Hedging strategies among financial markets: the case of green and brown assets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognizing the growing importance of the green energy market-renewable energy stocks and bonds-and its classification as a viable financial asset, this paper examines hedging strategies with brown market instruments-gold, oil, bond and the composite S&P500-on the green energy markets. That is, we examine whether, and to what extent brown assets can provide a hedge for green assets, using variants of the multivariate GARCH framework (DCC, ADCC and GO-GARCH). Our dataset spans the period 01/12/2008 to 30/09/2021. To account for the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, we split the dataset into two-pre-covid (1/12/2008-10/03/2020) and covid-era (11/03/202-30/09/2021). Two key findings emanate from our results: first, conventional bonds and stocks provide the most consistent hedge for investment in the green markets. Second, the results are sensitive to the state of the market-hedging effectiveness declined during the covid period in the green stock market. Among other things, it is recommended that investors include instruments of the green market in portfolio allocation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".