Search results

The empirical studies of the options market efficiency have reported contradictory results, which sometimes confuse practitioners and academicians. The aim of this study was to clarify several aspects of options market efficiency by exploring the answers to two main questions: Under what conditions is the options market more efficient? Are the discrepancies in the estimated efficiency due to the reality of efficiency or mismeasurement?

Using a meta-analysis approach, 54 studies have been analyzed, which included 1,315 tests. The sum of the observations for all of the tests is 3.7 m observation sets. The effect size (type r) has been used to compare the different statistics in different studies. The cumulative effect size and its diversification have been calculated by the random effects model and Q statistic, respectively.

The most interesting finding of the study was that the options market, in all circumstances, is significantly inefficient. Another important finding was that the heterogeneity of options market efficiency is due to the complexity of pricing relations, test time, violation index and price type. To overcome this heterogeneity and accuracy, future studies should test the no-arbitrage options pricing relations at different times and by different price types, using complex and simple pricing relations and either mean violation or violation ratio efficiency measures.

Public disagreement about the options market efficiency in past studies means that this variable is heterogeneous in different conditions. As a significant contribution, this study develops the literature by proposing the causes of options market efficiency heterogeneity.

The purpose of this paper is to fill the momentous gap by explicitly investigating the asymmetric effects of monetary policy (MP) on non-bank financial intermediation (NBFI) assets.

The authors utilized panel data from 29 countries for the period of 2012–2020 and used the quantile regression estimation. In addition to simultaneous quantile regression (SQR), the authors also employ quantile regression with clustered data (Parente and Silva, 2016) and the generalized quantile regression (GQR) method (Powell, 2020).

The empirical results show a significant heterogeneous impact of MP. While there is a positive relationship between MP and NBFI assets (“waterbed effect”) at lower quantiles of NBFI assets, at middle and higher quantiles, MP has a negative impact on NBFI assets (“search for yield” effect). The authors further find that negative impact strengthens as the quantile levels of NBFI assets rise from mid to high. Findings also reveal that “procyclicality” (except higher quantile) and “institutional demand” hypotheses hold. However, regarding “regulatory arbitrage,” mixed results are observed indicating the impact of Basel III requirements.

Previous empirical studies have concentrated on either the Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) framework or conditional mean regression approaches and delivered mixed findings of the MP effects on NBFI. The current paper takes a step toward dealing with this issue by deploying quantile regression methodology, which shows the impact of MP on NBFI at different conditional distributions (quantiles) of NBFI assets instead of just NBFI's conditional mean distribution.

The existing literature offers various perspectives on integrating cryptocurrencies into investment portfolios; yet, there is a gap in understanding the behaviours, attitudes and cross-investment links of individual investors. This study, grounded in the modern portfolio theory and the random walk theory, aims to add empirical insights that are specific to the UK context. It explores four hypotheses related to the influence of socio-demographics, digital adoption, cross-investment behaviours and financial attitudes on cryptocurrency owners.

This study uses a logistic regression model with secondary data from the Financial Lives Survey 2020 to assess the factors impacting cryptocurrency ownership. A total of 29 variables are used, categorized into four groups aligned with the hypotheses. Additionally, hierarchical clustering analysis was conducted to further explore the cross-investment links.

The study reveals a significant lack of diversification among UK cryptocurrency investors, a pronounced inclination towards high-risk investments such as peer-to-peer lending and crowdfunding, and parallels with gambling behaviours, including financial dissatisfaction and a propensity for risk-taking. It highlights the influence of demographic traits, risk tolerance, technological literacy and emotional attitudes on cryptocurrency investment decisions.

This study provides valuable insights into cryptocurrency regulation and retail investor protection, underscoring the necessity for tailored financial education and a holistic regulatory approach for investment products with comparable risk levels, with the aim of minimizing regulatory arbitrage. It significantly enhances our understanding of the unique dynamics of cryptocurrency investments within the evolving financial landscape.

The primary objective of this research is to provide evidence that there are two distinct layers of investor sentiments that can affect asset valuation models. The first is general market-wide sentiments, while the second is biased approaches toward specific assets.

To achieve the goal, the authors conducted a multi-step analysis of stock returns and constructed complex sentiment indices that reflect the optimism or pessimism of stock market participants. The authors used panel regression with fixed effects and a sample of the US stock market to improve the explanatory power of the three-factor models.

The analysis showed that both market-level and stock-level sentiments have significant contributions, although they are not equal. The impact of stock-level sentiments is more profound than market-level sentiments, suggesting that neglecting the stock-level sentiment proxies in asset valuation models may lead to severe deficiencies.

In contrast to previous studies, the authors propose that investor sentiments should be measured using a multi-level factor approach rather than a single-factor approach. The authors identified two distinct levels of investor sentiment: general market-wide sentiments and individual stock-specific sentiments.