We tested whether a fixed change in factor slopes in market loss months improves joint monthly forecasts for US market, size and value returns. Twenty annual source versions gave 240 later monthly outcomes from October 2005 to September 2025. Each fit used ten years of data through July. Forecasts stayed fixed for twelve later months. The test assumes that each archive preserves its stated version and was available by September 30. A linear model and a model with half the fitted slope change used the same market Student t margin and conditional residual covariance. The joint forecast integrates over the unknown future market return. The half change gave a log score gain of -0.00396 nats per monthly vector against linear, with a paired 95% interval from -0.01188 to +0.00364. It gained in 8 of 20 annual groups. The full change, longer training window, separate residual scales and source-version checks gave no evidence of improvement. A joint elliptical Student t control scored better on average. The size and value mean forecasts also gave no added mean squared error gain. This is a fixed negative test on a reused sample. It does not reject all asymmetric market relations or establish a trading advantage. The package preserves code, source provenance, forecasts, fitted states, uncertainty draws, figures, independent checks, an exact replay and fixed unscored future forecasts. Provider return rows remain in a separate retained record under provider rights.
Filters: arxiv: q-fin.RM (Risk Management) ×
We tested whether a Baa corporate bond spread improves next-week Nasdaq Composite variation forecasts after past stock variation and VIX are known. Each forecast used a dated ALFRED archive, an earlier observation cutoff and only past fitting labels. Fixed ridge models used 520 common training weeks. The main test has 483 fresh weeks in 2016–2025. Adding spread level and recent change gave a mean QLIKE loss change of -0.00780, with a 95% paired eight-week block interval from -0.03403 to +0.01396. All planned credit checks gave intervals that include zero. Without 2020, the change was +0.00248. Variance mean squared error was 27.3% higher with credit, with wide uncertainty. Thus the test gives no clear added credit forecast gain in this scope. This is a retrospective test on one price index and one fixed model family. It shares a market sample with earlier SCI work and does not establish a trading profit. The package preserves code, source request records, forecasts, fits, scores, figures, uncertainty estimates, negative results and repeat instructions. Source data and measured outcomes keep their provider terms in separate retained records.
We tested daily Nikkei 225 return distributions. We compared a Student-t distribution with five degrees of freedom and a normal distribution at equal variance. Each forecast used an ALFRED data version dated before the entry close. In 1,951 sessions in 2018–2025, mean negative log density fell by 0.05083 nats per session. The paired 95% 21-session block interval for the gain was 0.01754 to 0.10016. CRPS fell by 0.46740 basis-point score units, with interval 0.20685 to 0.76309. Source-age, block-length, later-label and removal-of-2020 checks kept a positive log-score interval. Fitting an extra tail parameter gave no clear added gain. Five sessions supplied 54.2% of net log-score gain. The years 2024–2025 supplied 69.6%. Some tail rates remained above their targets. All independent checks passed. A full repeat matched 14 core numerical files. The package preserves the plan, code, provenance, forecasts, fit states, figures and repeat instructions. It also preserves 720,000 uncertainty estimates. Individual source outcomes remain separately retained under provider rights. This test uses known methods on one price index and a reused historical period. Both main models assign rise probability 0.5. The result does not establish direction skill, complete calibration, reliable future skill or trading profit.
We tested whether a published weekly variance forecast gain from VIX also improved lower 5% Nasdaq Composite return thresholds. We reused dated, past-only variance paths for 504 available weeks in 2016–2025. A fixed normal shape with location zero converted each variance into a return quantile. Adding VIX reduced mean quantile loss by 0.668 return basis points, or 1.94%. The paired 95% eight-week block interval for the relative gain was −1.21% to +5.36%. Thus, the test gave no clear added gain. The year 2020 supplied 82.2% of the observed loss reduction. Without 2020, the gain was 0.44%, with an interval of −1.79% to +2.36%. Fixed Student t and past-mean controls also gave no clear added tail gain. The package has 10,008 forecasts, code, aggregate results, source hashes, fit states, timing checks, and a clean numerical repeat. Restricted outcomes and loss ledgers are retained separately. This is an extension on a reused historical sample, with inherited source gaps and a known holiday-row error in variance inputs. It is not an independent market replication or evidence of trading profit.
