Jump factor models in large cross‐sections
大横截面中的跳跃因子模型AI 解读 ↓
本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。
DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。
引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。
关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。
AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要直接研究资产收益的跳跃因子结构,并以因子跳跃时点的高频收益实施检验,因此对应金融因子与高频计量。
大横截面中的跳跃因子模型AI 解读 ↓
正在核对关联版本…
正在核对对应版本的资源…
We develop tests for deciding whether a large cross‐section of asset prices obey an exact factor structure at the times of factor jumps. Such jump dependence is implied by standard linear factor models. Our inference is based on a panel of asset returns with asymptotically increasing cross‐sectional dimension and sampling frequency, and essentially no restriction on the relative magnitude of these two dimensions of the panel. The test is formed from the high‐frequency returns at the times when the risk factors are detected to have a jump. The test statistic is a cross‐sectional average of a measure of discrepancy in the estimated jump factor loadings of the assets at consecutive jump times. Under the null hypothesis, the discrepancy in the factor loadings is due to a measurement error, which shrinks with the increase of the sampling frequency, while under an alternative of a noisy jump factor model this discrepancy contains also nonvanishing firm‐specific shocks. The limit behavior of the test under the null hypothesis is nonstandard and reflects the strong‐dependence in the cross‐section of returns as well as their heteroskedasticity which is left unspecified. We further develop estimators for assessing the magnitude of firm‐specific risk in asset prices at the factor jump events. Empirical application to S&P 100 stocks provides evidence for exact one‐factor structure at times of big market‐wide jump events.