コンテンツへスキップ
ライブラリの全資料

インプライド・ボラティリティとGARCHによる株式ボラティリティ予測

記事 Quant Q&A · 著者: Winnie

サマリー

株式ボラティリティの推定について、将来を見通す方法と過去を振り返る方法を対比しています。オプションの満期に予測期間を合わせる場合、アット・ザ・マネー・フォワードのインプライド・ボラティリティを市場ベースの推定値として利用できます。インプライド・ボラティリティには、その後の実現ボラティリティに対するプレミアムが含まれる場合があるため、過去データからそのプレミアムを推定するか、大まかな調整を適用する方法を提案しています。VIXはS&P 500の予想ボラティリティを示すインプライド指標とされ、VIX先物は将来時点のボラティリティに対する市場の予想を反映します。

過去のリターンに基づく予測については、GARCHモデル、特にGJR-GARCHとEGARCHを取り上げています。これらは、株式市場で負のショックが正のショックよりもボラティリティに大きく影響する傾向を表現できます。インプライド・ボラティリティの手法と他のモデルを比較した研究に触れていますが、詳細なパフォーマンス結果は示していません。ボラティリティの予測は難しく、推定が大きく外れるとリスク管理に誤った確信をもたらす可能性があると強調しています。これらの手法は出発点であり、確実な結果を保証するものではありません。

主なアイデア

  • インプライド・ボラティリティを使う場合、オプションの満期をボラティリティの予測期間に合わせます。
  • プレミアムのため、インプライド・ボラティリティが実現ボラティリティを上回る場合があります。そのプレミアムは過去データから推定できます。
  • VIX先物は将来のインプライド・ボラティリティへの予想を反映し、VIXはS&P 500のインプライド・ボラティリティを示します。
  • GJR-GARCHとEGARCHは、正負のショックに対する株式ボラティリティの非対称な反応を捉えられます。
  • 予測誤差がリスク評価を損なう可能性があるため、ボラティリティ予測は不確実な目安として扱います。

タグ

全文
# How would you forecast volatility without using any programming languages or machine learning or anything of that sort?


# How would you forecast volatility without using any programming languages or machine learning or anything of that sort?












I am trying to forecast volatility. I am on the tactical asset allocation team. No one on our team knows machine learning or any programming languages. We are fundamental equity research analysts trying to find a way to forecast volatility. We were thinking of maybe using the VIX futures?

## Answer by RWP - Down by the Bay (score 3, accepted)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/53149

For asset allocation purposes I would use implied volatility on atmf options on the underlying with a maturity close to the term in which you are interested. There will be some premium in there so you can run a regression and find out how much premium on average is in there historically, or you can just divide by 1.1, which is a good approximation for the premium.

Example: Say 1mo S&P atmf options trade with implied volatility of 50, then your estimate for 1mo vol is 50/1.1 = 45.5

## Answer by Alba (score 6)

https://quant.stackexchange.com/a/53134

Basically, you have to choose whether to use a forward-looking or a backward-looking method of forecasting volatility. Let's start with the VIX. The VIX is an implied volatility index. Option pricing models require the volatility of the underlying asset as an input. Volatility is not an observed quantity, so the people who are pricing the options have to estimate it. This means that you can plug the market price of the option back into the pricing formula, and solve it backwards for the volatility, which will then roughly correspond to the market's estimate of what the volatility will be during the maturity period of the option. The VIX is an index that tracks this implied volatility, the underlying being the S&P 500 index. It used to be calculated on the S&P 100 index using index options, but nowadays the CBOE has switched the methodology to using the broader S&P 500 and a "variance swap"-based calculation. The interpretation is however basically the same, it measures how large the volatility is expected to be over the next 12 months. This is a forward-looking volatility measure: It incorporates information of what the market believes that the volatility will be in the future. See this whitepaper for more details.

VIX futures are futures on implied volatility. This means that their payoff is based on what the market, at some time in the future, will believe that the volatility will be during some maturity period. I am not sure why you would use futures on the VIX rather than just using the VIX itself.

The alternative is a backward-looking measure, i.e. forecasting volatility tomorrow based on what it has been during some period in the (recent) past. Then, a good place to start would be GARCH models (Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity). This is a (very) broad class of models, but I'd say that for equity, you might want to look into the GJR-GARCH model of Glosten, Jagannathan and Runkle (1993) or the E-GARCH model of Nelson (1991). The volatility of equity tends to be asymmetric, i.e. negative shocks might affect volatility more harshly as compared to positive shocks. The GJR- and EGARCH models take this into account.

Becker et. al (2007) compare implied volatility-based models to the performance of other types of volatility models. Many of these are very involved. I want to emphasize that forecasting volatility is a difficult endeavour, and from a risk-management perspective, there are arguments in favour of the view that one should not even attempt it. It can give you a false sense of security. Any volatility forecast should not be interpreted as certain, but rather as an indication that is prone to being terribly wrong.

出典を明記したうえで、ライセンスに従って全文を掲載しています。 ライセンス: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)

この要約は原文をもとにStratmillのリサーチエージェントが作成したもので、出典の複製ではありません。