Abstract
We examine the international impact of recent financial crises on contagion dynamics within international equity portfolios. First, we highlight the importance of macroeconomics for portfolio weighting for each region, and then we examine contagion via a structural regime-switching model and a contagion test. We also examine sources of contagion using regime variables, crisis events, and macroeconomic variables. In particular, we study the Argentine debt crisis, the US financial crisis, and the EU sovereign debt crisis. The macroeconomic variables include changes in market capitalization, trade integration, GDP growth, inflation rate, and interest rate. We also employ two classifications, one relating to the portfolio weighting scheme and another one that considers implied global and regional betas. The empirical findings reveal the existence of financial contagion for all the crises that we investigate. Both methods produce similar results. Stronger contagion is evident for global rather than regional betas. Europe is the region with the highest level of contagion and the one mostly affected by the crises. As far as macroeconomic variables are concerned, they are very important in two ways. They statistically significantly explain contagion, while they also reveal contagion under various portfolio weighting schemes. Both methods suggest that the Argentinian crisis mainly contributes to contagion. The research implications suggest that asset allocation and portfolio management should consider both the global and the regional aspects of contagion as differences can occur.
1. Introduction
The international impact of the recent financial crises raises issues concerning the contagion (integration and comovements). Financial integration offers welfare gains; it may also carry substantial risks. This becomes more evident in crises (Devereux and Yu 2020). There is a transmission of crisis effects from one market to another (see, among others, Baele and Inghelbrecht 2010). Each crisis has different causes and consequences to financial markets. (Ehrmann et al. 2011) and (Gunay and Can 2022) researched the existence of contagion and spillovers in the global financial crisis.
The global financial crisis refers to the 2008 subprime crisis starting in the United States and having global consequences for a few years (Raddant and Kenett 2021). The 2010 EU sovereign debt crisis had similar international consequences (Shen et al. 2015). Contagion in the European Union during the global financial crisis and the European debt crisis were examined via ADCC-GJR-GARCH and Markov-switching models citepALEXAKIS2018222. The role of national governments (via the evolution of macroeconomics and policy making) in the EU debt crisis was also researched (Kosmidou et al. 2019).
In line with Corbet and Goodell (2022), we also opine that both financial contagion and systemic risk pose major considerations when it comes to financial market operations, while the investigation of interconnectedness dynamics has become one of major importance. Globalization dynamics and technological advancements have resulted in increased interconnectedness across financial markets and affect investments all over the world. In this paper, we consider cross-border investments and international portfolio contagion by looking into international equity markets (i.e., 4 regions/containments, 67 countries) and by further applying weights based on a set of macroeconomic variables that affect contagion dynamics.
The present paper makes a number of contributions to the literature. It extends the empirical findings provided by Cho et al. (2015) to the international stock markets. The augmented structural factor model of Cho et al. (2015) is employed to model shifts in integration and incorporate crisis dummies. It examines sixty international stock indices from sixty respective national stock exchanges instead of firm level data. The second contribution is whether certain portfolios based on national macroeconomic variables provide different contagion evidence than others. Moreover, the paper determines the value of the stock indices, either emerging or developed, and with different values of country characteristics (macroeconomic variables), on a regional and global level.
As far as the theoretical contributions of the paper are concerned, we add to the existing literature by considering various crises periods across the globe and by adopting different portfolio frameworks. For instance, we employ different weights for portfolio construction depending on the underlying macroeconomic variable. Moreover, we show that portfolio contagion is stronger in the global rather than the regional framework. In turn we find that market capitalization is the most appropriate macroeconomic variable to use in order to reveal contagion, compared to all other macroeconomic variables. We also show that Europe is the region mostly affected by crises and that the Argentinian crisis had a very pronounced effect across global economies. In this respect, we offer fresh insights regarding contagion in international equity portfolios, and we further provide fertile ground for future research on the relevant topic.
2. Literature Review
Many scholars have recently been involved in research relating to the dynamics of contagion and financial interdependence. For instance, Corbet and Goodell (2022) stress the importance of investigating interconnectedness dynamics across firms, industries, and markets and provide evidence by considering reputational contagion. Furthermore, Corbet et al. (2022) offer valuable insights with regard to contagion dynamics by looking into the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for stock market performance. In turn, Bouzzine and Lueg (2020) look into the impact of contagion dynamics stemming from environmental violations on the stock market performance.
