The FCLT with Dependent Errors: an Helicopter Tour of the Quality of the Approximation

This note investigates the adequacy of the finite-sample approximation provided by the Functional Central Limit Theorem (FCLT) when the errors are allowed to be dependent. We compare the distribution of the scaled partial sums of some data with the distribution of the Wiener process to which it converges. Our setup is purposely very simple in that it considers data generated from an ARMA(1,1) process. Yet, this is sufficient to bring out interesting conclusions about the particular elements which cause the approximations to be inadequate in even quite large sample sizes.

Testing Mean-Variance Efficiency in CAPM with Possibly Non-Gaussian Errors : An Exact Simulation-Based Approach

In this paper we propose exact likelihood-based mean-variance efficiency tests of the market portfolio in the context of Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM), allowing for a wide class of error distributions which include normality as a special case. These tests are developed in the frame-work of multivariate linear regressions (MLR). It is well known however that despite their simple statistical structure, standard asymptotically justified MLR-based tests are unreliable. In financial econometrics, exact tests have been proposed for a few specific hypotheses [Jobson and Korkie (Journal of Financial Economics, 1982), MacKinlay (Journal of Financial Economics, 1987), Gib-bons, Ross and Shanken (Econometrica, 1989), Zhou (Journal of Finance 1993)], most of which depend on normality. For the gaussian model, our tests correspond to Gibbons, Ross and Shanken’s mean-variance efficiency tests. In non-gaussian contexts, we reconsider mean-variance efficiency tests allowing for multivariate Student-t and gaussian mixture errors. Our framework allows to cast more evidence on whether the normality assumption is too restrictive when testing the CAPM. We also propose exact multivariate diagnostic checks (including tests for multivariate GARCH and mul-tivariate generalization of the well known variance ratio tests) and goodness of fit tests as well as a set estimate for the intervening nuisance parameters. Our results [over five-year subperiods] show the following: (i) multivariate normality is rejected in most subperiods, (ii) residual checks reveal no significant departures from the multivariate i.i.d. assumption, and (iii) mean-variance efficiency tests of the market portfolio is not rejected as frequently once it is allowed for the possibility of non-normal errors.

Correcting the Errors : A Note on Volatility Forecast Evaluation Based on High-Frequency Data and Realized Volatilities

This note develops general model-free adjustment procedures for the calculation of unbiased volatility loss functions based on practically feasible realized volatility benchmarks. The procedures, which exploit the recent asymptotic distributional results in Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard (2002a), are both easy to implement and highly accurate in empirically realistic situations. On properly accounting for the measurement errors in the volatility forecast evaluations reported in Andersen, Bollerslev, Diebold and Labys (2003), the adjustments result in markedly higher estimates for the true degree of return-volatility predictability.