MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204566312 · doi:10.1080/13504851.2021.1985060

COVID-19 and the forward-looking stock-bond return relationship

2021· article· en· W3204566312 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiaojing Cai, Yingnan Cong, Ryuta Sakemoto

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Economics Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina University of Political Science and Law
KeywordsBondStock (firearms)Financial economicsStock marketTreasuryEconomicsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Corporate bondPandemicMonetary economicsBusinessEconometricsGeographyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused stock market crashes and collapse of economic activities in many countries. As a result, many investors changed their stock and bond market expectations. This study investigates whether the number of COVID-19 confirmed cases influences the forward-looking stock-bond correlations. We apply a quantile approach that is beneficial to explore non-linear relationships between the forward-looking stock-bond return correlations and the COVID-19 cases. The correlations are estimated using the DCC-GARCH model for 21 financial markets from three regions (North American, Asia-Pacific, and Europe). We present empirical evidence that there are heterogeneous responses across regions and countries. Specifically, the negative stock-bond correlations weaken as the number of COVID-19 cases in the regions of North America (the U.S. and Canada) and Asia-Pacific (Australia and Japan) increases. Our results suggest that the number of COVID-19 cases is not important. Investors sell risky stocks and buy safe Treasury bonds at the beginning of the pandemic, while they adjust their portfolios risk levels when they obtain more information. Our result also highlights that this pattern is not observed in European countries.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Economics LettersSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207