MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885772898 · doi:10.1080/0015198x.2019.1625617

The Near-Term Forward Yield Spread as a Leading Indicator: A Less Distorted Mirror

2019· article· en· W2885772898 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric Engström, Steven A. Sharpe

Bibliographic record

VenueFinancial Analysts Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMonetary Policy and Economic Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecessionEconomicsPredictive powerYield curveTerm (time)Stock (firearms)EconometricsMonetary policyStock marketBondCredit spread (options)Quarter (Canadian coin)Survey of Professional ForecastersMonetary economicsFinancial economicsInterest rateMacroeconomicsFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spread between the yields on a 10-year US T-note and a 2-year T-note is commonly used as a harbinger of US recessions. We show that such “long-term spreads” are statistically dominated in forecasting models by an economically intuitive alternative, a “near-term forward spread.” This spread can be interpreted as a measure of market expectations for near-term conventional monetary policy rates. Its predictive power suggests that when market participants have expected—and priced in—a monetary policy easing over the subsequent year and a half, a recession was likely to follow. The near-term spread also has predicted four-quarter GDP growth with greater accuracy than survey consensus forecasts, and it has substantial predictive power for stock returns. Once a near-term spread is included in forecasting equations, yields on longer-term bonds maturing beyond six to eight quarters have no added value for forecasting recessions, GDP growth, or stock returns.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations56
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFinancial Analysts JournalSame topicMonetary Policy and Economic ImpactFrench-language works237,207