Why It Is OK to Use the HAR-RV(1,5,21) Model
|
|
- Ernest Rose
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Why It Is OK to Use the HAR-RV(1,5,21) Model Mihaela Craioveanu University of Central Missouri Eric Hillebrand Aarhus University August 31, 2012 Abstract The lag structure (1,5,21) is most commonly used for the HAR-RV model for realized volatility (Corsi 2009), where the terms are thought to represent a daily, a weekly, and a monthly time scale. The aggregation of the three scales approximates long memory. We explore flexible lag selection for the model on realized volatility constructed from tick-level data of the thirty constituting stocks of the Dow Jones Industrial Average between 1995 and The computational costs for flexible lag selection are substantial, and we use a parallel computing environment. We find that flexible lags do not improve in-sample or out-of-sample fit. Our results therefore confirm the standard practice in a large-scale data application. Corresponding author. 307G Dockery, Warrensburg, MO 64093, phone , fax craioveanu@ucmo.edu. Fuglesangs Allé 4, building 1326, room 225, 8210, Aarhus V, Denmark, ehillebrand@creates.au.dk. Portions of this research were conducted with high performance computational resources provided by Louisiana State University ( 1
2 1 Introduction We consider the problem of modeling and forecasting realized volatility. The objective of this study is to explore flexible lag structures in the context of time series models for realized volatility. We consider a linear and a log-linear specification of the HAR-RV model (Corsi, 2009) that can approximate long memory by including lags of realized volatility aggregated over different time horizons. The model typically employed in the literature considers daily, weekly, and monthly time scales. Allowing for a flexible lag structure is problematic in practice since a flexible lag structure is associated with high computational costs. Given this computational intensity, we set up the estimation procedure on a parallel computing framework. The contribution of this paper is to show that for a tick-level data set of the 30 constituting stocks of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, a lag structure of daily, weekly, and monthly time scales has a sufficiently good forecasting performance, eliminating the need to explore other lag specifications. A large body of literature has been developed to model and forecast volatility. Several studies in the literature document the phenomenon of volatility clustering and high persistence in volatility. Several types of models have been proposed to account for volatility clustering: the ARCH/GARCH class (Engle, 1982, Bollerslev, 1986), stochastic volatility models (Taylor, 1986, Hull and White, 1987, 1988, Harvey, 1998), and long memory models (Granger and Joyeux, 1980, Baillie et al., 1996). In all these models volatility is unobservable and modeled as latent. With increasing availability of high-frequency intra-day data, realized volatility was proposed by Andersen and Bollerslev (1998) as an alternative method of volatility estimation. In essence, realized volatility is the square root of the sum of intra-day squared returns (i.e. realized variance), which is used as a proxy for daily integrated variance. After the introduction of realized volatility the literature has evolved in two directions: how to estimate realized volatility and how to model it. The distribution of realized volatility is addressed by several studies (Andersen et al., 2001a, 2001b). Realized volatility data exhibit all the stylized facts established earlier in the case of latent model specifications, in particular high persistence. To capture this long memory property, some authors proposed ARFIMA specifications (Andersen et al. 2000b, 2003, Martens et al., 2004). An alternative to ARFIMA are models that approximate long memory by aggregation. The aggregation of different time scales induces long memory (Granger, 1980, LeBaron, 2001). A commonly employed model that uses this result is the HAR-RV model(heterogeneous AutoRegressive model of Realized Volatility) proposed by Corsi (2009). The model builds on the HARCH specification proposed by Müller et. al (1997). Volatility is modeled as a sum of different short memory processes at different time horizons: daily, weekly, and monthly. There are several studies that either employ similar specifications or modify the original model to capture various stylized facts about realized volatility (Andersen et al., 2007, Andersen et al., 2009, Corsi et al., 2008, Bollerslev et al. 2009, Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard, 2006, McAleer and Medeiros, 2008, Hillebrand and Medeiros, 2009). While some studies model realized volatility (Corsi, 2009, 2
3 Corsi et al., 2008, Andersen et al., 2007), others specify models based on log realized volatility or realized variance (Andersen et al., 2007, Andersen et al., 2009, and Bollerslev et al., 2009). This paper investigates the forecast implications of a flexible lag structure in HAR-RV models beyond the standard specification of day, week, and month. We apply our methodology to thirty Dow Jones Industrial Average stocks and determine the optimal lag combination for each of the stocks and each of the models considered. Tick-by-tick transaction data are obtained from the NYSE TAQ dataset and cover the period between January 3, 1995 to July 31, We look at two different numbers of merit when determining the optimal lag specification: maximum likelihood (in-sample fit) and minimum mean-squared error of the one-day ahead volatility forecast (out-of-sample fit) on a forecast sample. Looking at both in-sample and out-of-sample fit, we find that for our data set and stocks considered, the HAR-RV model with daily, weekly, and monthly time scales is not significantly outperformed by models with a flexible lag structure or models with fewer lags. The outline of the rest of the paper is as follows. Section 2 describes the different models considered. The methodology used in identifying the optimal lag structure is presented in Section 3. Section 4 describes the dataset used in the empirical application. Section 5 presents the identification of the optimal lag structure. This section also includes a forecasting comparison of models with flexible chosen lags against the commonly employed model with daily, weekly, and monthly realized volatility. Section 6 concludes. 2 Models for Day-to-Day Realized Volatility Let y t be a consistent and unbiased estimator of the square root of daily integrated variance. We consider different models for daily realized volatility, depending on the measure of volatility chosen: realized volatility, log realized volatility, and realized variance. Model A (General HAR-RV). Let and consider y t,k = 1 k y t+1 = c+ k j K k y t i+1 (1) i=1 β j y t,kj +w t+1, (2) where K = (k 1, k 2,..., k N ) is a set of N indices with k 1 < k 2 < < k N, j = 1,...,N, and w t+1 WN(0,σ 2 w). By substituting y t,kj into equation (2) we can write y t+1 = c+ β 1 k 1 k 1 i=1 y t i+1 + β 2 k 2 k 2 i=1 y t i β N k N k N i=1 y t i+1 +w t+1. (3) 3
4 Let θ j = N i=j β i/k i for j = 1,2,...,N. Equation (3) becomes y t+1 = c+θ 1 y t +θ 1 y t 1 + +θ 1 y t k1+1 +θ 2 y t k1 + +θ 2 y t k2+1+ +θ N y t kn 1 + +θ N y t kn+1 +w t+1. (4) Equation (2) can thus be viewed as a restricted autoregressive model. By analogy with AR models, we can state that the model is covariance-stationary if and only if the roots of 1 θ 1 z θ 1 z k1 θ 2 z k1+1 θ 2 z k2 θ N z kn 1+1 θ N z kn = 0 lie outside the unit circle. Let φ = N j=1 k jθ j = N j=1 β j be the sum of the autoregressive coefficients. If β i > 0 for all i, the stationarity condition is φ < 1. The parameter φ can be interpreted as a measure of persistence. The closer φ is to one, the more persistent is the volatility process. High persistence means slow reversion to the mean, while low persistence means fast reversion to the mean. Provided that the time series is stationary, the mean of the process is c/(1 φ). Model A is a generalization of the HAR-RV model proposed by Corsi (2009). The HAR-RV model is inspired by the HARCH specification introduced by Müller et al. (1997) in the ARCH framework. HARCH advocates heterogeneity among market participants with respect to their time horizons and models volatility as a function of squared returns aggregated over different time horizons. HAR-RV applies the same idea in the context of realized volatility. Corsi (2009) specifies daily realized volatility as a linear combination of past daily, weekly, and monthly realized volatility. In our notation this corresponds to K = (1, 5, 21). Andersen et al. (2007) propose a similar setup but add jump components, while Corsi et al. (2008) employ the same specification in studying the volatility of realized volatility. Model B (Log linear model). The use of logs of realized volatility is very common in the literature (Andersen et al., 2001a, 2001b). Log realized volatility is approximately normally distributed (Andersen et al., 2003). This finding is confirmed for all stocks considered in our dataset. Consider Model A in equation (2). Define y t,k as in (1), but let y t be a consistent and unbiased estimator of the log of the square root of daily integrated variance. This specification is the log version of Model A. Equation (2) can be reduced to an autoregressive form and standard results for autoregressive models can be applied. The sum of the β-coefficients must be less than one for stability. A similar specification was proposed by Bollerslev et al. (2009). 3 Lag Selection The HAR-RV model employed in practice typically comprises daily, weekly, and monthly realized volatility. This is partly motivated by the simple interpretation of these terms, but also by the high computational cost associated with a flexible lag structure. We treat the maximum lag L as fixed and determine the N terms of the HAR-RV model by examining all possible combinations of lags. We always include lag one, and therefore the number of models to estimate 4
