4.6 Article

New test of contagion with application on the Brexit referendum

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.physa.2020.125474

关键词

Securitized real estate; Case-resampling bootstrap method; Median; Interquartile mean; Diversification

资金

  1. PolyU Internal Research, Hong Kong Grants [G-YBJL, G-YBQ8]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study explores contagion among securitized real estate and general equity indices of various countries post-Brexit, finding less significant evidence of contagion using the case-resampling bootstrap method. Using the interquartile mean as an estimator further reduces the contagion effect, with Western economies experiencing larger effects compared to Asian economies. Additionally, contagion is more pronounced in general equity markets than in securitized real estate markets.
This study investigates contagion among securitized real estate and general equity indices of the U.K., France, Germany, the U.S., Hong Kong and Japan, after the Brexit referendum in June 2016. We combine the case-resampling bootstrap method with the coskewness and cokurtosis test, and apply a new approach by taking the interquartile mean as the estimator. The interquartile mean has advantages over both mean and median that it is insensitive to outliers and is a distinct parameter based on a large number of observations from the dataset. The case-resampling bootstrap method shows less significant evidence of contagion than the normal methods do. If we take the interquartile mean as the estimator, the effect of contagion is further diminished when compared with the method of taking the median as the estimator. Moreover, the effect of contagion is larger on the western economies than on the Asian economies, and there is more significant evidence of contagion on the general equity markets than on the securitized real estate markets. This has an important implication to investors that they should diversify their portfolio to reduce risk. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据