Forecasting Volatility Stock Return: Evidence from the Nordic Stock Exchanges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the volatility and secondary effects in the four Nordic stock exchanges of Norway: Oslo Bors Linked all-share index AXLT Denmark: OMX Copenhagen 20, Sweden: OMX Stockholm 30 and Finland: OMX Helsinki 25. Keeping in mind that there is an ARCH effect in the returns of the four stock exchanges, we move on to the evaluation to the evaluation of models ARCH (q), GARCH (p, q) GARCH-M (p, q). Evaluating the parameters became possible through the use of the maximum likelihood method using the BHHH algorithm of (Berndt et al., 1974) and the three distributions (normal, t-Student, and the Generalized normal distribution GED). The results of this study indicate model ARMA(0,1)-GARCH-Μ(1,1) with t-student distribution as the appropriate one to describe the returns of the all Nordic stock exchanges except that of Sweden, where model ARMA(0,3)-GARCH-Μ(1,1) describes it best. Lastly, for forecasting the models ARMA(0,1)-GARCH-Μ(1,1) and ARMA(0,3)-GARCH-Μ(1,1) of the current stock exchanges we use both the dynamic and static process. The results of this study indicate that the static process forecasts better than the corresponding dynamic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".