Kurtosis Archives - QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH AND TRADING

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 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.

July 23, 2019

Crash-Proof Investing

As markets continue to make new highs against a backdrop of ever diminishing participation and trading volume, investors have legitimate reasons for being concerned about prospects for the remainder of 2016 and beyond, even without consideration to the myriad of economic and geopolitical risks that now confront the US and global economies. Against that backdrop, remaining fully invested is a test of nerves for those whose instinct is that they may be picking up pennies in front an oncoming steamroller. On the other hand, there is a sense of frustration in cashing out, only to watch markets surge another several hundred points to new highs.

In this article I am going to outline some steps investors can take to match their investment portfolios to suit current market conditions in a way that allows them to remain fully invested, while safeguarding against downside risk. In what follows I will be using our own Strategic Volatility Strategy, which invests in volatility ETFs such as the iPath S&P 500 VIX ST Futures ETN (NYSEArca:VXX) and the VelocityShares Daily Inverse VIX ST ETN (NYSEArca:XIV), as an illustrative example, although the principles are no less valid for portfolios comprising other ETFs or equities.

Risk and Volatility

Risk may be defined as the uncertainty of outcome and the most common way of assessing it in the context of investment theory is by means of the standard deviation of returns. One difficulty here is that one may never ascertain the true rate of volatility – the second moment – of a returns process; one can only estimate it. Hence, while one can be certain what the closing price of a stock was at yesterday’s market close, one cannot say what the volatility of the stock was over the preceding week – it cannot be observed the way that a stock price can, only estimated. The most common estimator of asset volatility is, of course, the sample standard deviation. But there are many others that are arguably superior: Log-Range, Parkinson, Garman-Klass to name but a few (a starting point for those interested in such theoretical matters is a research paper entitled Estimating Historical Volatility, Brandt & Kinlay, 2005).

Leaving questions of estimation to one side, one issue with using standard deviation as a measure of risk is that it treats upside and downside risk equally – the “risk” that you might double your money in an investment is regarded no differently than the risk that you might see your investment capital cut in half. This is not, of course, how investors tend to look at things: they typically allocate a far higher cost to downside risk, compared to upside risk.

One way to address the issue is by using a measure of risk known as the semi-deviation. This is estimated in exactly the same way as the standard deviation, except that it is applied only to negative returns. In other words, it seeks to isolate the downside risk alone.

This leads directly to a measure of performance known as the Sortino Ratio. Like the more traditional Sharpe Ratio, the Sortino Ratio is a measure of risk-adjusted performance – the average return produced by an investment per unit of risk. But, whereas the Sharpe Ratio uses the standard deviation as the measure of risk, for the Sortino Ratio we use the semi-deviation. In other words, we are measuring the expected return per unit of downside risk.

There may be a great deal of variation in the upside returns of a strategy that would penalize the risk-adjusted returns, as measured by its Sharpe Ratio. But using the Sortino Ratio, we ignore the upside volatility entirely and focus exclusively on the volatility of negative returns (technically, the returns falling below a given threshold, such as the risk-free rate. Here we are using zero as our benchmark). This is, arguably, closer to the way most investors tend to think about their investment risk and return preferences.

In a scenario where, as an investor, you are particularly concerned about downside risk, it makes sense to focus on downside risk. It follows that, rather than aiming to maximize the Sharpe Ratio of your investment portfolio, you might do better to focus on the Sortino Ratio.

Factor Risk and Correlation Risk

Another type of market risk that is often present in an investment portfolio is correlation risk. This is the risk that your investment portfolio correlates to some other asset or investment index. Such risks are often occluded – hidden from view – only to emerge when least wanted. For example, it might be supposed that a “dollar-neutral” portfolio, i.e. a portfolio comprising equity long and short positions of equal dollar value, might be uncorrelated with the broad equity market indices. It might well be. On the other hand, the portfolio might become correlated with such indices during times of market turbulence; or it might correlate positively with some sector indices and negatively with others; or with market volatility, as measured by the CBOE VIX index, for instance.

