The objective of our paper is to show that gold and exchange rate volatility is predictive of stock volatility from both in-sample and out-of-sample perspectives. There exists very significant predictability from gold and exchange rate volatility to Hang Seng Index (HSI) return volatility among in-sample results. The out-of-sample results demonstrate the gold and exchange rate volatility extracts significantly useful information for Hang Seng Index (HSI) return volatility. Furthermore, the performance of the predictive ability of gold and exchange rate volatility is robust during business cycles and incremental framework.
Citation: Zhifeng Dai, Huiting Zhou, Xiaodi Dong. Forecasting stock market volatility: the role of gold and exchange rate[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 5094-5105. doi: 10.3934/math.2020327
Related Papers:
[1]
Zubair Ahmad, Zahra Almaspoor, Faridoon Khan, Sharifah E. Alhazmi, M. El-Morshedy, O. Y. Ababneh, Amer Ibrahim Al-Omari .
On fitting and forecasting the log-returns of cryptocurrency exchange rates using a new logistic model and machine learning algorithms. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 18031-18049.
doi: 10.3934/math.2022993
[2]
Hasnain Iftikhar, Murad Khan, Josué E. Turpo-Chaparro, Paulo Canas Rodrigues, Javier Linkolk López-Gonzales .
Forecasting stock prices using a novel filtering-combination technique: Application to the Pakistan stock exchange. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(2): 3264-3288.
doi: 10.3934/math.2024159
[3]
Zhi Liu .
Forecasting stock prices based on multivariable fuzzy time series. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(6): 12778-12792.
doi: 10.3934/math.2023643
[4]
Shuai Wang, Zhongyan Li, Jinyun Zhu, Zhicen Lin, Meiru Zhong .
Stock selection strategy of A-share market based on rotation effect and random forest. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(5): 4563-4580.
doi: 10.3934/math.2020293
[5]
Guifang Liu, Yuhang Zheng, Fan Hu, Zhidi Du .
Modelling exchange rate volatility under jump process and application analysis. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(4): 8610-8632.
doi: 10.3934/math.2023432
[6]
Mohammed Alharbey, Turki Mohammed Alfahaid, Ousama Ben-Salha .
Asymmetric volatility spillover between oil prices and regional renewable energy stock markets: A time-varying parameter vector autoregressive-based connectedness approach. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 30639-30667.
doi: 10.3934/math.20231566
[7]
Aliyu Ismail Ishaq, Abdullahi Ubale Usman, Hana N. Alqifari, Amani Almohaimeed, Hanita Daud, Sani Isah Abba, Ahmad Abubakar Suleiman .
A new Log-Lomax distribution, properties, stock price, and heart attack predictions using machine learning techniques. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(5): 12761-12807.
doi: 10.3934/math.2025575
[8]
Rubén V. Arévalo, J. Alberto Conejero, Òscar Garibo-i-Orts, Alfred Peris .
Stock volatility as an anomalous diffusion process. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(12): 34947-34965.
doi: 10.3934/math.20241663
[9]
Xiangbin Qin, Yuanpeng Zhu .
Static term structure of interest rate construction with tension interpolation splines. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(1): 240-256.
doi: 10.3934/math.2024014
[10]
Pedro J. Gutiérrez-Diez, Jorge Alves-Antunes .
Stock market uncertainty determination with news headlines: A digital twin approach. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(1): 1683-1717.
doi: 10.3934/math.2024083
Abstract
The objective of our paper is to show that gold and exchange rate volatility is predictive of stock volatility from both in-sample and out-of-sample perspectives. There exists very significant predictability from gold and exchange rate volatility to Hang Seng Index (HSI) return volatility among in-sample results. The out-of-sample results demonstrate the gold and exchange rate volatility extracts significantly useful information for Hang Seng Index (HSI) return volatility. Furthermore, the performance of the predictive ability of gold and exchange rate volatility is robust during business cycles and incremental framework.
1.
Introduction
Modeling and forecasting stock market volatility is an important research topic in financial markets. Because stock market volatility plays key roles in market timing decisions, portfolio selection, asset pricing and risk management.
Since the seminal study in Schwert [1], extensive research has been carried out on the economic sources of financial volatility (e.g., Diebold and Yilmaz [2], Christiansen et al. [3], Paye [4], Engle et al. [5], Conrad and Loch [6], and Nonejad [7], Wang et al. [8,9], Zhang et al. [10]). However, Paye [4] shows that although some variables in theory (such as national debt spreads and default gains) will affect the volatility of stocks, it is difficult to find a single variable that can predict stock volatility. In particular, adding any macro variable to the baseline autoregressive model does not significantly improve the performance of out-of-sample prediction. The failure of the predictive power of each basic variable in stock volatility prompted scholars to find new predictors. Feng et al. [11] showed the oil volatility risk premium does indeed exhibit statistical and economic significance from the in-sample and out-of-sample prediction capabilities in G7 countries. Crude oil volatility is found to be an efficient predictive of stock volatility in the short-term in Wang et al. [12] from an out-of-sample perspective. Dai et al. [13] find that the implied volatility of stock market can provide efficient predictability for the stock return volatility in 5 developed economies.
Inspired by Feng et al. [11], Wang et al. [12] and Dai et al. [13], we find that three new variables, gold volatility, exchange rate volatility, US dollar index(DXY), can strongly predict stock volatility of Hang Seng Index (HSI) which is significant in different sampling periods. Gold as a leading candidate since it receives widespread attention in finance. Baur and Lucey [14] show that gold is a hedge against stocks on average and a safe haven in extreme stock market conditions. Another study on this specific topic was by [15,16], who examine the role of gold in the global financial system by testing the hypothesis that gold represents a safe haven against stocks of major emerging and developed countries. In addition, as oil price changes affect numerous economic variables, such as production costs, inflation, interest rates, investment, economic growth, terms of trade, and consumer and investor confidence. These economic variables affect both the exchange rate market and the stock market [17,18,19,20]. Because in international markets, oil prices are expressed in US dollars; thus, the dollar exchange rate may affect the price perceived by consumers and producers of oil and oil-related products. Pal et al. [21] apply the multifractal cross-correlation analysis method to investigate the cross-correlation behavior and fractal nature between two nonstationary time series, and put the hypothesis of gold as a safe haven in extreme currencies. Dynamic linkages and cross-correlation among oil price, gold price, exchange rate, and stock market are investigated by Jain and Biswal [22], Li et al. [23].
