Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FRM P1.Quantitative-Analysis
FRM P1.Quantitative-Analysis
FRM P1.Quantitative-Analysis
If f(x) is a probability function, in order to satisfy the definition of a “probability” the following
two conditions must be true:
The probability function f(x) must be greater than (or equal to) zero and less than (or
equal to) one; for example, there is no such thing as a -30% probability of occurrence or
a 120% probability of occurrence.
The sum of each mutually exclusive probability must be equal to one: if the
probabilities are mutually exclusive and cumulatively exhaustive (we include all possible
outcomes), the sum of those probabilities must equal one.
1st condition: 0 f ( x) 1
2nd condition: f ( x) 1
x
A two-sided coin is the classic discrete random variable (Bernoulli). If we flip a coin,
there are two possible outcomes: heads or tails. The first condition above insists that the
probability of flipping a head (or a tail) must lie between 0% and 100%. And the odds for a
head are 50%. The second condition insists that all probability functions must sum to
100%: 50% probability of “heads” plus 50% probability of “tails” = 100% (1.0). In other
words, “outcome = heads” and “outcome = tails” cover all the possible outcomes; we
aren’t omitting another possible outcome.
Continuous
Pr (c1 ≤ Z ≤ c2) =
Pr (Z ≤ c)= φ(c)
φ(c2) - φ(c1)
probability Cumulative
function Distribution
(pdf, pmf) Function (CDF)
Pr (X = 3) Pr (X ≤ 3)
Discrete
A continuous random variable (X) has an infinite number of values within an interval:
b
P (a X b) a f ( x )dx
A discrete random variable (X) assumes a value among a finite set including x1, x2, x3 and so
on. The probability function is expressed by:
P( X xk ) f ( xk )
Examples of a discrete random variable include: coin toss (head or tails, nothing in
between); roll of the dice (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6); and “did the fund beat the
benchmark?”(yes, no). In risk, common discrete random variables are default/no
default (0/1) and loss frequency.
Note the similarity between the summation (∑ ) under the discrete variable and the
integral (∫) under the continuous variable. The summation (∑) of all discrete
outcomes must equal one. Similarly, the integral (∫) captures the area under the
continuous distribution function. The total area “under this curve,” from (-∞) to (∞),
must equal one.
Examples in Finance
Distance, Time (e.g.) Default (1,0) (e.g.)
Severity of loss (e.g.) Frequency of loss (e.g.)
Asset returns (e.g.)
For example
The probability density function answers a “local” question: If the random variable is discrete,
the pdf (a.k.a., probability mass function, pmf, if discrete) is the probability the variable will
assume an exact value of x; i.e., PMF: P(X = x). If the variable is continuous, the pdf tells us the
likelihood of outcomes occurring on an interval between any two points. The pdf functions are
illustrated on the top row below, continuous (left-hand) and discrete (right-hand):
r2
P r1 X r2 f ( x )dx p f ( x ) P( X xi )
r1
a
F (a ) f ( x )dx P X a F (a) P( X x )
The cumulative density function (CDF) associates with either a PMF or PDF (i.e., the CDF can
apply to either a continuous or random variable). The CDF gives the probability the random
variable will be less than, or equal to, some value. CDF: P(X x).
If F(x) is a cumulative distribution function, then we define F −1(p), the inverse cumulative
distribution, as follows:
The inverse cumulaitve distribution function (CDF) is also called the quantile function;
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantile_function. We can now see why Dowd says that
“VaR is just a quantile [function];” e.g., 95% VaR is the inverse CDF for p = 5% or p 95%.
A single variable (univariate) probability distribution is concerned with only a single random
variable; e.g., roll of a die, default of a single obligor. A multivariate probability density
function concerns the outcome of an experiment with more than one random variable. This
includes, the simplest case, two variables (i.e., a bivariate distribution).
Density Cumulative
Univariate f(x)= P(X = x) F(x) = P(X ≤ x)
Bivariate f(x)= P(X = x, Y =y) f(x) = P(X ≤ x, Y ≤ y)
For example, consider a craps roll of two six-sided dice. What is the probability of rolling a
seven; i.e., P[X=7]? There are six outcomes that generate a roll of seven: 1+6, 2+5, 3+4, 4+3, 5+2,
and 6+1. Further, there are 36 total outcomes. Therefore, the probability is 6/36.
In this case, the outcomes need to be mutually exclusive, equally likely, and
“cumulatively exhaustive” (i.e., all possible outcomes included in total). A key property
of a probability is that the sum of the probabilities for all (discrete) outcomes is 1.0.
Relative frequency is based on an actual number of historical observations (or Monte Carlo
simulations). For example, here is a simulation (produced in Excel) of one hundred (100) rolls of
a single six-sided die:
Empirical Distribution
Roll Freq. %
1 11 11%
2 17 17%
3 18 18%
4 21 21%
5 18 18%
6 15 15%
Total 100 100%
But the empirical frequency, based on this sample, is 18%. If we generate another
sample, we will produce a different empirical frequency.
This relates also to sampling variation. The a priori probability is based on population
properties; in this case, the a priori probability of rolling any number is clearly 1/6th.
However, a sample of 100 trials will exhibit sampling variation: the number of threes (3s)
rolled above varies from the parametric probability of 1/6 th. We do not expect the
sample to produce 1/6th perfectly for each outcome.
For a given random variable, the probability of any of two mutually exclusive events occurring is
just the sum of their individual probabilities. In statistics notation, we can write:
P A B P A P B if mutually exclusive
where A B is the union of A and B; i.e., the probability of either A or B occurring. This equality
is true only for mutually exclusive events. This property of mutually exclusive events can be
extended to any number of events. The probability that any of (n) mutually exclusive events
occurs is the sum of the probabilities of (each of) those (n) events.
Independent events
X and Y are independent if the condition distribution of Y given X equals the marginal
distribution of Y. Since independence implies Pr (Y=y | X=x) = Pr(Y=y):
Pr( X x,Y y )
Pr(Y y | X x )
Pr( X x )
The most useful test of statistical independence is given by:
X and Y are independent if their joint distribution is equal to the product of their
marginal distributions.
For example, when rolling two dice, the second will be independent of the first.
This independence implies that the probability of rolling double-sixes is equal to the product of
P(rolling one six) and P(rolling one six). If two die are independent, then P (first roll = 6, second
roll = 6) = P(rolling a six) * P (rolling a six). And, indeed: 1/36 = (1/6)*(1/6)
The stock can either outperform the market or underperform the market.
The joint probability of both the company's stock outperforming the market and the
bonds being upgraded is 15% (yellow cell).
Similarly, the joint probability of the stock underperforming the market and the bonds
having no change in rating is 25% (orange cell).
We can also see the unconditional (a.k.a., marginal) probabilities, by adding across a row or
down a column. The probability of the bonds being upgraded, irrespective of the stock's
performance, is: 15% + 5% = 20%. Similarly, the probability of the equity outperforming the
market is: 15% + 30% + 5% = 50%. Importantly, all of the joint probabilities add to 100%.
Equity
Outperform Underperform
Upgrade 15% 5% 20%
Bonds No change 30% 25% 55%
Downgrade 5% 20% 25%
50% 50% 100%
The age of the computer (A), a Bernoulli such that the computer is old (0) or new (1)
The joint probability is the probability that the random variables (in this case, both random
variables) take on certain values simultaneously.
0 1 2 3 4 Tot
“The joint probability distribution of two discrete random variables, say X and Y, is the
probability that the random variables simultaneously take on certain values, say x and y.
The probabilities of all possible ( x, y) combinations sum to 1. The joint probability
distribution can be written as the function Pr(X = x, Y = y).” —S&W
A marginal (or unconditional) probability is the simple case: it is the probability that does
not depend on a prior event or prior information. The marginal probability is also called the
unconditional probability.
In the following table, please note that ten joint outcomes are possible because the age variable
(A) has two outcomes and the “number of crashes” variable (M) has five outcomes. Each of the
ten outcomes is mutually exclusive and the sum of their probabilities is 1.0 or 100%. For
example, the probability that a new computer crashes once is 0.035 or 3.5%.
l
Pr(Y y ) Pr X xi ,Y y
i 1
Pr( A 1) 0.5
0 1 2 3 4 Tot
“The marginal probability distribution of a random variable Y is just another name for
its probability distribution. This term distinguishes the distribution of Y alone (marginal
distribution) from the joint distribution of Y and another random variable. The marginal
distribution of Y can be computed from the joint distribution of X and Y by adding up the
probabilities of all possible outcomes for which Y takes on a specified value”—S&W
Pr( X x,Y y )
Pr(Y y | X x )
Pr( X x )
0 1 2 3 4 Tot
P( A B)
P (B | A ) P ( A)P (B | A) P ( A B )
P ( A)
And we can refer also to a conditional variance of Y, conditional on X=x, is given by variance
(Y | X = x)
P[ market up | rain].
The vertical bar tells us the probability of the first argument is conditional on the
second. We read this as “The probability of ‘market up’ given ‘rain’ is equal to p.”
If the weather and the stock market are independent, then the probability of the market
being up on a rainy day is the same as the probability of the market being up on a sunny
day. If the weather somehow affects the stock market, however, then the conditional
probabilities might not be equal. We could have a situation where:
In this case, the weather and the stock market are no longer independent. We can no
longer multiply their probabilities together to get their joint probability.”
For example, consider two stocks. Assume that both Stock (S) and Stock (T) can each only reach
three price levels. Stock (S) can achieve: $10, $15, or $20. Stock (T) can achieve: $15, $20, or $30.
Historically, assume we witnessed 26 outcomes and they were distributed as follows.
Note S = S$10/15/20 and T = T$15/20/30 :
A joint probability is the probability that both random variables will have a certain outcome.
Here the joint probability P(S=$20, T=$30) = 3/26.
The unconditional probability of the outcome where S=$20 = 8/26 because there are eight
events out of 26 total events that produce S=$20. The unconditional probability P(S=20) = 8/26
Instead we can ask a conditional probability question: “What is the probability that S=$20 given
that T=$20?” The probability that S=$20 conditional on the knowledge that T=$20 is 3/10
because among the 10 events that produce T=$20, three are S=$20.
P (S $20,T $20) 3
P (S $20 T $20)
P (T $20) 10
In summary:
Bayes Theorem shows how a conditional probability of the form P(B|A) may be combined with
the initial probability P(A) to obtain the final probability P(A|B):
P B | A P A
P A | B
P B
P B | A P A
P B | A P A P B | A P A
In the following example, assume a simplified model of reality: a Bernoulli trial in which the
economy can either grow (G) or slow (S). Additionally, our stock can either go up (U) or (D).
Therefore, there are four possible future states:
Bayes’ Theorem solves for a conditional probability. In this case, we can ask the following
question: what is the probability that the economy grew given the prior information (conditional
on the evidence given) that the stock went up:
P(U | G)P(G)
P(G |U )
P(U )
Because P(U) is itself the sum of two possible outcomes, the denominator can be expanded and
the we get the elaborate version of the Bayes’ formula:
P(U | G)P(G)
P(G |U )
P(U | G)P(G) P(U | G)P(G)
Up (U)
Econ Grow
(G)
Down (D)
a priori
Up (U)
Econ Slows
(S)
Down (D)
Without applying Bayes the unconditional (marginal) probability the economy will grow is
given by: P(G) = 70%; this is the probability without any prior information.
Apply Bayes Theorem: Instead, assume that we are given additional information. Specifically,
we are told “the stock went up.” Now, what is the probability the economy grew given
(conditional on) the stock went up?
(80%)(70%) 56%
P(G |U ) 86%
(80%)(70%) (30%)(30%) 65%
In summary:
The unconditional (a.k.a., marginal) probability that the economy will grow, P(G), is 70%
The posterior probability, conditional on the knowledge that the stock went up, that the
economy grew, P(G|U) = 86%
Question: John is forecasting a stock’s performance in 2010 conditional on the state of the
economy of the country in which the firm is based. He divides the economy’s performance into
three categories of “GOOD”, “NEUTRAL” and “POOR” and the stock’s performance into three
categories of “increase”, “constant” and “decrease”.
He estimates:
The probability that the state of the economy is GOOD is 20%. If the state of the economy
is GOOD, the probability that the stock price increases is 80% and the probability that
the stock price decreases is 10%.
The probability that the state of the economy is NEUTRAL is 30%. If the state of the
economy is NEUTRAL, the probability that the stock price increases is 50% and the
probability that the stock price decreases is 30%.
If the state of the economy is POOR, the probability that the stock price increases is 15%
and the probability that the stock price is 70%.
Billy, his supervisor, asks him to estimate the probability that the state of the economy is
NEUTRAL given that the stock performance is constant. John’s best assessment of that
probability is closest to what?
