1: \documentclass{appolb}
2: \usepackage{epsfig}
3: \usepackage{hyperref}
4: \usepackage{url}
5: \usepackage{calc}
6: \usepackage{graphicx}
7: % epsfig package included for placing EPS figures in the text
8: %------------------------------------------------------
9:
10: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
11: % %
12: % BEGINNING OF TEXT %
13: % %
14: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
15: \begin{document}
16: % \eqsec % uncomment this line to get equations numbered by (sec.num)
17: \title{Bayesian Analysis of the Conditional Correlation Between Stock Index Returns with Multivariate SV Models %
18: \thanks{Presented at $2$nd Symposium on Socio- and Econophysics, Cracow $21-22$ April $2006$. Research supported by a grant from Cracow University of Economics. The author would like to thank Malgorzata Snarska for help in preparation of the manuscript in Latex format.}%
19: % you can use '\\' to break lines
20: }
21: \author{Anna Pajor
22: \address{Department of Econometrics, Cracow University of Economics}
23: %\and
24: %the Name(s) of other Author(s)
25: %\address{and their affiliation}
26: }
27: \maketitle
28: \begin{abstract}
29: In the paper we compare the modelling ability of discrete-time
30: multivariate Stochastic Volatility models to describe the
31: conditional correlations between stock index returns. We consider
32: four trivariate SV models, which differ in the
33: structure of the conditional covariance matrix. Specifications with zero, constant and time-varying
34: conditional correlations are taken into account. As an example we study trivariate volatility models for the daily log returns on the WIG,
35: S\&P $500$, and FTSE $100$ indexes. In order to formally compare the relative explanatory power of SV specifications
36: we use the Bayesian principles of comparing statistic models. Our results are based on the Bayes factors and implemented
37: through Markov Chain Monte Carlo techniques. The results indicate that the most adequate specifications are those that
38: allow for time-varying conditional correlations and that have as many latent processes as there are conditional
39: variances and covariances. The empirical results clearly show that the data strongly reject the assumption of constant
40: conditional correlations.
41: \end{abstract}
42: \PACS{89.65 Gh, 05.10 Gg}
43: \section{Introduction}
44: There are a lot of theoretical and empirical reasons to study multivariate volatility models. Analysis of financial market
45: volatility and correlations among markets play a crucial role in financial decision making (e.g. hedging strategies,
46: portfolio allocations, Value-at-Risk calculations). The correlations among markets are very important in the global
47: portfolio diversification.\\The main aim of the paper is to compare the modelling ability of discrete-time Multivariate
48: Stochastic Volatility (MSV) models to describe the conditional correlations and volatilities of stock index returns.
49: The MSV models offer powerful alternatives to multivariate GARCH models in accounting
50: for properties of the conditional variances and correlations. Superior performance of bivariate SV models over GARCH
51: models (in term of the Bayes factor) are documented in \cite{Osiewalski}. But the MSV models are not as
52: often used in empirical applications as the GARCH models. The main reason is that the SV models are more difficult to
53: estimate. In this paper we consider four multivariate Stochastic Volatility models, including the specification with zero,
54: constant and time-varying conditional correlations. These MSV specifications are used to model volatilities and
55: conditional correlations between stock index returns. We study trivariate volatility models for the daily log returns
56: on the WIG index, the Standard \& Poor's $500$ index, and the FTSE $100$ index for the period January $4$, $1999$ to December $30$, $2005$.
57: In the next section the Bayesian statistical methodology is briefly presented . In section $3$ the model
58: framework is introduced. Section $4$ is devoted to the description of trivariate SV specifications. In section $5$ we
59: present and discuss the empirical results.
60: \section{Bayesian statistical methodology}
61: Let $\mathbf{y}$ be the observation matrix and $\theta_i$ be the
62: vector of unknown parameters and $\omega_i$ the latent variable
63: vector in model $M_i$ $(i = 1, 2,\ldots, n)$. The $i$ - the
64: Bayesian model is characterized by the joint probability density
65: function, which can be written as the product of three densities:
66: \[
67: p(\mathbf{y}, \omega_i,\theta_i|
68: y_{(0)}, M_i) = p(\mathbf{y}| \omega_i,\theta_i ,y_{(0)}, M_i)
69: p(\omega_i
70: | \theta_i, M_i) p( \theta_i| M_i), \; i = 1, 2, \ldots, n,
71: \]where $y_{(0)}$ denotes initial conditions, $ p(\mathbf{y}| \omega_i,\theta_i ,y_{(0)}, M_i)$ is
72: the conditional density of $\mathbf{y}$ when $\omega_i \in
73: \Omega_i, \theta_i \in \Theta_i$ are given, $ p(\omega_i
74: | \theta_i, M_i) $ is the density of
75: the latent variables conditioned on $\theta_i$, $p( \theta_i| M_i)$
76: is the prior density function under $M_i$. The joint probability
77: density function can be expressed as the product of the marginal
78: data density of the observation matrix (given the initial conditions
79: $y_{(0)}$) in model $M_i$: $p(\mathbf{y}| y_{(0)}, M_i)$, and the
80: posterior density function of the parameter vector $\theta_i$ and
81: the latent variable vector $\omega_i$ in $M_i$: $p(\omega_i,\theta_i
82: | \mathbf{y}, y_{(0)}, M_i)$, i.e.
