Clarifying the Response of Gold Return to Financial Indicators: An Empirical Comparative Analysis Using Ordinary Least Squares, Robust and Quantile Regressions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, I apply a quantile regression model to investigate how gold returns respond to changes in various financial indicators. The model quantifies the asymmetric response of gold return in the tails of the distribution based on weekly data over the past 30 years. I conducted a statistical test that allows for multiple structural changes and find that the relationship between gold return and some key financial indicators changed three times throughout the sample period. According to my empirical analysis of the whole sample period, I find that: (1) the gold return rises significantly if stock returns fall sharply; (2) it rises as the stock market volatility increases; (3) it also rises when general financial market conditions tighten; (4) gold and crude oil prices generally move toward the same direction; and (5) gold and the US dollar have an almost constant negative correlation. Looking at each sample period, (1) and (2) are remarkable in the period covering the global financial crisis (GFC), suggesting that investors divested from stocks as a risky asset. On the other hand, (3) is a phenomenon observed during the sample period after the GFC, suggesting that it reflects investors’ behavior of flight to quality.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".