollution, and estimation of air pollution levels in initial phases of delivery as a new car. Indoor Built Environ 15: 445-462. |
| [54] |
Loock F, Lampe T, Bahadir M (1993) Examination of the emission of (semi-)volatile organic compounds from polymer materials used as interior trim materials in automobiles. Fresen J Anal Chem 347: 280-285. doi: 10.1007/BF00323973
|
| [55] | Khare S, Morgenstern U, Beinert C (2016) Emissions of PP-Talc-compounds during injection molding process. Proceedings of 18th Conference Odour and Emissions of Plastic Materials, Universität Kassel, Germany. |
| [56] |
Klepeis NE, Nelson WC, Ott WR, et al. (2001) The National Human Activity Pattern Survey (NHAPS): a resource for assessing exposure to environmental pollutants. J Expo Anal Environ Epid 11: 231-252. doi: 10.1038/sj.jea.7500165
|
| [57] |
Zhang GS, Li TT, Luo M, Lin JF, et al. (2008) Air pollution in the microenvironment of parked new cars. Build Environ 43: 315-319. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.03.019
|
| [58] |
Kadiyala A, Kumar A (2012) Development and application of a methodology to identify and rank the important factors affecting in-vehicle particulate matter. J Hazard Mater 213-214: 140-146. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.01.072
|
| [59] |
Jo WK, Lee JH (2011) Naphthalene and benzene levels in microenvironments associated with potential exposure: new and old apartments with moth repellents, and cabins of passenger cars. Int J Environ An Ch 91: 1412-1424. doi: 10.1080/03067310903359468
|
| [60] |
Fromme H, Oddoy A, Piloty M, et al. (1998) Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) and diesel engine emission (elemental carbon) inside a car and a subway train. Sci Total Environ 217: 165-173. doi: 10.1016/S0048-9697(98)00189-2
|
| [61] |
Chan AT, Chung MW (2003) Indoor – outdoor air quality relationship in vehicle: effect of driving environment and ventilation modes. Atmos Environ 37: 3795-3808. doi: 10.1016/S1352-2310(03)00466-7
|
| [62] |
Geiss O, Tirendi S, Barrero-Moreno J, et al. (2009) Investigation of volatile organic compounds and phthalates present in the cabin air of used private cars. Environ Int 35: 1188-1195. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2009.07.016
|
| [63] |
Chan CC, Spengler JD, Özkaynak H, et al. (1991) Commuter exposures to VOCs in Boston, Massachusetts. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 41: 1594-1600. doi: 10.1080/10473289.1991.10466955
|
| [64] |
Rahman MM, Kim KH (2012) Exposure to hazardous volatile pollutants back diffusing from automobile exhaust systems. J Hazard Mater 241-242: 267-278. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.09.042
|
| [65] |
Chan CC, Özkaynak H, Spengler JD, et al. (1991) Driver exposure to volatile organic compounds, CO, ozone and NO2 under different driving conditions. Environ Sci Technol 25: 964-972. doi: 10.1021/es00017a021
|
| [66] |
Lee K, Sohn H, Putti K (2010) In-vehicle exposures to particulate matter and black carbon. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 60: 130-136. doi: 10.3155/1047-3289.60.2.130
|
| [67] |
Jo WK, Park KH (1999) Commuter exposure to volatile organic compounds under different driving conditions. Atmos Environ 33: 409-417. doi: 10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00201-5
|
| [68] |
Parra MA, Elustondo D, Bernejo R, et al. (2008) Exposure to volatile organic compounds (VOC) in public buses of Pamplona, Northern Spain. Sci Total Environ 404: 18-25. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2008.05.028
|
| [69] |
Leung PL, Harrison RM (1999) Roadside and in-vehicle concentrations of monoaromatic hydrocarbons. Atmos Environ 33: 191-204. doi: 10.1016/S1352-2310(98)00147-2
|
| [70] |
