MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047726268 · doi:10.1016/j.omega.2015.01.021

Portfolio optimization in hedge funds by OGARCH and Markov Switching Model

2015· article· en· W2047726268 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

VenueOmega · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPortfolioEWMA chartSharpe ratioHedge fundEconometricsPortfolio optimizationMarkov chainAsset (computer security)Post-modern portfolio theoryMathematicsSensitivity (control systems)EconomicsReplicating portfolioActuarial scienceComputer scienceStatisticsFinancial economicsFinanceProcess (computing)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates and compares the performances of the optimal portfolio selected by using the Orthogonal GARCH (OGARCH) Model, Markov Switching Model and the Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA) Model in a fund of hedge funds. These models are used to calibrate the returns of four HFRX indices from which the optimal portfolio is constructed using the Mean-Variance method. The performance of each optimal portfolio is compared in an out-of-sample period and it is observed that overall, OGARCH gives the best-performed optimal portfolio with the highest Sharpe ratio and the lowest risk. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis for the parameters of OGARCH is performed and it shows that the asset weights in the optimal portfolios selected by OGARCH are very sensitive to slight changes in the input parameters.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.198 · 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