Assessing the Use of Gold as a Zero-Beta Asset in Empirical Asset Pricing: Application to the US Equity Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the use of the return on gold instead of treasury bills in empirical asset pricing models for the US equity market. It builds upon previous research on the safe-haven, hedging, and zero-beta characteristics of gold in developed markets and the close relationship between interest rates, stock, and gold returns. In particular, we extend this research by showing that using gold as a zero-beta asset helps to improve the time-series performance of asset pricing models when pricing US equities and industries between 1981 and 2015. The performance of gold zero-beta models is also compared with traditional empirical factor models using the 1-month Treasury bill rate as the risk-free rate. Our results indicate that using gold as a zero-beta asset leads to higher R-squared values, lower Sharpe ratios of alphas, and fewer significant pricing errors in the time-series analysis. Similarly, the pricing of small stock and industry portfolios is improved. In cross-section, we also find improved results, with fewer cross-sectional pricing errors and more economically meaningful pricing of risk factors. We also find that a zero-beta gold factor constructed to be orthogonal to the Carhart four factors is significant in cross-section and helps to improve factor model performance on momentum portfolios. Furthermore, the Fama–French three- and five-factor asset pricing models and the Carhart model are all improved by these means, particularly on test assets which have been poorly priced by the traditional versions. Our results have salient implications for policymakers, governments, central bank rate-setting decisions, and investors.
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 | 0.013 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".