Volatility puzzles: a simple framework for gauging return-volatility regressions
Introduction
Following the realization in the late 1980s that financial market volatility is both time-varying and predictable, empirical investigations into the temporal linkages between aggregate stock market volatility and returns have figured very prominently in the literature. Of course, volatility per se is not directly observable, and several different volatility proxies have been employed in empirically assessing the linkages, including (i) model-based procedures that explicitly parameterize the volatility process as an ARCH or stochastic volatility model, (ii) direct market-based realized volatilities constructed by the summation of intra-period higher-frequency squared returns, and (iii) forward looking market-based implied volatilities inferred from options prices (see Andersen et al., 2004, for further discussion of the various volatility concepts and procedures). Meanwhile, a cursory read of the burgeoning volatility literature reveals a perplexing set of results, with the sign and the size of the reported volatility-return relationships differing significantly across competing studies and procedures.
Building on the popular Heston (1993) one-factor stochastic volatility model, the present paper provides a simple theoretical framework for reconciling these conflicting empirical findings. Specifically, by postulating a parametric volatility model for the dynamic dependencies in the underlying returns, we show how the sign and the magnitude of the linear relationships between (i) the contemporaneous returns and the market-based volatilities, which we refer to as the volatility feedback effect, (ii) the lagged returns and the current market-based volatilities, which we refer to as the leverage effect, and (iii) the two different market-based volatilities, which we refer to as the implied volatility forecasting bias, all depend importantly on the parameters of the underlying structural model and the stochastic volatility risk premium.
The classical Intertemporal CAPM (ICAPM) model of Merton (1980) implies that the excess return on the aggregate market portfolio should be positively and directly proportionally related to the volatility of the market (see also Pindyck, 1984). This volatility feedback effect also underlies the ARCH-M model originally developed by Engle et al. (1987). However, empirical applications of the ARCH-M, and related stochastic volatility models, have met with mixed success. Some studies (see e.g., French et al., 1987, Chou, 1988, Campbell and Hentschel, 1992, Bali and Peng, 2003, Guo and Whitelaw, 2003, Ghysels et al., 2004) have reported consistently positive and significant estimates of the risk premium, while others (see, e.g., Campbell, 1987, Turner et al., 1989, Breen et al., 1989, Chou et al., 1992, Glosten et al., 1993, Lettau and Ludvigson, 2004) document negative values, unstable signs, or otherwise insignificant estimates. Moreover, the contemporaneous risk-return tradeoff appears sensitive to the use of ARCH as opposed to stochastic volatility formulations (Koopman and Uspensky, 2002), the length of the return horizon (Harrison and Zhang, 1999), along with the instruments and conditioning information used in empirically estimating the relationship (Harvey, 2001, Brandt and Kang, 2004). As we show below, these conflicting results are not necessarily inconsistent with the basic ICAPM model, in that the risk-return tradeoff relationship depends importantly on the particular volatility measure employed in the empirical investigations.1
The so-called leverage effect, which predicts a negative correlation between current returns and future volatilities, was first discussed by Black (1976) and Christie (1982). The effect (and the name) may (in part) be attributed to a chain of events according to which a negative return causes an increase in the debt-to-equity ratio, in turn resulting in an increase in the future volatility of the return to equity.2 Empirical evidence along these lines generally confirms that aggregate market volatility responds asymmetrically to negative and positive returns, but the economic magnitude is often small and not always statistically significant (e.g., Schwert, 1990, Nelson, 1991, Gallant et al., 1992, Glosten et al., 1993, Engle and Ng, 1993, Duffee, 1995, Bekaert and Wu, 2000). Moreover, the evidence tends to be weaker for individual stocks (e.g., Tauchen et al., 1996, Andersen et al., 2001). Importantly, the magnitude also depends on the volatility proxy employed in the estimation, with options implied volatilities generally exhibiting much more pronounced asymmetry (e.g., Bates, 2000, Wu and Xiao, 2002, Eraker, 2004).
A closely related issue concerns the bias in options implied volatilities as forecasts of the corresponding future realized volatilities. An extensive literature has documented that the market-based expectations embedded in options prices generally exceed the realized volatilities resulting in positive intercepts and slope coefficients less than unity in regression-based unbiasedness tests (see, e.g., Canina and Figlewski, 1993, Christensen and Prabhala, 1998, Day and Lewis, 1992, Fleming et al., 1995, Fleming, 1998, Lamoureux and Lastrapes, 1993, along with the recent survey in Poon and Granger, 2003). As formally shown in the recent studies by Chernov (2002), Pan (2002), and Bates (2003), this bias is intimately related to the market price of volatility risk, and some of our theoretical results in regards to the implied volatility forecasting bias parallel the developments in these concurrent studies.