Where such dependencies are included by design, they are not a problem; but when they are unintended and latent in the investment portfolio, they often create difficulties. The key here is to test for such dependencies against a variety of risk factors that are likely to be of concern. These might include currency and interest rate risk factors, for example; sector indices; or commodity risk factors such as oil or gold (in a situation where, for example, you are investing a a portfolio of mining stocks). Once an unwanted correlation is identified, the next step is to adjust the portfolio holdings to try to eliminate it. Typically, this can often only be done in the average, meaning that, while there is no correlation bias over the long term, there may be periods of positive, negative, or alternating correlation over shorter time horizons. Either way, it’s important to know.

Using the Strategic Volatility Strategy as an example, we target to maximize the Sortino Ratio, subject also to maintaining very lows levels of correlation to the principal risk factors of concern to us, the S&P 500 and VIX indices. Our aim is to create a portfolio that is broadly impervious to changes in the level of the overall market, or in the level of market volatility.

One method of quantifying such dependencies is with linear regression analysis. By way of illustration, in the table below are shown the results of regressing the daily returns from the Strategic Volatility Strategy against the returns in the VIX and S&P 500 indices. Both factor coefficients are statistically indistinguishable from zero, i.e. there is significant no (linear) dependency. However, the constant coefficient, referred to as the strategy alpha, is both positive and statistically significant. In simple terms, the strategy produces a return that is consistently positive, on average, and which is not dependent on changes in the level of the broad market, or its volatility. By contrast, for example, a commonplace volatility strategy that entails capturing the VIX futures roll would show a negative correlation to the VIX index and a positive dependency on the S&P500 index.

Tail Risk

Ever since the publication of Nassim Taleb’s “The Black Swan”, investors have taken a much greater interest in the risk of extreme events. If the bursting of the tech bubble in 2000 was not painful enough, investors surely appear to have learned the lesson thoroughly after the financial crisis of 2008. But even if investors understand the concept, the question remains: what can one do about it?

The place to start is by looking at the fundamental characteristics of the portfolio returns. Here we are not such much concerned with risk, as measured by the second moment, the standard deviation. Instead, we now want to consider the third and forth moments of the distribution, the skewness and kurtosis.

Comparing the two distributions below, we can see that the distribution on the left, with negative skew, has nonzero probability associated with events in the extreme left of the distribution, which in this context, we would associate with negative returns. The distribution on the right, with positive skew, is likewise “heavy-tailed”; but in this case the tail “risk” is associated with large, positive returns. That’s the kind of risk most investors can live with.

Source: Wikipedia

A more direct measure of tail risk is kurtosis, literally, “heavy tailed-ness”, indicating a propensity for extreme events to occur. Again, the shape of the distribution matters: a heavy tail in the right hand portion of the distribution is fine; a heavy tail on the left (indicating the likelihood of large, negative returns) is a no-no.

Let’s take a look at the distribution of returns for the Strategic Volatility Strategy. As you can see, the distribution is very positively skewed, with a very heavy right hand tail. In other words, the strategy has a tendency to produce extremely positive returns. That’s the kind of tail risk investors prefer.

Another way to evaluate tail risk is to examine directly the performance of the strategy during extreme market conditions, when the market makes a major move up or down. Since we are using a volatility strategy as an example, let’s take a look at how it performs on days when the VIX index moves up or down by more than 5%. As you can see from the chart below, by and large the strategy returns on such days tend to be positive and, furthermore, occasionally the strategy produces exceptionally high returns.

The property of producing higher returns to the upside and lower losses to the downside (or, in this case, a tendency to produce positive returns in major market moves in either direction) is known as positive convexity.

Positive convexity, more typically found in fixed income portfolios, is a highly desirable feature, of course. How can it be achieved? Those familiar with options will recognize the convexity feature as being similar to the concept of option Gamma and indeed, one way to produce such a payoff is buy adding options to the investment mix: put options to give positive convexity to the downside, call options to provide positive convexity to the upside (or using a combination of both, i.e. a straddle).

In this case we achieve positive convexity, not by incorporating options, but through a judicious choice of leveraged ETFs, both equity and volatility, for example, the ProShares UltraPro S&P500 ETF (NYSEArca:UPRO) and the ProShares Ultra VIX Short-Term Futures ETN (NYSEArca:UVXY).

