MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2474906132 · doi:10.5539/ass.v12n8p43

Causal Correlation between Exchange Rate and Stock Index: Evidence from VN-Index

2016· article· en· W2474906132 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tri Dinh Nguyen, Quang Hung Bui, Tan Thanh Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometricsStock marketStock (firearms)Granger causalityStock exchangeUnit root testStock priceExchange rateStock market indexEconomicsAugmented Dickey–Fuller testMathematicsCorrelationStatisticsSeries (stratigraphy)Monetary economicsCointegrationFinanceHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper will examine the causal correlation of exchange rates and stock prices in Vietnam. The data is collected daily from March 1st 2007 to March 1st 2014. The whole sample period is divided into two sub-groups as before the stock market bottom, after stock market bottom and full sample period. Unit root tests are employed for checking the stationary of time series data such as ADF test, PP test and KPSS test. This paper employs the co-integration test and Granger causality test to identify the causal correlation between two variables. The results of paper prove that there is no causal correlation between exchange rate and stock price. It means that the stock price has no effect on exchange rate and vice versa. However, after stock market bottom from February 25th 2009 to March 1st 2014, this research finds that it has a long-run co-movement between these variables by applying the Johansen test.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social Science→Same topicMarket Dynamics and Volatility→French-language works237,207→