Accepted author manuscript, 893 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Final published version
Licence: CC BY: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - The Contribution of Jump Signs and Activity to Forecasting Stock Price Volatility
AU - Bu, Ruijun
AU - Hizmeri, Rodrigo
AU - Izzeldin, Marwan
AU - Murphy, Antony
AU - Tsionas, Mike
PY - 2023/1/31
Y1 - 2023/1/31
N2 - We propose a novel approach to decompose realized jump measures by type of activity (finite/infinite) and sign, and also provide noise-robust versions of the ABD jump test (Andersen et al., 2007b) and realized semivariance measures. We find that infinite (finite) jumps improve the forecasts at shorter (longer) horizons; but the contribution of signed jumps is limited. As expected, noise-robust measures deliver substantial forecast improvements at higher sampling frequencies, although standard volatility measures at the 300-s frequency generate the smallest MSPEs. Since no single model dominates across sampling frequency and forecasting horizon, we show that model averaged volatility forecasts – using time-varying weights and models from the model confidence set – generally outperform forecasts from both the benchmark and single best extended HAR model. Finally, forecasts using volatility and jump measures based on transaction sampling are inferior to the forecasts from clock-based sampling.
AB - We propose a novel approach to decompose realized jump measures by type of activity (finite/infinite) and sign, and also provide noise-robust versions of the ABD jump test (Andersen et al., 2007b) and realized semivariance measures. We find that infinite (finite) jumps improve the forecasts at shorter (longer) horizons; but the contribution of signed jumps is limited. As expected, noise-robust measures deliver substantial forecast improvements at higher sampling frequencies, although standard volatility measures at the 300-s frequency generate the smallest MSPEs. Since no single model dominates across sampling frequency and forecasting horizon, we show that model averaged volatility forecasts – using time-varying weights and models from the model confidence set – generally outperform forecasts from both the benchmark and single best extended HAR model. Finally, forecasts using volatility and jump measures based on transaction sampling are inferior to the forecasts from clock-based sampling.
KW - Volatility forecasting
KW - Jump measures
KW - Business sampling
KW - Calendar sampling
KW - Market microstructure noise
KW - Model averaging
U2 - 10.1016/j.jempfin.2022.12.001
DO - 10.1016/j.jempfin.2022.12.001
M3 - Journal article
VL - 70
SP - 144
EP - 164
JO - Journal of Empirical Finance
JF - Journal of Empirical Finance
SN - 0927-5398
ER -