Financial integration and fiscal policy, implications on economic growth
| Author | Anca Florentina Gavriluta (Vatamanu) - Otilia Oprea - Paula Andreea Terinte |
| Pages | 74-85 |
74 ANCA FLORENTINA GAVRILUŢĂ, OTILIA OPREA, PAULA ANDREEA TERINTE
TAXATION AND FINANCE
FINANCIAL INTEGRATION AND FISCAL POLICY,
IMPLICATIONS ON ECONOMIC GROWTH
Anca Florentina GAVRILU (VATAMANU)
Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iaşi,
gavriluta.anca@yahoo.com
Otilia OPREA
Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iaşi
oty_roxy21@yahoo.com.
Paula Andreea TERINTE
Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iaşi,
paula.terinte@yahoo.ro
Abstract
This paper analyses the relationship between financial integration and fiscal policy, bringing the
arguments which come to strengthen that in the context of financial integration, to influence
economic growth, it is also necessary a consolidation of fiscal policy, and the stability of public
finances. Basically, in our analysis, we want to build a research that stressed the importance of
interplay between the variables involved, with the objective of economic growth. Our results reveal
that there is a significant relationship between the three variables, namely financial integration, fiscal
policy and economic growth and the international financial integration has increased the importance
of financial sector policies. In addition, we find that financial integration affects the composition of
government debt and enhances risk-sharing by increasing the share of foreign debt to the total. So,
countries need strong macro-prudential policy frameworks. For our analysis, we retrieved data from
the Eurostat and World Bank, including the EU 28-member states over the 2000-2014 period.
Keywords: Financial Integration, Fiscal Policy, economic growth.
INTRODUCTION
The approach of this paper provides a perspective in terms of fiscal and
financial integration, considering that fiscal policy, besides introducing tax
competition issues, concerns and connection issues on financial integration, with
Law Review vol. VIII, issue 1, Januar
y
-June 2018, pp. 74-85
Financial integration and fiscal policy, implications on economic growth 75
the desire of economic growth. From a theoretical point of view, financial integration
can be beneficial for much more reasons, basically, we can exemplify the fact that
contributes to international risk-sharing and domestic consumption smoothing
(Kose et al. 2007), it positively affects domestic investment and increases economic
growth (Borensztein et al., 1998; Kose et al., 2010; Osada and Saito, 2010). Financial
integration may also enhance the efficiency of the banking system and incentive
the development of domestic financial markets (Chinn and Ito, 2008), and we have
also a point of view it may that improve the quality of macroeconomic policies and
enhance fiscal discipline (Obstfeld, 1996; Agénor, 2003).
In the most theoretical models, does not reach to a certain point of view
regarding the impact of financial integration on fiscal policy. In fact, to provide a
more pertinent research on the status of this area, we mention thatonly two studies
analyse the (direct1) disciplinary effect of financial integration on fiscal policy and
get opposite results. (Kim, 2003) finds that capital account liberalization has
disciplinary effects on fiscal policy and contributes to reduce fiscal deficits. In
contrast, (Tytell and Wei, 2004) find no evidence of the positive influence of
financial integration on the budget balance. Both studies use a similar panel of data
and apply IV methodology, but they differ for the measure of financial openness
used in the analysis (de facto vs. de jure).2
Some studies analysed the relationship between fiscal policy and monetary
integration. For example, Gali and Perotti (2003) find that that discretionary fiscal
policy in EMU countries has become more countercyclical over time, following
what appears to be a trend that affects the integration of other industrialized
countries as well. Also, Hagen and Bruckner (2002), analysed the fiscal framework
of EMU and show that it has not succeeded in safeguarding fiscal discipline,
especially in the large member states.
There are other studies that consider that fiscal policy is related to different
economic, social and cultural potential or territorial and administrative
arrangement of individual countries, which prevents the full implementation of
unified rules, valid for whole EU to a certain extent Benova (2014) and that a
monetary union reduces the feasible divergence across countries in their present
discounted levels of fiscal spending Hutchison and Glick (1993).
