Jonathan, Author at QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH AND TRADING

October 13, 2020

Modeling Asset Volatility

I am planning a series of posts on the subject of asset volatility and option pricing and thought I would begin with a survey of some of the central ideas. The attached presentation on Modeling Asset Volatility sets out the foundation for a number of key concepts and the basis for the research to follow.

Perhaps the most important feature of volatility is that it is stochastic rather than constant, as envisioned in the Black Scholes framework. The presentation addresses this issue by identifying some of the chief stylized facts about volatility processes and how they can be modelled. Certain characteristics of volatility are well known to most analysts, such as, for instance, its tendency to “cluster” in periods of higher and lower volatility. However, there are many other typical features that are less often rehearsed and these too are examined in the presentation.

Long Memory
For example, while it is true that GARCH models do a fine job of modeling the clustering effect they typically fail to capture one of the most important features of volatility processes – long term serial autocorrelation. In the typical GARCH model autocorrelations die away approximately exponentially, and historical events are seen to have little influence on the behaviour of the process very far into the future. In volatility processes that is typically not the case, however: autocorrelations die away very slowly and historical events may continue to affect the process many weeks, months or even years ahead.

Volatility Direction Prediction Accuracy

There are two immediate and very important consequences of this feature. The first is that volatility processes will tend to trend over long periods – a characteristic of Black Noise or Fractionally Integrated processes, compared to the White Noise behavior that typically characterizes asset return processes. Secondly, and again in contrast with asset return processes, volatility processes are inherently predictable, being conditioned to a significant degree on past behavior. The presentation considers the fractional integration frameworks as a basis for modeling and forecasting volatility.

Mean Reversion vs. Momentum
A puzzling feature of much of the literature on volatility is that it tends to stress the mean-reverting behavior of volatility processes. This appears to contradict the finding that volatility behaves as a reinforcing process, whose long-term serial autocorrelations create a tendency to trend. This leads to one of the most important findings about asset processes in general, and volatility process in particular: i.e. that the assets processes are simultaneously trending and mean-reverting. One way to understand this is to think of volatility, not as a single process, but as the superposition of two processes: a long term process in the mean, which tends to reinforce and trend, around which there operates a second, transient process that has a tendency to produce short term spikes in volatility that decay very quickly. In other words, a transient, mean reverting processes inter-linked with a momentum process in the mean. The presentation discusses two-factor modeling concepts along these lines, and about which I will have more to say later.

Cointegration
One of the most striking developments in econometrics over the last thirty years, cointegration is now a principal weapon of choice routinely used by quantitative analysts to address research issues ranging from statistical arbitrage to portfolio construction and asset allocation. Back in the late 1990’s I and a handful of other researchers realized that volatility processes exhibited very powerful cointegration tendencies that could be harnessed to create long-short volatility strategies, mirroring the approach much beloved by equity hedge fund managers. In fact, this modeling technique provided the basis for the Caissa Capital volatility fund, which I founded in 2002. The presentation examines characteristics of multivariate volatility processes and some of the ideas that have been proposed to model them, such as FIGARCH (fractionally-integrated GARCH).

Dispersion Dynamics
Finally, one topic that is not considered in the presentation, but on which I have spent much research effort in recent years, is the behavior of cross-sectional volatility processes, which I like to term dispersion. It turns out that, like its univariate cousin, dispersion displays certain characteristics that in principle make it highly forecastable. Given an appropriate model of dispersion dynamics, the question then becomes how to monetize efficiently the insight that such a model offers. Again, I will have much more to say on this subject, in future.

October 7, 2020

A Meta-Strategy in S&P 500 E-Mini Futures

In earlier posts I have described the idea of a meta-strategy as a strategies that trades strategies. It is an algorithm, or set of rules, that is used to decide when to trade an underlying strategy. In some cases a meta-strategy may influence the size in which the underlying strategy is traded, or may even amend the base code. In other word, a meta-strategy actively “trades” an underlying strategy, or group of strategies, much as in the same way a regular strategy may actively trade stocks, going long or short from time to time. One distinction is that a meta-strategy will rarely, if ever, actually “short” an underlying strategy – at most it will simply turn the strategy off (reduce the position size to zero) for a period.

