Quantile-based analysis of geopolitical risk spillovers across sustainable finance, energy markets, precious metals, and FinTech
-
Received December 24, 2025;Accepted February 5, 2026;Published February 26, 2026
-
Author(s)Nadjib Allah HakmiLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1858-082X
,
Nidhal MgadmiLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-0962-508X
,
Ameni AbidiLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9810-3872
,
Wajdi MoussaLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1093-059X
,
Azzedine DraouLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-3205-842X
,
Souhila ImansourenLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6994-8867
,
Latifa OuisLink to ORCID Index: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0846-720X
-
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.21511/gg.07(1).2026.02
-
Article InfoVolume 7 2026, Issue #1, pp. 8-26
- TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯ
- 17 Views
-
2 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Type of the article: Research Article
This study aims to investigate how geopolitical risk shocks influence return dynamics, volatility transmission, and hedging properties across sustainable financial assets, financial technology instruments, energy markets, and precious metals during major global crisis episodes over a daily period from June 15, 2018, to September 14, 2024. We examined three major events: the trade conflict between the United States and China from June 15, 2018, to November 30, 2019; the COVID-19 pandemic from December 22, 2019, to February 23, 2023; and the ongoing wars between Russia and Ukraine, as well as Hamas and Israel, from February 24 to September 14, 2024. We found anomalies explained by the volatility of these returns. Using static, dynamic, and fractional QVAR methodology, we concluded that gold and two indicators of green finance can be considered safe-haven assets and hedging instruments, while FinTech plays a stabilizing role during these crises. Spillovers and connectivity networks at the median quantile validate the negative impact of geopolitical risk on non-renewable energy. However, we observed that the geopolitical risk index does not significantly affect green finance indicators, eco-friendly cryptocurrencies, or various measures of FinTech, with a low sensitivity of this index to gold prices.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)G10, G01
-
References44
-
Tables3
-
Figures6
-
- Figure 1. The directional connectivity networks at the median quantile of the three major events referred to in our study
- Figure 2. The median quantile connectivity networks of the three major events referred to in our study
- Figure 3. Various fractional spillovers of the three major events referred to in our study
- Figure 4. Fractional transmission of the shock caused by the trade conflict between US–China for the different returns referred to in our study
- Figure 5. Fractional transmission of the shock caused by COVID19 pandemic for the different returns referred to in our study
- Figure 6. Fractional transmission of the shock during the two ongoing wars for the different returns referred to in our study
-
- Table A1. Descriptive statistics
- Table A2. Matrix of correlation, total
- Table A3. Static return spillovers
-
- Ahmed, F., Islam, M. M., & Abbas, S. (2025). Assessing the impact of Russian–Ukrainian geopolitical risks on global green finance: A quantile dependency analysis. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 27(4), 615-641.
- Alsagr, N., Cumming, D. J., Davis, J. G., & Sewaid, A. (2023). Geopolitical risk and crowdfunding performance. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 85, Article 101766.
- Ando, T., Greenwood-Nimmo, M., & Shin, Y. (2022). Quantile connectedness: Modeling tail behavior in the topology of financial networks. Management Science, 68(4), 2401-2431.
- Arif, M., Naeem, M. A., Farid, S., Nepal, R., & Jamasb, T. (2022). Diversifier or more? Hedge and safe haven properties of green bonds during COVID19. Energy Policy, 168, Article 113102.
- BędowskaSójka, B., Demir, E., & Zaremba, A. (2022). Hedging geopolitical risks with different asset classes: A focus on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Finance Research Letters, 50, Article 103192.
- Bouoiyour, J., Selmi, R., Hammoudeh, S., & Wohar, M. E. (2019). What are the categories of geopolitical risks that could drive oil prices higher? Acts or threats? Energy Economics, 84, Article 104523.
- Caramichael, J., & Rapp, A. (2022). The green corporate bond issuance premium (International Finance Discussion Papers No. 1346). Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
- Cheikh, N. B., & Zaied, Y. B. (2023a). Investigating the dynamics of crude oil and clean energy markets in times of geopolitical tensions. Energy Economics, 124, Article 106861.
- Cheikh, N. B., & Zaied, Y. B. (2023b). Renewable energy deployment and geopolitical conflicts. Journal of Environmental Management, 344, Article 118561.
- De Wet, M. C. (2023). Geopolitical risks and yield dynamics in the Australian sovereign bond market. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 16(3), Article 144.
