MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Empirical Test of a Two-Factor Mortgage Valuation Model: How Much Do House Prices Matter?

2005· article· en· W3125516701 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueReal Estate Economics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHousing Market and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillUniversity of British ColumbiaKeio UniversityRice UniversityUniversity of Southern California
KeywordsPrepayment of loanEconomicsValuation (finance)House priceEconometricsInterest rateFinancial economicsActuarial scienceMonetary economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article develops a two-factor structural mortgage pricing model in which rational mortgage-holders choose when to prepay and default in response to changes in both interest rates and house prices. We estimate the model using comprehensive data on the pool-level termination rates for Freddie Mac Participation Certificates issued between 1991 and 2002. The model exhibits a statistically and economically significant improvement over the nested one-factor (interest-rate only) model in its ability to match historical prepayment data. Moreover, the two-factor model produces origination prices that are significantly closer to those quoted in the to-be-announced market than the one-factor model. Our results have important implications for hedging mortgage-backed securities.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.785
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.224 · 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