We tested whether a fixed 50% mix with mean industry risk improved forecasts for thirty US industry returns. Seven dated archives supplied inputs for 66 distinct monthly outcomes from December 2015 to August 2025, with gaps. Each rule used the last 120 source months and stayed fixed at its origin. The main score tested squared return errors about the same fitted means. The mix increased mean loss by 0.04988. The descriptive 95% interval for loss reduction was -0.09798 to +0.01573; a six-group sign-flip test gave p = 0.25. A full common risk estimate also had higher loss. A fixed mix of recent and long-run risk had lower loss, but its group test gave p = 0.09375. Only six capture-year groups were available. The package preserves all forecasts, source hashes, code, uncertainty draws, checks and unscored future forecasts. The test establishes no trading profit or reliable price direction skill.
We tested a 90% bound for all five daily closing-price moves after a Nasdaq Composite origin. Inputs used prior-date ALFRED archives. Calibration used only complete path labels already released and each past origin's issued volatility scale. The final test has 385 fresh, nonoverlapping five-session outcomes in 2018–2025. The main empirical bound used the last 104 available paths. It had 4.94% more mean quantile loss than a normal path bound with the same scale. The paired 95% eight-origin block interval for error reduction was -11.45% to +1.36%. Thus it gave no clear score gain. Its full-path coverage was 90.65%, versus 87.01% for the normal path rule. A bound calibrated only on the final close had 92.21% final-close coverage but only 77.14% full-path coverage. Empirical path coverage was 83.17% in low-scale cases and 93.31% in high-scale cases. Planned delay, history, block and label checks gave no clear empirical gain. The source has a long update gap; 16 stale test slots remain in a separate case. This is a historical risk benchmark on shared market data. It does not show conditional coverage, return-direction skill or trading profit. The package preserves code, 6572 forecasts, 2756 calibration records, all scores and uncertainty cases, source requests and hashes, negative results, figures and repeat instructions. Independent checks passed. A full repeat matched ten public and three restricted files byte for byte. Raw provider prices and individual realized returns stay outside the public package under source terms.
We tested whether past daily return order improves forecasts of a Nasdaq Composite close at least 3% below entry during the next five sessions. We used 537 periods in 2015–2025 and earlier dated ALFRED inputs. The main systems used past residual blocks or all 120 orders of each block. They had the same final-return distribution. Past order gave Brier loss 0.130899, versus 0.131057 for all orders. The gain was 0.000158, with a 95% paired block interval from -0.000546 to +0.000903. Thus this test gives no clear added gain from order. There were 88 path events. Of these, 33 periods ended back above the fall threshold. Final-return events therefore miss some path events. Sixteen planned periods failed an input-age rule. We preserve all forecasts, source records, code, figures, uncertainty draws, and checks. Direct source-derived labels are retained under provider terms. This is one retrospective index test. It does not establish trading profit.
We tested joint monthly forecasts for US market, size and value factor returns. A fixed Student t model with five degrees of freedom and a normal model used the same means and covariances from ten years of data. Twenty annual archives gave 240 later monthly outcomes in October 2005–September 2025. The test assumes that each archive preserves its stated release and was available by September 30. The Student t model reduced mean log loss by 0.1352 nats per monthly vector. The paired 95% annual-block interval was 0.0127 to 0.2673. About 78% of the point gain came from single-factor distributions; the copula-score gain was uncertain. Removing the 2008 and 2019 origin blocks gave gain 0.0687, with interval -0.0314 to 0.1776. The five-degree 99% region covered 238 of 240 outcomes, but its 90% region covered only 85.4%. Source-version checks gave similar main gains. All models had identical mean forecasts. The package preserves code, source hashes, all 15 fixed paths, fitted states, scores, uncertainty draws, negative findings, figures and 180 unscored future forecasts. Independent checks passed, and a fresh process matched all 17 numeric output files. This reuses an earlier market sample and adds a scoped distribution test. It does not establish reliable mean-return skill, conditional calibration or a trading advantage.
