MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089301165 · doi:10.1093/jjfinec/nbu024

Robust Conditional Variance and Value-at-Risk Estimation

2014· article· en· W2089301165 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

VenueJournal of Financial Econometrics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariance (accounting)Value (mathematics)Conditional varianceEstimationHistoryMathematicsEconometricsEconomicsStatisticsManagementAccountingAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article is concerned with robust conditional variance and value-at-risk (VaR) estimation. Losses due to idiosyncratic events can have a disproportionate impact on traditional VaR estimates, upwardly biasing these estimates, increasing capital requirements, and unnecessarily reducing the available capital and profitability of financial institutions. We propose new bias-robust conditional variance estimators based on weighted likelihood at heavy-tailed models, as well as VaR estimators based on the latter and on volatility updated historical simulation. The new VaR estimators also use optimally chosen rolling window length and smoothing parameter value. A simulation study illustrates the strong performance of the proposed methodology and highlights the model's ability to mitigate the potentially costly upward bias generated by idiosyncratic shocks. Real data examples and extensive backtesting results illustrate the impact of idiosyncratic shocks on other VaR estimators.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.174 · 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