MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113291947 · doi:10.1002/ijfe.2341

ESG investment: What do we learn from its interaction with stock, currency and commodity markets?

2020· article· en· W3113291947 on OpenAlexaff
Emil Andersson, Mahim Hoque, Md. Lutfur Rahman, Gazi Salah Uddin, Ranadeva Jayasekera

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Finance & Economics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsPortfolioEquity (law)Financial economicsCurrencyDiversification (marketing strategy)Stock (firearms)EconometricsMonetary economicsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper examines ESG portfolio's causal relationship with conventional and ethical equity prices, exchange rates and commodity prices. Using multi‐scale wavelet decomposition, asset returns are decomposed into three timescales (short‐, medium‐ and long‐term), and a three‐step filtered framework is used to explore dynamic non‐linear linkages. We document significant bidirectional causal relationship between ESG, conventional and ethical equity portfolio returns. While the causality persists from the short‐ to medium‐term, it is relatively weaker in the long‐term. We further observe statistically significant causality running from ESG portfolio returns to currency and commodity returns. This causality is strongest in the short‐term, turns weaker in the medium‐term and, in some instances, disappears in the long‐term. These results are generally robust for the use of original returns and VAR‐filtered returns. However, as we control for conditional heteroskedasticity in the return series, the causality appears weaker particularly between ESG portfolio and commodity returns. Our results have important implications for planning portfolio allocation and devising hedging and diversification strategies.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations75
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Finance & EconomicsSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207