Different methods have been employed to study contagion in financial crises. A part of the literature employed the DCC-GARCH methodology to quantify the impact of a global financial crisis in the interdependence of the markets (Nguyen et al. 2022). The literature has also employed a Markov-switching Bayesian vector autoregression (MSBVAR) model to research contagion for the global financial crisis (Troug and Murray 2021). It is expected that a trade-off emerges between the probability of crises and the severity of crises (Devereux and Yu 2020). The importance of national or regional exposures to contagion was evident and increased due to the global financial crisis, however. These effects have not been researched a lot in the literature. There was evidence for the banking sector, however (Park and Shin 2020), as well as in equity markets (Trihadmini and Falinaty 2020).
Another stream of the literature examined the role of macroeconomics in the international impact of the recent financial crises in contagion (Jiang et al. 2022). The Mexican and Asian crises, originating in emerging markets, were considered to have mostly a regional impact, whereas the recent US and EU debt crises had a global impact. The global impact of global financial crisis and the European sovereign debt crisis were examined in BenSaïda and Litimi (2021). They found an increased degree of dependence for each crisis, suggesting strong evidence of contagion for both the global financial crisis and EU sovereign debt crisis. The strong impacts depend on the role of macroeconomics. This is because controlling the impact of macro variables that capture real or financial linkages on stock correlations is crucial for determining market overreactions to shocks (Pineda et al. 2022).
The internationalization of the impact of the financial crises was expressed in both trading as well as asset allocation. The literature examined such impact for the recent global and EU financial crises in an asset allocation framework. Such regional and global impacts affect portfolio diversification and asset allocation. Financial crises create international portfolio diversification opportunities as the extent of the contagion increases (Akhtaruzzaman et al. 2014). Cho et al. (2015) examined whether crises have different effects on style portfolios. Others researched international contagion (the transmission of financial shocks internationally) for US downturns and the global financial crisis (Akhtaruzzaman and Shamsuddin 2016). The literature attempted to conceptualize this impact in a portfolio framework (e.g., Shen and Li 2020).
The methodology employed is a regime-switching GARCH model in accordance with a world–regional–local CAPM, similar to Cho et al. (2015) and Baele and Inghelbrecht (2010). More of the recent studies include Shruthi and Shijin (2020), Dua and Tuteja (2021), and Bouker and Mansouri (2022), among others. This is a joint hypothesis problem of an appropriate factor specification of comovements. Moreover, Baele and Inghelbrecht (2010) and Ehrmann et al. (2011) contagion tests are employed to discover whether international equity portfolios experienced contagion effects through increased comovements during periods of financial crises. Ehrmann et al. (2011) examined the additional impact on comovement represented by a multi-factor model with global, regional, and country factors. The US and EU financial crises are expected to have a high global impact in international equity portfolios. Cho et al. (2015) found signs of contagion with a global impact for the US crisis (also evident in Bekiros 2014; Dungey and Gajurel 2014). Cho et al. (2015) also found a regional impact for the Mexican and Asian crises (also evident in Ehrmann et al. 2011), and a limited impact for the EU debt crisis. Similar evidence is expected for the international equity portfolios in the present paper.
3. Dataset
The dataset begins on 3 January 2000 and ends on 31 December 2016, for a total of 4264 trading days. All of the data have been extracted from Datastream. We have employed data only up to 2016, because we targeted only the examination of financial crises. A wider dataset should have included data within the COVID-19 pandemic. This would have affected our results, as the literature provided evidence that COVID-19 affected contagion (Akhtaruzzaman et al. 2021). After cleaning the dataset for common trading days in an international setting; the trading days were reduced to 3906. All of the stock market data are in US dollars. Table 1 reveals the countries (split in regions/continents) and their respective stock exchanges and indices. The symbols, as well as the regional and global weights based on trade integration, GDP, and stock market capitalization, are also provided. In terms of trade integration, the Americas and Europe have the highest and lowest weightings, respectively. In terms of GDP, USA and Africa have the highest and lowest weightings, respectively. In terms of stock market capitalization, Europe and Africa have the highest and lowest weightings, respectively. We may conclude that USA and Europe are the regions with the highest portfolio weightings. The region with the lowest portfolio weightings is Africa. Sixty-seven countries are researched across four regions.1
Table 1.
Description of the dataset.