Although various research has studied information spillover between gold, exchange rate and stock volatility. Most papers use multiple GARCH models to study from the perspective of in-sample for different markets (e.g., Mishra et al. [24], Choi et al. [25], Walid et al. [26], Grobys [27], Oberholzer and Boetticher [28], Mensi et al. [29], Dai et al. [30], Choudry et al. [31], Maghyereh et al. [32]). However, it is generally known a predictive model enjoys good in-sample performance does not mean which can obtain excellent out-of-sample performance. In addition, the above mentioned papers focus on single spillover between gold and stock volatility, or exchange rate and stock volatility. In this paper, we will contribute to the literatures by focusing on the predictive ability of gold and exchange rate to stock volatility forecasting from both in-sample and out-of-sample perspective.
Our survey complements the study of volatility modelling and prediction by providing new basic determinants of stock market volatility. Our findings also are helpful to understand the economic causes of changes in stock market volatility. Hong Kong stock market is an important stock market that ranked among the top 10 in the world by market capitalization. Meanwhile, Hong Kong stock market is the closest financial center in China, which has a significant interaction with the economy, politics, geography and other aspects of the mainland. It is clear that investigating the Hong Kong stock market can help us understand the impact of volatility on stock return in emerging markets. In addition, gold has attracted investors who have been paying attention to financial assets that provide diversified returns to currencies for decades. It can act as a safe haven against extreme currencies. The distinguishing feature of gold as a hedging or hedging asset is the dependence structure between gold and the exchange rate, especially the average and extreme market dependence. Therefore, investigating the predictive role of gold and exchange rates in the volatility of the stock market is of great benefit to regulation for international financial market.
We use the daily price data from January 1989 to December 2018 for the Hang Seng Index (HSI) and prices of London Spot Gold, New York Futures Gold and HKD/CNY, HKD/EUR, and the US dollar index (DXY). When we make an empirical analysis for full sample, a more significant in-sample prediction ability is found for gold and exchange rate. Using the extended AR(P) model with each predictor, we obtain the forecasts for out-of-sample stock returns volatility of HSI. Following the relative literatures, we use the out-of-sample R2 (R2OoS) to evaluate the statistical performance of individual forecasts. We also employ the CW statistic proposed by Clark and West (2007) to inspect the statistical significance of stock return volatility predictability. Out-of-sample experiment results including different sample periods, business cycles, incremental framework show gold and exchange rate have good and robust out-of-sample performance.
The remaining of this paper is as follows: we show the research data and descriptive statistics in Section 2. Section 3 presents the econometric methodology including in-sample regression model, out-of-sample forecasting approach and evaluation method. The empirical analysis about in-sample predictive ability, out-of-sample prediction performance is reported in Sections 4 and 5, respectively. Section 6 investigates robustness analysis. The conclusion is given in the last section.
2.
Data and statistical description
We collect Hang Seng Index (HSI), London Spot Gold, New York Futures Gold from Wind Database (https://www.wind.com.cn/). The HKD/CNY, HKD/EUR, and the US dollar index (DXY) are downloaded from Hong Kong exchange rate data on the website of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). In addition, we also collect the prices of Brent crude oil and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil from the Energy Information Administration.(www.eia.gov) which are studied in Wang et al [12]. The sample period of the data is from January 1989 to December 2018. Basic statistical descriptions of the main regression variables are listed in Table 1.
Table 1.
Basic statistics of the main regression variables.
HSI
WTI
Brent
LDgold
NYgold
HKD/CNY
HKD/EUR
DXY
Mean
0.0053
0.0119
0.0103
0.0021
0.0022
0.0002
0.0008
0.02276
Std
0.0093
0.0180
0.0164
0.0025
0.0024
0.0030
0.0007
0.00749
Med
0.0027
0.0078
0.0068
0.0013
0.0014
0.0000
0.0007
0.02188
Max
0.1013
0.2447
0.2468
0.0243
0.0196
0.0566
0.0061
0.05337
Min
0.0004
0.0009
0.0006
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.00745
Skew
6.5800
7.6220
9.3710
3.8490
3.2460
18.0630
3.0770
1.08400
Kur
55.698
84.440
123.487
22.780
13.747
333.289
15.679
1.98300
Num
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
Note: This table reports the basic statistics of the main regression variables, and the rows in this table show the mean, standard deviation, median, kurtosis and skewness coefficients, range and number of observations.
Consistent with literatures (e.g., Schwert [1], Paye [4], Taylor [33], and Dai and Zhu [34]), we use the arithmetic square root of the sum of daily return squares as the agent of the monthly stock, oil, gold and exchange rate returns volatility. For a specific month t, the realized volatility (RV) can be computed as:
RVt=√M∑j=ir2t,j,t=1,2,...,T,
(1)
where rt,j is the t-th daily return in the j-th month, and M is the number of business days per month. According to Andersen and Bollerslev [35], Andersen et al. [36,37], the realized volatility in (1) is less noisy and based on ex-post variance. Daily price data is used to build actual monthly volatility.
3.
Methodology
3.1. Forecasting models
Although the benchmark of historical average is popular. Following Paye [4], Conrad and Loch [6], Nonejad [7], and Wang et al. [9], for stock volatility forecasting, a standard benchmark is the following autoregressive model (AR):
Vt+1=ω+p−1∑i=0αiVt−i+εi+1,
(2)
where Vt=log(RVt), the error term εt+1 is assumed to follow an independent and identically normal distribution.
In order to study the predictability of gold, oil, and exchange rate volatility, we extend the AR(P) model by using the logarithm of gold, oil, and exchange rate volatility as additional predictors:
Vt+1=ω+p−1∑i=0αiVt−i+βVt,xi+εt+1
(3)
where Vt,xi=log(RVt,xi) represents the logarithm of oil, gold, and exchange rate volatility at the t month, and the parameter β reflects the impact of oil, gold, and exchange rate volatility on future stock volatility, and εi,t+1 denotes an error term assumed to follow an independent and identically normal distribution.
