MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2940038970 · doi:10.1177/0972652719831550

Do Country ETFs Influence Foreign Stock Market Index? Evidence from India ETFs

2019· article· en· W2940038970 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. Narend, M. Thenmozhi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Emerging Market Finance · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStock market indexEmerging marketsStock (firearms)Stock marketStock exchangeVolatility (finance)BusinessIndex (typography)EconomicsMonetary economicsOrdinary least squaresFinancial economicsFinanceEconometricsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the influence of country exchange traded funds (ETFs) on the country’s stock market indices, irrespective of their underlying benchmark. A pooled ordinary least square (OLS) analysis of a sample of 28 India ETFs listed in the US, UK, Canada, France, Japan, Israel and Singapore reveals that India ETFs have a significant impact on the country’s stock indices. We also document reverse causal dynamics between country ETFs and the country’s stock indices. The results are robust even after controlling for global effects, stock market volatility, foreign institutional investor (FII) flows, foreign exchange rate and asset size of India ETFs. The findings of the study have implications for global investors and policymakers in both emerging and developed markets. Policymakers would find it compelling to monitor country ETFs’ fund flows into the underlying country, as withdrawal of country ETFs could have a cascading effect on the economy. JEL Classification: G11, G15, G23

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Emerging Market FinanceSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207