MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793495915 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v10n4p101

The Impact of Securities Margin Trading on Chinese Stock Market

2018· article· en· W2793495915 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shaozhen Chen, Liang Su, Lin Li, Chaoqun Zhou, Haohui Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityVolatility (finance)EconometricsEconomicsFinancial economicsStock marketStock exchangeMargin (machine learning)Trading strategyComputer scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we take Shanghai Stock Market as the research object, conducts a multi-dimensional analysis of the volatility of the Shanghai Stock Exchange 50 Index before and after the introduction of margin trading. After the implementation of the securities margin trading policy, the historical volatility of the securities market has obviously been weakened. From the perspective of dynamic volatility, we establish a GARCH (1, 1) model by introducing the dummy variables according to the AIC and SC optimal rules, and establish TGARCH (1, 1), EGARCH (1, 1) and PGARCH (1, 1) to analyze the asymmetry. All of the model results show that the introduction of margin trading reduces the risk of the stock market and weakens the asymmetry. In order to test the effect of the residual distribution of returns, we assume that the residuals follow the t distribution and the GED distribution respectively and establish the optimal GARCH (1, 1) model. The final result is the same as those under the Gaussian distribution assumption.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207