MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Standard and Poor?s depository receipts and the performance of the S&P 500 index futures market

2000· article· en· W2016806043 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 Futures Markets · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFutures contractEconomicsFinancial economicsEquity (law)DividendMaturity (psychological)Dividend yieldFutures marketYield (engineering)Monetary economicsEconometricsFinanceDividend policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the need for a simple financial instrument that enables retail investors to participate easily and quickly in the U.S. equity market and that facilitates basket trading by institutions, the American Stock Exchange introduced Standard and Poor’s Depository Receipts (SPDRs) on January 29, 1993. The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of the introduction of SPDRs on the pricing efficiency of the S&P futures market. Using a measure of efficiency that is based on the difference between the observed futures price and the theoretical futures price based on the Cost of Carry Model, as well as daily and intradaily data for the period January 2, 1990 through June 3, 1996, we found that some positive mispricing was reduced when SPDR’s were introduced. While dividend yield and time-to-maturity biases remained, SPDRs trading was shown to mitigate the extent of pricing errors that prevailed, and reduced the effects of dividend yield and time-to-maturity biases found for these contracts. © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 20:705–716, 2000

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.177 · 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