MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2991267719 · doi:10.17705/1jais.00578

Measuring Riskfrom IT Initiatives UsingImplied Volatility

2019· article· en· W2991267719 on OpenAlexafffund
Dawei Zhang, Barrie R. Nault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVolatility (finance)Implied volatilityFinancial economicsEconometricsVolatility smileEconomicsStock (firearms)Stock exchangeVolatility swapBusinessFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose an underrecognized measure to capture changes in firm risk from information technology (IT) announcements: implied volatility (IV) from a firm’s exchange-traded options. An IV is obtained from a priced stock option and represents the option market’s expectation of the firm’s average stock return volatility over the remaining duration of the option. Using the change in IV around IT announcements, we can directly assess changes in IT-induced firm risk. IVs are straightforward to obtain, and are forward-looking based on option market investors’ estimates of future stock return volatility. They do not rely on historical volatility that is confounded with other events. In addition, options have different expiration dates—each with an IV—allowing us to distinguish between short- and long-term risk. We show how a change in IV can be employed to assess changes in short- and long-term firm risk from IT announcements and demonstrate this methodological innovation empirically using a set of IT announcements that have been utilized in previous studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.008
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207