Supplementary Appendix to The Risk Premia Embedded in Index Options

Supplementary Appendix to The Risk Premia Embedded in Index Options Torben G. Andersen Nicola Fusari Viktor Todorov December 214 Contents A The Non-Linear Factor Structure of Option Surfaces 2 B Additional Results and Robustness Checks for the Parametric Modeling of the Option Panel 2 B.1 Estimation Results for the General Model........................ 2 B.2 Estimation Results on Subsamples............................ 7 B.2.1 From January 1996 to December 26...................... 7 B.2.2 From January 27 to July 21......................... 8 B.3 Effect of ρ u Parameter................................... 1 B.4 Effect of Volatility Fit Penalization in Estimation.................... 11 B.4.1 λ =.1....................................... 11 B.4.2 λ =.3....................................... 13 B.5 Alternative Models and/or Constrained Versions of the Model............. 15 B.5.1 Estimation Results for 1FGSJ Model....................... 15 B.5.2 Estimation Results for 2FGSJ Model....................... 16 B.5.3 Estimation Results for 2FESJ Model....................... 17 B.5.4 Estimation Results for 3FESJ-V Model..................... 18 C Option Pricing 2 C.1 Pricing Method....................................... 2 C.2 Monte Carlo Exercise................................... 21 D Additional Details and Results for the Predictive Regressions 23 D.1 Filtered Jumps from High-Frequency Data........................ 23 D.2 Predictive Regressions for the 2FESJ Model....................... 24 D.3 Predictive Regression for Model (B.1) Using CRSP Monthly Returns......... 26 Department of Finance, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 628; NBER, Cambridge, MA; and CREATES, Aarhus, Denmark; e-mail: t-andersen@northwestern.edu. The Johns Hopkins University Carey Business School, Baltimore, MD 2122; e-mail: nicola.fusari@jhu.edu. Department of Finance, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 628; e-mail: v-todorov@northwestern.edu. 1

A The Non-Linear Factor Structure of Option Surfaces In a standard option pricing model, the Black-Scholes implied volatility is given by κ(k, τ, S t, θ) where S t is the state vector driving the option surface dynamics (S t equals (V 1,t, V 2,t, U t ) for our three-factor model in the paper). This makes the option surface obey a nonlinear factor structure. The goal of this section is to illustrate in a simple setting the amount of this nonlinearity and further illustrate the extra dynamics in the option surface induced by it. We use simulated data from the Heston model for this analysis. We recall the Heston model is a one-factor constrained version of our general stochastic volatility model in (3.1) in the paper with no price and volatility jumps. The parameters in the simulation are set to: θ 1 =.225, κ 1 = 4, σ 1 =.3 and ρ 1 =.9 (for simplicity we assume the same model under P and Q). We simulate the process over a period of five years and, at the end of every week on the simulated trajectory, we compute the theoretical price of an OTM put option with fixed moneyness and maturity equal to.1 years. We report results for two alternative ways of defining moneyness: fixed moneyness of K/F t,t+τ =.9 and volatility adjusted moneyness of log(k/f t,t+τ )/( τ V 1,t ) = 2. For each of the days in the simulated sample and for the two different ways of fixing the moneyness, we then compute the derivative of the theoretical Black-Scholes implied volatility with respect to the current level of the stochastic variance, i.e., we compute κ(k, τ, V 1,t, θ) V 1,t. The results are reported on Figures A.1 and A.2. As seen from the figures, the sensitivity of the option implied volatility with respect to current spot variance is rather nontrivial, regardless of the method of fixing the moneyness, even in the very simple Heston stochastic volatility model. This variability plotted on Figures A.1 and A.2 is essentially ignored when conducting linear factor analysis on the the Black-Scholes implied volatility surface. B Additional Results and Robustness Checks for the Parametric Modeling of the Option Panel B.1 Estimation Results for the General Model The model is given by: 2

