IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/polals/v12y2004i03p296-322_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Presidential Elections and the Stock Market: Comparing Markov-Switching and Fractionally Integrated GARCH Models of Volatility

Author

Listed:
  • Leblang, David
  • Mukherjee, Bumba

Abstract

Existing research on electoral politics and financial markets predicts that when investors expect left parties—Democrats (US), Labor (UK)—to win elections, market volatility increases. In addition, current econometric research on stock market volatility suggests that Markov-switching models provide more accurate volatility forecasts and fit stock price volatility data better than linear or nonlinear GARCH (generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity) models. Contrary to the existing literature, we argue here that when traders anticipate that the Democratic candidate will win the presidential election, stock market volatility decreases. Using two data sets from the 2000 U.S. presidential election, we test our claim by estimating several GARCH, exponential GARCH (EGARCH), fractionally integrated exponential GARCH (FIEGARCH), and Markov-switching models. We also conduct extensive forecasting tests—including RMSE and MAE statistics as well as realized volatility regressions—to evaluate these competing statistical models. Results from forecasting tests show, in contrast to prevailing claims, that GARCH and EGARCH models provide substantially more accurate forecasts than the Markov-switching models. Estimates from all the statistical models support our key prediction that stock market volatility decreases when traders anticipate a Democratic victory.

Suggested Citation

  • Leblang, David & Mukherjee, Bumba, 2004. "Presidential Elections and the Stock Market: Comparing Markov-Switching and Fractionally Integrated GARCH Models of Volatility," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(3), pages 296-322, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:12:y:2004:i:03:p:296-322_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1047198700003971/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Roland Füss & Michael Bechtel, 2008. "Partisan politics and stock market performance: The effect of expected government partisanship on stock returns in the 2002 German federal election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 131-150, June.
    2. Daniel Carnahan & Sebastian Saiegh, 2021. "Electoral uncertainty and financial volatility: Evidence from two‐round presidential races in emerging markets," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 109-132, March.
    3. Delia DiaconaÅŸu & Seyed Mehdian & Ovidiu Stoica, 2023. "The Global Stock Market Reactions to the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(2), pages 21582440231, June.
    4. Nathan Jensen, 2007. "International institutions and market expectations: Stock price responses to the WTO ruling on the 2002 U.S. steel tariffs," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 261-280, September.
    5. Nathan M Jensen, 2005. "Measuring Risk: Political Risk Insurance Premiums and Domestic Political Institutions," International Finance 0512002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Bumba Mukherjee & David Leblang, 2007. "Partisan Politics, Interest Rates And The Stock Market: Evidence From American And British Returns In The Twentieth Century," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(2), pages 135-167, July.
    7. Huo, Jingjing, 2015. "How Nations Innovate: The Political Economy of Technological Innovation in Affluent Capitalist Economies," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198735847.
    8. Opitz, Alexander, 2015. "Democratic prospects in Imperial Russia: The revolution of 1905 and the political stock market," Hohenheim Discussion Papers in Business, Economics and Social Sciences 15-2015, University of Hohenheim, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:polals:v:12:y:2004:i:03:p:296-322_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.