MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306764965 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15100471

International Information Spillovers and Asymmetric Volatility in South Asian Stock Markets

2022· article· en· W4306764965 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Dinesh Gajurel, Akhila Chawla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)Equity (law)Spillover effectEconomicsStock (firearms)Financial economicsEmerging marketsMonetary economicsGeographyMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the first comprehensive study to investigate the dynamics of international information spillovers, regional linkages and fundamental forces driving return volatility in the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) member nation equity markets. We propose a multi-factor model nested within the generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity framework and enlist comprehensive equity market data. While modeling, we consider global, regional (Asia), and largest neighboring (India) equity markets as sources of information spillover. Our results show that equity returns in all these South Asian markets have positive autocorrelation. The equity markets of India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka have some degree of global integration; however, their degree of regional integration is comparatively higher. The stock markets of Bangladesh and Nepal, in contrast, lack both global and regional integration. We find limited evidence of neighborhood (India) spillover effect on other markets in the sample. The stock markets of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan stock markets exhibit asymmetric volatility responses, while Nepal exhibits an inverted asymmetric volatility response, and in contrast Sri Lanka exhibits a symmetric volatility response to return shocks. Finally, most of these markets experience volatility spillover effects from the US, Asia, and India stock markets.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations10
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207