A Study on Developing of Asset Pricing Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study introduces the development and modifications of the widely used standard capital asset pricing model (CAPM). Many modifications are applied to the model’s challenging financial variables such as: financial risk factors, liquidity risks, downside risks, risk of non expected events, and economic and operational risk factors. Efficiency of the model is increased when applying various challenging financial variables. As a result of the gradual CAPM developments, various new models will present better interpretations of market conditions in economic units and portfolio structure. Furthermore, this study will show the importance of applying the new models advantages and disadvantages for financial managers, financial analysts and investors. po? c.?x ?w vant factors identified in this study showed that lenders took particular interest in risk when dealing with SMEs. This is not out of place, as every business seeks to make profit and thus they need to be sure of recouping their monies when they lend them out to small businesses. It is thus very necessary for SME borrowers to develop an understanding of the decision criteria used by financial institutions in order to increase the probability of getting their loan request approved by fulfilling the required criteria adequately.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".