4
$\begingroup$

I have a simple regression with price returns:

$r_{t+1} = \alpha + \beta r_t + \epsilon$

My question is: do I need to do anything if $r_{t+1}$ and $r_t$ are over different horizons? Suppose the x-variable is a one month return but the y-variable is a 1-day return: do I need to adjust the variables to account for the different volatilities?

Edit:

In response to the current set of questions:

Imagine that we have two time series $r_{monthly}$ with rolling monthly returns (sampled daily) and $r_{daily}$ with daily returns. And then we have the simple regression:

$r_{daily, t+1} = \alpha + \beta r_{monthly, t} + \epsilon$

So we are predicting the next day return with the preceding monthly return. These returns are of different volatilities (assuming returns are gaussian, by the square-root of time rule). Should I do a transformation to normalize the volatilities before running the regression?

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Normally one uses $t$ for time, which would be the "x-variable," so I'm wondering about the connection between your question and the equation you have provided. Where in that equation is the one month return? $\endgroup$ – whuber Sep 15 '11 at 5:55
  • $\begingroup$ @whuber Oops! Corrected. $\endgroup$ – Belmont Sep 15 '11 at 10:01
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. I'm still puzzled, because now the notation suggests you have a sequence $(r_t)$ = $r_1, r_2, \ldots, r_n$. With such a situation it's simply impossible that every pair $(r_t, r_{t+1})$ consists of a (one day, one month) return (except in the trivial case $n=2$), because the case $t=1$, where $r_2$ is the y-variable, implies $r_2$ is a one-day return, but then $(r_2, r_3)$ has a one-day return for its x-variable, not a one-month return as stated. $\endgroup$ – whuber Sep 15 '11 at 16:18
2
$\begingroup$

No, it does not matter that $r_{daily}$ and $r_{monthly}$ have different volatilities, if you recognise this will largely be taken into account in the value of $\beta$.

I assume $r$ takes a value of $0.01$ for an increase of 1%, and a value of $-0.25$ for a fall of a quarter. I suppose you could turn $r_{monthly}$ into an average daily return rather than a cumulative return by using $\frac{r_{monthly}}{d}$ or $\sqrt[d]{1+r_{monthly}}-1$ instead, where $d$ is the number of (trading?) days in the month, but the main effect would be to multiply $\beta$ by about $d$. Better still would be to look at $\log_e(1+r_{daily})$ and either $\log_e(1+r_{monthly})$ or $\frac{\log_e(1+r_{monthly})}{d}$ although, for $x$ close to $0$, $\log_e(1+x)\approx x$ so it may not make much difference.

A much more serious issue is autocorrelation. Your model suggests there is autocorrelation (the change in a day is regressed on what has happened the previous month). But because your $r_{monthly}$ values are clearly autocorrelated with each other (they overlap), I would expect you to find autocorrelation of the residuals, and that may reduce the value of your model.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.