3.2. Out-of-sample forecast and evaluation
Following relative literatures (e.g., [38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]), we employ the out-of-sample R-square (R2os) to evaluate forecasting performance. It is calculated as the percentage reduction in the mean squared predictive error (MSPE) of the prediction model (MSPEmodel) relative to that of the historical average benchmark (MSPEHA), that is
R2os=1−MSPEmodelMSPEHA
(4)
where MSPEmodel=1T−M∑Tt=M+1(Vt−ˆVt)2 and MSPEbench=1T−M∑Tt=M+1(Vt−¯Vt)2. Different from in-sample R2, the value of R2OoS can be equal to negative. Intuitively, a positive R2OoS indicates that the forecasts by tested model have lower MSPE than the benchmark model (2), implying the greater accuracy of stock return volatility predictability.
In addition, we further assess the significance of predictability by applying the Clark and West [50] statistic to test the null hypothesis that MSPEHA is smaller than or equal to MSPEmodel against the alternative hypothesis that MSPEHA is larger than MSPEmodel. The Clark and West [50] statistic is computed by first defining
ft=(Vt−ˉVt)2−(Vt−ˆVt)2+(ˉVt−ˆVt)2
(5)
then we obtain the statistic by regressing {ft}Tm+1 on a constant. The statistics can be proved to be equivalent to the t-statistic of the constant, then we can use the upper-tail test for standard normal distribution to obtain the p-value.
4.
In-sample results
Following Inoue and Kilian [51], in-sample predictability is necessary for out-of-sample predictability. It is unreasonable to find out the out-of-sample predictability with in-sample predictability absent. In order to eliminate this bias, the one-sided test proposed by Inoue and Kilian [51] is also carried out to test the null hypothesis of β=0 against alternative hypothesis β≠0.
Table 2 reports full sample regression results of stock realized volatility based on econometric model (3) where the coefficient of predictor, the Newey-West heteroskedasticity t-statistics (i.e. NW-t-statistics), and in-sample R2 statistics are shown. The estimation results for different lag order of the realized volatility of stock market return in model (3) are shown in Panels A, B, C, and D of Table 2.
Table 2.
In-sample regression results.
Wti
Brent
LDgold
NYgold
HKD/CNY
HKD/EUR
DXY
Panel A:lags=1
beta
-0.0752*
-0.0942*
-0.1281**
-0.1316**
-0.1363*
-0.1679**
-0.1686**
NW-t-value
1.4276
1.4919
1.7304
1.9972
1.5757
2.0849
2.2184
R2
0.4599
0.4503
0.5212
0.5276
0.4589
0.5626
0.5763
Panel B:lags=3
beta
-0.0813**
-0.0105**
-0.1303**
-0.1321**
-0.1452**
-0.1694***
-0.1765***
NW-t value
2.0607
2.1114
2.2055
2.2820
2.3142
2.3499
2.7066
R2
0.4792
0.4793
0.5792
0.5791
0.5291
0.5793
0.5803
Panel C:lags=6
beta
-0.0945**
-0.0915***
-0.1692***
-0.1402***
-0.1607***
-0.2732***
-0.2486***
NW-t value
2.3892
2.3803
4.0207
4.0776
4.0583
4.4897
4.8216
R2
0.6223
0.6324
0.7023
0.7024
0.6425
0.7026
0.7133
Panel D:lags=9
beta
-0.0771*
-0.0885*
-0.1365**
-0.1301**
-0.1347**
-0.1613**
-0.1772**
NW-t value
1.3511
1.4501
1.6935
1.6783
1.6360
1.7218
1.8042
R2
0.4659
0.4526
0.5156
0.5282
0.4858
0.5465
0.5677
Note: This table shows the in-sample regression results of Hong Kong stock market realized volatility using realized volatilities of oil, gold and exchange rate. The beta denotes the coefficients estimated by the OLS regression using model (3). Newey-West heteroskedasticity t-statistics calculated by the one-sided (upper-tail) hypothesis test and R2 statistics are displayed the table.
Being of our interest, the coefficient estimate of β is significantly negative at 10% level, regardless of whether oil, gold and exchange rate is included in the predictive model, indicating the in-sample predictability from oil, gold and exchange rate to stock volatility. What we can see is that all the NW-t-statistics are all greater than 1.40, which show the predictive ability of oil, gold and exchange rate is significant at 10% level. In addition, Campbell and Thompson [38] argue that a monthly R2 statistics near 0.5% can represent an economically significant predictability. All in-sample R2 statistics of gold and exchange rate are greater than this threshold, indicating the realized volatilities of gold and rate display powerful predictive abilities.
Overall, oil, gold and exchange rate exhibit significant predictability for the realized volatility of HSI. However, compared with oil, gold and exchange rate have stronger predictive ability, except for HKD/CNY. Among the seven predictors, the largest predictive ability is the US dollar index (DXY). Meanwhile, we can see that different lag orders of the realized volatility of stock market return in model (3) have some impact on volatility prediction where the lag order 6 is the best.
5.
Out-of-sample results
In financial practice, it’s of interest for market participants to learn the out-of-sample prediction performance as they pay more attention to how well the forecasting model will do in the future. Hence, we investigate whether adding oil, gold and rate volatility to the benchmark model (2) can significantly improve the forecasting accuracy. For stock volatility forecasting, it is obviously that different lag orders will have impact on the prediction ability. When we test the out-of-sample of seven predictors, we find that the lag order 6 also displays better out-of-sample performance which is consistent with in-sample results. Meanwhile, we can find that different lag orders have little effect on out-of-sample forecasting for stock return volatility for seven predictors. Therefore, we only report the out-of-sample performance for the lag order 6.