.1 Simulated Variance V1,t.8.6.4.2 5 1 15 2 25 Time in weeks 8 Implied Volatility Sensitivity κ(k,τ,v1,t,θ) V1,t 7 6 5 4 3 2 5 1 15 2 25 Time in weeks Figure A.1: Sensitivity of Option Implied Volatility to the level of Volatility in the Heston Model: Case of Fixed Moneyness. Top Panel: simulated variance path from the Heston model. Bottom Panel:sensitivity of OTM Put option s implied volatility with respect to the the current level of variance, for a fixed level of moneyness K / F t,t+τ =.9. The straight line on the bottom panel corresponds to the average value of the derivative in the sample. 3

.1 Simulated Variance V1,t.8.6.4.2 5 1 15 2 25 Time in weeks 8 Implied Volatility Sensitivity κ(k,τ,v1,t,θ) V1,t 7 6 5 4 3 2 5 1 15 2 25 Time in weeks Figure A.2: Sensitivity of Option Implied Volatility to the level of Volatility in the Heston Model: Case of Volatility-Adjusted Moneyness. Top Panel: simulated variance path from the Heston model. Bottom Panel: sensitivity of OTM Put option s implied volatility with respect to the the current level of variance, for a volatility adjusted level of moneyness log(k/f t,t+τ )/( τ V 1,t ) = 2. The straight line on the bottom panel corresponds to the average value of the derivative in the sample. 4

dx t = (r t δ t ) dt + V 1,t dw Q 1,t X + V 2,t dw Q 2,t + η U t dw Q 3,t + (e x 1) µ Q (dt, dx, dy), t R 2 dv 1,t = κ 1 (v 1 V 1,t ) dt + σ 1 V1,t db Q 1,t + µ 1 x 2 1 {x<} µ(dt, dx, dy), dv 2,t = κ 2 (v 2 V 2,t ) dt + σ 2 V2,t db Q 2,t, R 2 (B.1) du t = κ u U t dt + µ u R 2 [ (1 ρu ) x 2 1 {x<} + ρ u y 2] µ(dt, dx, dy), where (W Q 1,t, W Q 2,t, W Q 3,t, BQ 1,t, BQ 2,t (W ) is a five-dimensional Brownian motion with corr Q 1,t, BQ 1,t = ρ 1 ( ) and corr W Q 2,t, BQ 2,t = ρ 2, while the remaining Brownian motions are mutually independent. The jump compensator is given by, ν Q t (dx, dy) ( c (t) 1 {x<} λ e λ x + c + (t) 1 {x>} λ + e λ+x), if y =, = dxdy c (t)λ e λ y, if x = and y <, with c (t) = c + c 1 V 1,t + c 2 V 2,t + U t, c + (t) = c + + c+ 1 V 1,t + c + 2 V 2,t + c + u U t. ) 25 U t 2 15 1 5 97 98 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Date Figure B.1: Recovered U. Solid dark line: U corresponding to model (B.1) with no restrictions on coefficients. Dotted light line: U corresponding to model (B.1) with c = c 2 = c+ u = η =. 5

Table B.1: Estimation results for model (B.1). Panel A: Parameter Estimates Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. ρ 1.962.157 σ 2.168.7 c + 1 25.178 5.246 v 1.3. η.1.13 c 2.233 3.391 κ 1 1.968.24 µ u 7.3425 29.736 c + 2 82.151 7.51 σ 1.257.49 κ u.84.146 c + u.7.7 µ 1 12.161.261 ρ u.385 5.438 λ 25.941.212 ρ 2.989.36 c.5.132 λ + 36.543.826 v 2.1. c +.348.29 κ 2 1.828.122 c 1 11.324 5.139 Panel B: Summary Statistics RMSE 1.71% Mean jump intensity (yearly) (-/+) 5.55/1.79 Mean jump size (-/+) 3.85%/2.74% Note: Estimation period is January 1996-July 21. 6

B.2 Estimation Results on Subsamples B.2.1 From January 1996 to December 26 Table B.2: Estimation results for model (B.1). Panel A: Parameter Estimates Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. ρ 1.974.271 v 2.16. c +.384.29 v 1.1. κ 2 1.677.19 c 1 176.55 1.385 κ 1 13.28.287 σ 2.223.5 c + 1 9.98 4.419 σ 1.144.48 µ u 9.13 71.215 c + 2 84.3 7.611 µ 1 1.983.347 κ u.162.373 λ 26.36.238 ρ 2.858.18 ρ u.887 7.651 λ + 37.218.735 Panel B: Summary Statistics RMSE.99% Mean jump intensity (yearly) (-/+) 6.65/1.54 Mean jump size (-/+) 3.8%/2.69% Note: Estimation period is January 1996-December 26. 7

