The Impact of Sentiment on Realized Higher-Order Moments in the S&P 500: Evidence from the Fear and Greed Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study empirically investigates the relationship between realized higher-order moments and the Fear and Greed Index as a measure of sentiments. We estimate daily realized moments using 5 min return data of the S&P 500 index from 3 January 2011 to 18 September 2020. We find that the Fear and Greed Index significantly impacts realized volatility during periods of extreme fear. Additionally, various sentiment indicators influence realized skewness and realized kurtosis. The VIX index significantly reduces realized skewness across all sentiment levels. Bearish and bullish sentiments have a significant negative relationship with negative realized skewness during periods of extreme fear and extreme greed. However, the Fear and Greed Index and bearish and bullish sentiments have a significant positive relationship with positive realized skewness. During extreme fear, the Fear and Greed Index and bearish and bullish sentiments have a significant negative relationship with realized kurtosis. These results remain consistent when considering the non-linear characteristics of the Fear and Greed Index during periods of extreme fear and extreme greed. These findings highlight the relevance of understanding sentiment in financial risk management and its significant relationship with the asymmetric and extremity characteristics of asset returns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".