5 is ( L N 1). This demands substantial computing power, and we implement the lag selection in a parallel computing framework. Since the estimation processes are independent of each other, the problem is trivially parallelizable. We search for the best model specification according to two different criteria: in-sample fit and out-ofsample fit. For the in-sample fit, the estimation is simply maximum likelihood. For the out-of-sample fit, we minimize the mean-squared error (MSE) of the one-day ahead volatility forecast on a training sample. For each of the two criteria, the estimation algorithm delivers the optimal lag structure and parameter estimates. We apply this procedure to the thirty constituting stocks of the Dow Jones Industrial Average in the empirical part of the paper. The implementation was coded in C++ and set up on Louisiana State University s supercomputing framework, which, at the point of implementation, provided a computing power of Gflops/second. In this setup, the selection of the optimal lag structure with L = 250 and N = 3 took fifteen minutes for each single estimation. We confirm if the procedure accurately captures a specific data-generating process. We consider Model A with daily, weekly, and monthly realized volatility and set the lag structure to (1,5,21) with β 0 = 0.002, β 1 = 0.45, β 2 = 0.30, and β 3 = We simulate 10,000 days of realized volatility and use the first 5,000 observations as estimation sample and the last 5,000 as forecast sample. We repeat this process 10,000 times. On each run, we select the lag structure and estimate Model A with L = 250 and N = 3. We always include lag one, so that we have to estimate ( ) = 31,125 specifications. For each sample, the estimation procedure searches for the lag combination (1, k 2, k 3 ) that results in the highest log-likelihood for the in-sample fit and the smallest mean-squared error of the one-day-ahead forecast for the out-of-sample fit. Thus, the simulation results in 10,000 lag triples and corresponding parameter estimates. Figure 1 shows the histograms of the selected k 2 and k 3. For both, in-sample and out-of-sample fit, the histogram median is 5 for the second term and 21 for the third term, so we retrieve the data-generating lag structure. 4 Data We use high-frequency tick-by-tick trades on thirty Dow Jones Industrial Average Index stocks as listed in Table 1: Alcoa Inc. (AA), American International Group Inc. (AIG), American Express Inc. (AXP), Boeing Co. (BA), Citigroup Inc. (C), Caterpillar Inc. (CAT), Du Pont De Nemours (DD), Walt Disney Co. (DIS), General Electric (GE), General Motors (GM), Home Depot Inc. (HD), Honeywell International (HON), Hewlett Packard (HPQ), International Business Machines Co. (IBM), Intel Co. (INTC), Johnson and Johnson (JNJ), JP Morgan Chase (JPM), Coca Cola (KO), McDonald s (MCD), 3M Company (MMM), Altria Group (MO), Merck Co. (MRK), Microsoft Co. (MSFT), Pfizer Inc. (PFE), Procter and Gamble 5
6 (PG), AT&T (T), United Tech (UTX), Verizon Communications (VZ), Wal-Mart Stores (WMT), and Exxon Mobil (XOM). The data are obtained from the NYSE TAQ (Trade and Quote) database. The sample period starts in January 3, 1995 and ends in July 31, In Table 1 we report the number of days in the sample and the average number of transactions per day for each of the stocks considered. Realized volatility as an estimator of asset price volatility was originally proposed by Andersen and Bollerslev (1998). Realized variance is a consistent estimator of integrated variance in the absence of microstructure noise (Andersen et al., 2003). However, in the presence of market microstructure such as price discreteness and the bid-ask bounce, the estimator becomes inconsistent (Bandi and Russell, 2006, Hansen and Lunde, 2006, Oomen, 2006 and Zhang et al., 2005). Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard (2002) have studied the properties of the estimation error in the presence of microstructure noise. The realized variance estimator becomes biased, and the bias is increasing with the sampling frequency. Therefore one is confronted with a trade-off: a higher sampling frequency reduces the measurement error, but because of the market microstructure effect, a higher sampling frequency induces a larger bias. In order to overcome the problem of microstructure noise, Andersen et al. (2000a, 2001a) propose sparse sampling. The sampling frequency used in the literature varies from 5 minutes to 30 minutes. Bandi and Russell (2006, 2008) and Zhang et al. (2005) propose an optimal sampling frequency. Zhang et al. (2005) and Zhang (2006) propose subsampling, while Zhou (1996), Barndorff-Nielsen et al. (2008) propose kernel-based estimators of realized volatility and Hansen et al. (2006) propose pre-filtering. Finally, Barucci and Reno (2002) and Malliavin and Mancino (2002) propose Fourier methods. There are now a number of consistent and unbiased estimators of realized volatility in the presence of microstructure noise: the two-time scales realized volatility estimator proposed by Zhang et al. (2005), the realized kernel estimator of Barndorff- Nielsen et al. (2008), the modified-ma filter of Hansen et al. (2007), and the realized quantile-based estimator of Christensen et al. (2009). For the purposes of this study, we employ the realized kernel estimator with modified Tukey-Hanning weights of Barndorff-Nielsen et al. (2008) to calculate daily realized volatility. We start by cleaning the data for outliers. We consider transactions between 9.30 am through 4.00 pm. Following Barndorff- Nielsen et al. (2008) we employ the following 60-second activity-fixed tick-time sampling scheme: fq i = 1+60n i /(t 0,i t ni,i), where fq i is the sampling frequency, n i represents the number of transactions for day i, and t 0,i, t ni,i are the times for the first and last trade for day i. This is tick-time sampling chosen such that the same number of observations is obtained each day. Figure 2 shows plots of daily realized volatility and logarithmic realized volatility series for Walmart Inc., a typical stock in our sample, from January 3, 1995 to December 31, Daily realized volatility is calculated from intraday log-returns measured in percentage (i.e., multiplied by 100). The first two panels show that both series are characterized by a high degree of volatility clustering with periods of high volatility 6
7 and low volatility. A common finding in the literature (Andersen et al., 2001a) is that logarithmic realized volatility is close to normal, while realized volatility is not normal. Panels 3 and 4 present QQ-plots for the two series. The last two panels graph the sample autocorrelation functions for the two series. Both panels exhibit slow hyperbolic decay, indicating the presence of long memory. These findings are consistent across all stocks considered in our study. 5 Main Results 5.1 Estimation: Flexible Lag Selection We divide the sample period of January 3, 1995 through July 31, 2007 into three parts: an estimation sample (January 3, 1995 through December 31, 2004), a training sample (January 3, 2005 through December 31, 2005), and a forecast sample (January 3, 2006 through July 31, 2007). We consider Models A and B as described in Section 2. The number of lagged terms is N = 3 and the maximum lag is L = 250. We always include lag one, an AR(1) term. The algorithm can choose two free lags, which results in estimation costs of ( ) = 31,125 models. We run the estimation procedure on each data set and search for the best specification of lagged terms for in-sample and out-of-sample fit. The in-sample specification is chosen by maximum likelihood on the estimation sample. The out-of-sample specification is chosen by minimizing the one-day-ahead mean-squared forecast error on the training sample with respect to the parameter vector. The forecast performance of both specifications is then evaluated on the forecast sample. Tables 2 and 3 present the results for the estimation of the best specification according to maximum likelihood(in-sample) and minimum mean-squared error of the one-day-ahead forecast on the training sample (out-of-sample) for Model A. The tables report the optimal lag structure, the corresponding parameter estimates, and standard errors according to Newey and West (1987) for each of the stocks considered. In the last column we list the estimated persistence parameter φ, calculated as the sum of the estimated coefficients. With a few exceptions, all estimated coefficients are highly significant, for both in-sample and out-ofsample fit. The last column indicates high persistence in realized volatility, as shown by the high values of φ. With the single exception of hpq, all coefficients are above 0.9 for both criteria. Furthermore, for the majority of stocks, the estimated persistence parameter is greater than Focusing on the in-sample fit, there seems to be a substantial influence of the 5-14 day lag on daily realized volatility. The long lag is estimated at or close to the boundary of 250, which we interpret as another indicator of long memory. In the case of the out-of-sample fit, for the first lag the influence of 2-16 days is found. The most frequent long lags are (6 times) and (7 times). Tables 4 and 5 present the results for the estimation of the best specification for this model according to the two criteria considered for Model B. The tables are organized in the same manner as Tables 2 and 3 7
