MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939334805 · doi:10.5430/ijba.v10n3p39

A Multivariate Analysis of the Effects of Structural Breaks on Stock Return Volatility Persistence: The Case of the US and Japan

2019· article· en· W2939334805 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chikashi Tsuji

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business Administration · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChuo University
KeywordsVolatility (finance)EconometricsStock (firearms)EconomicsStructural breakDiagonalPersistence (discontinuity)Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityMultivariate statisticsFinancial economicsMathematicsStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper quantitatively inspects the effects of structural breaks in stock returns on their volatility persistence by using the stock return data of the US and Japan. More concretely, applying the diagonal BEKK-MGARCH model with and without structural break dummies to the returns of S&P 500 and TOPIX, we reveal the following interesting findings. (1) First, we clarify that for both the US and Japanese stock returns, the values of the GARCH parameters, namely, the values of the volatility persistence parameters in the diagonal BEKK-MGARCH models decrease when we include the structural break dummies in the models. (2) Second, we further find that interestingly, during the Lehman crisis in 2008, the estimated time-varying volatilities from the diagonal BEKK-MGARCH model with structural break dummies are slightly higher than those from the no structural break dummy model. (3) Third, we furthermore reveal that also very interestingly, the estimated time-varying correlations from the diagonal BEKK-MGARCH model with no structural break dummy are slightly higher than those from the structural break dummy model.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.200

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business AdministrationSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207