The countries selected are the countries with the most significant economies and stock markets in their regions/continents. The three financial crisis periods, following Cho et al. (2015), are: the Argentine debt crisis (1 December 2001–29 November 2002), the US financial crisis (18 July 2007–27 August 2009), and the EU debt crisis (8 December 2010–31 December 2011). Table 1 also reveals the regional (local) and the international significance of each country’s trade integration, gross domestic product (GDP), inflation rate, interest rate, and stock market capitalization of each country. A quarterly or monthly macro data series is retrieved by the Economic Outlook Database of the International Monetary Fund. For quarterly data, a linear interpolation based on the monthly ones is implemented.2
Table 2 presents the portfolio descriptive statistics. In terms of average portfolio values, the Americas and Europe have the highest values. In terms of portfolio standard deviations, Africa and Europe have the lowest values. In terms of portfolio Sharpe ratios, Europe and Asia have the highest values. In terms of cumulative return, the Americas with Europe second have the highest values, across all portfolio types. Regarding the overall portfolio performance by considering all portfolio descriptive estimates; Europe first and the Americas second are the best performers, with Africa last. By comparing portfolio types, the market capitalization seems to provide the best portfolio weighting scheme in terms of portfolio performance.
Table 2.
Portfolio performance.
4. Methods
4.1. Structural Regime-Switching Factor Model
The present paper employs the Cho et al. (2015) structural regime-switching factor model in an asset (non-portfolio) CAPM model. The present paper’s model, as employed in Cho et al. (2015), concerns regional and international results and targets to capture key stylized facts like time varying betas, volatility clustering, volatility regimes, financial crises, and structural economic variables.
where is the excess return on country i with its time-varying mean (expected return); is the regional market return; is the global market shock (); is the country specific idiosyncratic shock; is the regional market shock (obtained from the regression );
Time varying betas are explained from both structural economics variables, a regime variable, and crisis dummies.
where and are the time-varying exposures of country i to the world and regional shocks; is a latent regime variable different for each country; are structural variables like trade integration (TI), gross domestic product (GDP), and stock market capitalization (MC) that are regionally or internationally aggregated; is a crisis dummy variable.
Following the specifications of Cho et al. (2015), the regional shocks are estimated by an asymmetric GARCH(1,1) t-student model, and the world (global) shocks by a regime-switching asymmetric GARCH(1,1) Normal model, respectively.
The model is estimated in three steps: First, the world shock is estimated; second, the regional shock is computed using the first step’s world shock, and finally, the full model is estimated for each country.
4.2. Contagion Test
Ehrmann et al. (2011) consider contagion as the excess comovement beyond fundamental linkages and suggest the following test for contagion:
where is the estimated idiosyncratic return shocks of portfolio i, is a crisis dummy variable, and captures the contagion crisis effect.
5. Empirical Findings and Discussion
Empirical findings concern (i) the portfolio performance (different measures); (ii) the stylized facts of volatility regimes, financial crises, and structural economics variables (in a structural regime-switching model); and (iii) the contagion test (following Ehrmann et al. 2011) results.
5.1. Portfolio Performance
In the present subsection, the results concern the portfolio time-varying betas. These are indicated by the implied global and implied regional betas (see Table 3). They are also reported for various portfolio weighting schemes (market capitalization, trade integration, GDP, inflation, and interest rates). In terms of implied global betas, the highest and lowest concern Botswana and the United Arab Emirates. An interesting result is that the countries in the Americas have low average values of implied global betas. It is also noticeable that most of the countries, even in Africa or Asia, that should have been expected to have exceptionally high global betas did not. All regions had average implied global betas compatible with most of the countries of other regions; with the single exception of Africa. Moreover, there is a lot of dispersion among countries of the same region. This is why we provided the average implied regional betas.
Table 3.
Average implied global and regional betas.
Next, the average implied regional betas indicate the relative market risk of national stock indices within the region they belong to, and these are reported for various portfolio types (i.e., portfolio weighting schemes). Africa first with the Americas second are the regions where most of their regional countries have high implied regional betas. Europe has the lowest. The results are robust across most of the portfolio weighting schemes. A single exception is trade integration, for which the implied regional betas change a lot, with most of the countries having average implied regional betas higher than 1.
5.2. Stylized Facts
Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7, as well as, Table 8, report the estimated coefficients for all types of international equity portfolios. The results from such a model are retrieved regionally and internationally and concern the stylized facts of volatility regimes, financial crises, and structural macroeconomic variables. The differences between the portfolio types are signified via their differences in the magnitude and statistical significance of the coefficients in the structural regime-switching factor models. The magnitude and statistical significance results are not contradictory. This is why we mostly concentrate on statistical significance.
Table 4.
Structural regime-switching factor model on market-capitalization-based portfolios.
Table 5.
Structural regime-switching factor model on trade-integration-based portfolios.
Table 6.