8 and the results are very similar. The in-sample fit analysis confirms the influence of the 4-14 lag on daily realized volatility. The long lag is found close to or at the boundary of 250. For the out-of-sample analysis, the long lag is no longer found on the boundary. The most frequent lags are and The short lag is found between 2 and 24 days. 5.2 Forecast Performance We compare the forecasting performance of models with flexibly chosen lag structure against the benchmark of the common HAR-RV(1,5,21) model using Giacomini s and White s (2006) test for conditional predictive ability (CPA). Table 6 presents one-day ahead forecast errors as well as results from the CPA test for Model A. For the models estimated based on in-sample and out-of-sample fit, respectively, columns 2 and 4 report the mean-squared error (MSE) of the one-day ahead forecast as a percentage of the mean-squared error of the benchmark model HAR-RV(1,5,21). Columns 3 and 5 report the p-values for the CPA test for the model based on in-sample fit and out-of-sample fit, respectively. The null hypothesis for the CPA test is that the expected loss of the benchmark model of lags (1,5,21) and the model with flexible lags is the same. A p-value smaller than the significance level indicates that one of the models has a better forecasting performance than the other. In this case, the model selected by the CPA test is reported in parentheses, where (B) stands for the benchmark HAR-RV(1,5,21) model and (FL) stands for flexible lag chosen according to in-sample or out-of-sample fit. We can reject the null hypothesis only in a few cases. For two out of the thirty stocks considered (ge and pfe), the model based on the optimal lag combination for the in-sample fit outperforms the benchmark model at the five percent significance level. The benchmark model outperforms the optimal lag specification for two stocks (dis and utx). Turning to the flexible lag model for the out-of-sample fit, at the ten percent significance level, for six stocks the model outperforms the benchmark, and for one stock the benchmark model outperforms the flexible lag specification. At the five percent significance level, the benchmark model is outperformed in three cases and outperforms in one. We can conclude that, overall, the benchmark model is not clearly outperformed by any of the competing models. When comparing the forecast performance between the models based on in-sample and out-of-sample fit, we observe that for the model specification based on out-of-sample fit, we find MSE values smaller than one for all stocks, indicating a better fit. For Model B, the comparison of the forecast performance of a flexible lag with the benchmark model HAR-RV(1,5,21) is displayed in Table 7. The table reports the MSE and p-values from the CPA test. The results are similar to the findings for Model A. The in-sample fit is outperformed twice at ten percent significance level and once at five percent. It outperforms the benchmark once at ten percent. The key result that emerges from Tables 6 and 7 is that when we consider models with three lags, allowing for a flexible lag structure does not obviously improve the forecasting performance over the HAR-RV(1,5,21) 8
9 model. This result is found for both, Models A and B. We illustrate this result with plots of the log-likelihood and the MSE as a function of different lags in Figure 3. We present the graphs for wmt, but similar results are found for the other stocks in our sample. Panel (1) shows the likelihood surface as a function of the second and third lagged term. Lag one is always included. Panel (2) displays part of this same surface, where we zoom into a region between 1 and 15 for the second lagged term. We can see from panel (1) that the second term can be chosen at any value in this range, but once it is chosen, the third lagged term must be at the maximum value of L = 250. The results are different for the out-of-sample fit and are presented in panels (3) and (4). These plot the MSE for the one-day-ahead forecast over the training sample. We see that for a given lag of the second lagged term, the surface is flat after a value of approximately 20 for the third lagged term. There is a spike in the surface area at very small values for the third lagged term. Panel (4) zooms in and shows that, as long as the second lag is somewhere between 2 and 15, the choice of the third lagged term does not matter as long as it is bigger than 20, since the surface is flat. Therefore, while the choice of the second lagged term is crucial, the choice of the third lagged term is less important. 5.3 How Many Terms? Given the little influence of the third lagged term, in this section we study the consequences of its exclusion from the model. We compare the forecast performance of models with one lagged term against models with two and three lagged terms. Table 8 shows the results of a CPA test of models with two lagged terms against an AR(1) benchmark. The model with two lagged terms includes lag one; the second term is chosen flexibly. For Model A, with the single exception of xom, the CPA test indicates that two lagged terms outperform the AR(1)-specification at all common significance levels for both, in-sample and out-of-sample fit. Allowing for two lags leads to similar improvements in the case of Model B. With the exception of two stocks, the test indicates significant forecast improvements for the in-sample specification. For the out-ofsample specification, all stocks except aa benefit from a two term specification. Based on the results for both Models A and B, we conclude that the model specification with two terms is the better forecasting model than AR(1). Table 9 reports the lag structure chosen for the second term. We find that for the majority of stocks and both, Models A and B, the in-sample fit chooses the second lag on or close to the boundary value of 250. The results for the out-of-sample fit are very different, and the second lag is found to be somewhere between 15 and 20 in most cases. Next we compare models with two terms versus models with three terms in Table 10. We find that at the ten percent significance level, for 20 stocks the CPA test chooses the specification with three terms for the in-sample fit of Model A. The out-of-sample fit benefits less from the inclusion of the third lag; only 13 stocks show forecasts improvements for the three terms model. The results are similar for Model B. The 9
10 CPA tests selects the three term specification for 18 stocks for the in-sample fit and for eight stocks for the out-of-sample fit. While the case for the inclusion of the third term is not very strong, it does add predictive power for about half of the stocks. It is not costly in the sense that only one additional parameter is to be estimated and only one stock (dis) indicates a significantly better performance of the model with two terms. Therefore, we advocate the use of three terms. In contradistinction to Table 10, where we compare models with three flexibly chosen terms against those with two flexibly chosen terms, we now compare these two model classes with a few fixed lag structures, namely (1,5), (1,21), and (1,5,21). The results of pairwise Giacomini and White (2006) CPA tests are reported in Table 11. The table is organized such that we report the number of stocks (out of the 30) for which one model outperforms the other at the ten percent level of significance. The cell for each pair of models contains two entries, one denoted with a plus, indicating the number of stocks for which the columnmodel outperformed the row-model, the other denoted with a minus, indicating the number of stocks for which the row-model outperformed the column-model. Therefore, we only populate the lower triangle. If a cell is left blank in the lower triangle, this means that none of the two models performed better than the other. We denote the flexible specifications with two and three terms as FL2 and FL3, respectively. The cells FL2 vs. FL3 therefore contain the results from Table 10. Table 11 shows that if a model with only two terms is to be estimated, the (1,21) specification is preferred over a flexible second term: it outperforms for the in-sample fit and it does equally well for the out-of-sample fit. Extending to a third term, for the in-sample fit, the (1,5,21) specification outperforms (1,21) in seven and ten cases for Models A and B, respectively. The (1,5,21) specification also outperforms a flexible second term, in 15 and 16 cases for Models A and B, respectively. For the out-of-sample fit, the performance of the (1,5,21) specification is indistinguishable from (1,21) and a flexible second term. The comparison (1,5,21) versus two flexible terms summarizes the findings in Tables 5 and 6. In most cases, the flexible specification does not yield forecast gains, with the exception of the out-of-sample specification of Model A, where the flexible specification outperforms (1,5,21) in six cases. However, since the out-of-sample fit procedure is not very common and Model B more popular than Model A, we do not interpret this finding as a strong point for a flexible specification. 6 Conclusion We address the problem of lag selection in the HAR-RV model for daily realized volatility, motivated by the extensive use of this model in the analysis of time series of realized volatility. We focus on two specifications: one for realized volatility and one for logarithmic realized volatility. We fit both specifications by maximum 10
