MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2186038496 · doi:10.1002/jae.2515

State Prices of Conditional Quantiles: New Evidence on Time Variation in the Pricing Kernel

2016· article· en· W2186038496 on OpenAlexaff
Κωνσταντίνος Μεταξόγλου, Aaron Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Econometrics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStochastic discount factorEconometricsQuantileEconomicsVolatility (finance)Capital asset pricing modelDownside riskStochastic volatilityFinancial economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary We develop a set of statistics to represent the option‐implied stochastic discount factor and we apply them to S&P 500 returns between 1990 and 2012. Our statistics, which we call state prices of conditional quantiles (SPOCQ), estimate the market's willingness to pay for insurance against outcomes in various quantiles of the return distribution. By estimating state prices at conditional quantiles, we separate variation in the shape of the pricing kernel from variation in the probability of a particular event. Thus, without imposing strong assumptions about the distribution of returns, we obtain a novel view of pricing‐kernel dynamics. We document six features of SPOCQ for the S&P 500. Most notably, and in contrast to recent studies, we find that the price of downside risk decreases when volatility increases. Under a standard asset pricing model, this result implies that most changes in volatility stem from fluctuations in idiosyncratic risk. Consistent with this interpretation, no known systematic risk factors such as consumer sentiment, liquidity or macroeconomic risk can account for the negative relationship between the price of downside risk and volatility. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied EconometricsSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207