Faber J, Brodzik K, Gołda-Kopek A, et al. (2013) Benzene, toluene and xylenes levels in new and used vehicles of the same model. J Environ Sci 25: 2324-2330. doi: 10.1016/S1001-0742(12)60333-7
|
| [71] | Faber J, Brodzik K, Gołda-Kopek A, et al. (2014) Comparison of air pollution by VOCs inside the cabins of new vehicles. Environ Natural Resour Res 4: 155-165. |
| [72] |
Brodzik K, Faber J, Gołda-Kopek A, et al. (2014) In-vehicle VOCs composition of unconditioned, newly produced cars. J Environ Sci 26: 1052-1061. doi: 10.1016/S1001-0742(13)60459-3
|
| [73] | Faber J (2014) Air quality inside new vehicles. Investigation of air quality on the basis of volatile organic compounds presence. Saarbrücken, Germany. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. |
| [74] | Faber J, Brodzik K, Gołda-Kopek A, et al. (2013) Air pollution in new vehicles as a result of VOC emission from interior materials. Pol J Environ Stud 22: 1701-1709. |
| [75] |
Buters JTM, Schober W, Gutermuth I, et al. (2007) Toxicity of parked motor vehicle indoor air. Environ Sci Technol 41: 2622-2629. doi: 10.1021/es0617901
|
| [76] |
Dor F, Le Moullec Y, Fresty B (1995) Exposure of city residents to carbon monoxide and monocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons during commuting trips in the Paris metropolitan area. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 45: 103-110. doi: 10.1080/10473289.1995.10467345
|
| [77] |
Jo WK, Song KB (2001) Exposure to volatile organic compounds for individuals with occupations associated with potential exposure to motor vehicle exhaust and/or gasoline vapor emissions. Sci Total Environ 269: 25-37. doi: 10.1016/S0048-9697(00)00774-9
|
| [78] |
Som D, Dutta C, Chatterjee A, et al. (2007) Studies on commuters' exposure to BTEX in passenger cars in Kolkata, India. Sci Total Environ 372: 426-432. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.09.025
|
| [79] |
Lawryk NJ, Weisel CP (1996) Concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds in the passenger compartments of automobiles. Environ Sci Technol 30: 810-816. doi: 10.1021/es950225n
|
| [80] |
Jo WK, Lee JW (2002) In-vehicle exposure to aldehydes while commuting on real commuter routes in a Korean urban area. Environ Res A 88: 44-51. doi: 10.1006/enrs.2001.4313
|
| [81] |
Kim YM, Harrad S, Harrison RM (2001) Concentrations and sources of VOCs in urban domestic and public microenvironments. Environ Sci Technol 35: 997-1004. doi: 10.1021/es000192y
|
| [82] | Kingham S, Meaton J, Sheard A, et al. (1998) Assessment of exposure to traffic-related fumes during the journey to work. Transport Res D 3: 271-274. |
| [83] |
Tokumura M, Hatayama R, Tatsu K, et al. (2016) Car indoor air pollution by volatile organic compounds and aldehydes in Japan. AIMS Environ Sci 3: 362-381. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.3.362
|
| [84] |
Kuo HW, Wei HC, Liu CS, et al. (2000) Exposure to volatile organic compounds while commuting in Taichung, Taiwan. Atmos Environ 34: 3331-3336. doi: 10.1016/S1352-2310(99)00396-9
|
| [85] |
MnNabola A, Broderick BM, Gill LW (2009) The impacts of inter-vehicle spacing on in-vehicle air pollution concentrations in idling urban traffic conditions. Transport Res D 14:567-575. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2009.08.003
|
| [86] |
Kim KH, Szulejko JE, Jo HJ, et al. (2016) Measurements of major VOCs released into the closed cabin environment of different automobiles under various engine and ventilation scenarios. Environ Pollut 215:340-346. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.05.033
|
| [87] |
Do DH, Van Langenhove H, Izuchukwu S, et al. (2014) Exposure to volatile organic compounds: comparison among different transportation modes. Atmos Environ 94: 53-62. doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.05.019
|