11 likelihood and also by forecast performance on a training sample. Using a large data set of tick-level data for the 30 constituting stocks of the Dow Jones Industrial Average between 1995 and 2007, we show that for both specifications, the HAR-RV(1,5,21) model is not clearly outperformed by free lag selection or by more parsimonious specifications. This is a computationally intense problem that we solve in a parallel computing framework. It is therefore OK to use the HAR-RV(1,5,21) model for forecasting purposes without exploring other lag combinations. References Andersen T, Bollerslev T Answering the Skeptics: Yes, Standard Volatility Models Do Provide Accurate Forecasts. International Economic Review 39: DOI: / Andersen T, Bollerslev T, Diebold FX Roughing It Up: Including Jump Components in the Measurement, Modeling and Forecasting of Return Volatility. The Review of Economics and Statistics 89: DOI: /rest Andersen T, Bollerslev T, Diebold FX, Ebens H. 2001a. The Distribution of Realized Stock Return Volatility. Journal of Financial Economics 61: DOI: /S X(01) Andersen T, Bollerslev T, Diebold FX, Labys P Modeling and Forecasting Realized Volatility. Econometrica 71: DOI: / Andersen T, Bollerslev T, Diebold FX, Labys P. 2001b. The Distribution of Realized Exchange Rate Volatility. Journal of the American Statistical Association 96: DOI: / Andersen T, Bollerslev T, Diebold FX, Labys P. 2000a. Exchange Rate Returns Standardized by Realized Volatility are (Nearly) Gaussian. Multinational Finance Journal 4: Andersen T, Bollerslev T, Diebold FX, Labys P. 2000b. Great Realizations. Risk 13: Andersen, T., T.Bollerslev, T., Huang, X A Reduced Form Framework for Modeling Volatility of Speculative Prices based on Realized Variation Measures. Forthcoming. Journal of Econometrics. Andersen T, Bollerslev T, Huang X A Semiparametric Framework for Modeling and Forecasting Jumps and Volatility in Speculative Prices. Manuscript. Duke University. Baillie R, Bollerslev T, Mikkelsen H Fractionally Integrated Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics 74: DOI: /S (95) Bandi F, Russell J Market Microstructure Noise, Integrated Variance Estimators, and the Accuracy of Asymptotic Approximations. Forthcoming. Journal of Econometrics. 11
12 Bandi F, Russell J Microstructure noise, realized variance, and optimal sampling. Review of Economic Studies 75: DOI: /j X x Bandi F, Russell J Separating Microstructure Noise from Volatility. Journal of Financial Economics 79: DOI: /j.jfineco Barndorff-Nielsen O, Shephard N Econometric Analysis of Realised Volatility and its Use in Estimating Stochastic Volatility Models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 64: DOI: / Barndorff-Nielsen O, Shephard N Econometrics of Testing for Jumps in Financial Economics Using Bipower Variation. Journal of Financial Econometrics 4: DOI: /jjfinec/nbi022 Barndorff-Nielsen O, Hansen P, Lunde A, Shephard N Designing realised kernels to measure ex-post variation of equity prices in the presence of noise. Econometrica 76: DOI: /ECTA6495 Barndorff-Nielsen, O, Hansen P, Lunde A, Shephard N Designing realised kernels to measure expost variation of equity prices in the presence of noise. Empirical appendix: Description of data and estimations. Manuscript. SSRN Barndorff-Nielsen O, Hansen P, Lunde A, Shephard N Subsampling realised kernels. Forthcoming. Journal of Econometrics. Barucci E, Reno R On measuring volatility of diffusion processes with high frequency data. Economics Letters 74: DOI: /S (01) Bollerslev T Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity. Journal of Econometrics 21: DOI: / (86) Bollerslev T, Kretschmer U, Pigorsch C, Tauchen G A Discrete-Time Model for Daily S&P 500 Returns and Realized Variations: Jumps and Leverage Effects. Journal of Econometrics 150: DOI: /j.jeconom Christensen K, Oomen R, Podolskij M Realised Quantile-Based Estimation of the Integrated Variance. Manuscript. SSRN Corsi F A Simple Approximate Long-Memory Model of Realized Volatility. Journal of Financial Econometrics 7: DOI: /jjfinec/nbp001 Corsi F, Kretschmer U, Mittnik S, Pigorsch C The Volatility of Realized Volatility. Econometric Reviews 27: DOI: /
13 Engle RF Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity with Estimates of the Variance of United Kingdom Inflation. Econometrica 50: DOI: / Diebold FX Modeling the persistence of conditional variances: A comment. Econometric Reviews 5: DOI: / Forsberg L, Bollerslev T Bridging the Gap Between the Distribution of Realized (ECU) Volatility and ARCH Modeling (of the Euro): The GARCH-NIG Model. Journal of Applied Econometrics 17: DOI: /jae.685 Giacomini R, White H Tests of conditional predictive ability. Econometrica 74: DOI: /j x Granger C Long memory relationships and the aggregation of dynamic models. Journal of Econometrics 14: DOI: / (80) Granger C, Joyeux R An introduction to long memory time series models and fractional differencing. Journal of Time Series Analysis 1: DOI: /j tb00297.x Hansen P A Test for Superior Predictive Ability. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 23: DOI: / Hansen P, Large J, Lunde A Moving average-based estimators of integrated variance. Econometric Reviews 27: DOI: / Hansen P, Lunde A Realized variance and market microstructure noise. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 24: DOI: / Harvey AC Forecasting Volatility in the Financial Markets. 2nd ed. Butterworth-Heinemann Hillebrand E Neglecting Parameter Changes in GARCH Models. Journal of Econometrics 12: DOI: /j.jeconom Hillebrand E, Medeiros MC The Benefits of Bagging for Forecast Models of Realized Volatility. Forthcoming. Econometric Reviews. Hull J, White A The pricing of options on assets with stochastic volatilities. The Journal of Finance 42: DOI: / Hull J, White A An analysis of the bias in option pricing caused by a stochastic volatility. Advances in Futures and Option Research 3:
14 Lamoureux CG, Lastrapes WD Persistence in variance, structural change, and the GARCH model. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 8: DOI: / LeBaron B Stochastic volatility as a simple generator of financial power laws and long memory. Quantitative Finance 1: DOI: / /1/6/304 Malliavin P, Mancino ME Fourier series method for measurement of multivariate volatilities. Finance and Stochastics 6: DOI: /s Mandelbrot B The Variation of Certain Speculative Prices. Journal of Business 36: DOI: / Martens M, van Dijk D, De Pooter M Modeling and Forecasting S&P 500 Volatility: Long Memory, Structural Breaks and Nonlinearity. Manuscript. Tinbergen Institute. McAleer M, Medeiros MC A Multiple Regime Smooth Transition Heterogeneous Autoregressive Model for Long Memory and Asymmetries. Journal of Econometrics 147: DOI: /j.jeconom McAleer M, Medeiros MC Realized Volatility: A Review. Econometric Reviews 27: DOI: / Merton RC On Estimating the Expected Return on the Market: An Exploratory Investigation. Journal of Financial Economics 8: DOI: / X(80) Mikosch UA, Starica C Nonstationarities in financial time series, the long range dependence, and the IGARCH effects. The Review of Economics and Statistics 86: DOI: / Müller UA, Dacorogna MM, Dave RD, Olsen RB, Pictet OV, von Weizsaecker JE Volatilities of different time resolutions - Analyzing the dynamics of market components. Journal of Empirical Finance 4: DOI: /S (97) Newey WK, West KD A Simple Positive Semi-Definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix. Econometrica 55: DOI: / Oomen R Properties of realized variance under alternative sampling schemes. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 24: DOI: / Taylor SJ Modeling Financial Time Series. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons Ltd. DOI: /
15 Zhang L Efficient estimation of stochastic volatility using noisy observations: A multi-scale approach. Bernoulli 12: DOI: /bj/ Zhang L, Mykland P, Aït-Sahalia Y A Tale of Two Time Scales: Determining Integrated Volatility With Noisy High-Frequency Data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 100: DOI: / Zhou B High frequency data and volatility in foreign-exchange rates. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 14: DOI: /
16 Table 1: Data Description. The first two columns display the symbols and names of the stocks considered in the empirical investigation. The third column gives the average number of transactions per day. Column 4 shows the number of days in the sample. Symbol Stock Avg. transactions / day No days aa Alcoa Inc aig American International Group Inc axp American Express Co ba Boeing Co c Citigroup Inc cat Caterpillar Inc dd Du Pont de Nemours&Co dis Walt Disney Co ge General Electric Co gm General Motors Corp hd Home Depot Inc hon Honeywell International Inc hpq Hewlett-Packard Co ibm International Business Machines Corp intc Intel Co jnj Johnson&Johnson jpm JPMorgan Chase&Co ko Coca-Cola Co mcd McDonald s Corp mmm 3M Co mo Altria Group Inc mrk Merck&Co. Inc msft Microsoft Co pfe Pfizer Inc pg Procter&Gamble Co t AT&T Inc utx United Technologies Corp vz Verizon Communications Inc wmt Wal-Mart Stores Inc xom Exxon Mobil Corp
17 Table 2: Model A: In-Sample Fit Estimation. The first column displays the stock symbol. Column 2 presents the optimal lags according to the in-sample fit. Columns 3 to 6 give the parameter estimates. The last column is the persistence measure, calculated as the sum of the β-coefficients. The figures in parentheses are Newey-West (1987) standard errors. lags ˆβ1 ˆβ2 ˆβ3 ĉ ˆφ aa (1,5,250) 0.252(.029) 0.578(.036) 0.134(.027) 0.061(.034) aig (1,6,246) 0.330(.056) 0.514(.053) 0.103(.033) 0.078(.031) axp (1,5,249) 0.368(.041) 0.468(.045) 0.137(.035) 0.045(.032) ba (1,8,250) 0.388(.035) 0.420(.037) 0.153(.029) 0.065(.042) c (1,10,248) 0.391(.043) 0.465(.042) 0.115(.031) 0.046(.033) cat (1,13,250) 0.285(.042) 0.562(.072) 0.100(.065) 0.098(.075) dd (1,6,250) 0.338(.051) 0.498(.057) 0.132(.026) 0.051(.025) dis (1,6,248) 0.272(.029) 0.555(.029) 0.135(.029) 0.064(.031) ge (1,8,248) 0.413(.031) 0.435(.040) 0.116(.028) 0.054(.031) gm (1,10,248) 0.311(.032) 0.546(.041) 0.084(.035) 0.086(.039) hd (1,7,249) 0.375(.035) 0.480(.035) 0.105(.030) 0.069(.036) 0.96 hon (1,8,250) 0.344(.052) 0.470(.060) 0.148(.034) 0.067(.037) hpq (1,4,246) 0.242(.064) 0.300(.088) 0.219(.041) 0.248(.070) ibm (1,7,247) 0.398(.030) 0.442(.036) 0.133(.033) 0.039(.038) intc (1,9,247) 0.468(.025) 0.408(.033) 0.102(.023) 0.046(.030) jnj (1,8,249) 0.343(.032) 0.504(.039) 0.079(.035) 0.097(.038) jpm (1,9,250) 0.322(.029) 0.540(.034) 0.104(.026) 0.057(.027) ko (1,4,250) 0.314(.036) 0.500(.041) 0.142(.034) 0.062(.026) mcd (1,14,248) 0.338(.029) 0.502(.041) 0.115(.042) 0.068(.041) mmm (1,14,250) 0.406(.031) 0.473(.042) 0.086(.037) 0.047(.036) mo (1,9,250) 0.317(.030) 0.456(.037) 0.130(.043) 0.145(.053) mrk (1,8,245) 0.382(.038) 0.449(.041) 0.096(.032) 0.107(.039) msft (1,7,249) 0.469(.029) 0.382(.038) 0.133(.024) 0.024(.027) pfe (1,10,248) 0.374(.028) 0.439(.036) 0.123(.040) 0.102(.046) pg (1,9,248) 0.413(.035) 0.450(.040) 0.109(.027) 0.039(.027) t (1,9,249) 0.362(.035) 0.436(.039) 0.163(.031) 0.070(.035) utx (1,8,248) 0.358(.048) 0.487(.057) 0.119(.025) 0.057(.028) vz (1,7,250) 0.300(.070) 0.638(.057) 0.020(.038) 0.062(.038) wmt (1,9,249) 0.359(.036) 0.497(.041) 0.118(.033) 0.042(.032) xom (1,4,248) 0.265(.071) 0.605(.070) 0.110(.036) 0.016(.030)
