Particle emissions, volatility, and toxicity from an ethanol fumigated compression ignition engine

Particle emissions, volatility, and the concentration of reactive oxygen species (ROS) were investigated for a pre-Euro I compression ignition engine to study the potential health impacts of employing ethanol fumigation technology. Engine testing was performed in two separate experimental campaigns with most testing performed at intermediate speed with four different load settings and various ethanol substitutions. A scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) was used to determine particle size distributions, a volatilization tandem differential mobility analyzer (V-TDMA) was used to explore particle volatility, and a new profluorescent nitroxide probe, BPEAnit, was used to investigate the potential toxicity of particles. The greatest particulate mass reduction was achieved with ethanol fumigation at full load, which contributed to the formation of a nucleation mode. Ethanol fumigation increased the volatility of particles by coating the particles with organic material or by making extra organic material available as an external mixture. In addition, the particle-related ROS concentrations increased with ethanol fumigation and were associated with the formation of a nucleation mode. The smaller particles, the increased volatility, and the increase in potential particle toxicity with ethanol fumigation may provide a substantial barrier for the uptake of fumigation technology using ethanol as a supplementary fuel.

Are combination forecasts of S&P 500 volatility statistically superior?

Forecasting volatility has received a great deal of research attention, with the relative performances of econometric model based and option implied volatility forecasts often being considered. While many studies find that implied volatility is the pre-ferred approach, a number of issues remain unresolved, including the relative merit of combining forecasts and whether the relative performances of various forecasts are statistically different. By utilising recent econometric advances, this paper considers whether combination forecasts of S&P 500 volatility are statistically superior to a wide range of model based forecasts and implied volatility. It is found that a combination of model based forecasts is the dominant approach, indicating that the implied volatility cannot simply be viewed as a combination of various model based forecasts. Therefore, while often viewed as a superior volatility forecast, the implied volatility is in fact an inferior forecast of S&P 500 volatility relative to model-based forecasts.

Yield-factor volatility models

The term structure of interest rates is often summarized using a handful of yield factors that capture shifts in the shape of the yield curve. In this paper, we develop a comprehensive model for volatility dynamics in the level, slope, and curvature of the yield curve that simultaneously includes level and GARCH effects along with regime shifts. We show that the level of the short rate is useful in modeling the volatility of the three yield factors and that there are significant GARCH effects present even after including a level effect. Further, we find that allowing for regime shifts in the factor volatilities dramatically improves the model’s fit and strengthens the level effect. We also show that a regime-switching model with level and GARCH effects provides the best out-of-sample forecasting performance of yield volatility. We argue that the auxiliary models often used to estimate term structure models with simulation-based estimation techniques should be consistent with the main features of the yield curve that are identified by our model.

The jump component of S&P 500 volatility and the VIX index

Much research has investigated the differences between option implied volatilities and econometric model-based forecasts. Implied volatility is a market determined forecast, in contrast to model-based forecasts that employ some degree of smoothing of past volatility to generate forecasts. Implied volatility has the potential to reflect information that a model-based forecast could not. This paper considers two issues relating to the informational content of the S&P 500 VIX implied volatility index. First, whether it subsumes information on how historical jump activity contributed to the price volatility, followed by whether the VIX reflects any incremental information pertaining to future jump activity relative to model-based forecasts. It is found that the VIX index both subsumes information relating to past jump contributions to total volatility and reflects incremental information pertaining to future jump activity. This issue has not been examined previously and expands our understanding of how option markets form their volatility forecasts.

Alternative explanations of the volatility trend : Are they really that different?

We analyse the puzzling behavior of the volatility of individual stock returns around the turn of the Millennium. There has been much academic interest in this topic, but no convincing explanation has arisen. Our goal is to pull together the many competing explanations currently proposed in the literature to delermine which, if any, are capable of explaining the volatility trend. We find that many of the different explanations capture the same unusual trend around the Millennium. We find that many of the variables are very highly correlated and it is thus difficult to disentangle their relalive ability to exlplain the time-series behavior in volatility. It seems thai all of the variables that track average volatility well do so mainly by capturing changes in the post-1994 period. These variables have no time-series explanatory power in the pre-1995 years, questioning the underlying idea that any of the explanations currently plesented in the literature can track the trend in volatility over long periods.

