MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014240422 · doi:10.1080/096031000331969

Do foreign exchange risk premiums relate to the volatility in the foreign exchange and equity markets?

2000· article· en· W2014240422 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christine X. Jiang, Thomas C. Chiang

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Financial Economics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsForeign exchange riskVolatility (finance)Risk premiumCurrencyVolatility risk premiumForeign exchange marketEquity (law)Monetary economicsFinancial economicsLiberian dollarEquity premium puzzleForeign exchangeVolatility swapVariance risk premiumImplied volatilityFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Empirical tests are performed to examine whether foreign exchange excess returns for the British pound, Canadian dollar, Deutsche mark, and Japanese yen are related to volatility in the currency market and volatility in the stock markets. Our results indicate that volatility (measured by standard deviation and variance) from currency markets is significant in explaining the excess returns, suggesting that the excess returns are indeed reward for risk-taking. In addition, shocks in equity markets are found to have a significant impact on currency risk premium as well. In some cases, we find nonlinearity in the risk premium. Finally, our results emerged from Glosten, Jagannathan, Runkle's model (Journal of Finance,48 (5), 1993) suggest that risk premiums for each currency tend to respond to positive and negative shocks differently.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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