SavedAdd your journal

Journals / NİŞANTAŞI ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER DERGİSİ / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2

A NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF THRESHOLD REGIME SHIFTS IN STOCK RETURNS: AN APPLICATION OF THE SETAR MODEL

HİSSE SENEDİ GETİRİLERİNDE EŞİKLİ REJİM DEĞİŞİMLERİNİN DOĞRUSAL OLMAYAN ANALİZİ: SETAR MODELİ UYGULAMASI

Bade Ekim Kocaman(BAŞKENT ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8967-3935
Erkan Ağaslan(DUMLUPINAR ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0001-8118-7222
Pages
721–734
Publication Date
2025-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal a statistically significant threshold value of 17.5% for the policy interest rate.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study analyzes the asymmetric effect of the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey’s (CBRT) policy interest rate on the BIST 100 index.
📊
Key Findings & Data:To address the limitations of linear models in capturing nonlinear effects of interest rates on stock returns, the two-regime Self-Exciting Threshold Autoregressive (SETAR) model is employed.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal a statistically significant threshold value of 17.5% for the policy interest rate.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2012 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Politika Faizi · Borsa Getirileri · Doğrusal Olmayan Modeller

Abstract

This study analyzes the asymmetric effect of the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey’s (CBRT) policy interest rate on the BIST 100 index. To address the limitations of linear models in capturing nonlinear effects of interest rates on stock returns, the two-regime Self-Exciting Threshold Autoregressive (SETAR) model is employed. The analysis covers monthly data for the period between December 2012 and May 2025. The dependent variable is BIST 100 returns, the independent variable is the policy interest rate, and expected inflation is included as a control variable. The findings reveal a statistically significant threshold value of 17.5% for the policy interest rate. When the interest rate falls below or rises above this threshold, the BIST 100 returns exhibit distinct behaviors. The results indicate that stock returns tend to be higher and more volatile under the low-interest-rate regime. The study contributes methodologically and empirically to the literature by revealing threshold-based effects of interest rates in emerging markets like Turkiye.

Özet

Bu çalışma, Türkiye Cumhuriyet Merkez Bankası'nın politika faiz oranının BIST 100 endeksi üzerindeki asimetrik etkisini analiz etmektedir. Doğrusal modellerin yetersiz kaldığı durumlarda, faiz oranlarının hisse senedi getirileri üzerindeki doğrusal olmayan etkilerini tespit etmek amacıyla iki rejimli Self-Exciting Threshold Autoregressive (SETAR) modeli kullanılmıştır. Analiz, 2012 Aralık - 2025 Mayıs dönemine ait aylık verilerle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Modelde bağımlı değişken BIST 100 getirisi, bağımsız değişken politika faizi ve kontrol değişken olarak döviz kuru getirisi yer almıştır. Tahmin sonucunda politika faizinin %17,5 düzeyinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir eşik değer olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Faiz oranının bu eşik değerin altında ya da üstünde olması, BIST 100 getirileri üzerinde farklı etkilere neden olmaktadır. Bulgular, düşük faiz rejiminde hisse senedi getirilerinin daha yüksek ve oynak olduğunu göstermektedir. Çalışma, gelişmekte olan piyasalar için faiz oranlarının eşik bazlı etkilerini ortaya koyarak literatüre metodolojik ve ampirik katkılar sunmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kocaman, B. E., Ağaslan, E. (2025). A NONLINEAR ANALYSIS OF THRESHOLD REGIME SHIFTS IN STOCK RETURNS: AN APPLICATION OF THE SETAR MODEL. NİŞANTAŞI ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER DERGİSİ, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2, 721–734. https://doi.org/10.52122/nisantasisbd.1759397

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (52)

