Does Islamic equity investment provide diversification benefits to conventional investors? Evidence from the multivariate GARCH analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to quantify the extent to which the Malaysia-based equity investors can benefit from diversifying their portfolio into the conventional and Islamic Southeast Asian region and the world’s top ten largest equity indices (China, Japan, Hong Kong, India, the UK, the USA, Canada, France, Germany and Switzerland). Design/methodology/approach The multivariate GARCH-dynamic conditional correlation is deployed to estimate the time-varying linkages of the selected conventional and Islamic Asian and international stock index returns with the Malaysian stock index returns, covering approximately eight years daily starting from 29 June 2007 to 30 June 2016. Findings In general, in terms of volatility, the results indicate that both Asian and international Islamic stock indices are more or less volatile than its conventional counterparts. From the correlation analysis, we can see that both the conventional and Islamic MSCI indices of Japan provide more diversification benefits compared to Southeast Asian region, China, Hong Kong and India. Meanwhile, in terms of international portfolio diversification, the results tend to suggest that both the conventional and Islamic MSCI indices of the USA provide more diversification benefits compared to the UK, Canada, France, Germany and Switzerland. Originality/value The findings of this paper may have several significant implications for the Malaysia-based equity investors and fund managers who seek for the understanding of return correlations between the Malaysian stock index and the world’s largest stock market indices in order to gain higher risk-adjusted returns through portfolio diversification. With regard to policy implications, the findings on market shocks and the extent of the interdependence of the Malaysian market with cross-border markets may provide some useful insights in formulating effective macroeconomic stabilization policies in the efforts of preventing contagion effect from deteriorating the domestic economy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".