The Influence of Domestic and Foreign Shocks on Portfolio Diversification Gains and the Associated Risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper evaluates the influence of foreign or domestic stock market return and return of volatility shocks on dynamic conditional correlations (DCCs) between international stock markets and correlation volatility, respectively. The correlations between markets have implications for the gains from portfolio diversification, while correlation volatilities can be seen as risks to portfolio diversification. Meanwhile, domestic shocks are sourced from the return and return volatility from 24 developed, emerging, and frontier stock markets. The US stock market is the source of foreign shocks. The domestic and foreign shocks are derived using market-based returns and under bearish market conditions. We estimate multivariate exponential generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (E-GARCH) models using daily and monthly MSCI based stock price data of selected developed, emerging, and frontier markets over 1993:1–2014:1. Our key results are as follows. Domestic market shocks were significant drivers of gains from portfolio diversification most of the time, although the US market effects were relatively stronger. On the other hand, the US, in terms of the number of significant cases as well as the size effects of shocks, dominated as a determinant of correlation volatility (or risks to portfolio diversification). Further, under bear market conditions, adjustments in correlations and correlation volatilities are found to be mostly US-induced. Bearish shocks, rather than market return based shocks, show strong evidence of the leverage effect. Signs of persistence of shocks are mainly noticed under bearish conditions.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".