Volatility and jump risk in option returns

We examine the importance of volatility and jump risk in the time-series prediction of S&P 500 index option returns. The empirical analysis provides a different result between call and put option returns. Both volatility and jump risk are important predictors of put option returns. In contrast, only volatility risk is consistently significant in the prediction of call option returns over the sample period. The empirical results support the theory that there is option risk premium associated with volatility and jump risk, and reflect the asymmetry property of S&P 500 index distribution.     

The information content of the S&P 500 index and VIX options on the dynamics of the S&P 500 index

Given that both S&P 500 index and VIX options essentially contain information about the future dynamics of the S&P 500 index, in this study, we set out to empirically investigate the informational roles played by these two option markets with regard to the prediction of returns, volatility, and density in the S&P 500 index. Our results reveal that the information content implied from these two option markets is not identical. In addition to the information extracted from the S&P 500 index options, all of the predictions for the S&P 500 index are significantly improved by the information recovered from the VIX options. Our findings are robust to various measures of realized volatility and methods of density evaluation. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark     

Testing mean reversion in financial market volatility: Evidence from S&P 500 index futures

This article presents a comprehensive study of continuous time GARCH (generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedastic) modeling with the thintailed normal and the fat‐tailed Student's‐t and generalized error distributions (GED). The study measures the degree of mean reversion in financial market volatility based on the relationship between discrete‐time GARCH and continuoustime diffusion models. The convergence results based on the aforementioned distribution functions are shown to have similar implications for testing mean reversion in stochastic volatility. Alternative models are compared in terms of their ability to capture mean‐reverting behavior of futures market volatility. The empirical evidence obtained from the S&P 500 index futures indicates that the conditional variance, log‐variance, and standard deviation of futures returns are pulled back to some long‐run average level over time. The study also compares the performance of alternative GARCH models with normal, Student's‐ t, and GED density in terms of their power to predict one‐day‐ahead realized volatility of index futures returns and provides some implications for pricing futures options. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 28:1–33, 2008     

Jump variance risk: Evidence from option valuation and stock returns

We study jump variance risk by jointly examining both stock and option markets. We develop a GARCH option pricing model with jump variance dynamics and a nonmonotonic pricing kernel featuring jump variance risk premium. The model yields a closed-form option pricing formula and improves in fitting index options from 1996 to 2015. The model-implied jump variance risk premium has predictive power for future market returns. In the cross-section, heterogeneity in exposures to jump variance risk leads to a 6% difference in risk-adjusted returns annually.     

The limits to stock index arbitrage: Examining S&P 500 futures and SPDRS

This study examines factors affecting stock index spot versus futures pricing and arbitrage opportunities by using the S&P 500 cash index and the S&P 500 Standard and Poor's Depository Receipt (SPDR) Exchange‐Traded Fund (ETF) as “underlying cash assets.” Potential limits to arbitrage when using the cash index are the staleness of the underlying cash index, trading costs, liquidity (volume) issues of the underlying assets, the existence of sufficient time to execute profitable arbitrage transactions, short sale restrictions, and the extent to which volatility affects mispricing. Alternatively, using the SPDR ETF as the underlying asset mitigates staleness and trading cost problems as well as the effects of volatility associated with the staleness of the cash index. Minute‐by‐minute prices are compared over different volatility levels to determine how these factors affect the limits of S&P 500 futures arbitrage. Employing the SPDR as the cash asset examines whether a liquid tradable single asset with low trading costs can be used for pricing and arbitrage purposes. The analysis examines how long mispricing lasts, the impact of volatility on mispricing, and whether sufficient volume exists to implement arbitrage. The minute‐by‐minute liquidity of the futures market is examined using a new transaction volume futures database. The results show that mispricings exist regardless of the choice of the underlying cash asset, with more negative mispricings for the SPDR relative to the S&P 500 cash index. Furthermore, mispricings are more frequent in high‐ and mid‐volatility months than in low‐volatility months and are associated with higher volume during high‐volatility months. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 28:1182–1205, 2008     

Is volatility risk priced in the securities market? Evidence from S&P 500 index options

The authors examine whether volatility risk is a priced risk factor in securities returns. Zero‐beta at‐the‐money straddle returns of the S&P 500 index are used to measure volatility risk. It is demonstrated that volatility risk captures time variation in the stochastic discount factor. The results suggest that straddle returns are important conditioning variables in asset pricing, and investors use straddle returns when forming their expectations about securities returns. One interesting finding is that different classes of firms react differently to volatility risk. For example, small firms and value firms have negative and significant volatility coefficients, whereas big firms and growth firms have positive and significant volatility coefficients during high‐volatility periods, indicating that investors see these latter firms as hedges against volatile states of the economy. Overall, these findings have important implications for portfolio formation, risk management, and hedging strategies. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 27:617–642, 2007