For a more detailed description, see this post:

Improving Trading System Performance Using a Meta-Strategy

In this post I look at a meta-strategy that developed for a client’s strategy in S&P E-Mini futures. What is extraordinary is that the underlying strategy was so badly designed (not by me!) and performs so poorly that no rational systematic trader would likely give it a second look – instead he would toss it into the large heap of failed ideas that all quantitative researchers accumulate over the course of their careers. So this is a textbook example that illustrates the power of meta-strategies to improve, or in this case transform, the performance of an underlying strategy.

1. The Strategy

The Target Trader Strategy (“TTS”) is a futures strategy applied to S&P 500 E-Mini futures that produces a very high win rate, but which occasionally experiences very large losses. The purpose of the analysis if to find methods that will:

1) Decrease the max loss / drawdown
2) Increase the win rate / profitability

For longs the standard setting is entry 40 ticks below the target, stop loss 1000 ticks below the target, and then 2 re-entries 100 ticks below entry 1 and 100 ticks below entry 2

For shorts the standard is entry 80 ticks above the target. stop loss 1000 ticks above the target, and then 2 re-entries 100 ticks above entry 1 and 100 ticks above entry 2

For both directions its 80 ticks above/below for entry 1, 1000 tick stop, and then 1 re entry 100 ticks above/below, and then re-entry 2 100 ticks above/below entry 2

2. Strategy Performance

2.1 Overall Performance

The overall performance of the strategy over the period from 2018 to 2020 is summarized in the chart of the strategy equity curve and table of performance statistics below.
These confirm that, while the win rate if very high (over 84%) there strategy experiences many significant drawdowns, including a drawdown of -$61,412.50 (-43.58%). The total return is of the order of 5% per year, the strategy profit factor is fractionally above 1 and the Sharpe Ratio is negligibly small. Many traders would consider the performance to be highly unattractive.

2.2 Long Trades

We break the strategy performance down into long and short trades, and consider them separately. On the long side, the strategy has been profitable, producing a gain of over 36% during the period 2018-2020. It also suffered catastrophic drawdown of over -$97,000 during that period:

2.3 Short Trades

On the short side, the story is even worse, producing an overall loss of nearly -$59,000:

3. Improving Strategy Performance with a Meta-Strategy

We considered two possible methods to improve strategy performance. The first method attempts to apply technical indicators and other data series to improve trading performance. Here we evaluated price series such as the VIX index and a wide selection of technical indicators, including RSI, ADX, Moving Averages, MACD, ATR and others. However, any improvement in strategy performance proved to be temporary in nature and highly variable, in many cases amplifying the problems with the strategy performance rather than improving them.

The second approach proved much more effective, however. In this method we create a meta-strategy which effectively “trades the strategy”, turning it on and off depending on its recent performance. The meta-strategy consists of a set of rules that determines whether or not to continue trading the strategy after a series of wins or losses. In some cases the meta-strategy may increase the trade size for a sequence of trades, at times when it considers the conditions for the underlying strategy to be favorable.

The result of applying the meta-strategy are described in the following sections.

3.1 Long & Short Strategies with Meta-Strategy Overlay

The performance of the long/short strategies combined with the meta-strategy overlay are set out in the chart and table below.
The overall improvements can be summarized as follows:

Net profit increases from $15,387 to $176,287
Account return rises from 15% to 176%
Percentage win rate rises from 84% to 95%
Profit factor increases from 1.0 to 6.7
Average trade rises from $51 to $2,631
Max $ Drawdown falls from -$61,412 to -$30,750
Return/Max Drawdown ratio rises from 0.35 to 5.85
The modified Sharpe ratio increases from 0.07 to 0.5

Taken together, these are dramatic improvements to every important aspect of strategy performance.

There are two key rules in the meta-strategy, applicable to winning and losing trades:

Rule for winning trades:
After 3 wins in a row, skip the next trade.

Rule for losing trades:
After 3 losses in a row, add 1 contract until the first win. Subtract 1 contract after each win until the next loss, or back to 1 contract.

