Analysis of Investment Returns as Markov Chain Random Walk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective of this paper is to analyse investment returns using a stochastic model and inform investors about the best stock market to invest in. To this effect, a Markov chain random walk model was successfully developed and implemented on 450 monthly market returns data spanning from January 1976 to December 2020 for Canada, India, Mexico, South Africa, and Switzerland obtained from the Federal Reserves of the Bank of St. Louis. The limiting state probabilities and six-month moving crush probabilities were estimated for each country, and these were used to assess the performance of the markets. The Mexican market was observed to have the least probabilities for all the negative states, while the Indian market recorded the largest limiting probabilities. In the case of positive states, the Mexican market recorded the highest limiting probabilities, while the Indian market recorded the lowest limiting probabilities. The results showed that the Mexican market performed better than the others over the study period, whilst India performed poorly. These findings provide crucial information for market regulators and investors in setting regulations and decision-making in investment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".