Um estudo sobre a inter-relação dos mercados de ações e títulos públicos sob a ótica da liquidez e volatilidade

Na última década, a economia brasileira apresentou-se estável adquirindo maior credibilidade mundial. Dentre as opções de investimento, estão os mercados de ações e de títulos públicos. O portfolio de investimento dos agentes é determinado de acordo com os retornos dos ativos e/ou aversão ao risco, e a diversificação é importante para mitigar risco. Dessa forma, o objetivo principal do presente trabalho é estudar a inter-relação entre os mercados de títulos públicos e ações, avaliando aspectos de liquidez e quais variáveis representariam melhor esta relação, verificando também como respondem a um choque (surpresa econômica), pois a percepção de alteração do cenário econômico, ou variações de fluxo financeiro, pode alterar/inverter as relações entre esses mercados. Para isso, estimou-se modelos de vetores auto-regressivos - VAR, com variáveis de retorno, volatilidade e volume negociado para cada um dos mercados em combinações diferentes das variáveis representativas, visando encontrar o(s) modelo(s) mais descritivo(s) das inter-relações entre os mercados, dado a amostra utilizada, para aplicar a dummy de surpresa econômica. Em estudo semelhante Chordia, Sarkar e Subrahmanyam (2005) concluiram que choques de liquidez e volatilidade são positivamente correlacionado nos mercados de ações e títulos públicos em horizontes diários, indicando que os choques de liquidez e volatilidade são muitas vezes de natureza sistêmica. O mesmo não foi observado para a proxy de liquidez utilizada na amostra brasileira. Um resultado interessante a ser ressaltado deve-se as séries SMLL11 (índice Small Caps) e IDkAs (índice de duração constante ANBIMA) não possuírem relação de causalidade de Granger com as demais séries, mas os retornos dos IDkAs Granger causam os retornos do índice SMLL11. Por fim, o choque de surpresa econômica não se mostra explicativo sobre qualquer alteração nas inter-relações entre os mercados de títulos públicos e ações.

Analysis of the economic and financial relations between Latin American and the Caribbean and the BRICS group

This document has been prepared in compliance with Activity III.1.2 of the Work Programme of SELA for the year 2015, entitled “Analysis of the economic and financial relations between Latin America and the Caribbean and the BRICS countries”. The document comprises an introduction, four chapters and a final section with the conclusions and recommendations stemming from the study. Chapter I describes the economic performance of the BRICS countries, their economic relations with Latin America and the Caribbean and the functioning of the development banks of the member countries. Chapter II assesses the financial architecture of Latin America and the Caribbean and explores the needs for financing in the region. Chapter III deals with the regulatory frameworks governing public and private investments in Latin America and the Caribbean and the Bilateral Investment Treaties with the BRICS countries. Finally, Chapter IV describes the main features of the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Agreement of the BRICS

Why has productivity growth stagnated in most Latin American countries since the neo-liberal reforms?

Latin America’s economic performance since the beginning of neo-liberal reforms has been poor; this not only contrasts with its own performance pre-1980, but also with what has happened in Asia since 1980. I shall argue that the weakness of the region’s new paradigm is rooted as much in its intrinsic flaws as in the particular way it has been implemented. Latin America’s economic reforms were undertaken primarily as a result of the perceived economic weaknesses of the region — i.e., there was an attitude of ‘throwing in the towel’ vis-à-vis the previous state-led import substituting industrialisation strategy, because most politicians and economists interpreted the 1982 debt crisis as conclusive evidence that it had led the region into a cul-de-sac. As Hirschman has argued, policymaking has a strong component of ‘path-dependency’; as a result, people often stick with policies after they have achieved their aims, and those policies have become counterproductive. This leads to such frustration and disappointment with existing policies and institutions that is not uncommon to experience a ‘rebound effect’. An extreme example of this phenomenon is post-1982 Latin America, where the core of the discourse of the economic reforms that followed ended up simply emphasising the need to reverse as many aspects of the previous development (and political) strategies as possible. This helps to explain the peculiar set of priorities, the rigidity and the messianic attitude with which the reforms were implemented in Latin America, as well as their poor outcome. Something very different happened in Asia, where economic reforms were often intended (rightly or wrongly) as a more targeted and pragmatic mechanism to overcome specific economic and financial constraints. Instead of implementing reforms as a mechanism to reverse existing industrialisation strategies, in Asia they were put into practice in order to continue and strengthen ambitious processes of industrialisation.