Carry Cost Rate Regimes and Futures Hedge Ratio Variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper tests whether the traditional futures hedge ratio (hT) and the carry cost rate futures hedge ratio (hc) vary in accordance with the Sercu and Wu (2000) and Leistikow et al. (2019) “hc” theory. It does so, both within and across high and low spot asset carry cost rate (c) regimes. The high and low c regimes are specified by asset across time and across currency denominations. The findings are consistent with the theory. Within and across c regimes, hT is inefficient and hc is biased. Across c regimes, hc’s Bias Adjustment Multiplier (BAM) does not vary significantly. Even though hc’s bias-adjusted variant’s BAM is restricted to old data that is from a different c regime, the hedging performance of hc and its bias-adjusted variant (=hc × BAM), are superior to that for hT. Variation in c may account for the hT variation noted in the literature and variation in c should be incorporated into ex ante hedge ratios.
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".