Table 3 reports out-of-sample forecasting results based on recursive estimation windows over a variety of sample periods. We give the out-of-sample R2 statistics as well as the P-values of CW test. All the out-of-sample R2 statistics exceed 0.6. The largest R2OS is 4.0415 of the US dollar index for the out-of-sample period of 2014-2018 and the smallest is 0.6122 of Hong Kong dollar to RMB for the out-of-sample period of 19944-2018. In short, the descending sort of forecasting ability is: DXY, HKD/EUR, New York gold, London gold, WTI Oil, Brent Oil, HKD/CNY. At the same time, the value of R2oos gradually increases over time. That is to say, the out-of-sample predictability of the realized volatility of oil, gold, and exchange rate is stronger as time goes on.
Table 3.
Out-of-sample forecasting results.
Out-of-sample period
Wti
Brent
LDgold
NYgold
HKD/CNY
HKD/EUR
DXY
1994-2018
0.6715*
0.6597*
1.0750**
1.0871**
0.6122*
1.1145**
1.3728**
(0.0532)
(0.0521)
(0.0490)
(0.0445)
(0.0593)
(0.0423)
(0.0405)
1999-2018
0.8001*
0.8486*
1.1785**
1.1182**
0.8059**
1.5608**
1.8070**
(0.0514)
(0.0505)
(0.0367)
(0.0361)
(0.0373)
(0.0245)
(0.0204)
2004-2018
1.0927**
1.1125**
1.3285**
1.5593**
1.0053**
1.9212**
2.0793**
(0.0309)
(0.0301)
(0.0224)
(0.0247)
(0.0232)
(0.0154)
(0.0132)
2009-2018
1.7709**
1.8964**
2.2793**
2.4783**
1.7234**
2.8740**
3.0574**
(0.0288)
(0.0274)
(0.02011)
(0.0202)
(0.0206)
(0.0165)
(0.0127)
2014-2018
2.3156 **
2.2315**
2.6846**
2.7447**
2.3377**
3.4288***
4.0415***
(0.0191)
(0.0184)
(0.0105)
(0.01405)
(0.0162)
(0.0085)
(0.0041)
Note: This table reports the out-of-sample performance, recursive window. The forecast performance is evaluated by the out-of-sample R2 defined by the percent reduction of MSPE of the forecasting model (3) relative to the benchmark model of autoregressive (2). P-values of CW test is in brackets.
The predictability of stock return volatility is dependent of business cycles (e.g. Neely et al. [39], Zhang et al. [52,53], and Choudhry et al. [54]). In view of this, it is worth for us to investigate whether the predictability of the stock market is different during the period of business expansion and recession. Specifically, we compute R2OOS,c statistics individually for expansion and recession where R2OOS,c is defined as follow:
R2OOS,c=1−∑Tt=m+1(Vt−ˆVt)2Ict∑Tt=m+1(Vt−ˉVt)2Ict,for c = EXP, REC
(6)
where Ic is an indicator which takes the value of one when the economy in the month t is an NBER dated expansion (recession) and zero otherwise. In this subsection, we only report the R2OOS,c statistics for the out-of-sample period of 2004:01-2018:12.
Table 4 reports R2OOS,c statistics for the forecasting of realized volatility during economic expansion and recession periods, respectively. The out-of-sample R2OOS,c statistics of economic recession are greater than expansion period. All out-of-sample R2OOS,c statistics during the recession period exceed 1.4%, while all out-of-sample R2OOS,c statistics during the expansion period are less than 0.7%, which indicate the explanatory power of independent variables mainly derives from the economic recession. Meanwhile, the realized volatility of DXY still demonstrates the best predictive ability.
Table 4.
Out-of-sample forecasting for economic expansion/recession.
Wti
Brent
LDgold
NYgold
HKD/CNY
HKD/EUR
DXY
R2EXP
0.37406**
0. 4162**
0.54770***
0.56171***
0.5263**
0.4730***
0.6678***
R2REC
1.8332***
1.4058***
2.0372***
2.0250***
1.8572***
2.9557***
3.4326***
R2OOS
1.2258***
1.2510***
1.5293***
1.8805***
1.3265***
1.9364***
2.3847***
Note: This table reports the out-of-sample performance of business cycles. The forecast quality is evaluated by the out-of-sample R2 defined by the percent reduction of MSPE of the given model relative to the benchmark model of autoregressive. The *, ** and *** reports significance at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively. The out-of-sample period is 2004:01-2018:12.
Overall, the predictability of stock realized volatility based on oil, gold, and exchange rate is stronger during economic recessions than that during economic expansions. The higher the R2OOS statistics for economic recessions all exceed 1.4% for the full-sample benchmark while for economic recessions all below 0.7%. From this we can see that the explanatory power of oil, gold, and exchange rate mainly comes from its predictive power at economic recession periods. In recessions, agammaegate risk is significantly higher and, consequently, investors care more about agammaegate shocks. In expansions, agammaegate risk is significantly lower and, consequently, investors care more about idiosyncratic shocks. This framework implies that the predictive information of economic fundamentals is linked to the observed state of the business cycle.
6.2. Predictability in an incremental framework
In addition to the traditional test, Chen et al [55] argue that it is also meaningful to capture predictive ability in incremental model:
Vt+1=α+ϕΔVt+βXi,t+εt
(7)
where ∆Vt−1 represents the innovation in stock real volatility. Unlike the benchmark bivariate model, this incremental model focuses on the predictability of incremental framework.
Table 5 shows the in-sample and out-of-sample results of stock market realized volatility using realized volatilities of oil, gold and exchange rate in the incremental model (7). As can be seen from panel A, all the coefficients of realized volatilities of oil, gold and exchange rate are positive and exceed 0.10. Especially, the coefficients of DXY reaches 1.17. According to the P-value and NW-t-value statistics, we find that the confidence level of all independent variables is much higher than 10% level, which means that almost every independent variable has strong explanation. The out-of-sample results are reported in percentage at the bottom of Table 5. It can be seen that all of R2oos statistics exceed 1, and the R2oos values of HKD/EUR and DXY are even more than 3%, which again indicates the predictability of the independent variable. The R2OoS statistics exceed 1%, which indicates that the forecasts by tested model have lower MSPE than the benchmark model (2), implying the greater accuracy of stock return volatility predictability than the benchmark model (2).