Putting It All Together

While we have talked through the various concepts in creating a risk-protected portfolio one-at-a-time, in practice we use nonlinear optimization techniques to construct a portfolio that incorporates all of the desired characteristics simultaneously. This can be a lengthy and tedious procedure, involving lots of trial and error. And it cannot be emphasized enough how important the choice of the investment universe is from the outset. In this case, for instance, it would likely be pointless to target an overall positively convex portfolio without including one or more leveraged ETFs in the investment mix.

Let’s see how it turned out in the case of the Strategic Volatility Strategy.

Note that, while the portfolio Information Ratio is moderate (just above 3), the Sortino Ratio is consistently very high, averaging in excess of 7. In large part that is due to the exceptionally low downside risk, which at 1.36% is less than half the standard deviation (which is itself quite low at 3.3%). It is no surprise that the maximum drawdown over the period from 2012 amounts to less than 1%.

A critic might argue that a CAGR of only 10% is rather modest, especially since market conditions have generally been so benign. I would answer that criticism in two ways. Firstly, this is an investment that has the risk characteristics of a low-duration government bond; and yet it produces a yield many times that of a typical bond in the current low interest rate environment.

Secondly, I would point out that these results are based on use of standard 2:1 Reg-T leverage. In practice it is entirely feasible to increase the leverage up to 4:1, which would produce a CAGR of around 20%. Investors can choose where on the spectrum of risk-return they wish to locate the portfolio and the strategy leverage can be adjusted accordingly.

Conclusion

The current investment environment, characterized by low yields and growing downside risk, poses difficult challenges for investors. A way to address these concerns is to focus on metrics of downside risk in the construction of the investment portfolio, aiming for high Sortino Ratios, low correlation with market risk factors, and positive skewness and convexity in the portfolio returns process.

Such desirable characteristics can be achieved with modern portfolio construction techniques providing the investment universe is chosen carefully and need not include anything more exotic than a collection of commonplace ETF products.

September 18, 2018

What Wealth Managers and Family Offices Need to Understand About Alternative Investing

The most recent Morningstar survey provides an interesting snapshot of the state of the alternatives market. In 2013, for the third successive year, liquid alternatives was the fastest growing category of mutual funds, drawing in flows totaling $95.6 billion. The fastest growing subcategories have been long-short stock funds (growing more than 80% in 2013), nontraditional bond funds (79%) and “multi-alternative” fund-of-alts-funds products (57%).

Benchmarking Alternatives
The survey also provides some interesting insights into the misconceptions about alternative investments that remain prevalent amongst advisors, despite contrary indications provided by long-standing academic research. According to Morningstar, a significant proportion of advisors continue to use inappropriate benchmarks, such as the S&P 500 or Russell 2000, to evaluate alternatives funds (see Some advisers using ill-suited benchmarks to measure alts performance by Trevor Hunnicutt, Investment News July 2014). As Investment News points out, the problem with applying standards developed to measure the performance of funds that are designed to beat market benchmarks is that many alternative funds are intended to achieve other investment goals, such as reducing volatility or correlation. These funds will typically have under-performed standard equity indices during the bull market, causing investors to jettison them from their portfolios at a time when the additional protection they offer may be most needed.

This is but one example in a broader spectrum of issues about alternative investing that are poorly understood. Even where advisors recognize the need for a more appropriate hedge fund index to benchmark fund performance, several traps remain for the unwary. As shown in Brooks and Kat (The Statistical Properties of Hedge Fund Index Returns and Their Implications for Investors, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 2001), there can be considerable heterogeneity between indices that aim to benchmark the same type of strategy, since indices tend to cover different parts of the alternatives universe. There are also significant differences between indices in terms of their survivorship bias – the tendency to overstate returns by ignoring poorly performing funds that have closed down (see Welcome to the Dark Side – Hedge Fund Attribution and Survivorship Bias, Amin and Kat, Working Paper, 2002). Hence, even amongst more savvy advisors, the perception of performance tends to be biased by the choice of index.

Risks and Benefits of Diversifying with Alternatives
An important and surprising discovery in relation to diversification with alternatives was revealed in Amin and Kat’s Diversification and Yield Enhancement with Hedge Funds (Working Paper, 2002). Their study showed that the median standard deviation of a portfolio of stocks, bonds and hedge funds reached its lowest point where the allocation to alternatives was 50%, far higher than the 1%-5% typically recommended by advisors.