Other studies suggest that an important role has the audit variable, because all
implemented policies require control to be validated, with the desire of economic
growth. For example, according to the Fiscal Policy audit report (2016), his goal
1 Few studies have indirectly assessed the disciplinary effect of financial integration. For
instance, ManganelliandWolswijk (2009) find evidence of a disciplinary effect of financial integration
on the euro zone bonds spreads.
2 These studies use data for 54 (Kim 2003) and 62 (Tytelland Wei 2004) countries including 20
industrial economies over the period of 1950–1994 and 1975–1999, respectively. TytellandWei (2004)
use a de facto measure of financial integration while Kim (2003) uses a de jure measure of capital
account openness
76 ANCA FLORENTINA GAVRILUŢĂ, OTILIA OPREA, PAULA ANDREEA TERINTE
was to evaluate the policies about the reliability of macroeconomic forecasts.
Furthermore, the fiscal policy audit refers to an external professional audit of the
central government finances from macro-economic perspective and follows the
effectiveness of tax policy and the reliability of the tax policy base information.
On the other hand, according to other studies conducted in past and present,
we bring into question a new point of view, arguing that, financial integration can
be beneficial, can positively affects domestic investment and increases economic
growth (Borensztein et al. 1998; Kose et al. 2010; Osada and Saito 2010). Regarding
the implications of financial integration on improving tax policy, we can illustrate
that in the context of liberalization, it requires a very rigorous fiscal discipline, and
we can also interpreted this Financial integration as a signal that country’s
authorities wish to introduce and follow sound policies (Bartolini and Drazen,
1997). Finally, we also agree that the effect of financial integration relies upon
national authorities’ preferences and characteristics, because there may be
preferentially for a lower incentive to pursue costly fiscal consolidations, case of
lower quality of national institutions. Even if the empirical literature show us an
inconclusive point of view in what regards the relationship between the variables
discussed in this paper, to the best of our knowledge, we relief some studies who
analyse these variables and gives an important theoretical background. (Kim, 2003)
finds that capital account liberalization has disciplinary effects on fiscal policy and
contributes to reduce fiscal deficits. In contrast, Tytell and Wei (2004) find no
evidence of the positive influence of financial integration on public finance. Furceri
andZdzienicka (2012), analysed the impact of financial integration on fiscal policy,
and find that financial integration affects the composition of government debt.
Gemmel, et al. (2011) affirms that the impact of fiscal variables on economic
growth is ambiguous and depends on their nature.
This paper provides information regarding the relationship between financial
integration and fiscal policy, in which case we quantified financial integration in
terms of exchange rates and fiscal policy in terms of foreign direct investment,
public debt and total fiscal pressure. Our approach aims to offer valuable
information regarding the implications of these two variables on economic growth.
The reminder of this paper is organized as follows: Section 1 provides the literature
review, Section 2 provides methodology and data used in our study, Section 3
provides results and discussions of the analysis and in Section 4 provides the
conclusions.
DATA AND METHODOLOGY
It is evident from the literature review section that several studies focus
exclusively on the studying the link between financial integration and fiscal policy,
with the result of what we call fiscal responsibility and other studies make
Financial integration and fiscal policy, implications on economic growth 77
reference to the link between financial integration and economic growth, however
research supporting the need for consolidation in the direction of the objective of
this study. Even if they have not made a variety of studies in this direction, there
has been a general practice to utilize the countries including 20 industrial
economies over the period of 1950–1994 and 1975–1999, respectively. Tytell and
Wei (2004) use a de facto measure of financial integration while Kim (2003) uses a
de jure measure of capital account openness. Furceri and Zdzienicka, use an
unbalanced panel of 31 OECD countries from 1970 to 2009, to show that financial
integration has significant disciplinary effects by reducing fiscal deficits and
(discretionary) spending volatility.
Based on variables used in the studies that covered the subject of financial
integration and fiscal policy, for our research, the empirical analysis was
performed based on a panel data regression between the dependent variable,
economic growth, and the independent variables: Foreign direct investment (FDI);
Exchange Rate (ER); Public Debt (PD);Total fiscal pressure calculated as Total
taxes/GDP*100 (TFP) and Government bonds (GB), which will help us to create a
clearer picture on the correlations between different variables. From the same point
of view, we determined that the dependent variable that should be used will be the
real GDP growth per capita and the independent variables will be: exchange rates
of interest, foreign direct investment, public debt and total fiscal pressure.