83: \[p(\mathbf{y}, \omega_i, \theta_i| y_{(0)}, M_i) = p(\omega_i,\theta_i
84: | \mathbf{y}, y_{(0)}, M_i) p(\mathbf{y}| y_{(0)}, M_i),\] where
85: \[p(\mathbf{y}| y_{(0)},
86: M_i)=\int_{\Omega_i\times\Theta_i}p(\mathbf{y}|\omega_i, \theta_i,
87: y_{(0)}, M_i)p(\omega_i, \theta_i|M_i) d\omega_i d\theta_i.\] The
88: statistical inference is based on the posterior distributions,
89: while the marginal densities $p(\mathbf{y}| y_{(0)}, M_i)$ $(i =
90: 1, 2, \ldots, n)$ are the crucial components in model
91: comparison.\\ Assume that $M_1, \ldots, M_n$ are mutually
92: exclusive (non-nested) and jointly exhaustive models. From Bayes's
93: theorem, it is easy to show that the posterior probability of
94: $M_i$ is given by:
95: \[p(M_i|\mathbf{y}, y_{(0)})=\frac{p(M_i)p(\mathbf{y}|y_{(0)},
96: M_i)}{\sum_{i=1}^n p(M_i)p(\mathbf{y}|y_{(0)}, M_i)},\] where
97: $p(M_i)$ denotes the prior probability of $M_i$. For the sake of
98: pairwise comparison, we use the posterior odds ratio, which for
99: any two models $M_i$ and $M_j$ is equal to the prior odds ratio
100: times the ratio of the marginal data densities:
101: \[\frac{p(M_i|\mathbf{y}, y_{(0)})}{p(M_j|\mathbf{y}, y_{(0)})}=\frac{p(M_i)}{p(M_j)}\cdot\frac{p(\mathbf{y}|y_{(0)},
102: M_i)}{p(\mathbf{y}|y_{(0)}, M_j)}.\]The ratio of the marginal data
103: densities is called the Bayes factor:
104: \[B_{ij}=\frac{p(\mathbf{y}|y_{(0)},
105: M_i)}{p(\mathbf{y}|y_{(0)}, M_j)}.\] Thus, assuming equal prior
106: model probabilities (i.e. $p(M_i) = p(M_j)$), the Bayes factor is
107: equal to the posterior odds ratio. We see that the values of the
108: marginal data densities for each model are the main quantities for
109: Bayesian model comparison. The marginal data density in model $M_i$
110: can be written as:
111: \[p(\mathbf{y}| y_{(0)},
112: M_i)=\left(\int_{\Omega_i\times\Theta_i}\left[p(\mathbf{y}|\omega_i,
113: \theta_i, y_{(0)}, M_i)\right]^{-1}p(\omega_i,
114: \theta_i|\mathbf{y}, y_{(0)}, M_i) d\omega_i
115: d\theta_i\right)^{-1}\] Of course, in the case of SV models this
116: integral can not be evaluated analytically and thus must be
117: computed by numerical methods. We use the method proposed by
118: \cite{Newton}, which approximates the marginal data density by the
119: harmonic mean of the values $p(\mathbf{y}|\omega_i, \theta_i,
120: y_{(0)}, M_i)$, calculated for the observed matrix $\mathbf{y}$
121: and for the vector $(\omega_ i^{(q)} , \theta_i^{(q)})'$ drawn
122: from the posterior distribution. That is:
123: \[\hat{p}(\mathbf{y}|y_{(0)},
124: M_i)=\left(\frac{1}{m}\sum_{q=1}^m\frac{1}{p(\mathbf{y}|\omega_i^{(q)},
125: \theta_i^{(q)}, y_{(0)}, M_i)}\right)^{-1}.\] The estimator
126: $\hat{p}(\mathbf{y}|y_{(0)}, M_i)$ is very easy to calculate and
127: gives results that are precise enough for our model comparison.