Question: John is forecasting a stock’s price in 2011 conditional on the progress of certain
legislation in the United States Congress. He divides the legislative outcomes into three
categories of “Passage”, “Stalled” and “Defeated” and the stock’s performance into three
categories of “increase”, “constant” and “decrease” and estimates the following events:
Answer:
If we can characterize a random variable (e.g., if we know all outcomes and that each outcome is
equally likely—as is the case when you roll a single die)—the expectation of the random
variable is often called the mean or arithmetic mean.
k
E (Y ) y1p1 y 2 p2 y k pk y i pi
i 1
E( X ) xf ( X )dx
If we have a complete data set, then the mean is a population mean which implies that the
mean is exactly the true (and only true) mean:
1 n 1
ai a1 a2 an
n i 1 n
However, in practice, we typically do not have the population. Rather, more often we have only a
subset of the population or a dataset that cannot realistically be considered comprehensive; e.g.,
the most recent year of equity returns. A mean of such a dataset, which is much more likely in
practice, is called the sample mean. The sample mean, of course, uses the same formula:
1 n 1
ˆ ri r1 r2 rn
n i 1 n
But the difference between a population parameter (e.g., population mean) and a sample
estimate (e.g., sample mean) is essential to statistics: each sample will produce a different
sample mean, which is likely to be near the “true” population mean but different depending on
the sample. We use the sample estimate to infer something about the unobserved population
parameter.
Variance (and standard deviation) is the second moment, the most common measures of
dispersion. The variance of a discrete random variable Y is given by:
k
Y2 variance(Y ) E Y Y y i Y pi
2 2
i 1
Variance is also expressed as the difference between the expected value of X^2 and the square
of the expected value of X. This is the more useful variance formula:
Please memorize this variance formula above: it comes in handy! For example, if the
probability of loan default (PD) is a Bernouilli trial, what is the variance of PD?
For example, what is the variance of a single six-sided die? First, we need to solve for the
expected value of X-squared, E[X2]. This is given by:
1 1 1 1 1 1 91
E [ X 2 ] (12 ) (22 ) (32 ) (42 ) (52 ) (62 )
6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Then, we need to square the expected value of X, [E(X)]2. The expected value of a single six-sided
die is 3.5 (the average outcome). So, the variance of a single six-sided die is given by:
91
Variance( X ) E ( X 2 ) [E ( X )]2 (3.5)2 2.92
6
What is the variance of the total of two six-sided die cast together? It is simply the
Variance (X) plus the Variance (Y) or about 5.83. The reason we can simply add them
together is that they are independent random variables.
1 k
sx2
k 1 i 1
( y i Y )2
The above sample variance is used by Hull, for example, to calculate historical variance (and
volatility) of asset returns. Specifically, Hull employs a sample variance (which divides by k-
1 or n-1) to compute historical volatility. Admittedly, because the variable is daily returns, he
subsequently makes two simplifying assumptions, including reversion to division by (n) or (k).
However, the point remains: when computing the volatility (standard deviation) of an historical
set of the returns, the square root of the above sample variance it typically appropriate: it gives
an unbiased estimate (of the variance, at least).
Properties of variance
constant
2
0
X2 Y X2 Y2 only if independent
X2 Y X2 Y2 only if independent
X2 b X2
aX
2
a 2 X2
aX
2
b a X
2 2
aX
2
bY a X b Y
2 2 2 2
only if independent
X2 E ( X 2 ) E ( X )2
Standard deviation:
Y var(Y ) E Y Y y i Y 2 pi
2
1 k
sX
k 1 i 1
( y i Y )2
This is merely the square root of the sample variance. This formula is important because
this is the technically a safe way to calculate sample volatility; i.e., when in doubt,
you are rarely mistaken to employ the (n-1) or (k-1)
Covariance
Covariance is analogous to variance, but instead of looking at the deviation from the mean of one
variable, we are look at the relationship between the deviations of two variables. Put another
way, the covariance is the average cross-product. If the means of both variables, X and Y, are
known we can use the following formula for covariance, which might be called a population
covariance:
1 n
XY X i X Yi Y
n i 1
If the true means are unknown, the we calculate the same means; however, in this case, we
acknowledge that the means are sample means and we are calculating a sample covariance. The
Sample covariance multiplies the sum of cross-products by 1/(n-1) rather than 1/n:
X i X Yi Y
1 n
s XY
n 1 i 1
Correlation
Correlation is a key measure in the FRM and is typically denoted by Greek rho (ρ). Correlation
is the covariance between two variables divided by the product of their respective standard
deviations (a.k.a., volatilities):
XY
XY where XY cov( X ,Y ) E [( X X )(Y Y )]
XY
s XY
r XY
S X SY
What is the covariance of a variable with itself; i.e., what is covariance(X,X)? It is the
variance(X). It will be helpful to keep in mind that a variable’s covariance with itself is
its variance; for example, knowing this, we realize that the diagonal in a covariance
matrix is populated with variances, because variance is a special case of covariance!
For a very simple example, consider three (X,Y) pairs: {(3,5), (2,4), (4,6)}:
X Y (X-X )(Y-Y )
avg avg
3 5 0.0
2 4 1.0
4 6 1.0
Avg = 3 Avg = 5 Avg = = 0.67
XY
StdDev = SQRT(.67) StdDev = SQRT(.67) Correl. = 1.0
Please note:
Properties of covariance
1. If X &Y are independent, XY cov( X ,Y ) 0
2. cov(a bX , c dY ) bd cov( X ,Y )
3. cov( X , X ) var( X ). In notation, XX X2
4. If X &Y are not independent,
X2 Y X2 Y2 2 XY
X2 Y X2 Y2 2 XY
The example refers to two products, Coke (X) and Pepsi (Y).
We (somehow) can generate growth projections for both products. For both Coke (X) and Pepsi
(Y), we have three scenarios (bad, medium, and good). Probabilities are assigned to each
growth scenario.
In regard to Coke:
In regard to Pepsi,
Finally, we know these outcomes are not independent. We want to calculate the correlation
coefficient.
XY 15 63 108
pXY 3 37.8 21.6
E(XY) 62.4
X2 9 81 144
Y2 25 49 81
E(X2) 79.2
E(Y2) 50.6
STDEVP(X) 2.939
STDEVP(Y) 1.265
COV/(STD)(STD) 0.9682
The calculation of expected values is required: E(X), E(Y), E(XY), E(X 2) and E(Y2). Make sure you
can replicate the following two steps:
The correlation coefficient () is equal to the Cov(X,Y) divided by the product of the
standard deviations: XY = 97% = 3.6 (2.94 1.26)
Zero covariance → zero correlation (But the converse not necessarily true. For example,
Y=X^2 is nonlinear )
Correlation (or dependence) is not causation. For example, in a basket credit default
swap, the correlation (dependence) between the obligors is a key input. But we do not
assume there is mutual causation (e.g., that one default causes another). Rather, more
likely, different obligors are similarly sensitive to economic conditions. So, economic
deterioration may the the external cause that all obligors have in common.
Consqequently, their default exhibit dependence. But the causation is not internal.
Interpret and calculate the variance for a portfolio and understand the
derivation of the minimum variance hedge ratio.
If we assume the variables X(A) and X(B) and (a) and (b) as constant, we can express Y as a
linear combination of the variables:
Y aX A bX B
In which case, the variance of this linear combination is the classic two-variable variance where
the third term includes correlation, rho(AB):
P X A hX B
P2 12 A2 h2 B2 2(1)h AB A B A2 h2 B2 2h AB A B
d P2
2h B2 2 AB A B
dh
A
h * AB
B
This h(*) is the minimum variance hedge: the hedge ratio (i.e., the amount of Security B) that
returns the lowest portfolio variance.
Mean
E(a bX cY ) a b X c Y
Variance
In regard to the sum of correlated variables, the variance of correlated variables is given by the
following (note the two expressions; the second merely substitutes the covariance with the
product of correlation and volatilities. Please make sure you are comfortable with this
substitution).
If X and Y are independent, the covariance term drops out and the variance simply adds:
variance( X Y ) X2 Y2
Moments of a distribution
mk E X k
We refer to m(k) as the k-the moment of X. But this is a raw moment and we are generally
more concerned with central moments; i.e., “moments about the mean” or sometimes
“moments around the mean.”
The k-th moment about the mean (), or k-th central moment, is given by:
( x )k
n
k-th moment i 1 i
, or equivalently
n
k E X
k
In this way, the difference of each data point from the mean is raised to a power (k=1, k=2, k=3,
and k=4). There are the four moments of the distribution:
If k=1, this refers to the first moment about zero: the mean.
If k=2, this refers to the second moment about the mean: the variance.
With respect to skewness and kurtosis, it is convention to standardize the moment, such that:
If k=3, then the third moment divided by the cube of the standard deviation returns
the skewness
If k=4, then the fourth moment divided by the square of the variance (standard
deviation^4) about the mean returns the kurtosis; a.k.a., tail density, peakedness.
Skewness (asymmetry)
E [( X )3 ]
Skewness = 3
3
Please note that skewness is not actually the (raw) third moment, or even the third moment
about the mean. Skewness is the standardized central third moment: the third moment
about the mean divided by the cube of the standard deviation.
For example, the gamma distribution has positive skew (skew > 0):
Gamma Distribution
Positive (Right) Skew
1.20
1.00 alpha=1,
0.80 beta=1
0.60
0.40 alpha=2,
0.20 beta=.5
-
alpha=4,
0.0
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.6
4.2
4.8
beta=.25
E [( X )4 ]
Kurtosis = 4
4
Please note that kurtosis is not actually the (raw) fourth moment, or even the fourth moment
about the mean. Kurtosis is the standardized central fourth moment: the fourth moment
about the mean divided by square of the variance.
A normal distribution has relative skewness of zero and kurtosis of three (or the same
idea put another way: excess kurtosis of zero). Relative skewness > 0 indicates positive
skewness (a longer right tail) and relative skewness < 0 indicates negative skewness (a
longer left tail). Kurtosis greater than three (>3), which is the same thing as saying
“excess kurtosis > 0,” indicates high peaks and fat tails (leptokurtic). Kurtosis less than
three (<3), which is the same thing as saying “excess kurtosis < 0,” indicates lower peaks.
Financial asset returns are typically considered leptokurtic (i.e., heavy or fat- tailed)
For example, the logistic distribution exhibits leptokurtosis (heavy-tails; kurtosis > 3.0):
Logistic Distribution
Heavy-tails (excess kurtosis > 0)
0.50
0.40 alpha=0, beta=1
0.30 alpha=2, beta=1
0.20
alpha=0, beta=3
0.10
- N(0,1)
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41
Assume four series of fund returns where the returns are the same for each fund manager
(A),(B), (C), and (D) but only the order of returns is different:
Fund Returns
time A B C D
1 0.0% -3.8% -15.3% -15.3%
2 -3.8% -15.3% -7.2% -7.2%
3 -15.3% 3.8% 0.0% -3.8%
4 -7.2% -7.2% -3.8% 15.3%
5 3.8% 0.0% 3.8% 0.0%
6 7.2% 7.2% 7.2% 7.2%
7 15.3% 15.3% 15.3% 3.8%
Due to the ordering difference, the portfolio (A+B) is different than the portfolio (C+D):
Blended Portfolios
time A+B C+D
1 -1.9% -15.3%
2 -9.5% -7.2%
3 -5.8% -1.9%
4 -7.2% 5.8%
5 1.9% 1.9%
6 7.2% 7.2%
7 15.3% 9.5%
And scatterplots show the difference between (B versus A) and (D versus C):
20% 20%
15% 15%
10% 10%
5% 5%
B 0% D 0%
-5% -5%
-10% -10%
-15% -15%
-20% -20%
-20% -10% 0% 10% 20% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20%
A C
Note:
The worst return for A+B is only -9.5% = (-3.8% - 15.3%)/2, but
The worst return for C+D is -15.3% = (-15.3% - 15.3%)/2
AAB A A B B
2
ABB A A B B
2
In general, for (n) random variables, the number of non-trivial cross-central moments of order
(m) is given by:
k
m n 1! n
m ! n 1!
k3
n 2 n 1 n n
6
An estimate is the numerical value of the estimator when it is actually computed using data from
a specific sample. An estimator is a random variable because of randomness in selecting the
sample, while an estimate is a nonrandom number.
The sample mean, Ӯ, is the best linear unbiased estimator (BLUE). In the Stock & Watson
example, the average (mean) wage among 200 people is $22.64:
Please note:
In the above example, the sample mean is an estimator of the unknown, true population mean
(in this case, the same mean estimator gives an estimate of $22.64).
Unbiased: the mean of the sampling distribution is the population mean (mu)
Consistent. When the sample size is large, the uncertainty about the value of arising
from random variations in the sample is very small.
Variance and efficiency. Among all unbiased estimators, the estimator has the smallest
variance is “efficient.”