We chose these variables because they have been used in other studies and
more than that, making reference to the measurement of financial integration
(Lane and Milesi-Ferretti, 2007) we find the following formula:
FI =
In this case, measure (FI1) is the share of the total stocks of external assets and
liabilities to GDP, where FA and FL refer to the stock of foreign (debt, portfolio and
direct investment) assets and liabilities, respectively.
The data used for our analysis focuses on the period 2000-2014, with an annual
frequency. This information was obtained from the Eurostat databases and World
Bank. The equation for the regression is expressed by the following formulas:
TFP+ +
Where:
GDPGR=
FDI=
78 ANCA FLORENTINA GAVRILUŢĂ, OTILIA OPREA, PAULA ANDREEA TERINTE
PD=
TFP= Total fiscal pressure-Total taxes/GDP*100
GB= Government bonds
In base of our research and based on previous studies we quantified financial
integration in terms of assets and liabilities, taking into consideration: exchange
rates, foreign direct investment, government bonds, public debt and total fiscal
pressure. The purpose of our analysis is to show the implications of these two
variables on economic growth. More exactly, we choose total fiscal pressure
because financial integration can modify revenue structure and in this way, we can
see the trend for long ter. Also, Furceri (2012) find that a higher level of financial
openness is associated with higher taxes and public debt influence exchange rates.
In terms of exchanges rates, we can notice that are the most important indicator of
economic health and the most handled at government level Argy (1973).
Regarding the motivation to take into account public debt and government bonds,
it is well known that country deficits is less attractive to investors and can lead to
inflation and higher taxation. Also, the assumption that governments bonds are
perceived as net wealth by the private sector is crucial in demonstrating real effects
of shifts in the stock of public debt. Barro (1974), find that the standard effects of
“expansionary” fiscal policy on aggregate demand hinge on this assumption.
RESULTS
For the analysis of the relationship between the financial integration, fiscal
policy and economic growth we use data from the Eurostat.
For the case of total fiscal pressure, we appeal to our own calculations
according to the above formula. Our variable choice has its incentive from the
empirical studies in the area. First, fiscal policies are determinants for foreign direct
investments, and this statement has both economic foundation and demonstrated
through the studies (Gondor and Nistor, 2012). Second, the choice of Public debt
and total fiscal pressure is motivated by the fact that fiscal policy and its
implications on financial integration have a specific conjuncture that produces
permutations among these variables.
Descriptive statistics of the variables are available in Appendix A. Analysis of
indicators aimed at central tendency, exemplified through the media reveals that
the average value: -1.50 for GDP growth is due to negative values in some
countries such as Cyprus, Finland and Croatia, 10.70 for Public debt, for fiscal
pressure we have 0.26 and for exchange rates 89.58. The case of negative value of
GDP growth we should mention that deficits due to the preponderance of values
of the 28 countries. In the same sense, distribution of public debt is much dispersed
that vary from the average level of 39.16905% of GDP positively and negatively.
Financial integration and fiscal policy, implications on economic growth 79
We can say that 68.2% of the total public debt distribution is between ± x
respectively 74.2643 ± 39.16905% of GDP and distribution of the total fiscal
pressure is one less dispersed that vary from the average level of 0.06395%
positively and negatively. We can say that 68.2% of the total tax burden is between
± x 0.3618 ± 0.006395% respectively.
Table. 1. Results of regression estimation of economic growth and fiscal policy for
the EU- Annual Observations
Dependent Variable: GDPGR
Sample: 2000 2014
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
ER -0.101194 0.019806 -5.109148 0.0000
GB -0.462495 0.090007 -5.138414 0.0000
INV 0.235717 0.045866 5.139256 0.0000
PD -0.019765 0.006334 -3.120593 0.0019
TFP -0.189086 0.030300 -6.240506 0.0000
C 16.70673 2.701959 6.183191 0.0000
R-squared 0.322875 Mean dependent var 1.982619
Adjusted R-squared 0.314697 S.D. dependent var 3.811584
S.E. of regression 3.155345 Akaike info criterion 5.150255
Sum squared resid 4121.867 Schwarz criterion 5.207973
Log likelihood -1075.554 Hannan-Quinn criter. 5.173068
F-statistic 39.48166 Durbin-Watson stat 1.197293
Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000
Source:Authors calculation
Our analysis highlights the fact that all factors used in the regression model
have what can be considered as the expected significant coefficient signs, being
also explained by economic issues. Referring to exchange rates, we can notice that
there are significant and negatively correlated with economic growth, which
means the higher is the level of exchanges rates, the lower is growth. The
explanation in this case is that a higher level of interest rates will increase the ratio
Public debt/GDP.In other words, for example, a 5% depreciation of the Romanian
leu against the euro may add the equivalent of 1% of GDP to public debt.Our
results are in line with other studies such as Furceri and Zdzienicka (2012),
financial integration affects the composition of government debt.