Table 5.
Predictability for the incremental model.
Wti
Brent
LDgold
NYgold
HKD/CNY
HKD/EUR
DXY
Panel A: in-sample results for full sample periods
ϕ
0.1742
0.1837*
0.1774*
0.1738
0.1956*
0.1775*
0.1718*
P-value
(0.0568)
(0.0573)
(0.0570)
(0.0570)
(0.0579)
(0.0566)
(0.0565)
NW-t value
[1.6421]
[1.6733]
[1.6629]
[1.6120]
[1.7023]
[1.6871]
[1.6562]
β
0.1616**
0.1285**
0.3550***
0.3644**
0.1665***
0.8672***
1.1712***
P-value
(0.0383)
(0.0413)
(0.0921)
(0.0937)
(0.1383)
(0.2000)
(0.2501)
NW-t value
[2.4352]
[2.1100]
[2.6011]
[2.2025]
[-2.9399]
[3.5996]
[3.5256]
R2
0.5693
0.5633
0.6913
0.7029
0.5461
0.6943
0.7704
Panel B: out-of-sample results for 2004:01-2018:12.
R2OOS
1.5687**
1.6007**
2.2161**
2.6918**
1.5360**
3.1209***
3.2146***
Note: This table reports the out-of-sample performance in an incremental framework. In-sample results are reported in panel A. The beta denotes the coefficients estimated by the OLS regression using model (7). Out-of-sample results are reported in panel B where the forecast quality is evaluated by the R2oos. The *, ** and *** reports significance at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.
In this paper, we aim to show that gold and exchange rate volatility are predictive of stock volatility from both in-sample and out-of-sample perspectives in Hong kong stock market. We use daily data spanning January 1989 to December 2018 for the Hang Seng Index (HSI) and prices of, London Spot Gold, New York Futures Gold and HKD/CNY, HKD/EUR, and the US dollar index (DXY). The squared daily returns in each month are summed to construct monthly realized volatility. Our in-sample results show there exists very significant predictability from gold and exchange rate volatility to stock volatility in full sample period. We use recursive estimation window to generate one-step-ahead out-of-sample forecasts of stock volatility. Out-of-sample experiment results including different sample periods, business cycles, incremental framework show gold and exchange rate have good out-of-sample prediction performance.
Following Paye [4], Conrad and Loch [6], Nonejad [7], and Wang et al. [9], the AR model the error term is assumed to be independent identical normal distribution. Because the noise could be white noise or any other forms in practical application, it may limit the ability of the model. A more robust approach with detailed merit will be investigated in the future work.
Acknowledgments
This paper is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China granted [71771030,11301041], the Scientific Research Fund of Hunan Provincial Education Department [grant number 19A145].
Conflict of interest
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
References
[1]
G. Schwert, Why does stock market volatility change over time? J. Finance, 44 (1989), 1115-1153.
[2]
F. X. Diebold, K. Yilmaz, Macroeconomic Volatility and Stock Market Volatility, Worldwide. (No. w14269). National Bureau of Economic Research, 2008.
[3]
C. Christiansen, M. Schmeling, A. Schrimpf, A comprehensive look at financial volatility prediction by economic variables, J. Appl. Econom., 27 (2012), 956-977. doi: 10.1002/jae.2298
[4]
B. S. Paye, Déjavol: predictive regressions for aggregate stock market volatility using macroeconomic variables, J. Financ. Econ., 106 (2012), 527-546. doi: 10.1016/j.jfineco.2012.06.005
[5]
R. F. Engle, E. Ghysels, B. Sohn, Stock market volatility and macroeconomic fundamentals, Rev. Econ. Stat., 95 (2013), 776-797. doi: 10.1162/REST_a_00300
[6]
C. Conrad, K. Loch, D. Rittler, On the macroeconomic determinants of long-term volatilities and correlations in US stock and crude oil markets, J. Empir. Financ., 29 (2014), 26-40. doi: 10.1016/j.jempfin.2014.03.009
[7]
N. Nonejad, Forecasting aggregate stock market volatility using financial and macroeconomic predictors: Which models forecast best, when and why? J. Empir. Financ., 42 (2017), 131-154.
[8]
Y. Wang, F. Ma, Y. Wei, et al. Forecasting realized volatility in a changing world: A dynamic model averaging approach, J. Bank. Financ., 64 (2016), 136-149. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.12.010
[9]
Y. Wang, Z. Pan, C. Wu, Time-Varying Parameter Realized Volatility Models, J. Forecasting, 36 (2017), 566-580. doi: 10.1002/for.2454
[10]
Y. Zhang, Y. Wei, F. Ma, et al. Economic constraints and stock return predictability: A new approach, Int. Rev. Financ. Anal., 63 (2019), 1-9.
[11]
J. Feng, Y. Wang, L. Yin, Oil volatility risk and stock market volatility predictability: Evidence from G7 countries, Energ. Econ., 68 (2017), 240-254. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2017.09.023
[12]
Y. Wang, Y. Wei, C. Wu, et al. Oil and the short-term predictability of stock return volatility, J. Empir. Financ., 47 (2018), 90-104. doi: 10.1016/j.jempfin.2018.03.002
[13]
Z. Dai, H. Zhou, F. Wen, et al. Efficient predictability of stock return volatility: the role of stock market implied volatility, N. Am. J. Econ. Finance, 52 (2020), 101174.
[14]
D. G. Baur, B. M. Lucey, Is gold a hedge or a safe haven? An analysis of stocks, bonds and gold, Financ. Rev., 45 (2010) 217-229,
[15]
D. G. Baur, T. K. McDermott, Is gold a safe haven? International evidence, J. Bank. Financ., 34 (2010), 1886-1898. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2009.12.008
[16]
M. Hood, F. Malik, Is gold the best hedge and a safe haven under changing stock market volatility? Rev. Financ. Econ., 22 (2013), 47-52.