If the sample is random (i.i.d.), the sample mean is the Best Linear Unbiased Estimator
(BLUE). The sample mean is:
Consistent, AND
The most EFFICIENT among all linear UNBIASED estimators of the population mean
A parametric distribution can be described by a mathematical function. For example, the normal
distribution is perhaps the most well-known parametric distribution. The normal distribution is
a parametric distribution that requires only two parameters, mean and variance:
( x )2
1 2 2
f (x) e
2
A nonparametric distribution cannot be summarized by a mathematical formula; in its simplest
form it is “just a collection of data.”
Uniform distribution
If the random variable, X, is continuous, the uniform distribution is given by the following
probability density function (pdf):
1
for a x b
f (x) b a
0 for x a or x b
If the random variable, X, is discrete, the uniform distribution is given by the following
probability density function (pdf; although, in the case of a discrete variable, we can also refer to
this as a probability mass function, pmf)
1
f (x)
n
This is an extremely simple distribution. Common examples of discrete uniform distributions
are:
a b1
P X a
b2 b1
A random variable X is called Bernoulli distributed with parameter (p) if it has only two
possible outcomes, often encoded as 1 (“success” or “survival”) or 0 (“failure” or “default”), and
if the probability for realizing “1” equals p and the probability for “0” equals 1 – p. The classic
example for a Bernoulli-distributed random variable is the default event of a company.
1 if C defaults in I
X
0 else
Binomial
A binomial distributed random variable is the sum of (n) independent and identically distributed
(i.i.d.) Bernoulli-distributed random variables. The probability of observing (k) successes is
given by:
n n n!
P (Y k ) pk (1 p )n k ,
k k (n k )! k !
Poisson
The Poisson distribution depends upon only one parameter, lambda λ, and can be interpreted as
an approximation to the binomial distribution. A Poisson-distributed random variable is usually
used to describe the random number of events occurring over a certain time interval. The
lambda parameter (λ) indicates the rate of occurrence of the random events; i.e., it tells us
how many events occur on average per unit of time.
In the Poisson distribution, the random number of events that occur during an interval of time,
(e.g., losses/ year, failures/ day) is given by:
k
P (N k ) e
k!
The middle of the distribution, mu (µ), is the mean (and median). This first moment is
also called the “location”
Standard deviation and variance are measures of dispersion (a.k.a., shape). Variance is
the second-moment; typically, variance is denoted by sigma-squared such that standard
deviation is sigma.
The distribution is symmetric around µ. In other words, the normal has skew = 0
Summation stability: If you take the sum of several independent random variables,
which are all normally distributed with mean (µi) and standard deviation (σi), then the
sum will be normally distributed again.
The normal distribution possesses a domain of attraction. The central limit theorem
(CLT) states that—under certain technical conditions—the distribution of a large sum of
random variables behaves necessarily like a normal distribution.
The normal distribution is not the only class of probability distributions having a domain
of attraction. Actually three classes of distributions have this property: they are called
stable distributions.
0.5
0.3 1 2 2 2
f (x) e ( x )
2
0.1
(4.0)
(3.0)
(2.0)
(1.0)
-0.1
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
The central limit theorem (CLT) says that sampling distribution of sample means tends
to be normal (i.e., converges toward a normally shaped distributed) regardless of the
shape of the underlying distribution; this explains much of the “popularity” of the normal
distribution.
The normal is economical (elegant) because it only requires two parameters (mean
and variance). The standard normal is even more economical: it requires no
parameters.
Parsimony: It only requires (is fully described by) two parameters: mean and variance
Often times, the user is implicitly “imposing normality” by assuming the data is normally
distributed. For example, the user might multiply the standard deviation of the dataset
by 1.645 or 2.33 (i.e., normal distribution deviates) in order to estimate a value-at-risk.
But notice what happens in this case: without a test (or QQ-plot, for example) the analyst
is merely assuming normality because the normal distribution is conveniently
summarized by only the first two moments! Many other non-normal distributions have
first (aka, location) and second moments (aka, scale or shape).
In this way, it is not uncommon to see the normal distribution used merely for the sake of
convenience: when we only have the first two distributional moments, the normal is
implied perhaps merely because they are the only moments that have been computed.
A normal distribution is fully specified by two parameters, mean and variance (or standard
deviation). We can transform a normal into a unit or standardized variable:
This unit or standardized variable is normally distributed with zero mean and variance of
one (1.0). Its standard deviation is also one (variance = 1.0 and standard deviation = 1.0). This is
written as: Variable Z is approximately (“asymptotically”) normally distributed: Z ~ N(0,1)
Key locations on the normal distribution are noted below. In the FRM curriculum, the choice of
one-tailed 5% significance and 1% significance (i.e., 95% and 99% confidence) is common, so
please pay particular attention to the yellow highlights:
Memorize two common critical values: 1.65 and 2.33. These correspond to confidence
levels, respectively, of 95% and 99% for a one-tailed test. For VAR, the one-tailed test is
relevant because we are concerned only about losses (left-tail) not gains (right-tail).
3. If variables with a multivariate normal distribution have covariances that equal zero,
then the variables are independent
The Bernoulli is used to characterize default: an obligor or bond will either default or
survive. Most bonds “survive” each year, until perhaps one year they default. At any
given point in time, or (for example) during any given year, the bond will be in one of
two states. The Bernoulli is invoked when there are only two outcomes.
o Typically the central limit theorem (CLT) will justify the significance test of the
sample average in a large sample. For example, to test the sample average asset
return or excess return.
The lognormal is common in finance: If an asset return (r) is normally distributed, the
continuously compounded future asset price level (or ratio or prices; i.e., the wealth ratio) is
lognormal. Expressed in reverse, if a variable is lognormal, its natural log is normal.
Lognormal
Non-zero, positive skew, heavy right tail
1.00%
0.80%
0.60%
0.40%
0.20%
0.00%
The following distributions are not explicitly assigned in this section (Miller), but have
historically been relevant to the FRM, to various degrees
Exponential
The exponential distribution is popular in queuing theory. It is used to model the time we have
to wait until a certain event takes place. According to the text, examples include “the time
until the next client enters the store, the time until a certain company defaults or the time until
some machine has a defect.” The exponential function is non-zero
f ( x ) e x , 1 , x 0
Exponential
3.00
2.00 0.5
1.00
1
0.00
2
0.6
1.2
1.8
2.4
3.0
3.6
4.2
4.8
-
Weibull is a generalized exponential distribution; i.e., the exponential is a special case of the
Weibull where the alpha parameter equals 1.0.
x
F(x) 1 e ,x 0
Weibull distribution
2.00
1.50 alpha=.5,
beta=1
1.00
alpha=2, beta=1
0.50
- alpha=2, beta=2
2.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
The main difference between the exponential distribution and the Weibull is that, under the
Weibull, the default intensity depends upon the point in time t under consideration. This allows
us to model the aging effect or teething troubles:
For α > 1—also called the “light-tailed” case—the default intensity is monotonically increasing
with increasing time, which is useful for modeling the “aging effect” as it happens for machines:
The default intensity of a 20-year old machine is higher than the one of a 2-year old machine.
For α < 1—the “heavy-tailed” case—the default intensity decreases with increasing time. That
means we have the effect of “teething troubles,” a figurative explanation for the effect that after
some trouble at the beginning things work well, as it is known from new cars. The credit spread
on noninvestment-grade corporate bonds provides a good example: Credit spreads usually
decline with maturity. The credit spread reflects the default intensity and, thus, we have the
effect of “teething troubles.” If the company survives the next two years, it will survive for a
longer time as well, which explains the decreasing credit spread.
The family of Gamma distributions forms a two parameter probability distribution family with
the density function (pdf) given by:
1
1 x
f (x) e x ,x 0
( )
Gamma distribution
1.20
1.00
0.80 alpha=1, beta=1
0.60 alpha=2, beta=.5
0.40 alpha=4, beta=.25
0.20
-
For alpha = k/2 and beta = 2, Gamma distribution becomes Chi-square distribution
Beta distribution
The beta distribution has two parameters: alpha (“center”) and beta (“shape”). The beta
distribution is very flexible, and popular for modeling recovery rates.
Beta distribution
(popular for recovery rates)
0.06
0.05 alpha = 0.6, beta = 0.6
0.04
0.03 alpha = 1, beta = 5
0.02
0.01 alpha = 2, beta = 4
0.00
alpha = 2, beta = 1.5
0.07
0.14
0.21
0.28
0.35
0.42
0.49
0.56
0.63
0.70
0.77
0.84
0.91
0.98
-
The beta distribution is often used to model recovery rates. Here are two examples: one beta
distribution to model a junior class of debt (i.e., lower mean recovery) and another for a senior
class of debt (i.e., lower loss given default):
Junior Senior
alpha (center) 2.0 4.0
beta (shape) 6.0 3.3
Mean recovery 25% 55%
0.03
0.02
0.01 Senior
Junior
0.00
12%
18%
24%
30%
36%
42%
48%
54%
60%
66%
72%
78%
84%
90%
96%
0%
6%
Logistic
Logistic distribution
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30 alpha=0, beta=1
0.25
alpha=2, beta=1
0.20
alpha=0, beta=3
0.15
0.10 N(0,1)
0.05
-
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40
Measures of central tendency and dispersion (variance, volatility) are impacted more by
observations near the mean than outliers. The problem is that, typically, we are concerned with
outliers; we want to size the liklihood and magnitude of low frequency, high severity (LFHS)
events. Extreme value theory (EVT) solves this problem by fitting a separate distribution to
the extreme loss tail. EVT uses only the tail of the distribution, not the entire dataset.
Peaks over threshold (POT). The modern approach that is often preferred.
Block maxima
The dataset is parsed into (m) identical, consecutive and non-overlapping periods called blocks.
The length of the block should be greater than the periodicity; e.g., if the returns are daily, blocks
should be weekly or more. Block maxima partitions the set into time-based intervals. It requires
that observations be identically and independently (i.i.d.) distributed.
1
exp (1 y ) 0
H ( y )
y
exp( e ) 0
The (xi) parameter is the “tail index;” it represents the fatness of the tails. In this expression, a
lower tail index corresponds to fatter tails.
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
15
10
20
25
30
35
40
45
Per the (unassigned) Jorion reading on EVT, the key thing to know here is that (1) among
the three classes of GEV distributions (Gumbel, Frechet, and Weibull), we only care
about the Frechet because it fits to fat-tailed distributions, and (2) the shape parameter
determines the fatness of the tails (higher shape → fatter tails)
Peaks over threshold (POT) collects the dataset of losses above (or in excess of) some threshold.
FU ( y ) P( X u y | X u )
u X
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Peaks over threshold (POTS):
1
x
1 (1 ) 0
G , ( x )
1 exp( x ) 0
1.00
0.50
-
0 1 2 3 4
Block maxima is: time-based (i.e., blocks of time), traditional, less sophisticated, more
restrictive in its assumptions (i.i.d.)
Peaks over threshold (POT) is: more modern, has at least three variations (semi-
parametric; unconditional parametric; and conditional parametric), is more flexible
Both GEV and GPD are parametric distributions used to model heavy-tails.
In brief:
Law of large numbers: under general conditions, the sample mean (Ӯ) will be near the
population mean.
Central limit theorem (CLT): As the sample size increases, regardless of the underlying
distribution, the sampling distributions approximates (tends toward) normal
We assume a population with a known mean and finite variance, but not necessarily a normal
distribution (we may not know the distribution!). Random samples of size (n) are then
drawn from the population. The expected value of each random variable is the population’s
mean. Further, the variance of each random variable is equal the population’s variance divided
by n (note: this is equivalent to saying the standard deviation of each random variable is equal to
the population’s standard deviation divided by the square root of n).
The central limit theorem says that this random variable (i.e., of sample size n, drawn from the
population) is itself normally distributed, regardless of the shape of the underlying
population. Given a population described by any probability distribution having mean () and
finite variance (2), the distribution of the sample mean computed from samples (where each
sample equals size n) will be approximately normal. Generally, if the size of the sample is at least
30 (n 30), then we can assume the sample mean is approximately normal!
Each sample has a sample mean. There are many sample means. The sample means have
variation: a sampling distribution. The central limit theorem (CLT) says the sampling
distribution of sample means is asymptotically normal.
X1 X 2 Xn
X
n
As previously noted, a property of the normal distribution is summation stability: If you take
the sum of several independent random variables, which are all normally distributed with mean
(µi) and standard deviation (σi), then the sum will be normally distributed again.
According to Rachev, “Why is the summation stability property important for financial
applications? Imagine that the daily returns of the S&P 500 are independently normally
distributed with µ= 0.05% and σ= 1.6%. Then the monthly returns again are normally
distributed with parameters µ= 1.05% and σ = 7.33% (assuming 21 trading days per month) and
the yearly return is normally distributed with parameters µ = 12.6% and σ = 25.40% (assuming
252 trading days per year). This means that the S&P 500 monthly return fluctuates randomly
around 1.05% and the yearly return around 12.6%.
