Bias in the estimation of non‐linear transformations of the integrated variance of returns

Volatility models such as GARCH, although misspecified with respect to the data‐generating process, may well generate volatility forecasts that are unconditionally unbiased. In other words, they generate variance forecasts that, on average, are equal to the integrated variance. However, many applications in finance require a measure of return volatility that is a non‐linear function of the variance of returns, rather than of the variance itself. Even if a volatility model generates forecasts of the integrated variance that are unbiased, non‐linear transformations of these forecasts will be biased estimators of the same non‐linear transformations of the integrated variance because of Jensen's inequality. In this paper, we derive an analytical approximation for the unconditional bias of estimators of non‐linear transformations of the integrated variance. This bias is a function of the volatility of the forecast variance and the volatility of the integrated variance, and depends on the concavity of the non‐linear transformation. In order to estimate the volatility of the unobserved integrated variance, we employ recent results from the realized volatility literature. As an illustration, we estimate the unconditional bias for both in‐sample and out‐of‐sample forecasts of three non‐linear transformations of the integrated standard deviation of returns for three exchange rate return series, where a GARCH(1, 1) model is used to forecast the integrated variance. Our estimation results suggest that, in practice, the bias can be substantial. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Optimal sampling frequency for volatility forecast models for the Indian stock markets

This paper evaluates the performance of conditional variance models using high‐frequency data of the National Stock Index (S&P CNX NIFTY) and attempts to determine the optimal sampling frequency for the best daily volatility forecast. A linear combination of the realized volatilities calculated at two different frequencies is used as benchmark to evaluate the volatility forecasting ability of the conditional variance models (GARCH (1, 1)) at different sampling frequencies. From the analysis, it is found that sampling at 30 minutes gives the best forecast for daily volatility. The forecasting ability of these models is deteriorated, however, by the non‐normal property of mean adjusted returns, which is an assumption in conditional variance models. Nevertheless, the optimum frequency remained the same even in the case of different models (EGARCH and PARCH) and different error distribution (generalized error distribution, GED) where the error is reduced to a certain extent by incorporating the asymmetric effect on volatility. Our analysis also suggests that GARCH models with GED innovations or EGRACH and PARCH models would give better estimates of volatility with lower forecast error estimates. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Modeling and forecasting aggregate stock market volatility in unstable environments using mixture innovation regressions

We perform Bayesian model averaging across different regressions selected from a set of predictors that includes lags of realized volatility, financial and macroeconomic variables. In our model average, we entertain different channels of instability by either incorporating breaks in the regression coefficients of each individual model within our model average, breaks in the conditional error variance, or both. Changes in these parameters are driven by mixture distributions for state innovations (MIA) of linear Gaussian state‐space models. This framework allows us to compare models that assume small and frequent as well as models that assume large but rare changes in the conditional mean and variance parameters. Results using S&P 500 monthly and quarterly realized volatility data from 1960 to 2014 suggest that Bayesian model averaging in combination with breaks in the regression coefficients and the error variance through MIA dynamics generates statistically significantly more accurate forecasts than the benchmark autoregressive model. However, compared to a MIA autoregression with breaks in the regression coefficients and the error variance, we fail to provide any drastic improvements.     

Forecasting exchange rate volatility: a multiple horizon comparison using historical,realized and implied volatility measures

Recent studies suggest realized volatility provides forecasts that are as good as option‐implied volatilities, with improvement stemming from the use of high‐frequency data instead of a long‐memory specification. This paper examines whether volatility persistence can be captured by a longer dataset consisting of over 15 years of intra‐day data. Volatility forecasts are evaluated using four exchange rates (AUD/USD, EUR/USD, GBP/USD, USD/JPY) over horizons ranging from 1 day to 3 months, using an expanded set of short‐range and long‐range dependence models. The empirical results provide additional evidence that significant incremental information is found in historical forecasts, beyond the implied volatility information for all forecast horizons. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Forecasts for leverage heterogeneous autoregressive models with jumps and other covariates

For leverage heterogeneous autoregressive (LHAR) models with jumps and other covariates, called LHARX models, multistep forecasts are derived. Some optimal properties of forecasts in terms of conditional volatilities are discussed, which tells us to model conditional volatility for return but not for the LHARX regression error and other covariates. Forecast standard errors are constructed for which we need to model conditional volatilities both for return and for LHAR regression error and other blue covariates. The proposed methods are well illustrated by forecast analysis for the realized volatilities of the US stock price indexes: the S&P 500, the NASDAQ, the DJIA, and the RUSSELL indexes.     

