MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077898308 · doi:10.1142/s2010495205500053

EFFECTS OF RETURN PREDICTABILITY ON OPTION PRICES WITH STOCHASTIC VOLATILITY FOR THE MARKET PORTFOLIO

2005· article· en· W2077898308 on OpenAlexaff
Melanie Cao

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Financial Economics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictabilityStochastic volatilityEconomicsEconometricsPortfolioImplied volatilityVolatility smileVolatility (finance)Financial economicsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Financial EconomicsSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207