80 ANCA FLORENTINA GAVRILUŢĂ, OTILIA OPREA, PAULA ANDREEA TERINTE
The investment rate (INV) has a positive and significant at the 1 percent level,
this suggesting that the higher is the investment rate, the higher the growth. Our
results are in line with other studies that suggest that financial integration can be
beneficial, can positively affects domestic investment and increases economic
growth (Borensztein et al. 1998; Kose et al. 2010; Osada and Saito 2010).
In case of government bonds rate (GBR), our analysis highlights that has the
unexpected negative correlation to GROWTH and is significant at the 1 percent
level. This interesting result, relate the fact that government bonds will be
perceived as net wealth only if their value exceeds the capitalized value of the
implied stream of future tax liabilities.
In terms of total fiscal pressure, who is one of the most common indicators for
public sectors dimension, we found that is negatively correlated with economic
growth, thus being in line with the economic theory. Furthermore our findings
suggest that financial integration can modify revenue structure and in this way, we
can see the trend for long term in our results are in line with other studies such as
Furceri (2012) that showed that a higher level of financial openness is associated
with higher taxes and public debt influence exchange rates.
In order to avoid the autocorrelation, we conducted the correlation table,
The Pearson's correlation coefficient that represents the covariance of the two
variables divided by the product of their standard deviations, as presented in
Appendix 2. Depending on the size of Pearson between of two variables, results a
low negative correlation between GDP growth and the level of fiscal pressure,
Pearson coefficient of-0.273 for risk of 1%. We also can see a direct and strong
correlation between GDP growth on the one hand and foreign direct investment as
a percentage of GDP because the Pearson coefficient is 0.388 with a probability of
99%. Regarding the exchange rates and fiscal pressure, we can remark a low
negative correlation between these two variables, Pearson coefficient of-0.250 for a
risk of 1%.
CONCLUSIONS
Our analysis suggests the fact that all factors used in the regression model,
have what can be considered as the expected significant coefficient signs, there is a
significant relationship between the variables, namely financial integration, fiscal
policy and economic growth and we considered that financial integration affects
the composition of government debt, and only a consolidation of fiscal policies and
specific instruments, would satisfy the desire of economic growth. We found that
financial integration in fact contributes to growth, it brings capital and
competition, foreign direct investments, management expertise and new
technology but also can be highly volatile, and so, this financial integration can
Financial integration and fiscal policy, implications on economic growth 81
improve the management of fiscal policy, free capital movement may reward good
policies and penalize bad ones, all this can conduct to fiscal discipline.
Even if in practice, the impact of financial integration on fiscal policy is less
obvious. Indeed, the disciplinary effect strongly depends on how risk premia
change in relation to countries’ fiscal positions and whether financial integration
engages a country in international risk-sharing and consumption smoothing. On
the other hand, we realize that increase public and private debt in many countries
from developed world, it is a situation dramatically accentuated by the crisis. Now,
for many of these countries, economic policy is dominated by the need to correct
certain debts which are more difficult to finance and refinancing. In other words,
the international financial integration has increased the importance of external
borrowing. Furthermore, we found a direct correlation between financial
integration and fiscal policy and in the context of financial integration, to influence
economic growth, it is also necessary a consolidation of fiscal policy, and the
stability of public finances-we need to build strong frameworks for macroeconomic
and financial sector policies. Capital flows can be large and volatile, global credit
cycles might not fit each country’s needs always, in many cases, financial
integration had run ahead of regulatory and prudential frameworks, and
international coordination efforts and we find a lot of liquidity-credit booms in
some markets.
