4.7 Article

EU sectoral stocks amid geopolitical risk, market sentiment, and crude oil implied volatility: An asymmetric analysis of the Russia-Ukraine tensions

期刊

RESOURCES POLICY
卷 82, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2023.103515

关键词

Geopolitical risk; Economic policy uncertainty; Investor sentiment; Russian-Ukrainian conflict; Causality-in-quantiles; Quantile regression model; Quantile-on-quantile regression; Hedge; Diversification; Safe-haven

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examines the asymmetric relationships between EU sectoral stocks and oil, oil implied volatility, geopolitical risk, and market sentiment during turbulent times of geopolitical unrest. Findings suggest that sectoral stock returns from the EU are asymmetrically predicted by WTI, OVX, VIX and GPR. The study highlights the implications for market regulation and portfolio management.
This study examines the asymmetric relationships between EU sectoral stocks and oil, oil implied volatility, geopolitical risk, and market sentiment during turbulent times of geopolitical unrest. In a set of parametric and nonparametric quantile-based techniques, we employ daily data on eleven sectors of economic activity in addition to crude oil prices (WTI) and three sentiment-driven indices tracking the crude oil volatility (OVX), geopolitical risk (GPR), and investor sentiment (VIX) over the period between January 2020 and October 2022. Findings from the causality-in-quantile-means test suggest that the sectoral stock returns from the EU are asymmetrically predicted by WTI, OVX, VIX and GPR. The findings from the quantile regression and quantile-on-quantile regression metrics demonstrate that (i) in bearish periods, EU sectoral stocks could hedge against GPR, (ii) WTI does not serve as a hedge for EU stocks regardless of the sector of economic activity, and (iii) OVX and VIX possess some hedging and safe-haven attributes against EU stocks. These findings have notable implications for market regulation and portfolio management.

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