Double Asymmetric Impacts, Dynamic Correlations, and Risk Management Amidst Market Risks: A Comparative Study between the US and China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extreme shocks, including climate change, economic sanctions, geopolitical conflicts, etc., are significant and complex issues currently confronting the global world. From the US–China perspective, this paper employs the DCC-DAGM model to investigate how diverse market risks asymmetrically affect return volatility, and extract correlations between stock indices and hedging assets. Then, diversified and hedging portfolios, constructed by optimal weight and hedge ratio, are investigated using multiple risk reduction measures. The empirical results highlight that, first, diverse risks exhibit an asymmetric effect on the return volatility in the long term, while in the short term, the US stock market is more sensitive to negative return shocks than the Chinese market. Second, risks impact correlations differently across time horizons and countries. Short-term correlations are stronger than long-term ones for the US market, with the Chinese stock market displaying more stable correlations. Third, the hedging strategy is more effective in reducing volatility and risk for US stocks, while the diversification strategy proves more effective for Chinese stocks. These findings have implications for market participants striving to make their portfolios robust during turbulent times.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".