We tested lower 5% thresholds for Nasdaq Composite price changes over 21 market sessions. Each forecast used an ALFRED data version available two calendar days before entry. Target periods did not overlap. Six fixed models used historical returns, volatility scaling, or a square-root horizon rule. The main 2018–2025 sample had 91 periods with recent inputs. Volatility-scaled historical residual blocks gave 2.67% higher mean quantile loss than raw historical return blocks. The 95% paired six-period block interval for loss reduction was -30.61% to +19.96%. Positive reduction means a better forecast. Fixed source-delay, label-version and block-length checks also gave no clear gain. The 5% breach rate was 7.69% for scaled blocks and 9.89% for raw blocks. Few breaches limit coverage tests. A one-year historical window gave higher loss than five years in a secondary test. The package preserves all 2,358 forecasts, 660,000 resampling rows, code, figures, source hashes and repeat instructions. Separate checks passed. A fresh run matched ten analysis files and two restricted ledgers exactly. This is a reused historical sample with one index and one origin grid. It does not establish return direction skill or trading profit. Source prices and individual observed returns remain under the original provider terms in retained research records.
We tested whether variance updates within simulated paths improve forecasts of repeated large stock-market losses. The event was at least two Nasdaq Composite daily price falls of 2% or more in the next 20 exchange sessions. Each input came from a dated ALFRED record, with an observation cutoff two sessions before entry. We used 134 separate targets in 2015–2025. Four planned targets failed input freshness and remain in the record. The fixed and recursive models used the same starting variance and past shock pool. The recursive model reduced mean Brier loss by 0.001591, or 0.91%. The paired 95% six-origin block interval was −0.004517 to +0.007462. Thus the main test gave no clear gain. A planned secondary score for the full loss count improved by 0.018701, with interval 0.005136 to 0.032254. This gain was uncertain in 2020–2025 alone. Labels used the first complete common source record after each target. One label arrived 116 days late. Later data versions changed no count labels. All 134 states, 536 forecast rows and 134 receipt dates passed separate checks. A fresh run matched 12 core files byte for byte. The package preserves code, source hashes, all forecasts, both simulation seeds, exclusions, uncertainty draws, negative findings, figures and repeat instructions. This is a retrospective test on one index and a reused market sample. It does not establish reliable mean-return prediction or trading profit.
We tested forecasts of a Nasdaq Composite loss of at least 3% from entry at any of the next five daily closes. The main test has 1,927 windows in 2018–2025. Inputs use earlier ALFRED data versions, with a fixed variance filter and no fitted drift. A normal model that counts all five closes had Brier loss 0.154620. A normal endpoint model had loss 0.153367. The path-model gain was -0.001253, with a paired 95% 21-session block interval from -0.006835 to +0.004254. There was no clear gain. Longer blocks, later labels and a second simulation seed gave the same conclusion. Of 368 path-event windows, 129 had recovered above the loss threshold by the fifth close. These windows overlap. The path model gave a mean probability close to the event rate, but this did not establish conditional calibration or lower forecast error. It also gave no clear Brier gain over a past-frequency baseline. A continuous-monitoring normal rule overpredicted daily-close losses. Secondary Student t results at a 5% barrier lost clear support when 2020 was removed. The package preserves code, provenance, all 55,220 forecasts, all fixed results, 1.92 million paired uncertainty draws, figures and checks. A full repeat matched 20 analysis files. Source prices and direct outcomes are retained separately under provider rights. This is a retrospective probability-forecast test on one reused index sample. It does not establish trading profit or reliable return-direction skill.
We tested whether closed calendar days improve daily Nasdaq Composite risk forecasts. Each forecast used a dated ALFRED record and prices from session t-2 or earlier. Annual model fits used only released data. The main model added two gap-group multipliers to a fixed recent-volatility scale. In 2,011 final-test sessions in 2018-2025, its mean QLIKE loss changed by +0.00040 against a pooled scale. A paired 95% interval from six-month blocks was -0.00541 to +0.00585. The model helped in 2018-2021 and hurt in 2022-2025. Direct scaling by elapsed calendar days raised loss by 0.06127, with an interval of 0.01769 to 0.09925. The main test gives no clear added gain from the fitted gap input. The package preserves all five models, all planned checks, forecasts, fit states, source records, uncertainty draws, code and figures. The test uses one price index and one volatility scale. It does not establish return direction skill or trading profit.
