Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Latha Ramchand
Department of Finance
University of Houston
Houston, TX 77204-6282
Tel: (713) 743-4769
Raul Susmel
Department of Finance
University of Houston
Houston, TX 77204-6282
Tel: (713)-743-4763
November, 1997
ABSTRACT
Several papers have documented the fact that correlations across major stock markets
are higher when markets are more volatile - this is done by comparing unconditional
correlations over sub- periods or by using conditional correlations that are time
varying. In this paper we examine the relation between correlation and variance in a
conditional time and state varying framework. We use a switching ARCH (SWARCH)
technique that does two things. One, it enables us to model variance as state varying.
Two, a bivariate SWARCH model allows us to go from conditional variance to state
varying covariances and correlations and hence test for differences in correlations
across variance regimes. We find that the correlations between the U.S. and other
world markets are on average 2 to 3.5 times higher when the U.S. market is in a high
variance state as compared to a low variance regime. We also find that, compared to a
GARCH framework, the portfolio choices resulting from our SWARCH model lead to
higher Sharpe ratios.
We would like to thank Dave Blackwell, Jim Hamilton, Andy Thompson and Jia He
for helpful comments and the support of the Texas Time Series Institute.
Title: "VOLATILITY AND CROSS CORRELATION ACROSS MAJOR STOCK
MARKETS"
ABSTRACT
Several papers have documented the fact that correlations across major stock markets
are higher when markets are more volatile - this is done by comparing unconditional
correlations over sub- periods or by using conditional correlations that are time
varying. In this paper we examine the relation between correlation and variance in a
conditional time and state varying framework. We use a switching ARCH (SWARCH)
technique that does two things. One, it enables us to model variance as state varying.
Two, a bivariate SWARCH model allows us to go from conditional variance to state
varying covariances and correlations and hence test for differences in correlations
across variance regimes. We find that the correlations between the U.S. and other
world markets are on average 2 to 3.5 times higher when the U.S. market is in a high
variance state as compared to a low variance regime. We also find that, compared to a
GARCH framework, the portfolio choices resulting from our SWARCH model lead to
higher Sharpe ratios.
I. INTRODUCTION
A variety of papers have documented the fact that correlations across major
stock markets change over time. Makridakis and Wheelwright (1974) and Bennett and
Kelleher (1988) find that international correlations are unstable over time. King,
Sentana and Wadhwani (1994) use monthly stock returns and find that covariances
change over time. Kaplanis (1988) compares matrices of monthly returns of ten
markets and rejects the null hypothesis of constant correlations. Using Chow tests for
the years 1972, 1980 and 1987, Koch and Koch (1991) report higher correlations in
While these studies find that correlations have changed over time, there is also
evidence that correlations tend to increase during unstable periods. King and
Wadhwani (1990) and Bertero and Mayer (1990) find that international correlation
tends to increase during periods of market crises. Longin and Solnik (1995) use a
bivariate GARCH model and find that the correlations between the major stock
Karolyi and Stulz (1995) construct an index of interlisted Japanese stocks trading as
American Depository Receipts in New York and examine the pattern of covariances
between this index and American returns. They find that covariances are high when
returns on the national indices are high and when "markets move a lot." These papers
suggest that while variances and covariances across markets are changing over time,
the spillover effects are also a function of the magnitude of volatility shocks. In other
words, variances, covariances and correlations could be both time and state varying.
time varying correlations. Our objective here is to test the hypothesis that
correlations across major stock markets depend on the variance regime of returns in a
given the evidence that spillover or contagion effects are stronger during large
market swings, we test to see if market correlations change across variance states. Our
methodology differs from that commonly used in this literature. Previous work in
modelling variance has relied on the ARCH and GARCH family of models as the
technique of choice. As pointed out by Lamoureux and Lastrapes (1990), these models
however, are seriously affected by the presence of structural breaks. For example, for
U.S. weekly stock returns, Hamilton and Susmel (1994) show that ARCH models are
inadequate when the data is characterized not so much by persistent shocks but by
structural breaks leading to switches in variance regimes. Cai (1994) and Hamilton
and Susmel (1994) propose a switching ARCH or SWARCH model that incorporates
the fact that volatility is both time and state variant. This formulation reduces the
impact of persistent shocks to volatility since it allows for changing volatility states.
