Volatility forecasting: the jumps do matter∗†
Fulvio Corsi‡

Davide Pirino§

Roberto Renò¶June 16, 2008

Abstract
This study reconsiders the role of jumps for volatility forecasting by showing that jumps have apositive and mostly significant impact on future volatility. This result becomes apparent once volatility
is correctly separated into its continuous and discontinuous component. To this purpose, we introduce
the concept of threshold multipower variation (TMPV), which is based on the joint use of bipower
variation and threshold estimation. With respect to alternative methods, our TMPV estimator provides
less biased and robust estimates of the continuous quadratic variation and jumps. This technique also
provides a new test for jump detection which has substantially more power than traditional tests. We use
this separation to forecast volatility by employing an heterogeneous autoregressive (HAR) model which issuitable to parsimoniously model long memory in realized volatility time series. Empirical analysis showsthat the proposed techniques improve significantly the accuracy of volatility forecasts for the S&P500
index, single stocks and US bond yields, especially in periods following the occurrence of a jump.

Keywords: volatility forecasting, jumps, bipower variation, threshold estimation, stock, bond.
JEL Classification codes: G1,C1,C22,C53∗ Supplementary material for this paper can be found in a web appendix available at http://www.econ-pol.unisi.it/∼reno† We wish to acknowledge Anna Cieslak, Loriano Mancini, Cecilia Mancini and Mark Podolskij for useful suggestions.

errors and omissions remain our own.
‡ Dipartimento di Economia Politica, Università di Siena, E-mail: fulvio.corsi@lu.unisi.ch§ Dipartimento di Fisica ”Enrico Fermi”, Università di Pisa, E-mail: davide.pirino@gmail.com¶ Dipartimento di Economia Politica, Università di Siena, E-mail: reno@unisi.it

All

1

Introduction

The importance of jumps in financial economics is widely recognized. A partial list of recent studies on
this topic includes test specification of Aı̈t-Sahalia (2004), Jiang and Oomen (2006), Barndorff-Nielsen andShephard (2006), Lee and Mykland (2007) and Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod (2008), as well as the empirical studies
of Bollerslev, Law and Tauchen (2007) and Maheu and McCurdy (2004); Bollerslev et al. (2007); Andersen
et al. (2006); nonparametric estimation in the presence of jumps, as in Bandi and Nguyen (2003); Johannes(2004); Mancini and Renò (2006); option pricing as in Duffie et al. (2002); Eraker et al. (2003); Eraker (2004);
applications to bond and stock market, as in Das and Uppal (2004); Wright and Zhou (2007). Interestingreferences for a review are Cont and Tankov (2004) and Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard (2007). However,while jumps have been shown to be relevant in economic and financial applications, they still have no directrole for volatility forecasting.
In this study we start from an apparent puzzle contained in the study of Andersen et al. (2007) (henceforth
ABD) and Forsberg and Ghysels (2007); Giot and Laurent (2007); Busch et al. (2006). In these works, jumps
have been found to possess a negative or null impact in determining future volatility. We find this result
puzzling in at least two respects. First, visual inspection of realized volatility time series reveals that bursts
in volatility are usually initiated by a large and unexpected movement of asset prices; this suggests thatjumps should have a forecasting power for volatility. Second, it is well known that volatility is associatedwith dispersion of beliefs and heterogeneous information, see e.g. Shalen (1993); Wang (1994) and Buraschi
et al. (2007). If the occurrence of a jump increases the uncertainty on fundamental values, it is likely to havea positive impact on future volatility.
This paper provides four contributions to the literature. The first contribution is to show that this puzzle
is due to the fact that preceding studies in the literature use bipower variation to estimate the continuous
integrated volatility and, by difference, the jump contribution to total quadratic variation. While bipower
variation is a consistent estimator of integrated volatility as the time interval between observation vanishes,
our simulation studies show that in finite samples it is largely upper biased in presence of jumps, and this
implies a large underestimation of the jump component. Unfortunately, this problem cannot be accommodated by simply shrinking the observation interval, since market microstructure effects would jeopardize theestimation in an unpredictable way. 1
An alternative estimator of integrated volatility has been introduced by Mancini (2007) and studied by
1 Attempts to study and correct bipower variation under microstructure noise can be found in Podolskij and Vetter (2006), andChristensen et al. (2008). ABD and Huang and Tauchen (2005) propose a staggered version of bipower variation. Fan and Wang(2007) study jumps and microstructure noise with wavelet methods. The impact of microstructure noise on threshold estimationof Mancini (2007) is instead unknown. The results in this paper can potentially be extended to account for microstructurenoise. Directly incorporating microstructure noise can improve volatility forecasting, see e.g. Aı̈t-Sahalia and Mancini (2008).