128: \section{Model framework}
129: Let $x_{jt}$ denote the price of asset $j$ (or index quotations as
130: in our application) at time $t$ for $j = 1, 2, 3$ and $t = 1, 2,
131: \ldots , T$. The vector of growth rates $y_t =(y_{1,t}, y_{2,t},
132: y_{3,t})'$, each defined by the formula $y_{j,t} = 100 \ln
133: \left(x_{t,j}/x_{j,t-1}\right)$, is modelled using the VAR(1)
134: framework:
135: \[ y_t -\delta = R(y_{t-1} - \delta) + \xi_t , \;\;\; t = 1, 2,\ldots ,T,\]
136: where $\{\xi_t\}$ is a trivariate SV process, $T$ denotes the number
137: of the observations used in estimation. More specifically:
138: \[\left[
139: \begin{array}{c}
140: y_{1,t} \\
141: y_{2,t} \\
142: y_{3,t} \\
143: \end{array}
144: \right] - \left[
145: \begin{array}{c}
146: \delta_1 \\
147: \delta_2 \\
148: \delta_3 \\
149: \end{array}
150: \right]= \left[
151: \begin{array}{ccc}
152: r_{11} & r_{12} & r_{13} \\
153: r_{21} & r_{22} & r_{23} \\
154: r_{31} & r_{32} & r_{33} \\
155: \end{array}
156: \right]\left(\left[
157: \begin{array}{c}
158: y_{1,t-1} \\
159: y_{2,t-1} \\
160: y_{3,t-1} \\
161: \end{array}
162: \right] - \left[
163: \begin{array}{c}
164: \delta_1 \\
165: \delta_2 \\
166: \delta_3 \\
167: \end{array}
168: \right]\right)+ \left[\begin{array}{c}
169: \xi_{1,t} \\
170: \xi_{2,t} \\
171: \xi_{3,t} \\
172: \end{array}\right].\]
173: We assume that, conditionally on the latent variable vector
174: $\Omega_{t(i)}$ and on the parameter vector $\theta_i, \xi_t$
175: follows a trivariate Gaussian distribution with mean vector $0_{[3
176: \times 1]}$ and covariance matrix $\Sigma_t$, i.e.
177: \[ \xi_t|\Omega_{t(i)}, \theta_i \sim N(0_{[3 \times 1]},\Sigma_t),\;\; t = 1, 2, \dots , T.\]
178: Competing trivariate SV models are defined by imposing different
179: structures on $\Sigma_t$.\\For all elements of $\delta$ and $R$
180: we assume the multivariate standardized Normal prior $N(0,
181: I_{15})$, truncated by the restriction that all eigenvalues of $R$
182: lie inside the unit circle. We assume that the matrix $[\delta ,
183: R]$ and the remaining (model-specific) parameters are prior
184: independent.
185: \section{Trivariate VAR(1) - SV models}
186: \subsection{Stochastic Discount Factor Model (SDF)}
187: The first specification considered here is the stochastic discount
188: factor model (SDF) proposed, but not applied, by \cite{Jacquier}.
189: The SDF process is defined as follows:
190: \[\begin{array}{rcl} \xi_t = \varepsilon_t\sqrt{h_t}, &&\varepsilon_t \sim iiN(0_{[3 \times 1]},\Sigma), \\
191: \ln h_t =\phi\ln h_{t-1} +\sigma_h\eta_t, && \eta_t \sim iiN(0,1),\\
192: \varepsilon_{j,t} \perp \eta_s, && t,s \in \mathbf{Z},\;j = 1,2,3,
193: \end{array}\]
194: where $\mathbf{Z} = \{\dots, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, \ldots\}$, $\perp$ denotes independence, and the symbol $\eta_t \sim
195: iiN(0,1)$
196: denotes a series of independently and normally distributed random
197: variables with mean vector $0_{[3\times 1]}$ and covariance matrix
198: $\Sigma$. In this case, we have
199: \[\xi_t|\Omega_{t(1)}, \Sigma \sim (0_{[3 \times 1]},h_t\Sigma),\]
200: where $\Omega_{t(1)}=h_t$. The conditional covariance matrix of
201: $\xi_t$ is time varying and stochastic, but all its elements have
202: the same dynamics governed by $h_t$. Consequently, the conditional
203: correlation coefficients are constant over time. Our model
204: specification is completed by assuming the following prior
205: structure:
206: \[p(\phi, \sigma_h^2, \ln h_0 , \Sigma) = p(\phi)p(\sigma_h^2)p(\ln h_0)p(\Sigma),\]
207: where we use proper prior densities of the following
208: distributions: \\ $ \phi \sim N(0, 100)I_{(-1,1)}(\phi),\;
209: \;\sigma_h^2 \sim IG(1, 0.005),\;\; \ln h_0 \sim N(0, 100),\; \\
210: \Sigma \sim IW(3I, 3, 3)$. \\ The symbol $N(a, b)$ denotes the
211: normal distribution with mean $a$ and variance $b$, $I_{(-1,
212: 1)}(.)$ is the indicator function of the interval $(-1, 1)$.
