MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022547221 · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhs104

Is the Potential for International Diversification Disappearing? A Dynamic Copula Approach

2012· article· en· W3022547221 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter Christoffersen, Vihang R. Errunza, Kris Jacobs, Hugues Langlois

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Financial Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill University
KeywordsCopula (linguistics)Diversification (marketing strategy)Tail dependenceEconomicsEconometricsEquity (law)Multivariate statisticsNonlinear systemFinancial economicsBusinessStatisticsMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International equity markets are characterized by nonlinear dependence and asymmetries. We propose a new dynamic asymmetric copula model to capture long-run and short-run dependence, multivariate nonnormality, and asymmetries in large cross-sections. We find that correlations have increased markedly in both developed markets (DMs) and emerging markets (EMs), but they are much lower in EMs than in DMs. Tail dependence has also increased, but its level is still relatively low in EMs. We propose new measures of dynamic diversification benefits that take into account higher-order moments and nonlinear dependence. The benefits from international diversification have reduced over time, drastically so for DMs. EMs still offer significant diversification benefits, especially during large market downturns.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations421
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Financial StudiesSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207