Predictors of Excess Return in a Green Energy Equity Portfolio: Market Risk, Market Return, Value-at-Risk and or Expected Shortfall?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid growth of electric vehicles, solar roofs, and wind power suggests that the potential growth in green equity investments is an emerging trend. Accordingly, this study measured the predictors of excess equity returns in a portfolio of global green energy producers, from 2010 to 2019. Fixed-effects panel data regressions of daily returns, followed by quantile regressions, were performed. There was some support for the explanation of green equity returns by market returns and market risk (beta), as indicated by the single-factor Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), and the multifactor Fama–French Three-Factor and Fama–French Five-Factor Models. The most significant predictors of green equity returns were Value-at-Risk at a 95% confidence level, and Value-at-Risk at a 99% confidence level. Expected Shortfall was another extreme risk value measure. The importance of extreme value measures suggests the presence of fat-tailed leptokurtic distributions, whereby excess returns were explained by the risk of loss given adverse conditions, primarily at 95% confidence. We conclude that the proliferation of small firms and new entrants in the renewable energy sector has led to the explanation of returns by extreme values of risk.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".