MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2975787972 · doi:10.6000/1929-7092.2019.08.65

Have Sentiments Influenced Malaysia’s Stock Market Volatility During the 2008 Crisis?

2019· article· en· W2975787972 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nathrah Yacob

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reviews on Global Economics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)Stock marketMonetary economicsEconomicsFinancial crisisStock market volatilityFinancial economicsStock (firearms)Financial systemBusinessKeynesian economicsHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examined the effects of both macro-economic and investor sentiment on the volatility of the Malaysian stock market, during the 2008 global financial crisis.However, as the measurement for investor sentiment is unavailable, we constructed an investor sentiment composite index from a number of proxies, namely; the stock market turnover, number of Initial public offerings (IPO) and its initial returns, advance decline ratio, and consumer sentiment index by employing a strict process of Factor analysis with Principal component analysis' extraction.By employing Autoregressive Distributive Lags (ARDL) model, we observed the failure of macroeconomic fundamentals to significantly predict the Malaysian stock market's volatility during the crisis period while investor sentiment was a significant factor that influenced the market.These findings support the notion that investors tend to behave irrationally during crisis periods and these may assist practitioners in formulating specific investment strategies during crucial periods in order to gain abnormal returns.

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)0.002
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reviews on Global EconomicsSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207