Volatility risk and the value premium: Evidence from the French stock market

This paper documents that systematic volatility risk is an important factor that drives the value premium observed in the French stock market. Using returns on at-the-money straddles written on the CAC 40 index as a proxy for systematic volatility risk, I document significant differences between volatility factor loadings of value and growth stocks. Furthermore, when markets are classified into expected booms and recessions, volatility factor loadings are also time-varying. When expected market risk premium is above its average, i.e. during expected recessions, value stocks are seen riskier than their growth counterparts. This implies in bad times, investors shift their preferences away from value firms. Instead they use growth stocks as hedges against deteriorations in their wealth during those times. The findings are in line with the predictions of rational asset pricing theory and support a “flight-to-quality” explanation.     

The world price of jump and volatility risk

We study international integration of markets for jump and volatility risk, using index option data for the main global markets. To explain the cross-section of expected option returns we focus on return-based multi-factor models. For each market separately, we provide evidence that volatility and jump risk are priced risk factors. There is little evidence, however, of global unconditional pricing of these risks. We show that UK and US option markets have become increasingly interrelated, and using conditional pricing models generates some evidence of international pricing. Finally, the benefits of diversifying jump and volatility risk internationally are substantial, but declining.     

Empirical relationship between macroeconomic volatility and stock returns: Evidence from Latin American markets

Emerging market stock returns have been characterized as having higher volatility than returns in the more developed markets. But previous studies give little attention to the fundamentals driving the reported levels of volatility. This paper investigates whether dynamics in key macroeconomic indicators like exchange rates, interest rates, industrial production and money supply in four Latin American countries significantly explain market returns. The MSCI world index and the U.S. 3-month T-bill yield are also included to proxy the effects of global variables. Using a six-variable vector autoregressive (VAR) model, the study finds that the global factors are consistently significant in explaining returns in all the markets. The country variables are found to impact the markets at varying significance and magnitudes. These findings may have important implications for decision-making by investors and national policymakers.     

Implied volatility and future portfolio returns

Prior studies find that the CBOE volatility index (VIX) predicts returns on stock market indices, suggesting implied volatilities measured by VIX are a risk factor affecting security returns or an indicator of market inefficiency. We extend prior work in three important ways. First, we investigate the relationship between future returns and current implied volatility levels and innovations. Second, we examine portfolios sorted on book-to-market equity, size, and beta. Third, we control for the four Fama and French [Fama, E., French, K., 1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3–56.] and Carhart [Carhart, M., 1997. On persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance, 52, 57–82.] factors. We find that VIX-related variables have strong predictive ability.     

The Impact of Jumps in Volatility and Returns

This paper examines continuous‐time stochastic volatility models incorporating jumps in returns and volatility. We develop a likelihood‐based estimation strategy and provide estimates of parameters, spot volatility, jump times, and jump sizes using S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 index returns. Estimates of jump times, jump sizes, and volatility are particularly useful for identifying the effects of these factors during periods of market stress, such as those in 1987, 1997, and 1998. Using formal and informal diagnostics, we find strong evidence for jumps in volatility and jumps in returns. Finally, we study how these factors and estimation risk impact option pricing.     

Pricing mortgage insurance contracts under housing price cycles with jump risk: evidence from the U.K. housing market

Previous studies have investigated the determinants of housing price cycles in the housing market; however, we observed the phenomenon of housing price jumps in the 2007 subprime crisis. This paper presents a discussion on the housing price cycle and abnormal price jumps to describe the behavior of housing prices in the United Kingdom. The empirical results show that the impact factors of housing cycles are market risk and the switching factor. Furthermore, the impact factors of jump risks include the bursting of the housing bubble and financial crises. Therefore, in this paper, we employ the Markov switching model with jump risks to value the MI contracts and analyze the influences of housing price cycles, jump risks, risks of market interest rate, and the prepayment risks on MI premiums. The results of sensitivity analysis show that more volatile housing price index returns, as well as longer periods of higher volatility in housing prices, raise MI premiums. Moreover, the MI premium is positively related to the absolute value of the average jump amplitude and the shock frequency of abnormal events. There is the tradeoff between the market interest rate and the prepayment risk. The influences of market interest rate are different on MI premium with/without prepayment risks.     