domestic (U.S) market variance is state dependent. Second, in order to capture the
model that makes correlations a function of the variance regime. Our work is closely
related to Longin and Solnik (1995) who address the same issue by using a GARCH
(1,1) along with different parameterizations of the correlation coefficient. One such
shocks to the U.S. market are larger in absolute value than the unconditional U.S.
standard deviation, the correlation of the US with the German, French and Swiss
market increases. Our analysis differs from theirs in two respects: One, our model
where this variance regime is endogenously determined.1 Two, Longin and Solnik
variance, we find that a two state formulation is a parsimonious way to capture the
shifts in variance. In fact a two state formulation is able to capture in a statistical and
economic sense, the changes in variance regimes, while a three state regime is
rejected. Furthermore, we find that the correlation between the U.S. and other equity
markets is 2.5 to 3 times larger when the U.S. market is in a high variance state.
instance, markets are highly correlated during high variance regimes and vice versa,
then the benefits to diversification are reduced. Using the predictions of our bivariate
two state SWARCH for the U.S. and the Europe, Asia and Far East markets, we
construct mean variance optimal portfolios that reflect the time and state varying
nature of the covariance structure. Our portfolios lead to higher Sharpe ratios than
1
In Longin and Solnik (1995), the volatility thresholds are determined outside of the model.
2
Weekly data is less noisy than daily data; on the other hand monthly data is less informative than
weekly. For these reasons we use weekly as opposed to daily or monthly data.
those using a bivariate GARCH formulation. In the high variance state since
correlations are on average 3 times higher, optimal portfolios are fully invested in
either the domestic or the foreign market.3 It is in the low variance state when the
correlation across markets is low that optimal portfolios are more diversified.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section II presents the data;
Section III discusses the SWARCH technique and reports results using a univariate
the evidence on the time and state dependencies of the variance and covariance
structure across different equity markets; Section V uses the results from the bivariate
SWARCH model to construct mean variance efficient portfolios and compares the
II. DATA
use weekly as opposed to monthly data since we need enough observations to be able
to estimate the different states but without the noise of daily data. The country indices
account for at least 80% of each country's stock market capitalization. The data cover
the period January 1980 through January 1990 and are in terms of dollars, for a total of
522 observations. Table 1 reports univariate statistics for the various indices. The
3
French and Poterba (1991) and Tesar and Werner (1992) report that portfolio compositions based on
confirmed by the Jarque-Bera normality test, for all the series. The Ljung-Box
markets except the U.K. The LM-ARCH univariate tests, ARCH(4), reveal ARCH
Such models have found a wide variety of applications in the finance literature and
their appeal lies in their ability to capture the time varying nature of variance.5
GARCH models, however, do not adequately capture structural shifts in the data that
are caused by low probability events like the Crash of 1987, recessions, changes in the
policy of the Federal Reserve and so on. Diebold (1986) and Lamoureux and Lastrapes
(1990) argue that the usual high persistence found in ARCH models is due to the
presence of structural breaks. Schwert (1990), Nelson (1991) and Engle and Mustafa
(1992) show that standard ARCH models are not flexible to describe events like the
Crash of 1987. Cai (1994), Brunner (1991) and Hamilton and Susmel (1994) modify the
4
We also performed a multivariate ARCH test, including lagged U.S. squared returns and lagged
regional squared returns. With the exception of Denmark, we found evidence for a time-varying
5
See Bollerslev, Chou and Kroner (1992) for an exhaustive review of this literature.