The last important property that is often misinterpreted to justify the nearly exclusive use of
normal distributions in financial modeling is the fact that the normal distribution possesses a
domain of attraction. A mathematical result called the central limit theorem states that—under
certain technical conditions—the distribution of a large sum of random variables behaves
necessarily like a normal distribution. In the eyes of many, the normal distribution is the unique
class of probability distributions having this property. This is wrong and actually it is the class of
stable distributions (containing the normal distributions), which is unique in the sense that a
large sum of random variables can only converge to a stable distribution.”
Chi-squared distribution
Chi-square distribution
40%
30% k=2
20%
k=5
10%
0%
0 10 20 30
For the chi-square distribution, we observe a sample variance and compare to hypothetical
population variance. This variable has a chi-square distribution with (n-1) d.f.:
s2
2 (n 1) ~ ( n 1)
2
Nonnegative (>0)
Skewed right, but as d.f. increases it approaches normal
Expected value (mean) = k, where k = degrees of freedom
Variance = 2k, where k = degrees of freedom
The sum of two independent chi-square variables is also a chi-squared variable
Google’s sample variance over 30 days is 0.0263%. We can test the hypothesis that the
population variance (Google’s “true” variance) is 0.02%. The chi-square variable = 38.14:
0.03
2
0.02
20
0.01 Normal
0.00
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2.4
2.8
3.2
3.6
0
2
The student’s t distribution (t distribution) is among the most commonly used distributions. As
the degrees of freedom (d.f.) increases, the t-distribution converges with the normal
distribution. It is similar to the normal, except it exhibits slightly heavier tails (the lower the d.f..,
the heavier the tails). The student’s t variable is given by:
X X
t
Sx n
Its variance = k/(k-2) where k = degrees of freedom. Note, as k increases, the variance
approaches 1.0. Therefore, as k increases, the t-distribution approximates the
standard normal distribution.
Always slightly heavy-tail (kurtosis>3.0) but converges to normal. But the student’s t is
not considered a really heavy-tailed distribution
In practice, the student’s t is the mostly commonly used distribution. When we test the
significance of regression coefficients, the central limit thereom (CLT) justifies the
normal distribution (because the coefficients are effectively sample means). But we
rarely know the population variance, such that the student’s t is the appropriate
distribution.
When the d.f. is large (e.g., sample over ~30), as the student’s t approximates the
normal, we can use the normal as a proxy. In the assigned Stock & Watson, the sample
sizes are large (e.g., 420 students), so they tend to use the normal.
For example, Google’s average periodic return over a ten-day sample period was +0.02% with
sample standard deviation of 1.54%. Here are the statistics:
Critical t 2.262
In the Google example above, we can use this to construct a confidence (random) interval:
s
X t
n
We need the critical (lookup) t value. The critical t value is a function of:
The 95% confidence interval can be computed. The upper limit is given by:
1.54%
X (2.262) 1.12%
10
1.54%
X (2.262) 1.08%
10
Please make sure you can take a sample standard deviation, compute the critical t value
and construct the confidence interval.
Z
X X
t
X X
X SX
n n
F-Distribution
F distribution
10%
8%
6%
4% 19,19
2% 9,9
0%
The F distribution is also called the variance ratio distribution (it may be helpful to think of it as
the variance ratio!). The F ratio is the ratio of sample variances, with the greater sample variance
in the numerator:
s x2
F
sy2
Properties of F distribution:
Nonnegative (>0)
Skewed right
Like the chi-square distribution, as d.f. increases, approaches normal
The square of t-distributed r.v. with k d.f. has an F distribution with 1,k d.f.
m * F(m,n)=χ2
For example, based on two 10-day samples, we calculated the sample variance of Google and
Yahoo. Google’s variance was 0.0237% and Yahoo’s was 0.0084%. The F ratio, therefore, is 2.82
(divide higher variance by lower variance; the F ratio must be greater than, or equal to, 1.0).
GOOG YHOO
=VAR() 0.0237% 0.0084%
=COUNT() 10 10
F ratio 2.82
Confidence 90%
Significance 10%
=FINV() 2.44
At 10% significance, with (10-1) and (10-1) degrees of freedom, the critical F value is 2.44.
Because our F ratio of 2.82 is greater than (>) 2.44, we reject the null (i.e., that the population
variances are the same). We conclude the population variances are different.
A mixture distribution is a sum of other distribution functions but weighted by probabilities. The
density function of a mixture distribution is, then, the probability-weighted sum of the
component density function
n
f ( x ) w i pi ( x ) where p(.) are pdf
i 1
f ( x ) wLfL ( x ) wH fH ( x )
According to Miller, “Mixture distributions are extremely flexible. In a sense they occupy a realm
between parametric distributions and non-parametric distributions. In a typical mixture
distribution, the component distributions are parametric but the weights are based on empirical
(non-parametric) data. Just as there is a trade-off between parametric distributions and non-
parametric distributions, there is a trade-off between using a low number and a high number of
component distributions. By adding more and more component distributions, we can
approximate any data set with increasing precision. At the same time, as we add more and more
component distributions, the conclusions that we can draw become less and less general in
nature.”
If two normal distributions have the same mean, they combine (mix) to produce mixture
distribution with leptokurtosis (heavy-tails). Otherwise, mixtures are infinitely flexible.
0.45
Normal 1
0.40
0.35 Normal 2
0.30
0.25 Mixture
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
-10 -5 0 5 10
1 n n 1
ˆ i n xi
n i 1
x
i 1
X
2
n X
S X2
i
i 1 n 1
Y2 Y
variance(Y ) Std Dev(Y ) Y
n n
If either: (i) the population is infinite and random sampling, or (ii) finite population and
sampling with replacement, the variance of the sampling distribution of means is:
Y2
E [(Y Y ) ]
2 2
Y
n
This says, “The variance of the sample mean is equal to the population variance divided by the
sample size.” For example, the (population) variance of a single six-sided die is 2.92. If we roll
three die (i.e., sampling “with replacement”), then the variance of the sampling distribution =
(2.92 3) = 0.97.
If the population is size (N), if the sample size n N, and if sampling is conducted “without
replacement,” then the variance of the sampling distribution of means is given by:
Y2 N n
2
Y
n N 1
The standard error is the standard deviation of the sampling distribution of the estimator,
and the sampling distribution of an estimator is a probability (frequency distribution) of the
estimator (i.e., a distribution of the set of values of the estimator obtained from all possible
same-size samples from a given population). For a sample mean (per the central limit theorem!),
the variance of the estimator is the population variance divided by sample size. The
standard error is the square root of this variance; the standard error is a standard deviation:
Y2 Y
se
n n
Z
Y Y ~ N(0,1)
Y Y
se Y
n
The denominator is the standard error: which is simply the name for the standard
deviation of sampling distribution.
The confidence interval uses the product of [standard error х critical “lookup” t]. In the Stock
& Watson example, the confidence interval is given by 22.64 +/- (1.28)(1.96) because 1.28 is the
standard error and 1.96 is the critical t (critical Z) value associated with 95% two-tailed
confidence:
Mean 23.25
Variance 90.13
Std Dev 9.49
Count 28
d.f. 27
Confidence (1-α) 95%
Significance (α) 5%
Critical t 2.052
Standard error 1.794
Hypothesis 18.5
t value 2.65 = (23.25 - 18.5) / (1.794)
p value 1.3%
Reject null with 98.7%
The confidence coefficient is selected by the user; e.g., 95% (0.95) or 99% (0.99).
The significance = 1 – confidence coefficient.
Determine degrees of freedom (d.f.). d.f. = sample size – 1. In this case, 28 – 1 = 27 d.f.
Select confidence. In this case, confidence coefficient = 0.95 = 95%
We are constructing an interval, so we need the critical t value for 5% significance with
two-tails.
The critical t value is equal to 2.052. That’s the value with 27 d.f. and either 2.5% one-
tailed significance or 5% two-tailed significance (see how they are the same provided the
distribution is symmetrical?)
The standard error is equal to the sample standard deviation divided by the square root
of the sample size (not d.f.!). In this case, 9.49/SQRT(28) 1.794.
The lower limit of the confidence interval is given by: the sample mean minus the
critical t (2.052) multiplied by the standard error (9.49/SQRT[28]).
The upper limit of the confidence interval is given by: the sample mean plus the
critical t (2.052) multiplied by the standard error (9.49/SQRT[28]).
Sx S
X t X X t x
n n
9.49 9.49
23.25 2.052 X 23.25 2.052
28 28
We don’t say the probability is 95% that the “true” population mean lies within
this interval. That implies the true mean is variable. Instead, we say the
probability is 95% that the random interval contains the true mean. See how the
population mean is trusted to be static and the interval varies?
Define and interpret the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis,
and calculate the test statistics.
H0 : c
H1 : c
In many cases, in practice, the test is a significance test such that it is often assumed that both
(i) the null is two-tailed and further (ii) that the null hypothesis is that the estimate is equal to
zero. Symbolically, then, the following is a very common test:
H0 : 0
H1 : 0
As Miller says, “in many scientific fields where positive and negative deviations are equally
important, two-tailed confidence levels are the more prevalent. In risk management, more often
than not, we are more concerned with the probability of bad outcomes, and this concern
naturally leads to one-tailed tests.
A one-tailed test rejects the null only if the estimate is either significantly above or significantly
below, but only specifies one direction. For example, the following null hypothesis is not rejected
if the estimate is greater than the value (c); we are here concerned with deviations in one
direction only:
H0 : c
H1 : c
Y Y ,0
t
SE (Y )
The critical t-value or “lookup” t-value is the t-value for which the test just rejects the null
hypothesis at a given significance level. For example:
The critical t-values bound a region within the student’s distribution that is a specific
percentage (90%? 95%? 99%?) of the total area under the student’s t distribution curve. The
student’s t distribution with (n-1) degrees of freedom (d.f.) has a confidence interval given by:
SY S
Y t Y Y t Y
n n
If the (small) sample size is 20, then the 95% two-tailed critical t is 2.093. That is because the
degrees of freedom are 19 (d.f. = n - 1) and if we review the lookup table on the following page
(corresponds to Gujarati A-2) under the column = 0.025/0.5 and row = 19, then we find the cell
value = 2.093. Therefore, given 19 d.f., 95% of the area under the student’s t distribution is
bounded by +/- 2.093. Specifically, P(-2.093 ≤ t ≤ 2.093) = 95%.
Please note, further because the distribution is symmetrical (skew=0), 5% among both tails
implies 2.5% in the left-tail.
209.1. Nine (9) companies among a random sample of 60 companies defaulted. The companies
were each in the same highly speculative credit rating category: statistically, they represent a
random sample from the population of CCC-rated companies. The rating agency contends that
the historical (population) default rate for this category is 10.0%, in contrast to the 15.0%
default rate observed in the sample. Is there statistical evidence, with any high confidence, that
the true default rate is different than 10.0%; i.e., if the null hypothesis is that the true default rate
is 10.0%, can we reject the null?
209.2. Over the last two years, a fund produced an average monthly return of +3.0% but with
monthly volatility of 10.0%. That is, assume the random sample size (n) is 24, with mean of 3.0%
and sigma of 10.0%. Are the returns statistically significant; in other words, can we decide the
true mean return is great than zero with 95% confidence?
209.3. Assume the frequency of internal fraud (an operational risk event type) occurrences per
year is characterized by a Poisson distribution. Among a sample of 43 companies, the mean
frequency is 11.0 with a sample standard deviation of 4.0. What is the 90% confidence interval
of the population's mean frequency?
a) 10.0 to 12.0
b) 8.8 to 13.2
c) 7.5 to 14.5
d) Need more information (Poisson parameter)
209.1. B. No, the t-statistic is only 1.08. For a large sample, the distribution is normally
approximated, such that at 5.0% two-tailed significance, we reject if the abs(t-statistic)
exceeds 1.96.
The standard error = SQRT(15%*85%/60) = 0.046098; please note: if you used
SQRT(10%*90%/60) for the standard error, that is not wrong, but also would not change the
conclusion as the t-statistic would be 1.29
The t statistic = (15%-10%)/0.046098 = 1.08;
The two-sided p value is 27.8%, but as the t statistic is well below 2.0, we cannot confidently
reject.
We don't really need the lookup table or a calculator: the t-statistic tells us that the observed
sample mean is only 1.08 standard deviations (standard errors) away from the hypothesized
population mean.
A two-tailed 90% confidence interval implies 1.64 standard errors, so this (72.8%) is much less
confident than even 90%.
The green shaded area represents values less than three (< 3.0). Think of it as the “sweet
spot.” For confidences less than 99% and d.f. > 13, the critical t is always less than 3.0. So, for
example, a computed t of 7 or 13 will generally be significant. Keep this in mind because in
many cases, you do not need to refer to the lookup table if the computed t is large; you can
simply reject the null.
