MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392131403 · doi:10.3905/jpm.2024.1.600

How Should the Long-Term Investor Harvest Variance Risk Premiums?

2024· article· en· W4392131403 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

VenueThe Journal of Portfolio Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariance (accounting)Leverage (statistics)Term (time)Maturity (psychological)EconomicsEconometricsFinancial economicsVariance risk premiumStochastic gameInvestment (military)Actuarial scienceIndex (typography)MicroeconomicsComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsVolatility (finance)Accounting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Derivatives strategies that aim to earn variance risk premiums are exposed to sharp price declines during market crises, calling into question their suitability for the long-term investor. This article defines, analyzes, and proposes potential solutions to three problems (payoff, leverage, and finite maturity) linked to designing suitable variance-based investment strategies. The authors conduct an empirical study of such strategies for the S&P 500 Index options market and find strong effects of certain design elements on risk and return. Overall, the results show that variance strategies can be attractive to the long-term investor if properly designed.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.788
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.195 · 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