ARCH specification to account for such structural changes in data and propose a
Switching ARCH (SWARCH) model where the variance of the process is modelled as:
where the subscript s t denotes the state of the economy at time t. The constant _0,st ,
captures the structural shift parameter and the autoregressive coefficients _i,st,st-i
depend on the current and lagged state of the economy. For instance, a shift from a
low to a high variance state, would be captured in a change in the _i 's. Hamilton and
Susmel (1994) allow for K states and propose the SWARCH(K,q) model:
where the _'s are scale parameters that capture the change in regime. One of the _'s is
Such a model also requires a formulation of the probability law that causes the
economy to switch among regimes. One simple specification is that the state of the
economy is the outcome of a K-state Markov chain that is independent of yt for all t:
Prob(s t = j|st-1 = i, st-2 = k,..., yt, yt-1 , y t-2 ,...) = Prob (st = j|st-1 = i) = pij. Under this
specification the transition probabilities, the pij's, are constant. For example, if the
economy was in a high variance state last period (s t=2), the probability of changing to
6
See Susmel (1994) for a discussion of the SWARCH technique and possible variants.
the low variance state (st=1) is a fixed constant p 21 .
that we can make inferences about the particular state of the security at any date. The
"filter probabilities," p(st,st-1 |yt,yt-1 ,..,y-3 ), denote the conditional probability that the
state at date t is st, and that at date t-1 was st-1 . These probabilities are conditional on
p(st|yT ,yT-1 ,...,y-3 ), on the other hand are inferences about the state at date t based on
data available through some future date T (end of sample). For a two state
denoting the probability estimates of the two states. That is, the smooth probabilities
represent the ex-post inference made by an econometrician about the state of the
To begin with, we model the U.S. market using a SWARCH framework to test
for changes in variance states or regimes. A univariate SWARCH(2,1) model with two
states and one autoregressive coefficient in the variance equation is the preferred
MacKinlay (1990), we use an AR(1) model for the mean return equation. In particular,
where rt measures weekly U.S. stock returns. The state variable st can take on two
7
Other variants of the SWARCH model were tried with no qualitative change in results.
values depending on the variance regime.
Table 2 reports the results of the SWARCH(2,1) model. Testing the hypothesis
that _2 =1 would constitute a Wald test of regime switching. In Table 2 the coefficient
estimate of _2 suggests that variance in the high variance regime is more than six
times that in the low variance regime. Furthermore using a standard ratio test, this
tests, however, is an informal test of the null hypothesis of no-regime switching. This
example, in the two-state case, under the null hypothesis of no regime-change, the
parameters describing the high variance state are not identified. For these reasons,
standard likelihood ratios are inappropriate and can only be used as a rough
approximation.
Hence, we use a test procedure proposed by Hansen (1992) to test the null
hypothesis of no-regime switching. Hansen (1992) proposes a simple test based on the
bound for the likelihood ratio test. Using Hansen's (1992) likelihood ratio test we
obtain an upper bound for the p-value of the null hypothesis of no-regime switching
Table 2 also reports the log likelihood function of the SWARCH(2,1) (L2,1 ),
SWARCH(2,2) (L2,2 ) and the SWARCH(3,2) (L3,2 ) models. Standard likelihood ratio
tests cannot reject the SWARCH(2,1).8 As a diagnostic check, we report Ljung-Box
Q-statistics for standardized residuals and for squared standardized residuals. None of
the Q-statistics is significant at the 5% level. Figure 1 plots on the first panel the
weekly returns data for the U.S., on the second panel the smoothed probabilities, Prob
(st=1|yT ,yT-1 ,...), that the market was in state 1 at time t, and on the third panel the
smoothed probabilities, Prob (st=2|yT ,yT-1 ,...), that the market was in state 2 at time t.
belongs to state i if the smooth probability Prob (st=i|yT ,yT-1 ,...) is higher than .5, the
returns data is divided into two regimes, the high variance and the low variance
regimes. Next, using the U.S. market as the home market and based on the state of the
variance of the home market return, the correlation between the home and foreign
markets is calculated in the two states. These results are reported in Table 3. These
results suggest that except in the case of Italy and Sweden, higher correlations
between the U.S. and other major stock markets are associated with periods of high
domestic (U.S.) variance and vice versa. The correlations are from 1.02 to 2.63 times
higher in the high variance state. The last column of Table 3 also provides an
indication of the proportion of times that a positive foreign market return would have
hedged a negative U.S. return when the U.S. is in a high variance regime. For instance,
8
Again, we should point out that the usual asymptotic distribution theory does not hold for this case,
because under the null hypothesis of K-1 states, the parameters that describe the Kth state are
unindentified. The improvement in the likelihood value is so small, that we take it as a strong
market would hedge a negative return in the home market about 11% of the time.
