MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3171607670 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14060242

The Incidence of Spillover Effects during the Unconventional Monetary Policies Era

2021· article· en· W3171607670 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Demetrio Lacava, Luca Scaffidi Domianello

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)EconomicsMonetary policySpillover effectMonetary economicsStock (firearms)Stock market indexStock market volatilityMarkov chainEconometricsStock marketFinancial economicsContext (archaeology)MacroeconomicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a context characterized by an increasing integration among financial markets, we aim to analyze whether the ECB unconventional monetary policy shields the Eurozone stock markets against spillovers of volatility from the US stock market. We augment the Markov switching Asymmetric Multiplicative Error Model (MS-AMEM) with exogenous variables to measure transmissions of volatility from the S&P500 index, on the one hand, and the announcement and implementation effects of unconventional policy, on the other hand. By estimating our model, the MS-AMEMX, on a sample of daily observations of the realized volatility of four Eurozone stock indices (CAC40, DAX30, FTSEMIB and IBEX35), we find how the increase in volatility brought about by volatility spillovers was mitigated by the implementation of unconventional policy, with a higher benefit for high-debt countries’ stock indices (FTSEMIB and IBEX35). Finally, the out-of-sample analysis certifies the suitability of our proxies also for forecasting purposes.

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)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial management→Same topicMarket Dynamics and Volatility→French-language works237,207→