MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010870951 · doi:10.1080/0960310042000187379

Skewness in the conditional distribution of daily equity returns

2004· article· en· W2010870951 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Harris, C. Coşkun Küçüközmen, Fatih Yılmaz

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Financial Economics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkewnessKurtosisAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityEconometricsSkew normal distributionConditional probability distributionEconomicsLeverage (statistics)Equity (law)Normal distributionFinancial economicsMathematicsStatisticsVolatility (finance)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conditional distribution of asset returns is important for a number of applications in finance, including financial risk management, asset pricing and option valuation. In the GARCH framework, it is typically assumed that returns are drawn from a symmetric conditional distribution such as the normal, Student-t or power exponential. However, the use of a symmetric distribution is inappropriate if the true conditional distribution of returns is skewed. This study models the conditional distribution of daily returns in five international equity market indices and a world equity index using the skewed generalised-t (SGT) distribution, a distribution that allows for a very wide range of skewness and kurtosis, and which nests the three most commonly used distributions as special cases. It is shown that the use of a conditional SGT distribution offers a substantial improvement in the fit of both GARCH and EGARCH models. Moreover, for both models, the study strongly rejects the restrictions on the SGT that are implied by the normal, Student-t and power exponential distributions. With the GARCH specification, the conditional distribution is negatively skewed for all six series. However, for three of these series – namely the US, Japan and the World index – this skewness can be explained by leverage effects, which are captured by the EGARCH model. For the remaining three series – the UK, Canada and Germany – the skewness in the conditional distribution of returns remains even after allowing for leverage effects.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations37
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Financial EconomicsSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207