Stock and bond returns with Moody Investors

We present a tractable, linear model for the simultaneous pricing of stock and bond returns that incorporates stochastic risk aversion. In this model, analytic solutions for endogenous stock and bond prices and returns are readily calculated. After estimating the parameters of the model by the general method of moments, we investigate a series of classic puzzles of the empirical asset pricing literature. In particular, our model is shown to jointly accommodate the mean and volatility of equity and long term bond risk premia as well as salient features of the nominal short rate, the dividend yield, and the term spread. Also, the model matches the evidence for predictability of excess stock and bond returns. However, the stock–bond return correlation implied by the model is somewhat higher than that in the data.     

Jump risk,stock returns,and slope of implied volatility smile

In the presence of jump risk, expected stock return is a function of the average jump size, which can be proxied by the slope of option implied volatility smile. This implies a negative predictive relation between the slope of implied volatility smile and stock return. For more than four thousand stocks ranked by slope during 1996–2005, the difference between the risk-adjusted average returns of the lowest and highest quintile portfolios is 1.9% per month. Although both the systematic and idiosyncratic components of slope are priced, the idiosyncratic component dominates the systematic component in explaining the return predictability of slope. The findings are robust after controlling for stock characteristics such as size, book-to-market, leverage, volatility, skewness, and volume. Furthermore, the results cannot be explained by alternative measures of steepness of implied volatility smile in previous studies.     

An empirical examination of jump risk in asset pricing and volatility forecasting in China's equity and bond markets

Understanding jump risk is important in risk management and option pricing. This study examines the characteristics of jump risk and the volatility forecasting power of the jump component in a panel of high-frequency intraday stock returns and four index returns from Shanghai Stock Exchange. Across portfolio indexes, jump returns on average account for 45% to 64% of total returns when jumps occur. Market systematic jump risk is an important pricing factor for daily returns. The average jump beta is 62% of the average continuous beta for individual stocks. However, the contribution of jump risk to total risk is limited, indicating that statistically significant jumps in the stochastic process of asset price are rare events but have tremendous impacts on the prices of common stocks in China. We further document that accounting for jump components improves the performance of volatility forecasting for some equity and bond portfolios in China, which is confirmed by in-the-sample and out-of-sample forecasting performance analysis.     

The empirical risk–return relation: A factor analysis approach

Existing empirical literature on the risk–return relation uses relatively small amount of conditioning information to model the conditional mean and conditional volatility of excess stock market returns. We use dynamic factor analysis for large data sets, to summarize a large amount of economic information by few estimated factors, and find that three new factors—termed “volatility,” “risk premium,” and “real” factors—contain important information about one-quarter-ahead excess returns and volatility not contained in commonly used predictor variables. Our specifications predict 16–20% of the one-quarter-ahead variation in excess stock market returns, and exhibit stable and statistically significant out-of-sample forecasting power. We also find a positive conditional risk–return correlation.     

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.     

The Variation of Economic Risk Premiums in Real Estate Returns

We examine the predictable components of returns on stocks, bonds, and real estate investment trusts (REITs). We employ a multiple-beta asset pricing model and find that there are varying degrees of predictability among stocks, bonds, and REITs. Furthermore, we find that most of the predictability of returns is associated with the economic variables employed in the asset pricing model. The stock market risk premium is highly important in capturing the predictable variation in stock portfolios, and the bond market risk premiums (term and risk structure of interest rates) are important in capturing the predictable variation in bond portfolios. For REITs, however, both the stock and bond market risk premiums capture the predictable variation in returns. REITs have comparable return predictability to stock portfolios. We conclude that there is an important economic risk premium for REITs that are not captured by traditional multiple-beta asset pricing models.     

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.     