1

Aı̈t-Sahalia and Jacod (2007) in a broader context. This estimator is potentially less biased than bipower
variation, but it requires the auxiliary estimation of a threshold function; thus, when it is used in its originalform, it provides estimates of continuous volatility which are sensitive to the specification of the threshold.
The second contribution of this paper is thus to introduce an alternative estimator of integrated powersof volatility in presence of jumps. We introduce (Section 2) the concept of threshold multipower variation,
which can be viewed as combination of the above mentioned techniques. Using realistic simulation of asset
prices (Section 3), we show that threshold bipower variation is nearly unbiased on continuous trajectories
and, importantly, also in the presence of jumps. Moreover, it is robust to the choice of the threshold function,in the sense that the impact of the threshold on estimation is marginal. Thus, it is an ideal candidate toestimate dynamic models of volatility in which we use separately the continuous and discontinuous volatility
as explanatory variables.
Our third contribution is the introduction of a novel test for jump detection in time series. Our test
is basically a correction of the z statistics of Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard (2006) based on threshold
multipower variation. This correction removes the bias in estimating the integral of the second and fourth
power of continuous volatility in presence of jumps. We show that our C-Tz test is sized as the traditionalz-test under the null. In presence of jumps instead, the corrected test has significantly more power than thez test, especially when jumps are consecutive, a situation which is quite frequent in high-frequency data. We
show this on simulated data (Section 3) and on time series which are well known to display very large jumps(Section 4), namely electricity prices and interest rate data, for which the z-test has a disappointingly low
power.
We use the separation of the quadratic variation in its continuous and discontinuous component in a suitable
extension of the forecasting model of Corsi (2004), which, in spite of its simplicity, is able to reproduce themain features of volatility dynamics, including long memory (Section 5).
Empirical results (Section 6) confirm our theoretical results and constitute our fourth contribution. We workon stock index futures, single stocks and treasury bond data. On equity data, we find that jumps have apositive and highly significant impact on future volatility, a result which cannot be observed when bipower
variation is employed because of its inherent bias. Uniformly on our data sets, our forecasting models provide
higher R2 , especially in days following a jump, and lower root mean square error, with respect to the existingmodels in the literature.
Concluding remarks are in Section 7.

2

2

Disentangling diffusion from jumps

2.1

Introductory concepts

We work in a filtered probability space (Ω, (Ft )t∈[0,T ] , F, P), satisfying the usual conditions (Protter, 1990).
We assume that an economic variable Xt , for example the logarithmic price of a stock or an interest rate,satisfies the following assumption:
Assumption 2.1 (Xt )t∈[0,T ] is a real-valued process such that X0 ∈ IR and
dXt = µt dt + σt dWt + ct dNt(2.1)

where µt is predictable, σt is cádlág and Nt is a Poisson process whose intensity is an adapted stochastic
process λt , the times of the corresponding jumps are (τj )j=1,...,NT and cj are i.i.d. adapted random variables
measuring the size of the jump at time τj .
Typically, in financial econometrics a time window T is fixed, e.g. one day, and we define the quantities ofinterest on a time span of length T . Quadratic variation of such a process over a time window is defined as:
Z t+T
2
2
Xs− dXs ,(2.2)[X]t+T
:=
X
−
X
−
2
t
t+T
t
t

where t indexes the interval, typically a day, and it can be decomposed into its continuous and discontinuouscomponent, as:[X]t+T= [X c ]t+T
+ [X d ]tt+Tttwhere [X c ]t+T
=
t