18 Table 3: Model A: Out-Of-Sample Fit Estimation. The first column displays the stock symbol. Column 2 presents the optimal lags according to the out-of-sample fit. Columns 3 to 6 give the parameter estimates. The last column is the persistence measure, calculated as the sum of the β-coefficients. The figures in parentheses are Newey-West (1987) standard errors. lags ˆβ1 ˆβ2 ˆβ3 ĉ ˆφ aa (1,11,131) 0.344(.035) 0.519(.037) 0.089(.036) 0.080(.036) aig (1,16,117) 0.431(.056) 0.446(.056) 0.065(.040) 0.086(.039) axp (1,7,209) 0.409(.041) 0.439(.042) 0.126(.035) 0.042(.031) ba (1,8,246) 0.389(.035) 0.418(.037) 0.155(.029) 0.062(.042) c (1,10,217) 0.391(.043) 0.46(.041) 0.123(.030) 0.042(.031) cat (1,10,247) 0.284(.040) 0.529(.066) 0.136(.062) 0.097(.070) dd (1,11,250) 0.401(.047) 0.467(.052) 0.099(.029) 0.053(.028) dis (1,5,154) 0.256(.028) 0.537(.030) 0.172(.030) 0.056(.029) ge (1,10,209) 0.431(.031) 0.425(.040) 0.111(.029) 0.051(.031) gm (1,2,27) 0.21(.036) 0.301(.067) 0.397(.045) 0.131(.041) hd (1,11,207) 0.419(.037) 0.454(.037) 0.088(.032) 0.067(.037) hon (1,5,127) 0.309(.045) 0.426(.053) 0.225(.037) 0.070(.035) hpq (1,13,102) 0.317(.061) 0.369(.102) 0.203(.082) 0.138(.060) 0.89 ibm (1,6,244) 0.390(.031) 0.435(.037) 0.149(.034) 0.036(.037) intc (1,12,138) 0.485(.026) 0.384(.040) 0.103(.030) 0.057(.030) jnj (1,10,208) 0.364(.031) 0.492(.040) 0.072(.036) 0.094(.036) jpm (1,3,129) 0.229(.033) 0.494(.044) 0.24(.032) 0.06(.028) ko (1,6,247) 0.373(.040) 0.463(.041) 0.124(.033) 0.055(.027) 0.96 mcd (1,5,28) 0.275(.037) 0.296(.050) 0.354(.045) 0.113(.026) mmm (1,8,248) 0.371(.028) 0.465(.037) 0.129(.031) 0.046(.030) mo (1,2,64) 0.187(.029) 0.345(.043) 0.379(.047) 0.129(.040) mrk (1,16,56) 0.44(.037) 0.399(.068) 0.074(.063) 0.123(.039) msft (1,8,246) 0.485(.028) 0.367(.037) 0.133(.025) 0.022(.027) pfe (1,20,199) 0.42(.027) 0.425(.046) 0.089(.049) 0.103(.051) pg (1,10,244) 0.421(.035) 0.447(.040) 0.102(.027) 0.04(.027) t (1,6,63) 0.349(.044) 0.338(.058) 0.269(.038) 0.073(.029) utx (1,3,70) 0.234(.031) 0.468(.044) 0.256(.045) 0.064(.026) vz (1,2,68) 0.213(.066) 0.487(.071) 0.262(.054) 0.054(.043) wmt (1,10,212) 0.365(.036) 0.493(.043) 0.115(.034) 0.042(.031) xom (1,12,13) 0.321(.062) 0.458(.348) 0.165(.357) 0.072(.031)
19 Table 4: Model B: In-Sample Fit Estimation. The first column displays the stock symbol. Column 2 presents the optimal lags according to the in-sample fit. Columns 3 to 6 give the parameter estimates. The last column is the persistence measure, calculated as the sum of the β-coefficients. The figures in parentheses are Newey-West (1987) standard errors. lags ˆβ1 ˆβ2 ˆβ3 ĉ ˆφ aa (1,6,250) 0.279(.027) 0.535(.034) 0.152(.026) 0.014(.009) aig (1,5,247) 0.281(.033) 0.555(.038) 0.114(.027) 0.016(.007) axp (1,12,248) 0.422(.028) 0.472(.032) 0.097(.025) 0.000(.008) ba (1,13,250) 0.375(.027) 0.469(.034) 0.120(.030) 0.015(.010) c (1,10,250) 0.373(.029) 0.489(.033) 0.122(.025) 0.004(.007) cat (1,14,250) 0.278(.030) 0.566(.050) 0.119(.047) 0.026(.017) dd (1,10,229) 0.327(.028) 0.537(.035) 0.113(.025) 0.008(.007) dis (1,7,249) 0.286(.028) 0.541(.034) 0.139(.024) 0.016(.006) ge (1,10,250) 0.375(.028) 0.500(.034) 0.102(.024) 0.007(.006) gm (1,10,249) 0.281(.025) 0.568(.031) 0.100(.033) 0.015(.009) hd (1,11,249) 0.366(.027) 0.509(.030) 0.096(.030) 0.013(.009) hon (1,9,234) 0.300(.031) 0.510(.040) 0.156(.033) 0.016(.009) hpq (1,4,27) 0.282(.042) 0.430(.065) 0.266(.046) 0.005(.013) intc (1,9,247) 0.455(.024) 0.407(.030) 0.119(.022) 0.012(.009) ibm (1,7,182) 0.374(.026) 0.465(.034) 0.149(.025) 0.001(.006) jnj (1,8,250) 0.311(.026) 0.527(.034) 0.112(.029) 0.010(.006) jpm (1,10,250) 0.328(.029) 0.549(.031) 0.099(.024) 0.010(.007) ko (1,6,249) 0.306(.030) 0.514(.037) 0.146(.030) 0.008(.006) mcd (1,14,250) 0.312(.027) 0.526(.038) 0.128(.037) 0.011(.010) mmm (1,14,250) 0.379(.025) 0.500(.034) 0.094(.035) 0.005(.007) mo (1,19,250) 0.380(.024) 0.491(.037) 0.052(.042) 0.024(.012) mrk (1,8,242) 0.345(.024) 0.470(.034) 0.116(.030) 0.022(.009) msft (1,7,176) 0.399(.025) 0.438(.031) 0.148(.023) 0.002(.008) pfe (1,9,249) 0.355(.024) 0.462(.034) 0.126(.034) 0.022(.010) pg (1,10,248) 0.411(.025) 0.462(.029) 0.107(.025) 0.004(.006) t (1,9,240) 0.323(.025) 0.456(.032) 0.178(.028) 0.023(.008) utx (1,6,249) 0.261(.026) 0.568(.031) 0.131(.021) 0.016(.007) vz (1,10,231) 0.317(.037) 0.615(.046) 0.047(.036) 0.000(.011) wmt (1,8,249) 0.318(.029) 0.534(.036) 0.130(.027) 0.006(.007) xom (1,4,27) 0.210(.038) 0.554(.053) 0.192(.032) 0.006(.006)
20 Table 5: Model B: Out-Of-Sample Fit Estimation. The first column displays the stock symbol. Column 2 presents the optimal lags according to the out-of-sample fit. Columns 3 to 6 give the parameter estimates. The last column is the persistence measure, calculated as the sum of the β-coefficients. The figures in parentheses are Newey-West (1987) standard errors. lags ˆβ1 ˆβ2 ˆβ3 ĉ ˆφ aa (1,11,132) 0.325(.027) 0.511(.036) 0.122(.033) 0.017(.009) aig (1,9,15) 0.343(.030) 0.339(.064) 0.237(.069) 0.023(.007) axp (1,7,133) 0.378(.026) 0.438(.034) 0.170(.027) 0.003(.007) ba (1,4,131) 0.318(.027) 0.366(.040) 0.268(.032) 0.020(.010) c (1,8,131) 0.354(.027) 0.454(.032) (.027) 0.005(.007) cat (1,11,195) 0.283(.028) 0.523(.049) 0.149(.045) 0.029(.015) dd (1,13,250) 0.345(.028) 0.541(.034) 0.090(.027) 0.009(.008) dis (1,5,154) 0.247(.027) 0.519(.033) 0.209(.030) 0.010(.007) ge (1,5,140) 0.328(.028) 0.457(.036) 0.190(.026) 0.007(.006) gm (1,4,14) 0.234(.025) 0.208(.047) 0.456(.042) 0.028(.006) hd (1,2,15) 0.230(.034) 0.189(.049) 0.509(.035) 0.031(.007) hon (1,5,127) 0.256(.029) 0.452(.041) 0.255(.034) 0.016(.008) hpq (1,2,16) 0.231(.048) 0.318(.059) 0.420(.039) 0.011(.013) ibm (1,6,126) 0.372(.027) 0.432(.037) 0.176(.027) 0.005(.006) intc (1,16,90) 0.483(.024) 0.361(.041) 0.127(.032) 0.019(.009) jnj (1,10,247) 0.332(.025) 0.520(.033) 0.105(.030) 0.007(.006) jpm (1,3,126) 0.245(.027) 0.452(.038) 0.279(.033) 0.008(.007) ko (1,6,125) 0.311(.028) 0.471(.038) 0.181(.034) 0.009(.005) mcd (1,5,28) 0.244(.024) 0.309(.041) 0.377(.039) 0.022(.008) mmm (1,6,125) 0.309(.028) 0.465(.039) 0.183(.031) 0.009(.005) mo (1,2,40) 0.220(.031) 0.300(.042) 0.403(.030) 0.021(.006) mrk (1,16,56) 0.401(.022) 0.402(.054) 0.123(.051) 0.020(.008) msft (1,8,137) 0.415(.024) 0.417(.031) 0.148(.022) 0.006(.008) pfe (1,20,209) 0.402(.022) 0.453(.037) 0.094(.041) 0.019(.011) pg (1,8,68) 0.376(.027) 0.436(.034) 0.149(.029) 0.009(.005) t (1,6,63) 0.286(.026) 0.390(.037) 0.289(.031) 0.016(.007) utx (1,4,70) 0.222(.025) 0.458(.034) 0.282(.031) 0.013(.007) vz (1,2,21) 0.208(.044) 0.296(.058) 0.456(.038) 0.013(.010) wmt (1,24,212) 0.416(.032) 0.479(.047) 0.084(.040) 0.006(.009) xom (1,12,13) 0.376(.035) 0.878(.294) (.296) 0.009(.007)
21 Table 6: Model A: Forecasting Results. The first column displays the stock symbol. Column 2 reports the mean-squared error (MSE) for the one-day ahead forecast of realized volatility using the model chosen by the in-sample fit (IS). Column 3 reports the p-values of the Conditional Predictive Ability (CPA) test of Giacomini and White (2006) for the in-sample fit. The null hypothesis for the CPA test is that the benchmark HAR-RV(1,5,21) model and the model with flexible lag structure have the same expected loss. The last two columns present the MSE and p-values for the model specification based on the out-of-sample fit (OOS). The MSE are calculated as a percentage of the MSE of the benchmark model. p-values less than common significance levels indicate that one of the two models outperforms the other. In these cases, (B) indicates that the benchmark model outperformed the flexible lags model, (FL) indicates that the flexible lags model performed better. MSE(1) IS p val IS MSE(1) OOS p val OOS aa aig (B) axp ba c cat dd dis (B) ge (FL) (FL) gm (FL) hd hon (FL) hpq ibm intc jnj (FL) jpm ko mcd mmm mo (FL) mrk msft pfe (FL) (FL) pg t utx (B) vz wmt xom
HIGH MODERATE LOW SECURITY. Speculative Stock Junk Bonds Collectibles. Blue Chip or Growth Stocks Real Estate Mutual Funds
RETURN POTENTIAL $$$$ HIGH Speculative Stock Junk Bonds Collectibles $$$ $$ MODERATE LOW Blue Chip or Growth Stocks Real Estate Mutual Funds Corporate Bonds Preferred Stock Government Bonds $ SECURITY
More informationA Closer Look at High-Frequency Data and Volatility Forecasting in a HAR Framework 1
A Closer Look at High-Frequency Data and Volatility Forecasting in a HAR Framework 1 Derek Song ECON 21FS Spring 29 1 This report was written in compliance with the Duke Community Standard 2 1. Introduction
More informationMonthly Beta Forecasting with Low, Medium and High Frequency Stock Returns
Monthly Beta Forecasting with Low, Medium and High Frequency Stock Returns Tolga Cenesizoglu Department of Finance, HEC Montreal, Canada and CIRPEE Qianqiu Liu Shidler College of Business, University of
More informationUNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI PADOVA. Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche Marco Fanno
UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI PADOVA Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche Marco Fanno MODELING AND FORECASTING REALIZED RANGE VOLATILITY MASSIMILIANO CAPORIN University of Padova GABRIEL G. VELO University of
More informationTime-Varying Beta: Heterogeneous Autoregressive Beta Model
Time-Varying Beta: Heterogeneous Autoregressive Beta Model Kunal Jain Spring 2010 Economics 201FS Honors Junior Workshop in Financial Econometrics 1 1 Introduction Beta is a commonly defined measure of
More informationUniversité de Montréal. Rapport de recherche. Empirical Analysis of Jumps Contribution to Volatility Forecasting Using High Frequency Data
Université de Montréal Rapport de recherche Empirical Analysis of Jumps Contribution to Volatility Forecasting Using High Frequency Data Rédigé par : Imhof, Adolfo Dirigé par : Kalnina, Ilze Département