213: $IG(\nu_0, s_0)$ denotes the inverse Gamma distribution with mean
214: $s_0/(\nu_0-1)$ and variance $s_0^2/[(\nu_0 -1)^2(\nu_0 -2)]$. The
215: symbol $IW(B, d, 3)$ denotes the three-dimensional inverse Wishart
216: distribution with $d$ degrees of freedom and parameter matrix $B$.
217: The initial condition for $\ln h_t$ (i.e. $\ln h_0$) is treated as
218: an additional parameter and estimated jointly with other
219: parameters.
220: \subsection{Basic Stochastic Volatility Model (BSV)}
221: Next, we consider the basic stochastic volatility process (BSV),
222: where $\xi_t |\Omega_{t(2)} \sim N(0_{[3 \times 1]},\Sigma_t),$
223: and $\Sigma_t = Diag(h_{1,t}, h_{2,t}, h_{3,t})$ (similar to the
224: idea of \cite{Harvey}). The conditional variance equations are: \[
225: \ln h_{j,t} - \gamma _{jj} =\phi_{jj}(\ln h_{j,t-1} - \gamma
226: _{jj}) + \sigma_{jj}\eta_{j,t}, \] for $j = 1, 2, 3$, where
227: $\eta_t \sim iiN(0_{[3 \times 1]},I_3)$, $\eta_t =(\eta_{1,t},
228: \eta_{2,t},\eta_{3,t})'$, $\Omega_{t(2)}=(h_{1,t},
229: h_{2,t},h_{3,t})'$. For the parameters we use the same
230: specification of prior distribution as in the univariate SV model
231: (see \cite{Pajor:2003}), i.e. $ (\gamma_{jj}, \phi_{jj})' \sim
232: N(0, 100I)I_{(-1,1)}(\phi_{jj}),\; \;\sigma_h^2 \sim IG(1,
233: 0.005),\;\; \ln h_{j,0} \sim N(0, 100),\;\; j= 1,2,3.$
234: \subsection{JSV Model} Both previous specifications (SDF and BSV) are
235: very restrictive. Now, we propose a SV process based on the spectral
236: decomposition of the matrix $\Sigma_t$. That is
237: \[ \Sigma_t = P \Lambda_t P^{-1},\]
238: where $\Lambda_t$ is the diagonal matrix consisting of all
239: eigenvalues of $\Sigma_t$, and $P$ is the matrix consisting of
240: the eigenvectors of $\Sigma_t$. For series $\{\ln \lambda_{j,t}\}$
241: $(j = 1, 2, 3)$, similarly as in the univariate SV process, we
242: assume standard univariate autoregressive processes of order one,
243: namely
244: \[ \ln\lambda_{j,t} -\gamma_{jj} = \phi_{jj}(\ln \lambda_{j,t-1} - \gamma_{jj}) +\sigma_{jj}\eta_{j,t}, \]
245: for $j = 1, 2, 3$ , where $\eta_t \sim iiN(0_{[3 \times 1]},I_3)$,
246: $\eta_t =(\eta_{1,t}, \eta_{2,t},\eta_{3,t})'$, and
247: $\Omega_{t(3)}=(\lambda_{1,t}, \lambda_{2,t},\lambda_{3,t})'$.
