EFFECTS OF RETURN PREDICTABILITY ON OPTION PRICES WITH STOCHASTIC VOLATILITY FOR THE MARKET PORTFOLIO
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I examine the effects of return predictability on option prices for the market portfolio in the presence of stochastic volatility and/or stochastic interest rates. The analysis is implemented in an equilibrium framework where a consistent option pricing model is derived with the return predictability and stochastic volatility and the precise link between the actual and the risk neutral measures is endogenized. The equilibrium analysis indicates that the return predictability is induced by the mean-reverting and heteroskedastic features of aggregate dividends. It is shown that risk-neutral option pricing model with the stochastic volatility and/or stochastic interest rates can be consistent with return predictability. Numerical results suggest that (i) models with either perfect predictability or no predictability will significantly overprice long-term options across different strike prices when the return of the underlying exhibits modest predictability; (ii) the stochastic volatility does not affect option prices in a significant way when asset return predictability is properly reflected in the actual stock price process; (iii) when return predictability is correctly specified, the effects of stochastic interest rates are not uniform.
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 | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".