B.2.2 From January 27 to July 21 Table B.3: Estimation results for model (B.1). Panel A: Parameter Estimates Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. ρ 1.987.81 v 2.7. c +.571.66 v 1.4. κ 2 2.61.155 c 1 112.519 6.845 κ 1 11.962.318 σ 2.169.11 c + 1 18.786 4.863 σ 1.322.34 µ u 9.163 23.635 c + 2 87.929 11.474 µ 1 12.63.347 κ u.56.119 λ 25.72.353 ρ 2.99.54 ρ u.323 3.982 λ + 35.814.995 Panel B: Summary Statistics RMSE 2.16% Mean jump intensity (yearly) (-/+) 5.59/1.94 Mean jump size (-/+) 3.89%/2.79% Note: Estimation period is January 27-July 21. 8

25 U t 2 15 1 5 97 98 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 25 U t 2 15 1 5 97 98 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Figure B.2: Top Panel: U from the full sample estimation from January 1996 to July 21. Bottom Panel: U from the two sub-sample estimations: January 1996 to December 26 and January 27 to July 21. 9

B.3 Effect of ρ u Parameter 25 U t 2 15 1 5 97 98 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Date Figure B.3: The effect of ρ u on U. Solid dark line is U given parameter estimates of model (B.1) reported in Table 4 in the paper with ρ u set to zero. Dotted light line is U given parameter estimates of model (B.1) reported in Table 4 in the paper with ρ u set to one. 1

B.4 Effect of Volatility Fit Penalization in Estimation B.4.1 λ =.1 Table B.4: Estimation results for model (B.1). Panel A: Parameter Estimates Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. ρ 1.929.76 v 2.11. c +.461.27 v 1.3. κ 2 2.91.11 c 1 11.244 5.327 κ 1 11.66.245 σ 2.23.4 c + 1 22.415 4.24 σ 1.242.24 µ u 5.512 3.187 c + 2 78.85 5.548 µ 1 12.188.254 κ u.267.148 λ 25.982.273 ρ 2.992.19 ρ u.48 7.157 λ + 36.329.588 Panel B: Summary Statistics RMSE 1.71% Mean jump intensity (yearly) (-/+) 5.54/1.78 Mean jump size (-/+) 3.84%/2.75% Note: Estimation period is January 1996-July 21. We set λ in the objective function given in (4.1) in the paper to.1. 11

25 U t 2 15 1 5 97 98 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Date Figure B.4: Solid dark line is U based on estimation with λ =.2 and dotted light line is U based on estimation with λ =.1. Estimation period is January 1996 to July 21. 12

B.4.2 λ =.3 Table B.5: Estimation results for model (B.1). Panel A: Parameter Estimates Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. ρ 1.948.75 v 2.8. c +.368.26 v 1.3. κ 2 1.865.86 c 1 16.353 4.498 κ 1 1.896.21 σ 2.163.4 c + 1 13.742 3.751 σ 1.251.26 µ u 6.188 25.739 c + 2 8.797 5.612 µ 1 12.23.239 κ u.76.123 λ 25.984.234 ρ 2.987.23 ρ u.467 5.22 λ + 36.747.64 Panel B: Summary Statistics RMSE 1.75% Mean jump intensity (yearly) (-/+) 5.72/1.63 Mean jump size (-/+) 3.85%/2.72% Note: Estimation period is January 1996-July 21. We set λ in the objective function given in (4.1) in the paper to.3. 13

25 U t 2 15 1 5 97 98 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Date Figure B.5: Solid dark line is U based on estimation with λ =.2 and dotted light line is U based on estimation with λ =.3. Estimation period is January 1996 to July 21. 14