Asset pricing and foreign exchange risk

According to the International Capital Asset Pricing Model (ICAPM), the covariance of assets with foreign exchange currency returns should be a risk factor that must be priced when the purchasing power parity is violated. The goal of this study is to re-examine the relationship between stock returns and foreign exchange risk. The novelties of this work are: (a) a data set that makes use of daily observations for the measurement of the foreign exchange exposure and volatility of the sample firms and (b) data from a Eurozone country.The methodology we make use in reference to the estimation of the sensitivity of each stock to exchange rate movements is that it allows regressing stock returns against factors controlling for market risk, size, value, momentum, foreign exchange exposure and foreign exchange volatility. Stocks are then classified according to their foreign exchange sensitivity portfolios and the return of a hedge (zero-investment) portfolio is calculated. Next, the abnormal returns of the hedge portfolio are regressed against the return of the factors. Finally, we construct a foreign exchange risk factor in such manner as to obtain a monotonic relation between foreign exchange risk and expected returns.The empirical findings show that the foreign exchange risk is priced in the cross section of the German stock returns over the period 2000-2008. Furthermore, they show that the relationship between returns and foreign exchange sensitivity is nonlinear, but it takes an inverse U-shape and that foreign exchange sensitivity is larger for small size firms and value stocks.     

Do Stock Prices and Volatility Jump? Reconciling Evidence from Spot and Option Prices

This paper examines the empirical performance of jump diffusion models of stock price dynamics from joint options and stock markets data. The paper introduces a model with discontinuous correlated jumps in stock prices and stock price volatility, and with state-dependent arrival intensity. We discuss how to perform likelihood-based inference based upon joint options/returns data and present estimates of risk premiums for jump and volatility risks. The paper finds that while complex jump specifications add little explanatory power in fitting options data, these models fare better in fitting options and returns data simultaneously.     

Future labor income growth and the cross-section of equity returns

This paper examines the equilibrium relation between future labor income growth and expected asset returns; it proposes revisions in the expectation of future labor income growth as a macroeconomic state variable and suggests a three-factor model, including a factor related to this variable, along with the consumption growth factor and the market factor. The proposed future labor income growth factor is positively associated with the Fama-French factors and subsumes their explanatory power in explaining the cross-section of stock returns. These results provide a possible economic explanation for the roles of the Fama-French factors: they are compensation for higher exposure to the risk related to changes in the value of human capital. This paper also compares the performance of the proposed three-factor model with other competing models and finds that the proposed model specification better captures cross-sectional variation in average returns than any of the competing asset pricing models considered.     

A High‐Frequency Investigation of the Interaction between Volatility and DAX Returns

One of the most noticeable stylised facts in finance is that stock index returns are negatively correlated with changes in volatility. The economic rationale for the effect is still controversial. The competing explanations have different implications for the origin of the relationship: Are volatility changes induced by index movements, or inversely, does volatility drive index returns? To differentiate between the alternative hypotheses, we analyse the lead‐lag relationship of option implied volatility and index return in Germany based on Granger causality tests and impulse‐response functions. Our dataset consists of all transactions in DAX options and futures over the time period from 1995 to 2005. Analyzing returns over 5‐minute intervals, we find that the relationship is return‐driven in the sense that index returns Granger cause volatility changes. This causal relationship is statistically and economically significant and can be clearly separated from the contemporaneous correlation. The largest part of the implied volatility response occurs immediately, but we also observe a smaller retarded reaction for up to one hour. A volatility feedback effect is not discernible. If it exists, the stock market appears to correctly anticipate its importance for index returns.     

Asymmetric risk premium in value and growth stocks

There are two competing explanations for the existence of a value premium, a rational market risk explanation, whereby value stocks are inherently more risky than growth stocks, and a market over-reaction hypothesis, where agents overstate future returns on growth stock. Using asymmetric GARCH-M models this paper tests the predictions of the two hypotheses. Specifically, examining whether returns exhibit a positive (negative) risk premium resulting from a negative (positive) shock and the relative size of any premium. The results of the paper suggest that following a shock, volatility and expected future volatility are heightened, leading to a rise in required rates of return which depresses current prices. Further, these effects are heightened for value stock over growth stock and for negative shocks over positive shocks. Thus, in support of the rational risk interpretation, with a volatility feedback explanation for predictive volatility asymmetry.     

High idiosyncratic volatility and low returns: International and further U.S. evidence

Stocks with recent past high idiosyncratic volatility have low future average returns around the world. Across 23 developed markets, the difference in average returns between the extreme quintile portfolios sorted on idiosyncratic volatility is -1.31%$-1.31\%$ per month, after controlling for world market, size, and value factors. The effect is individually significant in each G7 country. In the United States, we rule out explanations based on trading frictions, information dissemination, and higher moments. There is strong covariation in the low returns to high-idiosyncratic-volatility stocks across countries, suggesting that broad, not easily diversifiable factors lie behind this phenomenon.     

Trading strategies with partial access to the derivatives market

This research analyzes trading strategies with derivatives when there are several assets and risk factors. We investigate portfolio improvement if investors have full and partial access to the derivatives markets, i.e. situations in which derivatives are written on some but not all stocks or risk factors traded on the market. The focus is on markets with jump risk. In these markets the choice of optimal exposures to jump and diffusion risk is linked. In a numerical application we study the potential benefit from adding derivatives to the market. It turns out that e.g. diffusion correlation and volatility or jump sizes may have a significant impact on the benefit of a new derivative product even if market prices of risk remain unchanged. Given the structure of risk investors may have different preferences for making risk factors tradable. Utility gains provided by new derivatives may be both increasing or decreasing depending on the type of contract added.     

