This paper examines the fractional cointegration between downside (upside) components of realized and implied variances. A positive association is found between the strength of their cofractional relation and the return predictability of their differences. That association is established via the common longmemory component of the variances that are fractionally cointegrated, which represents the volatility-of-volatility factor that determines the variance premium. Our results indicate that market fears play a critical role not only in driving the long-run equilibrium relationship between implied-realized variances but also in understanding the return predictability. A simulation study further verifies these claims. K E Y W O R D S fractional cointegration, return predictability, variance risk premium J E L C L A S S I F I C A T I O N C14; C32; C51 | INTRODUCTIONNumerous empirical studies suggest that, unlike the variance, the variance risk premium (VRP) carries nontrivial predictive power for aggregate stock market returns over quarterly to annual horizons, where the degree of return predictability is greater than that afforded by more conventional predictors, see, Bollerslev, Tauchen, and Zhou (2009), Drechsler and Yaron (2010), Bollerslev, Marrone, Xu, and Zhou (2014), and Bali and Zhou (2016), among others. Those studies also provide strong evidence that much of the predictability implicit in the VRP may be attributed to its close relation with macroeconomic uncertainty and aggregate risk aversion.The VRP is formally defined as the wedge between option-implied and realized variances. It is measured as the difference between (the square of) the CBOE VIX index and the statistical expectation of the future return variation. In Bollerslev et al. (2009), Drechsler andYaron (2010) and Bollerslev, Sizova, and Tauchen (2012), the return predictability of the VRP is investigated using a self-contained general equilibrium model. This is in the spirit of the long-run risks (LRR) model pioneered by Bansal and Yaron (2004). Specifically, Bollerslev et al. (2009) andBollerslev et al. (2012) extend the LRR model by allowing the time-varying volatility-of-volatility (vol-of-vol) within the economy to be generated by its own stochastic process. They further show that the difference between the risk-neutral and the objective expectations of return variation isolates the vol-of-vol factor, which then serves as the sole source of the true VRP. The VRP, therefore, displays good predictive power for future returns in cases where the vol-of-vol plays a more dominant role in determining variation in the equity premium. A direct link between the VRP and the vol-of-vol is also demonstrated in a purely probabilistic model introduced by Barndorff-Nielsen and Veraart (2013). U D . The SJ and IVA are, respectively, measured as the difference between RV U and RV D and the difference between IV U and IV D . Using a semiparametric approach, we demonstrate the existence of a fractionally cointegrating relation in each pair of the semivariances...

No abstract

This paper proposes a cluster HAR-type model that adopts the hierarchical clustering technique to form the cascade of heterogeneous volatility components. In contrast to the conventional HAR-type models, the proposed cluster models are based on the relevant lagged volatilities selected by the cluster group Lasso. Our simulation evidence suggests that the cluster group Lasso dominates other alternatives in terms of variable screening and that the cluster HAR serves as the top performer in forecasting the future realized volatility. The forecasting superiority of the cluster models are also demonstrated in an empirical application where the highest forecasting accuracy tends to be achieved by separating the jumps from the continuous sample path volatility process.

This paper evaluates the performance of various measures of model‐free implied volatility in predicting returns and realized volatility. The critical role of the out‐of‐the money call options is highlighted through an investigation of the relevance of different components of the model‐free implied volatility. The Monte Carlo simulations show that: first, volatility forecasting performance of various measures can be enhanced by employing an interpolation‐extrapolation technique; second, for most measures considered, gains in their predictive power for future returns can be obtained by implementing an interpolation procedure. An empirical application using SPX options recorded from 2003 to 2013 further illustrates these claims.

This paper proposes a cluster HAR-type model that adopts the hierarchical clustering technique to form the cascade of heterogeneous volatility components. In contrast to the conventional HAR-type models, the proposed cluster models are based on the relevant lagged volatilities selected by the cluster group Lasso. Our simulation evidence suggests that the cluster group Lasso dominates other alternatives in terms of variable screening and that the cluster HAR serves as the top performer in forecasting the future realized volatility. The forecasting superiority of the cluster models are also demonstrated in an empirical application where the highest forecasting accuracy tends to be achieved by separating the jumps from the continuous sample path volatility process.