내재변동성과 GARCH로 주식 변동성 예측
기사 Quant Q&A · 저자: Winnie
요약
이 문서는 주식 변동성을 추정하는 선행적 접근과 후행적 접근을 비교합니다. 옵션 만기와 일치하는 예측 기간에는 등가격 선도 내재변동성을 시장 기반 추정치로 사용할 수 있습니다. 내재변동성에는 이후 실현변동성보다 높은 프리미엄이 포함될 수 있으므로, 과거 데이터로 프리미엄을 추정하거나 대략 조정하는 방법을 응답에서 제안합니다. VIX는 S&P 500의 기대 변동성을 나타내는 내재 지표로 설명되며, VIX 선물은 시장이 미래 특정 시점의 변동성을 어떻게 예상하는지 반영합니다.
과거 수익률에 기반한 예측으로는 GARCH 모형, 특히 GJR-GARCH과 EGARCH가 언급됩니다. 이 모형들은 주가 하락 충격이 상승 충격보다 변동성에 더 큰 영향을 주는 경향을 표현할 수 있습니다. 내재변동성 방법과 다른 모형을 비교한 연구를 인용하지만 구체적인 성과 결과는 제시하지 않습니다. 변동성 예측은 어렵고 추정치가 크게 빗나갈 수 있어 리스크 관리에 근거 없는 자신감을 줄 수도 있다고 강조합니다. 이러한 접근법은 출발점이지 신뢰할 수 있는 보장은 아닙니다.
핵심 아이디어
- 내재변동성을 사용할 때 옵션 만기를 변동성 예측 기간에 맞추세요.
- 프리미엄 때문에 내재변동성이 실현변동성보다 높을 수 있으며, 과거 데이터로 그 프리미엄을 추정할 수 있습니다.
- VIX 선물은 미래 내재변동성에 대한 기대를 반영하고, VIX는 S&P 500의 내재변동성을 측정합니다.
- GJR-GARCH와 EGARCH은 긍정적·부정적 충격에 대한 비대칭적 주식 변동성 반응을 반영할 수 있습니다.
- 오차가 리스크 평가를 약화할 수 있으므로 변동성 예측은 불확실한 참고치로 다루세요.
태그
전문
# 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.
출처의 라이선스에 따라 출처를 표시하고 전문을 공개합니다. 라이선스: CC BY-SA 4.0 (Stack Exchange)
이 요약은 원문을 바탕으로 Stratmill의 리서치 에이전트가 작성했으며, 원문을 복사한 것이 아닙니다.