The univariate model however does not explicitly model correlations and hence does
not test for statistical significance of the differences in the correlations across variance
regimes. The bivariate formulation in the next section addresses these issues.
Following Longin and Solnik (1995), in the bivariate setting we use two series
at a time, one being the U.S. stock market return and the other a foreign market
return. The foreign markets we choose are the same four OECD markets examined in
Tesar and Werner (1992) viz. Japan, the U.K., Germany and Canada. Even if we assume
that markets in each country are characterized by two variance regimes, we now have
four states to model. For instance, with the U.S. and Japan in a system, we have the
As it was assumed for the univariate case, the probability law that causes the
economy to switch among states is given by a K*=4 state Markov chain, P*, with a
different interactions among the variance states of both countries. In other words, the
transition probabilities, the pij*'s, could be restricted to fit different assumptions about
the underlying variance states. For example, focusing on p24 *, if the variance states of
the U.S and Japan are independent, then, p24 * = p 12 US p22 JAP. On the other hand, if the
variance states of Japan and the U.S. are exactly the same (i.e., pijUS = p ijJAP), then, p24 *
= 0.
which follow a bivariate normal distribution, with zero mean and a time varying
of Ht on the states of the economy). A = [ax,ay] and B = [b x, by] are 2x1 vectors. The
variance covariance matrix Ht tracks the variances of the two series in the following
way:
where x stands for the domestic return and y for the foreign return series. We also
need to keep track of the covariances in the different states. To keep the system
generalize the model proposed by Bollerslev (1990) and assume that correlations in
states 1 and 2 are equal; similarly, the correlations in states 3 and 4 are the same i.e.
the correlations are a function only of the state of the domestic return.9 . The
Hence, we have a bivariate SWARCH (2, 1, 2) system, i.e., 2 states for each series, 1
autoregressive coefficient in the variance equation for each series, and 2 covariances.
This specification allows the series rxt and ryt to be related through the off-diagonal
Estimation is done using maximum likelihood. The results from this SWARCH
regression are reported in Table 4: Panel A documents the results for the U.S. and
Japan, Panel B for the U.S. and the U.K., Panel C for the U.S. and Germany and Panel D
for the U.S. and Canada. The results in Panel A suggest that one can indeed talk about
two variance regimes. The parameter estimates for _x and _y indicate that the variance
in the high variance state is on average 6 times that in the low variance regime for the
U.S. and 3 times for Japan. Importantly, the null that these coefficients equal one is
9
Our correlation structure is parameterized such that correlations between the domestic and any foreign
market change only when the domestic market switches to a different volatility regime. Even with this
simple structure we have 24 parameters to estimate. A more general structure would allow changes in
correlation when either market in the system shifts to a different state; this however would increase the
The correlation coefficients in the two regimes are significantly different from
zero; also the correlation between the U.S. and the Japanese market when the U.S.
market is in the high variance regime is about 1.94 times the correlation when the U.S.
determine if the correlations differ across the two regimes. To calculate the LR-_, we
also estimate the bivariate SWARCH model with a constant correlation across
regimes. This model with a constant correlation coefficient has a likelihood function
One reason for this might be the fact that the high variance state is composed of
few observations. Longin and Solnik's (1995) point estimates, however, suggest that
large negative U.S. shocks decrease the correlation coefficient by almost two-thirds
while the large positive U.S. shocks marginally increase the correlation coefficient.
