Trading activity and bid–ask spreads of individual equity options

We empirically examine the impact of trading activities on the liquidity of individual equity options measured by the proportional bid–ask spread. There are three main findings. First, the option return volatility, defined as the option price elasticity times the stock return volatility, has a much higher power in explaining the spread variations than the commonly considered liquidity determinants such as the stock return volatility and option trading volume. Second, after controlling for all the liquidity determinants, we find a maturity-substitution effect due to expiration cycles. When medium-term options (60–90 days maturity) are not available, traders use short-term options as substitutes whose higher volume leads to a smaller bid–ask spread or better liquidity. Third, we also find a moneyness-substitution effect induced by the stock return volatility. When the stock return volatility goes up, trading shifts from in-the-money options to out-of-the-money options, causing the latter’s spread to narrow.     

VOLATILITY FORECASTS,TRADING VOLUME,AND THE ARCH VERSUS OPTION‐IMPLIED VOLATILITY TRADE‐OFF

We investigate empirically the role of trading volume (1) in predicting the relative informativeness of volatility forecasts produced by autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (ARCH) models versus the volatility forecasts derived from option prices, and (2) in improving volatility forecasts produced by ARCH and option models and combinations of models. Daily and monthly data are explored. We find that if trading volume was low during period t?1 relative to the recent past, ARCH is at least as important as options for forecasting future stock market volatility. Conversely, if volume was high during period t?1 relative to the recent past, option‐implied volatility is much more important than ARCH for forecasting future volatility. Considering relative trading volume as a proxy for changes in the set of information available to investors, our findings reveal an important switching role for trading volume between a volatility forecast that reflects relatively stale information (the historical ARCH estimate) and the option‐implied forward‐looking estimate.     

The information content of implied volatilities and model-free volatility expectations: Evidence from options written on individual stocks

We measure the volatility information content of stock options for individual firms using option prices for 149 US firms and the S&P 100 index. We use ARCH and regression models to compare volatility forecasts defined by historical stock returns, at-the-money implied volatilities and model-free volatility expectations for every firm. For 1-day-ahead estimation, a historical ARCH model outperforms both of the volatility estimates extracted from option prices for 36% of the firms, but the option forecasts are nearly always more informative for those firms that have the more actively traded options. When the prediction horizon extends until the expiry date of the options, the option forecasts are more informative than the historical volatility for 85% of the firms. However, at-the-money implied volatilities generally outperform the model-free volatility expectations.     

Volume,volatility and information linkages in the stock and option markets

This paper examines the relationship between option trading activity and stock market volatility. Although the option market is uniquely suited for trading on volatility information, there is little analysis on how trading activity in this market is linked to stock price volatility. The bulk of the discussion tends to focus on whether trading activity in the stock market is informative about stock volatility. To analyze the information in option trading activity for stock market volatility, a sample of 15 stocks with the highest option trading volume is selected. For each stock, it is noted that the trading activities in the put and call option markets have significant explanatory power for stock market volatility. In addition, the results indicate that the call option trading activity has a stronger impact on stock volatility compared with that of the put options. Our results demonstrate that information and sentiment in the option market is useful for the estimation of stock market volatility. Also, the significance of the effects of option trading activity on stock price volatility is observed to be comparable to that of stock market trading activity. Furthermore, the persistence and asymmetric effects in the volatility of some stocks tend to disappear once option trading activity is taken into account.     

The information content of implied skewness and kurtosis changes prior to earnings announcements for stock and option returns

We use option prices to examine whether changes in stock return skewness and kurtosis preceding earnings announcements provide information about subsequent stock and option returns. We demonstrate that changes in jump risk premiums can lead to changes in implied skewness and kurtosis and are also associated with the mean and variability of the stock price response to the earnings announcement. We find that changes in both moments have strong predictive power for future stock returns, even after controlling for implied volatility. Additionally, changes in both moments predict call returns, while put return predictability is primarily linked to changes in skewness.     

Financing decisions when managers are risk averse

Leverage raises stock volatility, driving a wedge between the cost of debt to shareholders and the cost to undiversified, risk-averse managers. I quantify these “volatility costs” of debt and examine their impact on financing decisions. I find that: (1) the volatility costs of debt can be large for executives exposed to firm-specific risk; (2) for a range of empirically relevant parameters, higher option ownership tends to increase, not decrease, the volatility costs of debt; and (3) for managers with stock options, a stock price increase typically raises volatility costs. For a large sample of US firms, I find evidence that volatility costs affect both the level of and short-term changes in debt, and that volatility costs help explain a firm's choice between debt and equity.     