| [88] | JAMA Japan, JAMA Announces voluntary guidelines for reducing vehicle cabin VOC concentrations levels. 2006. Available from: http://www.jama-english.jp/release/release/2005/050214.html |
| [89] | GB/T 27630-2011: Guideline for air quality assessment of passenger cars. Ministry of Environmental Protection, China. |
| [90] | MOLIT Notification No. 2013-549 (2013) Newly manufactured vehicle indoor air quality management standard. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport MOLIT, Korea. |
| [91] | ISO 12219-1:2012: Interior air of road vehicles. Part 1: Whole vehicle test chamber. Specification and method for the determination of volatile organic compounds in cabin interiors. |
| [92] | VIAQ-05-05, Proposal for new Mutual Resolution (M.R.X) on Vehicle Air Quality (initial version), GRPE. 2016. Available from: https://www2.unece.org/wiki/download/attachments/33849349/VIAQ-05-05%20-%20VIAQ%20Recommendation%28initial%20draft%29.docx?api=v2 |
| 1. | Mustafa Tevfik KARTAL, Özer DEPREN, Serpil KILIÇ DEPREN, The relationship between mobility and COVID-19 pandemic: Daily evidence from an emerging country by causality analysis, 2021, 10, 25901982, 100366, 10.1016/j.trip.2021.100366 | |
| 2. | Mustafa Tevfik Kartal, Hasan Murat Ertuğrul, Talat Ulussever, The impacts of foreign portfolio flows and monetary policy responses on stock markets by considering COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from Turkey, 2022, 22, 22148450, 12, 10.1016/j.bir.2021.06.003 | |
| 3. | Mohammed H. Alamoudi, Omer A. Bafail, BWM—RAPS Approach for Evaluating and Ranking Banking Sector Companies Based on Their Financial Indicators in the Saudi Stock Market, 2022, 15, 1911-8074, 467, 10.3390/jrfm15100467 | |
| 4. | Tomiwa Sunday Adebayo, Mustafa Tevfik Kartal, Effect of green bonds, oil prices, and COVID-19 on industrial CO2 emissions in the USA: Evidence from novel wavelet local multiple correlation approach, 2023, 0958-305X, 0958305X2311674, 10.1177/0958305X231167463 | |
| 5. | Herry Subagyo, Hersugondo Hersugondo, Wijaya Marcellino Candra, Kardison Lumban Batu, Dwi Eko Waluyo, Foreign investor portfolio flow and monetary policy response in the Indonesian stock market considering the COVID-19 pandemic, 2024, 21, 18104967, 88, 10.21511/imfi.21(1).2024.08 | |
| 6. | Abdulrahman T. Alsanousi, Ammar Y. Alqahtani, Anas A. Makki, Majed A. Baghdadi, A Hybrid MCDM Approach Using the BWM and the TOPSIS for a Financial Performance-Based Evaluation of Saudi Stocks, 2024, 15, 2078-2489, 258, 10.3390/info15050258 | |
| 7. | Mustafa Tevfik Kartal, Talat Ulussever, Ugur Korkut Pata, Serpil Kılıç Depren, Dynamic link between central bank reserves, credit default swap spreads, and foreign exchange rates: Evidence from Turkey by time series econometrics, 2023, 9, 24058440, e16392, 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16392 |
Figures(2) / Tables(5)
Joanna Faber, Krzysztof Brodzik. Air quality inside passenger cars[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2017, 4(1): 112-133. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2017.1.112
| Authors | Year | Scope | Period | Method | Results |
| Clark & Berko | 1997 | Mexico | 1989/1–1996/3 | Regression | The increase in FPI causes an increase in stock prices. |
| Bekaert & Harvey | 1998 | 17 Emerging Countries | 1977–1996 | GARCH | Increasing flows have a high correlation with returns. |
| Dahlquist & Robertsson | 2004 | Sweden | 1993–1998 | VAR | Net purchases of foreign investors provide a permanent increase of stock prices. |
| Baklacı | 2007 | Turkey | 1997/1–2006/4 | Granger causality & OLS | There is a significant bilateral interaction between FPI and stock returns. |
| Boyer & Zheng | 2009 | United States | 1952–2004 | VAR & Regression | There is a significant positive relation between stock market returns and flows of foreign investors. |