R t+T
t

=
σs2 ds and [X d ]t+T
t

(2.3)

PNt+T

2
j=Nt cτj , where cτj is the size of the j-th jump at time τj . To

estimate these quantities, we divide the time interval [t, t + T ] into n subintervals of length δ, thus δ = T /n.
On this grid, we define the evenly sampled returns as:∆j,t X = Xjδ+t − X(j−1)δ+t ,j = 1, . . . , n(2.4)

For simplicity, in what follows we omit the subscript t and we simply write ∆j X. An estimator of [X]tt+T is
given by realized volatility, defined as:
RVδ (X)t =

n
X
j=1

2

(∆j X) −→ [X]tt+T
δ→0

(2.5)

where the above convergence is in probability.
To disentangle the continuous quadratic variation from the discontinuous one, multipower variation has been
introduced by Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard (2006) and it is defined as:[T /δ] M[γ ,...,γM ]MPVδ (X)t 1

1= δ 1− 2 (γ1 +...+γM )X Y

j=M k=1

3|∆j−k+1 X|γk(2.6)

It is a natural extension of the concept of bipower variation, studied in Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard(2004); Barndorff-Nielsen et al. (2006). Asymptotic properties of multipower variation have been studied byBarndorff-Nielsen et al. (2006) in absence of jumps, and by Barndorff-Nielsen, Shephard and Winkel (2006)
and Woerner (2006) in presence of jumps. With very mild assumptions, and in some cases for infinite activity
Levy jump processes, Barndorff-Nielsen, Shephard and Winkel (2006) show that:
!Z
M
t+T
Y
[γ1 ,...,γM ]p − lim MPVδ (X)t=σsγ1 +...+γM ds
µγk
δ→0

(2.7)

t

k=1

Γ( γ+1 )2, with u ∼ N (0, 1), and the above convergence is in probability. For
where µγ = E(|u|γ ) = 2γ/2 Γ(1/2)
R t+T 2
R t+T 4practical applications, multipower variation is used for the estimation of t
σs ds and t
σs ds. For thismotivation, we define some relevant special cases of multipower variation, according to suitable choices ofthe vector γ1 , . . . , γM . The most important example is bipower variation:[T /δ][1,1]

BPVδ (X)t = µ−2
1 MPVδ (X)t

= µ−2
1

X
j=2

with µ1 ≃ 0.7979. For estimators of

R t+T
t

|∆j−1 X| · |∆j X| −→
δ→0

Z t+T
t

σs2 ds(2.8)

σs4 ds, see Appendix A.

Based on a threshold function Θ(δ), Mancini (2007) provides alternative estimators to the multipower
variation ones, for squared and fourth power volatility. These estimators are defined as follows:[T /δ]

TRVδ (X)t =

X
j=1

2

|∆j X| I{|∆j X|2 ≤Θ(δ)} −→δ→0[T /δ]

TQVδ (X)t =

Z t+T

1 X
|∆j X|4 I{|∆j X|2 ≤Θ(δ)} −→δ→03δ j=1t

σs2 dsZ t+Tt

σs4 ds(2.9)(2.10)

where the above convergence is in probability, and where the threshold functions has to satisfy
δ log 1δ= 0,
δ→0 Θ(δ)

lim Θ(δ) = 0,

lim

δ→0

(2.11)

that is they have to vanish slower than the modulus of continuity of the Brownian motion. Mancini (2007)
also establishes a central limit theorem for TRV.

