4.2 Article

The reaction of G20+stock markets to the Russia-Ukraine conflict black-swan event: Evidence from event study approach

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbef.2022.100723

关键词

Russia-Ukraine conflict; Market reaction; Black swan event; Stock markets; Event study

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper examines the impact of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine on the G20 and other selected stock markets using the event study approach. The study reveals a strong negative impact of the conflict on the majority of stock markets, especially on the Russian market. The analysis shows that different countries' stock markets had varying degrees of negative returns before and after the conflict broke out.
In this paper we examine the impact of the breakout of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine on the G20 and other selected stock markets using the event study approach. The analysis of the abnormal returns (AR) before and after the launch of the 'special military operation' by Russian military forces on the 24th of February 2022 revealed a strong negative impact of this military action on a majority of the stock markets, especially on the Russian market. The aggregate stock market analysis indicates a significant and negative impact of the Russia-Ukraine conflict on the event day and post event days. The country-wise analysis demonstrated that the stock markets of Hungary, Russia, Poland, and Slovakia were first to react in anticipation of the military actions in Ukraine, showing negative returns in pre- event days already, whereas the stock markets of Australia, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Romania, South Africa, Spain, and Turkey were adversely affected in the post-invasion days. Finally, the regional analysis indicates that the European and Asian regions are significantly and adversely affected by this event. (c) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

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

4.2
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