MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509944192

The long-run relationship between market risk and return

2005· article· en· W2509944192 on OpenAlexaff
John M. Maheu, Thomas H. McCurdy

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometricsVolatility (finance)EconomicsUnivariateForward volatilityVariance risk premiumRealized varianceBivariate analysisConditional varianceVolatility risk premiumEquity premium puzzleRisk premiumEquity (law)Implied volatilityFinancial economicsStatisticsMathematicsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityMultivariate statistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many finance applications require an annual measure of the market premium for equity. Using a long sample combined with a very parsimonious conditional variance function, we find a positive relationship between market risk and expected excess returns. Unlike traditional exponential-smoothing filters, our specification has a well-defined unconditional variance and allows for mean reverting volatility forecasts. Although total volatility is significantly priced, the smooth long-run component in volatility is more important for capturing the dynamics of the premium. This parameterization produces realistic time-varying market equity premium estimates over the entire 1840-2003 period. For example, our results show that the premium was relatively low in the mid-1990s but has recently increased. Results are robust to univariate specifications that condition on either levels or logs of past realized volatility (RV), as well as to a new bivariate risk-return model of returns and RV for which the conditional variance of excess returns is the conditional expectation of the realized volatility process.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207