The subsequent AIMs breakdown the following general hypothesis testing framework:
Statistical significance implies our null hypothesis (i.e., the parameter equals zero) was
rejected. We concluded the parameter is nonzero. For example, a “significant” slope
estimate means we rejected the null hypothesis that the true slope is zero.
The null hypothesis always includes the equal sign (=), regardless! The null cannot include
only less than (<) or greater than (>).
In the significance approach, instead of defining the Define & interpret the null
confidence interval, we compute the standardized hypothesis and the alternative
distance in standard deviations from the observed mean
to the null hypothesis: this is the test statistic (or
Distinguish between one‐sided
computed t value). We compare it to the critical (or and two‐sided hypotheses
lookup) value.
If the test statistic is greater than the critical (lookup) Describe the confidence interval
value, then we reject the null. approach to hypothesis testing
Under the circumstances, a Type I error is the following: we decide that excess is significant and
the manager adds value, but actually the out-performance was random (he did not add skill). In
technical terms, we mistakenly rejected the null. Under the circumstances, a Type II error is the
following: we decide the excess is random and, to our thinking, the out-performance was
random. But actually it was not random and he did add value. In technical terms, we falsely
accepted the null.
1 1
P( X k ) , or P ( X k ) 1
k2 k2
The probability that the random variable X falls at least 3 standard deviations from its
mean (expected value) is less than or equal to 1/3^2 =1/9; i.e., this is just the upper
bound, the probability is likely less than 1/9th
The probability that the random variable X falls at least 4 standard deviations from its
mean is less than or equal to 1/4^2 = 1/16.
Previously S&W Chapters 2 and 3 were assigned, but replaced in the 2013 FRM. Here we recap
selected highlights.
We mostly do not observe population parameters but instead infer them from sample
estimates which are values given by estimators such as sample mean and sample
variance. An estimator is a “recipe” for obtaining an estimate of a population parameter.
The t-statistic tests the null hypothesis that the population mean equals a certain value.
o If the sample (n) is large (e.g., greater than 30), the t-statistic has a standard
normal sampling distribution when the null hypothesis is true.
o A common test is to test the significance of a regression coefficient. While the
specifics vary, in many cases here the null is “the slope coefficient is zero.”
o p-value is the smallest significance level at which the null can be rejected
o If the p-value is very small (e.g., 0.00x), reject the null. If the p-value is large
(e.g., 0.19 or 19%), accept (fail to reject) the null.
o You will NOT be asked, on the FRM, to calculate a p-value (e.g., you cannot derive
it on the TI BA II+ or HP 12c). You may be asked to interpret a given p-value.
90% CI for Y Y 1.64SE Y
95% CI for Y Y 1.96SE Y
1
Sample covariance: sample XY
n 1
( X i X )(Yi Y )
s XY
Sample correlation sample r XY
s X sY
o Correlation (X,Y)
= covariance (X,Y) / [Std Deviation(X)] * [Std Deviation(Y)]
What is Econometrics?
Econometrics is a social science that applies tools (economic theory, mathematics and statistical
inference) to the analysis of economic phenomena. Econometrics consists of “the application of
mathematical statistics to economic data to lend empirical support to the models constructed
by mathematical economics.”
Create theory
Estimate parameters
(hypothesis)
Specify mathematical
Test hypothesis
model
Note:
The difference between the mathematical and statistical model is the random error
term (u in the econometric equation below). The statistical (or empirical) econometric
model adds the random error term (u):
Yi B0 B1X i ui
Pooled (combination of time series and cross-sectional) - returns over time for a
combination of assets; and
Panel data (a.k.a., longitudinal or micropanel) data is a special type of pooled data in
which the cross-sectional unit (e.g., family, company) is surveyed over time.
For example, we often characterize a portfolio with a matrix. In such a matrix, the assets are
given in the rows and the period returns (e.g., days/months/years) are given in the columns:
For such a “matrix portfolio,” we can examine the data in at least three ways:
In Stock and Watson, the authors regress student test scores (dependent variable) against class
size (independent variable):
Dependent Independent
(regressand) (regressor)
Variable Variable
Yi 0 1Xi ui
The slope coefficient. For example, assume we regress average weekly lotto spending
against weekly income. If the slope is 0.080, that tells us that if income goes up by a
dollar, the mean or average weekly lotto spend goes up by 8 cents. The slope is a
measure of the average change in the dependent given an change in the
independent variable.
Assume an intercept of 7.62. This indicates that if income were zero, the average lotto
spend would be $7.62. The intercept is the predicted value of the dependent if the
independent variable is equal to zero.
The error term contains all the other factors aside from (X) that determine the value of the
dependent variable (Y) for a specific observation.
Yi 0 1Xi ui
The stochastic error term is a random variable. Its value cannot be a priori determined.
In theory, there is one unknowable population and one set of unknowable parameters (B1, B2).
But there are many samples, each sample → SRF → Estimator (statistic) → Estimate
Note the correspondence between error term and the residual. As we specify the model,
we ex ante anticipate an error; after we analyze the observations, we ex post observe
residuals.
Unlike the PRF which is presumed to be stable (unobserved), the SRF varies with each
sample. So, we expect to get different SRF. There is no single “correct” SRF!
Error term is
normally distributed
•u ~ N(0,^2)
The process of ordinary least squares estimation seeks to achieve the minimum value for the
residual sum of squares (squared residuals = e^2).
The three key assumptions of the ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regression model are the
following:
1. Assumption # 1: The conditional distribution of the error term, u(i), has a mean of zero.
This assumption is a formal mathematical statement about the “other factors” contained
in the error term and asserts that these other factors are unrelated to the independent
variable, X(i), in the following sense: given a value of X(i), the mean of the distribution of
these other factors is zero.
2. Assumption #2: X(i), Y(i) are independently and identically distributed (i.i.d.) across
observations. This assumption is a statement about how the sample is drawn. If the
observations are drawn by simple random sampling from a single large population, then
[X(i), Y(i)] are i. i. d. The i. i. d. assumption is a reasonable one for many data collection
schemes.
3. Assumption # 3: Large outliers are unlikely The third least squares assumption is that
large outliers— that is, observations with values of , or both that are far outside the usual
range of the data— are unlikely. Large outliers can make OLS regression results
misleading. Another way to state this assumption is that X and Y have finite
kurtosis. The assumption of finite kurtosis is used in the mathematics that justify the
large- sample approximations to the distributions of the OLS test statistics.
Commonly accepted and widely familiar: Because OLS is the dominant method used
in practice, it has become the common language for regression analysis throughout
economics, finance and the social sciences more generally. Presenting results using OLS
means that you are “speaking the same language” as other economists and statisticians.
The OLS formulas are built into virtually all spreadsheet and statistical software
packages, making OLS easy to use.
Given the assumptions of the classical linear regression model, the least-squares (OLS) estimates
possess ideal properties. These properties are contained in the well-known Gauss–Markov
theorem. To understand this theorem, we need to consider the best linear unbiasedness
property of an estimator. An OLS estimator is said to be a best linear unbiased estimator (BLUE)
of if the following hold:
1. It linear, that is, a linear function of a random variable, such as the dependent variable Y
in the regression model.
2. It is unbiased, that is, its average or expected value is equal to the true value
3. It has minimum variance in the class of all such linear unbiased estimators; an unbiased
estimator with the least variance is known as an efficient estimator.
In the regression context it can be proved that the OLS estimators are BLUE. This is the gist
of the famous Gauss–Markov theorem, which can be stated as follows:
The explained sum of squares (ESS) is the squared distance between the predicted Y and the
mean of Y:
n
ESS (Yˆi Y )2
i 1
The sum of squared residuals (SSR) is the summation of each squared deviation between
the observed (actual) Y and the predicted Y:
n
SSR (Yi Yˆi )2
i 1
The sum of squared residual (SSR) is the square of the error term. It is directly related to the
standard error of the regression (SER):
n n
SSR (Yi Yˆi )2 uˆi2 SER 2 (n 2)
i 1 i 1
Equivalently:
ˆ 2 ei2 ˆ ei2
n2 n2
The SSR and the standard error of regression (SER) are directly related; the SER is the
standard deviation of the Y values around the regression line.
SSR ei2
SER
n2 n2
Note the use of the use of (n-2) instead of (n) in the denominator. Division by this smaller
number—in this case (n-2) instead of (n)—is referred to as “an unbiased estimate.”
(n-2) is used because the two-variable regression has (n-2) degrees of freedom (d.f.).
In order to compute the slope and intercept estimates, two independent observations are
consumed.
If k = the number of explanatory variables plus the intercept (e.g., 2 if one explanatory
variable; 3 if two explanatory variables), then SER = SQRT[SSR/(n-k)].
If k = the number of slope coefficients (excluding the intercept), then similarly, SER =
SQRT[SSR/(n-k -1)]
In the Stock & Watson example, the authors regress TestScore against the Student-teacher ratio
(STR):
680.0
660.0
640.0
620.0
600.0
10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
Student-teacher ratio
B(1) B(0)
Regression coefficients -2.28 698.93
Standard errors, SE() 0.48 9.47
R^2, SER 0.05 18.58
F, d.f. 22.58 418.00
ESS, RSS 7,794 144,315
Please note:
Both the slope and intercept are both significant at 95%, at least. The test statistics are
73.8 for the slope (699/9.47) and 4.75 (2.28/0.48). For example, given the very high test
statistic for the slope, its p-value is approximately zero.
In the example from Stock and Watson, lower limit = 680.4 = 698.9 – 9.47 × 1.96
Confidence Interval
Coefficient SE Lower Upper
Intercept 698.9 9.47 680.4 717.5
Slope (B1) -2.28 0.48 -3.2 -1.3
The parameter is greater than (>) the stated value (right-tailed test), or
The parameter is less than (<) the stated value (left-tailed test), or
The parameter is either greater than or less than (≠) the stated value (two-tailed test).
Small p-values provide evidence for rejecting the null hypothesis in favor of the alternative
hypothesis, and large p values provide evidence for not rejecting the null hypothesis in favor of
the alternative hypothesis.
Keep in mind a subtle point about the p-value and “rejecting the null.” It is a soft rejection.
Rather than accept the alternative, we fail to reject the null. Further, if we reject the null, we are
merely rejecting the null in favor of the alternative.
The analogy is to a jury verdict. The jury does not return a verict of “innocent;” rather they
return a verdict of “not guilty.”
p value PrH0 Z t act 1 t act
To test the hypothesis that the regression coefficient (b1) is equal to some specified value (),
we use the fact that the statistic
b1
test statistic t
se(b1)
This has a student's distribution with n - 2 degrees of freedom because there are two coefficients
(slope and intercept).
The OLS estimators remain unbiased and asymptotically normal. “Whether the
errors are homoskedastic or heteroskedastic, the OLS estimator is unbiased, consistent,
and asymptotically normal.”
OLS estimators are efficient if the least squares assumptions are true. This result is
called the Gauss– Markov theorem.
The Gauss– Markov theorem states that, under a set of conditions known as the Gauss– Markov
conditions, the OLS slope (b1) estimator has the smallest conditional variance, given , of all
linear conditionally unbiased estimators of parameter (B1); that is, the OLS estimator is BLUE.
The Gauss– Markov theorem provides a theoretical justification for using OLS, but has two key
limitations:
Its conditions might not hold in practice. “In particular, if the error term is
heteroskedastic— as it often is in economic applications— then the OLS estimator is no
longer BLUE… An alternative to OLS when there is heteroskedasticity of a known form,
called the weighted least squares estimator.
Even if the conditions of the theorem hold, there are other candidate estimators that are
not linear and conditionally unbiased; under some conditions, these other estimators are
more efficient than OLS.
Under certain conditions, some regression estimators are more efficient than OLS.
The weighted least squares (WLS) estimator: If the errors are heteroskedastic, then
OLS is no longer BLUE. If the heteroskedasticity is known (i.e., if the conditional variance
of given is known up to a constant factor of proportionality) then an alternate estimator
exists with a smaller variance than the OLS estimator. This method, weighted least
squares (WLS), weights the (i-th) observation by the inverse of the square root of the
conditional variance of u(i) given X(i). Because of this weighting, the errors in this
weighted regression are homoskedastic, so OLS, when applied to the weighted data, is
BLUE.
o Although theoretically elegant, the problem with weighted least squares is that we
must know how the conditional variance of u(i) depends on X(i). Because this is
rarely known, weighted least squares is used far less frequently in practice than
OLS.
The least absolute deviations (LAD) estimator: The OLS estimator can be sensitive to
outliers. If extreme outliers are “not rare” (or if we can safely ignore extreme outliers),
then the least absolute deviations (LAD) estimator may be more effecitve. In LAD, the
regression coefficients are obtained by solving a minimization that uses the absolute
value of the prediction “mistake” (i.e., instead of its square).
o Because “in many economic data sets, severe outliers are rare,” the use of the LAD
estimator is uncommon in applications.
Define, describe, apply, and interpret the t-statistic when the sample size
is small.