- Diebold, F. X., & Yilmaz, K. (2012). Better to give than to receive: Predictive directional measurement of volatility spillovers. International Journal of Forecasting, 28(1), 57-66.
- Diebold, F. X., & Yılmaz, K. (2014). On the network topology of variance decompositions: Measuring the connectedness of financial firms. Journal of Econometrics, 182(1), 119-134.
- Doğan, B., Trabelsi, N., Tiwari, A. K., & Ghosh, S. (2023). Dynamic dependence and causality between crude oil, green bonds, commodities, geopolitical risks, and policy uncertainty. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 89, 36-62.
- Dong, X., & Huang, L. (2024). Exploring ripple effect of oil price, FinTech, and financial stress on clean energy stocks: A global perspective. Resources Policy, 89, Article 104582.
- Doostkouei, S. G, Mousavi, M. H, & Karimi, M. S. (2024). Do oil sanctions reduce Dutch disease phenomenon? A quasi-experimental approach evidence from Iran. IDEAS, International Economics and Economic Policy, 21(2), 385-410.
- Dutta, A., & Dutta, P. (2022). Geopolitical risk and renewable energy asset prices: Implications for sustainable development. Renewable Energy, 196, 518-525.
- Gök, R. (2023). Frequency domain causal effects of geopolitical risk and economic uncertainty on green bond market around the invasion of Ukraine. In B.K. Altınkeski & M.F. Buğan (Eds.), Finansal Piyasaların Evrimi: Bankacılık, Risk Yönetimi, Piyasa ve Kurumlar (pp. 179-196).
- Gong, X., & Xu, J. (2022). Geopolitical risk and dynamic connectedness between commodity markets. Energy Economics, 110, Article 106028.
- Ha, L. T. (2023a). Dynamic connectedness between FinTech innovation and energy volatility during the war in time of pandemic. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30, 83530-83544.
- Ha, L. T. (2023b). Fat tails, serial dependence, and interlinkages of the geopolitical risk and food market during the COVID-19 pandemic and war crisis: An application of Bayesian vector heterogeneous autoregressions. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30.
- Helmi, M. H., Elsayed, A. H., & Khalfaoui, R. (2024). The impact of geopolitical risk on sustainable markets: A quantile-time-frequency analysis. Finance Research Letters, 64, Article 105380.
- Imran, Z. A., & Ahad, M. (2023). Safe-haven properties of green bonds for industrial sectors (GICS) in the United States: Evidence from COVID-19 pandemic and Global Financial Crisis. Renewable Energy, 210, 408-423.
- Ivanovski, K., & Hailemariam, A. (2022). Time-varying geopolitical risk and oil prices. International Review of Economics & Finance, 77, 206-221.
- Iyke, B. N., Phan, D. H. B., & Narayan, P. K. (2022). Exchange rate return predictability in times of geopolitical risk. International Review of Financial Analysis, 81, Article 102099.
- Kartal, M. T., Taşkın, D., & Kılıç Depren, S. (2024). Dynamic relationship between green bonds, energy prices, geopolitical risk, and disaggregated level CO2 emissions: Evidence from the globe by novel WLMC approach. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 17, 1763-1775.
- Koop, G., Pesaran, M. H., & Potter, S. M. (1996). Impulse response analysis in nonlinear multivariate models. Journal of Econometrics, 74(1), 119-147.
- Lee, C. C., Lee, C. C., & Li, Y. Y. (2021). Oil price shocks, geopolitical risks, and green bond market dynamics. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance, 55, Article 101309.
- Li, C., & Umair, M. (2023). Does green finance development goals affect renewable energy in China. Renewable Energy, 203, 898-905.
- Liu, F., Qin, C., Qin, M., Stefea, P., & Norena-Chavez, D. (2024). Geopolitical risk: An opportunity or a threat to the green bond market? Energy Economics, 131, Article 107391.
- Long, F., Liu, J., & Zheng, L. (2022). The effects of public environmental concern on urban-rural environmental inequality: Evidence from Chinese industrial enterprises. Sustainable Cities and Society, 80, Article 103787.
- Lorente, D. B., Mohammed, K. S., Cifuentes-Faura, J., & Shahzad, U. (2023). Dynamic connectedness among climate change index, green financial assets and renewable energy markets: Novel evidence from sustainable development perspective. Renewable Energy, 204, 94-105.