Our theoretical results are based on the one-factor continuous-time stochastic volatility model popularized by Heston (1993), which explicitly assumes that the stochastic volatility premium is linear. This in turn allows us to utilize various closed form expressions for the conditional moments previously derived by Andersen et al. (2004) and Bollerslev and Zhou (2002). Although the exact relationship and implication derived in this paper may not hold for other more complicated model structures, the basic idea could in principle be generalized to cases of multiple volatility factors and jumps and/or non-linear volatility premia, albeit at the expense of considerable notational and computational complexity (see e.g., Andersen et al., 2002, Eraker et al., 2003, Chernov et al., 2003). Interestingly however, the theoretical results for the relatively simple one-factor affine Heston model turn out to be rich enough to explain the apparent conflicting empirical findings in regards to the monthly return-volatility regressions for the S&P500 aggregate market index and corresponding realized and implied volatilities.
The plan for the rest of the paper is as follows. Section 2 starts out by a discussion of the basic model structure, followed by the theoretical predictions related to the volatility feedback effect, the leverage effect, and the implied volatility forecasting bias, respectively. Section 3 provides confirmatory empirical evidence based on a thirteen-year sample of monthly returns, and high-frequency-based realized and implied volatilities for the Standard & Poor's composite index. Section 4 concludes. All of the derivations are given in a technical Appendix.
Section snippets
Theoretical model structure
Let denote the time-t logarithmic price of the risky asset, or portfolio. The one-factor continuous-time affine stochastic volatility model of Heston (1993) then postulates the following dynamics for the instantaneous returns,where the latent stochastic volatility, , is assumed to follow a square-root process. Empirical model estimates generally point to a negative instantaneous correlation between the two separate Brownian motions
Empirical illustration
Our empirical analysis is based on monthly returns and volatilities for the S&P500 composite index spanning the period from January 1990 through February 2002.14
Conclusion
The continuous-time framework developed in this paper for assessing the linkages between discretely observed returns and realized and implied volatilities help explain a number of puzzling findings in the extant empirical literature. In particular, we show that whereas the sign of the correlation between return and implied volatility is unambiguously positive, the correlation between contemporaneous return and realized volatility is generally undetermined. Similarly, the lagged
Acknowledgements
The work of Bollerslev was supported by a grant from the NSF to the NBER. We would like to thank Jim Clouse, Frank Diebold, Mike Gibson, George Jiang, Nour Meddahi, Neil Shephard, George Tauchen, Rossen Valkanov, along with seminar participants in the University of Arizona, the Symposium of New Frontiers in Financial Volatility Modeling (Florence, Italy), Federal Reserve Board, and the Realized Volatility Conference (Montreal, Canada) for their helpful comments and suggestions. Matthew Chesnes
References (70)
Stock prices under time-varying dividend riskan exact solution in an infinite-horizon general equilibrium model
Journal of Monetary Economics
(1988)- et al.
The distribution of realized stock return volatility
Journal of Financial Economics
(2001) Post-’87 crash fears in the S&P futures option market
Journal of Econometrics
(2000)Empirical option pricinga retrospection
Journal of Econometrics
(2003)- et al.
Estimating stochastic volatility diffusion using conditional moments of integrated volatility
Journal of Econometrics
(2002) - et al.
ARCH modeling in finance
Journal of Econometrics
(1992) Stock returns and the term structure
Journal of Financial Economics
(1987)- et al.
No news is good newsan asymmetric model of changing volatility in stock returns
Journal of Financial Economics
(1992) - et al.
Alternative models for stock price dynamics
Journal of Econometrics
(2003) - et al.
Measuring risk aversion from excess returns on a stock index
Journal of Econometrics
(1992)
The relation between implied and realized volatility
Journal of Financial Economics
The stochastic behavior of common stock variances—value, leverage and interest rate effects
Journal of Financial Economics
Stock market volatility and the information content of stock index options
Journal of Econometrics
Stock returns and volatilitya firm-level analysis
Journal of Financial Economics
The quality of market volatility forecasts implied by S&P 100 index option prices
Journal of Empirical Finance
The specification of conditional expectations
Journal of Empirical Finance
On estimating the expected return on the market
Journal of Financial Economics
The jump-risk premia implicit in optionsevidence from an integrated time-series study
Journal of Financial Economics
Volume, volatility, and leveragea dynamic analysis
Journal of Econometrics
A Markov model of heteroskedasticity, risk, and learning in the stock market
Journal of Financial Economics
A generalized partially linear model of asymmetric volatility
Journal of Empirical Finance
An empirical investigation of continuous-time equity return models
Journal of Finance
Theoretical relations between risk premiums and conditional variance
Journal of Business and Economic Statistics
Asymmetric volatility and risk in equity markets
Review of Financial Studies
Cited by (165)
The volume-implied volatility relation in financial markets: A behavioral explanation
2024, North American Journal of Economics and FinanceThe international linkages of market risk perception
2024, Journal of Multinational Financial ManagementVolatility feedback effect and risk-return tradeoff
2023, Quarterly Review of Economics and FinanceThe role of uncertainty in forecasting volatility comovements across stock markets
2023, Economic Modelling