期权价格的信息含量:比较分析师预测与基于期权的预测

IF 3.8 3区 经济学 Q1 BUSINESS, FINANCE North American Journal of Economics and Finance Pub Date : 2024-05-23 DOI:10.1016/j.najef.2024.102197
Anthony Sanford
{"title":"期权价格的信息含量:比较分析师预测与基于期权的预测","authors":"Anthony Sanford","doi":"10.1016/j.najef.2024.102197","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The asset pricing literature has been producing increasingly complex and computationally intensive models of stock returns. Separately, professional analysts’ forecast stock returns. Are the sophisticated methods found in the asset pricing literature achieving different forecasts to those of analysts?’ Do the two forecasts’ even capture the same information? In this paper, I hypothesize that analyst forecasts and forecasts constructed using option prices will be different because they place different weights on available information. Using hypothesis tests and quantile regressions, I find that option-based forecasts are statistically significantly different from analyst forecasts at every level of the forecast distribution. Using cross-sectional regressions, I find that the difference originates in the weighting structure of the information sets used to create the forecasts: option-based forecasts incorporate information about the probability of extreme events more heavily while analyst forecasts focus on information about firm and macroeconomic fundamentals.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47831,"journal":{"name":"North American Journal of Economics and Finance","volume":"73 ","pages":"Article 102197"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1062940824001220/pdfft?md5=5fd91b29dd81670ade444864e2c85240&pid=1-s2.0-S1062940824001220-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Information content of option prices: Comparing analyst forecasts to option-based forecasts\",\"authors\":\"Anthony Sanford\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.najef.2024.102197\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>The asset pricing literature has been producing increasingly complex and computationally intensive models of stock returns. Separately, professional analysts’ forecast stock returns. Are the sophisticated methods found in the asset pricing literature achieving different forecasts to those of analysts?’ Do the two forecasts’ even capture the same information? In this paper, I hypothesize that analyst forecasts and forecasts constructed using option prices will be different because they place different weights on available information. Using hypothesis tests and quantile regressions, I find that option-based forecasts are statistically significantly different from analyst forecasts at every level of the forecast distribution. Using cross-sectional regressions, I find that the difference originates in the weighting structure of the information sets used to create the forecasts: option-based forecasts incorporate information about the probability of extreme events more heavily while analyst forecasts focus on information about firm and macroeconomic fundamentals.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47831,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"North American Journal of Economics and Finance\",\"volume\":\"73 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102197\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1062940824001220/pdfft?md5=5fd91b29dd81670ade444864e2c85240&pid=1-s2.0-S1062940824001220-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"North American Journal of Economics and Finance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1062940824001220\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS, FINANCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"North American Journal of Economics and Finance","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1062940824001220","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS, FINANCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

资产定价文献中的股票收益模型越来越复杂,计算量也越来越大。另外,专业分析师也预测股票收益。资产定价文献中的复杂方法是否实现了与分析师不同的预测?这两种预测是否捕捉到了相同的信息?在本文中,我假设分析师的预测和利用期权价格构建的预测会有所不同,因为他们对可用信息的权重不同。通过假设检验和量子回归,我发现基于期权的预测与分析师预测在预测分布的各个层次上都有显著的统计学差异。通过横截面回归,我发现这种差异源于用于创建预测的信息集的权重结构:基于期权的预测更多地纳入了有关极端事件发生概率的信息,而分析师的预测则侧重于有关公司和宏观经济基本面的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Information content of option prices: Comparing analyst forecasts to option-based forecasts

The asset pricing literature has been producing increasingly complex and computationally intensive models of stock returns. Separately, professional analysts’ forecast stock returns. Are the sophisticated methods found in the asset pricing literature achieving different forecasts to those of analysts?’ Do the two forecasts’ even capture the same information? In this paper, I hypothesize that analyst forecasts and forecasts constructed using option prices will be different because they place different weights on available information. Using hypothesis tests and quantile regressions, I find that option-based forecasts are statistically significantly different from analyst forecasts at every level of the forecast distribution. Using cross-sectional regressions, I find that the difference originates in the weighting structure of the information sets used to create the forecasts: option-based forecasts incorporate information about the probability of extreme events more heavily while analyst forecasts focus on information about firm and macroeconomic fundamentals.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
168
期刊介绍: The focus of the North-American Journal of Economics and Finance is on the economics of integration of goods, services, financial markets, at both regional and global levels with the role of economic policy in that process playing an important role. Both theoretical and empirical papers are welcome. Empirical and policy-related papers that rely on data and the experiences of countries outside North America are also welcome. Papers should offer concrete lessons about the ongoing process of globalization, or policy implications about how governments, domestic or international institutions, can improve the coordination of their activities. Empirical analysis should be capable of replication. Authors of accepted papers will be encouraged to supply data and computer programs.
期刊最新文献
ESG rating and default risk: Evidence from China Decoding the stock market dynamics in the banking sector: Short versus long-term insights Static and dynamic return and volatility connectedness between transportation tokens and transportation indices: Evidence from quantile connectedness approach The role of digital transformation in mergers and acquisitions Spillover of fear among the US and BRICS equity markets during the COVID-19 crisis and the Russo-Ukrainian conflict
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1