MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220730889 · doi:10.3390/jrfm15030126

The Impact of the U.S. Macroeconomic Variables on the CBOE VIX Index

2022· article· en· W4220730889 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Akhilesh Prasad, Priti Bakhshi, A. Seetharaman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsVolatility (finance)Stock market indexIndex (typography)EconometricsStock marketLogistic regressionEquity (law)Financial economicsStatisticsMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to find the influence of various macroeconomic factors on the volatility index, as macroeconomic factors affect stock market volatility, resulting in an impact on the VIX Index, representing the risk in the stock market. To estimate the significance and importance of the U.S. macroeconomic variables on stock market volatility and risk, classification problems from machine learning are constructed to predict the daily and weekly trends of the VIX Index. Data from May 2007 to December 2021 is considered for analysis. The selected models are trained with twenty-four daily features and twenty-four plus nine weekly features. The outcomes suggest that the decisions made by the Light GBM and XG Boost on ranking features can be significantly accepted over logistic regression. It is found from the results that economic policy uncertainty indices, gold price, the USD Index, and crude oil are signified as strong predictors. The Financial Stress Index, initial claims, M2, TED spread, Fed rate, and credit spread are also strong predictors, while various yields on fixed income securities make a little less impact on the VIX Index. The TED spread, Financial Stress Index, and Equity Market Volatility (Infectious Disease Tracker) are positively associated with the VIX.

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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations30
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207