Financial asset returns, direction-of-change forecasting, and volatility dynamics

We consider three sets of phenomena that feature prominently - and separately - in the financial economics literature: conditional mean dependence (or lack thereof) in asset returns, dependence (and hence forecastability) in asset return signs, and dependence (and hence forecastability) in asset return volatilities. We show that they are very much interrelated, and we explore the relationships in detail. Among other things, we show that: (a) Volatility dependence produces sign dependence, so long as expected returns are nonzero, so that one should expect sign dependence, given the overwhelming evidence of volatility dependence; (b) The standard finding of little or no conditional mean dependence is entirely consistent with a significant degree of sign dependence and volatility dependence; (c) Sign dependence is not likely to be found via analysis of sign autocorrelations, runs tests, or traditional market timing tests, because of the special nonlinear nature of sign dependence; (d) Sign dependence is not likely to be found in very high-frequency (e.g., daily) or very low-frequency (e.g., annual) returns; instead, it is more likely to be found at intermediate return horizons; (e) Sign dependence is very much present in actual U.S. equity returns, and its properties match closely our theoretical predictions; (f) The link between volatility forecastability and sign forecastability remains intact in conditionally non-Gaussian environments, as for example with time-varying conditional skewness and/or kurtosis

Modelling and forecasting the kurtosis and returns distributions of financial markets: irrational fractional Brownian motion model approach

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link. Open accessThis paper reports a new methodology and results on the forecast of the numerical value of the fat tail(s) in asset returns distributions using the irrational fractional Brownian motion model. Optimal model parameter values are obtained from fits to consecutive daily 2-year period returns of S&P500 index over [1950–2016], generating 33-time series estimations. Through an econometric model,the kurtosis of returns distributions is modelled as a function of these parameters. Subsequently an auto-regressive analysis on these parameters advances the modelling and forecasting of kurtosis and returns distributions, providing the accurate shape of returns distributions and measurement of Value at Risk

Financial Asset Returns, Market Timing, and Volatility Dynamics

We consider three sets of phenomena that feature prominently and separately in the financial economics literature: conditional mean dependence (or lack thereof) in asset returns, dependence (and hence forecastability) in asset return signs with implications for market timing, and dependence (and hence forecastability) in asset return volatilities. We show that they are very much interrelated, and we explore the relationships in detail. Among other things, we show that: (1) Volatility dependence produces sign dependence, so long as expected returns are nonzero. Hence one should expect sign dependence, given the overwhelming evidence of volatility dependence. (2) The standard finding of little or no conditional mean dependence is entirely consistent with a significant degree of sign dependence and volatility dependence. In particular, sign dependence does not imply market inefficiency. (3) Sign dependence is not likely to be found via analysis of sign autocorrelations, because the nature of sign dependence is highly nonlinear. (4) Sign dependence is not likely to be found in very high-frequency (e.g., daily) or very low-frequency (e.g., annual) returns. Instead, it is more likely to be found at intermediate return horizons. Nous considérons trois ensembles de phénomènes qui sont souvent - et séparément - discutés dans la littérature d'économie financière, à savoir la dépendance de la moyenne conditionnelle (ou l'absence de dépendance) dans les rendements d'actifs, la dépendance (et donc prévisibilité) des signes de rendements d'actifs ainsi que leurs implications dans le timing du marché, et la dépendance (et donc prévisibilité) dans les volatilités des rendements d'actifs. Nous montrons que ces phénomènes sont étroitement interreliés et nous explorons leurs relations en détail. Entre autres, nous montrons que : 1) la dépendance de la volatilité produit une dépendance du signe tant que les rendements attendus sont non nuls. On devrait par conséquent s attendre à une dépendance du signe, étant donné la présence notoire de dépendance de volatilité; 2) le résultat classique qui ne trouve que peu ou pas de dépendance de la moyenne conditionnelle est parfaitement compatible avec un degré significatif de dépendance de signe et de dépendance de volatilité. En particulier, la dépendance de signe n'implique pas une inefficacité du marché; 3) Il est peu probable qu'une analyse des autocorrélations de signes révèle une dépendance de signe, parce que la nature de la dépendance du signe est fortement non linéaire; 4) il est également peu probable que l'on retrouve une dépendance de signe dans des rendements à très haute fréquence (par exemple quotidiens) ou à très basse fréquence (par exemple annuels). Il est plus probable qu'on la trouve avec des horizons de rendements intermédiaires.Sign prediction, direction of change, volatility timing, investment horizon, prédiction des signes, direction de changement, timing de la volatilité, horizon d'investissement

Financial Asset Returns, Direction-of-Change Forecasting, and Volatility Dynamics