Stock and option market divergence in the presence of noisy information

We examine market behavior of the stock and option markets upon the arrival of noisy information in the form of CNBC’s Mad Money recommendations. If stock and option markets are not equally efficient, they should respond differently to noisy information, with the less efficient market more susceptible to noise. We find that the stock market is less efficient than the option market. The abnormal difference between option-implied and actual stock returns is negative and significant upon exposure to noisy information. This difference may yield an economically significant monthly trading profit of up to 5%. We conclude that the stock market is more susceptible to noisy information than the option market and is therefore less efficient.     

RISK PREMIUM EFFECTS ON IMPLIED VOLATILITY REGRESSIONS

This article provides new insights into the sources of bias of option implied volatility to forecast its physical counterpart. We argue that this bias can be attributed to volatility risk premium effects. The latter are found to depend on high‐order cumulants of the risk‐neutral density. These cumulants capture the risk‐averse behavior of investors in the stock and option markets for bearing the investment risk that is reflected in the deviations of the implied risk‐neutral distribution from the normal distribution. We show that the bias of implied volatility to forecast its corresponding physical measure can be eliminated when the implied volatility regressions are adjusted for risk premium effects. The latter are captured mainly by the third‐order risk‐neutral cumulant. We also show that a substantial reduction of higher order risk‐neutral cumulants biases to predict their corresponding physical cumulants is supported when adjustments for risk premium effects are made.     

Do executive stock options induce excessive risk taking?

We examine whether executive stock options can induce excessive risk taking by managers in firms’ security issue decisions. We find that CEOs whose wealth is more sensitive to stock return volatility due to their option holdings are more likely to choose debt over equity as a capital-raising vehicle. More importantly, the pattern holds not only in firms that are underlevered relative to their optimal capital structure but also in overlevered firms. This evidence is inconsistent with executive stock options aligning the interests of managers and shareholders; rather, it supports the hypothesis that stock options sometimes make managers take on too much risk and in the process pursue suboptimal capital structure policies.     

The Intraday Relation between NYSE and CBOE Prices

I extend the literature regarding price discovery across stock and option markets through an empirical model that allows information to flow through an error‐correction term and volatility. NYSE prices tend to lead CBOE prices by at least thirty minutes over the entire six‐year sample period. In addition, informed trading in the options market is revealed more strongly through persistence in volatility and the spillover of volatility to the stock market than it is through returns.     

Stock return volatility,operating performance and stock returns: International evidence on drivers of the ‘low volatility’ anomaly

This study highlights the link between stock return volatility, operating performance, and stock returns. Prior studies suggest that there is a ‘low volatility’ anomaly, where firms with a low stock return volatility out-perform firms with a high stock return volatility. This paper confirms that low volatility stocks earn higher returns than high volatility stocks in emerging markets and developed markets outside of North America. We also show that low volatility stocks have higher operating returns and this might explain why low volatility stocks earn higher stock returns. These results provide a partial explanation for the ‘low volatility effect’ that is independent from the existence of market anomalies or per se inefficiencies that might otherwise drive a low volatility effect. We emphasize the importance of controlling for stock return volatility when analyzing operating performance and stock performance.     

Stock Volatility during the Recent Financial Crisis

This paper uses monthly returns from 1802 to 2010, daily returns from 1885 to 2010, and intraday returns from 1982 to 2010 in the USA to show how stock volatility has changed over time. It also uses various measures of volatility implied by option prices to infer what the market was expecting to happen in the months following the financial crisis in late 2008. This episode was associated with historically high levels of stock market volatility, particularly among financial sector stocks, but the market did not expect volatility to remain high for long and it did not. This is in sharp contrast to the prolonged periods of high volatility during the Great Depression. Similar analysis of stock volatility in the United Kingdom and Japan reinforces the notion that the volatility seen in the 2008 crisis was relatively short‐lived. While there is a link between stock volatility and real economic activity, such as unemployment rates, it can be misleading.     

Ironing out the kinks in executive compensation: Linking incentive pay to average stock prices

Traditional stock option grant is the most common form of incentive pay in executive compensation. Applying a principal-agent analysis, we find this common practice suboptimal and firms are better off linking incentive pay to average stock prices. Among other benefits, averaging reduces volatility by about 42%, making the incentive pay more attractive to risk-averse executives. Holding the cost of the option grant to the firm constant, Asian stock options are more cost effective than traditional stock options and provide stronger incentives to increase stock price. More importantly, the improvement is achieved with little impact on the option grant’s risk incentives (after adjusting for option cost). Finally, averaging also improves the value and incentive effects of indexed stock options.     