| Sevil et al. | 2012 | Turkey | 2006/1–2010/4 | VECM & Granger causality | There is causality from foreign investors to market index return. |
| Vo | 2015 | Vietnam | 2006/2012 | GMM & Regression | Ownership of foreign investors decreases firm stock price volatility. |
| Kesik et al. | 2016 | Turkey | 2005/2015 | Granger causality | FPI have an increasing impact on XU100 index. |
| Liew et al. | 2018 | Malaysia | 2009/1–2016/12 | VAR & Granger causality | There is a one-way causality from gross inflows. |
| Topaloğlu et al. | 2019 | 7 Emerging Countries | 2005–2016 | Panel data analysis | There is a significant and positive nexus between FPI and stock market returns. |
| Angelovska | 2020 | Macedonia | 2005/1–2009/12 | Regression | Net inflows are connected with the rise of returns. |
| David et al. | 2020 | 11 Countries | 79 Trading Days | Threshold cointegration | Shocks caused by diseases have an important effect on stock indices. |
| Gupta & Ahmet | 2020 | India | 2002/1–2016/12 | ARDL | The performance of stock exchanges is one of the most important factors for FPI. |
| Kartal et al. | 2020 | Turkey | 2020/1–2020/5 | Machine learning | The retention amount of foreign investors is influential in both the pre-pandemic and the pandemic periods. |
| Kotishwar | 2020 | India | 2000/1–2019/12 | ARCH & OLS | FPI influence equity market volatility. |
| Note: ARCH = Auto regressive conditional heteroscedasticity; ARDL = Autoregressive distributed lag; FPI = Foreign portfolio inflows; GARCH = Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity; GMM = Generalized method of moments; OLS = Ordinary Least Squares; VAR = Vector autoregression; VECM = Vector error correction model. | |||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Variable | Symbol | Description | Effect | |
| Type | Name | |||
| Dependent | Main index | XU100 | The daily closing value of the BIST main index | |
| Independent | Retention share | FSHARE | Daily retention share of foreign investors in BIST (%) | + |
| Net selling | NETSELL | Daily net selling amount of foreign investors in BIST (TRY denominated amount) | - | |
| Covid-19 | COVID | 1: If Covid-19 exists, 0: otherwise | - | |
| Note: A positive (+) relationship means that XU100 increases when the independent variable increases. A negative (-) relationship means that XU100 decreases when the independent variable increases. | ||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Period Variable | Before Covid-19 | Covid-19 | |||||
| XU1001 | FSHARE2 | NETSELL3 | XU1001 | FSHARE2 | NETSELL3 | ||
| Mean | 117,361.9 | 61.01856 | 215.9715 | 100,021.8 | 56.56831 | 234.6904 | |
| Median | 119,408.5 | 60.73146 | 258.8678 | 99,069.46 | 57.31724 | 278.9121 | |
| Maximum | 123,556.1 | 65.85941 | 786.5698 | 115,338.9 | 60.72814 | 1109.929 | |
| Minimum | 103,524.0 | 58.88518 | −1029.742 | 84,246.17 | 52.37000 | -485.1429 | |
| Std. Dev. | 4,931.612 | 1.547033 | 324.5663 | 85, 17.130 | 2.988219 | 263.4816 | |
| Skewness | -0.982580 | 1.401699 | -1.151931 | 0.041302 | -0.114845 | -0.297241 | |
| Kurtosis | 3.089060 | 5.100109 | 5.810881 | 2.087917 | 1.440857 | 4.418486 | |
| Jarque-Bera | 7.739573 | 24.53900 | 26.41767 | 2.586051 | 7.658022 | 7.293661 | |
| Probability | 0.020863 | 0.000005 | 0.000002 | 0.274439 | 0.021731 | 0.026074 | |
| Observations | 48 | 48 | 48 | 74 | 74 | 74 | |
| Note: 1 The dependent variable; 2 %; 3 million TRY. | |||||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Period | Variable | ADF Test | |
| Level (Prob.) | 1st Difference (Prob.) | ||
| Before Covid-19 | XU100 | 0.9562 | 0.0002 |
| FSHARE | 0.2782 | 0.0002 | |
| NETSELL | 0.0003 | 0.0000 | |
| In Covid-19 | XU100 | 0.9449 | 0.0000 |
| FSHARE | 0.8625 | 0.0089 | |
| NETSELL | 0.0231 | 0.0000 | |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Period | Variable | ADF Test (Prob.) |
