MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033447147 · doi:10.33215/sjom.v3i3.353

Empirical Evidence of Co-Movement between the Canadian CDS, Stock Market And TSX 60 Volatility Index

2020· article· en· W3033447147 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ramzan Ali, Usman Ullah Butt, Muhammad Musa Khan, Muhammad Shaheer, Farhan Abbas Zaidi

Bibliographic record

VenueSEISENSE Journal of Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCredit Risk and Financial Regulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)Index (typography)Stock marketMedium termStock market indexTerm (time)Credit default swapBusinessFinancial economicsEconomicsEconometricsMonetary economicsFinanceCredit riskMacroeconomicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose- The prime objective of this study was to find the co-movement between the Canadian credit default swaps market, the Stock market and volatility index (TSX 60 Index) Design/ Methodology- To achieve this purpose, daily data containing 2870 observations starting from the 1st of January 2009 to the 30th of December 2019 were analyzed. This study employed the wavelet approach to present results in short-term, medium-term, long-term, and very long time. Findings- The findings of this study showed a negative correlation between the CDS market, stock market, and the TSX 60 index in the short-term as well as in the long-term term, while in medium-term and very long-term period correlation is strongly positive. The wavelet co-movement results in the short-term and long-term were negative, while this relationship in the medium-term and very long-term period was strongly positive. Practical Implications- This research provides simultaneous valuable information for investment decisions in the short, medium, and long term time horizons, as well as for the policymakers in the Canadian credit default swaps market, stock market, and the volatility index (TSX 60 Index).

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)0.000
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSEISENSE Journal of ManagementSame topicCredit Risk and Financial RegulationsFrench-language works237,207