Forecasting S&P 100 volatility: the incremental information content of implied volatilities and high-frequency index returns
Introduction
The ability of ARCH models to provide good estimates of equity return volatility is well documented. Many studies show that the parameters of a variety of different ARCH models are highly significant in-sample; see Bollerslev (1987), Nelson (1991), Glosten et al. (1993) and surveys by Bollerslev et al. (1992), Bera and Higgins (1993) and Bollerslev et al. (1994).
There is less evidence that ARCH models provide good forecasts of equity return volatility. Some studies (Akgiray, 1989; Heynen and Kat, 1994; Franses and Van Dijk, 1995; Brailsford and Faff, 1996; Figlewski, 1997) examine the out-of-sample predictive ability of ARCH models, with mixed results. All find that a regression of realised volatility on forecast volatility produces a low R2 statistic (often less than 10%) and hence the predictive power of the forecasts may be questionable. Dimson and Marsh (1990) show that data snooping can produce enhanced in-sample predictive ability that is not transferable to out-of-sample forecasting. Nelson (1992) uses theoretical methods to show that the predictive ability of ARCH models is very good at high frequencies, even when the model is misspecified, but that out-of-sample forecasting of medium- to long-term volatility can be poor. Nelson and Foster (1995) develop conditions for ARCH models to perform favourably at medium- to long-term forecast horizons.
An alternative to ARCH volatility forecasts is to use implied volatilities from options. These are known to covary with realised volatility (Latane and Rendleman, 1976; Chiras and Manaster, 1978) and hence it is of interest to compare the forecasting accuracy of ARCH with implied volatility. To do this many studies use S&P 100 index options which are American. Day and Lewis (1992) find that implied volatilities perform as well but no better than forecasts from ARCH models. Mixtures of the two forecasts outperform both univariate forecasts. Canina and Figlewski (1993) provide contrary evidence to Day and Lewis. They find that implied volatilities are poor forecasts of volatility and that simple historical volatilities outperform implied volatilities. Christensen and Prabhala (1998) show for a much longer period that while implied volatilities are biased forecasts of volatility they outperform historical information models when forecasting volatility.
These papers use implied volatilities that contain measurement errors, because early exercise is ignored and/or dividends are ignored and/or the spot index contains stale prices. The implied volatility series are potentially flawed and this may account for some of the conflicting results. Fleming et al. (1995) describe an implied volatility index (VIX) which eliminates mis-specification problems. We use the same index to obtain new results about the information content of option prices. Fleming (1998) uses a volatility measure similar to VIX to show that implieds outperform historical information.
From the recent studies of Christensen and Prabhala (1998) and Fleming (1998) it can be concluded that the evidence now favours the conclusion that implied volatilities are more informative than daily returns when forecasting equity volatility. The same conclusion has been obtained for foreign exchange volatility from daily data, but with more certainty (Jorion, 1995; Xu and Taylor, 1995). High-frequency returns, however, have the potential to change these conclusions. Taylor and Xu (1997) show that 5-min FX returns contain volatility information incremental to that provided by options. In this paper we explore the incremental volatility information of high-frequency stock index returns for the first time.
The importance of intraday returns for measuring realised volatility is demonstrated for FX data by Taylor and Xu (1997), Andersen and Bollerslev (1998) and Andersen et al. (2001b), and for equities by Ebens (1999) and Andersen et al. (2001a). Andersen and Bollerslev (1998) prove that regression methods will give low R2 values when daily squared returns measure realised volatility, even for optimal GARCH forecasts, because squared returns are noisy estimates of volatility. They show that intraday returns can be used to construct a realised volatility series that essentially eliminates the noise in measurements of daily volatility. They find remarkable improvements in the forecasting performance of ARCH models for FX data when they are used to forecast the new realised series, compatible with theoretical analysis. They do not, however, compare ARCH forecasts with implied forecasts.
This paper answers some important empirical questions for the S&P 100 index. Firstly, how does the predictive quality of volatility forecasts from ARCH models, that use daily index returns and/or intraday returns, compare with forecasts from models that use information contained in implied volatilities? Secondly, how important is the selection of the measure of realised volatility in assessing the predictive accuracy of volatility forecasts?
The paper is arranged as follows. Section 2 discusses the various data sets we use and issues surrounding their construction. Methods for estimating and forecasting volatility that use daily index returns, 5-min returns and implied volatilities are presented in Section 3. Section 4 provides results from both in-sample estimation and out-of-sample forecasting of S&P 100 volatility. Section 5 sets out our conclusions.
