arXiv subjects

Useong Shin

Publications and source records attributed to Useong Shin.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Overshooting the Coordinate: Where Factor Corrections Land on Characteristic Axes

I propose a cap-axis zero-alpha diagnostic for factor-model evaluation. Whole-stock capitalization prefixes are paired with equal realized exposure to the aggregate market, producing a bridge-alpha curve that localizes pricing errors within the market. Finite-grid HAC-Gaussian inference and residual-block calibration provide size-controlled functional tests. In 1967--2024 CRSP data, q5's negative daily bridge attenuates under lead--lag correction and is small monthly, whereas Fama-French and Carhart bridges become more visible monthly. Across 155 factors, cap-axis magnitude is neither a monotone transformation of maximum-Sharpe gain nor explained by exposure to FF3 SMB.

q-fin.GN↗

arXiv2026

A Cap-Axis Integral Diagnostic of Factor Models

I propose a cap-axis zero-alpha diagnostic for factor-model evaluation. Whole-stock capitalization prefixes are paired with equal realized exposure to the aggregate market, producing a bridge-alpha curve that localizes pricing errors within the market. Finite-grid HAC-Gaussian inference and residual-block calibration provide size-controlled functional tests. In 1967-2024 CRSP data, q5's negative daily bridge attenuates under lead-lag correction and is small monthly, whereas Fama-French and Carhart bridges become more visible monthly. Across 155 factors, cap-axis magnitude is neither a monotone transformation of maximum-Sharpe gain nor explained by exposure to FF3 SMB.

q-fin.GN↗

arXiv2026

Anatomy of the Market: A Body-Tail Test of Factor Models

In an ideal stochastic discount factor, zero pricing errors and maximum Sharpe ratio coincide; in a low-dimensional approximation they need not. I test this separation by decomposing an investible CRSP market into capitalization-ranked body and tail legs that recombine to the market return. At the daily frequency, all models pass the aggregate benchmark, but q5 alone leaves systematic offsetting leg alphas-negative body, positive tail-at all nine split ratios, despite holding the strongest spanning position. Matched random splits remove the pattern. Monthly aggregation attenuates q5's joint rejection and shifts relative weakness toward FF3, showing that internal consistency is frequency-dependent.

q-fin.GN↗

arXiv2026

Which Portfolios? The Construction Dependence of Factor Model Performance

Factor-model performance depends not only on the model but also on how test assets are constructed. We form characteristic-unsorted random portfolios from a broad CRSP universe and vary stock selection, initial weighting, holding, and rebalancing. Rankings shift materially: buy-and-hold favors FF5 and FF6, whereas daily constant-weighting favors FF3, the most stable model across designs. Although q5 attains the highest maximum Sharpe ratio in factor-spanning tests, it leaves comparatively large and construction-sensitive pricing errors on random portfolios. These results reflect construction-specific weighting of each model's pricing-error vector. Test-asset construction, including dynamic weight management, is therefore a design choice in model evaluation.

q-fin.GN↗

arXiv2026

A Three-Variable Benchmark for Post-GFC Covered Interest Parity Deviations

This paper proposes a public daily-frequency benchmark for post-GFC government-bond CIP deviations. Although CIP deviations are observed daily, the literature lacks a canonical benchmark for daily regressions comparable to standard factor models in asset pricing. Using G10 plus KRW currency-tenor panels, I show that three lagged public state variables-NFCI, the nominal broad U.S. dollar index, and the Treasury 10-year minus 2-year slope-deliver strong in-sample and leave-one-year-out performance. Cointegration, quarter-end, and aggregation-difference diagnostics suggest that the benchmark captures a persistent background component rather than short-maturity quarter-end spikes or spurious level correlation.

q-fin.GN↗

arXiv2026

The P behind Q: Empirical Evidence from Physical Drift in Put-Call Parity

Put-call parity is a terminal-payoff identity, but its enforcement is capital-using. I study the carry gap, the annualized wedge between option-implied and OIS discount factors, in SPX and RUT index options. Quoted parity is tightly compressed, while the synthetic-traded forward channel leaves a systematic wedge. I interpret this wedge as an implementation premium under finite arbitrage capital. A drift-preserving GBM term, r {\mu}-hat {\tau}, improves in-sample and leave-one-year-out fit, especially in SPX. The evidence suggests that physical drift enters not option payoffs, but the process enforcing risk-neutral parity.

q-fin.GN↗

arXiv2026

The Cost of a Free Lunch: Evidence from U.S. Derivatives Markets

Put-call parity is a terminal-payoff identity; quoted residuals against traded futures are near zero. Yet enforcing parity is path-dependent, exposing arbitrageurs to daily settlement, margin, and finite capital. Using minute-level NBBO data on S&P 500 and Russell 2000 options, I extract option-implied discount factors, compare them with the OIS curve, and construct an annualized carry gap. A reduced-form specification centered on a volatility times sqrt(tau) path-risk term links the carry gap to implementation risk, trading frictions, and financial conditions, with coefficient signs stable across leave-one-year-out validation. The carry gap is an implementation wedge invisible in price space but systematic in carry space.

q-fin.GN↗

arXiv2026

Tuning in to Frequencies: How Global Assets Align with U.S. Put-Call Parity Residuals

Put-call parity is risk-neutral at terminal payoff, but its enforcement is path-dependent and capital-using. I test whether the SPX and RUT carry gap is explained by OIS-based funding, volatility, trading-friction, and financial-condition variables, or also by residual outside-option information. Adding IEFA, IGOV, and IAU improves in-sample and leave-one-year-out fit after U.S.-centered controls. Gains survive broad-dollar neutralization, alternative blocks, PCA, residualization, and nested horizon selection. Results support reduced-form P-Q alignment: finite-capital parity enforcement reflects physical-measure investment opportunities, not payoff-level no-arbitrage failure.

q-fin.GN↗