Implications of market microstructure for realized variance measurement

Volatility measuring and estimation based on intra-day high-frequency data has grown in popularity during the last few years. A significant part of the research uses volatility and variance measures based on the sum of squared high-frequency returns. These volatility measures, introduced and mathematically justified in a series of papers by Andersen et al. [1999. (Understanding, optimizing, using and forecasting) realized volatility and correlation. Leonard N. Stern School Finance Department Working Paper Series, 99-061, New York University; 2000a. The distribution of realized exchange rate volatility. Journal of the American Statistical Association 96, no. 453: 42–55; 2000b. Exchange rate returns standardized by realized volatility are (nearly) Gaussian. Multinational Finance Journal 4, no. 3/4: 159–179; 2003. Modeling and forecasting realized volatility. NBER Working Paper Series 8160.] and Andersen et al. 2001a. Modeling and forecasting realized volatility. NBER Working Paper Series 8160., are referred to as ‘realized variance’. From the theory of quadratic variations of diffusions, it is possible to show that realized variance measures, based on sufficiently frequently sampled returns, are error-free volatility estimates. Our objective here is to examine realized variance measures, where well-documented market microstructure effects, such as return autocorrelation and volatility clustering, are included in the return generating process. Our findings are that the use of squared returns as a measure for realized variance will lead to estimation errors on sampling frequencies adopted in the literature. In the case of return autocorrelation, there will be systematic biases. Further, we establish increased standard deviation in the error between measured and real variance as sampling frequency decreases and when volatility is non-constant.     

Corporate Bond Returns and Volatility

Recent literature emphasizes the relation of stock volatility to corporate bond yields. We demonstrate that during 1996–2005 corporate bond excess return volatility is directly related to contemporaneous corporate bond excess returns. In fact, the decompositions of aggregate bond volatility have a higher contemporaneous correlation with bond yields in comparison to idiosyncratic stock risk. Additionally, bond volatility and idiosyncratic risk are significant predictors of corporate three‐month and six‐month ahead bond excess returns. We also find that corporate bond volatility contains both slow moving and time‐varying components.     

Time-Varying Expected Returns in International Bond Markets

This article examines the predictable variation in long-maturity government bond returns in six countries. A small set of global instruments can forecast 4 to 12 percent of monthly variation in excess bond returns. The predictable variation is statistically and economically significant. Moreover, expected excess bond returns are highly correlated across countries. A model with one global risk factor and constant conditional betas can explain international bond return predictability if the risk factor is proxied by the world excess bond return, but not if it is proxied by the world excess stock return.     

Term structure determinants of time-varying risk of 1-year bond returns

Term structure drivers of 1-year bond premia and conditional bond return risk are distinct. Consequently, the Cochrane–Piazzesi factor captures aggregate price of risk and not the amount of risk in 1-year bond returns. One linear combination of forward rates captures most of the variation in bond return risk across maturities. Interest rate level captures substantial amount of variation in the conditional return risk, a finding consistent with rising inflation uncertainty with level of inflation and interest rates. The 4-5 yield spread, an important positive predictor of bond return premia, has an opposing but limited impact on the conditional volatility.     

Asymmetry in government bond returns

Is there asymmetry in the distribution of government bond returns in developed countries? Can asymmetries be predicted using financial and macroeconomic variables? To answer the first question, we provide evidence for asymmetry in government bond returns in particular for short maturities. This finding has important implications for modeling and forecasting government bond returns. For example, widely used models for yield curve analysis such as the affine term structure model assume symmetrically distributed innovations. To answer the second question, we find that liquidity in government bond markets predicts the coefficient of skewness with a positive sign, meaning that the probability of a large and negative excess return is more likely in a less liquid market. In addition, a positive realized return is associated with a negative coefficient of skewness, or a small probability of a large and negative return in the future.     

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.     

The Risk Microstructure of Corporate Bonds: A Case Study from the German Corporate Bond Market

This article presents joint econometric analysis of interest rate risk, issuer‐specific risk (credit risk) and bond‐specific risk (liquidity risk) in a reduced‐form framework. We estimate issuer‐specific and bond‐specific risk from corporate bond data in the German market. We find that bond‐specific risk plays a crucial role in the pricing of corporate bonds. We observe substantial differences between different bonds with respect to the relative influence of issuer‐specific vs. bond‐specific spread on the level and the volatility of the total spread. Issuer‐specific risk exhibits strong autocorrelation and a strong impact of weekday effects, the level of the risk‐free term structure and the debt to value ratio. Moreover, we can observe some impact of the stock market volatility, the respective stock's return and the distance to default. For the bond‐specific risk we find strong autocorrelation, some impact of the stock market index, the stock market volatility, weekday effects and monthly effects as well as a very weak impact of the risk‐free term structure and the specific stock's return. Altogether, the determinants of the spread components vary strongly between different bonds/issuers.     

