安全投资转移视角下的跨行业投资组合模型及实证

doi:10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2020.11.002

中国管理科学 ›› 2020, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (11): 12-22.doi: 10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2020.11.002

安全投资转移视角下的跨行业投资组合模型及实证

金秀, 尘娜, 王佳

东北大学工商管理学院, 辽宁沈阳 110169

收稿日期:2018-01-19 修回日期:2018-04-08 出版日期:2020-11-20 发布日期:2020-12-01
通讯作者: 尘娜(1992-),女(汉族),山东菏泽人,东北大学工商管理学院,博士研究生,研究方向:金融工程与风险管理,E-mail:chen1992na@163.com. E-mail:chen1992na@163.com.
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金资助项目（71571041，71601040）

Empirical Study on Cross-industry Asset Allocation Model under the Perspective of Flight-to-quality

JIN Xiu, CHEN Na, WANG Jia

School of Business Administration, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110169, China

Received:2018-01-19 Revised:2018-04-08 Online:2020-11-20 Published:2020-12-01

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 投资者根据市场状态变化和板块轮动效应进行安全投资转移，使得资金在行业间流动，导致风险溢出。本文首次从投资者安全投资转移行为的角度对行业间风险溢出进行研究，采用大规模股票与小规模股票的订单流差异量化安全投资转移。利用状态依赖下的敏感性VaR模型（SDSVaR）衡量行业间风险溢出效应的方向和大小，进一步考虑板块轮动效应，构建跨行业投资组合模型，分析行业间风险溢出和板块轮动效应对资产配置的影响。研究发现：状态依赖下的安全投资转移显著影响行业间联动性和风险溢出；考虑行业间风险溢出的资产配置模型能够分散非系统性风险的同时降低截面维度系统性风险，提高投资者的收益，有效地规避极端风险，可以为投资者的风险管理和投资决策提供有价值的参考。

关键词: 投资组合, 安全投资转移, 风险溢出, 板块轮动, 状态依赖

Abstract: Investors' flight-to-quality behavior results in the flow of funds between industries based to market regime switching and sector rotation. Furfine (2003) divides systemic risk into two dimensions. First, the time dimension. External shock impacts all industries at the same time, leading to time dimension systemic risk. The shock accumulates over time and closely related to macroeconomic cycle. Second, the cross-sectional dimension. When external shock impacts one industry, the flight-to-quality behavior of investors will transfer funds from the industry to other industries, which will in turn cause cross-industry risk spillover. Cross-industry risk spillover contributes to the risk of an industry as a systematic risk of cross-sectional dimension, thus it is necessary to consider the effect of cross-industry risk spillover on asset allocation.
The cross-industry risk spillover from the perspective of investors' flight-to-quality behavior is studied in this paper. The order flow differential (OFD), constructed as the difference between large- and small-cap stock order flows, is used to measure flight-to-quality behavior.Flight-to-quality behavior causes cross-industry co-movement and risk spillover. The State-Dependent SensitivityVaR model (SDSVaR) is used to quantify risk spillovers among sets of different industries. Based on this, the cross-industry portfolio model with further consideration of sector rotation effect is constructed.
It is shown that investors' flight-to-quality behavior significantly affectscross-industry co-movement and risk spillover. The portfolio model that considers risk spillover among industries can disperse non-systemic risk and reduce the systemic risk of cross-section dimension, and effectively avoid extreme risk. In addition, considering regime switching and sector rotation in asset allocation can resist market risks and increase investment return. The study on risk spillover and sector rotation in cross-industry portfolio optimization provides valuable reference for investors and regulators.

Key words: asset allocation, flight-to-quality, risk spillover, sector rotation, regime-dependent

中图分类号:

金秀, 尘娜, 王佳. 安全投资转移视角下的跨行业投资组合模型及实证[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(11): 12-22.

JIN Xiu, CHEN Na, WANG Jia. Empirical Study on Cross-industry Asset Allocation Model under the Perspective of Flight-to-quality[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2020, 28(11): 12-22.