Taking the above caveats into account, this study demonstrates that deepening
financial integration across a wide range of countries can help countries insure
each other, but there are many challenges ahead, which means that each countries
need strong macro-prudential policy frameworks.
References
1. Agénor, Pierre Richard. "Benefits and costs of international financial
integration: theory and facts." The World Economy 26.8 (2003): 1089-1118.
2. Anon, 2016. Reliability of macroeconomic forecasts.
3. Argy, Victor, and ZoranHodjera. "Financial integration and interest rate
linkages in industrial countries, 1958-71." Staff Papers 20.1 (1973): 1-77.
4. Bartolini L, Drazen A (1997) Capital-account liberalization as a signal. Am
Econ Rev 87(1):138–154
5. Bartolini, Leonardo, and Allan Drazen. "When liberal policies reflect external
shocks, what do we learn?." Journal of International Economics 42.3 (1997): 249-273.
6. Benova, E., 2014. Fiscal policy of Slovak republic in the process of
European. , pp.24–27.
7. Borensztein, Eduardo, Jose De Gregorio, and Jong-Wha Lee. "How does
foreign direct investment affect economic growth?." Journal of international
Economics 45.1 (1998): 115-135.
82 ANCA FLORENTINA GAVRILUŢĂ, OTILIA OPREA, PAULA ANDREEA TERINTE
8. Borensztein, Eduardo, Jose De Gregorio, and Jong-Wha Lee. "How does
foreign direct investment affect economic growth?." Journal of international
Economics 45.1 (1998): 115-135.
9. Chinn, Menzie D., and Hiro Ito. "A new measure of financial
openness." Journal of comparative policy analysis 10.3 (2008): 309-322.
10. Claessens, Stijn, M. AyhanKose, and Marco E. Terrones. "Financial cycles:
what? how? when?." NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics 2010.
University of Chicago Press, 2010.
11. Daniel, B.C. et al., 2002. Fiscal Policy in the European Monetary Union.
Monetary and Economic Studies, (961), pp.123–166. Available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1333322.
12. Ferris, Stephen P., Kenneth A. Kim, and PattanapornKitsabunnarat. "The
costs (and benefits?) of diversified business groups: The case of Korean
chaebols." Journal of Banking and Finance 27.2 (2003): 251-273.
13. Furceri D (2007) Is government expenditure volatility harmful for growth? A
cross-country analysis. Fisc Stud 28(1):103–120
14. Furceri, D., and Zdzienicka, A. (2011). Financial Integration and Fiscal
Policy, 1–25.
15. Furceri, Davide, and Aleksandra Zdzienicka. "How costly are debt
crises?." Journal of International Money and Finance 31.4 (2012): 726-742.
16. Gemmel, N., R. Kneller, and I. Sanz, (2011). The Timing and Persistence of
Fiscal Policy Impacts on Growth: Evidence from OECD Countries. Economic Journal,
121(550), F33-F58. ISSN 1468-0297.
17. Glick, R., 1993. Fiscal Policy in Monetary Unions " Implications for Europe. ,
(December 1991), pp.39–65.
18. Obstfeld M (2009) International finance and growth in developing countries:
what have we learned? NBER Working Papers 14691.
19. Obstfeld, Maurice, and Kenneth S. Rogoff. Foundations of international
macroeconomics. Vol. 30. Cambridge, MA: MIT press, 1996.
20. Osada M, Saito M (2010) Financial integration and economic growth: an
empirical analysis using international panel data from 1974–2007. Bank of Japan
Working Paper Series, No.10-E-5.
21. Osada, Mitsuhiro, and Masashi Saito. "Financial integration and economic
growth: An empirical analysis using international panel data from
1974-2007." Research and Statistics Department, Bank of Japan (2010).
22. Owen, R.F. et al., 2004. JEL classification numbers: Most, 2004, pp.1–29.
23. Tytell, Irina, and Shang-Jin Wei. "Does financial globalization induce better
macroeconomic policies?." (2004).
Financial integration and fiscal policy, implications on economic growth 83
Appendix
Appendix 1.
Descriptive statistics.