| Before Covid-19 | XU100 & FSHARE | 0.0002 |
| XU100 & NETSELL | 0.0009 | |
| Covid-19 | XU100 & FSHARE | 0.0000 |
| XU100 & NETSELL | 0.0001 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Period | Variable | Lag Lengths (k) | Maximum Cointegration (dmax) | Estimation Degree (k+dmax) | |
| Before Covid-19 | XU100 & FSHARE | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| XU100 & NETSELL | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Covid-19 | XU100 & FSHARE | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| XU100 & NETSELL | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Period | Variable | Estimation Degree (k+dmax) | Prob. | Result |
| Before Covid-19 | FSHARE XU100 | 2 | 0.6940 | No Causality |
| NETSELL XU100 | 1 | 0.3609 | No Causality | |
| Covid-19 | FSHARE XU100 | 3 | 0.4120 | No Causality |
| NETSELL XU100 | 2 | 0.2685 | No Causality |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Variable | Importance Level | −GCV |
| FSHARE | 100.000 | 0.248383E+08 |
| NETSELL | 0.000 | 0.198267E+08 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Basis Functions | Details | Coefficient |
| Constant | 114,549.0783 | |
| BF9 | max(0, FSHARE − 59.550) | 1,856.921 |
| F Test: 21.274 (0.000) Adjusted R2: 0.301 | ||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Variable | Importance Level | −GCV |
| FSHARE | 100.000 | 0.735352E + 08 |
| NETSELL | 45.652 | 0.286564E + 08 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Basis Functions | Details | Coefficient |
| Constant | 103,278.07 | |
| BF1 | max(0, FSHARE − 53.780) | - |
| BF2 | max(0, 53.780 − FSHARE) | 7,685.579 |
| BF3 | max(0, NETSELL + 485.140) * BF1 | −2.215 |
| F Test: 150.531 (0.000) Adjusted R2: 0.804 | ||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Authors | Year | Scope | Period | Method | Results |
| Clark & Berko | 1997 | Mexico | 1989/1–1996/3 | Regression | The increase in FPI causes an increase in stock prices. |
| Bekaert & Harvey | 1998 | 17 Emerging Countries | 1977–1996 | GARCH | Increasing flows have a high correlation with returns. |
| Dahlquist & Robertsson | 2004 | Sweden | 1993–1998 | VAR | Net purchases of foreign investors provide a permanent increase of stock prices. |
| Baklacı | 2007 | Turkey | 1997/1–2006/4 | Granger causality & OLS | There is a significant bilateral interaction between FPI and stock returns. |
| Boyer & Zheng | 2009 | United States | 1952–2004 | VAR & Regression | There is a significant positive relation between stock market returns and flows of foreign investors. |
| Sevil et al. | 2012 | Turkey | 2006/1–2010/4 | VECM & Granger causality | There is causality from foreign investors to market index return. |
| Vo | 2015 | Vietnam | 2006/2012 | GMM & Regression | Ownership of foreign investors decreases firm stock price volatility. |
| Kesik et al. | 2016 | Turkey | 2005/2015 | Granger causality | FPI have an increasing impact on XU100 index. |
| Liew et al. | 2018 | Malaysia | 2009/1–2016/12 | VAR & Granger causality | There is a one-way causality from gross inflows. |
| Topaloğlu et al. | 2019 | 7 Emerging Countries | 2005–2016 | Panel data analysis | There is a significant and positive nexus between FPI and stock market returns. |
| Angelovska | 2020 | Macedonia | 2005/1–2009/12 | Regression | Net inflows are connected with the rise of returns. |
| David et al. | 2020 | 11 Countries | 79 Trading Days | Threshold cointegration | Shocks caused by diseases have an important effect on stock indices. |
| Gupta & Ahmet | 2020 | India | 2002/1–2016/12 | ARDL | The performance of stock exchanges is one of the most important factors for FPI. |
| Kartal et al. | 2020 | Turkey | 2020/1–2020/5 | Machine learning | The retention amount of foreign investors is influential in both the pre-pandemic and the pandemic periods. |