参考文献

[1] Hamilton J D. A new approach to the economic analysis of nonstationary time series and the business cycle[J]. Econometrica, 1989, 57(2):357-384.
[2] Tu J. Is regime switching in stock returns important in portfolio decisions?[J]. Management Science, 2010, 56(7):1198-1215.
[3] Connolly R, Stivers C, Sun L. Stock market uncertainty and the stock-bond return relation[J]. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 2005, 40(1):161-194.
[4] Furfine C H. Interbank exposures:Quantifying the risk of contagion[J]. Journal of Money Credit and Banking, 2003, 35(1):111-128.
[5] Cho J, Choi J H, Kim T, et al. Flight-to-quality and correlation between currency and stock returns[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance, 2016, 62:191-212.
[6] Bethke S, Gehde-Trapp M, Kempf A. Investor sentiment, flight-to-quality, and corporate bond comovement[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance, 2017, 82:112-132.
[7] Kaul A, Kayacetin N V. Flight-to-quality, economic fundamentals, and stock returns[J]. Journal of Banking and Finance, 2017, 80:162-175.
[8] Upper C. Using counterfactual simulations to assess the danger of contagion in interbank markets[R]. Working Paper,Monetary and Economic Department, 2007.
[9] Adrian T, Brunnermeier M K. CoVaR[J]. American Economic Review, 2016, 106(7):1705-1741.
[10] Adams Z, Füss R, Gropp R. Spillover effects among financial institutions:A state-dependent sensitivity Value-at-Risk approach[J]. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 2014, 49(3):575-598.
[11] Ang A, Bekaert G. International asset allocation with regime shifts[J]. Review of Financial Studies, 2002, 15(4):1137-1187.
[12] 彭红枫, 陈奕. 中国铜期货市场最优套期保值比率估计——基于马尔科夫区制转移GARCH模型[J]. 中国管理科学, 2015, 23(5):14-22.
[13] Stovall S. Standard &Poor's guide to sector investing[M]. US:McGraw-Hill, 1995.
[14] 叶五一, 谭轲祺, 缪柏其. 基于动态因子Copula模型的行业间系统性风险分析[J]. 中国管理科学, 2018, 26(3):1-12.
[15] Lee C M C, Ready M J. Inferring trade direction from intraday data[J]. Journal of Finance, 1991, 46(2):733-746.
[16] Guidolin M, Liu H. Ambiguity aversion and under-diversification[J]. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 2016, 51(4):1297-1323.

安全投资转移视角下的跨行业投资组合模型及实证

Empirical Study on Cross-industry Asset Allocation Model under the Perspective of Flight-to-quality

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 15

Metrics

本文评价

推荐阅读 10

[1]	金博轶, 闫庆悦, 于文广. 养老金统筹账户与个人账户最优组合策略研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(2): 48-57.
[2]	刘维奇, 张燕. 资产定价与劳动成本占比[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(12): 1-11.
[3]	费为银, 张繁红, 杨晓光. 通胀对高管的股权激励和工作努力策略的影响[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(11): 1-11.
[4]	朱鹏飞, 唐勇, 钟莉. 基于小波-高阶矩模型的投资组合策略——以国际原油市场为例[J]. 中国管理科学, 2020, 28(10): 24-35.
[5]	郭范勇, 潘和平. 基于β系数优化的动态投资组合策略研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2019, 27(7): 1-10.
[6]	姚鸿, 王超, 何建敏, 李亮. 银行投资组合多元化与系统性风险的关系研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2019, 27(2): 9-18.
[7]	李爱忠, 汪寿阳, 彭月兰. 考虑随机利率和通货膨胀的连续时间资产组合选择[J]. 中国管理科学, 2019, 27(2): 61-70.
[8]	周忠宝, 任甜甜, 肖和录, 吴士健, LIU Wenbin. 基于相对财富效用的多阶段投资组合博弈模型[J]. 中国管理科学, 2019, 27(1): 34-43.
[9]	彭子衿, 徐维军. 基于股价预测的泛证券投资组合策略[J]. 中国管理科学, 2018, 26(9): 1-10.
[10]	王建建, 何枫, 吴子轩, 陈丽莉. 改进区间可接受度的证券投资组合区间二次规划模型[J]. 中国管理科学, 2018, 26(9): 11-18.
[11]	谭浩, 吴卫星. 股东为什么在解禁后会减持股票?——基于背景风险分析的股票解禁效应研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2018, 26(7): 9-17.
[12]	凌爱凡, 陈骁阳. 嵌入GARCH波动率估计的B1ack-Litterman投资组合模型[J]. 中国管理科学, 2018, 26(6): 17-25.
[13]	刘炳越, 姬强, 范英. 黄金是否为原油的“避险天堂”?——基于组合收益及其波动视角[J]. 中国管理科学, 2018, 26(11): 1-10.
[14]	张大永, 姬强. 中国原油期货动态风险溢出研究[J]. 中国管理科学, 2018, 26(11): 42-49.
[15]	胡昌生, 程志富, 陈晶, 熊德超. 投资组合约束下分离交易可转债的定价[J]. 中国管理科学, 2017, 25(9): 11-18.