arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1306.4994

Additive versus multiplicative parameters - applications in economics and finance

Helena Jasiulewicz·Wojciech Kordecki
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

In this paper, we pay our attention to geometric parameters and their applications in economics and finance. We discuss the multiplicative models in which a geometric mean and a geometric standard deviation are more natural than arithmetic ones. We give two examples from Warsaw Stock Exchange in 1995--2009 and from a bid of 52-week treasury bills in 1992--2009 in Poland as an illustrative example. For distributions having applications in finance and insurance we give their multiplicative parameters as well as their estimations. We consider, among others, heavy-tailed distributions such as lognormal and Pareto distribution, applied to modelling of large losses.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.ST

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Helena Jasiulewicz, Wojciech Kordecki. 2016-12-12. Additive versus multiplicative parameters - applications in economics and finance. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-015-2035-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Does Crypto Sentiment Extremity Widen Estimated Spreads? Evidence Depends on the Specification

We examine whether extreme values of the Crypto Fear & Greed Index are associated with a daily high-low spread estimate for Bitcoin. The sample contains 2,896 BTC/USDT observations from February 2018 to January 2026. We find an unconditional extreme-minus-neutral gap of 61.99 basis points. After close-to-close realised-volatility-quintile demeaning it is 24.79 basis points, although none of the five separate quintile contrasts survives Holm correction. With quadratic realised-volatility and strictly lagged momentum controls, the HAC estimate is 11.81 basis points (95% CI [-2.31,25.93], p=.101). A fixed non-parametric stratification gives 20.44 basis points (p=.0195 under circular shifts), while separate models for a zero-floored estimate's incidence and positive magnitude are imprecise. The results therefore show only a descriptive, specification-dependent association. We conclude that they do not establish a stable or causal liquidity premium.

q-fin.ST↗
arXiv2026

Do Cryptocurrency Markets Differentiate Infrastructure from Regulatory Shocks? A Multi-Moment Event Study with Dependence-Robust Inference

Do cryptocurrency markets respond differently to infrastructure and regulatory shocks? We study returns and conditional variance on a shared sample of 50 events and six assets (January 2019--August 2025), using GJR-GARCH-X models and dependence-aware inference. Treating event inclusion as a design parameter, we trace the variance differential across inclusion screens. Curated high-salience events yield a $3.49\times$ point-estimate multiplier, whereas a mechanical impact filter on a broad reconstructed candidate pool yields approximately $0.5$--$1.6\times$. This pattern is descriptive and selection-conditional, not an inferential comparison between screens. The curated variance differential is not significant against its fitted sharp per-asset-equality null under the conditional fixed-path Student-$t$-copula bootstrap ($p\approx0.39$). Floored recursive sensitivity gives one-sided $p=0.025$ at baseline and $0.041$ with asset-specific high-variance-regime controls, so the verdict depends on inference scheme and implementation. Across reported dependence inputs, the six-contrast effective sample size is $1.33$--$2.35$; one-sided effective-df sensitivity gives $p=0.044$--$0.116$. Earlier significance from treating correlated per-asset coefficients as independent samples is not robust to dependence and heavy-tail corrections. The cumulative-abnormal-return difference is $+8.69$ percentage points (event-level block-bootstrap $p=0.202$). The asymmetry remains directional, selection-conditional and unresolved. The contribution is an inference ladder and an internal Monte-Carlo calibration study, demonstrated through correction of the author's earlier significance claim.

q-fin.ST↗
arXiv2026

Modeling financial time series with $ϕ^{4}$ quantum field theory

We use a $ϕ^{4}$ quantum field theory with inhomogeneous couplings and explicit symmetry-breaking to model an ensemble of financial time series from the S$\&$P 500 index. The continuum nature of the $ϕ^4$ theory avoids the inaccuracies that occur in Ising-based models which require a discretization of the time series. We demonstrate this using the example of the 2008 global financial crisis. The $ϕ^{4}$ quantum field theory is expressive enough to reproduce the higher-order statistics such as the market kurtosis, which can serve as an indicator of possible market shocks. Accurate reproduction of high kurtosis is absent in binarized models. Therefore Ising models, despite being widely employed in econophysics, are incapable of fully representing empirical financial data, a limitation not present in the generalization of the $ϕ^{4}$ scalar field theory. We then investigate the scaling properties of the $ϕ^{4}$ machine learning algorithm and extract exponents which govern the behavior of the learned couplings (or weights and biases in ML language) in relation to the number of stocks in the model. Finally, we use our model to forecast the price changes of the AAPL, MSFT, and NVDA stocks. We conclude by discussing how the $ϕ^{4}$ scalar field theory could be used to build investment strategies and the possible intuitions that the QFT operations of dimensional compactification and renormalization can provide for financial modelling.

q-fin.ST↗