A Comparative Analysis of the Nature of Stock Return Volatility in BRICS and G7 Markets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through globalization and financial market liberalization, the opening up of markets has increased cross-border investments as investors search for higher risk-adjusted returns. This ability to invest internationally has raised the attention given to emerging markets that offer higher risk-adjusted returns relative to developed markets. However, despite the growing importance of emerging markets, the literature on the nature of volatility in global markets is typified by generalizations of findings from developed markets. To fill this gap, this study comparatively examined the nature of stock return volatility in developed G7 and emerging BRICS markets. Broad market index data and GARCH models over the period 2003:01–2020:08 were employed. The study found evidence of volatility persistence, asymmetry, mean reversion and weak evidence of a risk premium in both emerging and developed markets. There was also evidence of significant differences in the nature of volatility within the two sets of markets. These volatility patterns in both groups cast doubt on the assertion that developed markets are more informationally efficient than emerging markets. Thus, markets in the same group may not always have the same nature of volatility, especially in the wake of structural events such as the COVID-19 global pandemic.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it