The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Modeling and Forecasting Realized Volatility
Abstract
This paper provides a general framework for integration of high-frequency intraday data into the measurement, modeling, and forecasting of daily and lower frequency volatility and return distributions. Most procedures for modeling and forecasting financial asset return volatilities, correlations, and distributions rely on restrictive and complicated parametric multivariate ARCH or stochastic volatility models, which often perform poorly at intraday frequencies. Use of realized volatility constructed from high-frequency intraday returns, in contrast, permits the use of traditional time series procedures for modeling and forecasting. Building on the theory of continuous-time arbitrage-free price processes and the theory of quadratic variation, we formally develop the links between the conditional covariance matrix and the concept of realized volatility. Next, using continuously recorded observations for the Deutschemark / Dollar and Yen / Dollar spot exchange rates covering more than a decade, we find that forecasts from a simple long-memory Gaussian vector autoregression for the logarithmic daily realized volatilities perform admirably compared to popular daily ARCH and related models. Moreover, the vector autoregressive volatility forecast, coupled with a parametric lognormal-normal mixture distribution implied by the theoretically and empirically grounded assumption of normally distributed standardized returns, gives rise to well-calibrated density forecasts of future returns, and correspondingly accurate quantile estimates. Our results hold promise for practical modeling and forecasting of the large covariance matrices relevant in asset pricing, asset allocation and financial risk management applications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Engle, R. F. (1982) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912773 · Cited by 20,795
Engle, R. (2002) · Journal of Business & Economic Statistics · doi:10.1198/073500102288618487 · Cited by 7,133
Cited by
Is All That Talk Just Noise? The Information Content of Internet Stock Message Boards
Antweiler, W., & Frank, M. Z. (2004) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2004.00662.x · Cited by 2,373
The Sum of All FEARS Investor Sentiment and Asset Prices
Da, Z., Engelberg, J., & Gao, P. (2015) · Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhu072 · Cited by 1,379
BOLLERSLEV, T., & TODOROV, V. (2011) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.1111/j.1540-6261.2011.01695.x · Cited by 804
Self-citationEstimating quadratic variation using realized variance
Barndorff‐Nielsen, O. E., & Shephard, N. (2002) · Journal of Applied Econometrics · doi:10.1002/jae.691 · Cited by 616
Risk Everywhere: Modeling and Managing Volatility
Bollerslev, T., Hood, B., Huss, J., & Pedersen, L. H. (2018) · The Review of Financial Studies · doi:10.1093/rfs/hhy041 · Cited by 359
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Andersen, T. G., Bollerslev, T., Diebold, F. X., & Labys, P.
- Venue
- Econometrica
- Publisher
- The Econometric Society
- Published
- 2003-03
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 579-625
- ISSN
- 0012-9682 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-0262
- OpenAlex
- W3121364726
- Cited by
- 3,863
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 156.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Modeling and Forecasting Realized Volatility. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1468-0262.00418
- The paper
- Andersen, T. G., Bollerslev, T., Diebold, F. X., & Labys, P. (2003). Modeling and Forecasting Realized Volatility. Econometrica. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00418
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.