MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123037888 · doi:10.1093/jjfinec/nbz022

Positional Portfolio Management

2019· article· en· W3123037888 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Financial Econometrics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsUnobservablePortfolioPosition (finance)Competitor analysisProject portfolio managementAsset allocationVariance (accounting)EconometricsAsset (computer security)Replicating portfolioRate of return on a portfolioFunction (biology)EconomicsModern portfolio theoryPortfolio optimizationComputer scienceFinancial economicsFinanceAccounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study positional portfolio management strategies in which the manager maximizes an expected utility function written on the cross-sectional rank (position) of the portfolio return. The objective function reflects the manager’s goal to be well-ranked among competitors. To implement positional allocation strategies, we specify a nonlinear unobservable factor model for the asset returns which disentangles the dynamics of the cross-sectional distribution and the dynamics of the ranks of the individual assets. Using a large dataset of stocks returns we find that positional strategies outperform standard momentum, reversal and mean-variance allocation strategies, as well as equally weighted portfolio for criteria based on position.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.176 · 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