248: This reparametrization of $\Sigma_t$ does not require any
249: parameter constraints to ensure positive definiteness of
250: $\Sigma_t$. If $|\phi_{jj}| < 1 \;\; (j=1, 2,3)$ then $\{\ln
251: \lambda_{1,t}\}$, $\{\ln \lambda_{21,t}\}$ and $\{\ln
252: \lambda_{3,t}\}$ are stationary and the JSV process is a white
253: noise. In addition, $P$ is an orthogonal matrix, i.e. $P'P=I_2$,
254: thus $P$ is parametrized by three parameters (Euler angles)
255: $\kappa_j \in (- \pi ,\pi )$, $j \in \{ 1, 2, 3\}$:
256: \[P(\kappa_1, \kappa_2, \kappa_3) =
257: P_1(\kappa_1)P_2(\kappa_2)P_3(\kappa_3),\]
258: % \[ P= \left[%
259: %\begin{array}{ccc}
260: % \cos\kappa_3\cos\kappa_1 -\sin\kappa_1\sin\kappa_3\cos\kappa_2 &
261: % -\cos\kappa_1\sin\kappa_3 -\sin\kappa_1\cos\kappa_3\cos\kappa_2 & \sin\kappa_1\sin\kappa_2 \\
262: % \cos\kappa_3\sin\kappa_1 -\cos\kappa_1\sin\kappa_3\cos\kappa_2 &
263: % -\sin\kappa_1\sin\kappa_3 +\cos\kappa_1\cos\kappa_3\cos\kappa_2 & -\cos\kappa_1\sin\kappa_2 \\
264: % \sin\kappa_3\sin\kappa_2 &
265: % \cos\kappa_3\sin\kappa_2 & \cos\kappa_2
266: %\end{array}%
267: %\right]\]
268: where for $l = 1, 3$
269: \[ P_l (\kappa_l) = \left[%
270: \begin{array}{ccc}
271: \cos\kappa_l & -\sin\kappa_l & 0 \\
272: \sin\kappa_l & \cos\kappa_l & 0 \\
273: 0 &0 & 1
274: \end{array}%
275: \right], \quad P_2(\kappa_2) = \left[%
276: \begin{array}{ccc}
277: 1 &0 & 0\\
278: 0 &\cos\kappa_2 & -\sin\kappa_2 \\
279: 0 & \sin\kappa_2 & \cos\kappa_2
280: \end{array}%
281: \right]. \] In this case the conditional correlation coefficients
282: are time-varying and stochastic if $\kappa_j\neq 0$ for some $j
283: \in \{ 1, 2, 3\}$. For the model-specific parameters we take the
284: following prior distributions: $ (\gamma_{jj}, \phi_{jj})' \sim
285: N(0, 100I)I_{(-1,1)}(\phi_{jj}),\; \\ \sigma_{jj}^2 \sim IG(1,
286: 0.005),\;\; \ln \lambda_{j,0} \sim N(0, 100)$, $\kappa_j \sim
287: U(-\pi ,\pi)$ (i.e. uniform over $(-\pi ,\pi)$), $j = 1, 2, 3$.
288: The BSV model can be obtained by imposing the parameter
289: restrictions $\kappa_1 = \kappa_2 = \kappa_3 = 0$ in the $P$
290: definition of the JSV model (but we formally exclude this value).
291: \subsection{TSV Model} The next specification (proposed by \cite{Tsay},
292: thus called TSV) uses six separate latent processes (the number of
293: the latent processes is now equal to the number of distinct elements
294: of the conditional covariance matrix). Following the definition in
295: \cite{Tsay}, we propose to use the Cholesky decomposition:
296: \[\Sigma_t = L_t G_t L_t',\]
297: where $L_t$ is a lower triangular matrix with unitary diagonal
298: elements, $G_t$ is a diagonal matrix with positive diagonal
299: elements:
300: \[ L_t = \left[%
301: \begin{array}{ccc}
302: 1 & 0 & 0 \\
303: q_{21,t} & 1 & 0 \\
304: q_{31,t} & q_{32,t} & 1 \\
305: \end{array}%
306: \right] , \quad G_t = \left[%
307: \begin{array}{ccc}
308: q_{11,t} & 0 & 0 \\
309: 0 & q_{22,t} & 0 \\
310: 0 & 0 & q_{33,t} \\
311: \end{array}%
312: \right], \] that is
313: \[\Sigma_t = \left[%
314: \begin{array}{ccc}
315: q_{11,t} & q_{11,t}q_{21,t} & q_{11,t}q_{31,t} \\