However, this assymetric effect is not statistically significant, which is consistent with
our results. The last row in Table 4 indicates that when the U.S. market is in a high
variance state, a positive Japanese return can counter a domestic negative return
22.22% of the time. The first panel in Figure 2 plots the smoothed probabilities that
the bivariate system was in state 1 at time t and similarly panels 2 through 4 do the
same for the other states. If we integrate the smoothed probabilities on the first (last)
two panels of Figure 2, we obtain the smoothed probability that the U.S. stock market
was in the low (high) variance state at time t. Similarly, if we integrate the smoothed
probabilities in the first (second) panel and the third (fourth) panel we obtain the
smoothed probability that the Japanese stock market was in the low (high) variance
state at time t. In terms of variance states, the U.S. stock market is a more stable
market than the Japanese stock market. The predominant joint state is the first one,
st*=1, where both stock markets are in the low variance state. The expected duration of
this state is 1/(1-p11 )=30.5 weeks. The expected durations of the other three states,
st*=2, st*=3, and st*=4, are 8.1, 4.5, and 7.4 weeks, respectively.
The results in Table 4 Panel B for the U.S. and the U.K. suggest that the
correlations differ by a factor of three across the two states. Also, the correlations are
significantly different across the two states ( the LR-_ statistic is 21.6, p-value of less
than .0001). 10 The last row of Panel B reinforces these results on the poor hedge that
the U.K. market offers to a U.S. investor, i.e. only 11.11% of the time does the U.K.
market make up for negative domestic returns when the U.S. market is in a high
variance state. Panel C examines US verus German returns. Once again, the _
coefficients for both series are significantly different from one suggesting that
variance is indeed characterized by two states in these markets. The correlations are
also larger, 1.87 times larger in the high compared to the low volatility regime. The
LR-_ has a p-value of 0.06, and hence we are unable to reject the null of equal
10
This finding differs from Longin and Solnik (1995) who do not find evidence of an asymmetric effect
Canada have similar switching parameters. The correlation coefficient is .68 in the
U.S. low variance state and .85 in the U.S. high variance state. The LR-_ has a p-value of
0.005, and, therefore, we are able to reject the null of equal correlations at less than the
1% significance level.12 13
Overall these results suggest that modelling variance as both a time varying
major world stock markets are time and state dependent. In all cases examined here,
the correlations between the U.S. and foreign stock markets is 2 to more than 3 times
11
Once again the inability of the LR-_ to reject the null hypothesis of constant correlation may be due to
the fewness of observations in the second high variance regime. Longin and Solnik (1995) find similar
point estimates for the correlation coefficient between the U.S. and Germany. They however find a
12
This result differs from Longin and Solnik (1995) who do not find any statistical difference between
the correlation coefficient for these markets under large or small U.S. shocks.
13
Also, a likelihood ratio test rejects the independent volatilty states model with a p-value of .000016.
Therefore, there is strong evidence that the volatility states in the U.S. and in Canada are not
independent, which might not be surprising, given the integration of stock markets of both countries
and Solnik (1995) find smaller differences between the correlation coefficients when
FORECASTS
Jorion (1985) points out that the benefits of international diversification arise
more on account of risk reduction than increase in mean returns. The SWARCH
14
We also estimated correlations using monthly returns, from January 1970 to August 1990 expressed
in local currency. The correlation coefficients for Japan and the U.S. were .26 and 0.57 for the low and
high U.S. variance states respectively. Similarly, the correlation coefficients for the U.K. and the U.S.
were .42 and .72; for Germany and the U.S. .05 and .87, and for Canada and the U.S. .61 and .69 in the
low and high US variance states respectively. With the exception of Germany and the U.S., the monthly
local currency results are in the same range as the weekly U.S. dollar results.
