MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1543743267

Calendar Corrected Chaotic Forecast of Financial Time Series

2006· article· en· W1543743267 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexandros Leontitsis, Costas Siriopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometricsEconomicsEfficient-market hypothesisStock marketWeekend effectStock (firearms)Financial marketFinancial economicsFinanceHistory
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Using daily returns from the NASDAQ Composite and TSE 300 Composite indices from 1984 to 2003, we specify a method that corrects the chaotic forecasting of financial time series taking into account the day-of-the-week, the turn-of-the-month and the holiday effects. When calendar effects are present in the series, the forecasting ability of the model leads to profitable opportunities compared to a buy-and-hold strategy. JEL Classification: C22, C53, G14 Keywords: Calendar effects; Forecasting; Least median of squares; Trading rules; Chaos (ProQuest Information and Learning: ... denotes formulae omitted.) I. INTRODUCTION Empirical studies on financial time series have revealed the presence of calendar effects in the behavior of stock returns. Calendar studies questioned whether irregularities exist in the rates of return during the calendar year. Knowing this, would better allow investors to predict returns on stocks. According to the Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH) such seasonal patterns should not persist since their existence implies the possibility of obtaining abnormal returns applying market-timing strategies. The day-of-the week effect, first documented by Osborne (1962); the weekend effect (significantly lower returns over the period between Friday's close and Monday's close), first documented by French (1980); the January effect (relatively higher returns in January), first reported by Wachtel (1942); the trading month effect studied by Ariel (1987); and the holiday effect documented by Lakonishok and Smidt (1988), are among the most important calendar effects. These calendar effects have been studied extensively in international level (e.g. Dubois and Louvet (1995), Hiraki and Maberly (1995), Aggarwal and Schatzberg (1997), Mookerjee and Yu (1999), Mills et al. (2000)) and the general conclusion is that there are particular periods of time where the investors' behavior changes significantly, affecting the distribution of returns. Given the existence of the aforementioned market anomalies, that provide evidence of market inefficiencies, the fundamental question is how this information can be utilized by forecasting models, leading to better portfolio performance. Jensen (1978) highlights the importance of trading profitability when assessing market efficiency: if a trading rule is not strong enough to outperform a buy and hold strategy on a risk-adjusted basis then it is not economically significant, while Roll (2000) argues that if calendar time anomalies represent evidence of market inefficiencies, then they ought to represent an exploitable opportunity. Extending previous work of Lisi and Medio (1997), Cao and Soofi (1999), among others, who applied non-linear techniques in financial applications providing better results compared to the random walk forecasts, this study utilizes a nonlinear chaotic forecasting method on the NASDAQ and Toronto Stock Exchange Composite indices, taking into account specific stylized irregularities of stock returns, reported in empirical finance literature, such as the calendar effects. The methodology applied in the present study overcomes the limitations of previous empirical work, in which either the calendar effects were not taken into account or the predictive ability of the forecasting models was not tested extensively. The rest of the study is organized as follows: Section 2 describes the data set. Section 3 introduces the algorithm that takes into account the day-of-the-week, the turn of the month and the holiday effect, while Section 4 presents the results of the proposed method. Finally, Section 5 concludes proposing directions for future research. II. THE DATA SETS AND PRELIMINARY DIAGNOSTICS The dataset used is comprised of the NASDAQ Composite and the Toronto Stock Exchange 300 Composite (TSE 300), both indices belonging to mature markets having a high trading volume. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.175 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of BusinessSame topicComplex Systems and Time Series AnalysisFrench-language works237,207