MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2117817937

Directional and Non-Directional Risk Exposures in Hedge Fund Returns

2009· article· en· W2117817937 on OpenAlexaff
Marie Lambert, Georges Hübner, Nicolas Papageorgiou

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHedge fundHedge accountingPosition (finance)Returns-based style analysisAlternative betaEconomicsFinancial economicsRisk premiumBusinessActuarial scienceOpen-end fundInstitutional investorFinanceCorporate governance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper re-examines the ability of the factor model approach to evaluate the performance of hedge funds. The analysis incorporates traditional asset based factors as well as an array of new and previously studied option based factors and instrumental variables. As hedge fund returns are not normally distributed, higher order moments play a significant role in maximizing the investors’ expected utility. As a result, hedge fund performance evaluation should assign a premium to higher order asset co-moments of hedge fund returns with the aggregate market in order to consistently capture the sources of hedge fund returns. We provide evidence that there is still much information embedded in option prices, particularly in the implied higher moments, which has not previously been exploited. These new option based factors increase the explanatory power of the models across all the hedge fund strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies→French-language works237,207→