  1. Acatrinei, M. C. ve Caraiani, P. (2011). Modeling and forecasting the dynamics in romanian stock market indices using threshold models. Journal for Economic Forecasting, 14(2), 42–54.
  2. Alzoubi, M. (2022). Stock market performance: Reaction to interest rates and inflation rates. Banks and Bank Systems, 17(2), 189. https://doi.org/10.21511/bbs.17(2).2022.16
  3. Ani, C. L., Egwoh, A. Y. ve Hassan, U. M. (2020). Application of self-exciting threshold autoregressive model on exchange rate in Nigeria: A comparative approach. Science World Journal, 15(3), 33–45.
  4. Albulescu, C. T., Tiwari, A. K. ve Kyophilavong, P. (2021). Nonlinearities and chaos: A new analysis of CEE stock markets. Mathematics, 9(7), 707.
  5. Antwi, E., Gyamfi, E. N. ve Kyei, K. A. (2019). Modeling and forecasting Ghana’s inflation rate under threshold models. The Journal of Developing Areas, 53(3). https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2019.0040
  6. Apergis, N. ve Eleftheriou, S. (2002). Interest rates, ınflation, and stock prices: The case of the Athens stock exchange. Journal of Policy Modeling, 24(3), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0161-8938(02)00105-9
  7. Azouagh, N. ve El Melhaoui, S. (2021). Detecting exponential component in autoregressive models: Comparative study between several tests of nonlinearity. Communications in Statistics - Simulation and Computation, 50(11), 3273-3285.
  8. Babangida, J. S. (2023). Nonlinearity in emerging market indices: A comprehensive study of stock exchange market dynamics. Applied Econometrics, 72(4), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.22394/1993-7601-2023-72-23-37
  9. Babangida, J. S. ve Khan, A. I. (2021). Effect of monetary policy on the Nigerian stock market: A Smooth transition autoregressive approach. Central Bank of Nigeria Journal of Applied Statistics, 12(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.33429/Cjas.12121.1/6
  10. Balcilar, M., Gupta, R., Kim, W. J. ve Kyei, C. (2019). The role of economic policy uncertainties in predicting stock returns and their volatility for Hong Kong, Malaysia and South Korea. International Review of Economics and Finance, 59, 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2018.08.016
  11. Baykara, S. (2021). The impact of monetary policy decisions on stock prices: An event study. PressAcademia Procedia, 13(1), 52-56. https://doi.org/10.17261/pressacademia.2021.1422
  12. Bernanke, B. S. ve Kuttner, K. N. (2005). What explains the stock market’s reaction to Federal Reserve policy? The Journal of Finance, 60(3), 1221–1257. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00760.x
  13. Bissoon, R., Seetanah, B., Bhattu-Babajee, R., Gopy-Ramdhany, N. ve Seetah, K. (2016). Monetary policy ımpact on stock return: Evidence from growing stock markets. Theoretical Economics Letters, 06(05), 1186–1195. https://doi.org/10.4236/tel.2016.65112
  14. Box, G. E. P. ve Jenkins, G. M. (1970). Time series analysis: Forecasting and Control. Holden-Day.
  15. Chauvet, M. ve Jiang, C. (2023). Nonlinear relationship between monetary policy and stock returns: Evidence from the U.S. Global Finance Journal, 55, 100796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2022.100796
  16. Chen, G.R. ve Wu, M.H. (2013). How does monetary policy influence capital markets? Using a threshold regression model. Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, 20(1), 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10690-012-9157-9
  17. Chen, N. F., Roll, R. ve Ross, S. A. (1986). Economic forces and the stock market. Journal of Business, 383-403.
  18. Dahmene, M., Boughrara, A. ve Slim, S. (2021). Nonlinearity in stock returns: Do risk aversion, ınvestor sentiment and monetary policy shocks matter? International Review of Economics and Finance, 71, 676–699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2020.10.002
  19. Dickey, D. A. ve Fuller, W. A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Econometrica, 49(4), 1057. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912517
  20. Ding, S., Cui, T., Xiong, X. ve Bai, R. (2020). Forecasting stock market return with nonlinearity: a genetic programming approach. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 11(11), 4927–4939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-020-01762-0
  21. Domian, D. L., Gilster, J. E. ve Louton, D. A. (1996). Expected inflation, interest rates, and stock returns. Financial Review, 31(4), 809–830. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6288.1996.tb00898.x
  22. Edelberg, W. ve Marshall, D. (1996). Monetary policy shocks and long-term interest rates. Economic Perspectives-Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 20, 2-17.
  23. Fama, E. (1981). Stock returns, real activity, inflation and money. American Economic Review, 71, 545–564. Gacener Atış, A. ve Erer, D. (2018). The impact of monetary policy on stock returns during bull and bear markets: The evidence from Turkey. Ege Akademik Bakis, 18(4), 699-710. https://doi.org/10.21121/eab.2018443010
  24. Gordon, M. J. ve Shapiro, E. (1956). Capital equipment analysis: The required rate of profit. Management Science, 3(1), 102-110. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.3.1.102
  25. Granger, C. W. J. ve Newbold, P. (1974). Spurious regressions in econometrics. Journal of Econometrics, 2(6), 111–120.
  26. Gujarati, D. N. (2011). Basic Econometrics.
  27. Ho, S. Y. ve Njindan Iyke, B. (2017). Determinants of stock market development: A review of the literature. Studies in Economics and Finance, 34(1), 143-164. https://doi.org/10.1108/sef-05-2016-0111
