Mar
14
Do Markets Get More Volatile After Going Up? from Kim Zussman
March 14, 2009 |
One possibility is that markets get more volatile after they go up.
Using SPY (93-present), checked daily close-close returns, as well as range defined as (H-L) / (H+L)/2
Then sorted c-c returns into down or up, and checked the next day's range. Here is the comparison of mean range for days following those
either down or up:
Two-sample T for range nxtD vs range nxt U
N Mean StDev SE Mean
range nxtD 1872 0.0039 0.00309 0.000072 T=8
range nxt U 2187 0.0032 0.00230 0.000049
Indeed volatility after down is larger
To check whether the size of down or up moves has an effect on tomorrow's range, here is a regression of next day's range vs prior
day's return, just for prior days which were down:
Regression Analysis: range nxtD versus c-c D
The regression equation is
range nxtD = 0.00239 - 0.182 c-c D
Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
Constant 0.0024 0.00008 29.69 0.000
c-c D -0.1819 0.00623 -29.17 0.000
S = 0.00256647 R-Sq = 31.3% R-Sq(adj) = 31.2%
As expected, the bigger the down yesterday the bigger today's range. Here is the same regression, only for yesterdays which were up:
Regression Analysis: range nxt U versus c-c U
The regression equation is
range nxt U = 0.00250 + 0.0949 c-c U
Predictor Coef SE Coef T P
Constant 0.002498 0.00006 41.17 0.000
c-c U 0.094886 0.00503 18.85 0.000
S = 0.00213147 R-Sq = 14.0% R-Sq(adj) = 13.9%
So both for up and down yesterdays, the larger moves mean bigger range the following day. However the effect is more pronounced for down
days with 31% of variance explained vs 14% for up days. Of course
this can also be explained by persistence of volatility.
Comments
2 Comments so far
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- Older Archives
Resources & Links
- The Letters Prize
- Pre-2007 Victor Niederhoffer Posts
- Vic’s NYC Junto
- Reading List
- Programming in 60 Seconds
- The Objectivist Center
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Tigerchess
- Dick Sears' G.T. Index
- Pre-2007 Daily Speculations
- Laurel & Vics' Worldly Investor Articles
Here are data to determine whether price direction has an impact next period StDev, or vice-versa. I used 20-day non-overlapping periods to complement my trading style.
S&P 500 Daily data
Begin 6/25/1985 x= StDev for period
End 3/16/2009 y= % price change for period
Price Change influence on StDev (StDev are more recent 20 day periods)
Correl -36.31% R-Sq 13.38% y= -0.1637x + 0.0
StDev influence on Price Change (Price are more recent 20 day periods)
Correl -6.80% R-Sq 0.38% y= -0.0278x + 0.0094
Coincident
Correl -14.52% R-Sq 1.80% y= -0.0606x + 0.0149
Thank you for the observation. It has worth.
I’ve noticed something similar, but I apologize for not posting the stats. First, volatility comes in clusters. This should not come as a surprise; others higher have observed the same effect. Second, volatility is non-directional. That, too, has been observed by others. I am comforted that my in-house work has supported those notions. However, I know there’s skew and have seen it in numbers, but in the case of this simple study described below I didn’t focus on the volatility of up-days versus the volatility of down-days.
Here’s what I did, and you can certainly replicate it. I took the difference of the day’s high and low and put it over the previous day’s close as a simple measurment of volatility. Call that variance. I then took the closing day-on-day change. Call that return. I did this back to 1962.
With that, I sorted the results in descending order of the daily high-low variance. I segmented the sort, with 20% of the highest variance days in one group and the other 80% in another. I resorted each group in chronological order. Then I indexed both to 100. I calculated the total return, and calaculated CAGR based on the number of days in both groups.
The result: the top 20.2% of the most volatile days accounted for 78.8% of the all the returns. Conversely, the 80% of the lesser volatile days resulted in just more than 20% of the returns.
Pareto in its beauty.
This silly, simple observation, however crude and elementary, has convinced me to reject practically everything Gaussian and Bachelier-based. Vilfredo Pareto gave us something more to observe than current academia, Wall Street houses and policy-makers focus on.
Keep pressing,
Chris Monoki