Standard Deviation of Portfolios of Stocks, Bonds and 20 hedge Funds

Source: Diversification and Yield Enhancement with Hedge Funds, Amin and Kat, Working Paper, 2002

Another potential problem is that investors will not actually invest in the fund index that is used for benchmarking, but in a basket containing a much smaller number of funds, often through a fund of funds vehicle. The discrepancy in performance between benchmark and basket can often be substantial in the alternatives space.

Amin and Kat studied this problem in 2002 (Portfolios of Hedge Funds, Working Paper, 2002), by constructing hedge fund portfolios ranging in size from 1 to 20 funds and measuring their performance on a number of criteria that included, not just the average return and standard deviation, but also the skewness (a measure of the asymmetry of returns), kurtosis (a measure of the probability of extreme returns)and the correlation with the S&P 500 Index and the Salomon (now Citigroup) Government Bond Index. Their startling conclusion was that, in the alternatives space, diversification is not necessarily a good thing. As expected, as the number of funds in the basket is increased, the overall volatility drops substantially; but at the same time skewness drops and kurtosis and market correlation increase significantly. In other words, when adding more funds, the likelihood of a large loss increases and the diversification benefit declines. The researchers found that a good approximation to a typical hedge fund index could be constructed with a basket of just 15 well-chosen funds, in most cases.

Concerns about return distribution characteristics such as skewness and kurtosis may appear arcane, but these factors often become crucially important at just the wrong time, from the investor’s perspective. When things go wrong in the stock market they also tend to go wrong for hedge funds, as a fall in stock prices is typically accompanied by a drop in market liquidity, a widening of spreads and, often, an increase in stock loan costs. Equity market neutral and long/short funds that are typically long smaller cap stocks and short larger cap stocks will pay a higher price for the liquidity they need to maintain neutrality. Likewise, a market sell-off is likely to lead to postponing of M&A transactions that will have a negative impact on the performance of risk arbitrage funds. Nor are equity-related funds the only alternatives likely to suffer during a market sell-off. A market fall will typically be accompanied by widening credit spreads, which in turn will damage the performance of fixed income and convertible arbitrage funds. The key point is that, because they all share this risk, diversification among different funds will not do much to mitigate it.

Conclusions
Many advisors remain wedded to using traditional equity indices that are inappropriate benchmarks for alternative strategies. Even where more relevant indices are selected, they may suffer from survivorship and fund-selection bias.

In order to reap the diversification benefit from alternatives, research shows that investors should concentrate a significant proportion of their wealth in the limited number of alternatives funds, a portfolio strategy that is diametrically opposed to the “common sense” approach of many advisors.

Finally, advisors often overlook the latent correlation and liquidity risks inherent in alternatives that come into play during market down-turns, at precisely the time when investors are most dependent on diversification to mitigate market risk. Such risks can be managed, but only by paying attention to portfolio characteristics such as skewness and kurtosis, which alternative funds significantly impact.

September 6, 2018

Quantitative Analysis of Fat Tails – JonathanKinlay.com

In this quantitative analysis I explore how, starting from the assumption of a stable, Gaussian distribution in a returns process, we evolve to a system that displays all the characteristics of empirical market data, notably time-dependent moments, high levels of kurtosis and fat tails. As it turns out, the only additional assumption one needs to make is that the market is periodically disturbed by the random arrival of news.

NOTE: if you are unable to see the Mathematica models below, you can download the free Wolfram CDF player and you may also need this plug-in.

You can also download the complete Mathematica CDF file here.

Stationarity

A stationary process is one that evolves over time, but whose probability distribution does not vary with time. As the word implies, such a process is stable. More formally, the moments of the distribution are independent of time.

Let’s assume we are dealing with such a process that have constant mean μ and constant volatility (standard deviation) σ.

Φ=NormalDistribution[μ,σ]

Here are some examples of Normal probability distributions, with constant mean μ = 0 and standard deviation σ ranging from 0.75 to 2

Plot[Evaluate@Table[PDF[Φ,x],{σ,{.75,1,2}}]/.μ→0,{x,-6,6},Filling→Axis]

The moments of Φ are given by:

Through[{Mean, StandardDeviation, Skewness, Kurtosis}[Φ]]

{μ, σ, 0, 3}

They, too, are time – independent.