We tested joint monthly probability forecasts for US market excess, size and value returns in 240 months from October 2005 to September 2025. Each of 20 origins used its official annual archive through July and a 120-month fit. We assumed release by September 30 and froze forecasts for the next 12 months. At the same mean and covariance with sample correlations cut in half, a fixed Student t model with five degrees of freedom reduced mean negative log loss by 0.1352 nats per return vector against normal. The descriptive 95% paired annual-block interval was 0.0144 to 0.2663. The gain stayed positive under planned block-length and data-version checks. The October 2019–September 2020 block supplied 42.4% of the total gain; its removal left a positive point gain of 0.0819 nats. Calibration errors remained: nominal 50% and 90% regions covered 42.08% and 85.42% of outcomes. This historical result does not establish return direction skill or trading profit. No trading strategy was tested. The package preserves all eight fixed model cases, dated forecasts, code, source hashes, scores, uncertainty draws, independent checks, exact replay records, and 96 unscored future forecasts. Raw provider returns are excluded.
We tested monthly US market excess-return distributions at 20 annual archive origins. The test had 240 outcomes from October 2005 through September 2025. The primary Student t model had five degrees of freedom. It shared a ten-year sample mean and variance with the Gaussian reference. Inputs ended in July and were assumed available by September 30. Forecasts stayed fixed for the next October through September. The t(5) mean log-score gain was 0.0274 nats per month. Its descriptive 95% two-year block-bootstrap interval was -0.0094 to +0.0629. The primary test gave no clear gain. Fourteen months with absolute standardized errors above two supplied 80.8% of the net gain. Lower 1% quantile loss fell by 5.75%, but lower 5% loss rose by 1.48%; both gain intervals included zero. Planned secondary checks gave positive log-score intervals for t(8) with ten years of history and t(5) with five years. These intervals have no multiple-test correction. All models had the same mean forecasts and signs. No trading strategy or reliable direction gain was established. The test assumes that current official archives preserve their stated historical releases. Source labels are early annual records, not first monthly releases. The package preserves code, source hashes, all forecasts and scores, fit states, uncertainty draws, figures, checks, and unscored November 2026 paper forecasts. A clean run reproduced all 13 analysis files exactly.
We tested fixed Student t shapes for joint monthly forecasts of US market, size, and value factor returns. Twenty annual origins used official dated archives, 120 training months through July, and fixed forecasts for the next October through September. The test had 240 monthly vectors in 2005–2025. All shape comparisons held means and actual covariance fixed. The primary model had five degrees of freedom. It cut mean joint negative log density by 0.1614 nats against a normal model. The planned 95% paired interval with an expected block length of two years was 0.0035 to 0.3339. The interval from single annual blocks included zero. A separate 200,000-draw precision check confirmed this block sensitivity. Two known crisis blocks supplied 74.8% of net gain. With half correlations, the shape gain was 0.1352 nats. Against a normal model with 1.5 times the covariance, the gain was uncertain. Separate lower 1% and 5% quantile scores gave no clear gain. Larger joint region coverage improved but remained imperfect. Revision checks gave similar point gains. The test assumes each annual file preserves its stated historical version and was available by September 30. Labels use the earliest annual record in the collection, not first monthly releases. This is an extension on a previously used sample, not an independent replication or a trading test. The package preserves code, provenance, all forecasts and scores, resampling draws, negative results, figures, passed checks, exact replay records, and 77 unscored forecasts for November 2026 through September 2027.
We tested whether past-return shape improves monthly US market probability forecasts. The empirical and normal forecasts used the same 120 returns, mean, and variance. Inputs came from 20 dated annual French Data Library releases. We assumed release by September 30, used inputs through July, and held forecasts fixed for October through the next September. The test covered 240 months from October 2005 to September 2025. Labels came from the first annual archive that contained each month. The empirical forecast reduced mean continuous ranked probability score (CRPS) by 0.58%. The gain was 1.47 basis points of return, with a paired 95% stationary bootstrap interval of -1.56 to +4.55. The planned clear-gain criterion was not met. Symmetric empirical and Student t controls also gave no clear gain over the normal forecast. The empirical negative-return Brier gain was uncertain. Later data versions left the small positive CRPS point gain close to its original value. The main limits are 20 annual decisions, slow updates, a reused market sample, and assumed archive release dates. No trading strategy was evaluated. The package preserves code, source hashes, forecasts, all planned scores, uncertainty draws, negative findings, figures, and unscored future paper forecasts. Independent checks passed, and a fresh run matched all 16 analysis files. The result supports a scoped forecast benchmark, not reliable stock-return prediction.