B.5 Alternative Models and/or Constrained Versions of the Model B.5.1 Estimation Results for 1FGSJ Model 1FGSJ Model is given by: dx t X t = (r t δ t ) dt + V 1,t dw Q 1,t + R 2 (e x 1) µ Q (dt, dx, dy), dv 1,t = κ 1 (v 1 V 1,t ) dt + σ 1 V1,t db Q 1,t + R 2 yµ(dt, dx, dy), (B.2) ) where (W Q 1,t, BQ 1,t (W ) is a two-dimensional Brownian motion with corr Q 1,t, BQ 1,t = ρ 1. The risk-neutral compensator for the jump measure is ν Q t (dx, dy) = (c + c 1 V 1,t ) e 2σx 2 2πσx (x µx ρ j y) 2 1 µ {y>} dx dy. v e y/µv Table B.6: Estimation results for the 1FGSJ model (B.2). Panel A: Parameter Estimates Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. ρ 1.899.9 c.11.2 σ x.138.1 v 1.28.1 c 1 2.517.347 µ v.25.1 κ 1.686.17 µ x.76.1 ρ j.621.48 σ 1.154.3 Panel B: Summary Statistics RMSE 3.14% Mean jump intensity (yearly).63 Mean jump size 9.25% Note: Estimation period is January 1996-July 21. 15

B.5.2 Estimation Results for 2FGSJ Model 2FGSJ Model is given by: dx t X t = (r t δ t ) dt + V 1,t dw Q 1,t + V 2,t dw Q 2,t + dv 1,t = κ 1 (v 1 V 1,t ) dt + σ 1 V1,t db Q 1,t + R 2 yµ(dt, dx, dy), R 2 (e x 1) µ Q (dt, dx, dy), (B.3) dv 2,t = κ 2 (v 2 V 2,t ) dt + σ 2 V2,t db Q 2,t, where (W Q 1,t, W Q 2,t, BQ 1,t, BQ 2,t ) is a four-dimensional Brownian motion with W Q 1,t W Q 2,t, W Q ) ( ) 1,t BQ 2,t, and W Q 2,t BQ 1,t (W, while corr Q 1,t, BQ 1,t = ρ d,1 and corr W Q 2,t, BQ 2,t = ρ d,2. The risk-neutral compensator for the jump measure is ν Q t (dx, dy) = (c + c 1 V 1,t + c 2 V 2,t ) e 2σx 2 2πσx (x µx ρ j y) 2 1 µ {y>} dx dy. v e y/µv Table B.7: Estimation results for the 2FGSJ model (B.3). Panel A: Parameter Estimates Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. ρ 1.969.31 v 2.8. c 2 6.363.297 v 1.9. κ 2 17.976.782 µ x.193.3 κ 1 1.341.21 σ 2.74.54 σ x.63.2 σ 1.138.6 c.6.4 µ v.47.1 ρ 2.742.525 c 1 25.557.575 ρ j.638.23 Panel B: Summary Statistics RMSE 2.56% Mean jump intensity (yearly).62 Mean jump size 16.3% Note: Estimation period is January 1996-July 21. 16

B.5.3 Estimation Results for 2FESJ Model 2FESJ Model is given by: dx t = (r t δ t ) dt + V 1,t dw Q 1,t X + V 2,t dw Q 2,t + t dv 1,t = κ 1 (v 1 V 1,t ) dt + σ 1 V1,t db Q 1,t + µ 1 dv 2,t = κ 2 (v 2 V 2,t ) dt + σ 2 V2,t db Q 2,t, R 2 R 2 (e x 1) µ Q (dt, dx), x 2 1 {x<} µ(dt, dx), (B.4) where (W Q 1,t, W Q 2,t, BQ 1,t, BQ 2,t ) is a four-dimensional Brownian motion with W Q 1,t W Q 2,t, W Q ) ( ) 1,t BQ 2,t, and W Q 2,t BQ 1,t (W, while corr Q 1,t, BQ 1,t = ρ d,1 and corr W Q 2,t, BQ 2,t = ρ d,2. The risk-neutral compensator for the jump measure is ν Q t (dx, dy) = {(c 1 {x<} λ e λ x + c + 1 {x>} λ + e λ +x )} dx, c = c + c 1 V 1,t + c 2 V 2,t, c + = c + + c+ 1 V 1,t + c + 2 V 2,t. In our estimation we set c to zero. Table B.8: Estimation results for 2FESJ model (B.4). Panel A: Parameter Estimates Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. ρ 1.762.91 κ 2.169.14 c + 2 52.795 4.597 v 1.4. σ 2.129.2 λ 16.943.7 κ 1 12.831.227 c + 2.315.63 λ + 51.818.22 σ 1.247.31 c 1 69.28 1.856 µ 1 6.262.143 ρ 2.945.9 c + 1 13.161 11.356 v 2.59.4 c 2 97.656 1.91 Panel B: Summary Statistics RMSE 2.7% Mean jump intensity (yearly) (-/+) 2.6/3.36 Mean jump size (-/+) 5.9%/1.93% Note: Estimation period is January 1996-July 21. 17

