Standard and Poor?s depository receipts and the performance of the S&P 500 index futures market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".