More informationFINAL DISCLOSURE SUPPLEMENT Dated January 26, 2011 To the Disclosure Statement dated December 6, 2010
FINAL DISCLOSURE SUPPLEMENT Dated January 26, 2011 To the Disclosure Statement dated December 6, 2010 Union Bank, N.A. Market-Linked Certificates of Deposit, due January 31, 2017 (MLCD No. 102) Average
More informationForecasting Realized Volatility with Linear and Nonlinear Models
CIRJE-F-686 Forecasting Realized Volatility with Linear and Nonlinear Models Michael McAleer Erasmus University Rotterdam and Tinbergen Institute and CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo Marcelo
More informationFINAL DISCLOSURE SUPPLEMENT Dated September 27, 2011 To the Disclosure Statement dated May 18, 2011
FINAL DISCLOSURE SUPPLEMENT Dated September 27, 2011 To the Disclosure Statement dated May 18, 2011 Union Bank, N.A. Market-Linked Certificates of Deposit, due October 1, 2018 (MLCD No. 167) Average Return
More informationEconometric Analysis of Tick Data
Econometric Analysis of Tick Data SS 2014 Lecturer: Serkan Yener Institute of Statistics Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Akademiestr. 1/I (room 153) Email: serkan.yener@stat.uni-muenchen.de Phone:
More informationTime Variation in Asset Return Correlations: Econometric Game solutions submitted by Oxford University
Time Variation in Asset Return Correlations: Econometric Game solutions submitted by Oxford University June 21, 2006 Abstract Oxford University was invited to participate in the Econometric Game organised
More informationA Markov-Switching Multi-Fractal Inter-Trade Duration Model, with Application to U.S. Equities
A Markov-Switching Multi-Fractal Inter-Trade Duration Model, with Application to U.S. Equities Fei Chen (HUST) Francis X. Diebold (UPenn) Frank Schorfheide (UPenn) December 14, 2012 1 / 39 Big Data Are
More information( The Gleason Report Performance of the TGR Timing Models with the Dow Stocks January 2015
(www.gleasonreport.com) The Gleason Report Performance of the TGR Timing Models with the Dow Stocks January 2015 The Gleason Report (TGR) market timing system uses many years of data to create a customized
More informationImproved Forecasting of Realized Variance Measures
Improved Forecasting of Realized Variance Measures Jeremias Bekierman 1 and Hans Manner 1 1 Institute for Econometrics and Statistics, University of Cologne July 20, 2016 Abstract We consider the problem
More informationOn Optimal Sample-Frequency and Model-Averaging Selection when Predicting Realized Volatility
On Optimal Sample-Frequency and Model-Averaging Selection when Predicting Realized Volatility Joakim Gartmark* Abstract Predicting volatility of financial assets based on realized volatility has grown
More informationEstimation of High-Frequency Volatility: An Autoregressive Conditional Duration Approach
Estimation of High-Frequency Volatility: An Autoregressive Conditional Duration Approach Yiu-Kuen Tse School of Economics, Singapore Management University Thomas Tao Yang Department of Economics, Boston
More informationIndex Arbitrage and Refresh Time Bias in Covariance Estimation
Index Arbitrage and Refresh Time Bias in Covariance Estimation Dale W.R. Rosenthal Jin Zhang University of Illinois at Chicago 10 May 2011 Variance and Covariance Estimation Classical problem with many
More informationAbsolute Return Volatility. JOHN COTTER* University College Dublin
Absolute Return Volatility JOHN COTTER* University College Dublin Address for Correspondence: Dr. John Cotter, Director of the Centre for Financial Markets, Department of Banking and Finance, University
More informationData Sources. Olsen FX Data
Data Sources Much of the published empirical analysis of frvh has been based on high hfrequency data from two sources: Olsen and Associates proprietary FX data set for foreign exchange www.olsendata.com
More informationForecasting Realized Variance Measures Using Time-Varying Coefficient Models
Forecasting Realized Variance Measures Using Time-Varying Coefficient Models Jeremias Bekierman *1 and Hans Manner 2 1 Institute for Econometrics and Statistics, University of Cologne 2 Department of Economics,
More informationVolatility Models and Their Applications
HANDBOOK OF Volatility Models and Their Applications Edited by Luc BAUWENS CHRISTIAN HAFNER SEBASTIEN LAURENT WILEY A John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Publication PREFACE CONTRIBUTORS XVII XIX [JQ VOLATILITY MODELS
More informationChapter Four. Stock Market Indexes
Chapter Four Stock Market Indexes New investors may be confused about marketplaces such as NYSE, AMEX or even NASDAQ (as a quotation system or market place) where securities are traded and indices such
More informationIndian Institute of Management Calcutta. Working Paper Series. WPS No. 797 March Implied Volatility and Predictability of GARCH Models
Indian Institute of Management Calcutta Working Paper Series WPS No. 797 March 2017 Implied Volatility and Predictability of GARCH Models Vivek Rajvanshi Assistant Professor, Indian Institute of Management
More informationFINAL DISCLOSURE SUPPLEMENT Dated December 20, 2013 To the Disclosure Statement dated January 30, 2013
FINAL DISCLOSURE SUPPLEMENT Dated December 20, 2013 To the Disclosure Statement dated January 30, 2013 Union Bank, N.A. Market-Linked Certificates of Deposit, due December 26, 2019 (MLCD No. 328) Average
More informationFINAL DISCLOSURE SUPPLEMENT Dated December 27, 2010 To the Disclosure Statement dated November 10, 2010
FINAL DISCLOSURE SUPPLEMENT Dated December 27, 2010 To the Disclosure Statement dated November 10, 2010 Union Bank, N.A. Market-Linked Certificates of Deposit, due December 22, 2017 (MLCD No. 95) Capped
More informationLONG MEMORY IN VOLATILITY
LONG MEMORY IN VOLATILITY How persistent is volatility? In other words, how quickly do financial markets forget large volatility shocks? Figure 1.1, Shephard (attached) shows that daily squared returns
More informationASYMMETRIES, BREAKS, AND LONG-RANGE DEPENDENCE: AN ESTIMATION FRAMEWORK FOR TIME SERIES OF DAILY REALIZED VOLATILITY 1.
ASYMMETRIES, BREAKS, AND LONG-RANGE DEPENDENCE: AN ESTIMATION FRAMEWORK FOR TIME SERIES OF DAILY REALIZED VOLATILITY ERIC HILLEBRAND AND MARCELO C. MEDEIROS ABSTRACT. We study the simultaneous occurrence
More informationImplied Volatility v/s Realized Volatility: A Forecasting Dimension
4 Implied Volatility v/s Realized Volatility: A Forecasting Dimension 4.1 Introduction Modelling and predicting financial market volatility has played an important role for market participants as it enables
More informationRegimes and Long Memory in Realized Volatility
Regimes and Long Memory in Realized Volatility Elena Goldman Department of Finance and Economics, Lubin School of Business Pace University, One Pace Plaza, NY 10038 tel: 212-618-6516, egoldman@pace.edu
More informationExploiting the Errors: A Simple Approach for Improved Volatility Forecasting. First version: November 26, 2014 This version: March 10, 2015
Exploiting the Errors: A Simple Approach for Improved Volatility Forecasting First version: November 26, 2014 This version: March 10, 2015 Tim Bollerslev a, Andrew J. Patton b, Rogier Quaedvlieg c, a Department
More informationBeta Estimation Using High Frequency Data*
Beta Estimation Using High Frequency Data* Angela Ryu Duke University, Durham, NC 27708 April 2011 Faculty Advisor: Professor George Tauchen Abstract Using high frequency stock price data in estimating
More informationAssessing the Effects of Earnings Surprise on Returns and Volatility with High Frequency Data
Assessing the Effects of Earnings Surprise on Returns and Volatility with High Frequency Data Sam Lim Professor George Tauchen, Faculty Advisor Fall 2009 Duke University is a community dedicated to scholarship,
More informationFINAL DISCLOSURE SUPPLEMENT Dated November 25, 2013 To the Disclosure Statement dated January 30, 2013
FINAL DISCLOSURE SUPPLEMENT Dated November 25, 2013 To the Disclosure Statement dated January 30, 2013 Union Bank, N.A. Market-Linked Certificates of Deposit, due November 29, 2018 (MLCD No. 322) Capped
More informationHigh Frequency data and Realized Volatility Models
High Frequency data and Realized Volatility Models Fulvio Corsi SNS Pisa 7 Dec 2011 Fulvio Corsi High Frequency data and () Realized Volatility Models SNS Pisa 7 Dec 2011 1 / 38 High Frequency (HF) data
More informationβ = 1 DOES A BETTER JOB THAN CALCULATED BETAS
Working Paper WP-85 September, 9 β = DOES A BETTER JOB THAN CALCULATED BETAS Pablo Fernández Vicente J. Bermejo IESE Business School University of Navarra Av. Pearson, 834 Barcelona, Spain. Phone: (+34)
More informationPrice Impact of Aggressive Liquidity Provision
Price Impact of Aggressive Liquidity Provision R. Gençay, S. Mahmoodzadeh, J. Rojček & M. Tseng February 15, 2015 R. Gençay, S. Mahmoodzadeh, J. Rojček & M. Tseng Price Impact of Aggressive Liquidity Provision
More informationInvestment funds 8/8/2017
Investment funds 8/8/2017 Outline for today Why funds? Types of funds Mutual funds fees and performance Active or passive management? /Michał Dzieliński, Stockholm Business School 2 Investment funds Pool
More informationBusiness Time Sampling Scheme with Applications to Testing Semi-martingale Hypothesis and Estimating Integrated Volatility
Business Time Sampling Scheme with Applications to Testing Semi-martingale Hypothesis and Estimating Integrated Volatility Yingjie Dong Business School, University of International Business and Economics,
More informationNCER Working Paper Series Modeling and forecasting realized volatility: getting the most out of the jump component
NCER Working Paper Series Modeling and forecasting realized volatility: getting the most out of the jump component Adam E Clements Yin Liao Working Paper #93 August 2013 Modeling and forecasting realized
More informationIdentifying common dynamic features in stock returns
Identifying common dynamic features in stock returns Jorge Caiado and Nuno Crato CEMAPRE, Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestão, Technical University of Lisbon, Rua do Quelhas 6, 1200-781 Lisboa, Portugal.