3.2 Long Trades with Meta-Strategy

The meta-strategy rules produce significant improvements in the performance of both the long and short components of the strategy. On the long side the percentage win rate is increased to 100% and the max % drawdown is reduced to 0%:

3.3 Short Trades with Meta-Strategy

Improvements to the strategy on the short side are even more significant, transforming a loss of -$59,000 into a profit of $91,600:

4. Conclusion

A meta-strategy is a simple, yet powerful technique that can transform the performance of an underlying strategy. The rules are often simple, although they can be challenging to implement. Meta strategies can be applied to almost any underlying strategy, whether in futures, equities, or forex. Worthwhile improvements in strategy performance are often achievable, although not often as spectacular as in this case.

If any reader is interested in designing a meta-strategy for their own use, please get in contact.

October 6, 2020

Market Timing in the S&P 500 Index Using Volatility Forecasts

There has been a good deal of interest in the market timing ideas discussed in my earlier blog post Using Volatility to Predict Market Direction, which discusses the research of Diebold and Christoffersen into the sign predictability induced by volatility dynamics. The ideas are thoroughly explored in a QuantNotes article from 2006, which you can download here.

There is a follow-up article from 2006 in which Christoffersen, Diebold, Mariano and Tay develop the ideas further to consider the impact of higher moments of the asset return distribution on sign predictability and the potential for market timing in international markets (download here).

Trading Strategy
To illustrate some of the possibilities of this approach, we constructed a simple market timing strategy in which a position was taken in the S&P 500 index or in 90-Day T-Bills, depending on an ex-ante forecast of positive returns from the logit regression model (and using an expanding window to estimate the drift coefficient). We assume that the position is held for 30 days and rebalanced at the end of each period. In this test we make no allowance for market impact, or transaction costs.

Results
Annual returns for the strategy and for the benchmark S&P 500 Index are shown in the figure below. The strategy performs exceptionally well in 1987, 1989 and 1995, when the ratio between expected returns and volatility remains close to optimum levels and the direction of the S&P 500 Index is highly predictable, Of equal interest is that the strategy largely avoids the market downturn of 2000-2002 altogether, a period in which sign probabilities were exceptionally low.

In terms of overall performance, the model enters the market in 113 out of a total of 241 months (47%) and is profitable in 78 of them (69%). The average gain is 7.5% vs. an average loss of –4.11% (ratio 1.83). The compound annual return is 22.63%, with an annual volatility of 17.68%, alpha of 14.9% and Sharpe ratio of 1.10.

The under-performance of the strategy in 2003 is explained by the fact that direction-of-change probabilities were rising from a very low base in Q4 2002 and do not reach trigger levels until the end of the year. Even though the strategy out-performed the Index by a substantial margin of 6% , the performance in 2005 is of concern as market volatility was very low and probabilities overall were on a par with those seen in 1995. Further tests are required to determine whether the failure of the strategy to produce an exceptional performance on par with 1995 was the result of normal statistical variation or due to changes in the underlying structure of the process requiring model recalibration.

Future Research & Development
The obvious next step is to develop the approach described above to formulate trading strategies based on sign forecasting in a universe of several assets, possibly trading binary options. The approach also has potential for asset allocation, portfolio theory and risk management applications.

September 29, 2020

Robustness in Quantitative Research and Trading

What is Strategy Robustness? What is its relevance to Quantitative Research and Trading?

One of the most highly desired properties of any financial model or investment strategy, by investors and managers alike, is robustness. I would define robustness as the ability of the strategy to deliver a consistent results across a wide range of market conditions. It, of course, by no means the only desirable property – investing in Treasury bills is also a pretty robust strategy, although the returns are unlikely to set an investor’s pulse racing – but it does ensure that the investor, or manager, is unlikely to be on the receiving end of an ugly surprise when market conditions adjust.