Structural regime-switching factor model on GDP-based portfolios.
Table 7.
Structural regime-switching factor model on inflation-rate-based portfolios.
Table 8.
Structural regime-switching factor model on interest-rate-based portfolios.
The statistical significance in the structural regime-switching factor model is high for both global and regional betas. This result concerns all regions and most of the portfolio weighting schemes.
The single exception was market capitalization, for which the results for most of regions were statistically significant only for regional betas. This exception concerns the statistical significance of all coefficients (regime variables, crises, and macroeconomic variables) and the overall model significance (adjusted R-squared and F-test).
The following results concern most portfolio weighting schemes. By considering the majority of the countries within a region with statistically significant latent regime variables. Regarding crisis-coefficients (ARG, US, and EU), Europe was affected by all crises, Africa was affected only by the US crisis, the Americas region was affected by the Argentinian and US crises, and Asia was affected mostly by the Argentinian and US crises (and in some weighting schemes, from the EU crisis as well). The macroeconomic variables indicated a significantly greater affect (where most of the countries had statistically significant macro-coefficients (MC, TI, GDP, INF, INT)) for all regions, as well as for all portfolio weighting schemes (the single exception is the market capitalization scheme for global betas). The overall significance (F-stat) was impressively high and was mostly concentrated on the Americas and Europe. The adjusted R-squared values are not impressively high, however.
5.3. Contagion Test
Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12, as well as Table 13, report the Ehrmann et al. (2011) contagion test results of all international equity portfolios while splitting them between the implied global and implied regional betas. The differences between the portfolio types are signified via their differences in the magnitude and statistical significance of the coefficients in the structural regime switching factor models. The magnitude and statistical significance results are not contradictory. This is why we mostly concentrate on statistical significance. The contagion effect is assessed by the coefficient, whereas the contagion from each crisis is indicated by the (Arg cr., US cr., and EU cr.) coefficients. They are all reported in Table 5A–E.
Table 9.
Ehrmann et al. (2011) contagion test on market-capitalization-based portfolios.
Table 10.
Ehrmann et al. (2011) contagion test on trade-integration-based portfolios.
Table 11.
Ehrmann et al. (2011) contagion test on GDP-based portfolios.
Table 12.
Ehrmann et al. (2011) contagion test on inflation-rate-based portfolios.
Table 13.
Ehrmann et al. (2011) contagion test on Interest Rate-based portfolios.
The most important result of the Ehrmann et al. (2011) contagion test was the indication of strong contagion. There were 3–4 regions with most of their countries having statistically significant contagion. This result holds for all portfolio weighting schemes. Specifically, across the portfolio weighting schemes, the presence of contagion was evident in all regions (in descending order): Europe (7 cases), Asia (5 cases), the Americas (3 cases), and Africa (2 cases). Furthermore, across all regions, the presence of contagion was evident in all portfolio weighting schemes (in a descending order): MC, GDP, and INT first with 4 cases per each scheme and TI and INF with 3 cases per each scheme. Moreover, across all regions and portfolio weighting schemes, the implied global betas had stronger indications of contagion compared to the implied regional betas (11 compared to 7 cases).
Overall, there was no strong evidence in favor of crises causing contagion on a regional level with either global or regional implied betas. There were many countries from all regions with statistically significant crisis-coefficients, however, on a country level. The Argentinian crisis was the crisis that affected mostly contagion, with EU second and US third. The Argentinian crisis caused contagion in three cases: in Africa (on trade-integration- and GDP-based portfolios for implied global betas) and Asia (on trade-integration-based portfolios for implied regional betas). The EU crisis was responsible for contagion in a few cases only: in Africa (on inflation-rate- and interest-rate-based portfolios for the implied global betas) and the Americas (on trade-integration-based portfolios for implied regional betas). The US crisis was responsible for contagion in a single case only: in the Americas on GDP-based portfolios for implied global betas.
6. Concluding Remarks
The Americas and Europe had the highest portfolio weights across the weighting schemes. Furthermore, they were the regions with the best portfolio performance across the portfolio weighting schemes. The market capitalization was the best portfolio weighting scheme in terms of portfolio performance. It revealed the inter-relation of market capitalization (via liquidity) that drives portfolio performance. For the average values of the implied global betas, Europe and Africa were the regions with the lowest and highest dispersion in either implied global or implied regional betas across regional countries. The results in average implied global or regional betas are robust across most of the portfolio weighting schemes. The single exception is the trade integration portfolio weighting scheme, for which both the implied global and regional betas increased across all regions and all countries.