2.2

Threshold multipower variation

We now introduce the following extension of multipower variation. In what follows, we use a strictly positive
threshold function ϑs : [t, t + T ] → R+ , which, contrary to the threshold function used in (2.9), does notdepend on δ. For brevity, we denote by ϑj = ϑjδ . We define the threshold multipower variation estimator
as follows:4Definition 2.2 We define the (realized) threshold multipower variation as:[T /δ] M
1[γ ,...,γM ]TMPVδ (X)t 1= δ 1− 2 (γ1 +...+γM )X Y

j=M k=1|∆j−k+1 X|γk I{|∆j−k+1 X|2 ≤ϑj−k+1 }(2.12)The intuition behind the concept of threshold multipower variation is the following. Suppose ∆j X contains a jump. In the case of bipower variation, it will multiply two adjacent returns, ∆j−1 X and ∆j+1 X.
Asymptotically, both these returns will vanish and bipower variation will converge to integrated continuous
volatility. But for finite δ these returns will not vanish, causing a positive bias which will be larger as ∆j X
increases. This consideration suggests that the bias of multipower variation will be extremely large in caseof consecutive jumps, as will be shown in Section 4. For estimators (2.12) instead, if ∆j X contains a jumplarger than ϑj , the corresponding indicator function vanishes, thus correcting for the bias. This intuition is
supported by the analysis in the subsequent sections.
Formally, we can state the following Theorem regarding asymptotic behavior of threshold multipower variation:
Theorem 2.3 Assume 2.1 holds, and that θt is a real positive mapping defined on [0, T ]. Then, as δ → 0,
1. if max(γ1 , . . . , γM ) < 2 we have:[γ ,...,γM ]−→TMPVδ (X)t 1

M
Y

µγk

k=1

!Z

t+T

t

σsγ1 +...+γM ds(2.13)

Z t+T(2.14)

the above convergence is in probability.
2. if max(γ1 , . . . , γM ) < 1 we have:δ− 21

TMPVδ (X)t −

Z t+T
t

σsγ1 +...+γM ds

!

−→ cγ

t

σsγ1 +...+γM dWs′

where W ′ is a Brownian motion independent on W , the above convergence holds stably in law and:


M
−j
j
M
M
−1
M
M
X
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

(2.15)µ2γk + 2µγkµγk +γk+j µ2γk − 2(M − 1)
c2γ =
µγk
j=1

k=1

k=1

k=M −j+1

k=1

k=1

Proof. Under Assumption 2.1, we write:
X =Y +Z
where Yt =

R t+T
t

µs ds +R t+Tt

σs dWs . If Z = 0, the Theorem has been proved by Barndorff-Nielsen et al. (2006).

Since Z is a finite activity jump process and Y is continuous, for every trajectory there exists δ ′ such that the number[γ ,...,γM ]of returns such that |∆Xj |γ > ϑj is finite. For δ < δ ′ , the difference TMPVδ (X)t 1[γ ,...,γM ]− TMPVδ (Y )t 1

iszero for those terms who do not contain jumps; in the remainder every term contains at most one jump, which issummed up over M finite terms, with only one term containing a jump. For the others, uniformly on j we have:11

δ − 2 |∆j X| = Op (| log δ| 2 ).

5

Thus the difference is Op“`´ 1 (PM γ −max(γ1 ,...,γM )) ”
δ log 1δ 2 i=1 i. Thusδ 1−PM

i=1 γi= Op“”[γ ,...,γM ][γ ,...,γM ]TMPVδ (X)t 1− TMPVδ (Y )t 1=

« 1 (PM γ −max(γ1 ,...,γM )) !
„1
1 2 i=1 iδ 1− 2 max(γ1 ,...,γM ) log
δ[γ ,...,γM ]The latter term is at least Op (1) if max(γ1 , . . . , γM ) < 2, which implies that TMPVδ (X)t 1

has the same limit[γ ,...,γM ]in probability of TMPVδ (Y )t 1
; and it has the same limit in law if max(γ1 , . . . , γM ) < 1, since in this case the1difference is Op (δ 2 ).