Corporate bond default risk: A 150-year perspective

We study corporate bond default rates using an extensive new data set spanning the 1866-2008 period. We find that the corporate bond market has repeatedly suffered clustered default events much worse than those experienced during the Great Depression. For example, during the railroad crisis of 1873-1875, total defaults amounted to 36% of the par value of the entire corporate bond market. Using a regime-switching model, we examine the extent to which default rates can be forecast by financial and macroeconomic variables. We find that stock returns, stock return volatility, and changes in GDP are strong predictors of default rates. Surprisingly, however, credit spreads are not. Over the long term, credit spreads are roughly twice as large as default losses, resulting in an average credit risk premium of about 80 basis points. We also find that credit spreads do not adjust in response to realized default rates.     

Countercyclical currency risk premia

We describe a novel currency investment strategy, the ‘dollar carry trade,’ which delivers large excess returns, uncorrelated with the returns on well-known carry trade strategies. Using a no-arbitrage model of exchange rates we show that these excess returns compensate U.S. investors for taking on aggregate risk by shorting the dollar in bad times, when the U.S. price of risk is high. The countercyclical variation in risk premia leads to strong return predictability: the average forward discount and U.S. industrial production growth rates forecast up to 25% of the dollar return variation at the one-year horizon. The estimated model implies that the variation in the exposure of U.S. investors to worldwide risk is the key driver of predictability.     

Market skewness risk and the cross section of stock returns

The cross section of stock returns has substantial exposure to risk captured by higher moments of market returns. We estimate these moments from daily Standard & Poor's 500 index option data. The resulting time series of factors are genuinely conditional and forward-looking. Stocks with high exposure to innovations in implied market skewness exhibit low returns on average. The results are robust to various permutations of the empirical setup. The market skewness risk premium is statistically and economically significant and cannot be explained by other common risk factors such as the market excess return or the size, book-to-market, momentum, and market volatility factors, or by firm characteristics.     

Correlated implied volatility with jump and cross section of stock returns

I derive the option‐implied volatility allowing for nonzero correlation between price jump and diffusive risk to examine the information content of implied diffusive, jump risks and their implied covariance in the cross‐sectional variation of future returns. This study documents a strong predictive power of realized volatility and correlated implied volatility spread (RV ? IV_C) in the cross section of stock returns. The difference of realized volatility with the implied diffusive volatility (RV ? σ_C), jump risk (RV ? γ_C) and covariance (RV ? ICov) can forecast future returns. These RV ? σ_C and RV ? γ_C anomalies are robustly persistent even after controlling for market, size, book‐to‐market value, momentum and liquidity factors.     

Predicting stock returns: A risk measurement perspective

This paper proposes a new and efficient model selection strategy to obtain significant stock returns predictability from a risk measurement perspective. The risk interval is defined as the distance between the current actual return and the returns' historical average. The model selection strategy involves switching stock return forecasting models according to different risk intervals from the mean reversion and extreme value theory. This new strategy generates encouraging results in the empirical analysis. A mean-variance investor can realize sizeable economic gains by allocating assets through this new approach relative to competing forecasting models. Furthermore, the strategy performs robustly under alternative settings from both statistical and economic perspectives.     

Predicting the equity market with option-implied variables

We comprehensively analyze the predictive power of several option-implied variables for monthly S&P 500 excess returns and realized variance. The correlation risk premium (CRP) and the variance risk premium (VRP) emerge as strong predictors of both excess returns and realized variance. This is true both in- and out-of-sample. Our results also reveal that statistical evidence of predictability does not necessarily lead to economic gains. However, a timing strategy based on the CRP leads to utility gains of more than 5.03% per annum. Forecast combinations provide stable forecasts for both excess returns and realized variance, and add economic value.