We can simulate some observations from such a process, with, say, mean μ = 0 and standard deviation σ = 1:

ListPlot[sampleData=RandomVariate[Φ /.{μ→0, σ→1},10^4]]

Histogram[sampleData]

If we assume for the moment that such a process is an adequate description of an asset returns process, we can simulate the evolution of a price process as follows :

ListPlot[prices=Accumulate[sampleData]]

An Empirical Distribution

Lets take a look at a real price series, comprising 1 – minute bar data in the June ‘ 14 E – Mini futures contract.

As with our simulated price process, it is clear that the real price process for Emini futures is also non – stationary.

What about the returns process?

ListPlot[returnsES]

Notice the banding effect in returns, which results from having a fixed, minimum price move of $12 .50, rather than a continuous scale.

Histogram[returnsES]

Through[{Min,Max,Mean,Median,StandardDeviation,Skewness,Kurtosis}[returnsES]]

{-0.00867214, 0.0112353, 2.75501×10^{-6, 0., 0.000780895, 0.35467, 26.2376}}

The empirical returns distribution doesn’ t appear to be Gaussian – the distribution is much more peaked than a standard Normal distribution with the same mean and standard deviation. And the higher moments don’t fit the Normal model either – the empirical distribution has positive skew and a kurtosis that is almost 9x greater than a Gaussian distribution. The latter signifies what is often referred to as “fat tails”: the distribution has much greater weight in the tails than a standard Normal distribution, indicating a much greater likelihood of an extreme value than a Normal distribution would predict.

A Quantitative Analysis of Non-Stationarity: Two States

Non – stationarity arises when one or more of the moments of a distribution vary over time. Let’s take a look at how that can arise, and its effects.Suppose we have a Gaussian returns process for which the mean, or drift, or trend, fluctuates over time.

Let’s consider a simple example where the process drift is μ1 and volatility σ1 for most of the time and then for some proportion of time k, we get addition drift μ2 and volatility σ2. In other words we have:

Φ1=NormalDistribution[μ1,σ1]

Through[{Mean,StandardDeviation,Skewness,Kurtosis}[Φ1]]

{μ1, σ1, 0, 3}

Φ2=NormalDistribution[μ2,σ2]

Through[{Mean,StandardDeviation,Skewness,Kurtosis}[Φ2]]

{μ2, σ2, 0, 3}

This simple model fits a scenario in which we suppose that the returns process spends most of its time in State 1, in which is Normally distributed with drift is μ1 and volatility σ1, and suffers from the occasional “shock” which propels the systems into a second State 2, in which its distribution is a combination of its original distribution and a new Gaussian distribution with different mean and volatility.

Let’ s suppose that we sample the combined process y = Φ1 + k Φ2. What distribution would it have? We can represent this is follows :

y=TransformedDistribution[(x1+k x2),{x1~Φ1,x2~Φ2}]

Through[{Mean,StandardDeviation,Skewness,Kurtosis}[y]]

Plot[PDF[y,x]/.{μ1→0,μ2→0,σ1 →1,σ2 →2, k→0.5},{x,-6,6},Filling→Axis]

The result is just another Normal distribution. Depending on the incidence k, y will follow a Gaussian distribution whose mean and variance depend on the mean and variance of the two Normal distributions being mixed. The resulting distribution in State 2 may have higher or lower drift and volatility, but it is still Gaussian, with constant kurtosis of 3.

In other words, the system y will be non-stationary, because the first and second moments change over time, depending on what state it is in. But the form of the distribution is unchanged – it is still Gaussian. There are no fat-tails.

Non – Stationarity : Random States

In the above example the system moved between states in a known, predictable way. The “shocks” to the system were not really shocks, but transitions. But that’s not how financial markets behave: markets move from one state to another in an unpredictable way, with the arrival of news.

We can simulate this situation as follows. Using the former model as a starting point, lets now relax the assumption that the incidence of the second state, k, is a constant. Instead, let’ s assume that k is itself a random variable. In other words we are going to now assume that our system changes state in a random way. How does this alter the distribution?

