A comparative study of alternative extreme‐value volatility estimators

Recent advances in econometric methodology and newly available sources of data are used to examine empirically the performance of the various extreme‐value volatility estimators that have been proposed over the past two decades. Overwhelming support is found for the use of extreme‐value estimators when computing daily volatility measures across all assets: Daily extreme‐value volatility estimators are both less biased and substantially more efficient than the traditional close‐to‐close estimator. In the case of weekly and monthly measures, the results still suggest that extreme‐value estimators are appropriate, but the evidence is more mixed. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 25:873–892, 2005     

Forecasting volatility

The forecasting ability of the most popular volatility forecasting models is examined and an alternative model developed. Existing models are compared in terms of four attributes: (1) the relative weighting of recent versus older observations, (2) the estimation criterion, (3) the trade‐off in terms of out‐of‐sample forecasting error between simple and complex models, and (4) the emphasis placed on large shocks. As in previous studies, we find that financial markets have longer memories than reflected in GARCH(1,1) model estimates, but find this has little impact on outofsample forecasting ability. While more complex models which allow a more flexible weighting pattern than the exponential model forecast better on an in‐sample basis, due to the additional estimation error introduced by additional parameters, they forecast poorly out‐of‐sample. With the exception of GARCH models, we find that models based on absolute return deviations generally forecast volatility better than otherwise equivalent models based on squared return deviations. Among the most popular time series models, we find that GARCH(1,1) generally yields better forecasts than the historical standard deviation and exponentially weighted moving average models, though between GARCH and EGARCH there is no clear favorite. However, in terms of forecast accuracy, all are dominated by a new, simple, nonlinear least squares model, based on historical absolute return deviations, that we develop and test here. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 25:465–490, 2005     

Testing range estimators of historical volatility

This study investigates the relative performance of various historical volatility estimators that incorporate daily trading range: M. Parkinson (1980), M. Garman and M. Klass (1980), L. C. G. Rogers and S. E. Satchell (1991), and D. Yang and Q. Zhang (2000). It is found that the range estimators all perform very well when an asset price follows a continuous geometric Brownian motion. However, significant differences among various range estimators are detected if the asset return distribution involves an opening jump or a large drift. By adding microstructure noise to the Monte Carlo simulation, the finding of S. Alizadeh, M. W. Brandt, and F. X. Diebold (2002)—that range estimators are fairly robust toward microstructure effects—is confirmed. An empirical test with S&P 500 index return data shows that the variances estimated with range estimators are quite close to the daily integrated variance. The empirical results support the use of range estimators for actual market data. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 26:297–313, 2006     

A comparative study of range‐based stock return volatility estimators for the German market

This study investigates the relative performance of various volatility estimators based on daily and intraday price ranges of 25 German equities, with the two‐scales realized volatility used as a benchmark. The empirical results show that all estimators based on daily ranges are by far superior to the classical estimator but are severely negatively biased due to discrete trading. The realized range obtained from intraday ranges performs better in terms of both bias and efficiency, although its performance still suffers from discrete trading. In these settings, the bias correcting procedure developed by Christensen and Podolskij (2007) appears to consistently outperform all other alternatives, including the scaled version of Martens and van Dijk (2007), and provides evidence of the relative advantages of the realized range. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 32:560–586, 2012     

Predicting financial volatility: High‐frequency time‐series forecasts vis‐à‐vis implied volatility

Recent evidence suggests option implied volatilities provide better forecasts of financial volatility than time‐series models based on historical daily returns. In this study both the measurement and the forecasting of financial volatility is improved using high‐frequency data and long memory modeling, the latest proposed method to model volatility. This is the first study to extract results for three separate asset classes, equity, foreign exchange, and commodities. The results for the S&P 500, YEN/USD, and Light, Sweet Crude Oil provide a robust indication that volatility forecasts based on historical intraday returns do provide good volatility forecasts that can compete with and even outperform implied volatility. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 24:1005–1028, 2004     

Oil volatility and the option value of waiting: An analysis of the G‐7

There has recently been considerable interest in the potential adverse effects associated with excessive uncertainty in energy futures markets. Theoretical models of investment under uncertainty predict that increased uncertainty will tend to induce firms to delay production and investment. These models are widely utilized in capital budgeting and production decisions, particularly in the energy sector. There is relatively little empirical evidence, however, on whether such channels have effects on industrial production. Using a sample of G7 countries we examine whether uncertainty about a prominent commodity—oil—affects the time series variation in industrial production. Our primary result is consistent with the predictions of real options theory—uncertainty about oil prices has had a negative and significant effect on manufacturing activity in Canada, France, UK, and US. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 31:679–702, 2011     

Option pricing under fast‐varying long‐memory stochastic volatility

Recent empirical studies suggest that the volatility of an underlying price process may have correlations that decay slowly under certain market conditions. In this paper, the volatility is modeled as a stationary process with long‐range correlation properties in order to capture such a situation, and we consider European option pricing. This means that the volatility process is neither a Markov process nor a martingale. However, by exploiting the fact that the price process is still a semimartingale and accordingly using the martingale method, we can obtain an analytical expression for the option price in the regime where the volatility process is fast mean reverting. The volatility process is modeled as a smooth and bounded function of a fractional Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process. We give the expression for the implied volatility, which has a fractional term structure.     

