20.11.2012 Views

recent developments in high frequency financial ... - Index of

recent developments in high frequency financial ... - Index of

recent developments in high frequency financial ... - Index of

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Exchange rate volatility and the mixture <strong>of</strong> distribution hypothesis 25<br />

Table 7 EGARCH-analysis <strong>of</strong> NOK/EUR return volatility<br />

reasonably similar across the three specifications, but its significance is at the<br />

borderl<strong>in</strong>e s<strong>in</strong>ce the two-sided p-values range from 7 to 11%. The impact <strong>of</strong> the<br />

asymmetry term et 1= t 1 is not significant <strong>in</strong> any <strong>of</strong> the equations at conventional<br />

significance levels, which suggest no (detectable) asymmetry as is usually found<br />

for exchange rate data. Persistence is <strong>high</strong> as suggested by the estimated impact <strong>of</strong><br />

2<br />

the autoregressive term log σt−1 s<strong>in</strong>ce it is 0.91 <strong>in</strong> Eq. (18), but it drops to 0.79<br />

when the quote variables are <strong>in</strong>cluded, and then to 0.59 when the rest <strong>of</strong> the<br />

economic variables are <strong>in</strong>cluded, though it rema<strong>in</strong>s quite significant <strong>in</strong> all cases.<br />

F<strong>in</strong>ally, the standardised residuals are substantially closer to the normal distribution<br />

<strong>in</strong> Eq. (20) compared with the other two EGARCH specifications.<br />

4 Conclusions<br />

(18) (19) (20)<br />

Est. Pval. Est. Pval. Est. Pval.<br />

Const. (mean) −0.025 0.37 −0.054 0.05 −0.065 0.01<br />

Const. (var.) −0.303 0.11 −0.994 0.13 0.343 0.70<br />

∣et−1/σt−1∣ 0.230 0.09 0.247 0.07 0.169 0.11<br />

et−1/σt−1 0.005 0.95 0.085 0.21 0.084 0.18<br />

2<br />

log (σt−1 ) 0.906 0.00 0.789 0.00 0.587 0.00<br />

qt* 0.038 0.38 0.037 0.49<br />

Δqt* 0.373 0.00 0.356 0.00<br />

mt w * 0.148 0.03<br />

w<br />

ot * −0.057 0.29<br />

w<br />

xt * 0.312 0.00<br />

ut w * 0.098 0.09<br />

ft a<br />

−0.352 0.71<br />

b<br />

ft 1.611 0.00<br />

idt 3.002 0.00 2.665 0.00 0.441 0.00<br />

sdt 0.151 0.19 0.329 0.03 1.552 0.01<br />

Log L. −710.16 −687.85 −656.38<br />

Q(10) 11.88 0.29 10.95 0.36 11.91 0.29<br />

ARCH1−10 0.88 0.55 11.69 0.31 12.46 0.26<br />

JB 161.00 0.00 119.73 0.00 20.65 0.00<br />

Obs. 572 572 572<br />

See Table 3 for details<br />

Our study <strong>of</strong> weekly Norwegian exchange rate volatility sheds new light on the<br />

mixture <strong>of</strong> distribution hypothesis <strong>in</strong> several ways. We f<strong>in</strong>d that the impact <strong>of</strong><br />

changes <strong>in</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation events is positive and statistically significant<br />

with<strong>in</strong> two different frameworks, that the impact is relatively stable across three<br />

different exchange rate regimes for both weekly and realised volatility, and that the<br />

estimated impacts are relatively similar <strong>in</strong> both cases. One might have expected that<br />

the effect <strong>of</strong> changes <strong>in</strong> the number <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>formation events would <strong>in</strong>crease with a<br />

shift <strong>in</strong> regime from exchange rate stabilisation to partial <strong>in</strong>flation target<strong>in</strong>g, and

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!