MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387394822 · doi:10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.102172

Technical trading rules, loss avoidance, and the business cycle

2023· article· en· W4387394822 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific-Basin Finance Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsBank of Canada
FundersAuckland University of Technology, New Zealand
KeywordsTrading strategyEquity (law)RecessionPairs tradeInvestment strategyBusiness cycleEconomicsTechnical analysisMonetary economicsBusinessTrend followingSample (material)Investment (military)EconometricsFinancial economicsAlternative trading systemAlgorithmic tradingMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We show that simple technical trading rule (TTR) strategies substantially reduce investment left tail risk. An investor following a TTR strategy can also avoid a high percentage of extremely negative returns. This percentage increases substantially during recessions. Interestingly, tail risk reduction does not come at a cost of lower performance – risk adjusted returns of TTR strategies are in fact higher than those of a buy-and-hold strategy. Our findings are robust to changes in trading strategy specifications. They hold in 38 international equity markets, as well as in a large sample of individual US stocks, and survive a reality check bootstrap.

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.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.188 · 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