MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401732607 · doi:10.1016/j.jempfin.2024.101531

Persistent and transient variance components in option pricing models with variance-dependent Kernel

2024· article· en· W4401732607 on OpenAlexaff
Hamed Ghanbari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Empirical Finance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicStochastic processes and financial applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariance (accounting)Variance componentsEconometricsTransient (computer programming)Kernel (algebra)Variance-based sensitivity analysisVariance risk premiumEconomicsLaw of total varianceMathematicsStochastic discount factorOne-way analysis of varianceStatisticsComputer scienceConditional varianceCapital asset pricing modelStochastic volatilityAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityVolatility (finance)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines theoretically and empirically a variance-dependent pricing kernel in the continuous-time two-factor stochastic volatility (SV) model. We investigate the relevance of such a kernel in the joint modeling of index returns and option prices. We contrast the pricing performance of this model in capturing the term structure effects and smile/smirk patterns to discrete-time GARCH models with similar variance-dependent kernels. We find negative and significant risk premium for both volatility factors, implying that investors are willing to pay for insurance against increases in volatility risk, even if it has little persistence. In-sample, the component GARCH model exhibits a slightly better fit overall and across all maturity buckets than the two-factor SV model. However, the two-factor SV model reduces strike price bias, giving rise to the model’s ability in reconciling the physical and risk-neutral distribution. Out-of-sample, the two-factor SV model has better fit to data. • I examine a variance-dependent kernel in a two-factor stochastic volatility model. • The model performance in capturing term structure and smile/smirk is investigated. • The study finds negative and significant risk premiums for both volatility factors. • In-sample, CGARCH exhibits a slightly better fit than two-factor SV model. • Out-of-sample, the two-factor SV model has better fit to data.

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 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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Empirical FinanceSame topicStochastic processes and financial applicationsFrench-language works237,207