WORKING PAPER SERIESFEDERAL RESERVE BANK of ATLANTA WORKING PAPER SERIES A Note on the Estimation of Asset Pricing Models Using Simple Regression Betas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
regression (CSR) methodology has become the most popular tool for estimating and testing beta asset pricing models. In this paper, we focus on the case in which simple regression betas are used as regressors in the second-pass CSR. Under general distributional assumptions, we derive asymptotic standard errors of the risk premia estimates that are robust to model misspecification. When testing whether the beta risk of a given factor is priced, our misspecification robust standard error and the Jagannathan and Wang (1998) standard error (which is derived under the correctly specified model) can lead to different conclusions. JEL classification: G12 Key words: two-pass cross-sectional regressions, risk premia, model misspecification, simple regression betas, multivariate betas Kan gratefully acknowledges financial support from the National Bank Financial of Canada. The views expressed here are the authors ’ and not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta or the Federal Reserve System. Any remaining errors are the authors ’ responsibility.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".