The structural regime-switching factor model revealed strong evidence of contagion across all regions, portfolio types, and for both global and regional betas. Regime variables, crises variables, and macroeconomic variables revealed contagion (were statistically significant). Europe was the region that was mostly affected by the crises. The macroeconomic variables statistically significantly explained betas. Moreover, the overall model significance was high. The Argentinian crisis first and the US crisis second mostly affected contagion across all regions and portfolio types, as well as both global and regional implied betas.
The Ehrmann et al. (2011) contagion test revealed strong contagion across all regions and portfolio types (weighting schemes) and for both global and regional betas. Europe was the region with the strongest evidence of contagion. Stronger contagion was evident for the implied global rather than regional betas. There was no strong evidence of crisis contagion on a regional level. There was on a country level, however. The Argentinian crisis was the most contagion influential crisis, however.
The research implications suggest that asset allocation and portfolio management should consider both the global and the regional aspect of contagion, as differences can occur. In addition, portfolio construction should involve a careful consideration of the underlying impact of the macroeconomic variables considered in this study, as some macroeconomic variables appear to reveal contagion better than others. Finally, it is also important to consider which macroeconomic variable is mainly affected by a given crisis event in order to better understand the impact of contagion on portfolio performance. It is also evident that market capitalization is a very important macroeconomic variable to consider in both the Americas and Europe as it leads to both stronger contagion and portfolio performance. Finally, trade integration is a more important variable to consider in emerging economies.
Turning to the limitations and the future work related to the study, indeed, important events that happened in the years following 2016 cannot be captured; this is due to the data availability at present. Nonetheless, we intend to investigate more recent events in the near future in order to further include events such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia–Ukrainian war.
These results should be considered by investors and risk managers. The use of macroeconomic variables as the main driver of a portfolio weighting scheme reveals their importance in asset allocation. This is true on both the international and regional levels. Higher importance comes for the regional portfolios as the dispersion of results is higher on a regional than international level.
Author Contributions
C.F.: project administration, supervision, formal analysis, writing—original draft, D.V.: conceptualization, methods, data curation, formal analysis, writing—original draft, I.C.: supervision, validation, formal analysis, writing—original draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The data can be available upon request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Notes
| 1 | (i) Americas: Argentina (ARG), Brazil (BRA), Canada (CAN), Chile (CHL), Colombia (COL), Jamaica (JAM), Mexico (MEX), Panama (PAN), Peru (PER), United States of America (USA) and Venezuela (VEN); (ii) Asia: Australia (AUS), Bangladesh (BGD), China (CHN), Hong Kong SA (HKG), India (IND), Indonesia (IDN), Israel (ISR), Japan (JPN), Jordan (JOR), Malaysia (MYS), New Zealand (NZL), Oman (OMN), Pakistan (PAK), Philippines (PHL), Saudi Arabia (SAU), Singapore (SGP), South Korea (KOR), Taiwan Province of China (TWN), Thailand (THA), and United Arab Emirates (ARE); (iii) Europe: Austria (AUT), Belgium (BEL), Bulgaria (BGR), Croatia (CRO), Cyprus (CYP), Czech Republic (CZE), Denmark (DEN), Estonia (EST), Finland (FIN), France (FRA), Germany (DEU), Greece (GRC), Hungary (HUN), Ireland (IRL), Italy (ITA), Latvia (LVA), Lithuania (LTU), Luxembourg (LUX), Malta (MLT), Netherlands (NLD), Norway (NOR), Portugal (PRT), Romania (ROU), Russia (RUS), Slovak Republic (SVK), Spain (ESP), Sweden (SWE), Switzerland (CHE), Turkey (TUR), Ukraine (UKR), and United Kingdom (GBR); and (iv) Africa: Botswana (BWA), Egypt (EGY), Kenya (KEN), Mauritius (MUS), and South Africa (ZAF). |
| 2 | Trade integration is measured as the ratio of international trade (import plus exports) of a country over the country’s GDP. |
References
- Akhtaruzzaman, Md, and Abul Shamsuddin. 2016. International contagion through financial versus non-financial firms. Economic Modelling 59: 143–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akhtaruzzaman, Md, Abul Shamsuddin, and Steve Easton. 2014. Dynamic correlation analysis of spill-over effects of interest rate risk and return on australian and us financial firms. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money 31: 378–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akhtaruzzaman, Md, Sabri Boubaker, and Ahmet Sensoy. 2021. Financial contagion during covid–19 crisis. Finance Research Letters 38: 101604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baele, Lieven, and Koen Inghelbrecht. 