More informationManagement Report of Fund Performance
Management Report of Fund Performance 10AUG201217330279 The following is a report on the performance of Top 20 U.S. Dividend Trust (the Trust ) and contains financial highlights but does not contain the
More informationUnconditional mean, Volatility and the Fourier-Garch representation
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Unconditional mean, Volatility and the Fourier-Garch representation Pascalau, Razvan; Thomann, Christian and Gregoriou, Greg N. Department of Economics and Finance, SUNY,
More informationReal-time Volatility Estimation Under Zero Intelligence
Real-time Volatility Estimation Under Zero Intelligence Jim Gatheral The Financial Engineering Practitioners Seminar Columbia University 20 November, 2006 The opinions expressed in this presentation are
More informationAsian Economic and Financial Review A REGRESSION BASED APPROACH TO CAPTURING THE LEVEL DEPENDENCE IN THE VOLATILITY OF STOCK RETURNS
Asian Economic and Financial Review ISSN(e): 2222-6737/ISSN(p): 2305-2147 URL: www.aessweb.com A REGRESSION BASED APPROACH TO CAPTURING THE LEVEL DEPENDENCE IN THE VOLATILITY OF STOCK RETURNS Lakshmi Padmakumari
More informationAmath 546/Econ 589 Univariate GARCH Models: Advanced Topics
Amath 546/Econ 589 Univariate GARCH Models: Advanced Topics Eric Zivot April 29, 2013 Lecture Outline The Leverage Effect Asymmetric GARCH Models Forecasts from Asymmetric GARCH Models GARCH Models with
More informationUnpublished Appendices to Déjà Vol: Predictive Regressions for Aggregate Stock Market Volatility Using Macroeconomic Variables
Unpublished Appendices to Déjà Vol: Predictive Regressions for Aggregate Stock Market Volatility Using Macroeconomic Variables Bradley S. Paye Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Athens,
More informationDoes Anything Beat 5-Minute RV? A Comparison of Realized Measures Across Multiple Asset Classes
Does Anything Beat 5-Minute RV? A Comparison of Realized Measures Across Multiple Asset Classes Lily Liu, Andrew J. Patton and Kevin Sheppard Duke University and University of Oxford December 5, 2012 Abstract
More informationThe Impact of Microstructure Noise on the Distributional Properties of Daily Stock Returns Standardized by Realized Volatility
The Impact of Microstructure Noise on the Distributional Properties of Daily Stock Returns Standardized by Realized Volatility Jeff Fleming, Bradley S. Paye Jones Graduate School of Management, Rice University
More informationUsing MCMC and particle filters to forecast stochastic volatility and jumps in financial time series
Using MCMC and particle filters to forecast stochastic volatility and jumps in financial time series Ing. Milan Fičura DYME (Dynamical Methods in Economics) University of Economics, Prague 15.6.2016 Outline
More informationEmpirical Evidence on Jumps and Large Fluctuations in Individual Stocks
Empirical Evidence on Jumps and Large Fluctuations in Individual Stocks Diep Duong and Norman R. Swanson Rutgers University February 2012 Diep Duong, Department of Economics, Rutgers University, 75 Hamilton
More informationData-Based Ranking of Realised Volatility Estimators
Data-Based Ranking of Realised Volatility Estimators Andrew J. Patton University of Oxford 9 June 2007 Preliminary. Comments welcome. Abstract I propose a formal, data-based method for ranking realised
More informationThe Forecasting Ability of GARCH Models for the Crisis: Evidence from S&P500 Index Volatility
The Lahore Journal of Business 1:1 (Summer 2012): pp. 37 58 The Forecasting Ability of GARCH Models for the 2003 07 Crisis: Evidence from S&P500 Index Volatility Mahreen Mahmud Abstract This article studies
More informationROBUST VOLATILITY FORECASTS IN THE PRESENCE OF STRUCTURAL BREAKS
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS ROBUST VOLATILITY FORECASTS IN THE PRESENCE OF STRUCTURAL BREAKS Elena Andreou, Eric Ghysels and Constantinos Kourouyiannis Discussion Paper 08-2012 P.O. Box
More informationInternet Appendix: High Frequency Trading and Extreme Price Movements
Internet Appendix: High Frequency Trading and Extreme Price Movements This appendix includes two parts. First, it reports the results from the sample of EPMs defined as the 99.9 th percentile of raw returns.
More informationUniversity of Toronto Financial Econometrics, ECO2411. Course Outline
University of Toronto Financial Econometrics, ECO2411 Course Outline John M. Maheu 2006 Office: 5024 (100 St. George St.), K244 (UTM) Office Hours: T2-4, or by appointment Phone: 416-978-1495 (100 St.
More informationState Switching in US Equity Index Returns based on SETAR Model with Kalman Filter Tracking
State Switching in US Equity Index Returns based on SETAR Model with Kalman Filter Tracking Timothy Little, Xiao-Ping Zhang Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering Ryerson University 350 Victoria
More informationTHE IMPACT OF DIVIDEND TAX CUT ON STOCKS IN THE DOW
The Impact of Dividend Tax Cut On Stocks in the Dow THE IMPACT OF DIVIDEND TAX CUT ON STOCKS IN THE DOW Geungu Yu, Jackson State University ABSTRACT This paper examines pricing behavior of thirty stocks
More informationEARLY TO RISE: WHEN OPENING STOCK RETURNS ARE HIGHER THAN DAILY RETURNS?
EALY TO ISE: WHEN OPENING STOCK ETUNS AE HIGHE THAN DAILY ETUNS? KUDYAVTSEV Andrey The Max Stern Academic College of Emek Yezreel Israel Abstract: In present study I explore intraday behavior of stock
More informationProperties of Bias Corrected Realized Variance in Calendar Time and Business Time
Properties of Bias Corrected Realized Variance in Calendar Time and Business Time Roel C.A. Oomen Department of Accounting and Finance Warwick Business School The University of Warwick Coventry CV 7AL,
More informationTopics in financial econometrics
Topics in financial econometrics NES Research Project Proposal for 2011-2012 May 12, 2011 Project leaders: Stanislav Anatolyev, Professor, New Economic School http://www.nes.ru/ sanatoly Stanislav Khrapov,
More informationIdentifying common dynamic features in stock returns
MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive Identifying common dynamic features in stock returns Jorge Caiado and Nuno Crato April 2009 Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/15241/ MPRA Paper No. 15241, posted
More informationModeling Tick-by-Tick Realized Correlations
Modeling Tick-by-Tick Realized Correlations Francesco Audrino,a,b, Fulvio Corsi a,b a University of St. Gallen b University of Lugano Abstract A tree-structured heterogeneous autoregressive (tree-har)
More informationVolatility estimation with Microstructure noise
Volatility estimation with Microstructure noise Eduardo Rossi University of Pavia December 2012 Rossi Microstructure noise University of Pavia - 2012 1 / 52 Outline 1 Sampling Schemes 2 General price formation
More informationPredicting the Volatility of Cryptocurrency Time Series
CENTRE FOR APPLIED MACRO AND PETROLEUM ECONOMICS (CAMP) CAMP Working Paper Series No 3/2018 Predicting the Volatility of Cryptocurrency Time Series Leopoldo Catania, Stefano Grassi and Francesco Ravazzolo
More informationEmpirical Evidence on the Importance of Aggregation, Asymmetry, and Jumps for Volatility Prediction*
Empirical Evidence on the Importance of Aggregation, Asymmetry, and Jumps for Volatility Prediction* Diep Duong 1 and Norman R. Swanson 2 1 Utica College and 2 Rutgers University June 2014 Abstract Many
More informationInterim Management Report of Fund Performance
Interim Management Report of Fund Performance 10AUG201217330279 The following is an interim report on the performance of Top 20 U.S. Dividend Trust (the Trust ) and contains financial highlights but does
More informationVOLATILITY FORECASTING WITH RANGE MODELS. AN EVALUATION OF NEW ALTERNATIVES TO THE CARR MODEL. José Luis Miralles Quirós 1.
