MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293217542 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15090378

Volatility Spillover Effects during Pre-and-Post COVID-19 Outbreak on Indian Market from the USA, China, Japan, Germany, and Australia

2022· article· en· W4293217542 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
T. Mohanasundaram, Suneel Maheshwari, Deepak Raghava Naik

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpillover effectVolatility (finance)Stock marketMonetary economicsEconomicsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Stock (firearms)Financial economicsOutbreakBusinessGeographyMacroeconomicsMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined volatility spillover effects from five prominent global stock markets to India’s stock market during the pre-and-post COVID-19 outbreak using daily adjusted closing prices between January 2019 and September 2021 from six capital markets. The structural breakpoint was identified as 23 March 2020, as per the breakpoint unit root test, to examine and compare the results pre-and-post COVID-19. Results show that previous period news and volatility feeds the next period’s volatility significantly and the volatility is found to be persistent. The analysis also shows that during the pre-COVID period there is a negative significant volatility spillover from four of the five selected stock markets (Australia, China, Japan, and Germany) to the Indian stock market, and that spillover continues in the post-COVID period. There is a positive significant return and volatility spillover from the US market to the Indian stock market in the post-COVID-19 period. The results of our study will be useful for retail investors and portfolio managers in understanding the portfolio allocation methods in case of volatility spillover arising due to the crisis caused by the COVID-19 outbreak.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207