Robustness is not the same thing as low volatility, which also tends to be a characteristic highly prized by many investors. A strategy may operate consistently, with low volatility in certain market conditions, but behave very differently in other. For instance, a delta-hedged short-volatility book containing exotic derivative positions. The point is that empirical researchers do not know the true data-generating process for the markets they are modeling. When specifying an empirical model they need to make arbitrary assumptions. An example is the common assumption that assets returns follow a Gaussian distribution. In fact, the empirical distribution of the great majority of asset process exhibit the characteristic of “fat tails”, which can result from the interplay between multiple market states with random transitions. See this post for details:

http://jonathankinlay.com/2014/05/a-quantitative-analysis-of-stationarity-and-fat-tails/

In statistical arbitrage, for example, quantitative researchers often make use of cointegration models to build pairs trading strategies. However the testing procedures used in current practice are not sufficient powerful to distinguish between cointegrated processes and those whose evolution just happens to correlate temporarily, resulting in the frequent breakdown in cointegrating relationships. For instance, see this post:

http://jonathankinlay.com/2017/06/statistical-arbitrage-breaks/

Modeling Assumptions are Often Wrong – and We Know It

We are, of course, not the first to suggest that empirical models are misspecified:

“All models are wrong, but some are useful” (Box 1976, Box and Draper 1987).

Martin Feldstein (1982: 829): “In practice all econometric specifications are necessarily false models.”

Luke Keele (2008: 1): “Statistical models are always simplifications, and even the most complicated model will be a pale imitation of reality.”

Peter Kennedy (2008: 71): “It is now generally acknowledged that econometric models are false and there is no hope, or pretense, that through them truth will be found.”

During the crash of 2008 quantitative Analysts and risk managers found out the hard way that the assumptions underpinning the copula models used to price and hedge credit derivative products were highly sensitive to market conditions. In other words, they were not robust. See this post for more on the application of copula theory in risk management:

http://jonathankinlay.com/2017/01/copulas-risk-management/

Robustness Testing in Quantitative Research and Trading

We interpret model misspecification as model uncertainty. Robustness tests analyze model uncertainty by comparing a baseline model to plausible alternative model specifications. Rather than trying to specify models correctly (an impossible task given causal complexity), researchers should test whether the results obtained by their baseline model, which is their best attempt of optimizing the specification of their empirical model, hold when they systematically replace the baseline model specification with plausible alternatives. This is the practice of robustness testing.

Robustness testing analyzes the uncertainty of models and tests whether estimated effects of interest are sensitive to changes in model specifications. The uncertainty about the baseline model’s estimated effect size shrinks if the robustness test model finds the same or similar point estimate with smaller standard errors, though with multiple robustness tests the uncertainty likely increases. The uncertainty about the baseline model’s estimated effect size increases of the robustness test model obtains different point estimates and/or gets larger standard errors. Either way, robustness tests can increase the validity of inferences.

Robustness testing replaces the scientific crowd by a systematic evaluation of model alternatives.

Robustness in Quantitative Research

In the literature, robustness has been defined in different ways:

as same sign and significance (Leamer)
as weighted average effect (Bayesian and Frequentist Model Averaging)
as effect stability We define robustness as effect stability.

Parameter Stability and Properties of Robustness

Robustness is the share of the probability density distribution of the baseline model that falls within the 95-percent confidence interval of the baseline model. In formulaeic terms:

Robustness is left-–right symmetric: identical positive and negative deviations of the robustness test compared to the baseline model give the same degree of robustness.
If the standard error of the robustness test is smaller than the one from the baseline model, ρ converges to 1 as long as the difference in point estimates is negligible.
For any given standard error of the robustness test, ρ is always and unambiguously smaller the larger the difference in point estimates.
Differences in point estimates have a strong influence on ρ if the standard error of the robustness test is small but a small influence if the standard errors are large.

Robustness Testing in Four Steps

Define the subjectively optimal specification for the data-generating process at hand. Call this model the baseline model.
Identify assumptions made in the specification of the baseline model which are potentially arbitrary and that could be replaced with alternative plausible assumptions.
Develop models that change one of the baseline model’s assumptions at a time. These alternatives are called robustness test models.
Compare the estimated effects of each robustness test model to the baseline model and compute the estimated degree of robustness.

Model Variation Tests

Model variation tests change one or sometimes more model specification assumptions and replace with an alternative assumption, such as:

change in set of regressors
change in functional form
change in operationalization
change in sample (adding or subtracting cases)

Example: Functional Form Test

The functional form test examines the baseline model’s functional form assumption against a higher-order polynomial model. The two models should be nested to allow identical functional forms. As an example, we analyze the ‘environmental Kuznets curve’ prediction, which suggests the existence of an inverse u-shaped relation between per capita income and emissions.