We tested central 90% intervals for the next daily Nasdaq Composite log price return. A fixed rule used 504 errors from earlier issued forecasts. Each error entered only after both target prices became available in a dated ALFRED record, and later revisions did not replace it. All rules used fixed settings. The main test has 1,909 dates with a current preceding close in 2018–2025. Against a Student-t model with five degrees of freedom and the same risk scale, the issued-error rule changed mean interval score by +0.521 basis-point score units. The paired 95% date-block interval was -6.911 to +7.589. Lower score is better. Coverage rose from 87.32% to 89.63%, while mean width rose from 426.52 to 461.32 log-return basis points. Thus the test gives no clear score gain. Planned sample and block-length controls give the same conclusion. A shorter error window, separate signed bounds and rebuilt historical errors also give no clear score gain. Independent date, rank, scale and score checks passed. A complete repeat matched all nine numerical files. The package preserves code, all forecasts, source hashes and requests, aggregate results, uncertainty draws, figures, negative findings and repeat instructions. Provider source data and measured outcomes remain in separate retained records under their original terms. This is a retrospective risk-forecast test for one price index. It does not establish stock direction skill, conditional coverage or trading profit.
We tested combinations of six daily lower 5% return forecasts for the Nasdaq Composite. Dated ALFRED inputs and released outcome labels set the information limits. We selected one reference model and one online update rate from 754 eligible labels in 2015–2017. The test used 2011 sessions in 2018–2025. The equal mean had 2.98% more quantile loss than the selected GJR model. The mean loss reduction was -0.4788 score basis points, with a paired 95% interval from -1.1892 to +0.0439 from 21-session blocks. The selected online mean had 1.87% more loss and no clear gain. Breach rates were 5.02% for the equal mean and 5.62% for the selected model. A breach rate near 5% did not establish better forecasts. Longer blocks, later labels, and removal of 2020 gave no clear combination gain. A source date anomaly was contained by observation-date limits and was preserved in the audit. The study reuses a known historical sample. Availability claims depend on the source validity dates and stated date limits. It does not show trading profit. The package has code, source hashes, all forecasts and weights, all calibration scores, uncertainty draws, a fixed local plan, checks, and exact replay records. Source prices and direct outcomes remain in a separate retained item under provider rights.
We tested whether a fixed response to past price falls improves daily Nikkei 225 loss forecasts. The rule and its settings came from an earlier Nasdaq Composite study. Each forecast used a dated ALFRED input version with a two-calendar-day cutoff. The test has 2,687 sessions in 2015–2025. Extra weight on squared falls reduced mean lower 5% quantile loss by 1.63% against the same filter with equal sign weights. The paired 95% interval from 21-session blocks was 0.41% to 2.85%. The absolute gain was 0.248 basis-point score units, with interval 0.060 to 0.454. Five- and 63-session blocks and a fixed freshness control kept the main interval above zero. The rule had more loss in three years. The year 2020 supplied 37.2% of the total gain. Tail breaches remained clustered. A calendar filter removed 50 source price records on closed dates before scoring. First common release outcomes and later outcomes agreed on all targets. Independent scalar, time-order, source-hash and score checks passed. A full repeat is recorded. The package preserves code, all forecasts, model states, source requests and hashes, uncertainty draws, figures and negative findings. Raw prices and direct outcome rows remain separately retained under provider terms. This is one market and a retrospective archive test. It does not establish return-direction skill, future reliability or trading profit.
We tested daily loss limits and mean tail losses for the Nasdaq Composite on 2,011 sessions in 2018–2025. Each forecast used an ALFRED version dated before the session at which its return interval started. Four fixed models used historical returns, normal tails, Student-t tails, or empirical standardized tails. The primary 5% joint score difference for empirical tails minus normal tails was -0.03615. Its 95% paired 21-session block interval was -0.08147 to +0.00550. This did not give a clear gain. The secondary 1% difference was -0.28784, with interval -0.57724 to -0.03748. That interval included zero after 2020 was removed. Empirical breach rates were closer to their targets, but quantile-only loss gains remained uncertain. The source has a known reporting gap. Fresh-input controls retained the main conclusions. The package preserves the local plan, source requests and hashes, code, 22,128 forecasts, all scores, 15,000 resampling rows, figures, and repeat checks. This retrospective index test does not establish return-direction skill or trading profit.