15
To see how sensitive our results are to the October 1987 crash, we also ran the regressions dummying
out the week of the October 1987 crash. We find that the second state changes significantly only for the
U.K. In a two state representation, for the U.K. market, the week of the October 1987 crash dominates
the second state, therefore, the second state plays the role of a dummy variable. A dummy variable for
that week corresponds to an "unusual variance state," and therefore allows the U.K. series to display
"low" and "high" variance, like in the other markets. The correlation coefficients using the October 1987
dummy are .30 and .78, for the U.S. low and high volatility states respectively. Also, they are
of portfolios formed based on this technique. In this section, we illustrate the use of a
order to construct optimal (in this case minimum variance) portfolio weights, a
called for. However, in the interests of tractability, we chose to stay with a bivariate
formulation using the U.S. and the Europe, Asia and Far East (EAFE) index. The model
absolute risk aversion. In terms of weights we can rewrite the above as:
where wt denotes the nx1 vector of weights, _ t is a nx1 vector of expected returns, _t is
the (nxn) variance covariance matrix of returns, i is an nx1 vector of ones. Using the
first order conditions from this maximization we obtain the following optimal
weights:
In our framework, both _t, _t and hence the weights w t, are time and state varying. _t
16
French and Poterba (1993) and Tesar and Werner (1994) use the same specification to examine the
predicted variance using all available information at time t-1 and is estimated as
follows: First, based on the Markov process of the bivariate SWARCH for the U.S. and
the EAFE, we obtain 16 variance forecasts. Second, we weight each variance forecast
by its respective filter probability to arrive at the variance covariance matrix at time t
proposed by Bollerslev (1990), for the same series. The likelihood ratios for the
SWARCH(2,1,2) and the bivariate GARCH(1,1) are equal to -2172.1 and -2203.8
respectively.17 We also estimated Hansen's (1992) test to formally test the null
hypothesis of no-regime switching with a p-value of less than 1%. The estimated
SWARCH correlation coefficients are .37 when the U.S. market is in the low variance
17
We also estimated a Threshold-GARCH(1,1) model, similar to the one used by Longin and Solnik
(1995). Under this T-GARCH specification _=_0 +_01 St-1 , where S t-1 is a dummy variable that
takes the value of 1 if the estimated conditional variance of the U.S. market is greater
than its unconditional variance and 0 otherwise. The value of the likelihood function
using this T-GARCH model is -2190.8, which is substantially lower than the SWARCH
likelihood function. The estimated coefficients for _0 and _01 are 0.354 (.048) and 0.210
Next, we compare the Sharpe ratios from the SWARCH and GARCH strategies.
Panel A of Table 5 reports the Sharpe ratio using the SWARCH strategy 19 - the mean
Sharpe ratio for such a portfolio is 0.1858 with a standard deviation 0.0844. Panel B of
Table 5 does the same using the GARCH results --the Sharpe ratio using the
point out, however, that given the distribution of Sharpe ratios, both Sharpe ratios are
not statistically different from each other. Figure 3 and Figure 4 plot the optimal
portfolio weights for the U.S. using the SWARCH and GARCH models respectively.
The GARCH Sharpe ratios are more leptokurtic than the SWARCH Sharpe ratios.
When the economy is in the low variance state, SWARCH and GARCH Sharpe ratios
are similar. Also examined were the Sharpe ratios for 1987 using both techniques and
18
We also estimate the SWARCH model with four correlation coefficients, one for each state - the main
results are unchanged. To save space, we do not report the complete SWARCH and GARCH estimation
results.
19
In all these calculations of the weights and the Sharpe ratios, _ was set = 3. Note that changing _ does
20
GARCH weights are more volatile than SWARCH weights. Hence, this comparison is favorable to
the GARCH(1,1) model since we are not taking into account the transaction costs involved every time
formulation. The reason for this difference is because it is in the high variance regime
that the predictions from the SWARCH model are more valuable than a non-state
varying framework.21 22
These results show that at least as far as the U.S. investor is concerned, the
benefits of diversification change depending on the state of the variance structure. For
example, during the U.S. high variance state, the correlation between U.S. and EAFE
returns significantly increases, but since the EAFE variance is below the U.S. variance,
the EAFE weight significantly increases. 23 The results presented above could also
potentially explain the "home bias" in portfolios reported in French and Poterba
21
To determine the sensitivity of our results to initial conditions, we also compared the Sharpe ratio
using a bivariate SWARCH versus a bivariate GARCH for the U.S. and the EAFE by starting from 1981
rather than 1980 i.e. we omit the first fifty observations from our original sample. The results are very
similar to those in Table 7. The SWARCH model results in a Sharpe ratio of 0.1859 versus 0.1764 for the
GARCH.
