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.     

How Crashes Develop: Intradaily Volatility and Crash Evolution

This paper explores whether affine models with volatility jumps estimated on intradaily S&P 500 futures data over 1983 to 2008 can capture major daily outliers such as the 1987 stock market crash. Intradaily jumps in futures prices are typically small; self‐exciting but short‐lived volatility spikes capture intradaily and daily returns better. Multifactor models of the evolution of diffusive variance and jump intensities improve fits substantially, including out‐of‐sample over 2009 to 2016. The models capture reasonably well the conditional distributions of daily returns and realized variance outliers, but underpredict realized variance inliers. I also examine option pricing implications.     

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.     

The bias in Black-Scholes/Black implied volatility: An analysis of equity and energy markets

In this paper we examine the extent of the bias between Black and Scholes (1973)/Black (1976) implied volatility and realized term volatility in the equity and energy markets. Explicitly modeling a market price of volatility risk, we extend previous work by demonstrating that Black-Scholes is an upward-biased predictor of future realized volatility in S&P 500/S&P 100 stock-market indices. Turning to the Black options-on-futures formula, we apply our methodology to options on energy contracts, a market in which crises are characterized by a positive correlation between price-returns and volatilities: After controlling for both term-structure and seasonality effects, our theoretical and empirical findings suggest a similar upward bias in the volatility implied in energy options contracts. We show the bias in both Black-Scholes/Black implied volatilities to be related to a negative market price of volatility risk. JEL Classification G12 · G13     

Are idiosyncratic volatility and MAX priced in the Canadian market?

The negative relationship between realized idiosyncratic volatility (RIvol) and future returns uncovered by Ang et al. (2006) for the U.S. market has been attributed to return reversals. For the Canadian market where return reversals are considerably less important, we find that RIvol is positively related to future returns, even after controlling for risk loadings, illiquidity and reversals. Unlike the findings of Bali et al. (2001) for the U.S. market, we find that the relationship between extreme positive returns (MAX) and future returns for the Canadian market is positive and that idiosyncratic volatility continues to be consistently positively related to future returns after controlling for MAX. We find evidence that suggests that reversals for stocks with extreme daily returns are confined to (typically small) stocks with low institutional holdings.     

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.     

Do Bonds Span Volatility Risk in the U.S. Treasury Market? A Specification Test for Affine Term Structure Models

We propose using model‐free yield quadratic variation measures computed from intraday data as a tool for specification testing and selection of dynamic term structure models. We find that the yield curve fails to span realized yield volatility in the U.S. Treasury market, as the systematic volatility factors are largely unrelated to the cross‐section of yields. We conclude that a broad class of affine diffusive, quadratic Gaussian, and affine jump‐diffusive models cannot accommodate the observed yield volatility dynamics. Hence, the Treasury market per se is incomplete, as yield volatility risk cannot be hedged solely through Treasury securities.     

Fear and the Fama‐French Factors

Investors’ expectations of market volatility, captured by the VIX (the Chicago Board Options Exchange's volatility index, also known as the “investor fear gauge”), affects the expected returns of US equities. Changes in the VIX drive variations in the expected returns of the factors included in the Fama and French three‐factor model augmented with a momentum factor. The market risk premium (R_m– R_f) and the value premium (HML) are especially sensitive to changes in the VIX. An increase in expected volatility is associated with flights to quality and increases in estimated required returns.     

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.     

Volatility forecasts and at-the-money implied volatility: a multi-component ARCH approach and its relation to market models

This article explores the relationships between several forecasts for the volatility built from multi-scale linear ARCH processes, and linear market models for the forward variance. This shows that the structures of the forecast equations are identical, but with different dependencies on the forecast horizon. The process equations for the forward variance are induced by the process equations for an ARCH model, but postulated in a market model. In the ARCH case, they are different from the usual diffusive type. The conceptual differences between both approaches and their implication for volatility forecasts are analysed. The volatility forecast is compared with the realized volatility (the volatility that will occur between date t and t + ΔT), and the implied volatility (corresponding to an at-the-money option with expiry at t + ΔT). For the ARCH forecasts, the parameters are set a priori. An empirical analysis across multiple time horizons ΔT shows that a forecast provided by an I-GARCH(1) process (one time scale) does not capture correctly the dynamics of the realized volatility. An I-GARCH(2) process (two time scales, similar to GARCH(1,1)) is better, while a long-memory LM-ARCH process (multiple time scales) replicates correctly the dynamics of the implied and realized volatilities and delivers consistently good forecasts for the realized volatility.     

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.     

Buy rough,sell smooth

Recent work has documented roughness in the time series of stock market volatility and investigated its implications for option pricing. We study a strategy for trading stocks based on measures of their implied and realized roughness. A strategy that goes long the roughest-volatility stocks and short the smoothest-volatility stocks earns statistically significant excess annual returns of 6% or more, depending on the time period and strategy details. The profitability of the strategy is not explained by standard factors. We compare alternative measures of roughness in volatility and find that the profitability of the strategy is greater when we sort stocks based on implied rather than realized roughness. We interpret the profitability of the strategy as compensation for near-term idiosyncratic event risk.     

