This paper investigates to what extent globalization and regional integration lead to increasing equity market interdependence. I focus on Western Europe, as this region has gone through a unique period of economic, financial, and monetary integration. More specifically, I quantify the magnitude and time-varying nature of volatility spillovers from the aggregate European (EU) and U.S. market to 13 local European equity markets. To account for time-varying integration, I use a regime-switching model to allow the shock sensitivities to change over time. I find regime switches to be both statistically and economically important. Both the EU and U.S. shock spillover intensity increased substantially over the 1980s and 1990s, though the rise is more pronounced for EU spillovers. Shock spillover intensities increased most strongly in the second half of the 1980s and the first half of the 1990s. I show that increased trade integration, equity market development, and low inflation contribute to the increase in EU shock spillover intensity. I also find evidence for contagion from the U.S. market to a number of local European equity markets during periods of high world market volatility.

No abstract

We compare default rates on conventional and Islamic loans using a comprehensive monthly dataset from Pakistan that follows more than 150,000 loans over the period 2006:04 to 2008:12. We find robust evidence that the default rate on Islamic loans is less than half the default rate on conventional loans. Islamic loans are less likely to default during Ramadan and in big cities if the share of votes to religious-political parties increases, suggesting that religion -either through individual piousness or network effects -may play a role in determining loan default.

We study the economic sources of stock-bond return comovements and its time variation using a dynamic factor model. We identify the economic factors employing a semi-structural regime-switching model for state variables such as interest rates, inflation, the output gap, and cash flow growth. We also view risk aversion, uncertainty about inflation and output, and liquidity proxies as additional potential factors. We find that macroeconomic fundamentals contribute little to explaining stock and bond return correlations, but that other factors, especially liquidity proxies, play a more important role. The macro factors are still important in fitting bond return volatility; whereas the "variance premium" is critical in explaining stock return volatility. However, the factor model primarily fails in fitting covariances.