Modeling and Forecasting Implied Volatility: Implications for Trading, Pricing, and Risk Management

Modeling and forecasting of implied volatility (IV) is important to both practitioners and academics, especially in trading, pricing, hedging, and risk management activities, all of which require an accurate volatility. However, it has become challenging since the 1987 stock market crash, as implied volatilities (IVs) recovered from stock index options present two patterns: volatility smirk(skew) and volatility term-structure, if the two are examined at the same time, presents a rich implied volatility surface (IVS). This implies that the assumptions behind the Black-Scholes (1973) model do not hold empirically, as asset prices are mostly influenced by many underlying risk factors. This thesis, consists of four essays, is modeling and forecasting implied volatility in the presence of options markets’ empirical regularities. The first essay is modeling the dynamics IVS, it extends the Dumas, Fleming and Whaley (DFW) (1998) framework; for instance, using moneyness in the implied forward price and OTM put-call options on the FTSE100 index, a nonlinear optimization is used to estimate different models and thereby produce rich, smooth IVSs. Here, the constant-volatility model fails to explain the variations in the rich IVS. Next, it is found that three factors can explain about 69-88% of the variance in the IVS. Of this, on average, 56% is explained by the level factor, 15% by the term-structure factor, and the additional 7% by the jump-fear factor. The second essay proposes a quantile regression model for modeling contemporaneous asymmetric return-volatility relationship, which is the generalization of Hibbert et al. (2008) model. The results show strong negative asymmetric return-volatility relationship at various quantiles of IV distributions, it is monotonically increasing when moving from the median quantile to the uppermost quantile (i.e., 95%); therefore, OLS underestimates this relationship at upper quantiles. Additionally, the asymmetric relationship is more pronounced with the smirk (skew) adjusted volatility index measure in comparison to the old volatility index measure. Nonetheless, the volatility indices are ranked in terms of asymmetric volatility as follows: VIX, VSTOXX, VDAX, and VXN. The third essay examines the information content of the new-VDAX volatility index to forecast daily Value-at-Risk (VaR) estimates and compares its VaR forecasts with the forecasts of the Filtered Historical Simulation and RiskMetrics. All daily VaR models are then backtested from 1992-2009 using unconditional, independence, conditional coverage, and quadratic-score tests. It is found that the VDAX subsumes almost all information required for the volatility of daily VaR forecasts for a portfolio of the DAX30 index; implied-VaR models outperform all other VaR models. The fourth essay models the risk factors driving the swaption IVs. It is found that three factors can explain 94-97% of the variation in each of the EUR, USD, and GBP swaption IVs. There are significant linkages across factors, and bi-directional causality is at work between the factors implied by EUR and USD swaption IVs. Furthermore, the factors implied by EUR and USD IVs respond to each others’ shocks; however, surprisingly, GBP does not affect them. Second, the string market model calibration results show it can efficiently reproduce (or forecast) the volatility surface for each of the swaptions markets.

Joint Regression and Association Models for Repeated Categorical Responses

The focus of this study is on statistical analysis of categorical responses, where the response values are dependent of each other. The most typical example of this kind of dependence is when repeated responses have been obtained from the same study unit. For example, in Paper I, the response of interest is the pneumococcal nasopharengyal carriage (yes/no) on 329 children. For each child, the carriage is measured nine times during the first 18 months of life, and thus repeated respones on each child cannot be assumed independent of each other. In the case of the above example, the interest typically lies in the carriage prevalence, and whether different risk factors affect the prevalence. Regression analysis is the established method for studying the effects of risk factors. In order to make correct inferences from the regression model, the associations between repeated responses need to be taken into account. The analysis of repeated categorical responses typically focus on regression modelling. However, further insights can also be gained by investigating the structure of the association. The central theme in this study is on the development of joint regression and association models. The analysis of repeated, or otherwise clustered, categorical responses is computationally difficult. Likelihood-based inference is often feasible only when the number of repeated responses for each study unit is small. In Paper IV, an algorithm is presented, which substantially facilitates maximum likelihood fitting, especially when the number of repeated responses increase. In addition, a notable result arising from this work is the freely available software for likelihood-based estimation of clustered categorical responses.

