## 4 Empirical Analysis
### VARM Analysis Results
#### 4.4.4 Analysis of Shipping Companies  
The results of the VARM analysis for shipping companies are shown in Table 9. For COSCO Shipping, the coefficient for the GSCPI from one time period prior was 0.417379,  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Category** & **Delta Airlines** & **American Airlines Group** & **United Airlines Holdings** & **Lufthansa Group** \\ \hline GSCPI (\(-\)1) & \(-\)1.154591 & \(-\)0.103567 & \(-\)1.821662 & 0.148856 \\  & [\(-\)1.05721] & [\(-\)1.03812] & [\(-\)1.13967] & [0.40027] \\ Stock price (\(-\)1) & \(-\)0.042473 & \(-\)0.127903 & 0.932150 & 0.031228 \\  & [\(-\)0.40794] & [\(-\)1.23531] & [23.8523] & [0.30195] \\ Constant & \(-\)0.093736 & \(-\)0.325756 & 3.816713 & \(-\)0.068485 \\  & [\(-\)0.19248] & [\(-\)0.96627] & [1.59811] & [\(-\)0.40902] \\ \hline \end{tabular} Source: Authors’ own compilation. Note 1: Numbers in brackets represent t-statistics. Note 2: 1t-statistic \(\geq\) 2368 = 99\(\%\), 1t-statistic \(\geq\) 1.662 = 95\(\%\), 1t-statistic \(\geq\) 1.291 = 90\(\%\).  
\end{table}
Table 6: VARM analysis results of airlines.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Category** & **United Parcel Service** & **FedEx** & **DSV** \\ \hline GSCPI (\(-\)1) & \(-\)0.126483 & \(-\)3.030009 & \(-\)4.022230 \\  & [\(-\)0.04686] & [\(-\)0.65948] & [\(-\)0.22605] \\ Stock price (\(-\)1) & **0.948236** & \(-\)0.045057 & \(-\)0.040954 \\  & **[30.4411]** & [\(-\)0.43503] & [\(-\)0.38809] \\ Constant & 7.908624 & 1.165355 & 9.905878 \\  & [1.74296] & [2.06429] & [1.23027] \\ \hline \end{tabular} Source: Authors’ own compilation. Note 1: Numbers in brackets represent t-statistics. Note 2: 1t-statistic \(\geq\) 2368 = 99\(\%\), 1t-statistic \(\geq\) 1.662 = 95\(\%\), 1t-statistic \(\geq\) 1.291 = 90\(\%\).  
\end{table}
Table 7: VARM analysis results of comprehensive logistics companies.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Category** & **Energy Transfer** & **Enterprise Products** & **Plains GP Holdings** & **Enbridge** & **Cheniere Energy** \\  & & **Partners** & & & \\ \hline GSCPI (\(-\)1) & 0.059820 & \(-\)0.239461 & \(-\)0.027694 & 0.171219 & \(-\)1.143888 \\  & [0.17379] & [\(-\)0.59687] & [\(-\)0.06534] & [0.31310] & [\(-\)0.69682] \\ Stock price (\(-\)1) & 0.075202 & \(\mathbf{-\)**0.134742** & **0.968336** & \(-\)0.112369 & 0.017494 \\  & [0.77292] & [\(\mathbf{-\)**1.29261**] & **[39.3311]** & [\(-\)1.09649] & [0.16830] \\ Constant & 0.005169 & 0.011272 & 0.489602 & 0.033488 & 1.377360 \\  & [0.03336] & [0.06333] & [1.00326] & [0.13624] & [1.84169] \\ \hline \end{tabular} Source: Authors’ own compilation. Note 1: Numbers in brackets represent t-statistics. Note 2: 1t-statistic \(\geq\) 2368 = 99\(\%\), 1t-statistic \(\geq\) 1.662 = 95\(\%\), 1t-statistic \(\geq\) 1.291 = 90\(\%\).  
\end{table}
Table 8: VARM analysis results of comprehensive pipeline companies.  
with a t-value of 1.83058, indicating statistical significance. For Maersk Group, the coefficient was 0.688374, with a t-value of 3.08136, which is also statistically significant. Hapag-Lloyd showed a coefficient of 10.77264, with a t-value of 1.61508, which is statistically significant. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a positive (+) relationship between the GSCPI and the stock prices of these shipping companies.