Search results

The purpose of the paper is to investigate co-movement of major implied volatility indices and economic policy uncertainty (EPU) indices with both the health-based fear index and market-based fear index of COVID-19 for the USA and the UK to help investors and portfolio managers in their informed investment decisions during times of infectious disease spread.

This study uses wavelet coherence approach because it allows to observe lead–lag nonlinear relationship between two time-series variables and captures the heterogeneous perceptions of investors across time and frequency. The daily data used in this study about the USA and the UK covers major implied volatility indices, EPU, health-based fear index and market-based fear index of COVID-19 for both the first and second waves of COVID-19 pandemic over the period from March 3, 2020 to February 12, 2021.

The results document a strong positive co-movement between implied volatility indices and two proxies of the COVID-19 fear. However, in all the cases, the infectious disease equity market volatility index (IDEMVI), the COVID-19 proxy, is more representative of the stock market and exhibits a stronger positive co-movement with volatility indices than the COVID-19 fear index (C19FI). This study also finds that the UK’s implied volatility index weakly co-moves with the C19FI compared to the USA. The results show that EPU indices of both the USA and the UK exhibit a weak or no correlation with the C19FI. However, this study finds a significant and positive co-movement of EPU indices with IDEMVI over the short horizon and most of the sampling period with the leading effect of IDEMVI. This study’s robustness analysis using partial wavelet coherence provides further strengths to the findings.

The investment decisions and risk management of investors and portfolio managers in financial markets are affected by the new information on volatility and EPU. The findings provide insights to equity investors and portfolio managers to improve their risk management practices by incorporating how health-related risks such as COVID-19 pandemic can contribute to the market volatility and economic risks. The results are beneficial for long-term equity investors, as their investments are affected by contributing factors to the volatility in US and UK’s stock markets.

This study adds following promising values to the existing literature. First, the results complement the existing literature (Rubbaniy et al., 2021c) in documenting that type of COVID-19 proxy matters in explaining the volatility (EPU) relationships in financial markets, where market perceived fear of COVID-19 is appeared to be more pronounced than health-based fear of COVID-19. Second, the use of wavelet coherence approach allows us to observe lead–lag relationship between the selected variables, which captures the heterogeneous perceptions of investors across time and frequency and have important insights for the investors and portfolio managers. Finally, this study uses the improved data of COVID-19, stock market volatility and EPU compared to the existing studies (Sharif et al., 2020), which are too early to capture the effects of exponential spread of COVID-19 in the USA and the UK after March 2020.

The purpose of this study is to investigate safe-haven properties of environmental, social and governance (ESG) stocks in global and emerging ESG stock markets during the times of COVID-19 so that portfolio managers and equity market investors could decide to use ESG stocks in their portfolio hedging strategies during times of health and market crisis similar to COVID-19 pandemic.

The study uses a wavelet coherence framework on four major ESG stock indices from global and emerging stock markets, and two proxies of COVID-19 fear over the period from 5 February 2020 to 18 March 2021.

The results of the study show a positive co-movement of the global COVID-19 fear index (GFI) with ESG stock indices on the frequency band of 32 to 64 days, which confirms hedging and safe-haven properties of ESG stocks using the health fear proxy of COVID-19. However, the relationship between all indices and GFI is mixed and inconclusive on a frequency of 0–8 days. Further, the findings do not support the safe-haven characteristics of ESG indices using the market fear proxy (IDEMV index) of COVID-19. The robustness analysis using the CBOE VIX as a proxy of market fear supports that ESG indices do not possess safe-haven properties. The results of the study conclude that the safe-haven properties of ESG indices during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is contingent upon the proxy of COVID-19 fear.

The findings have important implications for the equity investors and assetty managers to improve their portfolio performance by including ESG stocks in their portfolio choice during the COVID-19 pandemic and similar health crisis. However, their investment decisions could be affected by the choice of COVID-19 proxy.

The authors believe in the originality of the paper due to following reasons. First, to the best of the knowledge, this is the first study investigating the safe-haven properties of ESG stocks. Second, the authors use both health fear (GFI) and market fear (IDEMV index) proxies of COVID-19 to compare whether safe-haven properties are characterized by health fear or market fear due to COVID-19. Finally, the authors use the wavelet coherency framework, which not only takes both time and frequency dimensions of the data into account but also remains unaffected by data stationarity and size issues.

The purpose of this study is to investigate how changes in the firm's information disclosure practices impact the way investors process macroeconomic news. Specifically, the authors examine the role of derivative instruments and hedging activities disclosure, as required by SFAS 133, in shaping invertors response to good and bad interest rate news. In addition, the authors examine whether the effect of SFAS 133 on investors' response to good and bad interest rate news varies between firms with higher and lower earnings volatility.

