Risk Connectedness Between Green and Conventional Assets with Portfolio Implications.

Muhammad Abubakr Naeem, Sitara Karim, Aviral Kumar Tiwari
Author Information
  1. Muhammad Abubakr Naeem: Accounting and Finance Department, United Arab Emirates University, P.O. Box 15551, Al-Ain, United Arab Emirates.
  2. Sitara Karim: Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham, Malaysia, Semenyih, 43500 Selangor Malaysia.
  3. Aviral Kumar Tiwari: Indian Institute of Management Bodh Gaya, Bodh Gaya, India. ORCID

Abstract

The increasing concerns of investors toward green bonds and their appealing nature of diversification has motivated the current research to study the risk connectedness between green and conventional assets spanning from August 2014 to December 2020. We first estimate the dynamic equi-correlations through DECO-GARCH. Next, we assess the dynamic and static risk connectedness in the median, extreme low, and extreme high quantiles arguing that spillovers vary across different time periods particularly during economically intense time periods. Finally, we analyzed the hedge ratio and hedge effectiveness between green bonds and other assets. We find that equi-correlations are intense during economic shocks such as the Shale oil crisis, Brexit, US interest rate hike, and COVID-19 pandemic. The volatility analysis at average, lower, and upper quantiles also validate time-varying attributes of green and conventional assets. Further, network figures of green and conventional assets identify potential diversification opportunities. Meanwhile, the hedge effectiveness indicates that green bonds are effective hedge for precious metals and cryptocurrencies. Our findings draw multiple implications for policymakers, green investors, financial market participants, and regulatory authorities regarding flight-to-safety during crisis times and maintaining a diverse portfolio to escape potential losses.

Keywords

References

  1. Resour Policy. 2021 Mar;70:101898 [PMID: 34173426]
  2. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2021 Jan;162:120382 [PMID: 33100414]
  3. Comput Econ. 2023;61(3):1095-1114 [PMID: 35194325]
  4. Comput Econ. 2023;61(1):57-68 [PMID: 34629755]
  5. J financ econ. 2021 Oct;142(1):46-68 [PMID: 36568646]
  6. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2023 Mar;30(15):42829-42844 [PMID: 34826080]
  7. J Environ Manage. 2022 Mar 1;305:114358 [PMID: 34974217]
  8. Energy Policy. 2022 Sep;168:113102 [PMID: 35945949]
  9. Financ Innov. 2021;7(1):14 [PMID: 35024275]
  10. Glob Financ J. 2021 Aug;49:100650 [PMID: 38013691]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0greenassetshedgebondsconnectednessconventionalinvestorsdiversificationriskdynamicequi-correlationsDECO-GARCHextremequantilestimeperiodsintenseeffectivenesscrisispotentialRiskGreenConventionalincreasingconcernstowardappealingnaturemotivatedcurrentresearchstudyspanningAugust2014December2020firstestimateNextassessstaticmedianlowhigharguingspilloversvaryacrossdifferentparticularlyeconomicallyFinallyanalyzedratiofindeconomicshocksShaleoilBrexitUSinterestratehikeCOVID-19pandemicvolatilityanalysisaveragelowerupperalsovalidatetime-varyingattributesnetworkfiguresidentifyopportunitiesMeanwhileindicateseffectivepreciousmetalscryptocurrenciesfindingsdrawmultipleimplicationspolicymakersfinancialmarketparticipantsregulatoryauthoritiesregardingflight-to-safetytimesmaintainingdiverseportfolioescapelossesConnectednessAssetsPortfolioImplications

Similar Articles

Cited By (3)