IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Comparing Different Explanations of the Volatility Trend

  • Amir Rubin

    (Simon Fraser University and Interdisciplinary Center (IDC), Herzliya)

  • Daniel Smith

    (Simon Fraser University and QUT)

We analyze the puzzling behavior of the volatility of individual stock returns over the past few decades. The literature has provided many different explanations to the trend in volatility and this paper tests the viability of the different explanations. Virtually all current theoretical arguments that are provided for the trend in the average level of volatility over time lend themselves to explanations about the difference in volatility levels between firms in the cross-section. We therefore focus separately on the crosssectional and time-series explanatory power of the different proxies. We fail to find a proxy that is able to explain both dimensions well. In particular, we find that Cao et al. (2008) market-to-book ratio tracks average volatility levels well, but has no crosssectional explanatory power. On the other hand, the low-price proxy suggested by Brandt et al. (2010) has much cross-sectional explanatory power, but has virtually no time-series explanatory power. We also find that the different proxies do not explain the trend in volatility in the period prior to 1995 (R-squared of virtually zero), but explain rather well the trend in volatility at the turn of the Millennium (1995-2005).

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.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by National Centre for Econometric Research in its series NCER Working Paper Series with number 68.

in new window

Date of creation: 11 Nov 2010
Date of revision:
Publication status: forthcoming
Handle: RePEc:qut:auncer:2010_15
Contact details of provider: Phone: 07 3138 5066
Fax: 07 3138 1500
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  1. Wang, Zijun, 2010. "Dynamics and causality in industry-specific volatility," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 1688-1699, July.
  2. Fama, Eugene F & MacBeth, James D, 1973. "Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(3), pages 607-36, May-June.
  3. Michael W. Brandt & Alon Brav & John R. Graham & Alok Kumar, 2010. "The Idiosyncratic Volatility Puzzle: Time Trend or Speculative Episodes?," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 23(2), pages 863-899, February.
  4. Pástor, Luboš & Veronesi, Pietro, 2002. "Stock Valuation and Learning about Profitability," CEPR Discussion Papers 3410, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  5. Newey, Whitney K & West, Kenneth D, 1987. "A Simple, Positive Semi-definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(3), pages 703-08, May.
  6. Wayne E. Ferson & Sergei Sarkissian & Timothy Simin, 2002. "Spurious Regressions in Financial Economics?," NBER Working Papers 9143, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. Kraus, Alan & Smith, Maxwell, 1996. "Heterogeneous Beliefs and the Effect of Replicatable Options on Asset Prices," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 9(3), pages 723-56.
  8. Epps, Thomas W & Epps, Mary Lee, 1976. "The Stochastic Dependence of Security Price Changes and Transaction Volumes: Implications for the Mixture-of-Distributions Hypothesis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 44(2), pages 305-21, March.
  9. Chia-Chang Chuang & Chung-Ming Kuan & Hsin-yi Lin, 2007. "Causality in Quantiles and Dynamic Stock Return-Volume Relations," IEAS Working Paper : academic research 07-A006, Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.
  10. Anat R. Admati, Paul Pfleiderer, 1988. "A Theory of Intraday Patterns: Volume and Price Variability," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 1(1), pages 3-40.
  11. Hollifield, Burton, 2002. "Comment on: : Stock volatility in the new millennium: how wacky is Nasdaq?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 27-30, January.
  12. Carhart, Mark M, 1997. " On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 57-82, March.
  13. Steven X. Wei & Chu Zhang, 2006. "Why Did Individual Stocks Become More Volatile?," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(1), pages 259-292, January.
  14. John Y. Campbell, 2001. "Have Individual Stocks Become More Volatile? An Empirical Exploration of Idiosyncratic Risk," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 56(1), pages 1-43, 02.
  15. Foster, F Douglas & Viswanathan, S, 1990. "A Theory of the Interday Variations in Volume, Variance, and Trading Costs in Securities Markets," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 3(4), pages 593-624.
  16. Eugene F. Fama & Kenneth R. French, 2001. "Disappearing Dividends: Changing Firm Characteristics Or Lower Propensity To Pay?," Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, Morgan Stanley, vol. 14(1), pages 67-79.
  17. Mitchell A. Petersen, 2009. "Estimating Standard Errors in Finance Panel Data Sets: Comparing Approaches," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(1), pages 435-480, January.
  18. Yexiao Xu & Burton G. Malkiel, 2003. "Investigating the Behavior of Idiosyncratic Volatility," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 76(4), pages 613-644, October.
  19. Acharya, Viral V & Pedersen, Lasse Heje, 2004. "Asset Pricing with Liquidity Risk," CEPR Discussion Papers 4718, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  20. Fama, Eugene F. & French, Kenneth R., 1993. "Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 3-56, February.
  21. Richardson, Matthew & Smith, Tom, 1994. "A Direct Test of the Mixture of Distributions Hypothesis: Measuring the Daily Flow of Information," Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 29(01), pages 101-116, March.
  22. Harris, Milton & Raviv, Artur, 1993. "Differences of Opinion Make a Horse Race," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 6(3), pages 473-506.
  23. Lamoureux, Christopher G & Lastrapes, William D, 1994. "Endogenous Trading Volume and Momentum in Stock-Return Volatility," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 12(2), pages 253-60, April.
  24. repec:oup:restud:v:73:y:2006:i:4:p:907-940 is not listed on IDEAS
  25. Brown, Gregory & Kapadia, Nishad, 2007. "Firm-specific risk and equity market development," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 358-388, May.
  26. Jeff Fleming & Chris Kirby & Barbara Ostdiek, 2006. "Stochastic Volatility, Trading Volume, and the Daily Flow of Information," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(3), pages 1551-1590, May.
  27. William Schwert, G., 2002. "Stock volatility in the new millennium: how wacky is Nasdaq?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 3-26, January.
  28. Paul J. Irvine & Jeffrey Pontiff, 2009. "Idiosyncratic Return Volatility, Cash Flows, and Product Market Competition," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 22(3), pages 1149-1177, March.
  29. Charles Cao & Timothy Simin & Jing Zhao, 2008. "Can Growth Options Explain the Trend in Idiosyncratic Risk?," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 21(6), pages 2599-2633, November.
  30. Amihud, Yakov, 2002. "Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects," Journal of Financial Markets, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 31-56, January.
  31. Umutlu, Mehmet & Akdeniz, Levent & Altay-Salih, Aslihan, 2010. "The degree of financial liberalization and aggregated stock-return volatility in emerging markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 509-521, March.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:qut:auncer:2010_15. 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: (School of Economics and Finance)

The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask School of Economics and Finance to update the entry or send us the correct address

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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.