2010RePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsRequires access

On the Origins of Conditional Heteroscedasticity in Time Series

Richard Ashley

Open publisher page 3 citations

Abstract

The volatility clustering frequently observed in financial/economic time series is often ascribed to GARCH and/or stochastic volatility models. This paper demonstrates the usefulness of reconceptualizing the usual definition of conditional heteroscedasticity as the (h = 1) special case of h-step-ahead conditional heteroscedasticity, where the conditional volatility in period t depends on observable variables up through period t – h. Here it is shown that, for h > 1, h-stepahead conditional heteroscedasticity arises – necessarily and endogenously - from nonlinear serial dependence in a time series; whereas one-step-ahead conditional heteroscedasticity (i.e., h = 1) requires multiple and heterogeneously-skedastic innovation terms. Consequently, the best response to observed volatility clustering may often be to model the nonlinear serial dependence which is likely causing it, rather than ‘tacking on’ an ad hoc volatility model. Even where such nonlinear modeling is infeasible – or where volatility is quantified using, say, a model-free implied volatility measure rather than squared returns – these results suggest a re-consideration of the usefulness of lag-one terms in volatility models. An application to observed daily stock returns is given.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The volatility clustering frequently observed in financial/economic time series is often ascribed to GARCH and/or stochastic volatility models. This paper demonstrates the usefulness of reconceptualizing the usual definition of conditional heteroscedasticity as the (h = 1) special case of h-step-ahead conditional heteroscedasticity, where the conditional volatility in period t depends on observable variables up through period t – h. Here it is shown that, for h > 1, h-stepahead conditional heteroscedasticity arises – necessarily and endogenously - from nonlinear serial dependence in a time series; whereas one-step-ahead conditional heteroscedasticity (i.e., h = 1) requires multiple and heterogeneously-skedastic innovation terms. Consequently, the best response to observed volatility clustering may often be to model the nonlinear serial dependence which is likely causing it, rather than ‘tacking on’ an ad hoc volatility model. Even where such nonlinear modeling is infeasible – or where volatility is quantified using, say, a model-free implied volatility measure rather than squared returns – these results suggest a re-consideration of the usefulness of lag-one terms in volatility models. An application to observed daily stock returns is given.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The volatility clustering frequently observed in financial/economic time series is often ascribed to GARCH and/or stochastic volatility models. This paper demonstrates the usefulness of reconceptualizing the usual definition of conditional heteroscedasticity as the (h = 1) special case of h-step-ahead conditional heteroscedasticity, where the conditional volatility in period t depends on observable variables up through period t – h. Here it is shown that, for h > 1, h-stepahead conditional heteroscedasticity arises – necessarily and endogenously - from nonlinear serial dependence in a time series; whereas one-step-ahead conditional heteroscedasticity (i.e., h = 1) requires multiple and heterogeneously-skedastic innovation terms. Consequently, the best response to observed volatility clustering may often be to model the nonlinear serial dependence which is likely causing it, rather than ‘tacking on’ an ad hoc volatility model. Even where such nonlinear modeling is infeasible – or where volatility is quantified using, say, a model-free implied volatility measure rather than squared returns – these results suggest a re-consideration of the usefulness of lag-one terms in volatility models. An application to observed daily stock returns is given.

Key concepts: Heteroscedasticity, Volatility clustering, Econometrics, Volatility (finance), Autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity, Economics, Conditional variance, Stochastic volatility

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
On the Origins of Conditional Heteroscedasticity in Time Series — Research Paper | ScholarLens