VOLATILITY FORECASTING WITH RANGE MODELS. AN EVALUATION OF NEW ALTERNATIVES TO THE CARR MODEL José Luis Miralles Quirós miralles@unex.es Julio Daza Izquierdo juliodaza@unex.es Department of Financial Economics,
More informationSystematic Jumps. Honors Thesis Presentation. Financial Econometrics Lunch October 16 th, Tzuo-Hann Law (Duke University)
Tzuo-Hann Law (Duke University) Honors Thesis Presentation Financial Econometrics Lunch October 6 th, 6 Presentation Layout Introduction Motivation Recent Findings Statistics Realized Variance, Realized
More informationEmpirical Analysis of the US Swap Curve Gough, O., Juneja, J.A., Nowman, K.B. and Van Dellen, S.
WestminsterResearch http://www.westminster.ac.uk/westminsterresearch Empirical Analysis of the US Swap Curve Gough, O., Juneja, J.A., Nowman, K.B. and Van Dellen, S. This is a copy of the final version
More informationImplied Volatility Correlations
Implied Volatility Correlations Robert Engle, Stephen Figlewski and Amrut Nashikkar Date: May 18, 2007 Derivatives Research Conference, NYU IMPLIED VOLATILITY Implied volatilities from market traded options
More informationA Monte Carlo Study on the Persistence of Variance with Garch
Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Plan B and other Reports Graduate Studies 5-2016 A Monte Carlo Study on the Persistence of Variance with Garch Aristides Romero Moreno Utah State University
More informationQ3 Individual Equity Holdings in the Advisor Perspectives Universe
Q3 Individual Equity Holdings in the Advisor Perspectives Universe This study analyzes the holdings of individual equities within the Advisor Perspectives (AP) Universe, as of the end of Q3 2007. A previous
More informationMaximizing of Portfolio Performance
Maximizing of Portfolio Performance PEKÁR Juraj, BREZINA Ivan, ČIČKOVÁ Zuzana Department of Operations Research and Econometrics, University of Economics, Bratislava, Slovakia Outline Problem of portfolio
More informationAmath 546/Econ 589 Univariate GARCH Models
Amath 546/Econ 589 Univariate GARCH Models Eric Zivot April 24, 2013 Lecture Outline Conditional vs. Unconditional Risk Measures Empirical regularities of asset returns Engle s ARCH model Testing for ARCH
More informationOptimal combinations of realised volatility estimators
International Journal of Forecasting 25 (2009) 218 238 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijforecast Optimal combinations of realised volatility estimators Andrew J. Patton, Kevin Sheppard Department of Economics,
More informationSystemic Influences on Optimal Investment
Systemic Influences on Optimal Equity-Credit Investment University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada www.math.ualberta.ca/ cfrei cfrei@ualberta.ca based on joint work with Agostino Capponi (Columbia University)
More informationFinancial Time Series Analysis (FTSA)
Financial Time Series Analysis (FTSA) Lecture 6: Conditional Heteroscedastic Models Few models are capable of generating the type of ARCH one sees in the data.... Most of these studies are best summarized
More informationDoes Volatility Proxy Matter in Evaluating Volatility Forecasting Models? An Empirical Study
Does Volatility Proxy Matter in Evaluating Volatility Forecasting Models? An Empirical Study Zhixin Kang 1 Rami Cooper Maysami 1 First Draft: August 2008 Abstract In this paper, by using Microsoft stock
More informationChapter 6 Forecasting Volatility using Stochastic Volatility Model
Chapter 6 Forecasting Volatility using Stochastic Volatility Model Chapter 6 Forecasting Volatility using SV Model In this chapter, the empirical performance of GARCH(1,1), GARCH-KF and SV models from
More informationMeasuring volatility with the realized range
Measuring volatility with the realized range Martin Martens Econometric Institute Erasmus University Rotterdam Dick van Dijk Econometric Institute Erasmus University Rotterdam July 15, 2005 Abstract Recently
More informationBuying Winners while Holding on to Losers: an Experimental Study of Investors Behavior. Abstract
Buying Winners while Holding on to Losers: an Experimental Study of Investors Behavior Anna Dodonova University of Ottawa Yuri Khoroshilov University of Ottawa Abstract This paper presents the results
More informationFinancial Econometrics and Volatility Models Estimating Realized Variance
Financial Econometrics and Volatility Models Estimating Realized Variance Eric Zivot June 2, 2010 Outline Volatility Signature Plots Realized Variance and Market Microstructure Noise Unbiased Estimation
More informationSolving dynamic portfolio choice problems by recursing on optimized portfolio weights or on the value function?
DOI 0.007/s064-006-9073-z ORIGINAL PAPER Solving dynamic portfolio choice problems by recursing on optimized portfolio weights or on the value function? Jules H. van Binsbergen Michael W. Brandt Received:
More informationThe University of Chicago, Booth School of Business Business 41202, Spring Quarter 2009, Mr. Ruey S. Tsay. Solutions to Final Exam
The University of Chicago, Booth School of Business Business 41202, Spring Quarter 2009, Mr. Ruey S. Tsay Solutions to Final Exam Problem A: (42 pts) Answer briefly the following questions. 1. Questions
More informationComments on Hansen and Lunde
Comments on Hansen and Lunde Eric Ghysels Arthur Sinko This Draft: September 5, 2005 Department of Finance, Kenan-Flagler School of Business and Department of Economics University of North Carolina, Gardner
More informationIMPLIED VOLATILITY Vs. REALIZED VOLATILITY A FORECASTING DIMENSION FOR INDIAN MARKETS
Delhi Business Review Vol. 17, No. 2 (July - December 2016) IMPLIED VOLATILITY Vs. REALIZED VOLATILITY A FORECASTING DIMENSION FOR INDIAN MARKETS Karam Pal Narwal* Ved Pal Sheera** Ruhee Mittal*** P URPOSE
More informationUltra High Frequency Volatility Estimation with Market Microstructure Noise. Yacine Aït-Sahalia. Per A. Mykland. Lan Zhang
Ultra High Frequency Volatility Estimation with Market Microstructure Noise Yacine Aït-Sahalia Princeton University Per A. Mykland The University of Chicago Lan Zhang Carnegie-Mellon University 1. Introduction
More informationJanuary 3, Company ABC, Inc Main Street. Re: 25, In 2011, Company based to the. based 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% TSR $85.54 $44.
January 3, 2014 Mr. John Doe Director, Compensation Company ABC, Inc. 1234 Main Street New York, NY 10108 Re: Performance Award Certification FY2011 Performance Share Units Dear John, This letter certifies
More informationFinancial Data Analysis, WS08/09. Roman Liesenfeld, University of Kiel 1
Financial Data Analysis, WS08/09. Roman Liesenfeld, University of Kiel 1 Data sets used in the following sections can be downloaded from http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/ruey.tsay/teaching/fts/ Exercise Sheet
More informationDensity forecast comparisons for stock prices, obtained from high-frequency. returns and daily option prices
Density forecast comparisons for stock prices, obtained from high-frequency returns and daily option prices Rui Fan a, * Matteo Sandri a Stephen J. Taylor a Lancaster University Lancaster University Lancaster
More informationForecasting the Volatility of Nikkei 225 Futures
Instituto Complutense de Análisis Económico Forecasting the Volatility of Nikkei 225 Futures Manabu Asai Faculty of Economics Soka University, Japan Michael McAleer Department of Quantitative Finance National
More informationThe Effect of Demographic Dividend on CEO Compensation
The Effect of Demographic Dividend on CEO Compensation Yi-Cheng Shih Assistant Professor, Department of Finance and Cooperative Management, College of Business,National Taipei University, Taipei, Taiwan
More informationEstimation of Long Memory in Volatility
1 Estimation of Long Memory in Volatility Rohit S. Deo and C. M. Hurvich New York University Abstract We discuss some of the issues pertaining to modelling and estimating long memory in volatility. The
More informationSHAREHOLDER VALUE CREATORS AND DESTROYERS IN THE DOW JONES: YEAR 2008
Occasional Paper OP-162 February, 2009 SHAREHOLDER VALUE CREATORS AND DESTROYERS IN THE DOW JONES: YEAR 2008 Pablo Fernández Vicente J. Bermejo IESE Occasional Papers seek to present topics of general
More informationIndividual Equity Variance *
The Impact of Sector and Market Variance on Individual Equity Variance * Haoming Wang Professor George Tauchen, Faculty Advisor * The Duke Community Standard was upheld in the completion of this report
More informationIntraday and Interday Time-Zone Volatility Forecasting
Intraday and Interday Time-Zone Volatility Forecasting Petko S. Kalev Department of Accounting and Finance Monash University 23 October 2006 Abstract The paper develops a global volatility estimator and
More informationA version in Spanish may be downloaded in:
Are Calculated Betas Good for Anything? Pablo Fernandez, Professor of Finance e-mail: fernandezpa@iese.edu and pfernandez@iese.edu Camino del Cerro del Aguila 3. 28023 Madrid, Spain Previous versions:
More informationAn Approximate Long-Memory Range-Based Approach for Value at Risk Estimation
An Approximate Long-Memory Range-Based Approach for Value at Risk Estimation Xiaochun Meng and James W. Taylor Saïd Business School, University of Oxford International Journal of Forecasting, forthcoming.
More informationA Cyclical Model of Exchange Rate Volatility
A Cyclical Model of Exchange Rate Volatility Richard D. F. Harris Evarist Stoja Fatih Yilmaz April 2010 0B0BDiscussion Paper No. 10/618 Department of Economics University of Bristol 8 Woodland Road Bristol
More informationAsymmetric effects and long memory in the volatility of Dow Jones stocks
International Journal of Forecasting 25 2009) 304 327 www.elsevier.com/locate/ijforecast Asymmetric effects and long memory in the volatility of Dow Jones stocks Marcel Scharth a, Marcelo C. Medeiros b,
More information