Implied Risk Preferences from Option Prices: Evidence from KOSPI 200 Index Options
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we investigated the risk averse ness of KOSPI 200 option investors with very flexible risk preference structure. Contrary to the most of previous research either assuming a time-invariant underlying asset return distribution or assuming a well-known functional form for the underlying utility functions. we directly assume functional forms for Investors’risk aversion functions. With the direct specification on the risk aversion functions themselves. we can avoid the possibility 이 suffering from Internal inconsistency and of obtaining misleading risk aversion functions. From our empirical results using KOSPI 200 Index option prices from 1997 through 2006. we discovered that the investors' relative risk aversions exhibit ‘sharply decreasing' across wealth. In addition, our Implied subjective PDFs are found to more accurately forecast the distribution of realization than both the risk neutral PDFs and implied subjective PDFs from previous methods. For the robustness of our empirical results, we test the effects of estimation errors In the expected risk premium, and of financial crisis in the late of 1990s.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".