Note: grey-shaded area represents confidence interval of baseline model

Another example of functional form testing is given in this review of Yield Curve Models:

http://jonathankinlay.com/2018/08/modeling-the-yield-curve/

Random Permutation Tests

Random permutation tests change specification assumptions repeatedly. Usually, researchers specify a model space and randomly and repeatedly select model from this model space. Examples:

sensitivity tests (Leamer 1978)
artificial measurement error (Plümper and Neumayer 2009)
sample split – attribute aggregation (Traunmüller and Plümper 2017)
multiple imputation (King et al. 2001)

We use Monte Carlo simulation to test the sensitivity of the performance of our Quantitative Equity strategy to changes in the price generation process and also in model parameters:

http://jonathankinlay.com/2017/04/new-longshort-equity/

Structured Permutation Tests

Structured permutation tests change a model assumption within a model space in a systematic way. Changes in the assumption are based on a rule, rather than random. Possibilities here include:

sensitivity tests (Levine and Renelt)
jackknife test
partial demeaning test

Example: Jackknife Robustness Test

The jackknife robustness test is a structured permutation test that systematically excludes one or more observations from the estimation at a time until all observations have been excluded once. With a ‘group-wise jackknife’ robustness test, researchers systematically drop a set of cases that group together by satisfying a certain criterion – for example, countries within a certain per capita income range or all countries on a certain continent. In the example, we analyse the effect of earthquake propensity on quake mortality for countries with democratic governments, excluding one country at a time. We display the results using per capita income as information on the x-axes.

Upper and lower bound mark the confidence interval of the baseline model.

Robustness Limit Tests

Robustness limit tests provide a way of analyzing structured permutation tests. These tests ask how much a model specification has to change to render the effect of interest non-robust. Some examples of robustness limit testing approaches:

unobserved omitted variables (Rosenbaum 1991)
measurement error
under- and overrepresentation
omitted variable correlation

For an example of limit testing, see this post on a review of the Lognormal Mixture Model:

http://jonathankinlay.com/2018/08/the-lognormal-mixture-variance-model/

Summary on Robustness Testing

Robustness tests have become an integral part of research methodology. Robustness tests allow to study the influence of arbitrary specification assumptions on estimates. They can identify uncertainties that otherwise slip the attention of empirical researchers. Robustness tests offer the currently most promising answer to model uncertainty.

September 22, 2020

Forecasting Volatility in the S&P500 Index

Several people have asked me for copies of this research article, which develops a new theoretical framework, the ARFIMA-GARCH model as a basis for forecasting volatility in the S&P 500 Index. I am in the process of updating the research, but in the meantime a copy of the original paper is available here

In this analysis we are concerned with the issue of whether market forecasts of volatility, as expressed in the Black-Scholes implied volatilities of at-the-money European options on the S&P500 Index, are superior to those produced by a new forecasting model in the GARCH framework which incorporates long-memory effects. The ARFIMA-GARCH model, which uses high frequency data comprising 5-minute returns, makes volatility the subject process of interest, to which innovations are introduced via a volatility-of-volatility (kurtosis) process. Despite performing robustly in- and out-of-sample, an encompassing regression indicates that the model is unable to add to the information already contained in market forecasts. However, unlike model forecasts, implied volatility forecasts show evidence of a consistent and substantial bias. Furthermore, the model is able to correctly predict the direction of volatility approximately 62% of the time whereas market forecasts have very poor direction prediction ability. This suggests that either option markets may be inefficient, or that the option pricing model is mis-specified. To examine this hypothesis, an empirical test is carried out in which at-the-money straddles are bought or sold (and delta-hedged) depending on whether the model forecasts exceed or fall below implied volatility forecasts. This simple strategy generates an annual compound return of 18.64% over a four year out-of-sample period, during which the annual return on the S&P index itself was -7.24%. Our findings suggest that, over the period of analysis, investors required an additional risk premium of 88 basis points of incremental return for each unit of volatility risk.

