The Impact of Macroeconomic Risk on Asset Prices in Ghana, 1997–2002

Abstract: The dwindling nature of overseas development assistance in the early part of the 1990s called for the establishment of capital markets in some African countries, including Ghana, with the view to increasing foreign direct investments and achieving sustainable inflows, growth and development. One important factor which affects the determination of prices and the growth of capital markets is macroeconomic risk which is quite high in developing countries. Following works done on advanced stock markets, this study seeks to investigate the impact of six macroeconomic risk factors on asset pricing in the various industrial classification — financial, manufacturing, food and beverages, distribution and mining under the Ghana Stock Exchange (GSE) for the period January 1997 to December 2002. Using the arbitrage pricing methodology developed by Ross (1976) and Chen et al. (1986) , the study revealed that investors in Ghana considered three main macroeconomic risk factors — short‐term interest rate risk, inflation risk and the term structure of the country's interest rate in the determination of the various industrial asset prices during the period under consideration. Analysis of the risks and returns profile of the industries also shows that financial assets made the best gains on the market. Both general and specific policy recommendations aimed at improving the performance of the GSE are explored.     

AN EVALUATION OF PROCESS‐ORIENTED SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKS

Supply chain management (SCM) is implemented by integrating corporate functions using business processes within and across companies. Several process‐oriented frameworks for SCM have been proposed but only two of these provide sufficient detail to enable implementation. We evaluate the Supply‐Chain Operations Reference (SCOR) framework and The Global Supply Chain Forum (GSCF) framework using four criteria and identify their relative strengths and weaknesses.     

Choice Research: A Wealth of Perspectives

This article is a navigation guide to the twenty papers that emerged from the workshops conducted at the Sixth Invitational Choice Symposium (Estes Park, Colorado, June 2004). The papers are categorized into three broad sets that focus respectively on choice modeling issues, on providing interdisciplinary perspectives on choice, and on relating choice research to real world concerns. Within each category, we offer provide brief integrative overviews linking subsets of papers.     

The Changing Status of Collectivized and Private Agriculture under Central Planning

A bstract . Official perceptions of agriculture's role in economic development in the Eastern European Soviet-type economies have undergone significant alterations over the past several decades. These changes have been especially important in Hungary , a country well known for its unorthodox economic approaches. The modifications of status analyzed below have been consistent with the overall economic policy directives of the Communist party, including the current renewed emphasis on economic rationality, pragmatism , and the revitalization of the economic reform of 1968 .     

Futures and forward price differential and the effect of marking‐to‐market: Australian evidence

The objective of this paper is to examine the effects of marking‐to‐market of futures contracts on the price differential between futures and forward contracts based on the predictions of the Cox, Ingersoll and Ross (1981) (CIR) model. Cox et al ., (1981) derive a series of propositions with respect to the relationship between futures and forward prices and a set of testable implications. These are tested empirically in this paper using Australian data from November 1991 to June 1997. The results provide evidence of the presence of significant futures and forward price differences, where the futures price is consistently below the forward price. Only partial support is found for the Cox et al ., (1981) propositions, implying that the effect of marking‐to‐market is not able to fully account for the price differential. Therefore, it is not possible to rule out the influence of other institutional factors on the futures‐forward price difference.