2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.frl.2021.102088
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Do hedge and merger arbitrage funds actually hedge? A time-varying volatility spillover approach

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, during the last month of the sample period, we observe a rise in volatility spillovers from 50 to 57%, reaching their peak, undoubtedly due to the start of the Russia–Ukraine war, along with the concomitant rise in inflation rates due to conflict. These results are aligned with the existing literature reporting that connectedness strengthens during turbulent periods (Umar et al 2020 ; Wen and Wang 2020 ; Balcilar et al 2021 ; Samitas et al 2021 ; Zhang et al 2021 ; Kumar et al 2022 ; Mensi et al 2022 ; Papathanasiou et al 2022c ; Yousaf and Yarovaya 2022 ). More specifically, we find evidence that the impact of COVID-19 on volatility spillovers exceeded the one caused by the European financial crisis, as outlined by Gunay ( 2021 ) and Zhang and Hamori ( 2021 ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, during the last month of the sample period, we observe a rise in volatility spillovers from 50 to 57%, reaching their peak, undoubtedly due to the start of the Russia–Ukraine war, along with the concomitant rise in inflation rates due to conflict. These results are aligned with the existing literature reporting that connectedness strengthens during turbulent periods (Umar et al 2020 ; Wen and Wang 2020 ; Balcilar et al 2021 ; Samitas et al 2021 ; Zhang et al 2021 ; Kumar et al 2022 ; Mensi et al 2022 ; Papathanasiou et al 2022c ; Yousaf and Yarovaya 2022 ). More specifically, we find evidence that the impact of COVID-19 on volatility spillovers exceeded the one caused by the European financial crisis, as outlined by Gunay ( 2021 ) and Zhang and Hamori ( 2021 ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
“…On the other hand, our findings are contrary to the findings of Liow ( 2015 ) and Liow et al ( 2018 ) who document real estate as a net receiver of volatility spillovers. Dynamic connectedness showed accretion during periods of turmoil, such as the US–China trade war, COVID-19 and the Russia–Ukraine war, indicating that volatility spillovers are prone to extraneous shocks, as cited by the literature (Umar et al 2020 ; Wen and Wang 2020 ; Balcilar et al 2021 ; Samitas et al 2021 ; Zhang et al 2021 ; Kumar et al 2022 ; Mensi et al 2022; Papathanasiou et al 2022c ; Yousaf and Yarovaya 2022 ). Moreover, the empirical results indicate that the short position in the volatility of TIPS is proved to be an efficient hedge for all the sampled assets, with the exception of short-term Treasury bonds, and their hedging ability was enhanced during COVID-19.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Third, the existing studies are difficult to generalize as these focus on different geographies covering different sample periods. For example, the studies such as Manelli et al (2020), Nahmer (2020) and Papathanasiou et al (2021) focus on one specific country, and hence the generalization of the findings becomes challenging. Studies focusing on QRFM 15,1 similar sample periods, units of analysis and similar research methods will provide evidence of the consistency of performance of alternative investments.…”
Section: Research Gaps and Directions For Future Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The literature defines an asset bubble as a steep increase in an asset's price without any fundamental economic reason (Dreger & Zhang, 2013; Papathanasiou, Vasiliou, et al, 2021) which usually ends with a bubble burst, that is, a dramatic drop in the asset's price. Previous literature has provided evidence of the existence of bubble formulation in the cryptocurrency market (Cheung et al, 2015; Corbet et al, 2018a; Fry & Cheah, 2016).…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%