Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose With the presence of pricing errors, the authors consider statistical inference on the variance risk premium (VRP) and the associated implied variance, constructed from the option prices and the historic returns. Design/methodology/approach The authors propose a nonparametric kernel smoothing approach that removes the adverse effects of pricing errors and leads to consistent estimation for both the implied variance and the VRP. The asymptotic distributions of the proposed VRP estimator are developed under three asymptotic regimes regarding the relative sample sizes between the option data and historic return data. Findings This study reveals that existing methods for estimating the implied variance are adversely affected by pricing errors in the option prices, which causes the estimators for VRP statistically inconsistent. By analyzing the S&P 500 option and return data, it demonstrates that, compared with other implied variance and VRP estimators, the proposed implied variance and VRP estimators are more significant variables in explaining variations in the excess S&P 500 returns, and the proposed VRP estimates have the smallest out-of-sample forecasting root mean squared error. Research limitations/implications This study contributes to the estimation of the implied variance and the VRP and helps in the predictions of future realized variance and equity premium. Originality/value This study is the first to propose consistent estimations for the implied variance and the VRP with the presence of option pricing errors.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".