Spot–Futures Price Adjustments in the Nikkei 225: Linear or Smooth Transition? Financial Centre Leadership or Home Bias?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper studies price discovery in Nikkei 225 markets through the nonlinear smooth transition price adjustments between spot and future prices and across all three futures markets. We test for smooth transition nonlinearity and employ an exponential smooth transition error correction model (ESTECM) with exponential generalised autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity (EGARCH), allowing for the effects of transaction costs, heterogeneity, and asymmetry in Nikkei price adjustments. We show that the ESTECM-EGARCH is the appropriate model as it offers new insights into Nikkei price dynamics and information transmission across international markets. For spot–futures price dynamics, we find that futures led spot prices before the crisis, but spot prices led afterwards. This can be explained by the lower level of heterogeneity in the underlying spot transaction costs after the crisis. For cross-border futures prices, the foreign exchanges (Chicago and Singapore) lead in price discovery, which can be attributed to their roles as global information centres and their flexible trading conditions, such as a more heterogeneous structure of transaction costs. The foreign leadership is robust to the use of linear or nonlinear models, the time differences between Chicago and the other markets, and the long-run liquidity conditions of the Nikkei futures markets, and strongly supports the international centre hypothesis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".