Have European Stocks become More Volatile? An Empirical Investigation of Idiosyncratic and Market Risk in the Euro Area

We examine the dynamics of idiosyncratic risk, market risk and return correlations in European equity markets using weekly observations from 3515 stocks listed in the 12 euro area stock markets over the period 1974–2004. Similarly to Campbell et al. (2001) , we find a rise in idiosyncratic volatility, implying that it now takes more stocks to diversify away idiosyncratic risk. Contrary to the US, however, market risk is trended upwards in Europe and correlations are not trended downwards. Both the volatility and correlation measures are pro‐cyclical, and they rise during times of low market returns. Market and average idiosyncratic volatility jointly predict market wide returns, and the latter impact upon both market and idiosyncratic volatility. This has asset pricing and risk management implications.     

Housing Collateral, Consumption Insurance, and Risk Premia: An Empirical Perspective

In a model with housing collateral, the ratio of housing wealth to human wealth shifts the conditional distribution of asset prices and consumption growth. A decrease in house prices reduces the collateral value of housing, increases household exposure to idiosyncratic risk, and increases the conditional market price of risk. Using aggregate data for the United States, we find that a decrease in the ratio of housing wealth to human wealth predicts higher returns on stocks. Conditional on this ratio, the covariance of returns with aggregate risk factors explains 80% of the cross‐sectional variation in annual size and book‐to‐market portfolio returns.     

The Cross-Section of Volatility and Expected Returns

We examine the pricing of aggregate volatility risk in the cross‐section of stock returns. Consistent with theory, we find that stocks with high sensitivities to innovations in aggregate volatility have low average returns. Stocks with high idiosyncratic volatility relative to the Fama and French (1993, Journal of Financial Economics 25, 2349) model have abysmally low average returns. This phenomenon cannot be explained by exposure to aggregate volatility risk. Size, book‐to‐market, momentum, and liquidity effects cannot account for either the low average returns earned by stocks with high exposure to systematic volatility risk or for the low average returns of stocks with high idiosyncratic volatility.     

The Joint Cross Section of Stocks and Options

Stocks with large increases in call (put) implied volatilities over the previous month tend to have high (low) future returns. Sorting stocks ranked into decile portfolios by past call implied volatilities produces spreads in average returns of approximately 1% per month, and the return differences persist up to six months. The cross section of stock returns also predicts option implied volatilities, with stocks with high past returns tending to have call and put option contracts that exhibit increases in implied volatility over the next month, but with decreasing realized volatility. These predictability patterns are consistent with rational models of informed trading.     

Oil prices implied volatility or direction: Which matters more to financial markets?

We examine the impact of oil price uncertainty on US stock returns by industry using the US Oil Fund options implied volatility OVX index and a GJR-GARCH model. We test the effect of the implied volatility of oil on a wide array of domestic industries’ returns using daily data from 2007 to 2016, controlling for a variety of variables such as aggregate market returns, market volatility, exchange rates, interest rates, and inflation expectations. Our main finding is that the implied volatility of oil prices has a consistent and statistically significant negative impact on nine out of the ten industries defined in the Fama and French (J Financ Econ 43:153–193, 1997) 10-industry classification. Oil prices, on the other hand, yield mixed results, with only three industries showing a positive and significant effect, and two industries exhibiting a negative and significant effect. These findings are an indication that the volatility of oil has now surpassed oil prices themselves in terms of influence on financial markets. Furthermore, we show that both oil prices and their volatility have a positive and significant effect on corporate bond credit spreads. Overall, our results indicate that oil price uncertainty increases the risk of future cash flows for goods and services, resulting in negative stock market returns and higher corporate bond credit spreads.     

A new approach to measuring riskiness in the equity market: Implications for the risk premium

We introduce a new approach to measuring riskiness in the equity market. We propose option implied and physical measures of riskiness and investigate their performance in predicting future market returns. The predictive regressions indicate a positive and significant relation between time-varying riskiness and expected market returns. The significantly positive link between aggregate riskiness and market risk premium remains intact after controlling for the S&P 500 index option implied volatility (VIX), aggregate idiosyncratic volatility, and a large set of macroeconomic variables. We also provide alternative explanations for the positive relation by showing that aggregate riskiness is higher during economic downturns characterized by high aggregate risk aversion and high expected returns.     

In Defence of Capitalisation Weights: Evidence from the FTSE 100 and S&P 500 Indices

A simple method for decomposing the variance covariance matrix of portfolio returns at the level of individual stocks is applied to the FTSE 100 Index. During extreme negative shocks, the largest index constituents exhibit lower than average covariance, thereby reducing the volatility of the capitalisation‐weighted index. The risk‐adjusted returns of the capitalisation‐weighted FTSE 100 Index exceed those of an equally‐weighted version of the same index and the outperformance is robust to the method of risk adjustment applied. The equally‐weighted index also exhibits greater systematic (market) risk than the capitalisation‐weighted version.     

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.