316: q_{21,t}q_{11,t} & q_{11,t}q_{21,t}^2 + q_{22,t} & q_{11,t}q_{21,t}q_{31,t} + q_{22,t}q_{32,t} \\
317: q_{31,t}q_{11,t} & q_{11,t}q_{21,t}q_{31,t} + q_{22,t}q_{32,t}& q_{11,t}q_{31,t}^2 + q_{22,t}q_{32,t}^2 + q_{33,t} \\
318: \end{array}%
319: \right].\] Series $\{q_{ij,t}\}$, and $\{\ln q_{jj,t}\}$ $(i, j =
320: 1, 2, 3,\quad i > j)$, analogous to the univariate SV, are
321: standard univariate autoregressive processes of order one, namely
322: \[ \ln q_{jj,t} -\gamma_{jj} =
323: \phi_{jj}(\ln q_{jj,t-1} - \gamma_{jj})
324: +\sigma_{jj}\eta_{jj,t},\;\;\: j = 1, 2, 3,\] \[q_{ij,t}
325: -\gamma_{ij} = \phi_{ij}(q_{ij,t-1} - \gamma_{ij})
326: +\sigma_{ij}\eta_{ij,t},\quad j, i \in \{1, 2, 3\},\quad i > j,\]
327: \[\eta_t = (\eta_{11,t}, \eta_{22,t}, \eta _{33,t},\eta_ {21,t},
328: \eta_{31,t}, \eta_{32,t})' \sim iiN_6(0_{[6\times 1]}, I_6),\quad
329: t \in \mathbf{Z},\] \[ \Omega_{t(4)} = (q_{11,t}, q_{22,t},
330: q_{33,t}, q_{21,t}, q_{31,t}, q_{32,t})'.\] Note that positive
331: definiteness of $\Sigma_t$ is achieved by modelling $\ln q_{jj,t}$
332: instead of $q_{jj,t}$ . It is easy to show that if the absolute
333: values of $\phi_{ij}$ are less than one the TSV process is a white
334: noise (see \cite{Pajor:2005a}). We see that the TSV model is able
335: to model both the time-varying conditional correlation
336: coefficients and variances of returns. A major drawback of this
337: process is that the conditional variances and covariances are not
338: modelled in a symmetric way, thus the explanatory power of model
339: may depend on the ordering of financial instruments.\\We assume
340: the following prior distributions: \\$ (\gamma_ {ij},\phi_{ij})'
341: \sim N(0, 100I) I_{(-1,1)}(\phi_{ij})$, $\sigma_{ij}^2 \sim IG(1,
342: 0.005)$, $\ln q_{ii,0} \sim N(0, 100)$ for $i, j \in \{1, 2, 3\}$
343: and $i \geq j$ ; $q_{ij,0} \sim N(0, 100)$ for $i, j \in \{1, 2,
344: 3\}$, $i > j$. The prior distributions used are relatively
345: noninformative. Note that the BSV model can be obtained as a
346: limiting case, corresponding to $ \gamma_{ij} = \phi_{ij} = 0,$
347: $\sigma_{ij}^2 \to 0$ for $i, j \in \{1, 2, 3\}$, $i
348: > j$.
349:
350: \section{Empirical results}
351: We consider daily stock index returns for three national markets:
352: Poland (WIG), the United States (S\&P $500$), and the United
353: Kingdom (FTSE $100$), from January $4, 1999$ to December $30,
354: 2005$. We consider only index closing quotations in trading days
355: for all considered national markets, thus our sample consists of
356: $1701$ daily observations \footnote {The data were downloaded from
357: the websites \url{(http://finance.yahoo.com)} and
358: \url{http://www.parkiet.com/dane/dane_atxt.jsp}, where complete
359: descriptions of the indices can be found.}. The first observation
360: is used to construct initial conditions. Thus T, the length of the
361: modelled vector time series, is equal to $1700$.
362: \begin{table}
363: \centering
364: \caption{Logs of Bayes factors in favour of $TSV_{FSW}$ model}\label{Table:1}
365: \begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
366: \hline
367: % after \\: \hline or \cline{col1-col2} \cline{col3-col4} ...