REAL_GDP_G
ROWTH
FOREIGNDIR
ECTINVESTM
ENT_
EXCHANGE_
RATES
PUBLIC_DEBT
_
_PIB_MIL
TOTAL_FISCA
L PRESSURE
Mean 2.271429 6.879804 102.6550 71.76154 0.362214
Median 2.000000 1.907199 99.72000 67.45000 0.357000
Maximum 8.500000 109.9059 130.6800 179.7000 0.480000
Minimum -1.500000 -1.637367 89.58000 10.70000 0.264000
Std. Dev. 2.280815 20.60831 9.022257 39.56350 0.063553
Skewness 1.155246 4.702277 1.449009 0.947054 0.241552
Kurtosis 4.768489 24.00090 4.751428 3.712651 1.987735
Jarque-Bera 9.876909 617.7309 13.37701 4.436811 1.467748
Probability 0.007166 0.000000 0.001245 0.108782 0.480046
Sum 63.60000 192.6345 2874.340 1865.800 10.14200
Sum Sq. Dev. 140.4571 11466.97 2197.830 39131.76 0.109053
Appendix 2.Pearson`s Correlation
Correlations
Real GDP
growth per
capita
Exchan
g
e
of interest
rates
Government
bonds rates
Investments
% GDP
Debt %
GDP
Total
fiscal
pressure
Real GDP
growth per
capita
Pearson
Correlation 1 -.122
*
-.255
**
.388
**
-.386
**
-.273
**
Sig.
(2-tailed) .013 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 420 420 420 420 420 420
Exchan
g
e of
interest
rates
Pearson
Correlation -.122
*
1 .187
**
.137
**
-.220
**
-.250
**
Sig.
(2-tailed) .013 .000 .005 .000 .000
N 420 420 420 420 420 420
Government
bonds rates
Pearson
Correlation -.255
**
.187
**
1 -.113
*
.198
**
-.268
**
84 ANCA FLORENTINA GAVRILUŢĂ, OTILIA OPREA, PAULA ANDREEA TERINTE
Sig.
(2-tailed) .000 .000 .021 .000 .000
N 420 420 420 420 420 420
Investments
% GDP
Pearson
Correlation .388
**
.137
**
-.113
*
1 -.537
**
-.199
**
Sig.
(2-tailed) .000 .005 .021 .000 .000
N 420 420 420 420 420 420
Debt %
GDP
Pearson
Correlation -.386
**
-.220
**
.198
**
-.537
**
1 .324
**
Sig.
(2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 420 420 420 420 420 420
Total fiscal
pressure
Pearson
Correlation -.273
**
-.250
**
-.268
**
-.199
**
.324
**
1
Sig.
(2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 420 420 420 420 420 420
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Appendix 3.One-Sample Test, ANOVA
One-Sample Test
Test Value = 0.05
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
95% Confidence Interval o
f
the Difference
Lower Upper
Real GDP
growth per
capita
10.391 419 .000 1.9326 1.567 2.298
Exchange of
interest rates 248.543 419 .000 100.43821 99.6439 101 .2325
Government
bonds rates 45.778 419 .000 4.25650 4.0737 4.4393
Investments
% GDP 115.921 419 .000 22.56019 22.1776 22.9427
Debt % GDP 35.424 419 .000 54.3495 51.334 57.3 65
Total fiscal
pressure 127.166 419 .000 36.0076 35.451 36.564
Financial integration and fiscal policy, implications on economic growth 85
Sig value (0.000) is less than the threshold alpha (0.05), which entitles us to
reject the null hypothesis and accept that there is a significant relationship between
GDP growth and the independent variables taken into account, we also checked:
Wald Test, ANOVA, Heteroskedasticity, Autocorrelation
Appendix 4. Box plot representation of dependent variable
-16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 1
6
var 1 Real GDP grow th per capita
Appendix 5. Histogram-Normality test
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
-16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Series: Standardized Residual s
Sample 2000 2014
Observations 420
Mean -5.22e-15
Median 0.343328
Maximum 7.518710
Minimum -16.21074
Std. Dev. 3.136462
Skewnes s -0. 926993
Kurtosis 5.508315
Jarque-Bera 170.2559
Probabilit y 0.000000