2010. Time-varying integration, interdependence and contagion. Journal of International Money and Finance 29: 791–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bekiros, Stelios D. 2014. Contagion, decoupling and the spillover effects of the us financial crisis: Evidence from the bric markets. International Review of Financial Analysis 33: 58–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BenSaïda, Ahmed, and Houda Litimi. 2021. Financial contagion across g10 stock markets: A study during major crises. International Journal of Finance and Economics 26: 4798–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouker, Sawsen, and Faysal Mansouri. 2022. Sovereign contagion risk measure across financial markets in the eurozone: A bivariate copulas and markov regime switching arma based approaches. Review of World Economics 158: 615–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouzzine, Yassin Denis, and Rainer Lueg. 2020. The contagion effect of environmental violations: The case of dieselgate in germany. Business Strategy and the Environment 29: 3187–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, Sungjun, Stuart Hyde, and Ngoc Nguyen. 2015. Time-varying regional and global integration and contagion: Evidence from style portfolios. International Review of Financial Analysis 42: 109–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbet, Shaen, and John W. Goodell. 2022. The reputational contagion effects of ransomware attacks. Finance Research Letters 47: 102715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corbet, Shaen, Yang (Greg) Hou, Yang Hu, and Les Oxley. 2022. Financial contagion among covid-19 concept-related stocks in china. Applied Economics 54: 2439–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Devereux, Michael B., and Changhua Yu. 2020. International financial integration and crisis contagion. The Review of Economic Studies 87: 1174–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dua, Pami, and Divya Tuteja. 2021. Regime shifts in the behaviour of international currency and equity markets: A markov-switching analysis. Journal of Quantitative Economics 19: 309–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Dungey, Mardi, and Dinesh Gajurel. 2014. Equity market contagion during the global financial crisis: Evidence from the world’s eight largest economies. Economic Systems 38: 161–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ehrmann, Michael, Marcel Fratzscher, Arnaud Mehl, and Geert Bekaert. 2011. Global Crises and Equity Market Contagion. Working Paper Series 1381. Frankfurt: European Central Bank. [Google Scholar]
- Gunay, Samet, and Gokberk Can. 2022. The source of financial contagion and spillovers: An evaluation of the covid-19 pandemic and the global financial crisis. PLoS ONE 17: e0261835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jiang, Hai, Shenfeng Tang, Lifang Li, Fangming Xu, and Qian Di. 2022. Re-examining the contagion channels of global financial crises: Evidence from the twelve years since the us subprime crisis. Research in International Business and Finance 60: 101617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kosmidou, Kyriaki, Dimitrios Kousenidis, Anestis Ladas, and Christos Negkakis. 2019. Do institutions prevent contagion in financial markets? evidence from the european debt crisis. The European Journal of Finance 25: 632–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, Thi Ngan, Thi Kieu Hoa Phan, and Thanh Liem Nguyen. 2022. Financial contagion during global financial crisis and covid–19 pandemic: The evidence from dcc–garch model. Cogent Economics & Finance 10: 2051824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, Cyn-Young, and Kwanho Shin. 2020. Contagion through national and regional exposures to foreign banks during the global financial crisis. Journal of Financial Stability 46: 100721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pineda, Julián, Lina M. Cortés, and Javier Perote. 2022. Financial contagion drivers during recent global crises. Economic Modelling 117: 106067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raddant, Matthias, and Dror Y. Kenett. 2021. Interconnectedness in the global financial market. Journal of International Money and Finance 110: 102280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Peilong, and Zhinan Li. 2020. Financial contagion in inter-bank networks with overlapping portfolios. Journal of Economics and International Cooperation 15: 845–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Pei-Long, Wen Li, Xiao-Ting Wang, and Chi-Wei Su. 2015. Contagion effect of the european financial crisis on china’s stock markets: Interdependence and pure contagion. Economic Modelling 50: 193–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shruthi, Rajan, and Santhakumar Shijin. 2020. Investigating liquidity constraints as a channel of contagion: A regime switching approach. Financial Innovation 6: 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trihadmini, Nuning, and Telisa Aulia Falinaty. 2020. Stock market contagion and spillover effects of the global financial crisis on five asean countries. Institutions and Economies 12: 91–119. [Google Scholar]
- Troug, Haitem, and Matt Murray. 2021. Crisis determination and financial contagion: An analysis of the hong kong and tokyo stock markets using an msbvar approach. Journal of Economic Studies 48: 1548–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).