368: &&&&\\
369: Model & Number of latent & Number of & $\log_{10} (B_{4,1,i})$ & Rank \\
370: & processes & parameters& &
371: \\ &&&& \\ \hline
372: $M_{4,1}$ $ (TSV_{FSW})$& 6 & 12+24 & 0.00 & 1 \\ \hline
373: $M_{4,2}$ $ (TSV_{FWS})$& 6 & 12+24 & 7.82 & 2 \\ \hline
374: $M_{4,3}$ $ (TSV_{SWF})$& 6 & 12+24 & 15.55 & 3 \\ \hline
375: $M_{4,4}$ $ (TSV_{SFW})$& 6 & 12+24 & 15.86 & 4 \\ \hline
376: $M_{4,5}$ $ (TSV_{WFS})$& 6 & 12+24 & 17.05 & 5 \\ \hline
377: $M_{4,6}$ $ (TSV_{WSF})$& 6 & 12+24 & 22.96 & 6 \\ \hline
378: $M_3$ (JSV) & 3 & 12+15 & 63.68 & 7 \\ \hline
379: $M_1$ (SDF) & 1 & 12+9 & 87.39 & 8 \\ \hline
380: $M_2$ (BSV) & 3 & 12+12 & 181.18 & 9 \\
381: \hline
382: \end{tabular}
383: \end{table}
384: In Table 1 we present the decimal logarithms of the Bayes factors
385: in favor of $TSV_{FSW}$ model. Our posterior results are obtained
386: using MCMC methods: Metropolis-Hastings within the Gibbs sampler
387: (see \cite{Pajor:2006}, \cite{Hagan} and \cite{Gamerman}). The
388: results presented in this paper are based on $500,000$ states of
389: the Markov chain, generated after $100,000$ burnt-in states. The
390: Bayes factors are calculated using the Newton and Raftery's method
391: \cite{Newton}. Because in the TSV specification the conditional
392: variances are not modelled in a symmetric way, we consider six
393: cases: $TSV_{FSW}$, $TSV_{FWS}$, $TSV_{SWF}$, $TSV_{SFW}$,
394: $TSV_{WFS}$, and $TSV_{WSF}$. These models differ in ordering of
395: elements in $y_t$. For example in the $TSV_{FSW}$ model $y_{1,t}$
396: denotes the daily growth rate of the FTSE $100$ index at day $t$,
397: and $y_{2,t}$ and $y_{3,t}$ are respectively the daily growth
398: rates of the S\&P $500$ and the WIG indexes at day $t$.\\Our
399: findings show clear superiority of the TSV specifications (which
400: describe the six distinct elements of the conditional covariance
401: matrix by six separate latent processes) over all SV models
402: considered here. The $TSV_{FSW}$ model receives almost all
403: posterior probability mass (assuming equal prior model
404: probabilities), being about $7.82$ orders of magnitude more
405: probable a posterior than the $TSV_{FWS}$ model and $63.68$ orders
406: of magnitude better than the JSV model. Furthermore, the
407: $TSV_{WSF}$ model fits the data about $23$ orders of magnitude
408: worse than the best TSV model. It is mainly attributed to the fact
409: that the growth rates of the FTSE index are less volatile than the
410: S\&P and WIG indexes. When we compare the unconditional variance
411: of $\xi_ {j,t}$ $(Var(\xi_{j,t}) = \exp\left( \gamma_{jj} + 0.5
412: \sigma_{jj}^2/(1- \phi_{jj}^2)\right),\;\; j = 1, 2, 3)$ obtained
413: in the BSV model, we observe a value of $1.448$ for the WIG index,
414: $0.955$ for the S\&P $500$ index and $0.943$ for the FTSE index.
415: It is in accordance with the ordering of returns in the best TSV
416: model. Thus, the explanatory power of the SV model depends not
417: only on the number of latent processes, but also on the ordering
418: of financial instruments in case of the TSV specifications. The
419: results indicate that the return rates of the WIG, S\&P and FTSE
420: indexes reject the constant or zero conditional correlation
421: hypothesis, represented by the SDF and BSV model.\\The main
422: characteristics of the posterior distributions of the conditional
423: correlation coefficients are presented in Figure 1, where the
424: upper line represents the posterior mean plus standard deviation
425: the lower one - the posterior mean minus standard deviation. The
426: conditional correlation coefficients produced by our VAR(1)-SV
427: models with at least three latent processes vary markedly over
428: time. Surprisingly, the TSV models with different ordering of the
429: returns lead to different posterior inference on the conditional
430: covariances. The differences in the dynamics of conditional
431: correlations are understandable because of the structure of the
432: conditional covariance matrix. In the TSV models the conditional
433: covariance between $\xi_{1,t}$ and $\xi_{2,t}$ (similarly between
434: $\xi_{1,t}$ and $\xi_{3,t}$) depends on the variance of
435: $\xi_{1,t}$ (i.e. $q_{11,t}$). Thus, a large increase in the
436: conditional variance of $\xi_{1,t}$ leads to an increase in the
437: conditional covariance. Therefore the $TSV_{WSF}$ and $TSV_{WFS}$
438: models (in which the WIG index is the first component) lead to
439: similar inference on the dynamics of the conditional correlations.