In Theorem 2.3 we can also allow for infinite activity jumps for suitable conditions on the coefficients
γ1 , . . . , γM , see e.g. Jacod (2008). Then, not surprisingly, threshold multipower variation has the same
distribution of multipower variation and threshold power variation when δ → 0. However, our interest is inRestimating σs2 ds when δ is finite and large enough to avoid microstructure effects (typically, δ = 5 minutes),
and in this case we will show that the three estimators are different.

As a special case for estimating integrated variance, we introduce threshold bipower variation as follows:[T /δ][1,1]
TBPVδ (X)t = µ−2= µ−2
1 TMPVδ (X)t
1

X
j=2

|∆j−1 X| · |∆j X|I{|∆j−1 X|2 ≤ϑj−1 } I{|∆j X|2 ≤ϑj }(2.16)For estimators of the integrated fourth-power of volatility, see Appendix A.
Now, we describe our technique to select a suitable threshold, and show how to implement threshold multipower variation when δ is finite.

2.3

Tuning the threshold function

In the forthcoming sections, we will show that the choice of the threshold function is almost immaterial forour purposes. Thus, for simplicity we use a threshold function which is defined as a multiple of the local
variance, to approximate which we use a local linear filter of length 2L + 1 (Fan and Yao, 2003) adapted forthe presence of jumps by iterating in Z:

V̂tZ =L
X

K

i=−L, i6=−1,0,1
L
X

 
i
(∆t+i X)2 I{(∆t+i X)2 ≤c2 ·V̂ Z−1 }
t+i
V
L
,
 
i
I{(∆t+i X)2 ≤c2 ·V̂ Z−1 }
K
t+i
V
L

Z = 1, 2, . . .

(2.17)

i=−L, i6=−1,0,1

with the starting value set to V̂ 0 = +∞, which corresponds to using all observations in the first step, andcV = 3. Asymptotic properties for a class of related estimators of local variance in absence of jumps can befound in Kristensen (2007).
6

At each iteration, jumps are detected by the condition (∆t X)2 > c2V · V̂tZ−1 and removed from the time series

by means of the indicator function2 ; each estimate of the variance is multiplied by c2V to get the thresholdfor the following step. For estimation of the local variance at time t, we do not use the adjacent observations(i 6= −1, 0, 1). The iterations stop when the removed jumps are the same. On high frequency data, thisalways happens with Z = 2, 3 iterations.
The bandwidth parameter L determines the number of adjacent returns included in the estimation of thelocal variance around point t. In our application, its choice results not to be crucial. We set L = 25. As
usual, the choice of the kernel function K(·) is quite uninfluential in this kind of applications (Silverman,
1986; Wand and Jones, 1995). We use a Gaussian kernel: √ K (y) = 1/ 2 π exp −y 2 /2 .

(2.18)

Then we set the threshold function proportional to the local varianceϑt = c2ϑ · V̂tZ

(2.19)A typical value of cϑ is cϑ = 3. However, the dimensionless parameter cϑ can be used to scale the thresholdwith respect to local variance, and by varying it we can test the robustness of proposed estimators withrespect to the choice of the threshold.

2.4

A corrected test for jump detection

While threshold multipower variation has the same asymptotic law of multipower variation, we expect it toprovide better estimates in small samples. However, for finite δ , when |∆X|2 > ϑ the indicator function in(2.12) zeroes its relative addend. This can be an issue when testing for the presence of jumps, for example
with the z statistics introduced by Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard (2006), since under the null of no jumps
there are still variations larger than the threshold. These variations are also the larger ones, thus TMPV
is expected to be negatively biased under the null. However, this issue can be solved by correcting theestimator according to the following rule: when |∆X|2 > ϑ we replace |∆X|γ with its expected value under
the null (instead of 0). Using the fact that, when X is N (0, σ 2 ), we have:


c2
Γ γ+1
, 2ϑ
 γ

1γ
2
√ √
E |X| X 2 > ϑ =2σ 2 2 ,ϑ
2N (− σ ) π(2.20)

where N (x) is the standard normal cumulative function and Γ(α, x) is the upper incomplete gamma function.3
Now, we can exploit the estimate of the continuous local volatility given by the threshold itself, which is
2 Alternatively, one may use the approach proposed by Lee and Mykland (2007) to detect and remove individual jumps andsubsequently estimate the local variance with the remaining observations.
3 Precisely,
Z x
1 2
1
√ e− 2 s ds
N (x) =
2π−∞

