Skip to content
All library documents

How Serial Correlation Changes Multi-Period Return Variance

Article Quant Q&A · Author: confused

Summary

The document explains why multiplying single-period variance by the number of periods can misstate the variance of compounded horizon returns when returns are serially correlated. Under covariance stationarity and a common single-period variance, multi-period variance includes the variances of each period plus covariance contributions across lags. Positive autocorrelation adds to the horizon variance, while negative autocorrelation reduces it; with zero autocorrelation, variance scales linearly with the horizon and volatility scales with its square root.

The discussion connects this adjustment to Sharpe ratio interpretation: positive serial dependence makes the multi-period volatility denominator larger than the independent-returns calculation, while negative dependence makes it smaller. It cites a derivation from Andrew Lo’s work on Sharpe ratios and summarizes its implication, but does not provide empirical estimates or address nonstationary returns, changing variance, or estimation uncertainty. The result therefore depends on the stationarity and common-variance assumptions stated in the source.

Key ideas

  • Multi-period variance includes covariance terms between returns at different lags.
  • Positive serial correlation increases horizon variance relative to linear scaling.
  • Negative serial correlation reduces horizon variance relative to linear scaling.
  • With zero autocorrelation, variance scales with horizon and volatility with its square root.
  • The stated derivation assumes covariance stationarity and common single-period variance.

Tags

Full text
# How does autocorrelation bias annualizing variance?


# How does autocorrelation bias annualizing variance?












I read somewhere that autocorrelation prevents someone from annualizing variance. But how does it bias it? Let's say you have daily returns. If autocorrelation is high, should that overstate or understate annualized variance when you multiply by 252. What about if you have negative autocorrelation?

Thanks!

## Answer by Pleb (score 4, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/72184

In Andrew W. Lo's paper, The statistics of Sharpe Ratios (2002) he derives the variance of non-IID returns (returns that can exhibit serial correlation) under the assumption of (covariance) stationary returns with common variance (eq. 19):

\begin{align} \mathbb{V}ar\left(R_{t}(q)\right) &= \sum_{i=0}^{q-1} \sum_{j=0}^{q-1}\mathbb{C}ov(R_{t-i}, R_{t-j})\\ &= q\sigma^2 + 2\sigma^2 \sum_{k=1}^{q-1}(q-k)\rho_k, \end{align} where $\rho_k = \frac{\mathbb{C}ov(R_{t}, R_{t-k})}{\mathbb{V}ar\left(R_{t}\right)}$ is the k'th order autocorrelation (under stationarity) and $R_{t}(q)$ is the $q$'th period return defined by, $$ R_{t}(q) = R_t + R_{t-1} + \ldots + R_{t-q+1}. $$

With $\sigma^2 \geq 0$ we can observe the following from the above equation:

- Positive autocorrelations, $\rho_k > 0$, will upward bias the variance and hence also the volatility.

- For $\rho_k < 0$ the variance will be downward biased and so will the volatility.

- For $\rho_k=0$ the formula reduces to the scaled variance of the $q$'th-period return, $\mathbb{V}ar\left(R_{t}(q)\right) = q \sigma^2$ which implies that $Sd(R_t(q)) = \sqrt{q} \cdot \sigma$.

As a conclusive note, the author further states that (p. 41):

> [...] The reason is that positive serial correlation implies that the variance of multiperiod returns increases faster than holding-period q; hence, the variance of $R_t(q)$ is more than $q$ times the variance of $R_t$, yielding a larger denominator in the Sharpe ratio than the IID case. For returns with negative serial correlation, the opposite is true: The variance of $R_t(q)$ is less than $q$ times the variance of $R_t$, yielding a smaller denominator in the Sharpe ratio than the IID case.

Maybe this is the paper you are looking for? The paper contains some good examples on how serial correlation can affect Sharpe Ratios. It is worth a read.

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.