MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1944920263 · doi:10.1002/fut.20540

Time‐varying jump risk premia in stock index futures returns

2011· article· en· W1944920263 on OpenAlexaff
Wing Hong Chan, Liling Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Futures Markets · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityEconomicsJumpFutures contractEconometricsVolatility (finance)Stock index futuresIndex (typography)Autoregressive modelStock market indexStock (firearms)Futures marketRisk premiumFinancial economicsStock marketComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study tests the presence of time‐varying risk premia associated with extreme news events or jumps in stock index futures return. The model allows for a dynamic jump component with autoregressive jump intensity, long‐range dependence in volatility dynamics, and a volatility in mean structure separately for the normal and extreme news events. The results show significant jump risk premia in four stock market index futures returns including the DAX, FTSE, Nikkei, and S&P500 indices. Our results are robust to various specifications of conditional variance including the plain GARCH, component GARCH, and Fractionally Integrated GARCH models. We also find the time‐varying risk premium associated with normal news events is not significant across all indices. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 32:639–659, 2012

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Futures MarketsSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207