4.7 Article

Risk-return relationship and structural breaks: Evidence from China carbon market

期刊

INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF ECONOMICS & FINANCE
卷 77, 期 -, 页码 481-492

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.iref.2021.10.019

关键词

Risk compensation; Time varying; Structural breaks; China carbon Market

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China, China [72131011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the risk-return relationship of China carbon market by analyzing risk compensation coefficients and structural breaks. The findings reveal that risk compensation coefficients are time varying and heterogeneously influenced by various factors, while structural breaks significantly affect and make asymmetry effects to the risk-return relationship.
This paper investigates the risk-return relationship of China carbon market by evaluating the risk compensation coefficients, especially to consider the structural breaks caused by the policy uncertainty and vital events would impact the investment and carbon market risk-return relations. In detail, we have constructed the time varying GARCH-M model to depict the characteristic of risk compensation coefficient in China carbon market, then adopted ICSS algorithm to investigate the structural breaks in the carbon market returns and measured their impacts on the risk compensation coefficients. Particularly, we have evaluated the asymmetry effects of positive and negative structural breaks to the market risk-return relationship. Therefore, we find the risk compensation coefficients of carbon markets are obviously time varying, heterogeneously influenced by return demand of the inherent risk, risk compensation and unexpected return of the upfront period. Besides, the structural breaks significantly affect and make asymmetry effects to the risk-return relationship. Last, the findings are helpful for policy making of the carbon market development and market participants to avoid risks and optimize portfolios.

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