  28. Hsu, K.C. ve Chiang, H.C. (2011). Nonlinear effects of monetary policy on stock returns in a smooth transition autoregressive model. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 51(4), 339–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2011.08.003
  29. Humpe, A. ve Macmillan, P. (2009). Can macroeconomic variables explain long-term stock market movements? A comparison of the US and Japan. Applied Financial Economics, 19(2), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603100701748956
  30. İbicioğlu, M. ve Kapusuzoğlu, A. (2012). An empirical analysis of impact of central bank policy interest rate on the decisions of share ınvestors: Evidence from Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 62, 489-493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.079
  31. İlarslan, K. (2024). Threshold effect of inflation on the relationship between stock market index and interest rate. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Arastirmalari Dergisi, 9(4), 779–795. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.1581213
  32. Kargı, N. ve Terzi, H. (1997). Türkiye’de İMKB, enflasyon, faiz oranı ve reel sektör arasındaki nedensellik ilişkilerinin VAR ile belirlenmesi. İMKB Dergisi, 1(4), 27–39.
  33. Liu, X., Wang, Y., Du, W. ve Ma, Y. (2022). Economic policy uncertainty, oil price volatility and stock market returns: Evidence from a nonlinear model. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 62, 101777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2022.101777
  34. Liu, Y. S. (2021). The impact of trading ınformation sets on exchange rate change and volatility: Evidence from Taiwan. Sage Open, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211052947
  35. McCallum, B. T. (1980). The significance of rational expectations theory. Challenge, 22(6), 37-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/05775132.1980.11470578
  36. Mok, H. M. (1993). Causality of interest rate, exchange rate and stock prices at stock market open and close in Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 10(2), 123-143. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01734274
  37. Pilinkus, D. (2010). Macroeconomic indicators and their impact on stock market performance in the short and long run: The case of the Baltic States. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(2), 291–304. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.19
  38. Poyraz, E., Türkün Kaya, B. ve Kahraman, E. (2020). Politika faizindeki değişimlerin Borsa İstanbul 100 Endeksi üzerindeki etkisinin olay analizi ile incelenmesi. International Review of Economics and Management, 8(2), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.18825/iremjournal.745166
  39. Ratanapakorn, O. ve Sharma, S. C. (2007). Dynamic analysis between the US stock returns and the macroeconomic variables. Applied Financial Economics, 17(5), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/09603100600638944
  40. Scheinkman, J. A. ve LeBaron, B. (1989). Nonlinear dynamics and stock returns. The Journal of Business, 62(3), 311. https://doi.org/10.1086/296465
  41. Seong, D., Cho, J. S. ve Teräsvirta, T. (2022). Comprehensively testing linearity hypothesis using the smooth transition autoregressive model. Econometric Reviews, 41(8), 966-984.
  42. Sohail, A., Du, J., Abbasi, B. N. ve Ahmed, Z. (2022). The nonlinearity and nonlinear convergence of CO2 emissions: Evidence from top 20 highest emitting countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(39), 59466-59482.
  43. Spiro, P. S. (1990). The impact of ınterest rate changes on stock price volatiliy. Journal of Portfolio Management, 16(2), 63. https://doi.org/10.3905/jpm.1990.409252
  44. Theiler, J., Eubank, S., Longtin, A., Galdrikian, B. ve Doyne Farmer, J. (1992). Testing for nonlinearity ın time series: The Method of surrogate data. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 58(1–4), 77–94.
  45. Thorbecke, W. (1997). On stock market returns and monetary policy. The Journal of Finance, 52(2), 635–654. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb04816.x
  46. Thorbecke, W. ve Alami, T. (1994). The effect of changes in the federal funds rate target on stock prices in the 1970s. Journal of Economics and Business, 46(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-6195(94)90018-3
  47. Tong, H. (1978). On a threshold model. In Pattern Recognition and Signal Processing (pp. 575–586). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-9941-1_24
  48. Tong, H. ve Lim, K. S. (1980). Threshold autoregression, limit cycles and cyclical data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology, 42(3), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1980.tb01126.x
  49. Tsay, R. S. (1986). Nonlinearity tests for time series. Biometrika, 73(2), 461–466.
  50. Wang, X., Chen, X. ve Zhao, P. (2020). The relationship between bitcoin and stock market. International Journal of Operations Research and Information Systems, 11(2), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJORIS.2020040102
  51. Yang, T.Y. (2024). The threshold effect of the Taiwan stock market on ETF under the monetary policy. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 31(3), 732–748. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2024.22339
  52. Zivot, E. ve Andrews, D. W. K. (1992). Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10(3), 251. https://doi.org/10.2307/1391541