MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125713255 · doi:10.1002/for.2552

An analysis on the predictability of CAPM beta for momentum returns

2018· article· en· W3125713255 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 Forecasting · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapital asset pricing modelPredictabilityMomentum (technical analysis)BETA (programming language)EconomicsEconometricsFinancial economicsStock (firearms)EstimatorTrading strategyMathematicsStatisticsComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper demonstrates that the forecasted capital asset pricing model (CAPM) beta of momentum portfolios explains a large portion of the return, ranging from 40% to 60% for stock‐level momentum, and from 30% to 50% for industry‐level momentum. Beta forecasts are from a realized beta estimator using daily returns over the prior year. Periods such as 1969–1989 have been found in earlier studies to contain abnormal profits from momentum trading; however, we show that these were spuriously generated by measurement error in systematic risk. These results cast further doubt on the ability of standard momentum trading strategies to generate abnormal profits.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.181 · 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