2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2021.07.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Forecasting European carbon returns using dimension reduction techniques: Commodity versus financial fundamentals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 87 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, the 13 financial indicators and 25 commodity indicators are selected from previous typical literature where these indicators show considerable predictive power in carbon price forecasting. The 13 financial indicators include secondary market interest rates for 3-month Treasury bill, 10-year national bond rate [ 9 ], S&P 500 index, Dow Jones Composite Index, Shanghai Composite Index, Shenzhen Composite Index, 5-Year Bond Index Yield, WilderHill New Energy Global Innovation Index (NEX), WilderHill Clean Energy Index (CEI) [ 10 ], AAA-rated corporate bond spreads, daily spread of 1-year Treasury bill and 10-year government bond [ 11 ], USD/CNY and China’s Economic Policy Uncertainty Index [ 12 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Moreover, the 13 financial indicators and 25 commodity indicators are selected from previous typical literature where these indicators show considerable predictive power in carbon price forecasting. The 13 financial indicators include secondary market interest rates for 3-month Treasury bill, 10-year national bond rate [ 9 ], S&P 500 index, Dow Jones Composite Index, Shanghai Composite Index, Shenzhen Composite Index, 5-Year Bond Index Yield, WilderHill New Energy Global Innovation Index (NEX), WilderHill Clean Energy Index (CEI) [ 10 ], AAA-rated corporate bond spreads, daily spread of 1-year Treasury bill and 10-year government bond [ 11 ], USD/CNY and China’s Economic Policy Uncertainty Index [ 12 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The 25 commodity indicators include ICE-UK natural gas continuous futures price (UKGP), Asia gas price (JKM), S&P GSCI Gas oil index excess return (GGO) [ 10 ], ICE-coal Rotterdam continuous futures price (GP), ICE-Brent crude oil continuous futures price (BOP) [ 13 ], S&P GSCI Crude oil index excess return (GCO), EUA price, China Electricity Price index and 17 S&P GSCI non-energy commodity indexes (GGOL, GSIL, GALU, GCOP, GLEA, GNIC, GZIN, GCOC, Gcof, Gcor, GCOT, Gsoy, Gsug, Gwhe, GFC, GLH, GLC) [ 14 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Third, weekly prices/returns capture dynamic prices better than daily and monthly data, thus considering that daily data may induce potential biases arising from bid–ask effects, nonsynchronous trading days and the effects of illiquidity on asset prices. Meanwhile, monthly data may be subject to effects derived from time aggregation and compensation effects (Kang et al, 2017; Tan et al, 2022). Thus, our sample comprises 582 weekly observations.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…">Data collection Carbon and oil prices are proxied by the Intercontinental Exchange‐Carbon Emission Allowances (ICE‐EUA) Phase 3 Futures contract and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) prices, respectively, downloaded from the Bloomberg platform for the period between 7/12/2012 and 01/26/2024. As proposed by Zhao et al (2018), Xu et al (2020) and Tan et al (2022), we employ weekly data considering the following reasons. First, the main traders in the carbon markets are focused on long horizon carbon price changes because it enables them to optimise their trading strategies.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…. In addition, the 13 financial indicators and 25 commodity indicators are chosen from previous literature, which shows considerable predictive power in carbon price forecasting [30][31][32][33][34][35]. The details of the financial indicators and commodity indicators are described in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%