The jump component of S&P 500 volatility and the VIX index

Much research has investigated the differences between option implied volatilities and econometric model-based forecasts. Implied volatility is a market determined forecast, in contrast to model-based forecasts that employ some degree of smoothing of past volatility to generate forecasts. Implied volatility has the potential to reflect information that a model-based forecast could not. This paper considers two issues relating to the informational content of the S&P 500 VIX implied volatility index. First, whether it subsumes information on how historical jump activity contributed to the price volatility, followed by whether the VIX reflects any incremental information pertaining to future jump activity relative to model-based forecasts. It is found that the VIX index both subsumes information relating to past jump contributions to total volatility and reflects incremental information pertaining to future jump activity. This issue has not been examined previously and expands our understanding of how option markets form their volatility forecasts.     

Bond risk premia and realized jump risk

We find that augmenting a regression of excess bond returns on the term structure of forward rates with an estimate of the mean realized jump size almost doubles the R² of the forecasting regression. The return predictability from augmenting with the jump mean easily dominates that offered by augmenting with options-implied volatility and realized volatility from high-frequency data. In out-of-sample forecasting exercises, inclusion of the jump mean can reduce the root mean square prediction error by up to 40%. The incremental return predictability captured by the realized jump mean largely accounts for the countercyclical movements in bond risk premia. This result is consistent with the setting of an incomplete market in which the conditional distribution of excess bond returns is affected by a jump risk factor that does not lie in the span of the term structure of yields.     

A behavioural explanation to the asymmetric volatility phenomenon: Evidence from market volatility index

This study examines how the behavioural explanations, in particular loss aversion, can be used to explain the asymmetric volatility phenomenon by investigating the relationship between stock market returns and changes in investor perceptions of risk measured by the volatility index. We study the behaviour of India volatility index vis‐à‐vis Hong Kong, Australia and UK volatility index, and provide a comprehensive comparative analysis. Using Bai‐Perron test, we identify structural breaks and volatility regimes in the time series of volatility index, and investigate the volatility index‐return relation during high, medium and low volatility periods. Regardless of volatility regimes, we find that volatility index moves in opposite direction in response to stock index returns, and contemporaneous return is the most dominating across the four markets. The negative relation is strongest for UK followed by Australia, Hong Kong and India. Second, volatility index reacts significantly different to positive and negative returns; negative return has higher impact on changes in volatility index than positive return across the markets over full‐sample and sub‐sample periods. The asymmetric effect is stronger in low volatility regime than in high and medium volatility periods for all the markets except UK. The strength of asymmetric effect is strongest for Hong Kong and weakest for India. Finally, negative returns have exponentially increasing effect and positive returns have exponentially decreasing effect on the changes in volatility index.     

Understanding Systematic Risk: A High-Frequency Approach

Based on a novel high-frequency data set for a large number of firms, I estimate the time-varying latent continuous and jump factors that explain individual stock returns. The factors are estimated using principal component analysis applied to a local volatility and jump covariance matrix. I find four stable continuous systematic factors, which can be well approximated by a market, oil, finance, and electricity portfolio, while there is only one stable jump market factor. The exposure of stocks to these risk factors and their explained variation is time-varying. The four continuous factors carry an intraday risk premium that reverses overnight.     

Robust portfolio choice with uncertainty about jump and diffusion risk

We analyze the portfolio planning problem of an ambiguity averse investor. The stock follows a jump-diffusion process. We find that there are pronounced differences between ambiguity aversion with respect to diffusion risk and jump risk. Ignoring ambiguity with respect to jump risk causes larger losses in an incomplete market, whereas ignoring ambiguity with respect to diffusion risk is more severe in a complete market. For a deterministic jump size we show that the loss from market incompleteness is always increasing in the level of ambiguity aversion with respect to one risk factor and decreasing in the level of ambiguity aversion with respect to the other risk factor.     

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.     

Good volatility,bad volatility,and the cross section of cryptocurrency returns

This paper examines the predictability of realized volatility measures (RVM), especially the realized signed jumps (RSJ), on future volatility and returns. We confirm the existence of volatility persistence and future volatility is more strongly related to the volatility of past positive returns than to that of negative returns in the cryptocurrency market. RSJ-sorted cryptocurrency portfolios yield statistically and economically significant differences in the subsequent portfolio returns. After controlling for cryptocurrency market characteristics and existing risk factors, the differences remain significant. The investor attention explains the predictability of realized jump risk in future cryptocurrency returns.