When the sample size is small, the exact distribution of the t- statistic is complicated and
depends on the unknown population distribution of the data. If, however, the three least squares
assumptions hold, the regression errors are homoskedastic, and the regression errors are
normally distributed, then the OLS estimator is normally distributed and the homoskedasticity-
only t- statistic has a Student t distribution. These five assumptions— the three least squares
assumptions, that the errors are homoskedastic, and that the errors are normally distributed—
are collectively called the homoskedastic normal regression assumptions.
“If the regressor ( the student– teacher ratio) is correlated with a variable that has been
omitted from the analysis ( the percentage of English learners) and that determines, in
part, the dependent variable ( test scores), then the OLS estimator will have omitted
variable bias.” –S&W
The first least squares assumption is that the error term, u(i), has a conditional mean of
zero: E[ u(i) | X(i) ] = 0. Omitted variable bias means this OLS assumption is not true.
ˆ1
p
1 X
X
1. Omitted variable bias is a problem whether the sample size is large or small. Because the
estimator (B1 carrot) does not converge in probability to the true value (B1), the
estimator (B1 carrot) is biased and inconsistent; i.e., [B1 carrot] is not a consistent
estimator of [B1] when there is omitted variable bias.
2. Whether this bias is large or small in practice depends on the correlation (rho) between
the regressor and the error term. The larger is the correlation, the larger the bias.
3. The direction of the bias in depends on whether (X) and (u) are positively or negatively
correlated.
Yi 0 1X1i ui
The B(1) slope coefficient, for example, is the effect on Y of a unit change in X(1) if we hold the
other independent variables, X(2) …., constant.
Yi 0 1X1i 2 X 2i k X ki ui , i 1,..., n
Standard error of regression (SER) estimates the standard deviation of the error term u(i). In
this way, the SER is a measure of spread of the distribution of Y around the regression line. In a
multiple regression, the SER is given by:
SSR
SER
n k 1
Where (k) is the number of slope coefficients; e.g., in this case of a two variable regression, k = 1.
For the standard error of the regression (SER), the denominator is n – [# of variables], or
n – [# of coefficients including the intercept].
The coefficient of determination is the fraction of the sample variance of Y(i) explained by (or
predicted by) the independent variables”
ESS SSR
R2 1
TSS TSS
“Adjusted R^2”
The unadjusted R^2 will tend to increase as additional independent variables are added.
However, this does not necessarily reflect a better fitted model. The adjusted R^2 is a
modified version of the R^2 that does not necessarily increase with a new independent
variable is added. Adjusted R^2 is given by:
n 1 SSR su2ˆ
R 1
2
1 2
n k 1 TSS sY
“The R^2 is useful because it quantifies the extent to which the regressors (independent
variables) account for, or explain, the variation in the dependent variable. Nevertheless,
heavy reliance on the R^2 can be a trap. In applications, “maximize the R^2” is rarely the
answer to any economically or statistically meaningful question. Instead, the decision
about whether to include a variable in a multiple regression should be based on whether
including that variable allows you better to estimate the causal effect of interest.” –S&W
Imperfect multicollinearity is when two or more of the independent variables (regressors) are
highly correlated: there is a linear function of one of the regressors that is highly correlated with
another regressor. Imperfect multicollinearity does not pose any problems for the theory
of the OLS estimators; indeed, a purpose of OLS is to sort out the independent influences of the
various regressors when these regressors are potentially correlated. Imperfect multicollinearity
does not prevent estimation of the regression, nor does it imply a logical problem with the
choice of independent variables (i.e., regressor).
However, imperfect multicollinearity does mean that one or more of the regression
coefficients could be estimated imprecisely
“Perfect multicollinearity is a problem that often signals the presence of a log-ical error.
In contrast, imperfect multicollinearity is not necessarily an error, but rather just a
feature of OLS, your data, and the question you are trying to answer. If the variables
in your regression are the ones you meant to include— the ones you chose to address the
potential for omitted variable bias— then imperfect mul-ticollinearity implies that it will
be difficult to estimate precisely one or more of the partial effects using the data at
hand.” –S&W
The Stock & Watson example adds an additional independent variable (regressor). Under this
three variable regression, Test Scores (dependent) are a function of the Student/Teacher ratio
(STR) and the Percentage of English learners in district (PctEL).
The “overall” regression F-statistic tests the joint hypothesis that all slope coefficients are zero
F
SSRrestricted SSRunrestricted q
SSRunrestricted n kunrestricted 1
Confidence ellipse characterizes a confidence set for two coefficients; this is the two-dimension
analog to the confidence interval:
9
8
7
6
5
Coefficient on
4
Expn (B2)
3
2
1
0
-1 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Coefficient on STR (B1)
1. An increase in the R^2 or adjusted R^2 does not necessarily imply that an added variable
is statistically significant
2. A high R^2 or adjusted R^2 does not mean the regressors are a true cause of the
dependent variable
3. A high R^2 or adjusted R^2 does not mean there is no omitted variable bias
4. A high R^2 or adjusted R^2 does not necessarily mean you have the most appropriate set
of regressors, nor does a low R^2 or adjusted R^2 necessarily mean you have an
inappropriate set of regressors
Geometric Brownian Motion (GBM) is the continuous motion/ process in which the randomly
varying quantity (in our example ‘Asset Value’) has a fluctuated movement and is dependent on
a variable parameter (in our example the stochastic variable is ‘Time’). The standard variable
parameter is the shock and the progress in the asset’s value is the drift. Now, the GBM can be
represented as drift + shock as shown below.
The above illustration is the shock and drift progression of the asset. The asset drifts upward
with the expected return of over the time interval t . But the drift is also impacted by shocks
from the random variable . We measure the standard deviation by a random variable
(which is the random shock) here. As the variance is adjusted with time t , volatility is adjusted
with the square root of time t .
day 8
day 10
day 2
day 3
day 4
day 5
day 6
day 7
day 9
Expected Drift is the deterministic component but shock is the random component in this stock
price process simulation. The Y-axis has an empirical distribution rather than a parametric
distribution and can be easily used to calculate the VaR. This Monte Carlo Distribution allows us
to produce an empirical distribution in future which can be used to calculate the VaR.
GBM assumes constant volatility (generally a weakness) unlike GARCH(1,1) which models
time-varying volatility.
The inverse transform method translates a random number (under a uniform distribution) into
a cumulative standard normal distribution:
CDF pdf
Random NORMSINV() NORMDIST()
0.10 -1.282 0.18
0.15 -1.036 0.23
0.20 -0.842 0.28
0.25 -0.674 0.32
0.30 -0.524 0.35
0.35 -0.385 0.37
0.40 -0.253 0.39
0.45 -0.126 0.40
0.50 0.000 0.40
A random variable is generated, between 0 and 1. In Excel, the function is =RAND(). This
corresponds to the Y-axis on the first chart below. This will necessarily correspond to standard
normal CDF; e.g., RAND(.4) corresponds to -0.126 because NORMSINV(RAND(.4)) = -0.126.
The advantages of the bootstrap include: can model fat-tails (like HS); by generating
repeated samples, we can ascertain estimate precision. Limitations, according to Jorion,
include: for small sample sizes, the bootstrapped distribution may be a poor
approximation of the actual one.
Randomize
Historical Date,
But same indexed
returns within date
(preserves cross-sectional
correlations)
Able to account for a range of risks (e.g., price risk, volatility risk, and nonlinear
exposures)
Simple to implement
Once a price path has been generated, we can build a portfolio distribution at the end of the
selected horizon:
3. Calculate the value of the asset (or portfolio) under this particular sequence of prices at
the target horizon
This process creates a distribution of values. We can sort the observations and tabulate the
expected value and the quantile, which is the expected value in c times 10,000 replications.
Value at risk (VaR) relative to the mean is then:
Pricing options
Options can be priced under the risk-neutral valuation method by using Monte Carlo simulation:
The current value of the derivative is obtained by discounting at the risk free rate and averaging
across all experiments:
This formula means that each future simulated price, F(St), is discounted at the risk-free rate;
i.e., to solve for the present value. Then the average of those values is the expected value, or
value of the option. The Monte Carlo method has several advantages. It can be applied in
many situations, including options with so-called price-dependent paths (i.e., where the value
depends on the particular path) and options with atypical payoff patterns. Also, it is powerful
and flexible enough to handle varieties of options. With one notable exception: it cannot
accurately price options where the holder can exercise early (e.g., American-style options).
The relationship between the number of replications and precision (i.e., the standard error of
estimated values) is not linear: to increase the precision by 10X requires approximately 100X
more replications. The standard error of the sample standard deviation:
1 SE (ˆ ) 1
SE (ˆ )
2T 2T
Therefore to increase VaR precision by (1/T) requires a multiple of about T2 the number of
replications; e.g., x 10 precision needs x 100.
= 10^2 =
100x
replications
se() = 1/10
reduce se() for
better precision
Antithetic variable technique: changes the sign of the random samples. Appropriate
when the original distribution is symmetric. Creates twice as many replications at little
additional cost.
Importance sampling technique (Jorion calls this the most effective acceleration
technique): attempts to sample along more important paths
Stratified sampling technique: partitions the simulation region into two zones.
Cholesky factorization
By virtue of the inverse transform method, we can use =NORMSINV(RAND()) to create standard
random normal variables. The RAND() function is a uniform distribution bounded by [0,1]. The
NORMSINV() translates the random number into the z-value that corresponds to the probability
given by a cumulative distribution. For example, =NORMSINV(5%) returns -1.645 because 5% of
the area under a normal curve lies to the left of - 1.645 standard deviations.
But no realistic asset or portfolio contains only one risk factor. To model several risk factors, we
could simply generate multiple random variables. Put more technically, the realistic modeling
scenario is a multivariate distribution function that models multiple random variables. But the
problem with this approach, if we just stop there, is that correlations are not included. What we
really want to do is simulate random variables but in such a way that we capture or reflect the
correlations between the variables. In short, we want random but correlated variables.
The typical way to incorporate the correlation structure is by way of a Cholesky factorization (or
decomposition) . There are four steps:
1. The covariance matrix. This contains the implied correlation structure; in fact, a
covariance matrix can itself be decomposed into a correlation matrix and a volatility
vector.
2. The covariance matrix(R) will be decomposed into a lower-triangle matrix (L) and an
upper-triangle matrix (U). Note they are mirrors of each other. Both have identical
diagonals; their zero elements and nonzero elements are merely "flipped"
3. Given that R = LU, we can solve for all of the matrix elements: a,b,c (the diagonal) and x,
y, z. That is “by definition.” That's what a Cholesky decomposition is, it is the solution
that produces two triangular matrices whose product is the original (covariance) matrix.
4. Given the solution for the matrix elements, we can calculate the product of the triangle
matrix to ensure the produce does equal the original covariance matrix (i.e., does LU =
R?). Note, in Excel a single array formula can be used with = MMULT().
The lower triangle (LU) is the result of the Cholesky Decomposition. It is the thing we can use to
simulate random variables, that itself is "informed" by our covariance matrix.
The following transforms two independent random variables into correlated random variables:
1 1
2 1 (1 2 )2
Series Series
Correlation 0.75 Mean #1
1% #2
1%
Volatility 10% 10%
Correlated
N (0,1) N (0,1) Series Series
2.06 1.26 #1
$10.0 #2
$10.0
0.52 (0.73) $10.62 $9.37
1.51 0.99 $12.34 $10.39
(1.44) 0.48 $10.68 $11.00
If the variables are uncorrelated, randomization can be performed independently for each
variable. Generally, however, variables are correlated. To account for this correlation, we start
with a set of independent variables η, which are then transformed into the (). In a two-variable
setting, we construct the following:
This is a transformation of two independent random variable into correlated random variables.
Prior to the transformation, 1 and 2 are random variables that have necessary correlation.
The first random variable is retained (1 = 1) and the second is transformed (recast) into a
random variable that is correlated
Instead of drawing independent samples, the deterministic scheme systematically fills the space
left by previous numbers in the series.
Monte Carlo simulations methods generate independent, pseudorandom points that attempt to
“fill” an N-dimensional space, where N is the number of variables driving the price of securities.
Researchers now realize that the sequence of points does not have to be chosen randomly. In a
deterministic scheme, the draws (or trials) are not entirely random. Instead of random trials,
this scheme fills space left by previous numbers in the series.
Scenario Simulation
The first step consists of using principal-component analysis to reduce the dimensionality of the
problem; i.e., to use the handful of factors, among many, that are most important.
The second step consists of building scenarios for each of these factors, approximating a normal
distribution by a binomial distribution with a small number of states.
However
A key drawback of the Monte Carlo method is the computational requirements; a large number
of replications are typically required (e.g., thousands of trials are not unusual).
