NeuralCipher Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
To take into account the temporal dimension of uncertainty in stock markets, this paper introduces a cross-sectional estimation of stock market volatility based on the intrinsic entropy model. The proposed cross-sectional intrinsic entropy (CSIE) is defined and computed as a daily volatility estimate for the entire market, grounded on the daily traded prices-open, high, low, and close prices (OHLC)-along with the daily traded volume for all symbols listed on The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and The National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ). We perform a comparative analysis between the time series obtained from the CSIE and the historical volatility as provided by the estimators: close-to-close, Parkinson, Garman-Klass, Rogers-Satchell, Yang-Zhang, and intrinsic entropy (IE), defined and computed from historical OHLC daily prices of the Standard & Poor's 500 index (S&P500), Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), and the NASDAQ Composite index, respectively, for various time intervals. Our study uses an approximate 6000-day reference point, starting 1 January 2001, until 23 January 2022, for both the NYSE and the NASDAQ. We found that the CSIE market volatility estimator is consistently at least 10 times more sensitive to market changes, compared to the volatility estimate captured through the market indices. Furthermore, beta values confirm a consistently lower volatility risk for market indices overall, between 50% and 90% lower, compared to the volatility risk of the entire market in various time intervals and rolling windows.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.