B.5.4 Estimation Results for 3FESJ-V Model 3FESJ-V Model is given by: dx t = (r t δ t ) dt + V 1,t dw Q 1,t X + V 2,t dw Q 2,t + V 3,t dw Q 3,t + (e x 1) µ Q (dt, dx, dy), t R 2 dv 1,t = κ 1 (v 1 V 1,t ) dt + σ 1 V1,t db Q 1,t + µ 1 x 2 1 {x<} µ(dt, dx, dy), dv 2,t = κ 2 (v 2 V 2,t ) dt + σ 2 V2,t db Q 2,t, dv 3,t = κ 3 V 3,t dt + µ 3 R 2 [ (1 ρ3 ) x 2 1 {x<} + ρ 3 y 2] µ(dt, dx, dy), R 2 (B.5) where (W Q 1,t, W Q 2,t, BQ 1,t, BQ 2,t ) is a four-dimensional Brownian motion with W Q 1,t W Q 2,t, W Q ) ( ) 1,t BQ 2,t, and W Q 2,t BQ 1,t (W, while corr Q 1,t, BQ 1,t = ρ d,1 and corr W Q 2,t, BQ 2,t = ρ d,2. The risk-neutral compensator for the jump measure is ν Q t (dx) = {(c 1 {x<} λ e λ x + c + 1 {x>} λ + e λ +x ) 1 {y=} + c 1 {x=, y<} λ e λ y } dx dy, c = c + c 1 V 1,t + c 2 V 2,t + c 3 V 3,t, c + = c + + c+ 1 V 1,t + c + 2 V 2,t + c + 3 V 3,t. In our estimation we set c and c+ 3 to zero. 18

Table B.9: Estimation results for 3FESJ-V model (B.5) Panel A: Parameter Estimates Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. Parameter Estimate Std. ρ 1.888.25 σ 2.93.8 c 2 146.355 1.315 v 1.15.1 µ 3 5.583.369 c + 2 26.18 36.532 κ 1 4.53.146 κ 3 17.296.623 c 3 116.395 4.642 σ 1.347.11 ρ 3.47.28 λ 17.162.15 ρ 2.989.58 c + 6.31.25 λ + 78.369.425 v 2.3. c 1.362 1.556 µ 1 3.244.486 κ 2 1.287.43 c + 1 292.97 49.268 Panel B: Summary Statistics RMSE 1.86% Mean jump intensity (yearly) (-/+) 2.72/9.26 Mean jump size (-/+) 5.83%/1.28% Note: Estimation period is January 1996-July 21. 19

