MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214813713 · doi:10.3390/risks10030057

The Effect of COVID-19 on the Relationship between Idiosyncratic Volatility and Expected Stock Returns

2022· article· en· W4214813713 on OpenAlexaff
Seyed Reza Tabatabaei Poudeh, Sungchul Choi, Chengbo Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueRisks · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVolatility (finance)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)EconomicsStock (firearms)PortfolioEconometricsPandemicFinancial economics2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSkewnessSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PredictabilityStock marketMonetary economicsInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the relationship between idiosyncratic volatility and expected stock returns. Using daily stock return data in the US market from the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP), we estimate monthly idiosyncratic volatility and investigate the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic at the portfolio and firm level. The results of portfolio analysis and cross-sectional regression show that the relationship between idiosyncratic volatility and subsequent stock returns switches from negative to positive during the pandemic period. Furthermore, we find that the relationship is robust to skewness for the “before the pandemic” and “after pandemic” periods. On the contrary, when we control for the one-month return reversal, the effect of idiosyncratic volatility on the subsequent stock returns becomes insignificant in both periods. Therefore, the short-term return reversal effect is the underlying reason for the relationship switching from negative to positive in the pandemic period. Our results are beneficial for investors and researchers.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRisksSame topicFinancial Markets and Investment StrategiesFrench-language works237,207