Skip to content
All library documents

Deriving the Risk-Neutral Expected Return Variance Approximation

Article Quant Q&A · Author: phdstudent

Summary

The document derives a log-linear approximation for the risk-neutral expectation of next-period return variance in a stochastic-volatility model with recursive preferences. It starts from the stochastic discount factor and rewrites the approximation using conditional means, variances, and the covariance between log marginal utility and future variance. Under conditional normality, the exponential expectation can be evaluated, and terms involving the risk-free rate and the marginal-utility expectation cancel, leaving the physical expected variance plus that covariance.

The answer then computes the covariance from the model’s state equations and shows how it produces the paper’s final adjustment term. An accompanying interpretation motivates the approximation through a second-order expansion of the exponential of variance. The derivation depends on the model’s specified dynamics, conditional normality, and the approximation itself; it is not a general identity for arbitrary distributions or volatility processes.

Key ideas

  • The risk-neutral expectation is expressed as a ratio of physical expectations weighted by the stochastic discount factor.
  • Conditional joint normality lets the exponential moment be evaluated using means, variances, and covariance.
  • The log-linear approximation reduces the adjustment to the covariance between log marginal utility and future return variance.
  • The model’s state dynamics determine the covariance term and therefore the final correction.
  • A second-order expansion offers an interpretation of the approximation, but its accuracy depends on the model and expansion.

Tags

Full text
# How to derive this approximation of the risk-neutral expectation of the variance?


# How to derive this approximation of the risk-neutral expectation of the variance?












On the paper Bollerslev, Tauchen and Zhou (2009 RFS) the authors say about equation (15):

> The corresponding model implied risk-neutral conditional expectation $$E^Q_t(\sigma^2_{r,t+1})=E_t(\sigma^2_{r,t+1}M_{t+1})E_t(M_{t+1})^{-1}$$ cannot easily be computed in a closed form. However it is possible to calculate the following close log-linear approximation: $$E^Q_t(\sigma^2_{r,t+1}) \approx \log[e^{-r_{f,t}} E_t[e^{m_{t+1}+\sigma^2_{r,t+1}}]] -\frac{1}{2}Var_t(\sigma_{r,t+1}^2) = E_t(\sigma^2_{r,t+1})+(\theta - 1)\kappa_1 [A_\sigma + A_q \kappa_1^2(A_\sigma^2 + A_q^2 \varphi_q^2)\varphi_q^2]q_t$$

I perfectly understand how to get from the first equality to the second. But the last equality, I have no idea where it comes from.

First, I imagine that the terms: $\log[e^{-r_{f,t}} E_t[e^{m_{t+1}}]]$ cancel out. But then how does he get rid of the $E_t[e^{\sigma^2_{r,t+1}}]$?

