MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413192490 · doi:10.1016/j.jfineco.2025.104153

Why does options market information predict stock returns?

2025· article· en· W4413192490 on OpenAlex
Dmitriy Muravyev, Neil D. Pearson, Joshua Matthew Pollet

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Financial Economics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Markets and Investment Strategies
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
FundersCentral Indiana Community FoundationInstitut Canadien des Dérivés
KeywordsStock marketFinancial economicsBusinessStock (firearms)EconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several influential studies show that transformations of implied volatilities calculated from options prices predict stock returns. This predictability is puzzling because market participants readily observe options prices. We find that this predictability is consistent with implied volatilities reflecting stock borrow fees that are known to predict stock returns. We derive a formula relating the option-implied volatility spread to the borrow fee. Motivated by this relation, we show that the return predictability from implied volatility spread and skew decreases by at least two-thirds if high-fee stocks are excluded. The patterns for other predictors computed from option implied volatilities are similar.

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)0.001
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 score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.189 · 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