C Option Pricing C.1 Pricing Method In this section we describe how we obtain the option prices for the most general model outlined in equation (B.1). Since the model belongs to the class of affine models, the option prices can be obtained using standard Fourier methods. We employ here the Fourier-cosine series expansion introduced by Fang and Oosterlee (28). To apply the method, all we need is the conditional characteristic function of the log-prices. The latter is not available in closed form, but it can be easily obtained through the solution of a system of Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs), as described in Section 2.3 of Duffie et al. (2) and Theorem 2.7 of Duffie et al. (23). More specifically, for y t = log(x t ) and u C, we define g(u, y t, V 1,t, V 2,t, U t, τ) = E Q t [euy t+τ ]. Since, the model in (B.1) is in the affine class, we have g(u, y t, V 1,t, V 2,t, U t ) = e α(u,τ)+β 1(u,τ)V 1,t +β 2 (u,τ)v 2,t +β 3 (u,τ)u t+uy t. for some coefficients α(u, τ), β 1 (u, τ), β 2 (u, τ), and β 3 (u, τ) to be determined. The Feynman-Kac theorem implies that g(u, y t, V 1,t, V 2,t, U t ) solves (we omit the subscript t for the state variables and the prime indicates the derivative with respect to time-to-expiration τ): α β 1V 1 β 2V 2 β 3U t + u[r t δ t 1 2 (V 1 + V 2 + η 2 U) c t (Θnc (u,, ) 1) c + t (Θp (u,, ) 1)] + β 1 (k 1 ( v 1 V 1 )) + β 2 (k 2 ( v 2 V 2 )) k u U t β 3 + 1 2 u2 (V 1 + V 2 + η 2 U) + 1 2 σ2 1V 1 β1 2 + 1 2 σ2 2V 2 β2 2 + β 1 uσ 1 ρ 1 V 1 + β 2 uσ 2 ρ 2 V 2 + c t (Θnc (u, β 1, β 3 ) 1) + c t (Θni (,, β 3 ) 1) + c + t (Θp (u,, ) 1) =, (C.1) where For Θ nc (q, q 1, q 3 ) we have Θ nc (q, q 1, q 3 ) = Θ nc (q, q 1, q 3 ) = λ = λ e Θ ni (q 3 ) = Θ p (q ) = + e q z+q 1 µ 1 z 2 +q 3 (1 ρ u)µ uz 2 λ e zλ dz e q 3ρ uµ uz 2 λ e zλ dz e q z λ + e zλ+ dz. e z2 2(q (q 1 µ 1 +q 3 (1 ρ u)µ u+ +λ ) ( ) (q +λ ) 2 4(q 1 µ 1 +q 3 (1 ρu)µu) e (q q 1µ 1 +q 3 (1 ρ u)µ u) z+ +λ 2 2(q 1 µ 1 +q 3 (1 ρu)µu), (C.2) (C.3) (C.4) 2(q 1 µ 1 +q 3 (1 ρu)) (q 1µ 1 +q 3 (1 ρ u)µ u)z dz (C.5) 2

and defining: we obtain: a = (q 1 µ 1 + q 3 (1 ρ u )µ u )), b = Θ nc (q, q 1, q 3 ) = λ e ab2 = λ e 1 ab ab2 a e a(z+b)2 dz = λ e ab2 b q + λ 2(q 1 µ 1 + q 3 (1 ρ u )µ u )) e ay2 dy e ( ay) 2 d( ay) = λ e ab2 1 a erf( ab), (C.6) where erf(.) is the complex error function. Θ ni (q 3 ) can be computed following the steps in equations (C.5) and (C.6), while Θ p (q ) is given by the characteristic function of the exponential distribution. Finally, (C.1) can be solved by collecting terms containing V 1,t, V 2,t, and U t and setting the coefficients in front of these variables. This leads to the following system of ODEs that we solve numerically: 1 α = u[r δ c (Θn (u,, ) 1) c + (Θp (u,, ) 1)] + β 1 k 1 v 1 + β 2 k 2 v 2 + c (Θnc (u, β 1, β 3 ) 1) + c (Θni (,, β 3 ) 1) + c (Θp (u) 1) β 1 = u[ 1 2 c 1 (Θn (u,, ) 1) c + 1 (Θp (u,, ) 1)] β 1 k 1 + 1 2 u2 1 2 σ2 1 β2 1 + β 1uσ 1 ρ 1 + c 1 (Θnc (u, β 1, β 3 ) 1) + c 1 (Θni (,, β 3 ) 1) + c 1 (Θp (u) 1) β 2 = u[ 1 2 c 2 (Θn (u,, ) 1) c + 2 (Θp (u,, ) 1)] β 2 k 2 + 1 2 u2 1 2 σ2 2 β2 2 + β 2uσ 2 ρ 2 + c 2 (Θnc (u, β 1, β 3 ) 1) + c 2 (Θni (,, β 3 ) 1) + c 2 (Θp (u) 1) β 3 = u[ 1 2 η2 c 3 (Θn (u,, ) 1) c + 3 (Θp (u,, ) 1)] β 3 k u c 3 (Θnc (u, β 1, β 3 ) 1) + c 3 (Θni (,, β 3 ) 1) + c 3 (Θp (u) 1) All the other models presented in the paper are special cases of the model in (B.1). (C.7) C.2 Monte Carlo Exercise In this section we compare the pricing obtained using the numerical procedure described in Section C.1 with option prices computed via a Monte Carlo simulation using 1,, simulated paths (simulation is done via Euler discretization with length of the discretization interval of 1/5 of a day). We use the same parameters reported in Table 5 in the paper and we set the state vector at the sample median values from tour estimation. Figure C.1 shows the corresponding implied volatility curve for moneyness m between [ 8, 4] and maturity equal to seven days. 1 For example in Matlab the function ode45.m works very well. 21