This study uses data on all US public firms over the period from 1990 to 2019. The authors mainly apply multivariate regression and a difference-in-difference approach to test their hypotheses.

The results show a significant decrease in the asymmetry of responses to good and bad interest rate news for users of interest rate derivatives following the adoption of SFAS 133. However, in contrast to this finding, the authors also find that the adoption of SFAS 133 has no impact on the asymmetry of responses to good and bad interest rate news for nonusers of interest rate derivatives. Consistent with the ambiguity theory, the finding suggests that SFAS 133 indeed decreases investors’ uncertainty (ambiguity) about the cash flow implications of changes in the interest rate. The authors also find that the decrease in the asymmetry of response to good and bad interest rate news after the adoption of SFAS 133 is greater for users of interest rate derivatives with higher than lower earnings volatility. This implies that derivatives and hedging activities disclosure, as required by SFAS 133, are more important for firms with higher than lower earnings volatility. The finding is consistent with the idea that investors demand more accounting information when underlying earnings volatility is higher. In a set of additional analyses, the authors find that the effect of SFAS 133 on investors' response to good and bad interest rate news varies depending on the level of analyst coverage and interest rate exposure. Specifically, the authors find that the decrease in the asymmetry of response to good and bad interest rate news after the adoption of SFAS 133 is greater for users of interest rate derivatives with higher interest rate exposure and lower analyst coverage.

The findings of this study help market participants including regulators and standard setters to understand the impact of mandatory disclosure practices on investors' reaction to macroeconomic news. Moreover, the findings of the study help managers to understand the influence firm-specific characteristics (e.g. earnings volatility, analyst coverage and interest rates exposure) on the effectiveness of mandatory derivative instruments and hedging activities disclosure.

To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is the first paper to explore how firm-specific information environment affects the way investors process macroeconomic news. This study contributes to the literature by providing the empirical evidence that derivatives instruments and hedging activities, as required by SFAS 133, affect investors' response to good and bad interest rate news. In doing so, the results provide insights about how firm-specific information environment affects the way investors process macroeconomic news. This study shows that the cross-sectional variation in earnings volatility, analysts’ coverage and interest rate exposure affects the impact of SFAS 133 on investors' response to good and bad interest rate news. The findings are not only the notable addition to the existing literature on the topic but also can aid to market participants including policy makers, regulators, standard setters and managers to understand the influence of firm-specific characteristics on the effectiveness of mandatory derivative instruments and hedging activities disclosure. Finally, the findings contribute to the general debate about the effectiveness of SFAS 133 by showing that the adoption of SFAS 133 indeed decreases information ambiguity.

The lessons and merits of changes in the recognition and disclosure of derivative instruments and hedging activities are still debated and are a major policy issue. Prior studies provide mixed evidences on the economic consequences of mandatory derivative instruments ' recognition and disclosure. This paper aims to provide empirical evidence on the impact of mandatory derivative instruments ' recognition and disclosure on managers’ risk-management behavior. More importantly, this paper aims to investigate the role of product market competition on the impact of mandatory derivative instruments ' recognition and disclosure on managers’ risk-management behavior.

This paper tests the author ' s hypotheses using the fixed-effects estimation technique, where it includes firm dummies in all the regressions. This approach enables to control for unobserved firm effects (fixed effects) on firms’ risk-management behavior that are assumed to be constant through time but vary across firms.

The author finds that mandatory recognition and disclosure of derivative instruments and hedging activities, on average, decreases firms’ market rate risk exposure. This finding suggests that after the implementation of the recognition and disclosure of derivative instruments and hedging activities required by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 133 (SFAS 133), firms engage in more prudent risk-management activities to mitigate the potential cost of earnings volatility imposed by the standard. However, the decrease in market rate risk exposure is lower when the level of product market competition is higher. This finding is consistent with the idea that the recognition and disclosure of derivative instruments and hedging activities required by SFAS 133 unintentionally forces firms in competitive industries to engage in significant risk-taking. The result suggests that more disclosure in risk management may change risk-management incentives in undesirable ways if firms face the threat of entry in their product markets.

The results provide a new understanding on the role of product market competition on the effectiveness of mandatory derivative instruments ' recognition and disclosure. The findings imply that standard setters should take product market competition into consideration before making derivative instruments and hedging activities ' recognition and disclosure mandatory for all firms.

The paper contributes to the accounting literature by providing a new insight into the moderating role of product market competition in the accounting recognition and disclosure regulation and firms’ reporting behavior relation. Moreover, the paper extends the current literature on the effects of SFAS 133 on risk-management activities and sheds light on the impact of accounting regulations on firms’ real economic behavior.