| Kotishwar | 2020 | India | 2000/1–2019/12 | ARCH & OLS | FPI influence equity market volatility. |
| Note: ARCH = Auto regressive conditional heteroscedasticity; ARDL = Autoregressive distributed lag; FPI = Foreign portfolio inflows; GARCH = Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity; GMM = Generalized method of moments; OLS = Ordinary Least Squares; VAR = Vector autoregression; VECM = Vector error correction model. | |||||
| Variable | Symbol | Description | Effect | |
| Type | Name | |||
| Dependent | Main index | XU100 | The daily closing value of the BIST main index | |
| Independent | Retention share | FSHARE | Daily retention share of foreign investors in BIST (%) | + |
| Net selling | NETSELL | Daily net selling amount of foreign investors in BIST (TRY denominated amount) | - | |
| Covid-19 | COVID | 1: If Covid-19 exists, 0: otherwise | - | |
| Note: A positive (+) relationship means that XU100 increases when the independent variable increases. A negative (-) relationship means that XU100 decreases when the independent variable increases. | ||||
| Period Variable | Before Covid-19 | Covid-19 | |||||
| XU1001 | FSHARE2 | NETSELL3 | XU1001 | FSHARE2 | NETSELL3 | ||
| Mean | 117,361.9 | 61.01856 | 215.9715 | 100,021.8 | 56.56831 | 234.6904 | |
| Median | 119,408.5 | 60.73146 | 258.8678 | 99,069.46 | 57.31724 | 278.9121 | |
| Maximum | 123,556.1 | 65.85941 | 786.5698 | 115,338.9 | 60.72814 | 1109.929 | |
| Minimum | 103,524.0 | 58.88518 | −1029.742 | 84,246.17 | 52.37000 | -485.1429 | |
| Std. Dev. | 4,931.612 | 1.547033 | 324.5663 | 85, 17.130 | 2.988219 | 263.4816 | |
| Skewness | -0.982580 | 1.401699 | -1.151931 | 0.041302 | -0.114845 | -0.297241 | |
| Kurtosis | 3.089060 | 5.100109 | 5.810881 | 2.087917 | 1.440857 | 4.418486 | |
| Jarque-Bera | 7.739573 | 24.53900 | 26.41767 | 2.586051 | 7.658022 | 7.293661 | |
| Probability | 0.020863 | 0.000005 | 0.000002 | 0.274439 | 0.021731 | 0.026074 | |
| Observations | 48 | 48 | 48 | 74 | 74 | 74 | |
| Note: 1 The dependent variable; 2 %; 3 million TRY. | |||||||
| Period | Variable | ADF Test | |
| Level (Prob.) | 1st Difference (Prob.) | ||
| Before Covid-19 | XU100 | 0.9562 | 0.0002 |
| FSHARE | 0.2782 | 0.0002 | |
| NETSELL | 0.0003 | 0.0000 | |
| In Covid-19 | XU100 | 0.9449 | 0.0000 |
| FSHARE | 0.8625 | 0.0089 | |
| NETSELL | 0.0231 | 0.0000 | |
| Period | Variable | ADF Test (Prob.) |
| Before Covid-19 | XU100 & FSHARE | 0.0002 |
| XU100 & NETSELL | 0.0009 | |
| Covid-19 | XU100 & FSHARE | 0.0000 |
| XU100 & NETSELL | 0.0001 |
| Period | Variable | Lag Lengths (k) | Maximum Cointegration (dmax) | Estimation Degree (k+dmax) | |
| Before Covid-19 | XU100 & FSHARE | 1 | 1 | 2 | |
| XU100 & NETSELL | 1 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Covid-19 | XU100 & FSHARE | 2 | 1 | 3 | |
| XU100 & NETSELL | 2 | 0 | 2 | ||
| Period | Variable | Estimation Degree (k+dmax) | Prob. | Result |
| Before Covid-19 | FSHARE XU100 | 2 | 0.6940 | No Causality |
| NETSELL XU100 | 1 | 0.3609 | No Causality | |
| Covid-19 | FSHARE XU100 | 3 | 0.4120 | No Causality |
| NETSELL XU100 | 2 | 0.2685 | No Causality |
| Variable | Importance Level | −GCV |
| FSHARE | 100.000 | 0.248383E+08 |
| NETSELL | 0.000 | 0.198267E+08 |
| Basis Functions | Details | Coefficient |
| Constant | 114,549.0783 | |
| BF9 | max(0, FSHARE − 59.550) | 1,856.921 |
| F Test: 21.274 (0.000) Adjusted R2: 0.301 | ||
| Variable | Importance Level | −GCV |
| FSHARE | 100.000 | 0.735352E + 08 |
| NETSELL | 45.652 | 0.286564E + 08 |
| Basis Functions | Details | Coefficient |
| Constant | 103,278.07 | |
| BF1 | max(0, FSHARE − 53.780) | - |
| BF2 | max(0, 53.780 − FSHARE) | 7,685.579 |
| BF3 | max(0, NETSELL + 485.140) * BF1 | −2.215 |
| F Test: 150.531 (0.000) Adjusted R2: 0.804 | ||