Volatility Forecasting via MIDAS,HAR and their Combination: An Empirical Comparative Study for IBOVESPA

In this paper we compare several multi‐period volatility forecasting models, specifically from MIDAS and HAR families. We perform our comparisons in terms of out‐of‐sample volatility forecasting accuracy. We also consider combinations of the models' forecasts. Using intra‐daily returns of the BOVESPA index, we calculate volatility measures such as realized variance, realized power variation and realized bipower variation to be used as regressors in both models. Further, we use a nonparametric procedure for separately measuring the continuous sample path variation and the discontinuous jump part of the quadratic variation process. Thus MIDAS and HAR specifications with the continuous sample path and jump variability measures as separate regressors are estimated. Our results in terms of mean squared error suggest that regressors involving volatility measures which are robust to jumps (i.e. realized bipower variation and realized power variation) are better at forecasting future volatility. However, we find that, in general, the forecasts based on these regressors are not statistically different from those based on realized variance (the benchmark regressor). Moreover, we find that, in general, the relative forecasting performances of the three approaches (i.e. MIDAS, HAR and forecast combinations) are statistically equivalent. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Evaluating volatility and interval forecasts

A widely used approach to evaluating volatility forecasts uses a regression framework which measures the bias and variance of the forecast. We show that the associated test for bias is inappropriate before introducing a more suitable procedure which is based on the test for bias in a conditional mean forecast. Although volatility has been the most common measure of the variability in a financial time series, in many situations confidence interval forecasts are required. We consider the evaluation of interval forecasts and present a regression‐based procedure which uses quantile regression to assess quantile estimator bias and variance. We use exchange rate data to illustrate the proposal by evaluating seven quantile estimators, one of which is a new non‐parametric autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity quantile estimator. The empirical analysis shows that the new evaluation procedure provides useful insight into the quality of quantile estimators. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Evaluating the predictive accuracy of volatility models

Standard statistical loss functions, such as mean‐squared error, are commonly used for evaluating financial volatility forecasts. In this paper, an alternative evaluation framework, based on probability scoring rules that can be more closely tailored to a forecast user's decision problem, is proposed. According to the decision at hand, the user specifies the economic events to be forecast, the scoring rule with which to evaluate these probability forecasts, and the subsets of the forecasts of particular interest. The volatility forecasts from a model are then transformed into probability forecasts of the relevant events and evaluated using the selected scoring rule and calibration tests. An empirical example using exchange rate data illustrates the framework and confirms that the choice of loss function directly affects the forecast evaluation results. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Daily volatility forecasts: reassessing the performance of GARCH models

Volatility plays a key role in asset and portfolio management and derivatives pricing. As such, accurate measures and good forecasts of volatility are crucial for the implementation and evaluation of asset and derivative pricing models in addition to trading and hedging strategies. However, whilst GARCH models are able to capture the observed clustering effect in asset price volatility in‐sample, they appear to provide relatively poor out‐of‐sample forecasts. Recent research has suggested that this relative failure of GARCH models arises not from a failure of the model but a failure to specify correctly the ‘true volatility’ measure against which forecasting performance is measured. It is argued that the standard approach of using ex post daily squared returns as the measure of ‘true volatility’ includes a large noisy component. An alternative measure for ‘true volatility’ has therefore been suggested, based upon the cumulative squared returns from intra‐day data. This paper implements that technique and reports that, in a dataset of 17 daily exchange rate series, the GARCH model outperforms smoothing and moving average techniques which have been previously identified as providing superior volatility forecasts. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Forecasting volatility

