MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395003049 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17040170

Estimating Asset Parameters Using Levy’s Moment Matching Method

2024· article· en· W4395003049 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Masatoshi Miyake

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMoment (physics)Matching (statistics)Asset (computer security)EconometricsMathematicsComputer scienceEconomicsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventionally, the unknown parameters in Merton’s model are set using a calibration method that estimates the current asset value and volatility from observable stock prices. This paper describes a completely different approach for estimating these asset parameters. The proposed approach uses Levy’s moment matching method to derive an equation for the asset value based on the sum of equity and debt on the balance sheet, with the current debt value treated as an unknown and estimated from stock prices. Empirical analysis reveals that this method results in simpler calculations than the calibration method and can estimate the asset parameters and default probability to the same degree of accuracy. An additional advantage of the proposed method is that it estimates the asset correlation if the current debt value is known, allowing Merton’s model to be extended to multiple companies. The asset correlation obtained by the proposed method is estimated from multiple parameters related to equity, debt, and the evaluation period, which is useful when the influence of equity volatility, leverage, and time must be considered in estimating asset correlations based on equity correlations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicInsurance, Mortality, Demography, Risk ManagementFrench-language works237,207