The relationship between implied and realized volatility : evidence from the Australian stock index option market

This paper examines the relationship between the volatility implied in option prices and the subsequently realized volatility by using the S&P/ASX 200 index options (XJO) traded on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) during a period of 5 years. Unlike stock index options such as the S&P 100 index options in the US market, the S&P/ASX 200 index options are traded infrequently and in low volumes, and have a long maturity cycle. Thus an errors-in-variables problem for measurement of implied volatility is more likely to exist. After accounting for this problem by instrumental variable method, it is found that both call and put implied volatilities are superior to historical volatility in forecasting future realized volatility. Moreover, implied call volatility is nearly an unbiased forecast of future volatility.

Comparing different explanations of the volatility trend

We analyze the puzzling behavior of the volatility of individual stock returns over the past few decades. The literature has provided many different explanations to the trend in volatility and this paper tests the viability of the different explanations. Virtually all current theoretical arguments that are provided for the trend in the average level of volatility over time lend themselves to explanations about the difference in volatility levels between firms in the cross-section. We therefore focus separately on the cross-sectional and time-series explanatory power of the different proxies. We fail to find a proxy that is able to explain both dimensions well. In particular, we find that Cao et al. [Cao, C., Simin, T.T., Zhao, J., 2008. Can growth options explain the trend in idiosyncratic risk? Review of Financial Studies 21, 2599–2633] market-to-book ratio tracks average volatility levels well, but has no cross-sectional explanatory power. On the other hand, the low-price proxy suggested by Brandt et al. [Brandt, M.W., Brav, A., Graham, J.R., Kumar, A., 2010. The idiosyncratic volatility puzzle: time trend or speculative episodes. Review of Financial Studies 23, 863–899] has much cross-sectional explanatory power, but has virtually no time-series explanatory power. We also find that the different proxies do not explain the trend in volatility in the period prior to 1995 (R-squared of virtually zero), but explain rather well the trend in volatility at the turn of the Millennium (1995–2005).

Evaluating multivariate volatility forecasts : how effective are statistical and economic loss functions?

Multivariate volatility forecasts are an important input in many financial applications, in particular portfolio optimisation problems. Given the number of models available and the range of loss functions to discriminate between them, it is obvious that selecting the optimal forecasting model is challenging. The aim of this thesis is to thoroughly investigate how effective many commonly used statistical (MSE and QLIKE) and economic (portfolio variance and portfolio utility) loss functions are at discriminating between competing multivariate volatility forecasts. An analytical investigation of the loss functions is performed to determine whether they identify the correct forecast as the best forecast. This is followed by an extensive simulation study examines the ability of the loss functions to consistently rank forecasts, and their statistical power within tests of predictive ability. For the tests of predictive ability, the model confidence set (MCS) approach of Hansen, Lunde and Nason (2003, 2011) is employed. As well, an empirical study investigates whether simulation findings hold in a realistic setting. In light of these earlier studies, a major empirical study seeks to identify the set of superior multivariate volatility forecasting models from 43 models that use either daily squared returns or realised volatility to generate forecasts. This study also assesses how the choice of volatility proxy affects the ability of the statistical loss functions to discriminate between forecasts. Analysis of the loss functions shows that QLIKE, MSE and portfolio variance can discriminate between multivariate volatility forecasts, while portfolio utility cannot. An examination of the effective loss functions shows that they all can identify the correct forecast at a point in time, however, their ability to discriminate between competing forecasts does vary. That is, QLIKE is identified as the most effective loss function, followed by portfolio variance which is then followed by MSE. The major empirical analysis reports that the optimal set of multivariate volatility forecasting models includes forecasts generated from daily squared returns and realised volatility. Furthermore, it finds that the volatility proxy affects the statistical loss functions’ ability to discriminate between forecasts in tests of predictive ability. These findings deepen our understanding of how to choose between competing multivariate volatility forecasts.

Semi-parametric forecasting of realized volatility

Forecasts generated by time series models traditionally place greater weight on more recent observations. This paper develops an alternative semi-parametric method for forecasting that does not rely on this convention and applies it to the problem of forecasting asset return volatility. In this approach, a forecast is a weighted average of historical volatility, with the greatest weight given to periods that exhibit similar market conditions to the time at which the forecast is being formed. Weighting is determined by comparing short-term trends in volatility across time (as a measure of market conditions) by means of a multivariate kernel scheme. It is found that the semi-parametric method produces forecasts that are significantly more accurate than a number of competing approaches at both short and long forecast horizons.