22
We also examine the sensitivity of our results to the October 1987 crash using a dummy for the week
of the crash. We find that the two state results still holds. i.e. the two-state results are not an artifact of
the crash alone. The Sharpe ratio using the dummy is slightly higher at 0.1962 which is to be expected
since the week of the crash falls in the high variance regime.
23
These results support Value-at-Risk models where regulators impose a large multiplicative factor
because they are concerned that periods of high turbulence will be characterized by high correlations
forecast that during high variance periods the correlations increase, but the foreign
market variance increases more than the domestic variance, the portfolio weights
would show an "ex-post" home bias. For example, in Figure 3, during the U.S. high
variance state an EAFE investor displays a "home bias." The general results point to
the fact that modelling variances and covariances in a time and state varying
VI. CONCLUSION
This paper examines the relation between time and state varying variance and
correlations between the U.S. and foreign equity markets. We find that variance is
indeed time and state varying and as a result the covariance structure between
markets is also changing over time. Specifically, the covariance is such that during
periods of high U.S. variance, foreign markets become more highly correlated with
the U.S. market. This has implications for portfolio diversification strategies. While
generalize our results to a multivariate SWARCH model that can include all major
A.- EUROPEAN
AUSTRIA .24* 2.64 0.53 1.47 .25 39.22* 81.61* 70.2*
BELGIUM .23* 2.71 0.08 3.88 .13 21.8* 4.91 319.7*
DENMARK .31 2.76 0.23 1.30 .12 7.54 3.33 40.0*
FRANCE .25 3.16 -0.98 5.41 .16 18.82* 28.81* 704.6*
GERMANY .24 2.81 -0.18 1.89 .14 14.30* 41.22* 77.5*
ITALY .34* 3.73 -0.82 5.49 .04 14.48* 28.96* 698.5*
NETHERLANDS .27* 2.61 -0.72 4.13 .08 13.31* 2.93* 406.1*
NORWAY .17 3.46 -0.90 4.91 .18 27.11* 57.84* 581.1*
SPAIN .21 3.24 -0.76 8.76 .08 4.18 60.11* 1681.3*
SWEDEN .44* 2.92 -0.50 2.86 .14 13.03* 53.06* 194.7*
SWITZER .27 2.53 -0.90 8.40 .16 16.12* 1.08* 1563.5*
UK .25 3.03 -1.07 7.29 .00 6.09 0.33* 1202.3*
D.- WORLD
INDEX .28* 1.91 -1.09 8.36 .12 9.40 10.00* 1589.9*
EAFE .34* 2.18 -0.55 3.68 .13 12.39* 13.58* 6740.6
Notes:
Singapore also includes Malaysia.
* significant at the 5% level.
SK: skewness coefficient.
_: Kurtosis coefficient.
_ 1: first order autocorrelation coefficient.
Q(4): Ljung-Box statistic with 4 lags.
ARCH(4): ARCH test with 4 lags for the own squared returns.
JB : Jarque-Bera (1980) normality test, which follows a chi-squared distribution, with two
degrees of freedom.
Table 2 - SWARCH (2,1) estimation for U.S. returns
L2,1: -1112.61
L2,2: -1112.62
L3,2: -1108.89
Q(12): 17.39
Q 2(12): 9.76
Notes:
Lk,q: Log likelihood of SWARCH(K,q).
Q(j): Ljung-Box (1978) statistic with j lags for standardized residuals.
Q 2(j): Ljung-Box (1978) statistic with j lags for standardized squared residuals.
* indicates significance at the 5% level.
