MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304816013 · doi:10.54691/bcpbm.v26i.2069

The Application of ARIMA and Mean-variance Models on Financial Market

2022· article· en· W4304816013 on OpenAlexaff
Zhixiang Deng, Yujia Han

Bibliographic record

VenueBCP Business & Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicStock Market Forecasting Methods
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSharpe ratioPortfolioEconometricsVolatility (finance)EconomicsFinancial economicsAutoregressive integrated moving averageMarket portfolioEfficient frontierStock marketRate of return on a portfolioPortfolio optimizationIndex (typography)Stock market indexCapitalization-weighted indexFinancial marketStatisticsTime seriesMathematicsFinanceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study centers on forecasting return and constructing proper portfolios with 5 typical assets rarely focused on the Chinese A-share market. This paper applies the fittest ARIMA models for each of the selected stocks to predict their trend of returns in the next 20 days. Besides, we create the efficient frontier by Monte Carlo simulation under Markowitz’s Mean-Variance framework to focus on two portfolios, i.e., the maximum Sharpe ratio portfolio and the minimum volatility portfolio. The empirical results of the ARIMA model indicate a rational prediction of return for assets in the A-share market. The maximum Sharpe ratio portfolio and the minimum volatility portfolio show that stock of Foshan Haitian Flavouring and Food Company Ltd. and stock of China Merchants Bank Co., Ltd. account for the largest proportion in the two portfolios. Further empirical results show that returns for two portfolios are higher than the market index return, which illuminates the two portfolios outperform the market index. The results in this paper will surely benefit related investors in the financial market.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBCP Business & ManagementSame topicStock Market Forecasting MethodsFrench-language works237,207