MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2597421286 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14050212

Empirical Estimation of Intraday Yield Curves on the Italian Interbank Credit Market e-MID

2021· article· en· W2597421286 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anastasios Demertzidis, Vahidin Jeleskovic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicItaly: Economic History and Contemporary Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYield curveInterbank lending marketEconomicsYield (engineering)Credit spread (options)Financial crisisInterest rateEconometricsEstimationMonetary economicsInvestment (military)Financial economicsCredit riskFinanceMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces a major novelty: the empirical estimation of spot intraday yield curves based on tick-by-tick data on the Italian electronic interbank credit market (e-MID). To analyze the consequences of the recent financial crisis, we split the data into four periods, which include events before, during, and after the recent financial crisis starting in 2007. Our first result is that, from a practical point of view, the intraday yield curve can be modeled by standard models for yield curves providing advantages for intraday trading on intraday interbank credit markets. Moreover, the estimates show that the systematic dynamics in the intraday yield curves during the turmoil were highly noticeable, resulting in a significantly better goodness-of-fit. Based on this fact, we infer that investors in the interbank credit market base their investment decisions on the effects of the intraday dynamics of intraday interest rates more intensively during a financial crisis. Therefore, the systematic impact on the e-MID appears to be stronger and econometric modeling of the intraday interest rate curve becomes even more attractive during a turmoil.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicItaly: Economic History and Contemporary IssuesFrench-language works237,207