In this paper, we investigate the time series properties of S&P 100 volatility and the forecasting performance of different volatility models. We consider several nonparametric and parametric volatility measures, such as implied, realized and model‐based volatility, and show that these volatility processes exhibit an extremely slow mean‐reverting behavior and possible long memory. For this reason, we explicitly model the near‐unit root behavior of volatility and construct median unbiased forecasts by approximating the finite‐sample forecast distribution using bootstrap methods. Furthermore, we produce prediction intervals for the next‐period implied volatility that provide important information about the uncertainty surrounding the point forecasts. Finally, we apply intercept corrections to forecasts from misspecified models which dramatically improve the accuracy of the volatility forecasts. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A Multiplicative Error Model with Heterogeneous Components for Forecasting Realized Volatility

To forecast realized volatility, this paper introduces a multiplicative error model that incorporates heterogeneous components: weekly and monthly realized volatility measures. While the model captures the long‐memory property, estimation simply proceeds using quasi‐maximum likelihood estimation. This paper investigates its forecasting ability using the realized kernels of 34 different assets provided by the Oxford‐Man Institute's Realized Library. The model outperforms benchmark models such as ARFIMA, HAR, Log‐HAR and HEAVY‐RM in within‐sample fitting and out‐of‐sample (1‐, 10‐ and 22‐step) forecasts. It performed best in both pointwise and cumulative comparisons of multi‐step‐ahead forecasts, regardless of loss function (QLIKE or MSE). Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Role of High‐Frequency Intra‐daily Data,Daily Range and Implied Volatility in Multi‐period Value‐at‐Risk Forecasting

This paper assesses the informational content of alternative realized volatility estimators, daily range and implied volatility in multi‐period out‐of‐sample Value‐at‐Risk (VaR) predictions. We use the recently proposed Realized GARCH model combined with the skewed Student's t distribution for the innovations process and a Monte Carlo simulation approach in order to produce the multi‐period VaR estimates. Our empirical findings, based on the S&P 500 stock index, indicate that almost all realized and implied volatility measures can produce statistically and regulatory precise VaR forecasts across forecasting horizons, with the implied volatility being especially accurate in monthly VaR forecasts. The daily range produces inferior forecasting results in terms of regulatory accuracy and Basel II compliance. However, robust realized volatility measures, which are immune against microstructure noise bias or price jumps, generate superior VaR estimates in terms of capital efficiency, as they minimize the opportunity cost of capital and the Basel II regulatory capital. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The maximum and minimum of primary forecasts

The purpose of this paper is to suggest that the maximum (or minimum) of a number of primary forecasts may make a valuable addition to the forecasting accuracy of a combination of forecasts. Such forecasts are readily computable. Theoretical results are presented for two unbiased forecasts with correlated normally distributed errors, showing that the maximum (minimum) of two forecasts can have a smaller error variance than either of the primary forecasts and the forecast error can have low correlation with the primary errors. Empirical results are obtained for two different sets of forecasts available in the literature, and it is observed that a combination forecast including the maximum and/or minimum has attractive forecasting properties.     

Sources of error in forecasts and expectations: U.K. economic models, 1984–8

This paper presents a comparative analysis of the sources of error in forecasts for the UK economy published over a recent four-year period by four independent groups. This analysis rests on the archiving at the ESRC Macroeconomic Modelling Bureau of the original forecasts together with all their accompanying assumptions and adjustments. A method of decomposing observed forecast errors so as to distinguish the contributions of forecaster and model is set out; the impact of future expectations treated in a ‘model-consistent’ or ‘rational’ manner is specifically considered. The results show that the forecaster's adjustments make a substantial contribution to forecast performance, a good part of which comes from adjustments that bring the model on track at the start of the forecast period. The published ex-ante forecasts are usually superior to pure model-based ex-post forecasts, whose performance indicates some misspecification of the underlying models.     