** indicates significance at 5% where the null hypothesis is that _2 = 1.
Table 3
Correlations between the U.S. and other markets in the two variance regimes
High variance Low variance % Hedging
UK 0.7251 0.3124 11.11%
Germany 0.4275 0.2546 22.22%
Japan 0.2400 0.2344 22.22%
Canada 0.7983 0.6386 2.78%
Spain 0.2775 0.1481 19.44%
France 0.5471 0.2079 22.22%
HongKong 0.3208 0.2144 22.22%
Australia 0.2400 0.2344 19.45%
Denmark 0.3103 0.1980 16.67%
Belgium 0.3937 0.2114 22.22%
Italy 0.1160 0.1632 30.55%
Netherlands 0.7382 0.4454 19.44%
Norway 0.4735 0.2873 27.78%
Singapore 0.3762 0.2105 19.44%
Sweden 0.1730 0.2095 13.88%
Switzerland 0.5763 0.3318 13.88%
EAFE 0.5098 0.3474 11.11%
World 0.8628 0.7658 0.00%
Sharpe Ratio
Mean 0.1858
Standard Deviation 0.0844
Skewness -0.6738
Excess Kurtosis 0.8044
Jarque-Bera test 95.0733
N 518
Panel B - Sharpe ratio using a bivariate GARCH(1,1) - U.S. and EAFE (1980-1990)
Sharpe Ratio
Mean 0.1789
Standard Deviation 0.0903
Skewness 0.6114
Execess Kurtosis 4.0242
Jarque-Bera test 1430.3947
N 518
References
Adler, M. and P. Jorion (1992), "Foreign Portfolio investment," in The new Palgrave
Dictionary of Money and Finance, eds. P. Newman, M. Milgate and J. Eatwell.
London: MacMillan.
Bicksler, J. L. (1974), "World, national and industry factors in equity returns," Journal
of Finance, 29, 395-398.
Bollerslev, T., R.Y. Chou and K. Kroner, (1992), "ARCH Modelling in Finance: A
Review of the Theory and Empirical Evidence", Journal of Econometrics, 69, 542-547
Brunner, A.D. (1991), "Testing for Structural Breaks in U.S. Post-war Inflation Data,
unpublished manuscript, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
Washington, D.C.
Cai, Jun (1994), "A Markov Model of Unconditional Variance in ARCH", Journal of
Business and Economic Statistics, 12, 309-316.
Davies, R.B. (1977), "Hypothesis Testing When a Nuisance Parameter is Present Only
under the Alternative," Biometrika, 64, 247-254,
Engle, R.F. and C. Mustafa (1992), "Implied ARCH Models from Options Prices,"
Journal of Econometrics, 52, 289-311.
Hamilton, J.D. (1989), "A New Approach to the Economic Analysis of Nonstationary
Time Series and the Business Cycle," Econometrica, 57, 357-384.
Hamilton, J.D. (1996), "Specification Testing in Markov-Switching Time Series
Models," Journal of Econometrics, 70, 127-157.
Hamilton, J.D. and G. Lin (1996), "Stock Market Volatility and the Business Cycle,"
Journal of Applied Econometrics, 11, forthcoming.
Hansen, B.E. (1992), "The Likelihood Ratio Test under Non-standard Conditions:
Testing the Markov Trend Model of GNP," Journal of Applied Econometrics, 7,
S61-S82.
Heston, S.L., and K.G. Rouwenhorst, (1994), "Does industrial structure explain the
benefits of international diversification?", Journal of Financial Economics, 36, 3-28.
Karolyi, A. and Stulz R.M.,(1995), "Why do Markets Move Together?", Working Paper,
Ohio State University
King, M., E. Sentana and Wadhwani S. (1994),"Volatility and links between National
Stock Markets", Econometrica, 62, 901-934
Longin, F. and B. Solnik (1995), "Is the correlation in international equity returns
constant: 1960-1990?," Journal of International Money and Finance, 14, 3-23.
Roll, R., (1992), "Industrial Structure and the Comparative Behavior of International
Stock Market Indices", Journal of Finance, 47, 3-42
Swchert, G.W. (1990), "Stock Returns and Real Activiy: A Century of Evidence," Journal
of Finance, 45, 1237-1258.
Tesar, L.L. and I. Werner (1992), "Home Bias and the Globalization of Securities," NBER
Working Paper no. 4218. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.