.4.35 Implied Volatility Fourier Method Monte Carlo.3.25.2.15.1-8 -6-4 -2 2 4 moneyness Figure C.1: Monte Carlo Exercise. Comparison between the implied volatility curve obtained using the Fourier-cosine series expansion and Monte Carlo simulation with 1,, simulated paths for the 3FESJ model in Equation B.1. Parameters as in Table 5 and state vector equal to the median of the daily filtered states vectors. 22

D Additional Details and Results for the Predictive Regressions D.1 Filtered Jumps from High-Frequency Data 3 Weekly number of negative jumps 2 1 3 97 98 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 Weekly number of positive jumps 2 1 97 98 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 Figure D.1: Weekly Number of big Negative and Positive Market Jumps. The figure K,i K,i plots LT t,t+τ and RT t,t+τ, defined in (9.11) in the paper with K =.5% and τ equal to one week. The total number of big negative and positive jumps in the sample is 224 and 235 respectively. 23

D.2 Predictive Regressions for the 2FESJ Model Future negative jumps Future positive jumps 4 4 t stat 2 t stat 2 2 2 2 4 6 8 1 12 2 4 6 8 1 12.2.2 R 2 R 2.1.1 2 4 6 8 1 12 Months 2 4 6 8 1 12 Months 15 Future continuous variation 15 Future Realized Volatility and Squared Overnight Return 1 1 t stat 5 t stat 5 2 4 6 8 1 12 2 4 6 8 1 12 1 1 R 2.5 R 2.5 2 4 6 8 1 12 Months 2 4 6 8 1 12 Months Figure D.2: Predictive Regressions for Volatility and Jump Risks. The volatility and jump risk measures are defined in (9.11)-(9.12) in the paper. For each regression, the top panels depict the t-statistics for the individual parameter estimates while the bottom panels indicate the regression R 2. The predictive variables are V 1 (dotted line), V 2 (dashed line). 24

4 Future excess returns 6 Future realized VRP 2 4 t stat 2 2 4 6 8 1 12 2 t stat 2 2 4 6 8 1 12 R 2.2.15.1.5 R 2.4.3.2.1 2 4 6 8 1 12 Months 2 4 6 8 1 12 Months Figure D.3: Predictive Regressions for Equity and Variance Risk Premia. For each regression, the top panels depict the t-statistics for the individual parameter estimates while the bottom panels indicate the regression R 2. The predictive variables are V 1 (dotted line), V 2 (dashed line). 25

D.3 Predictive Regression for Model (B.1) Using CRSP Monthly Returns 4 Future excess returns t stat 2 2 2 4 6 8 1 12.2.15 R 2.1.5 2 4 6 8 1 12 Months Figure D.4: Predictive Regression for Future Excess Returns from CRSP. Monthly returns and the corresponding risk-free rate have been downloaded from Ken French website:http://mba. tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html. 26

References Duffie, D., D. Filipović, and W. Schachermayer (23). Affine Processes and Applications in Finance. Annals of Applied Probability 13(3), 984 153. Duffie, D., J. Pan, and K. Singleton (2). Transform Analysis and Asset Pricing for Affine Jump-Diffusions. Econometrica 68, 1343 1376. Fang, F. and C. Oosterlee (28). A Novel Pricing Method for European Options Based on Fourier- CosineSeries Expansions. SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing 31(2), 826 848. 27