MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162357366 · doi:10.1093/imaman/dpab016

Analysis of the optimal time to withdraw investments from hedge funds with alternative fee structures

2021· article· en· W3162357366 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

VenueIMA Journal of Management Mathematics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStopping timeOptimal stoppingBounded functionHedge fundHedgeBoundary (topology)Time horizonUpper and lower boundsHorizonValue (mathematics)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsComputer scienceActuarial scienceFinanceEconomicsStatisticsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study the optimal stopping problem arising from an investor determining the best time to withdraw from a hedge fund with a shared loss fee structure and a positive fee for assets under management—a decision that is critically important to the viability of such products in practice. The optimal solution is characterized as the first exit time of the fund value from a bounded region with upper and lower stopping boundaries. In the infinite horizon case, we present the complete solution to the optimal stopping problem, while in the finite horizon case we derive a pair of coupled integral equations for the stopping bounds and present an asymptotic analysis of the stopping boundaries for small time. The analysis requires new mathematical results extending techniques suitable for options with one exercise boundary to the case of a coupled pair of upper and lower boundaries.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.203 · 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