MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316037782 · doi:10.3390/jrfm16010050

COVID-19 Pandemic & Financial Market Volatility; Evidence from GARCH Models

2023· article· en· W4316037782 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maaz Khan, Umar Nawaz Kayani, Mrestyal Khan, Khurrum S. Mughal, Mohammad Haseeb

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)Financial marketAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityEconomicsIndex (typography)PandemicFinancial economicsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Monetary economicsEconometricsFinanceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Across the globe, COVID-19 has disrupted the financial markets, making them more volatile. Thus, this paper examines the market volatility and asymmetric behavior of Bitcoin, EUR, S&P 500 index, Gold, Crude Oil, and Sugar during the COVID-19 pandemic. We applied the GARCH (1, 1), GJR-GARCH (1, 1), and EGARCH (1, 1) econometric models on the daily time series returns data ranging from 27 November 2018 to 15 June 2021. The empirical findings show a high level of volatility persistence in all the financial markets during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the Crude Oil and S&P 500 index shows significant positive asymmetric behavior during the pandemic. Apart from this, the results also reveal that EGARCH is the most appropriate model to capture the volatilities of the financial markets before the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas during the COVID-19 period and for the whole period, each GARCH family evenly models the volatile behavior of the six financial markets. This study provides financial investors and policymakers with useful insight into adopting effective strategies for constructing portfolios during crises in the future.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations58
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207