[17]
J. D. Hamilton, Oil and the macroeconomy since World War II, J. Pol. Econ., 91 (1983), 228-248. doi: 10.1086/261140
[18]
D. Roubaud. M. Arouri, Oil prices, exchange rates and stock markets under uncertainty and regime-switching, Financ. Res. Lett., 27 (2018), 28-33. doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2018.02.032
[19]
A. Salisu, H. Mobolaji, Modeling returns and volatility transmission between oil price and US-Nigeria exchange rate, Energy Economics, 39 (2013), 169-176. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2013.05.003
[20]
R. Aloui, M. S. Ben Aïssa, D. K. Nguyen, Conditional dependence structure between oil prices and exchange rates: a copula-GARCH approach, J. Int. Money Fin., 32 (2013), 719-738. doi: 10.1016/j.jimonfin.2012.06.006
[21]
M. Pal, P. M. Rao, P. Manimaran, Multifractal detrended cross correlation analysis on gold, crude oil and foreign exchangerate time series, Physica A, 416 (2014), 452-460. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2014.09.004
[22]
A. Jain, P. C. Biswal, Dynamic linkages among oil price, gold price, exchange rate, and stock market in India, Resources Policy, 49 (2016), 179-185.
[23]
J. F. Li, X. S. Lu, Y. Zhou, Cross-correlations between crude oil and exchange markets for selected oil rich economies, Physica A, 453 (2016), 131-143. doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2016.02.039
[24]
A. K. Mishra, N. Swain, D. K. Malhotra, Volatility spillover between stock and foreign exchange markets: Indian evidence, Int. J. Business, 12 (2007), 343-359.
[25]
D. Choi, V. Fang, T. Fu, Volatility spillovers between New Zealand stock market returns and exchange rate changes before and after the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Asian journal of Finance and Accounting, 1 (2009), 106-117.
[26]
C. Walid, A. Chaker, O. Masood, et al. Stock market volatility and exchange rates in emerging countries: a Markov switching approach, Emerg. Mark. Rev., 12 (2011), 272-292. doi: 10.1016/j.ememar.2011.04.003
[27]
K. Grobys, Are volatility spillovers between currency and equity market driven by economic states? Evidence from the US economy, Econ. Lett., 127 (2015), 72-75. doi: 10.1016/j.econlet.2014.12.034
[28]
N. Oberholzer, S. T. von Boetticher, Volatility Spill-over between the JSE/FTSE Indices and the South African Rand, Proc. Econ. Finan., 24 (2015), 501-510. doi: 10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00618-8
[29]
W. Mensi, M. Beljid, A. Boubaker, et al. Correlations and volatility spillovers across commodity and stock markets: linking energies, food and gold, Econ. Model., 32 (2013), 15-22. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2013.01.023
[30]
Z. Dai, X. Chen, F. Wen, A modified Perry's conjugate gradient method-based derivative-free method for solving large-scale nonlinear monotone equations, Appl. Math. Comput., 270 (2015), 378-386.
[31]
T. Choudry, S. Hassan, S. Shabi, Relationship between gold and stock markets during the global financial crisis: evidence from nonlinear causality tests, Int. Rev. Financ. Anal., 41 (2015), 247-256. doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2015.03.011
[32]
A. I. Maghyereh, T. Awartani, Volatility spillovers and cross-hedging between gold, oil and equities: evidence from the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, Energy Economics, 68 (2017), 440-453. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2017.10.025
[33]
S. J. Taylor, Modeling Financial Time Series. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., 1986.
[34]
Z. F, Dai, H. Zhu, Forecasting stock market returns by combining sum-of-the-parts and ensemble empirical mode decomposition, Appl. Econ., 52 (2020), 2309-2323. doi: 10.1080/00036846.2019.1688244
[35]
T. G. Andersen, T. Bollerslev, Heterogeneous information arrivals and return volatility dynamics: Uncovering the long-run in high frequency returns, J. Finance, 52 (1997), 975-1005. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb02722.x
[36]
T. G. Andersen, T. Bollerslev, F. X. Diebold, et al. The distribution of realized stock return volatility, J. Financ. Econ., 61 (2001), 43-76. doi: 10.1016/S0304-405X(01)00055-1
[37]
T. G. Andersen, T. Bollerslev, F. X. Diebold, et al. Modeling and forecasting realized volatility, Econometrica, 71 (2003), 529-626.
[38]
J. Y. Campbell, S. B. Thompson, Predicting excess stock returns out of sample: can anything beat the historical average? Rev. Financ. Stud., 21 (2008), 1509-1531.
[39]
C. J. Neely, D. E. Rapach, J. Tu, et al. Forecasting the equity risk premium: the role of technical indicators, Manag. Sci., 60 (2014), 1772-1791. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2013.1838
[40]
D. E. Rapach, J. K. Strauss, G. Zhou, Out-of-sample equity premium prediction: combination forecasts and links to the real economy, Rev. Financ. Stud., 23 (2010), 821-862. doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhp063
[41]
Z. F. Dai, H. T. Zhou, Prediction of stock returns: sum-of-the-parts method and economic constraint method, Sustainability, 12 (2020), 541.
[42]
Z. F. Dai, H. Zhu, Stock return predictability from a mixed model perspective, Pac-Basin. Finac. J., 60 (2020), 101267.
[43]
F. Wang, W. Zhao, S. Jiang, Detecting asynchrony of two series using multiscale cross-trend sample entropy, Nonlinear Dynam., 99 (2020), 1451-1465. doi: 10.1007/s11071-019-05366-y
[44]
Z. F, Dai. H. Zhu, F. Wen, Two nonparametric approaches to mean absolute deviation portfolio selection model, J. Ind. Manag. Optim., 13 (2019), 1.
[45]
Z. F. Dai, X. Dong, J. Kang, et al. Forecasting stock market returns: new technical indicators and two-step economic constraint method, N. Am. J. Econ. Finance, 53 (2020), 101216.
