Monetary policy effects on stock market

What is “China Economic Review” next to page numbers?
Missing list of tables and figures.
Writing skills should be improved. Various grammar and syntax errors, as well as non-clear statements. Avoid long paragraphs.
No need for subsections within the introduction.
The introduction is very lengthy and not well-structured. The introduction should follow the following structure: background and motivation, brief review of literature, what this study does/find, contributions & links with previous studies, and structure of rest of dissertation. Currently, there is too much on the background and other not very related (for use in the introduction) issues and no discussion about what this dissertation finds.
The literature review contains some relevant studies but its structure and content should be substantially improved. Currently, the flow of the arguments is confusing and there is a lack of appropriate structure. The literature review should be divided into two basic components: The first, theoretical background, should explain the theory related to the question that the dissertation considers. The present value model, or discounted cash flow model, can be used to explain the channels through which monetary policy can affect the stock market. The second, empirical evidence, should analyse the relevant empirical results from previous studies, organised in subsections according to some logical criterion. For example, according to methodology (e.g. VAR vs event studies), according to the country (e.g. US vs. China), etc. General discussion about the conduct of monetary policy in China doesn’t belong in the literature review.
Based on the literature review, it’s not clear what the key previous study, that this dissertation follows, is. All methodological choices must be supported by references to previous studies (e.g. variables definition, sample, estimation method).
Do you borrow Figure 1 from another study?
The definition of the variables, and overall logic, of the model outlined in Table 1 and Equation 1 is not clear. For example, precious studies typically model stock returns, as opposed to level of stock price index. Also, how do you derive expected returns? Why are they “control variables”?
Sections 3.2-3.6 are not contributing much, they can be removed. Same for 3.10-3.11. Generally, check previous studies methodology sections, they are quite different to what you have here.
Plots of the key variables should be presented and discussed.
Not clear what is meant by “robustness checks at the tile of 4.1” Not clear what the point of outlier analysis is (Figure 1).
Empirical analysis is very confusing. Not clear at all what the logic is; switching from GMM (why is GMM used?), to cointegration, impulse responses (of stationary VAR?) and Granger causality. This approach makes little sense. Try to locate a key previous study and follow it, as opposed to mixing methods without good motivation.
Lengthy and (in various parts) confusing discussion of results. It should become more to the point, focusing on links with theory (is theoretical prediction supported or not) and previous empirical evidence.
Consumer price index is not a monetary policy variable.
Research recommendations could be shortened in the conclusions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *