Spot‐futures spread, time‐varying correlation, and hedging with currency futures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article investigates the effects of the spot‐futures spread on the return and risk structure in currency markets. With the use of a bivariate dynamic conditional correlation GARCH framework, evidence is found of asymmetric effects of positive and negative spreads on the return and the risk structure of spot and futures markets. The implications of the asymmetric effects on futures hedging are examined, and the performance of hedging strategies generated from a model incorporating asymmetric effects is compared with several alternative models. The in‐sample comparison results indicate that the asymmetric effect model provides the best hedging strategy for all currency markets examined, except for the Canadian dollar. Out‐of‐sample comparisons suggest that the asymmetric effect model provides the best strategy for the Australian dollar, the British pound, the deutsche mark, and the Swiss franc markets, and the symmetric effect model provides a better strategy than the asymmetric effect model in the Canadian dollar and the Japanese yen. The worst performance is given by the naïve hedging strategy for both in‐sample and out‐of‐sample comparisons in all currency markets examined. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 26:1019–1038, 2006
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 | 0.007 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".