- Mensi, W., Shafiullah, M., Vo, X. V., & Kang, S. H. (2022). Spillovers and connectedness between green bond and stock markets in bearish and bullish market scenarios. Finance Research Letters, 49, Article 103120.
- Mensi, W., Vo, X. V., Ko, H. U., & Kang, S. H. (2023). Frequency spillovers between green bonds, global factors and stock market before and during COVID-19 crisis. Economic Analysis and Policy, 77, 558-580.
- Pesaran, H. H., & Shin, Y. (1998). Generalized impulse response analysis in linear multivariate models. Economics Letters, 58(1), 17-29.
- Rao, A., Gupta, M., Sharma, G. D., Mahendru, M., & Agrawal, A. (2022). Revisiting the financial market interdependence during COVID-19 times: A study of green bonds, cryptocurrency, commodities and other financial markets. International Journal of Managerial Finance, 18(4), 725-755.
- Rasoulinezhad, E., Taghizadeh-Hesary, F., Sung, J., & Panthamit, N. (2020). Geopolitical risk and energy transition in Russia: Evidence from ARDL bounds testing method. Sustainability, 12(7), Article 2689.
- Su, C.-W., Umar, M., & Gao, R. (2022). Save the environment, get financing! How China is protecting the environment with green credit policies? Journal of Environmental Management, 323, Article 116178.
- Tang, Y., Chen, X. H., Sarker, P. K., & Baroudi, S. (2023). Asymmetric effects of geopolitical risks and uncertainties on green bond markets. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 189, Article 122348.
- Tolliver, C., Keeley, A. R., & Managi, S. (2020). Policy targets behind green bonds for renewable energy: Do climate commitments matter? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157, Article 120051.
- Wang, K. H., Wen, C. P., Liu, H. W., & Liu, L. (2023). Promotion or hindrance? Exploring the bidirectional causality between geopolitical risk and green bonds from an energy perspective. Resources Policy, 85, Article 103966.
- Yousaf, I., Nekhili, R., & Umar, M. (2022). Extreme connectedness between renewable energy tokens and fossil fuel markets. Energy Economics, 114, Article 106305.
- Zhang, D., Chen, X. H., Lau, C. K. M., & Cai, Y. (2023a). The causal relationship between green finance and geopolitical risk: Implications for environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 327, Article 116949.
- Zhang, H., Gong, Z., Yang, Y., & Chen, F. (2023b). Dynamic connectedness between China green bond, carbon market and traditional financial markets: Evidence from quantile connectedness approach. Finance Research Letters, 58, Article 104473.
- Zhang, Z., Hao, L., Linghu, Y., & Yi, H. (2023c). Research on the energy poverty reduction effects of green finance in the context of economic policy uncertainty. Journal of Cleaner Production, 410, Article 137287.
-
-
Conceptualization
Nadjib Allah Hakmi, Nidhal Mgadmi, Souhila Imansouren
-
Data curation
Nadjib Allah Hakmi, Nidhal Mgadmi, Ameni Abidi, Wajdi Moussa, Azzedine Draou, Latifa Ouis
-
Methodology
Nadjib Allah Hakmi, Azzedine Draou
-
Supervision
Nadjib Allah Hakmi, Nidhal Mgadmi
-
Writing – original draft
Nadjib Allah Hakmi, Ameni Abidi, Wajdi Moussa, Azzedine Draou, Latifa Ouis
-
Writing – review & editing
Nadjib Allah Hakmi, Nidhal Mgadmi, Souhila Imansouren
-
Project administration
Nidhal Mgadmi, Ameni Abidi, Wajdi Moussa, Latifa Ouis
-
Resources
Nidhal Mgadmi, Souhila Imansouren
-
Visualization
Nidhal Mgadmi
-
Investigation
Ameni Abidi, Souhila Imansouren
-
Software
Wajdi Moussa
-
Validation
Wajdi Moussa, Azzedine Draou
-
Formal Analysis
Souhila Imansouren
-
Funding acquisition
Latifa Ouis
-
Conceptualization
-
Fintech in the eyes of Millennials and Generation Z (the financial behavior and Fintech perception)
Mohannad A. M. Abu Daqar
,
Samer Arqawi ,
Sharif Abu Karsh
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/bbs.15(3).2020.03
Banks and Bank Systems Volume 15, 2020 Issue #3 pp. 20-28 Views: 11568 Downloads: 3188 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThis study investigates the Millennials and Gen Z perception toward Fintech services, their usage intention, and their financial behavior. The study took place in the Palestinian context with a global comparison among these generations. The authors used the questionnaire-based technique to meet the study objective. West Bank respondents were selected for this purpose; the study instrument was distributed through different social media channels. The findings show that reliability/trust and ease of use are the main issues in using a financial service. Millennials are more aware (48%) of Fintech services than Gen Z (38%), which is different from the global view where Gen Z is the highest. The smartphone penetration rate is 100% among both