Forecasting bitcoin volatility: Evidence from the options market

This paper studies a large number of bitcoin (BTC) options traded on the options exchange Deribit. We use the trades to calculate implied volatility (IV) and analyze if volatility forecasts can be improved using such information. IV is less accurate than AutoRegressive–Moving-Average or Heterogeneous Auto-Regressive model forecasts in predicting short-term BTC volatility (1 day ahead), but superior in predicting long-term volatility (7, 10, 15 days ahead). Furthermore, a combination of IV and model-based forecasts provides the highest accuracy for all forecasting horizons revealing that the BTC options market contains unique information.     

Forecasting volatility: Roles of sampling frequency and forecasting horizon

This study empirically tests how and to what extent the choice of the sampling frequency, the realized volatility (RV) measure, the forecasting horizon and the time‐series model affect the quality of volatility forecasting. Using highly synchronous executable quotes retrieved from an electronic trading platform, the study avoids the influence of various market microstructure factors in measuring RV with high‐frequency intraday data and in inferring implied volatility (IV) from option prices. The study shows that excluding non‐trading‐time volatility produces significant downward bias of RV by as much as 36%. Quality of prediction is significantly affected by the forecasting horizon and RV model, but is largely immune from the choice of sampling frequency. Consistent with prior research, IV outperforms time‐series forecasts; however, the information content of historical volatility critically depends on the choice of RV measure. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark     

The realized volatility of FTSE‐100 futures prices

Five‐minute returns from FTSE‐100 index futures contracts are used to obtain accurate estimates of daily index volatility from January 1986 to December 1998. These realized volatility measures are used to obtain inferences about the distributional and autocorrelation properties of FTSE‐100 volatility. The distribution of volatility measured daily is similar to lognormal while the volatility time series has persistent positive autocorrelation that displays long‐memory effects. The distribution of daily returns standardized using the measures of realized volatility is shown to be close to normal, unlike the unconditional distribution. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 22:627–648, 2002     

No‐arbitrage implies power‐law market impact and rough volatility

Market impact is the link between the volume of a (large) order and the price move during and after the execution of this order. We show that in a quite general framework, under no‐arbitrage assumption, the market impact function can only be of power‐law type. Furthermore, we prove this implies that the macroscopic price is diffusive with rough volatility, with a one‐to‐one correspondence between the exponent of the impact function and the Hurst parameter of the volatility. Hence, we simply explain the universal rough behavior of the volatility as a consequence of the no‐arbitrage property. From a mathematical viewpoint, our study relies, in particular, on new results about hyper‐rough stochastic Volterra equations.     

Measuring and forecasting S&P 500 index‐futures volatility using high‐frequency data

In the 24‐hr foreign exchange market, Andersen and Bollerslev measure and forecast volatility using intraday returns rather than daily returns. Trading in equity markets only occurs during part of the day, and volatility during nontrading hours may differ from the volatility during trading hours. This paper compares various measures and forecasts of volatility in equity markets. In the absence of overnight trading it is shown that the daily volatility is best measured by the sum of intraday squared 5‐min returns, excluding the overnight return. In the absence of overnight trading, the best daily forecast of volatility is produced by modeling overnight volatility differently from intraday volatility. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 22:497–518, 2002     

Analytical approximations of local‐Heston volatility model and error analysis

This paper studies the expansion of an option price (with bounded Lipschitz payoff) in a stochastic volatility model including a local volatility component. The stochastic volatility is a square root process, which is widely used for modeling the behavior of the variance process (Heston model). The local volatility part is of general form, requiring only appropriate growth and boundedness assumptions. We rigorously establish tight error estimates of our expansions, using Malliavin calculus. The error analysis, which requires a careful treatment because of the lack of weak differentiability of the model, is interesting on its own. Moreover, in the particular case of call–put options, we also provide expansions of the Black–Scholes implied volatility that allow to obtain very simple formulas that are fast to compute compared to the Monte Carlo approach and maintain a very competitive accuracy.     

The short‐time behavior of VIX‐implied volatilities in a multifactor stochastic volatility framework

We consider a modeling setup where the volatility index (VIX) dynamics are explicitly computable as a smooth transformation of a purely diffusive, multidimensional Markov process. The framework is general enough to embed many popular stochastic volatility models. We develop closed‐form expansions and sharp error bounds for VIX futures, options, and implied volatilities. In particular, we derive exact asymptotic results for VIX‐implied volatilities, and their sensitivities, in the joint limit of short time‐to‐maturity and small log‐moneyness. The expansions obtained are explicit based on elementary functions and they neatly uncover how the VIX skew depends on the specific choice of the volatility and the vol‐of‐vol processes. Our results are based on perturbation techniques applied to the infinitesimal generator of the underlying process. This methodology has previously been adopted to derive approximations of equity (SPX) options. However, the generalizations needed to cover the case of VIX options are by no means straightforward as the dynamics of the underlying VIX futures are not explicitly known. To illustrate the accuracy of our technique, we provide numerical implementations for a selection of model specifications.     

A non‐lattice pricing model of American options under stochastic volatility

In this article, an analytical approach to American option pricing under stochastic volatility is provided. Under stochastic volatility, the American option value can be computed as the sum of a corresponding European option price and an early exercise premium. By considering the analytical property of the optimal exercise boundary, the formula allows for recursive computation of the American option value. Simulation results show that a nonlattice method performs better than the lattice‐based interpolation methods. The stochastic volatility model is also empirically tested using S&P 500 futures options intraday transactions data. Incorporating stochastic volatility is shown to improve pricing, hedging, and profitability in actual trading. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Jrl Fut Mark 26:417–448, 2006