ESTIMATING EXPECTED EXCESS RETURNS USING HISTORICAL AND OPTION‐IMPLIED VOLATILITY

We test the relation between expected and realized excess returns for the S&P 500 index from January 1994 through December 2003 using the proportional reward‐to‐risk measure to estimate expected returns. When risk is measured by historical volatility, we find no relation between expected and realized excess returns. In contrast, when risk is measured by option‐implied volatility, we find a positive and significant relation between expected and realized excess returns in the 1994–1998 subperiod. In the 1999–2003 subperiod, the option‐implied volatility risk measure yields a positive, but statistically insignificant, risk‐return relation. We attribute this performance difference to the fact that, in the 1994–1998 subperiod, return volatility was lower and the average return was much higher than in the 1999–2003 subperiod, thereby increasing the signal‐to‐noise ratio in the latter subperiod.     

The Volatility and Price Sensitivities of Managerial Stock Option Portfolios and Corporate Hedging

We use estimates of the Black–Scholes sensitivity of managers' stock option portfolios to stock return volatility and the sensitivity of managers' stock and stock option portfolios to stock price to test the relationship between managers' risk preferences and hedging activities. We find that as the sensitivity of managers' stock and stock option portfolios to stock price increases, firms tend to hedge more. However, as the sensitivity of managers' stock option portfolios to stock return volatility increases, firms tend to hedge less.     

The role of time-varying jump risk premia in pricing stock index options

This paper examines out-of-sample option pricing performances for the affine jump diffusion (AJD) models by using the S&P 500 stock index and its associated option contracts. In particular, we investigate the role of time-varying jump risk premia in the AJD specifications. Our empirical analysis shows strong evidence in favor of time-varying jump risk premia in pricing cross-sectional options. We also find that, during a period of low volatility, the role of jump risk premia becomes less pronounced, making the differences across pricing performances of the AJD models not as substantial as during a period of high volatility. This finding can possibly explain poor pricing perfomances of the sophisticated AJD models in some previous studies whose sample periods can be characterized by low volatility.     

Does foreign institutional ownership increase return volatility? Evidence from China

This paper investigates the impact of foreign institutional ownership on firm-level stock return volatility in China, based on our study of a sample of 1458 firms between 1998 and 2008. The empirical results show that share ownership by foreign institutions (both financial and non-financial) increases firm-level stock return volatility, even after controlling for a complete ownership structure, firm size, turnover, and leverage, and correcting for potential endogeneity problems. However, the results also show that foreign individual shareholdings reduce volatility. Furthermore, we document a positive relationship between domestic shareholdings (individual, institutional, and governmental) and firm-level stock return volatility. Empirical results with interaction terms show that foreign institutional ownership increases firm-level return volatility by strengthening the positive impact of liquidity on volatility. The volatility reduction effect of foreign individual ownership is attenuated by government ownership suggests a poor governance environment as a result of the involvement of the Chinese government.     

Expected returns, risk premia, and volatility surfaces implicit in option market prices

This article presents a pure exchange economy that extends Rubinstein (1976) to show how the jump-diffusion option pricing model of Merton (1976) is altered when jumps are correlated with diffusive risks. A non-zero correlation between jumps and diffusive risks is necessary in order to resolve the positively sloped implied volatility term structure inherent in traditional jump diffusion models. Our evidence is consistent with a negative covariance, producing a non-monotonic term structure. For the proposed market structure, we present a closed form asset pricing model that depends on the factors of the traditional jump-diffusion models, and on both the covariance of the diffusive pricing kernel with price jumps and the covariance of the jumps of the pricing kernel with the diffusive price. We present statistical evidence that these covariances are positive. For our model the expected stock return, jump and diffusive risk premiums are non-linear functions of time.     

Economic evaluation of asymmetric and price range information in gold and general financial markets

Gold is widely perceived as a good diversification or safe haven tool for general financial markets, especially in market turmoil. To fully understand the potential, this study constructs an asymmetric multivariate range-based volatility model to investigate the dependence and volatility structures of gold, stock, and bond markets and further to compare the difference between the financial crisis and post-financial crisis periods. We find a striking explanatory ability to volatility structures provided by the price range information and significant evidence of asymmetric dependence across gold, stock, and bond markets. We implement an asset-allocation strategy incorporating asymmetric dependence and price range information to explore their economic importance. The out-of-sample results show that between 35 and 517 basis points and between 90 and 1111 basis points are earned annually when acknowledging asymmetric dependence and price range information, respectively. These economic benefits are inversely related to the level of investors’ risk aversion and are particularly significant in the period of the global financial crisis.     

Does Net Buying Pressure Affect the Shape of Implied Volatility Functions?

This paper examines the relation between net buying pressure and the shape of the implied volatility function (IVF) for index and individual stock options. We find that changes in implied volatility are directly related to net buying pressure from public order flow. We also find that changes in implied volatility of S&P 500 options are most strongly affected by buying pressure for index puts, while changes in implied volatility of stock options are dominated by call option demand. Simulated delta‐neutral option‐writing trading strategies generate abnormal returns that match the deviations of the IVFs above realized historical return volatilities.