Multivariate Models of Equity Returns for Investment Guarantees Valuation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper we investigate the valuation of investment guarantees in a multivariate (discrete-time) framework. We present how to build multivariate models in general, and we survey the most important multivariate GARCH models. A direct multivariate application of regime-switching models is also discussed, as is the estimation of these models using maximum likelihood and their comparison in a multivariate setting. The computation of the CTE provision is further presented. We have estimated the models with a multivariate dataset (Canada, United States, United Kingdom, and Japan), and we compared the quality of their fit using multiple criteria and tests. We observe that multivariate GARCH models provide a better overall fit than regime-switching models. However, regime-switching models appropriately represent the fat tails of the returns distribution, which is where most GARCH models fail. This leads to significant differences in the value of the CTE provisions, and, in general, provisions computed with regime-switching models are higher. Thus, the results from this multivariate analysis are in line with what was obtained in the literature of univariate models.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".