We consider three sets of phenomena that feature prominently - and separately - in the financial economics literature: conditional mean dependence (or lack thereof) in asset returns, dependence (and hence forecastability) in asset return signs, and dependence (and hence forecastability) in asset return volatilities. We show that they are very much interrelated, and we explore the relationships in detail. Among other things, we show that (a) Volatility dependence produces sign dependence, so long as expected returns are nonzero, so that one should expect sign dependence, given the overwhelming evidence of volatility dependence; (b) The standard finding of little or no conditional mean dependence is entirely consistent with a significant degree of sign dependence and volatility dependence; (c) Sign dependence is not likely to be found via analysis of sign autocorrelations, runs tests, or traditional market timing tests, because of the special nonlinear nature of sign dependence; (d) Sign dependence is not likely to be found in very high-frequency (e.g., daily) or very low-frequency (e.g., annual) returns; instead, it is more likely to be found at intermediate return horizons; (e) Sign dependence is very much present in actual U.S. equity returns, and its properties match closely our theoretical predictions; (f) The link between volatility forecastability and sign forecastability remains intact in conditionally non-Gaussian environments, as for example with time-varying conditional skewness and/or kurtosis.Conditional Mean Dependence, Conditional Volatility Dependence, Sign Dependence, VIX

Financial Asset Returns, Direction-of-Change Forecasting, and Volatility Dynamics

We consider three sets of phenomena that feature prominently and separately in the financial economics literature: conditional mean dependence (or lack thereof) in asset returns, dependence (and hence forecastability) in asset return signs, and dependence (and hence forecastability) in asset return volatilities. We show that they are very much interrelated, and we explore the relationships in detail. Among other things, we show that: (a) Volatility dependence produces sign dependence, so long as expected returns are nonzero, so that one should expect sign dependence, given the overwhelming evidence of volatility dependence; (b) The standard finding of little or no conditional mean dependence is entirely consistent with a significant degree of sign dependence and volatility dependence; (c) Sign dependence is not likely to be found via analysis of sign autocorrelations, runs tests, or traditional market timing tests, because of the special nonlinear nature of sign dependence; (d) Sign dependence is not likely to be found in very high-frequency (e.g., daily) or very low-frequency (e.g., annual) returns; instead, it is more likely to be found at intermediate return horizons; (e) Sign dependence is very much present in actual U.S. equity returns, and its properties match closely our theoretical predictions; (f) The link between volatility forecastability and sign forecastability remains intact in conditionally non-Gaussian environments, as for example with time-varying conditional skewness and/or kurtosis.

Bayesian forecasting and scalable multivariate volatility analysis using simultaneous graphical dynamic models

The recently introduced class of simultaneous graphical dynamic linear models (SGDLMs) defines an ability to scale on-line Bayesian analysis and forecasting to higher-dimensional time series. This paper advances the methodology of SGDLMs, developing and embedding a novel, adaptive method of simultaneous predictor selection in forward filtering for on-line learning and forecasting. The advances include developments in Bayesian computation for scalability, and a case study in exploring the resulting potential for improved short-term forecasting of large-scale volatility matrices. A case study concerns financial forecasting and portfolio optimization with a 400-dimensional series of daily stock prices. Analysis shows that the SGDLM forecasts volatilities and co-volatilities well, making it ideally suited to contributing to quantitative investment strategies to improve portfolio returns. We also identify performance metrics linked to the sequential Bayesian filtering analysis that turn out to define a leading indicator of increased financial market stresses, comparable to but leading the standard St. Louis Fed Financial Stress Index (STLFSI) measure. Parallel computation using GPU implementations substantially advance the ability to fit and use these models.Comment: 28 pages, 9 figures, 7 table

High-Frequency and Model-Free Volatility Estimators

This paper focuses on volatility of financial markets, which is one of the most important issues in finance, especially with regard to modeling high-frequency data. Risk management, asset pricing and option valuation techniques are the areas where the concept of volatility estimators (consistent, unbiased and the most efficient) is of crucial concern. Our intention was to find the best estimator of true volatility taking into account the latest investigations in finance literature. Basing on the methodology presented in Parkinson (1980), Garman and Klass (1980), Rogers and Satchell (1991), Yang and Zhang (2000), Andersen et al. (1997, 1998, 1999a, 199b), Hansen and Lunde (2005, 2006b) and Martens (2007), we computed the various model-free volatility estimators and compared them with classical volatility estimator, most often used in financial models. In order to reveal the information set hidden in high-frequency data, we utilized the concept of realized volatility and realized range. Calculating our estimator, we carefully focused on Δ (the interval used in calculation), n (the memory of the process) and q (scaling factor for scaled estimators). Our results revealed that the appropriate selection of Δ and n plays a crucial role when we try to answer the question concerning the estimator efficiency, as well as its accuracy. Having nine estimators of volatility, we found that for optimal n (measured in days) and Δ (in minutes) we obtain the most efficient estimator. Our findings confirmed that the best estimator should include information contained not only in closing prices but in the price range as well (range estimators). What is more important, we focused on the properties of the formula itself, independently of the interval used, comparing the estimator with the same Δ, n and q parameter. We observed that the formula of volatility estimator is not as important as the process of selection of the optimal parameter n or Δ. Finally, we focused on the asymmetry between market turmoil and adjustments of volatility. Next, we put stress on the implications of our results for well-known financial models which utilize classical volatility estimator as the main input variable.financial market volatility, high-frequency financial data, realized volatility and correlation, volatility forecasting, microstructure bias, the opening jump effect, the bid-ask bounce, autocovariance bias, daily patterns of volatility, emerging markets