Volatility spillovers between foreing-exchange and stock markets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper empirically analyses the evidence of intra-spillovers and inter-spillovers between foreign exchange and stock markets in the seven economies which concentrate the majority of foreign exchange transactions (i.e. United Kingdom, Euro area, Australia, Swiss, Canada, United Kingdom and Japan), using daily data, during the period 1990 to 2015 and during the pre-global and post-global financial crisis periods. To that end, we employ two econometric methodologies: the C-GARCH methodology by Engle and Lee (1999) and the SVAR framework (Sohel Azad et al., 2015). Results suggest that: (i) permanent and transitory components of the conditional variance exhibit several well-known peaks in volatilities; (ii) the long-run volatility relationships are stronger than the short-run linkages volatility with a reinforcement during the post-global financial crisis period; (iii) the presence of intra-spillovers and inter-spillovers increases substantially during the post-global financial crisis period and (iv) in all samples, the stock markets play a dominant role in the transmission of long-run and short-run volatility, except for in the period after the Global Financial Crisis, where the foreign-exchange markets are the main long-run volatility triggers.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it