4.7 Article

Trump vs. Paris: The impact of climate policy on US listed oil and gas firm returns and volatility

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.irfa.2021.101746

关键词

Climate risk; Oil and gas firms; Option implied volatility; Stranded assets valuation

资金

  1. Otago Business School

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that the Paris Agreement had a significant impact on the oil and gas industry, particularly affecting companies with a focus on the U.S. market. Surprisingly, the election of Donald Trump and the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement had unexpected negative effects on some sub-sectors and the industry as a whole.
We explore the stock market and option implied volatility response of the oil and gas industry to four policy events associated with the Paris Agreement and the election of Donald Trump. Our results show that the signing of the Paris Agreement had a large negative impact for the Oil and Gas sector (CAAR -8.4%), with Exploration and Production (CAAR -12.2%) and Drilling (CAAR -10.5%) most severely affected. This is further supported by an increase in implied volatility and by a structural break in option trader sentiment around the signing of the agreement. In general, the Paris Agreement had a much stronger impact on firms that had primarily U.S.-focused operations. Contrary to expectations, the election of Donald Trump and the announced withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris Agreement negatively affected some sub-sectors (integrated and transport) and the sector overall. We attribute this to (1) Trump's policies supporting domestic production (benefitting unlisted independent producers at the expense of listed competitors with import and international assets), and (2) on We Are Still In efforts by U.S. states, cities and companies to continue to meet Paris Agreement goals. Overall, our results indicate that investors are pricing current policies when examining climate risk and that, in this respect, the Paris agreement trumped Trump.

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

4.7
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