In many cases, we assume one period equals one day. In this case, we are estimating a daily
volatility. We can either compute the “continuously compounded daily return” or the “simple
percentage change.” If Si-1 is yesterday’s price and Si is today’s price,
S Si Si 1
ui ln i ui
Si 1 Si 1
Linda Allen (the next reading) contrasts three periodic returns: continuously
compounded, simple percentage change, and absolute change (she says we should only
use absolute changes in the case of interest rate-related variables). She argues that
continuously compounded returns should be used when computing VAR because these
returns are “time consistent.”
The series can be either un-weighted (each return is equally weighted) or weighted. A weighted
scheme puts more weight on recent returns because they tend to be more relevant.
Please note this is the sample formula employed by Stock and Watson for the sample
variance. This is technically a correct variance.
1 m 2
variance = un i
2
n
m i 1
According to Hull: “These three changes make very little difference to the estimates that are
calculated, but they allow us to simplify the formula.” Hull’s third change is to switch from the
continuously compounded (log) return to the simple return, but we recommend that you keep
the log return to maintain consistency with the next (Linda Allen) reading.
In the “convenent” versoin, we replace (m-1) with (m) in the denominator. (m-1)
produces an “unbiased” estimator and (m) produces a “maximum likelihood” estimator.
Which is correct? Both are correct, the choice begs the issue of what properties of the
estimator we find more desirable. Estimators are like recipes intended to give estimates
of the true population variance. There can be different “recipes;” some will have more
desirable properties than others.
Explain how historical data and various weighting schemes can be used in
estimating volatility.
The simple historical approach does not apply different weights to each return (put another
way, it gives equal weights to each return). But we generally prefer to apply greater weights to
more recent returns:
m
i un2 i
2
n
i 1
The alpha () parameters are simply weights; the sum of the alpha () parameters must equal
one because they are weights.
m
VL i un2i
2
n
i 1
The added term is gamma (the weighting) multiplied by () the long-run variance because
the variance is a weighted factor.
-
formatted ARCH (m) model:
m
i un2i
2
n
i 1
This is the same ARCH(m) only the product of gamma and the long-run variance is
replaced by a single constant, omega (ω). Why does this matter? Because you may see
GARCH(1,1) represented with a single constant (i.e., the omega term), and you want to
realize the constant will not be the long-run variance itself; rather, the constant will be
the product of the long-run variance and a weight.
Un-Weighted Scheme
1 m 2
n2 un i
m i 1
Weighted Scheme alpha(i) weights must sum to one
m
n2 i un2 i
i 1
In exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA), the weights decline (in constant proportion,
given by lambda). The exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) is given by:
n2 n21 (1 )un21
Infinite series elegantly
RiskMetricsTM is a just a branded version of EWMA: reduces to recursive EWMA
n2 (0.94) n21 (0.06)un21
“The EWMA approach has the attractive feature that relatively little data need to be
stored. At any given time, only the current estimate of the variance rate and the most
recent observation on the value of the market variable need be remembered. When a
new observation on the market variable is obtained, a new daily percentage change is
calculated … to update the estimate of the variance rate. The old estimate of the
variance rate and the old value of the market variable can then be discarded.” –Hull
EWMA is a special case of GARCH(1,1) where gamma = 0 and (alpha + beta = 1). GARCH (1,1) is
the weighted sum of a long run-variance (weight = gamma), the most recent squared-return
(weight = alpha), and the most recent variance (weight = beta)
n2 VL un21 n21
This GARCH(1,1) is a case of the ARCH(m) above: the first term is constant omega (i.e.,
the weighted long-run variance) and the second and third terms are recursively giving
exponentially decreasing weights to the historical series of returns.
n2 VL un21 n21
“The ‘(1,1)’ in GARCH(1,1) indicates that on is based on the most recent observation of
u^2 and the most recent estimate of the variance rate. The more general GARCH(p, q)
model calculates on from the most recent p observations on u2 and the most recent q
estimates of the variance rates. GARCH(1,1) is by far the most popular of the GARCH
models.” – Hull
Two worked examples (in two columns) are on the following page.
beta (b) or lambda 0.860 0.898 In both, most weight to lag variance
If EWMA: lambda only
1-lambda 0.140 0.102 In EWMA, only two weights
sum of weights 1.00 1.00
If GARCH (1,1): alpha, beta, & gamma
omega (w) 0.00000200 0.00000176 omega = gamma * long run variance
alpha (a) 0.130 0.063 Weight to lag return
alpha + beta (a+b) 0.9900 0.9602 “persistence” of GARCH
gamma 0.010 0.040 Weight to L.R. var = 1 – alpha – beta
sum of weights: 1.000 1.000
Long Term Variance 0.00020 0.00004 omega/(1-alpha-beta)
Long Term Volatility 1.4142% 0.6650% SQRT()
GARCH(1,1)
Updated Variance 0.000236 0.000060 GARCH (1,1) = omega + beta*lag var
Updated Volatility 1.53% 0.77% + alpha * lag return^2
VL
1
Explain how the parameters of the GARCH(1,1) and the EWMA models are
estimated using maximum likelihood methods.
In maximum likelihood methods we choose parameters that maximize the likelihood of the
observations occurring.
“It is now appropriate to discuss how the parameters in the models we have been
considering are estimated from historical data. The approach used is known as the
maximum likelihood method. It involves choosing values for the parameters that
maximize the chance (or likelihood) of the data occurring. To illustrate the method, we
start with a very simple example. Suppose that we sample 10 stocks at random on a
certain day and find that the price of one of them declined on that day and the prices of
the other nine either remained the same or increased. What is the best estimate of the
probability of a price decline? The natural answer is 0.1.” –Hull
E[ n2 k ] VL ( )k ( n2 VL )
The expected future variance rate, in (t) periods forward, is given by:
E[ n2t ] VL ( )t ( n2 VL )
For example, assume that a current volatility estimate (period n) is given by the following
GARCH (1, 1) equation:
First, solve for the long-run variance. It is not 0.00008; this term is the product of the variance
and its weight. Since the weight must be 0.2 (= 1 - 0.1 -0.7), the long run variance = 0.0004.
0.00008
VL 0.0004
1 1 0.7 0.1
Second, we need the current variance (period n). That is almost given to us above:
Correlations play a key role in the calculation of value at risk (VaR). We can use similar methods
to EWMA for volatility. In this case, an updated covariance estimate is a weighted sum of
Risk varies over time. Models often assume a normal (Gaussian) distribution (“normality”) with
constant volatility from period to period. But actual returns are non-normal and volatility varies
over time (volatility is “time-varying” or “non-constant”). Therefore, it is hard to use parametric
approaches to random returns; in technical terms, it is hard to find robust “distributional
assumptions for stochastic asset returns”
Persistence: In EWMA, the lambda parameter (λ). In GARCH (1,1), the sum of the alpha
(α) and beta () parameters. High persistence implies slow decay toward to the long-run
average variance.
Leptokurtosis: a fat-tailed distribution where relatively more observations are near the
middle and in the “fat tails (kurtosis > 3)
Risk measurement (VaR) concerns the tail of a distribution, where losses occur. We want to
impose a mathematical curve (a “distributional assumption”) on asset returns so we can
estimate losses. The parametric approach uses parameters (i.e., a formula with parameters) to
make a distributional assumption but actual returns rarely conform to the distribution curve. A
parametric distribution plots a curve (e.g., the normal bell-shaped curve) that approximates a
range of outcomes but actual returns are not so well-behaved: they rarely “cooperate.”
Know how to compute two-asset portfolio variance & scale portfolio volatility to derive VaR:
Outputs
Annual
Covariance (A,B) 0.0060 COV = (correlation A,B)(volatility A)(volatility B)
Portfolio variance 0.0060
0.0155
Exp Portfolio return 0.0155
18.5%
Portfolio volatility (per year) 12.4%
Period (h days)
Exp periodic return (u) 0.73%
Std deviation (h), i.i.d 2.48%
Scaling factor 15.78 Don’t need to know this, used for AR(1)
Std deviation (h), 3.12% Standard deviation if auto-correlation.
Autocorrelation
Normal deviate (critical z 1.64 Normal deviate
value) future value
Expected 100.73
Relative VaR, i.i.d 100.73
$4.08 Doesn’t include the mean return
Absolute VaR, i.i.d $3.35 Includes return; i.e., loss from zero
Relative VaR, AR(1) $5.12 The corresponding VaRs, if autocorrelation
Absolute VaR, AR(1) $4.39 incorporated. Note VaR is higher!
Relative VaR, iid = $100 value * 2.48% 10-day sigma * 1.645 normal deviate
Absolute VaR, iid = $100 * (-0.73% + 2.48% * 1.645)
Relative VaR, AR(1) = $100 value * 3.12% 10-day AR sigma * 1.645 normal deviate
Absolute VaR, AR(1) = $100 * (-0.73% + 3.12% * 1.645)
Unstable: the parameters (e.g., mean, volatility) vary over time due to variability in
market conditions.
10 years of interest rate data are collected (1982 – 1993). The distribution plots the daily change
in the three-month treasury rate. The average change is approximately zero, but the “probability
mass” is greater at both tails. It is also greater at the mean; i.e., the actual mean occurs more
frequently than predicted by the normal distribution.
Actual returns:
4.5% 1. Skewed
4.0% 2. Fat-tailed
3rd Moment = (kurtosis>3)
3.5%
Skew • 3 3. Unstable
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
1.5% 4th Moment =
1.0%
2nd Variance kurtosis • 4
“scale”
0.5%
0.0% 1st moment
-3 -2 -1 Mean
0 1 2 3
“location”
Conditional mean is time-varying; but this is unlikely given the assumption that
markets are efficient
Conditional volatility is time-varying; Allen says this is the more likely explanation!
Explain how outliers can really be indications that the volatility varies with time.
We observe that actual financial returns tend to exhibit fat-tails. Jorion (like Allen et al) offers
two possible explanations:
The true distribution is stationary. Therefore, fat-tails reflect the true distribution but the
normal distribution is not appropriate
The true distribution changes over time (it is “time-varying”). In this case, outliers can in
reality reflect a time-varying volatility.
A conditional distribution in not always the same: it is different, or conditional on, some
economic or market or other state. It is measured by parameters such as its conditional mean,
conditional standard deviation (conditional volatility), conditional skew, and conditional
kurtosis.
A typical distribution is a regime-switching volatility model: the regime (state) switches from
low to high volatility, but is never in between. A distribution is “regime-switching” if it changes
from high to low volatility.
The problem: a risk manager may assume (and measure) an unconditional volatility but the
distribution is actually regime switching. In this case, the distribution is conditional (i.e., it
depends on conditions) and might be normal but regime-switching; e.g., volatility is 10% during a
low-volatility regime and 20% during a high-volatility regime but during both regimes, the
distribution may be normal. However, the risk manager may incorrectly assume a single 15%
unconditional volatility. But in this case, the unconditional volatility is likely to exhibit fat
tails because it does not account for the regime switching.
VaR$ W$z
VaR% z
The common attribute to all the approaches within this class is their use of historical time series
data in order to determine the shape of the conditional distribution.
This approach uses derivative pricing models and current derivative prices in order to impute
an implied volatility without having to resort to historical data. The use of implied volatility
obtained from the Black–Scholes option pricing model as a predictor of future volatility is the
most prominent representative of this class of models.
Please note that Jorion’s taxonomy approaches from the perspective of local versus full
valuation. In that approach, local valuation tends to associate with parametric approaches:
Risk Measurement
Historical
Linear models Nonlinear models
Simulation
Full Covariance Monte Carlo
Gamma
matrix Simulation
Diagonal Models
1. Implied Volatility
2. Equally weighted
returns or un-
weighted (STDEV)
3. More weight to
recent returns
GARCH(1,1)
EWMA
Historical standard deviation is the simplest and most common way to estimate or predict
future volatility. Given a history of an asset’s continuously compounded rate of returns we take
a specific window of the K most recent returns.
This standard deviation is called a moving average (MA) by Jorion. The estimate requires a
window of fixed length; e.g., 30 or 60 trading days. If we observe returns (rt) over M days, the
volatility estimate is constructed from a moving average (MA):
M
(1/ M ) rt2i
2
t
i 1
Each day, the forecast is updated by adding the most recent day and dropping the furthest day.
In a simple moving average, all weights on past returns are equal and set to (1/M). Note raw
returns are used instead of returns around the mean (i.e., the expected mean is assumed zero).
This is common in short time intervals, where it makes little difference on the volatility estimate.
For example, assume the previous four daily returns for a stock are 6% (n-1), 5% (m-2), 4% (n-
3) and 3% (n-4). What is a current volatility estimate, applying the moving average, given that
our short trailing window is only four days (m=14)? If we square each return, the series is
0.0036, 0.0025, 0.0016 and 0.0009. If we sum this series of squared returns, we get 0.0086.
Divide by 4 (since m=4) and we get 0.00215. That’s the moving average variance, such that the
moving average volatility is about 4.64%.