[46]
Z. F. Dai, F. H. Wen, Some improved sparse and stable portfolio optimization problems, Financ. Res. Lett., 27 (2018), 46-52. doi: 10.1016/j.frl.2018.02.026
[47]
F. Wen, Y. Zhao, M. Zhang, et al. Forecasting realized volatility of crude oil futures with equity market uncertainty, Appl. Econ., 51 (2019), 6411-6427. doi: 10.1080/00036846.2019.1619023
[48]
F. Wen, L. Xu, G. Ouyang, et al. Retail investor attention and stock price crash risk: Evidence from China, Int. Rev. Financ. Anal., 65 (2019), 101376.
[49]
Z. F. Dai, H. Zhu, A modified Hestenes-Stiefel-type derivative-free method for large-scale nonlinear monotone equations, Mathematics, 8 (2020), 168.
[50]
T. E. Clark, K. D. West, Approximately normal tests for equal predictive accuracy in nested models, J. Econometrics, 138 (2007), 291-311.
[51]
A. Inoue, L. Kilian, In-sample or out-of-sample tests of predictability: Which one should we use? Economet. Rev., 23 (2004), 371-402.
[52]
Y. Zhang, F. Ma, T. Wang, et al. Out-of-sample volatility prediction: A new mixed-frequency approach, J. Forecasting, 38 (2019), 669-680 doi: 10.1002/for.2590
[53]
Y. Zhang, F. Ma, Y. Liao, Forecasting global equity market volatilities, Int. J. Forecasting, 2020.
[54]
T. Choudhry, F. I. Papadimitriou, S. Shabi, Stock market volatility and business cycle: evidence from linear and nonlinear causality tests, J. Bank. Financ., 66 (2016), 89-101. doi: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2016.02.005
[55]
J. Chen, F. Jiang, Y. Liu, et al. International volatility risk and Chinese stock return predictability, J. Int. Money Financ., 70 (2016), 183-203.
This article has been cited by:
1.
Hongzeng He, Shufen Dai,
A prediction model for stock market based on the integration of independent component analysis and Multi-LSTM,
2022,
30,
2688-1594,
3855,
10.3934/era.2022196
2.
Wei Bian, Chenlong Li, Hongwei Hou, Xiufang Liu,
Iterative convolutional enhancing self-attention Hawkes process with time relative position encoding,
2023,
1868-8071,
10.1007/s13042-023-01780-2
3.
Ting Liu, Weichong Choo, Matemilola Bolaji Tunde, Cheongkin Wan, Yifan Liang, Ahmad Hassan Ahmad,
Enhancing stock volatility prediction with the AO-GARCH-MIDAS model,
2024,
19,
1932-6203,
e0305420,
10.1371/journal.pone.0305420
Table 1.
Basic statistics of the main regression variables.
HSI
WTI
Brent
LDgold
NYgold
HKD/CNY
HKD/EUR
DXY
Mean
0.0053
0.0119
0.0103
0.0021
0.0022
0.0002
0.0008
0.02276
Std
0.0093
0.0180
0.0164
0.0025
0.0024
0.0030
0.0007
0.00749
Med
0.0027
0.0078
0.0068
0.0013
0.0014
0.0000
0.0007
0.02188
Max
0.1013
0.2447
0.2468
0.0243
0.0196
0.0566
0.0061
0.05337
Min
0.0004
0.0009
0.0006
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
0.00745
Skew
6.5800
7.6220
9.3710
3.8490
3.2460
18.0630
3.0770
1.08400
Kur
55.698
84.440
123.487
22.780
13.747
333.289
15.679
1.98300
Num
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
360
Note: This table reports the basic statistics of the main regression variables, and the rows in this table show the mean, standard deviation, median, kurtosis and skewness coefficients, range and number of observations.
Note: This table shows the in-sample regression results of Hong Kong stock market realized volatility using realized volatilities of oil, gold and exchange rate. The beta denotes the coefficients estimated by the OLS regression using model (3). Newey-West heteroskedasticity t-statistics calculated by the one-sided (upper-tail) hypothesis test and R2 statistics are displayed the table.
Note: This table reports the out-of-sample performance, recursive window. The forecast performance is evaluated by the out-of-sample R2 defined by the percent reduction of MSPE of the forecasting model (3) relative to the benchmark model of autoregressive (2). P-values of CW test is in brackets.
Table 4.
Out-of-sample forecasting for economic expansion/recession.
Wti
Brent
LDgold
NYgold
HKD/CNY
HKD/EUR
DXY
R2EXP
0.37406**
0. 4162**
0.54770***
0.56171***
0.5263**
0.4730***
0.6678***
R2REC
1.8332***
1.4058***
2.0372***
2.0250***
1.8572***
2.9557***
3.4326***
R2OOS
1.2258***
1.2510***
1.5293***
1.8805***
1.3265***
1.9364***
2.3847***
Note: This table reports the out-of-sample performance of business cycles. The forecast quality is evaluated by the out-of-sample R2 defined by the percent reduction of MSPE of the given model relative to the benchmark model of autoregressive. The *, ** and *** reports significance at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively. The out-of-sample period is 2004:01-2018:12.
Table 5.
Predictability for the incremental model.
Wti
Brent
LDgold
NYgold
HKD/CNY
HKD/EUR
DXY
Panel A: in-sample results for full sample periods
ϕ
0.1742
0.1837*
0.1774*
0.1738
0.1956*
0.1775*
0.1718*
P-value
(0.0568)
(0.0573)
(0.0570)
(0.0570)
(0.0579)
(0.0566)
(0.0565)
NW-t value
[1.6421]
[1.6733]
[1.6629]
[1.6120]
[1.7023]
[1.6871]
[1.6562]
β
0.1616**
0.1285**
0.3550***
0.3644**
0.1665***
0.8672***
1.1712***
P-value
(0.0383)
(0.0413)
(0.0921)
(0.0937)
(0.1383)
(0.2000)
(0.2501)
NW-t value
[2.4352]
[2.1100]
[2.6011]
[2.2025]
[-2.9399]
[3.5996]
[3.5256]
R2
0.5693
0.5633
0.6913
0.7029
0.5461
0.6943
0.7704
Panel B: out-of-sample results for 2004:01-2018:12.