Diagnostic Tests Based on Quantile Residuals for Nonlinear Time Series Models

This thesis studies quantile residuals and uses different methodologies to develop test statistics that are applicable in evaluating linear and nonlinear time series models based on continuous distributions. Models based on mixtures of distributions are of special interest because it turns out that for those models traditional residuals, often referred to as Pearson's residuals, are not appropriate. As such models have become more and more popular in practice, especially with financial time series data there is a need for reliable diagnostic tools that can be used to evaluate them. The aim of the thesis is to show how such diagnostic tools can be obtained and used in model evaluation. The quantile residuals considered here are defined in such a way that, when the model is correctly specified and its parameters are consistently estimated, they are approximately independent with standard normal distribution. All the tests derived in the thesis are pure significance type tests and are theoretically sound in that they properly take the uncertainty caused by parameter estimation into account. -- In Chapter 2 a general framework based on the likelihood function and smooth functions of univariate quantile residuals is derived that can be used to obtain misspecification tests for various purposes. Three easy-to-use tests aimed at detecting non-normality, autocorrelation, and conditional heteroscedasticity in quantile residuals are formulated. It also turns out that these tests can be interpreted as Lagrange Multiplier or score tests so that they are asymptotically optimal against local alternatives. Chapter 3 extends the concept of quantile residuals to multivariate models. The framework of Chapter 2 is generalized and tests aimed at detecting non-normality, serial correlation, and conditional heteroscedasticity in multivariate quantile residuals are derived based on it. Score test interpretations are obtained for the serial correlation and conditional heteroscedasticity tests and in a rather restricted special case for the normality test. In Chapter 4 the tests are constructed using the empirical distribution function of quantile residuals. So-called Khmaladze s martingale transformation is applied in order to eliminate the uncertainty caused by parameter estimation. Various test statistics are considered so that critical bounds for histogram type plots as well as Quantile-Quantile and Probability-Probability type plots of quantile residuals are obtained. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 contain simulations and empirical examples which illustrate the finite sample size and power properties of the derived tests and also how the tests and related graphical tools based on residuals are applied in practice.

Generalised regression estimation for domain class frequencies

This study examines the properties of Generalised Regression (GREG) estimators for domain class frequencies and proportions. The family of GREG estimators forms the class of design-based model-assisted estimators. All GREG estimators utilise auxiliary information via modelling. The classic GREG estimator with a linear fixed effects assisting model (GREG-lin) is one example. But when estimating class frequencies, the study variable is binary or polytomous. Therefore logistic-type assisting models (e.g. logistic or probit model) should be preferred over the linear one. However, other GREG estimators than GREG-lin are rarely used, and knowledge about their properties is limited. This study examines the properties of L-GREG estimators, which are GREG estimators with fixed-effects logistic-type models. Three research questions are addressed. First, I study whether and when L-GREG estimators are more accurate than GREG-lin. Theoretical results and Monte Carlo experiments which cover both equal and unequal probability sampling designs and a wide variety of model formulations show that in standard situations, the difference between L-GREG and GREG-lin is small. But in the case of a strong assisting model, two interesting situations arise: if the domain sample size is reasonably large, L-GREG is more accurate than GREG-lin, and if the domain sample size is very small, estimation of assisting model parameters may be inaccurate, resulting in bias for L-GREG. Second, I study variance estimation for the L-GREG estimators. The standard variance estimator (S) for all GREG estimators resembles the Sen-Yates-Grundy variance estimator, but it is a double sum of prediction errors, not of the observed values of the study variable. Monte Carlo experiments show that S underestimates the variance of L-GREG especially if the domain sample size is minor, or if the assisting model is strong. Third, since the standard variance estimator S often fails for the L-GREG estimators, I propose a new augmented variance estimator (A). The difference between S and the new estimator A is that the latter takes into account the difference between the sample fit model and the census fit model. In Monte Carlo experiments, the new estimator A outperformed the standard estimator S in terms of bias, root mean square error and coverage rate. Thus the new estimator provides a good alternative to the standard estimator.