MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122674308 · doi:10.1093/rof/rfaa040

Time-Varying Crash Risk Embedded in Index Options: The Role of Stock Market Liquidity

2020· article· en· W3122674308 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Christoffersen, Bruno Feunou, Yoontae Jeon, Chayawat Ornthanalai

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Finance Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityBank of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarket liquidityStock market crashCrashEconometricsIndex (typography)EconomicsStock marketStock market indexMarket riskFinancial economicsMonetary economicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We estimate a continuous-time model for the stock market index where the stochastic volatility and crash probability depend on the realized spot variance and the stock market illiquidity. We find that market illiquidity is a useful economic covariate in the modeling of time-varying stock market crash risk embedded in index options. The relative contribution of spot variance in the time-varying crash risk is weakened once the market illiquidity variable is added to the model, and out-of-sample option pricing error also improves. Examining the relationship between market illiquidity and option-implied crash risk, we find that the availability of arbitrage capital and adverse selection facing liquidity providers are potential economic links. Our study highlights the benefits of adding a market illiquidity measure to index return models with time-varying crash risk.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Finance ReviewSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207