An appropriate model for λ might be a Poisson process, which is often used as a model for unpredictable, discrete events, ranging from bus arrivals to earthquakes. PDFs of Poisson distributions with means λ=5, 10 and 20 are shown in the chart below. These represent probability distributions for processes that have mean arrivals of 5, 10 or 20 events.

DiscretePlot[Evaluate@Table[PDF[PoissonDistribution[λ],k],{λ,{5,10,20}}],{k,0,30},PlotRange→All,PlotMarkers→Automatic]

Our new model now looks like this :

y=TransformedDistribution[{x1+k*x2},{x1⎡Φ1,x2⎡Φ2,k⎡PoissonDistribution[λ]}]

The first two moments of the distribution are as follows :

Through[{Mean,StandardDeviation}[y]]

As before, the mean and standard deviation of the distribution are going to vary, depending on the state of the system, and the mean arrival rate of shocks, . But what about kurtosis? Is it still constant?

Kurtosis[y]

Emphatically not! The fourth moment of the distribution is now dependent on the drift in the second state, the volatilities of both states and the mean arrival rate of shocks, λ.

Let’ s look at a specific example. Assume that in State 1 the process has volatility of 7.5 %, with zero drift, and that the shock distribution also has zero drift with volatility of 65 %. If the mean incidence rate of shocks λ = 10 %, the distribution kurtosis is close to that seen in the empirical distribution for the E-Mini.

Kurtosis[y] /.{σ1→0.075,μ2→0,σ2→0.65,λ→0.1}

{35.3551}

More generally :

ListLinePlot[Flatten[Kurtosis[y]/.Table[{σ1→0.075,μ2→0,σ2→0.65,λ→i/20},{i,1,20}]],PlotLabel→Style[“Kurtosis vs Mean Shock Arrival Rate”, FontSize→18],AxesLabel->{“Incidence Rate (%)”, “Kurtosis”},Filling→Axis, ImageSize→Large]

Thus we can see how, even if the underlying returns distribution is Gaussian in form, the random arrival of news “shocks” to the system can induce non – stationarity in overall drift and volatility. It can also result in fat tails. More specifically, if the arrival of news is stochastic in nature, rather than deterministic, the process may exhibit far higher levels of kurtosis than in its original Gaussian state, in which the fourth moment was a constant level of 3.

Quantitative Analysis of a Jump Diffusion Process

Nobel – prize winning economist Robert Merton extended this basic concept to the realm of stochastic calculus.

In Merton’s jump diffusion model, the stock price follows the random process

∂S_t / S_t =μdt + σdW_t+(J-1)dN_t

The first two terms are familiar from the Black–Scholes model : drift rate μ, volatility σ, and random walk W_t (Wiener process).The last term represents the jumps :J is the jump size as a multiple of stock price, while N_t is the number of jump events that have occurred up to time t.is assumed to follow the Poisson process.

PDF[PoissonDistribution[λt]]

where λ is the average frequency with which jumps occur.

The jump size J follows a log – normal distribution

PDF[LogNormalDistribution[m, ν], s]

where m is the average jump size and v is the volatility of the jump size.

In the jump diffusion model, the stock price S_t follows the random process dS_t/S_t=μ dt+σ dW_t+(J-1) dN(t), which comprises, in order, drift, diffusive, and jump components. The jumps occur according to a Poisson distribution and their size follows a log-normal distribution. The model is characterized by the diffusive volatility σ, the average jump size J (expressed as a fraction of S_t), the frequency of jumps λ, and the volatility of jump size ν.

The Volatility Smile

The “implied volatility” corresponding to an option price is the value of the volatility parameter for which the Black-Scholes model gives the same price. A well-known phenomenon in market option prices is the “volatility smile”, in which the implied volatility increases for strike values away from the spot price. The jump diffusion model is a generalization of Black–Scholes in which the stock price has randomly occurring jumps in addition to the random walk behavior. One of the interesting properties of this model is that it displays the volatility smile effect. In this Demonstration, we explore the Black–Scholes implied volatility of option prices (equal for both put and call options) in the jump diffusion model. The implied volatility is modeled as a function of the ratio of option strike price to spot price.