MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161748807 · doi:10.1080/15427560.2021.1983576

Sentiment Regimes and Reaction of Stock Markets to Conventional and Unconventional Monetary Policies: Evidence from OECD Countries

2021· preprint· en· W3161748807 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Oğuzhan Çepni, Rangan Gupta, Qiang Ji

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Behavioral Finance · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonetary policyEconomicsMonetary economicsStock (firearms)Stock marketEquity (law)Panel dataShock (circulatory)Interest rateZero lower boundOptimismEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate how conventional and unconventional monetary policy shocks affect the stock market of eight advanced economies, namely, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Spain, the U.K., and the U.S., conditional on the state of sentiment. In this regard, we use a panel vector auto-regression (VAR) with monthly data (on output, prices, equity prices, metrics of monetary policies, and consumer and business sentiments) over the period of January 2007 till July 2020, with the monetary policy shock identified through the use of both zero and sign restrictions. We find robust evidence that, compared to the low investor sentiment regime, the reaction of stock prices to expansionary monetary policy shocks is stronger in the state associated with relatively higher optimism, both for the overall panel and the individual countries (with some degree of heterogeneity). Our findings have important implications for academicians, investors, and policymakers.

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)0.003
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Behavioral FinanceSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207