## Answer by Gordon (score 5, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/22480

We first list the assumptions. \begin{align*} g_{t+1} &= \mu_g + \sigma_{g, t} z_{g, t+1}, \tag{1}\\ \sigma_{g, t+1}^2 &= a_{\sigma} + \rho_{\sigma} \sigma_{g, t}^2 + \sqrt{q_t} z_{\sigma, t+1}, \tag{2} \\ q_{t+1} &= a_{q} + \rho_q q_t + \varphi_q \sqrt{q_t} z_{q, t+1}. \tag{3} \end{align*} Moreover, \begin{align*} r_{t+1} &= -\ln \delta +\psi^{-1} \mu_g - \frac{(1-\gamma)^2}{2\theta} \sigma_{g, t}^2 + (\kappa_1 \rho_q-1)A_q q_t \\ & \quad +\sigma_{g, t}z_{g, t+1} +\kappa_1\sqrt{q_t} (A_{\sigma}z_{\sigma, t+1} + A_q \varphi_q z_{q, t+1}). \tag{10} %\sigma_{r, t}^2 &= \sigma_{g, t}^2 + \kappa_1^2(A_{\sigma}^2 + A_q^2 \varphi_q^2)q_t, \tag{12} \end{align*} From (2) and (3), \begin{align*} \sigma_{r, t+1}^2 &= \sigma_{g, t+1}^2 + \kappa_1^2(A_{\sigma}^2 + A_q^2 \varphi_q^2)q_{t+1}, \tag{13}\\ &=a_{\sigma} + \rho_{\sigma} \sigma_{g, t}^2 + \sqrt{q_t} z_{\sigma, t+1} \\ &\quad + \kappa_1^2(A_{\sigma}^2 + A_q^2 \varphi_q^2)(a_{q} + \rho_q q_t + \varphi_q \sqrt{q_t} z_{q, t+1}). \end{align*} From (1) and (10), \begin{align*} m_{t+1} &= \theta \ln \delta - \theta \psi^{-1}g_{t+1}+(\theta-1)r_{t+1} \tag{4}\\ &=\theta \ln \delta - \theta \psi^{-1}(\mu_g + \sigma_{g, t} z_{g, t+1})\\ &\quad +(\theta-1)\bigg[-\ln \delta +\psi^{-1} \mu_g - \frac{(1-\gamma)^2}{2\theta} \sigma_{g, t}^2 + (\kappa_1 \rho_q-1)A_q q_t\\ &\quad +\sigma_{g, t}z_{g, t+1} +\kappa_1\sqrt{q_t} (A_{\sigma}z_{\sigma, t+1} + A_q \varphi_q z_{q, t+1})\bigg]. \end{align*} Therefore, \begin{align*} %E_t(m_{t+1}) &= \theta \ln \delta - \theta \psi^{-1}\mu_g + (\theta-1)\bigg[-\ln \delta +\psi^{-1} \mu_g - \frac{(1-\gamma)^2}{2\theta} \sigma_{g, t}^2 + (\kappa_1 \rho_q-1)A_q q_t\bigg],\\ %{\rm Cov}_t(m_{t+1}, r_{t+1}) &= -\gamma \sigma_{g, t}^2 + (\theta -1) \kappa_1^2 q_t\big(A_{\sigma}^2 + A_q^2 \varphi_q^2\big),\tag{11}\\ {\rm Cov}_t(m_{t+1}, \sigma_{r, t+1}^2) &=(\theta -1)\kappa_1 \Big[A_{\sigma}+A_q\kappa_1^2\big(A_{\sigma}^2 + A_q^2 \varphi_q^2\big) \varphi_q^2 \Big]q_t . \end{align*} Furthermore, from the conditional normality of $m_{t+1}$ and $\sigma_{r, t+1}^2$, \begin{align*} E_t^Q\left(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\right) &=E_t\left(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2M_{t+1}\right)/E_t(M_{t+1})\\ &\approx \ln\left(e^{-r_{f, t}} E_t\left(e^{m_{t+1}+\sigma_{r, t+1}^2} \right) \right) - \frac{1}{2} {\rm Var}_t\left(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\right) \tag{*}\\ &=\ln\left(e^{-r_{f, t}} e^{E_t(m_{t+1}) + \frac{1}{2}{\rm Var}_t(m_{t+1})+E_t(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2)+ \frac{1}{2} {\rm Var}_t\left(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\right) + {\rm Cov}_t(m_{t+1}, \sigma_{r, t+1}^2)} \right) \\ &\quad- \frac{1}{2} {\rm Var}_t\left(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\right)\\ &=\ln\left(e^{-r_{f, t}} E_t\left(e^{m_{t+1}}\right) e^{E_t(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2)+ \frac{1}{2} {\rm Var}_t\left(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\right) + {\rm Cov}_t(m_{t+1}, \sigma_{r, t+1}^2)} \right) - \frac{1}{2} {\rm Var}_t\left(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\right)\\ &=E_t\left(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\right) + {\rm Cov}_t(m_{t+1}, \sigma_{r, t+1}^2) \\ &=E_t\left(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\right) + (\theta-1)\kappa_1\Big[A_{\sigma} + A_q \kappa_1^2 \big(A_{\sigma}^2 + A_q^2 \varphi_q^2\big)\varphi_q^2 \Big]q_t. \end{align*}

> Interpretation of Log-linear approximation (*).

