MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156306603 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v6n4p23

Estimating and Forecasting Volatility of Financial Markets Using Asymmetric GARCH Models: An Application on Turkish Financial Markets

2014· article· en· W2156306603 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rasim İlker Gökbulut, Mehmet Pekkaya

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility clusteringVolatility (finance)EconomicsFinancial marketAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityVolatility swapFinancial economicsFinancial econometricsForward volatilityEconometricsConditional varianceImplied volatilityFinanceIndirect finance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Volatility in financial markets, particularly stock exchange markets, is an important issue that concerns theorists and practitioners. Over the past 30 years, there has been a vast literature for modeling the temporal dependencies in volatility of financial markets. Also, more recently researches have been examining the asymmetry and non-linear properties in variance of financial assets, rather than the conditional mean. In this study, a comprehensive empirical analysis of the mean return and conditional variance of Turkish Financial Markets is performed by using various GARCH models. CGARCH and TGARCH appear to be superior for modeling the volatility of financial instruments in Turkey during the years 2002–2014. It is also found that return series of all markets include; leptokurtosis, asymmetry, volatility clustering, and long memory.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations45
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207