MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899388332 · doi:10.3390/risks6040124

Alpha Beta Risk and Stock Returns—A Decomposition Analysis of Idiosyncratic Volatility with Conditional Models

2018· article· en· W2899388332 on OpenAlexaff
Chengbo Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueRisks · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredictabilityEconometricsStock (firearms)Conditional varianceBETA (programming language)EconomicsVolatility (finance)Systematic riskCovarianceRealized varianceVariance decomposition of forecast errorsMathematicsStatisticsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The variance of stock returns is decomposed based on a conditional Fama–French three-factor model instead of its unconditional counterpart. Using time-varying alpha and betas in this model, it is evident that four additional risk terms must be considered. They include the variance of alpha, the variance of the interaction between the time-varying component of beta and factors, and two covariance terms. These additional risk terms are components that are included in the idiosyncratic risk estimate using an unconditional model. By investigating the relation between the risk terms and stock returns, we find that only the variance of the time-varying alpha is negatively associated with stock returns. Further tests show that stock returns are not affected by the variance of time-varying beta. These results are consistent with the findings in the literature identifying return predictability from time-varying alpha rather than betas.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRisksSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207