Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThe increasing availability of financial market data at intraday frequencies has not only led to the development of improved volatility measurements but has also inspired research into their potential value as an information source for volatility forecasting. In this paper we explore the forecasting value of historical volatility (extracted from daily return series), of implied volatility (extracted from option pricing data) and of realised volatility (computed as the sum of squared high frequency returns within a day). First we consider unobserved components and long memory models for realised volatility which is regarded as an accurate estimator of volatility. The predictive abilities of realised volatility models are compared with those of stochastic volatility models and generalised autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity models for daily return series. These historical volatility models are extended to include realised and implied volatility measures as explanatory variables for volatility. The main focus is on forecasting the daily variability of the Standard & Poor's 100 stock index series for which trading data (tick by tick) of almost seven years is analysed. The forecast assessment is based on the hypothesis of whether a forecast model is outperformed by alternative models. In particular, we will use superior predictive ability tests to investigate the relative forecast performances of some models. Since volatilities are not observed, realised volatility is taken as a proxy for actual volatility and is used for computing the forecast error. A stationary bootstrap procedure is required for computing the test statistic and its p-value. The empirical results show convincingly that realised volatility models produce far more accurate volatility forecasts compared to models based on daily returns. Long memory models seem to provide the most accurate forecasts.JEL classification: C22, C53, G15.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThe increasing availability of financial market data at intraday frequencies has not only led to the development of improved volatility measurements but has also inspired research into their potential value as an information source for volatility forecasting. In this paper we explore the forecasting value of historical volatility (extracted from daily return series), of implied volatility (extracted from option pricing data) and of realised volatility (computed as the sum of squared high frequency returns within a day). First we consider unobserved components and long memory models for realised volatility which is regarded as an accurate estimator of volatility. The predictive abilities of realised volatility models are compared with those of stochastic volatility models and generalised autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity models for daily return series. These historical volatility models are extended to include realised and implied volatility measures as explanatory variables for volatility. The main focus is on forecasting the daily variability of the Standard & Poor's 100 stock index series for which trading data (tick by tick) of almost seven years is analysed. The forecast assessment is based on the hypothesis of whether a forecast model is outperformed by alternative models. In particular, we will use superior predictive ability tests to investigate the relative forecast performances of some models. Since volatilities are not observed, realised volatility is taken as a proxy for actual volatility and is used for computing the forecast error. A stationary bootstrap procedure is required for computing the test statistic and its p-value. The empirical results show convincingly that realised volatility models produce far more accurate volatility forecasts compared to models based on daily returns. Long memory models seem to provide the most accurate forecasts.JEL classification: C22, C53, G15.

Summary We present new results for the likelihood‐based analysis of the dynamic factor model. The latent factors are modelled by linear dynamic stochastic processes. The idiosyncratic disturbance series are specified as autoregressive processes with mutually correlated innovations. The new results lead to computationally efficient procedures for the estimation of the factors and for the parameter estimation by maximum likelihood methods. We also present the implications of our results for models with regression effects, for Bayesian analysis, for signal extraction, and for forecasting. An empirical illustration is provided for the analysis of a large panel of macroeconomic time series.

No abstract

No abstract