Regarding Log-linear approximation (*), as the paper did not supply an explanation, we provide one possible interpretation below. Specifically, note that \begin{align*} e^{\sigma_{r, t+1}^2} &\approx 1+ \sigma_{r, t+1}^2 + \frac{1}{2} \left(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\right)^2\\ &\approx 1+ \sigma_{r, t+1}^2 + \frac{1}{2} \Big[\big(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\big)^2 - \left(E_t\big(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\big)\right)^2\Big]\\ &\approx 1+ \sigma_{r, t+1}^2 + \frac{1}{2}{\rm Var}_t \big(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\big). \end{align*} Then, \begin{align*} \ln\left(e^{-r_{f, t}} E_t\left(e^{m_{t+1}+\sigma_{r, t+1}^2} \right) \right) &\approx \ln\left(e^{-r_{f, t}} E_t\left(e^{m_{t+1}}\left(1+ \sigma_{r, t+1}^2 + \frac{1}{2}{\rm Var}_t \big(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\big) \right) \right) \right)\\ &\approx \ln \left(1 +e^{-r_{f, t}} E_t\left(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2M_{t+1}\right) + \frac{1}{2}{\rm Var}_t \big(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\big) \right)\\ &\approx e^{-r_{f, t}} E_t\left(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2M_{t+1}\right) + \frac{1}{2}{\rm Var}_t \big(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\big)\\ &= E_t\left(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2M_{t+1}\right)/E_t(M_{t+1}) + \frac{1}{2}{\rm Var}_t \big(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\big). \end{align*} That is, \begin{align*} E_t\left(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2M_{t+1}\right)/E_t(M_{t+1}) &\approx \ln\left(e^{-r_{f, t}} E_t\left(e^{m_{t+1}+\sigma_{r, t+1}^2} \right) \right) -\frac{1}{2}{\rm Var}_t \big(\sigma_{r, t+1}^2\big). \end{align*}

## Answer by fni (score 3)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/22434

Directly from the paper:

> We assume that the representative agent in the economy is equipped with Epstein–Zin–Weil recursive preferences. Consequently, the logarithm of the intertemporal marginal rate of substitution, $m_{t+1} \equiv log(M_{t+1})$, may be expressed as $$m_{t+1} =\theta log\delta−\theta\psi^{-1}g_{t+1}+(\theta−1)r_{t+1}, (4)$$

[…]

> Let $w_t$ denote the logarithm of the price–dividend ratio, or equivalently the price–consumption or wealth–consumption ratio, of the asset that pays the consumption endowment, $\{C_{t +i} \}_{i=1}^\infty$ . The standard solution method for finding the equilibrium in a model like the one defined above then consists in conjecturing a solution for $w_t$ as an affine function of the state variables, $σ^2_{g,t}$ and $q_t$ , $$w_t = A_0 + A_σσ^2_{g,t} + A_qq_t, (6)$$ solving for the coefficients $A_0$, $A_σ$, and $A_q$, using the standard Campbell and Shiller (1988) approximation $r_{t+1} = κ_0 + κ_1w_{t+1} − w_t + g_{t+1}$.

[…]

> From the solution for the A’s, it is now relatively straightforward to deduce the reduced form expressions for other variables of interest. In particular, the time $t$ to $t + 1$ return must satisfy the following relation: $$r_{t+1} =−log\delta+ \psi^{-1}\mu_g − \frac{(1-\gamma)^2}{2\theta}\sigma^2_{g,t}+(k_1\rho_q-1)A_qq_t+\sigma_{g,t}z_{g,t+1}+(10)$$ $$k_1\sqrt{q_t}[A_qz_{\sigma,t+1}+A_q\varphi_qz_{q,t+1}]$$

[…]

> To formally establish this result, denote the conditional variance of the time t to t + 1 return as $σ^2_{r,t} \equiv Var_t (r_{t+1} )$. It follows from Equation (10) that $$\sigma^2_{r,t}=\sigma^2_{g,t} + k_1^2(A_\sigma^2+A^2_q\varphi_q^2)q_t , (12)$$ […]Consider instead the one-period ahead conditional variance, $$\sigma^2_{r,t+1}=\sigma^2_{g,t+1} + k_1^2(A_\sigma^2+A^2_q\varphi_q^2)q_{t+1} , (13)$$ which is unknown or stochastic at time t.[…] It follows readily that the time t objective conditional expectation equals $$E_t[\sigma^2_{r,t+1}]=a_\sigma + k^2_1(A_\sigma^2+A_q^2\varphi^2_q)a_q+\rho_\sigma\sigma^2_{g,t}+k_1^2(A_\sigma^2+\varphi^2_q)\rho_qq_t , (14)$$

If you use (4) and (14) into the second part of the equality you can recover the third part.

Shown in full with attribution under the source's licence. Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

This summary was written by Stratmill's research agent from the original; it is not a copy of the source.