A high–low model of daily stock price ranges

We observe that daily highs and lows of stock prices do not diverge over time and, hence, adopt the cointegration concept and the related vector error correction model (VECM) to model the daily high, the daily low, and the associated daily range data. The in‐sample results attest to the importance of incorporating high–low interactions in modeling the range variable. In evaluating the out‐of‐sample forecast performance using both mean‐squared forecast error and direction of change criteria, it is found that the VECM‐based low and high forecasts offer some advantages over alternative forecasts. The VECM‐based range forecasts, on the other hand, do not always dominate—the forecast rankings depend on the choice of evaluation criterion and the variables being forecast. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Volatility forecasting for risk management

Recent research has suggested that forecast evaluation on the basis of standard statistical loss functions could prefer models which are sub‐optimal when used in a practical setting. This paper explores a number of statistical models for predicting the daily volatility of several key UK financial time series. The out‐of‐sample forecasting performance of various linear and GARCH‐type models of volatility are compared with forecasts derived from a multivariate approach. The forecasts are evaluated using traditional metrics, such as mean squared error, and also by how adequately they perform in a modern risk management setting. We find that the relative accuracies of the various methods are highly sensitive to the measure used to evaluate them. Such results have implications for any econometric time series forecasts which are subsequently employed in financial decision making. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Forecasting Daily Variations of Stock Index Returns with a Multifractal Model of Realized Volatility

Multifractal models have recently been introduced as a new type of data‐generating process for asset returns and other financial data. Here we propose an adaptation of this model for realized volatility. We estimate this new model via generalized method of moments and perform forecasting by means of best linear forecasts derived via the Levinson–Durbin algorithm. Its out‐of‐sample performance is compared against other popular time series specifications. Using an intra‐day dataset for five major international stock market indices, we find that the the multifractal model for realized volatility improves upon forecasts of its earlier counterparts based on daily returns and of many other volatility models. While the more traditional RV‐ARFIMA model comes out as the most successful model (in terms of the number of cases in which it has the best forecasts for all combinations of forecast horizons and evaluation criteria), the new model performs often significantly better during the turbulent times of the recent financial crisis. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Model specification and forecasting foreign exchange rates with vector autoregressions

This study examines the forecasting accuracy of alternative vector autoregressive models each in a seven‐variable system that comprises in turn of daily, weekly and monthly foreign exchange (FX) spot rates. The vector autoregressions (VARs) are in non‐stationary, stationary and error‐correction forms and are estimated using OLS. The imposition of Bayesian priors in the OLS estimations also allowed us to obtain another set of results. We find that there is some tendency for the Bayesian estimation method to generate superior forecast measures relatively to the OLS method. This result holds whether or not the data sets contain outliers. Also, the best forecasts under the non‐stationary specification outperformed those of the stationary and error‐correction specifications, particularly at long forecast horizons, while the best forecasts under the stationary and error‐correction specifications are generally similar. The findings for the OLS forecasts are consistent with recent simulation results. The predictive ability of the VARs is very weak. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Professional economic forecasts: Are they worth their costs?

Most economic forecast evaluations dating back 20 years show that professional forecasters add little to the forecasts generated by the simplest of models. Using various types of forecast error criteria, these evaluations usually conclude that the professional forecasts are little better than the no-change or ARIM A type forecast. It is our contention that this conclusion is mistaken because the conventional error criteria may not capture why forecasts are ma& or how they are used. Using forecast directional accuracy, the criterion which has been found to be highly correlated with profits in an interest rate setting, we find that professional GNP forecasts dominate the cheaper alternatives. Moreover, there appears to be no systematic relationship between this preferred criterion and the error measures used in previous studies.     

On the Benefits of Equicorrelation for Portfolio Allocation

The importance of modelling correlation has long been recognised in the field of portfolio management, with large‐dimensional multivariate problems increasingly becoming the focus of research. This paper provides a straightforward and commonsense approach toward investigating a number of models used to generate forecasts of the correlation matrix for large‐dimensional problems. We find evidence in favour of assuming equicorrelation across various portfolio sizes, particularly during times of crisis. During periods of market calm, however, the suitability of the constant conditional correlation model cannot be discounted, especially for large portfolios. A portfolio allocation problem is used to compare forecasting methods. The global minimum variance portfolio and Model Confidence Set are used to compare methods, while portfolio weight stability and relative economic value are also considered. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.