generations, while the financial inclusion ratio in Palestine is around 36.4%; these clear indicators are the main Fintech drivers to promote Fintech services in Palestine, and these are global indicators for Fintech adoption intention. Both generations (84%) intend to use e-wallet services, Millennials (87%) and Gen Z is (70%) prefer using real-time services. Half of the respondents see that Fintech plays a complementary role with banks. The majority see that Fintech services are cheaper than bank services. Wealth management, and robot advisor services, and both generations are looking to acquire them in the long run. The authors revealed that 85% of respondents from both generations trust banks, so it is recommended that banks digitize their financial services to meet the customers’ needs, considering that 90% of respondents see that promotions are a key issue in adopting Fintech services. Promoting e-wallet services by banks is highly recommended due to the massive rivalry with Fintech parties.
-
The role of financial literacy, digital literacy, and financial self-efficacy in FinTech adoption
Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 21, 2024 Issue #2 pp. 370-380 Views: 4310 Downloads: 1189 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe primary aim of this study is to delve into the factors influencing individuals’ readiness to embrace financial technology (FinTech) services in Bangladesh. Specifically, the study focused on Bangladeshi fintech consumer’s knowledge about contemporary digital financial tools, such as mobile-based payment service apps. Data collection was carried out using a survey questionnaire tailored to the Bangladeshi context. Participants were invited to participate in the survey, and their responses were gathered upon their consent. A five-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘1’ for ‘Strongly Disagree’ to ‘5’ for ‘Strongly Agree,’ was employed to gauge the questionnaire items. The final sample size was 450 respondents. To assess the hypotheses, a 5% significance level was employed, with data analysis conducted using SPSS software. The findings underscore a positive and statistically significant impact of financial literacy, digital literacy, and financial self-efficacy on the adoption of FinTech services in Bangladesh. Collectively, these variables elucidate 48.20% of the variance (R2=0.482) in predicting individuals’ adoption behavior of FinTech. Financial self-efficacy (β = 0.574; t-value = 8.394) has the highest effect on FinTech adoption compared to the other two factors. Additionally, a substantial correlation coefficient (r=0.634) is present between digital literacy and FinTech adoption. This study contributes to the extant literature on FinTech services by providing valuable insights that enhance scholars’ understanding of the emerging financial technologies’ significance and their predominant impacts within the Bangladeshi FinTech ecosystem. These findings hold implications for policymakers, financial institutions, and stakeholders seeking to promote FinTech adoption and foster financial inclusion in Bangladesh.
-
Understanding the preference of individual retail investors on green bond in India: An empirical study
Dhaval Prajapati , Dipen Paul
,
Sushant Malik
,
Dharmesh K. Mishra
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/imfi.18(1).2021.15
Investment Management and Financial Innovations Volume 18, 2021 Issue #1 pp. 177-189 Views: 4243 Downloads: 1609 TO CITE АНОТАЦІЯThe biggest challenge facing countries, including India, is creating and managing an LCR (low carbon resilient) economy, which balances the need for high growth rates and is environmentally sustainable. The green bond market provides investors the means to help change the economy into an LCR economy. The study was undertaken to understand the key drivers and the factors influencing the individual retail investor’s decision to invest in green bonds. A survey instrument was designed and administered through the snowball sampling technique to 125 Indian respondents of various age groups who were eligible to invest in the Indian bond market. SPSS software was used to conduct a descriptive analysis followed by regression and conjoint analyses. The study results suggest that the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) rating and credit rating of the green bond issuers are the key factors that influence an individual’s investment decision. The findings also highlight that incentives such as tax exemptions and awareness of green bonds also affect an investor’s decision. This research stands out as one of the first attempts to understand the Indian retail investors’ perception of a green bond.

