A Pseudo-Bayesian Model for Stock Returns In Financial Crises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, there has been a considerable interest in the Bayesian approach for explaining investors' behaviorial biases by incorporating conservative and representative heuristics when making financial decisions, (see, for example, Barberis, Shleifer and Vishny (1998)). To establish a quantitative link between some important market anomalies and investors' behaviorial biases, Lam, Liu, and Wong (2010) introduced a pseudo-Bayesian approach for developing properties of stock returns, where weights induced by investors' conservative and representative heuristics are assigned to observations of the earning shocks and stock prices. In response to the recent global financial crisis, we introduce a new pseudo-Bayesian model to incorporate the impact of a financial crisis. Properties of stock returns during the financial crisis and recovery from the crisis are established. The proposed model can be applied to investigate some important market anomalies including short-term underreaction, long-term overreaction, and excess volatility during financial crisis. We also explain in some detail the linkage between these market anomalies and investors' behavioral biases during financial crisis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".