2.3 Horizon scaling and the variance ratio
Motivation
Traders quote annualised volatility by multiplying daily volatility by and option desks convert a 30-day implied volatility to a daily move by dividing by or . That rule assumes returns are uncorrelated. If returns trend (positive autocorrelation) or mean-revert (negative), long-horizon risk differs from the extrapolation, and the variance ratio is the standard test.
Variance at long horizons#
Setup
Let be covariance-stationary with mean , variance and autocorrelations . Let be the -period log return.
Proposition 2.5 rule
If the are uncorrelated, , so volatility scales as , the mean as , and the Sharpe ratio as .
Proof
Variance of a sum of uncorrelated terms is the sum of variances.∎
Proposition 2.6-period variance under autocorrelation
In general,
Proof
. In the matrix , the main diagonal has entries equal to , and each of the two diagonals at distance has entries equal to .∎
The variance ratio#
Define the variance ratio
under uncorrelated returns, if returns are on balance positively autocorrelated (trending), and if negatively autocorrelated (mean-reverting). Equation (2.7) shows that is a weighted sum of the first autocorrelations with linearly declining weights, which is why it has more power against small but persistent autocorrelation than any single .
Proposition 2.7AR(1) returns
Let with and white-noise . Then and
Proof
Stationarity and for give . Substitute in (2.6) and evaluate . Write . With and ,
after expanding and collecting terms. Check : . Equation (2.9) is (2.8) divided by ; as the bracket is dominated by .∎
So the long-horizon volatility multiplier relative to the rule is : 1.106 for and 0.905 for . A daily autocorrelation of 0.1, invisible to the eye, changes annual volatility by 10%. For : and .
The Lo–MacKinlay test#
The estimator Lo and MacKinlay (1988) estimate (2.7) with overlapping -period returns and small-sample bias corrections. With returns and ,
Proposition 2.8asymptotic distribution
(a) If the are iid with finite fourth moment,
(b) If the are only martingale differences with conditional heteroskedasticity (satisfying the mixing and moment conditions of Lo–MacKinlay 1988, Assumption H), then
Proofsketch; full proof in Lo & MacKinlay 1988, Theorems 1–3, or Campbell, Lo & MacKinlay 1997, 2.4
To first order, , which is (2.7) with sample autocorrelations. (a) Under iid returns, is asymptotically (Bartlett's formula with all ). Hence the asymptotic variance is
(b) Under martingale differences, is still asymptotically normal with mean 0, but its variance is , which exceeds 1 when volatility clusters (large predicts large ). Under Assumption H the are asymptotically uncorrelated across , so the variance becomes , and in (2.12) is its sample analogue.∎
The practical difference is large. Under volatility clustering , so is too big and the homoskedastic test rejects a true random walk too often. In exercises/modules/M02-statistics-of-returns/tests/test_m02_variance_ratio.py the GARCH-simulated returns of toolkit.data.synthetic_returns (no autocorrelation, strong volatility clustering) give a rejection rate at the nominal 5% level of about 18% for and about 3.5% for , with 400 simulated samples of 1,000 days each.
Variance ratios for the Nifty#
Worked example 2.3.1Nifty sample, 4,693 daily returns
| 2 | 1.037 | 2.55 | 1.32 |
| 5 | 1.021 | 0.65 | 0.32 |
| 10 | 1.000 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| 20 | 1.064 | 0.88 | 0.44 |
The homoskedastic test rejects the random walk at (); the robust test does not (). The rejection was an artefact of volatility clustering. is a small positive first-order autocorrelation, of the size that non-synchronous trading of index constituents (stale prices in less liquid stocks feeding into the next day's index move) is known to produce (Lo & MacKinlay 1990, "An econometric analysis of nonsynchronous trading"). The robust conclusion is: daily Nifty returns over 2007–2026 show no autocorrelation that survives a correct test, consistent with Cont's first stylized fact (2.5).
Practitioner notes
- Use , never , on financial returns. Report and the sampling frequency; a test at on daily data asks about weekly horizons.
- supports trend-following and supports mean reversion (M04, M13), but only if it survives costs. A statistically significant on an index you cannot trade at the close is not a strategy.
- Lo and MacKinlay (1988) rejected the random walk for weekly returns on US stock indices and size-sorted portfolios over 1962–1985, with the strongest rejections for small stocks. Part of this is non-synchronous trading and part is genuine; the effect has weakened in later samples.
- Overlapping returns have serially correlated errors by construction. Never run an ordinary -test on overlapping returns; the variance-ratio statistics above already account for the overlap.
Data lab Open on OI Charts (opens in a new tab)
Variance ratios and aggregational Gaussianity on the Nifty
The lab downloads Nifty 50 daily closes from 17 Sep 2007, computes the Lo–MacKinlay variance ratio of (2.10) for , and draws two 95% bands around 1: the iid band from (2.11) and the heteroskedasticity-robust band from (2.12). The second table reports the excess kurtosis of non-overlapping -day log returns.
What to look at Where sits relative to each band, and how the two bands differ. Proposition 2.8 predicts that volatility clustering widens the robust band; Worked example 2.3.1 found that the rejection under disappears under . The kurtosis table tests Cont's fact (4), aggregational Gaussianity.
Questions
- Does any horizon reject the random walk under ? Under ? Explain the difference using in (2.12).
- Using (2.7), what average autocorrelation over the first 19 lags would produce your ?
- How fast does excess kurtosis fall with the horizon ? For iid returns it would fall like ; is the decline faster or slower, and why might volatility clustering slow it?
- Re-read the practitioner note on non-synchronous trading. Is a small positive in an index a tradable signal?