R2OOS
1.5687**
1.6007**
2.2161**
2.6918**
1.5360**
3.1209***
3.2146***
Note: This table reports the out-of-sample performance in an incremental framework. In-sample results are reported in panel A. The beta denotes the coefficients estimated by the OLS regression using model (7). Out-of-sample results are reported in panel B where the forecast quality is evaluated by the R2oos. The *, ** and *** reports significance at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.
Note: This table reports the basic statistics of the main regression variables, and the rows in this table show the mean, standard deviation, median, kurtosis and skewness coefficients, range and number of observations.
Wti
Brent
LDgold
NYgold
HKD/CNY
HKD/EUR
DXY
Panel A:lags=1
beta
-0.0752*
-0.0942*
-0.1281**
-0.1316**
-0.1363*
-0.1679**
-0.1686**
NW-t-value
1.4276
1.4919
1.7304
1.9972
1.5757
2.0849
2.2184
R2
0.4599
0.4503
0.5212
0.5276
0.4589
0.5626
0.5763
Panel B:lags=3
beta
-0.0813**
-0.0105**
-0.1303**
-0.1321**
-0.1452**
-0.1694***
-0.1765***
NW-t value
2.0607
2.1114
2.2055
2.2820
2.3142
2.3499
2.7066
R2
0.4792
0.4793
0.5792
0.5791
0.5291
0.5793
0.5803
Panel C:lags=6
beta
-0.0945**
-0.0915***
-0.1692***
-0.1402***
-0.1607***
-0.2732***
-0.2486***
NW-t value
2.3892
2.3803
4.0207
4.0776
4.0583
4.4897
4.8216
R2
0.6223
0.6324
0.7023
0.7024
0.6425
0.7026
0.7133
Panel D:lags=9
beta
-0.0771*
-0.0885*
-0.1365**
-0.1301**
-0.1347**
-0.1613**
-0.1772**
NW-t value
1.3511
1.4501
1.6935
1.6783
1.6360
1.7218
1.8042
R2
0.4659
0.4526
0.5156
0.5282
0.4858
0.5465
0.5677
Note: This table shows the in-sample regression results of Hong Kong stock market realized volatility using realized volatilities of oil, gold and exchange rate. The beta denotes the coefficients estimated by the OLS regression using model (3). Newey-West heteroskedasticity t-statistics calculated by the one-sided (upper-tail) hypothesis test and R2 statistics are displayed the table.
Out-of-sample period
Wti
Brent
LDgold
NYgold
HKD/CNY
HKD/EUR
DXY
1994-2018
0.6715*
0.6597*
1.0750**
1.0871**
0.6122*
1.1145**
1.3728**
(0.0532)
(0.0521)
(0.0490)
(0.0445)
(0.0593)
(0.0423)
(0.0405)
1999-2018
0.8001*
0.8486*
1.1785**
1.1182**
0.8059**
1.5608**
1.8070**
(0.0514)
(0.0505)
(0.0367)
(0.0361)
(0.0373)
(0.0245)
(0.0204)
2004-2018
1.0927**
1.1125**
1.3285**
1.5593**
1.0053**
1.9212**
2.0793**
(0.0309)
(0.0301)
(0.0224)
(0.0247)
(0.0232)
(0.0154)
(0.0132)
2009-2018
1.7709**
1.8964**
2.2793**
2.4783**
1.7234**
2.8740**
3.0574**
(0.0288)
(0.0274)
(0.02011)
(0.0202)
(0.0206)
(0.0165)
(0.0127)
2014-2018
2.3156 **
2.2315**
2.6846**
2.7447**
2.3377**
3.4288***
4.0415***
(0.0191)
(0.0184)
(0.0105)
(0.01405)
(0.0162)
(0.0085)
(0.0041)
Note: This table reports the out-of-sample performance, recursive window. The forecast performance is evaluated by the out-of-sample R2 defined by the percent reduction of MSPE of the forecasting model (3) relative to the benchmark model of autoregressive (2). P-values of CW test is in brackets.
Wti
Brent
LDgold
NYgold
HKD/CNY
HKD/EUR
DXY
R2EXP
0.37406**
0. 4162**
0.54770***
0.56171***
0.5263**
0.4730***
0.6678***
R2REC
1.8332***
1.4058***
2.0372***
2.0250***
1.8572***
2.9557***
3.4326***
R2OOS
1.2258***
1.2510***
1.5293***
1.8805***
1.3265***
1.9364***
2.3847***
Note: This table reports the out-of-sample performance of business cycles. The forecast quality is evaluated by the out-of-sample R2 defined by the percent reduction of MSPE of the given model relative to the benchmark model of autoregressive. The *, ** and *** reports significance at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively. The out-of-sample period is 2004:01-2018:12.
Wti
Brent
LDgold
NYgold
HKD/CNY
HKD/EUR
DXY
Panel A: in-sample results for full sample periods
ϕ
0.1742
0.1837*
0.1774*
0.1738
0.1956*
0.1775*
0.1718*
P-value
(0.0568)
(0.0573)
(0.0570)
(0.0570)
(0.0579)
(0.0566)
(0.0565)
NW-t value
[1.6421]
[1.6733]
[1.6629]
[1.6120]
[1.7023]
[1.6871]
[1.6562]
β
0.1616**
0.1285**
0.3550***
0.3644**
0.1665***
0.8672***
1.1712***
P-value
(0.0383)
(0.0413)
(0.0921)
(0.0937)
(0.1383)
(0.2000)
(0.2501)
NW-t value
[2.4352]
[2.1100]
[2.6011]
[2.2025]
[-2.9399]
[3.5996]
[3.5256]
R2
0.5693
0.5633
0.6913
0.7029
0.5461
0.6943
0.7704
Panel B: out-of-sample results for 2004:01-2018:12.
R2OOS
1.5687**
1.6007**
2.2161**
2.6918**
1.5360**
3.1209***
3.2146***
Note: This table reports the out-of-sample performance in an incremental framework. In-sample results are reported in panel A. The beta denotes the coefficients estimated by the OLS regression using model (7). Out-of-sample results are reported in panel B where the forecast quality is evaluated by the R2oos. The *, ** and *** reports significance at 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.