September 15, 2020

Yield Curve Construction Models – Tools & Techniques

Yield curve models are used to price a wide variety of interest rate-contingent claims. The existence of several different competing methods of curve construction available and there is no single standard method for constructing yield curves and alternate procedures are adopted in different business areas to suit local requirements and market conditions. This fragmentation has often led to confusion amongst some users of the models as to their precise functionality and uncertainty as to which is the most appropriate modeling technique. In addition, recent market conditions, which inter-alia have seen elevated levels of LIBOR basis volatility, have served to heighten concerns amongst some risk managers and other model users about the output of the models and the validity of the underlying modeling methods.

The purpose of this review, which was carried out in conjunction with research analyst Xu Bai, now at Morgan Stanley, was to gain a thorough understanding of current methodologies, to validate their theoretical frameworks and implementation, identify any weaknesses in the current modeling methodologies, and to suggest improvements or alternative approaches that may enhance the accuracy, generality and robustness of modeling procedures.

Yield Curve Construction Models

September 8, 2020

The Lognormal Mixture Variance Model

The LNVM model is a mixture of lognormal models and the model density is a linear combination of the underlying densities, for instance, log-normal densities. The resulting density of this mixture is no longer log-normal and the model can thereby better fit skew and smile observed in the market. The model is becoming increasingly widely used for interest rate/commodity hybrids.

In this review of the model, I examine the mathematical framework of the model in order to gain an understanding of its key features and characteristics.

The LogNormal Mixture Variance Model

September 1, 2020

Learning the Kalman Filter

Michael Kleder’s “Learning the Kalman Filter” mini tutorial, along with the great feedback it has garnered (73 comments and 67 ratings, averaging 4.5 out of 5 stars), is one of the most popular downloads from Matlab Central and for good reason.

In his in-file example, Michael steps through a Kalman filter example in which a voltmeter is used to measure the output of a 12-volt automobile battery. The model simulates both randomness in the output of the battery, and error in the voltmeter readings. Then, even without defining an initial state for the true battery voltage, Michael demonstrates that with only 5 lines of code, the Kalman filter can be implemented to predict the true output based on (not-necessarily-accurate) uniformly spaced, measurements:

This is a simple but powerful example that shows the utility and potential of Kalman filters. It’s sure to help those who are trepid about delving into the world of Kalman filtering.

August 25, 2020August 25, 2020

Using Volatility to Predict Market Direction

Decomposing Asset Returns

We can decompose the returns process R_t as follows:

While the left hand side of the equation is essentially unforecastable, both of the right-hand-side components of returns display persistent dynamics and hence are forecastable. Both the signs of returns and magnitude of returns are conditional mean dependent and hence forecastable, but their product is conditional mean independent and hence unforecastable. This is an example of a nonlinear “common feature” in the sense of Engle and Kozicki (1993).

Although asset returns are essentially unforecastable, the same is not true for asset return signs (i.e. the direction-of-change). As long as expected returns are nonzero, one should expect sign dependence, given the overwhelming evidence of volatility dependence. Even in assets where expected returns are zero, sign dependence may be induced by skewness in the asset returns process. Hence market timing ability is a very real possibility, depending on the relationship between the mean of the asset returns process and its higher moments. The highly nonlinear nature of the relationship means that conditional sign dependence is not likely to be found by traditional measures such as signs autocorrelations, runs tests or traditional market timing tests. Sign dependence is likely to be strongest at intermediate horizons of 1-3 months, and unlikely to be important at very low or high frequencies. Empirical tests demonstrate that sign dependence is very much present in actual US equity returns, with probabilities of positive returns rising to 65% or higher at various points over the last 20 years. A simple logit regression model captures the essentials of the relationship very successfully.

Now consider the implications of dependence and hence forecastability in the sign of asset returns, or, equivalently, the direction-of-change. It may be possible to develop profitable trading strategies if one can successfully time the market, regardless of whether or not one is able to forecast the returns themselves.

There is substantial evidence that sign forecasting can often be done successfully. Relevant research on this topic includes Breen, Glosten and Jaganathan (1989), Leitch and Tanner (1991), Wagner, Shellans and Paul (1992), Pesaran and Timmerman (1995), Kuan and Liu (1995), Larsen and Wozniak (10050, Womack (1996), Gencay (1998), Leung Daouk and Chen (1999), Elliott and Ito (1999) White (2000), Pesaran and Timmerman (2000), and Cheung, Chinn and Pascual (2003).

