Are combination forecasts of S&P 500 volatility statistically superior?
Forecasting volatility has received a great deal of research attention, with the relative performances of econometric model based and option implied volatility forecasts often being considered. While many studies find that implied volatility is the pre-ferred approach, a number of issues remain unresolved, including the relative merit of combining forecasts and whether the relative performances of various forecasts are statistically different. By utilising recent econometric advances, this paper considers whether combination forecasts of S&P 500 volatility are statistically superior to a wide range of model based forecasts and implied volatility. It is found that a combination of model based forecasts is the dominant approach, indicating that the implied volatility cannot simply be viewed as a combination of various model based forecasts. Therefore, while often viewed as a superior volatility forecast, the implied volatility is in fact an inferior forecast of S&P 500 volatility relative to model-based forecasts.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:intfor:v:24:y:2008:i:1:p:122-133. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.