440: The plots of the posterior means of $\rho_{ij,t}$, obtained in the
441: remaining TSV models are different (because of differences in
442: volatilities of the S\&P$500$, FTSE indexes and WIG index). Note
443: also that in the JSV model the latent processes that describe
444: volatilities are included in the conditional correlation
445: coefficient definitions. Consequently, the conditional
446: correlations depend on the volatilities. Surprisingly, in the SDF
447: model the conditional correlations are estimated very precisely -
448: the posterior standard deviations of $\rho_{ij,t}$ are relatively
449: small. The returns on the WIG index are lower correlated with
450: returns on the S\&P $500$ index (with an average of $0.18$) than
451: with returns on the FTSE index (with an average of $0.24$). This
452: low correlation is partially explained by the non - overlapping
453: trading hours of U.S. market with the European markets. The U.S.
454: market (represented by the S\&P $500$ index) has the average
455: correlation of $0.47$ with the U.K. market. Finally, it is
456: important to stress that our results show that the conditional
457: correlations are not significantly higher when world markets are
458: down trending, which is in contrast to the results presented in
459: the papers: \cite{Ang}, \cite{Solnik}, \cite{Longin}.
460:
461: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
462: \bibitem{Ang}{Ang A., Bekaert G. (2002), International Asset Allocation
463: With Regime Shifts, The Review of Financial Studies 15, 1137-1187}
464:
465: \bibitem{Harvey}{Harvey A. C., Ruiz E., Shephard N.G. (1994), Multivariate
466: Stochastic Variance Model, Review of Economic Studies, vol.61}
467:
468: \bibitem{Gamerman}{Gamerman D. (1997), Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Stochastic
469: Simulation for Bayesian Inference, Champan and Hall, London}
470:
471: \bibitem{Jacquier}{Jacquier E., Polson N., Rossi P., (1995), Model and Prior for
472: Multivariate Stochastic Volatility Models, technical report,
473: University of Chicago, Graduate School of Business}
474:
475: \bibitem{Longin}{Longin F., Solnik B., (2001), Extreme Correlation of
476: International Equity Markets, The Journal of Finance, vol. 56, no.
477: 2, 649-676}
478:
479: \bibitem{Newton}{Newton M.A., Raftery A.E., (1994), Approximate Bayesian inference
480: by the weighted likelihood bootstrap (with discussion), Journal of
481: the Royal Statistical Society B, vol. 56, No. 1}
482:
483: \bibitem{Hagan}{O'Hagan A. (1994) Bayesian Inference, Edward Arnold, London}
484:
485: \bibitem{Osiewalski}{Osiewalski J., Pajor A., Pipień M. (2006) Bayes factors for
486: bivariate GARCH and SV models, Acta Universitatis Lodziensis - Folia
487: Oeconomica, forthcoming}
488:
489: \bibitem{Pajor:2003}{Pajor A., (2003), Procesy zmienności stochastycznej w
490: bayesowskiej analizie finansowych szeregów czasowych (Stochastic
491: Volatility Processes in Bayesian Analysis of Financial Time Series),
492: doctoral dissertation (in Polish), published by Cracow University of
493: Economics, Kraków}
494:
495: \bibitem{Pajor:2005a}{Pajor A., (2005a), Bayesian Analysis of Stochastic Volatility
496: Model and Portfolio Allocation, [in:] Issues in Modelling,
497: Forecasting and Decision-Making in Financial Markets, Acta
498: Universitatis Lodzensis - Folia Oeconomica 192, 229-249}
499:
500: \bibitem{Pajor:2006}{Pajor A. (2006), VECM-TSV Models for Exchange Rates of the Polish
501: Zloty, [in:] Issues in Modelling, Forecasting and Decision-Making in
502: Financial Markets, Acta Universitatis Lodzensis - Folia Oeconomica,
503: forthcoming}
504:
505: \bibitem{Solnik}{Solnik B, Boucrelle C., Fur L. Y., (1996), International Market
506: Correlation and Volatility, Financial Analysis Journal vol.52, no.5,
507: 17-34}
508:
509: \bibitem{Tsay}{Tsay R.S., (2002), Analysis of Financial Time Series. Financial
510: Econometrics, A Wiley-Interscience Publication, John Wiley \& Sons,
511: INC}
512:
513: \end{thebibliography}
514:
515: \begin{figure}[t]\label{Figure:1}
516: % Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
517: \includegraphics[width=13cm]{Graphic1.eps}\caption{Conditional correlation coefficients (posterior mean $\pm
518: 1$ standard deviation)}
519: \end{figure}
520:
521:
522: \listoffigures
523: \listoftables
524:
525:
526: \end{document}
527: