MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216368975 · doi:10.1016/j.iref.2021.11.016

Measuring volatility persistence in leveraged loan markets in the presence of structural breaks

2021· article· en· W3216368975 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emmanuel Joel Aikins Abakah, Luis A. Gil‐Alana, Emmanuel Kwesi Arthur, Aviral Kumar Tiwari

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Economics & Finance · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónUniversity of AdelaideUniversidad Francisco de Vitoria
KeywordsVolatility (finance)EconomicsLeverage (statistics)LoanEconometricsFinancial economicsValuation (finance)Long memoryPersistence (discontinuity)Monetary economicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines volatility persistence in leverage loan market price series for Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, Singapore, UK and USA in the presence of structural breaks. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first empirical study to examine volatility persistence in the leveraged loan markets. To this end, using fractional integration methods, the results indicate that both absolute and squared returns display long memory features, with orders of integration confirming the long memory hypothesis. However, after accounting for structural breaks, we find a reduction in the degree of persistence in the leveraged loan market. The evidence of persistence in volatility implies that market participants who want to make gains across trading scales need to factor the persistence properties of leveraged loan price series in their valuation and forecasting models since that will help improve long-term volatility market forecasts and optimal hedging decisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Economics & FinanceSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207