Can Multistep Nonparametric Regressions Beat Historical Average in Predicting Excess Stock Returns?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several economic and financial variables are said to have predictive power over excess stock returns. Empirically there is little consensus among academics, whether these variables have predictive power or not. Results are often sensitive to the econometric model of choice. The econometric models can produce biased results due to the high degree of persistence in predictive variables. Apart from high persistence, the relationship between stock return and the predictive variable may also be misspecified in the model. In order to address possible non-linearities and endogeneity between the residuals and persistent independent variables in predictive regressions, multi-step non-parametric and semiparametric regressions are explored in this paper. In these regressions, the conditional mean and the residuals are estimated separately and then added to obtain the predicted excess stock returns. Goyal and Welch's (2008) predictive variables are used to predict excess S&P 500 returns. The predictive performance of both in-sample and out-of-sample of the two proposed models are compared with the historical average, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and non-parametric regressions. The performance of the models is evaluated using Root Mean Squared Errors (RMSEs). The explored models, particularly the two-step nonparametric model, outperform the compared models in-sample. Out-of-sample several variables are found to have predictive ability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".