The above example illustrates a key weakness of the moving average (MA): since all
returns weigh equally, the trend does not matter. In the example above, notice that
volatilty is trending down, but MA does not reflect in any way this trend. We could
reverse the order of the historical series and the MA estimation would produce the same
result.
The MA series ignores the order of the observations. Older observations may no
longer be relevant, but they receive the same weight.
The MA series has a so-called ghosting feature: data points are dropped arbitrarily due
to length of the window.
GARCH regresses on “lagged” or historical terms. The lagged terms are either variance or
squared returns. The generic GARCH (p, q) model regresses on (p) squared returns and (q)
variances. Therefore, GARCH (1, 1) “lags” or regresses on last period’s squared return (i.e., just 1
return) and last period’s variance (i.e., just 1 variance).
A persistence of 1.0 implies no mean reversion. A persistence of less than 1.0 implies “reversion
to the mean,” where a lower persistence implies greater reversion to the mean.
As above, the sum of the weights assigned to the lagged variance and lagged squared
return is persistence (b+c = persistence). A high persistence (greater than zero but less
than one) implies slow reversion to the mean.
But if the weights assigned to the lagged variance and lagged squared return are greater
than one, the model is non-stationary. If (b+c) is greater than 1 (if b+c > 1) the model is
non-stationary and, according to Hull, unstable. In which case, EWMA is preferred.
GARCH is both “compact” (i.e., relatively simple) and remarkably accurate. GARCH
models predominate in scholarly research. Many variations of the GARCH model have
been attempted, but few have improved on the original.
Note that omega is 0.2 but don’t mistake omega (0.2) for the long-run variance! Omega is the
product of gamma and the long-run variance. So, if alpha + beta = 0.9, then gamma must be
0.1. Given that omega is 0.2, we know that the long-run variance must be 2.0 (0.2 0.1 = 2.0).
EWMA is a special case of GARCH (1,1). Here is how we get from GARCH (1,1) to EWMA:
Then we let a = 0 and (b + c) =1, such that the above equation simplifies to:
This is now equivalent to the formula for exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA):
RiskMetricsTM Approach
RiskMetrics is a branded form of the exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) approach.
The optimal (theoretical) lambda varies by asset class, but the overall optimal parameter used
by RiskMetrics has been 0.94. In practice, RiskMetrics only uses one decay factor for all series:
Technically, the daily and monthly models are inconsistent. However, they are both easy to use,
they approximate the behavior of actual data quite well, and they are robust to misspecification.
Each of GARCH (1, 1), EWMA and RiskMetrics are each parametric and recursive.
GARCH estimations can provide estimations that are more accurate than MA
Except Linda Allen warns: GARCH (1,1) needs more parameters and may pose greater
MODEL RISK (“chases a moving target”) when forecasting out-of-sample
n2 VL un21 n21
The three parameters are weights and therefore must sum to one:
1
Be careful about the first term in the GARCH (1, 1) equation: omega (ω) = gamma(λ) *
(average long-run variance). If you are asked for the variance, you may need to divide
out the weight in order to compute the average variance.
Determine when and whether a GARCH or EWMA model should be used in volatility
estimation
In practice, variance rates tend to be mean reverting; therefore, the GARCH (1, 1) model is
theoretically superior (“more appealing than”) to the EWMA model. Remember, that’s the big
difference: GARCH adds the parameter that weights the long-run average and therefore it
incorporates mean reversion.
GARCH (1, 1) is preferred unless the first parameter is negative (which is implied if alpha
+ beta > 1). In this case, GARCH (1,1) is unstable and EWMA is preferred.
Explain how the GARCH estimations can provide forecasts that are more accurate.
The moving average computes variance based on a trailing window of observations; e.g., the
previous ten days, the previous 100 days.
Ghosting feature: volatility shocks (sudden increases) are abruptly incorporated into the
MA metric and then, when the trailing window passes, they are abruptly dropped from
the calculation. Due to this the MA metric will shift in relation to the chosen window
length
More recent observations are assigned greater weights. This overcomes ghosting
because a volatility shock will immediately impact the estimate but its influence will fade
gradually as time passes
Persistence 1
GARCH (1, 1) is unstable if the persistence > 1. A persistence of 1.0 indicates no mean reversion.
A low persistence (e.g., 0.6) indicates rapid decay and high reversion to the mean.
GARCH (1, 1) has three weights assigned to three factors. Persistence is the sum of the
weights assigned to both the lagged variance and lagged squared return. The other
weight is assigned to the long-run variance.
Therefore, if P (persistence) is high, then G (mean reversion) is low: the persistent series
is not strongly mean reverting; it exhibits “slow decay” toward the mean.
If P is low, then G must be high: the impersistent series does strongly mean revert; it
exhibits “rapid decay” toward the mean.
The average, unconditional variance in the GARCH (1, 1) model is given by:
0
LV
1 1
Historical simulation is easy: we only need to determine the “lookback window.” The problem is
that, for small samples, the extreme percentiles (e.g., the worst one percent) are less precise.
Historical simulation effectively throws out useful information.
“The most prominent and easiest to implement methodology within the class of
nonparametric methods is historical simulation (HS). HS uses the data directly. The only
thing we need to determine up front is the lookback window. Once the window length is
determined, we order returns in descending order, and go directly to the tail of this
ordered vector. For an estimation window of 100 observations, for example, the fifth
lowest return in a rolling window of the most recent 100 returns is the fifth percentile.
The lowest observation is the first percentile. If we wanted, instead, to use a 250
observations window, the fifth percentile would be somewhere between the 12th and the
13th lowest observations (a detailed discussion follows), and the first percentile would be
somewhere between the second and third lowest returns.” –Linda Allen
The key feature of multivariate density estimation is that the weights (assigned to historical
square returns) are not a constant function of time. Rather, the current state—as
parameterized by a state vector—is compared to the historical state: the more similar the states
(current versus historical period), the greater the assigned weight. The relative weighting is
determined by the kernel function:
K
( t i )ut2i
2
t
i 1
Where EWMA assigns the weight as an exponentially declining function of time (i.e., the
nearer to today, the greater the weight), MDE assigns the weight based on the nature of
the historical period (i.e., the more similar to the historical state, the greater the weight)
Cum'l
Sorted Periods Hybrid Hybrid Compare
Return Ago Weight Weight to HS
-31.8% 7 8.16% 8.16% 10%
-28.8% 9 6.61% 14.77% 20%
-25.5% 6 9.07% 23.83% 30%
-22.3% 10 5.95% 29.78% 40%
5.7% 1 15.35% 45.14% 50%
6.1% 2 13.82% 58.95% 60%
6.5% 3 12.44% 71.39% 70%
6.9% 4 11.19% 82.58% 80%
12.1% 5 10.07% 92.66% 90%
60.6% 8 7.34% 100.00% 100%
However, under the hybrid approach, the EWMA weighting scheme is instead applied. Since the
worst return happened seven (7) periods ago, the weight applied is given by the following,
assuming a lambda of 0.9 (90%):
120%
100%
Hybrid 80%
Weights 60%
HS Weights 40%
20%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
We are solving for the 95th percentile (95%) value at risk (VaR)
The HS 95% VaR = ~ 4.25% because it is the fifth-worst return (actually, the quantile can
be determined in more than one way)
However, the hybrid approach returns a 95% VaR of 3.08% because the “worst returns”
that inform the dataset tend to be further in the past (i.e., days ago = 76, 94, 86, 90…).
Due to this, the individual weights are generally less than 1%.
The question is: how do we compute VAR for a portfolio which consists of several positions.
The second approach is to extend the historical simulation (HS) approach to the portfolio:
apply today’s weights to yesterday’s returns. In other words, “what would have happened if we
held this portfolio in the past?”
The third approach is to combine these two approaches: aggregate the simulated returns and
then apply a parametric (normal) distributional assumption to the aggregated portfolio.
The first approach (variance-covariance) requires the dubious assumption of normality—for the
positions “inside” the portfolio. The text says the third approach is gaining in popularity and is
justified by the law of large numbers: even if the components (positions) in the portfolio are not
normally distributed, the aggregated portfolio will converge toward normality.
To impute volatility is to derivate volatility (to reverse-engineer it, really) from the observed
market price of the asset. A typical example uses the Black-Scholes option pricing model to
compute the implied volatility of a stock option; i.e., option traders will average at-the-money
implied volatility from traded puts and calls.
This requires that a market mechanism (e.g., an exchange) can provide a market price for the
option. If a market price can be observed, then instead of solving for the price of an option, we
use an option pricing model (OPM) to reveal the implied (implicit) volatility. We solve (“goal
seek”) for the volatility that produces a model price equal to the market price:
cmarket f ( ISD )
Where the implied standard deviation (ISD) is the volatility input into an option pricing model
(OPM). Similarly, implied correlations can also be “recovered” (reverse-engineered) from
options on multiple assets. According to Jorion, ISD is a superior approach to volatility
estimation. He says, “Whenever possible, VAR should use implied parameters” [i.e., ISD or
market implied volatility].
Many risk managers describe the application of historical volatility as similar to “driving by
looking in the rear-view mirror.” Another flaw is the assumption of stationarity; i.e., the
assumption that the past is indicative of the future.
Implied volatility, “an intriguing alternative,” can be imputed from derivative prices using a
specific derivative pricing model. The simplest example is the Black–Scholes implied volatility
imputed from equity option prices.
In the presence of multiple implied volatilities for various option maturities and exercise
prices, it is common to take the at-the-money (ATM) implied volatility from puts and
calls and extrapolate an average implied; this implied is derived from the most liquid
(ATM) options
“A particularly strong example of the advantage obtained by using implied volatility (in
contrast to historical volatility) as a predictor of future volatility is the GBP currency
crisis of 1992. During the summer of 1992, the GBP came under pressure as a result of the
expectation that it should be devalued relative to the European Currency Unit (ECU)
components, the deutschmark (DM) in particular (at the time the strongest currency
within the ECU). During the weeks preceding the final drama of the GBP devaluation,
many signals were present in the public domain … This was the case many times prior to
this event, especially with the Italian lira’s many devaluations. Therefore, the market
was prepared for a crisis in the GBP during the summer of 1992. Observing the thick
solid line depicting option-implied volatility, the growing pressure on the GBP
manifests itself in options prices and volatilities. Historical volatility is trailing,
“unaware” of the pressure. In this case, the situation is particularly problematic since
historical volatility happens to decline as implied volatility rises. The fall in historical
volatility is dueto the fact that movements close to the intervention band are bound to
be smaller by the fact of the intervention bands’ existence and the nature of
intervention, thereby dampening the historical measure of volatility just at the time that
a more predictive measure shows increases in volatility.” – Linda Allen
“It would seem as if the answer must be affirmative, since implied volatility can react
immediately to market conditions. As a predictor of future volatility this is certainly an
important feature.”
According to Linda Allen, “empirical results indicate, strongly and consistently, that implied
volatility is, on average, greater than realized volatility.” There are two common explanations.
Rational markets: implied volatility is greater than realized volatility due to stochastic
volatility. “Consider the following facts: (i) volatility is stochastic; (ii) volatility is a priced
source of risk; and (iii) the underlying model (e.g., the Black–Scholes model) is, hence,
misspecified, assuming constant volatility. The result is that the premium required by the
market for stochastic volatility will manifest itself in the forms we saw above – implied
volatility would be, on average, greater than realized volatility.”
At any given point in time, options on the same underlying may trade at different
vols. An example is the [volatility] smile effect – deep out of the money (especially) and
deep in the money (to a lesser extent) options trade at a higher volatility than at the
money options.
The key idea refers to the application of the square root rule (S.R.R. says that variance scales
directly with time such that the volatility scales directly with the square root of time). The
square root rule, while mathematically convenient, doesn’t really work in practice because it
requires that normally distributed returns are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.).
Allen gives two scenarios that each illustrate “violations” in the use of the square root rule to
scale volatility over time:
Mean reversion in the asset dynamics. The price/return tends towards a long-run
level; e.g., interest rate reverts to 5%, equity log return reverts to +8%
Mean reversion in variance. Variance reverts toward a long-run level; e.g., volatility
reverts to a long-run average of 20%. We can also refer to this as negative
autocorrelation, but it's a little trickier. Negative autocorrelation refers to the fact that a
high variance is likely to be followed in time by a low variance. The reason it's tricky is
due to short/long timeframes: the current volatility may be high relative to the long run
mean, but it may be "sticky" or cluster in the short-term (positive autocorrelation) yet, in
the longer term it may revert to the long run mean. So, there can be a mix of (short-term)
positive and negative autocorrelation on the way being pulled toward the long run mean.
The simplest approach to extending the horizon is to use the “square root rule”
The square-root-rule: under the two assumptions below, VaR scales with the square root
of time. Extend one-period VaR to J-period VAR by multiplying by the square root of J.
The square root rule (i.e., variance is linear with time) only applies under restrictive i.i.d.
The square-root rule for extending the time horizon requires two key assumptions:
Random-walk (acceptable)