Pseudo-True SDFs in Conditional Asset Pricing Models*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article is motivated by the need to bridge some gap between modern asset pricing theory and recent developments in econometric methodology. While asset pricing theory enhances the use of conditional pricing models, econometric inference of conditional models can be challenging due to misspecification or weak identification. To tackle the case of misspecification, we utilize the conditional Hansen and Jagannathan (1997) (HJ) distance as studied by Gagliardini and Ronchetti (2016), but we set the focus on interpretation and estimation of the pseudo-true value defined as the argument of the minimum of this distance. While efficient Generalized Method of Moments (GMM) has no meaning for estimation of a pseudo-true value, the HJ-distance not only delivers a meaningful loss function, but also features an additional advantage for the interpretation and estimation of managed portfolios whose exact pricing characterizes the pseudo-true pricing kernel (stochastic discount factor (SDF)). For conditionally affine pricing kernels, we can display some managed portfolios which are well-defined independently of the pseudo-true value of the parameters, although their exact pricing is achieved by the pseudo-true SDF. For the general case of nonlinear SDFs, we propose a smooth minimum distance (SMD) estimator (Lavergne and Patilea, 2013) that avoids a focus on specific directions as in the case of managed portfolios. Albeit based on kernel smoothing, the SMD approach avoids instabilities and the resulting need of trimming strategies displayed by classical local GMM estimators when the density function of the conditioning variables may take arbitrarily small values. In addition, the fact that SMD may allow fixed bandwidth asymptotics is helpful regarding the curse of dimensionality. In contrast with the true unknown value for a well-specified model, the estimated pseudo-true value, albeit defined in a time-invariant (unconditional) way, may actually depend on the choice of the state variables that define fundamental factors and their scaling weights. Therefore, we may not want to be overly parsimonious about the set of explanatory variables. Finally, following Antoine and Lavergne (2014), we show how SMD can be further robustified to deal with weaker identification contexts. Since SMD can be seen as a local extension of the method of jackknife GMM (Newey and Windmeijer, 2009), we characterize the Gaussian asymptotic distribution of the estimator of the pseudo-true value using classical U-statistic theorems.
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".