Financial Asset Returns, Direction-of-Change Forecasting, and Volatility Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We consider three sets of phenomena that feature prominently in the financial economics literature: (1) conditional mean dependence (or lack thereof) in asset returns, (2) dependence (and hence forecastability) in asset return signs, and (3) dependence (and hence forecastability) in asset return volatilities. We show that they are very much interrelated and explore the relationships in detail. Among other things, we show that (1) volatility dependence produces sign dependence, so long as expected returns are nonzero, so that one should expect sign dependence, given the overwhelming evidence of volatility dependence; (2) it is statistically possible to have sign dependence without conditional mean dependence; (3) sign dependence is not likely to be found via analysis of sign autocorrelations, runs tests, or traditional market timing tests because of the special nonlinear nature of sign dependence, so that traditional market timing tests are best viewed as tests for sign dependence arising from variation in expected returns rather than from variation in volatility or higher moments; (4) sign dependence is not likely to be found in very high-frequency (e.g., daily) or very low-frequency (e.g., annual) returns; instead, it is more likely to be found at intermediate return horizons; and (5) the link between volatility dependence and sign dependence remains intact in conditionally non-Gaussian environments, for example, with time-varying conditional skewness and/or kurtosis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".