MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086660421 · doi:10.1108/jdqs-02-2006-b0002

Which One is More Important Factor for Pricing Options, Skewness or Kurtosis?

2006· article· en· W3086660421 on OpenAlexaff
Sol Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Derivatives and Quantitative Studies 선물연구 · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCapital Investment and Risk Analysis
Canadian institutionsKootenay Association for Science & Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKurtosisSkewnessEconometricsParametric statisticsMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the relative importance of the skewness and kurtosis of the risk neutral distribution for pricing KOSPI200 options. The skewness and kurtosis are estimated from non parametric method of Bakshi, Kapadia, and Madan (2003) and the parametric method of Corrado and Su (1996). We show that the skewness of the risk neutral distribution is more important factor than the kurtosis irrespective of the estimation method, the definition of pricing errors, the moneyness, the type of options and a period of time.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Derivatives and Quantitative Studies 선물연구Same topicCapital Investment and Risk AnalysisFrench-language works237,207