MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1935652809 · doi:10.1093/jjfinec/nbi021

The Accuracy of Density Forecasts from Foreign Exchange Options

2005· article· en· W1935652809 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Financial Econometrics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCenter for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on Organizations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurrencyVolatility (finance)Foreign exchangeEconomicsEconometricsImplied volatilityValuation of optionsVolatility smileFinancial economicsMonetary economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Financial decision makers often consider the information in currency option valuations when making assessments about future exchange rates. The purpose of this article is to systematically assess the quality of option-based volatility and density forecasts. We use a unique dataset consisting of more than 10 years of daily data on over-the-counter (OTC) currency option prices. We find that the OTC implied volatilities provide largely unbiased and fairly accurate forecasts of one-month- and three-month-ahead realized volatility. Furthermore, we find that the one-month option implied density forecasts are well calibrated for the center of the distribution, but we find evidence of misspecification in the tail density forecasts.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.180 · 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