Modeling Volatility of the Bahraini Stock Index: An Empirical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the volatility dynamics of the Bahrain All Share Index (BAX) between 2010 and 2025, a period marked by COVID-19 and regional geopolitical shocks. Using ARMA (1,1) to model returns and four GARCH-family models (ARCH, GARCH, EGARCH, GJR-GARCH) to capture volatility, we provide new evidence from a bank-based frontier market that has received limited empirical attention. The results reveal that returns are stationary and exhibit volatility clustering. Among the competing models, EGARCH (1,1) provides the best fit—exhibiting the lowest AIC and SIC values and the highest log-likelihood—revealing a significant leverage effect whereby negative shocks generate stronger volatility than positive shocks. This asymmetric volatility pattern contradicts earlier findings for Bahrain but aligns with theoretical expectations for bank-based financial systems. The findings carry implications for investors in terms of portfolio risk management, derivative pricing, and asset allocation. They also have important implications for regulators and policymakers, suggesting that counter-cyclical buffers and interest rate adjustments could be applied to stabilize the market in anticipation of negative shocks. These insights enrich the scarce literature on volatility in small frontier markets and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the volatility dynamics in the MENA region.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".