MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035430950 · doi:10.3390/jrfm13060123

Robust Inference in the Capital Asset Pricing Model Using the Multivariate t-distribution

2020· article· en· W3035430950 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Manuel Galea, David Cademartori, Roberto Curci, Alonso Molina

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital asset pricing modelArbitrage pricing theoryEconometricsConsumption-based capital asset pricing modelKurtosisMultivariate statisticsStatistical inferenceWald testMathematicsStatistical hypothesis testingStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we consider asset pricing models under the multivariate t-distribution with finite second moment. Such a distribution, which contains the normal distribution, offers a more flexible framework for modeling asset returns. The main objective of this work is to develop statistical inference tools, such as parameter estimation and linear hypothesis tests in asset pricing models, with an emphasis on the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). An extension of the CAPM, the Multifactor Asset Pricing Model (MAPM), is also discussed. A simple algorithm to estimate the model parameters, including the kurtosis parameter, is implemented. Analytical expressions for the Score function and Fisher information matrix are provided. For linear hypothesis tests, the four most widely used tests (likelihood-ratio, Wald, score, and gradient statistics) are considered. In order to test the mean-variance efficiency, explicit expressions for these four statistical tests are also presented. The results are illustrated using two real data sets: the Chilean Stock Market data set and another from the New York Stock Exchange. The asset pricing model under the multivariate t-distribution presents a good fit, clearly better than the asset pricing model under the assumption of normality, in both data sets.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207