Section snippets
Data
There are three main types of data: daily index returns, daily implied volatilities and 5-min index returns. These are available to us for the 13 years from 1987 to 1999 inclusive. The in-sample period is from 2 January 1987 to 31 December 1992 providing 1519 daily observations, followed by the out-of-sample period from 4 January 1993 to 31 December 1999 providing 1768 daily observations.1
In-sample models
To compare the in-sample performance of several models that use information from stock index returns and implied volatilities, ARCH models are estimated for daily index returns rt from 2 January 1987 to 31 December 1992, with a dummy term dt for the Black Monday crash in 1987. The most general specification is as follows:Here L is the lag operator, ht is the conditional variance of the
In-sample ARCH results
Table 1 presents parameter estimates, robust t-ratios, log-likelihoods and squared correlations R2 for the seven ARCH models defined in Section 3.1. The results are obtained from 6 years of data, from 2 January 1987 to 31 December 1992. The log-likelihoods increase monotonically across the columns of Table 1. The excess log-likelihood for a model is defined as its maximum log-likelihood minus the corresponding figure for the first model.
The first model is the standard GJR model, that uses
Conclusions
Previous studies of low-frequency (daily or weekly) index returns and implied volatilities have produced conflicting conclusions about the informational efficiency of the S&P 100 options market. Our in-sample analysis of low-frequency data using ARCH models finds no evidence for incremental information in daily index returns beyond that provided by the VIX index of implied volatilities. This conclusion is in agreement with the recent evidence of Christensen and Prabhala (1998) and Fleming (1998)
Acknowledgements
We are particularly grateful to two anonymous referees, Francis Diebold, Kenneth West, Dan Galai, Nagpurnanand Prabhala and Jan Jakobsen for their constructive comments on earlier versions of this paper. We have also benefited from the comments of participants at meetings held by the Bolsa de Derivados do Porto (Oporto, 1999), the London School of Economics (London, 1999), the American Finance Association (Boston, 2000), the Financial Management Association (Edinburgh, 2000) and the Bachelier
References (33)
- et al.
The distribution of realized stock return volatility
Journal of Financial Economics
(2001) - et al.
Modelling S&P 100 volatility: the information content of stock returns
Journal of Banking and Finance
(2001) - et al.
ARCH modeling in finance: a review of theory and empirical evidence
Journal of Econometrics
(1992) - et al.
An evaluation of volatility forecasting techniques
Journal of Banking and Finance
(1996) - et al.
The information content of option prices and a test for market efficiency
Journal of Financial Economics
(1978) - et al.
The relation between implied and realized volatility
Journal of Financial Economics
(1998) - et al.
Stock market volatility and the informational content of stock index options
Journal of Econometrics
(1992) - et al.
Volatility forecasting without data-snooping
Journal of Banking and Finance
(1990) The quality of market volatility forecasts implied by S&P 100 index option prices
Journal of Empirical Finance
(1998)Filtering and forecasting with misspecified ARCH models I: getting the right variance with the wrong model
Journal of Econometrics
(1992)
Filtering and forecasting with misspecified ARCH models II: making the right forecast with the wrong model
Journal of Econometrics
The incremental volatility information in one million foreign exchange quotations
Journal of Empirical Finance
Conditional volatility and the informational efficiency of the PHLX currency options markets
Journal of Banking and Finance
Conditional heteroskedasticity in time series of stock returns: evidence and forecasts
Journal of Business
Answering the skeptics: yes standard volatility models do provide accurate forecasts
International Economic Review
The distribution of exchange rate volatility
Journal of the American Statistical Association
Cited by (385)
Forecasting day-ahead expected shortfall on the EUR/USD exchange rate: The (I)relevance of implied volatility
2024, International Journal of ForecastingAnalysing implied volatility smirk to predict the US stock market crash during the global financial crisis
2023, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and ComplexityExtreme dependence and spillovers between uncertainty indices and stock markets: Does the US market play a major role?
2023, North American Journal of Economics and FinanceThe impacts of oil price volatility on financial stress: Is the COVID-19 period different?
2023, International Review of Economics and FinanceCan we forecast better in periods of low uncertainty? The role of technical indicators
2023, Journal of Empirical Finance