2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2016.02.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Forecasting the term structure of volatility of crude oil price changes

Abstract: This is a pioneering effort to test the comparative performance of two competing models for out-of-sample forecasting the term structure of volatility of crude oil price changes employing both symmetric and asymmetric evaluation criteria. Under symmetric error statistics, our empirical model using the estimated growth factor of volatility through time is overall superior, and it beats in most cases the benchmark model of the squareroot-of-time (√ T) for holding periods between one and 250 days. Under asymmetri… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

2
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
(9 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In a category of its own, a fewer number of studies approach crude oil price and returns in relation to other commodities also including natural gas [64][65][66][67][68][69]. Finally, and as for other traded commodities, a highly sophisticated category of research is available on both volatility modelling and forecasting evaluation [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]21,[70][71][72][73], both perhaps the most relevant areas for our research.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In a category of its own, a fewer number of studies approach crude oil price and returns in relation to other commodities also including natural gas [64][65][66][67][68][69]. Finally, and as for other traded commodities, a highly sophisticated category of research is available on both volatility modelling and forecasting evaluation [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]21,[70][71][72][73], both perhaps the most relevant areas for our research.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, due to the stochastic feature of volatility, this multiplicative method for computing multi-day ahead conditional variance forecasts may handicap the forecasting performance of implied volatility measures, and may lead to a different ranking of forecasting performance compared to the ranking produced in the evaluation of one-day ahead forecast. The squareroot-of-time rule for compounding short-term volatility for long-horizons are discussed and empirically tested in Balaban and Lu (2016); Danielsson and Zigrand (2006); Diebold, Hickman, Inoue, and Schuermann (1998).…”
Section: Rvtmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since only lag 1 market volatility expectation is available at each forecast origin, the calculable forecast is one-day ahead conditional variance forecast, whereas multihorizon forecasts are not computable by dynamic forecasting. The multiplicative method in Blair et al (2001) by multiplying one-day ahead volatility forecast by the number of days in the forecast horizon may handicap the forecasting performance of market volatility expectations due to the stochastic feature of volatility; discussions and empirical research work on the square-root-of-time rule for compounding short-term volatility for long-horizons can be referred to Diebold, Hickman, Inoue & Schuermann (1998), Danielsson & Zigrand (2006), Balaban & Lu (2016).…”
Section: Model Specification and Volatility Forecastsmentioning
confidence: 99%