There is also a huge body of empirical research pointing to the conditional dependence and forecastability of asset volatility. Bollerslev, Chou and Kramer (1992) review evidence in the GARCH framework, Ghysels, Harvey and Renault (1996) survey results from stochastic volatility modeling, while Andersen, Bollerslev and Diebold (2003) survey results from realized volatility modeling.

Sign Dynamics Driven By Volatility Dynamics

Let the returns process R_t be Normally distributed with mean m and conditional volatility s_t.

The probability of a positive return Pr[R_t+1 >0] is given by the Normal CDF F=1-Prob[0,f]

For a given mean return, m, the probability of a positive return is a function of conditional volatility s_t. As the conditional volatility increases, the probability of a positive return falls, as illustrated in Figure 1 below with m = 10% and s_t = 5% and 15%.

In the former case, the probability of a positive return is greater because more of the probability mass lies to the right of the origin. Despite having the same, constant expected return of 10%, the process has a greater chance of generating a positive return in the first case than in the second. Thus volatility dynamics drive sign dynamics.

Figure 1

Email me at jkinlay@investment-analytics.com.com for a copy of the complete article.

August 18, 2020August 18, 2020

Volatility Metrics

Volatility Estimation

For a very long time analysts were content to accept the standard deviation of returns as the norm for estimating volatility, even though theoretical research and empirical evidence dating from as long ago as 1980 suggested that superior estimators existed.
Part of the reason was that the claimed efficiency improvements of the Parkinson, Garman–Klass and other estimators failed to translate into practice when applied to real data. Or, at least, no one could quite be sure whether such estimators really were superior when applied to empirical data since volatility, the second moment of the returns distribution, is inherently unknowable. You can say for sure what the return on a particular stock in a particular month was simply by taking the log of the ratio of the stock price at the month end and beginning. But the same cannot be said of volatility: the standard deviation of daily returns during the month, often naively assumed to represent the asset volatility, is in fact only an estimate of it.

Realized Volatility

All that began to change around 2000 with the advent of high frequency data and the concept of Realized Volatility developed by Andersen and others (see Andersen, T.G., T. Bollerslev, F.X. Diebold and P. Labys (2000), “The Distribution of Exchange Rate Volatility,” Revised version of NBER Working Paper No. 6961). The researchers showed that, in principle, one could arrive at an estimate of volatility arbitrarily close to its true value by summing the squares of asset returns at sufficiently high frequency. From this point onwards, Realized Volatility became the “gold standard” of volatility estimation, leaving other estimators in the dust.

Except that, in practice, there are often reasons why Realized Volatility may not be the way to go: for example, high frequency data may not be available for the series, or only for a portion of it; and bid-ask bounce can have a substantial impact on the robustness of Realized Volatility estimates. So even where high frequency data is available, it may still make sense to compute alternative volatility estimators. Indeed, now that a “gold standard” estimator of true volatility exists, it is possible to get one’s arms around the question of the relative performance of other estimators. That was my intent in my research paper on Estimating Historical Volatility, in which I compare the performance characteristics of the Parkinson, Garman–Klass and other estimators relative to the realized volatility estimator. The comparison was made on a number of synthetic GBM processes in which the simulated series incorporated non-zero drift, jumps, and stochastic volatility. A further evaluation was made using an actual data series, comprising 5 minute returns on the S&P 500 in the period from Jan 1988 to Dec 2003.

The findings were generally supportive of the claimed efficiency improvements for all of the estimators, which were superior to the classical standard deviation of returns on every criterion in almost every case. However, the evident superiority of all of the estimators, including the Realized Volatility estimator, began to decline for processes with non-zero drift, jumps and stochastic volatility. There was even evidence of significant bias in some of the estimates produced for some of the series, notably by the standard deviation of returns estimator.

The Log Volatility Estimator

Finally, analysis of the results from the study of the empirical data series suggested that there were additional effects in the empirical data, not seen in the simulated processes, that caused estimator efficiency to fall well below theoretical levels. One conjecture is that long memory effects, a hallmark of most empirical volatility processes, played a significant role in that finding.
The bottom line is that, overall, the log-range volatility estimator performs robustly and with superior efficiency to the standard deviation of returns estimator, regardless of the precise characteristics of the underlying process.

Estimating Historical Volatility