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.

Linear and non-linear transmission of equity return volatility: evidence from the US, Japan and Australia

This paper models the transmission of shocks between the US, Japanese and Australian equity markets. Tests for the existence of linear and non-linear transmission of volatility across the markets are performed using parametric and non-parametric techniques. In particular the size and sign of return innovations are important factors in determining the degree of spillovers in volatility. It is found that a multivariate asymmetric GARCH formulation can explain almost all of the non-linear causality between markets. These results have important implications for the construction of models and forecasts of international equity returns.

Volatility Spillover and Multivariate Volatility Impulse Response Analysis of GFC News Events

This paper applies two measures to assess spillovers across markets: the Diebold Yilmaz (2012) Spillover Index and the Hafner and Herwartz (2006) analysis of multivariate GARCH models using volatility impulse response analysis. We use two sets of data, daily realized volatility estimates taken from the Oxford Man RV library, running from the beginning of 2000 to October 2016, for the S&P500 and the FTSE, plus ten years of daily returns series for the New York Stock Exchange Index and the FTSE 100 index, from 3 January 2005 to 31 January 2015. Both data sets capture both the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) and the subsequent European Sovereign Debt Crisis (ESDC). The spillover index captures the transmission of volatility to and from markets, plus net spillovers. The key difference between the measures is that the spillover index captures an average of spillovers over a period, whilst volatility impulse responses (VIRF) have to be calibrated to conditional volatility estimated at a particular point in time. The VIRF provide information about the impact of independent shocks on volatility. In the latter analysis, we explore the impact of three different shocks, the onset of the GFC, which we date as 9 August 2007 (GFC1). It took a year for the financial crisis to come to a head, but it did so on 15 September 2008, (GFC2). The third shock is 9 May 2010. Our modelling includes leverage and asymmetric effects undertaken in the context of a multivariate GARCH model, which are then analysed using both BEKK and diagonal BEKK (DBEKK) models. A key result is that the impact of negative shocks is larger, in terms of the effects on variances and covariances, but shorter in duration, in this case a difference between three and six months.

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).