MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2561659178 · doi:10.1111/irfi.12110

Specification Error, Estimation Risk, and Conditional Portfolio Rules

2016· article· en· W2561659178 on OpenAlex
Murray Carlson, David A. Chapman, Ron Kaniel, Hong Yan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconometricsVolatility (finance)PortfolioSpecificationEconomicsVector autoregressionDividendFinancial economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In characterizing the data‐generating process for excess returns, an investor faces both parameter uncertainty (or “estimation risk”) and specification error. We examine the trade‐off between these two effects, in the context of an optimal consumption/portfolio decision problem, by considering a minimal extension of the standard assumption of a linear vector autoregression for excess returns. The key additional assumption in our data‐generating process is a positive linear relationship between market volatility and lagged market dividend yields. This simple specification is consistent with a long sample of U.S. data. We show that volatility adjusted rules are substantially less sensitive to variation in dividend yields, and volatility‐related specification error is economically significant – even when the decisions are based on sample estimates from data sets of a realistic size.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.230 · 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