7

given by (2.19), replacing σ 2 by ϑ/c2ϑ in (2.20). Then, we define the corrected realized threshold multipower
estimator as:[T /δ] M
1[γ ,...,γM ]C-TMPVδ (X)t 1= δ 1− 2 (γ1 +...+γM )X YZγk (∆j−k+1 X, ϑj−k+1 )(2.21)

j=M k=1

where the function Zγ (x, y) is defined as:Zγ (x, y) =


γ

 |x|



1
√
2N (−cϑ ) π



2
y
c2ϑ



γ
2

Γ



γ + 1 c2ϑ,22

if x2 ≤ yif x2 > y(2.22)

Relevant cases which will be examined in what follows are γ = 1, 2, 4/3. In these special cases we have, with21cϑ = 3 and x2 > y, Z1 (x, y) ≃ 1.094 · y 2 , Z4/3 (x, y) ≃ 1.129 · y 3 , and Z2 (x, y) ≃ 1.207 · y respectively.
For example, the corrected version of (2.16) is the corrected threshold bipower variation defined as:[T /δ][1,1]= µ−2
C-TBPVδ (X)t = µ−2
1
1 C-TMPVδ (X)tX

Z1 (∆Xj , ϑj )Z1 (∆Xj−1 , ϑj−1 )(2.23)

j=2

As will be shown in the next section, the correction is essential for building test statistics; indeed, thecorrection provides unbiased estimates under the null. The test statistics which is used in our empiricalanalysis is based on this correction and it is defined by:−1

1 (RVδ (X)T − C-TBPVδ (X)T ) · RVδ (X)TC-Tz = δ − 2 s,C-TTriPVδ (X)Tπ2
4 + π − 5 max 1, (C-TBPVδ (X) )2T(2.24)

In light of Theorem 2.3, since for small δ the correction affects only a finite number of terms, we have that
C-Tz → N (0, 1) stably in law as δ → 0.
A correction similar to (2.21) can also be introduced for the threshold estimators of Mancini (2007). We
define:[T /δ]1[γ]

C-TPVδ (X)t = δ 1− 2 γXZγ (∆j X, ϑj ).

(2.25)

j=1

While the corrected version (2.21) of threshold bipower variation is expected to be unbiased in absence ofjumps, it will introduce a positive bias if jumps are present in the trajectory of X. Indeed, suppose that there
is a jump ∆J in a given interval, such that ∆X = ∆X c + ∆J. When detecting the jump, we approximate(∆X)γ with E |X c |γ (X c )2 > ϑ , which is much larger than E [|X c |γ ], which is our estimation target. Thus,
the correction should not be implemented when the test statistics detects a jump in the trajectory.

andΓ(α, x) =Z +∞sα−1 e−s ds.

x

When α = 1, Γ(1, x) = e−x . For large γ, we can exploit the integration by parts formula Γ(α + 1, x) = αΓ(α, x) + xα e−x .

8Parameter

Value

µ

0.0304α−0.0120

β0.0145η

0.1153

ρ−0.6127

σJ

0.0151

Table 1: Parameters of model (3.1) expressed in percentage form and on daily basis. The
intensity λ is not reported, since it is not used in our simulations.

3

Simulation study

To assess the small sample properties of the concurrent estimators we use Monte Carlo simulations of realistic
stochastic processes which have been extensively used to model stock index prices. The purpose of this section
is to show that bipower variation is a biased estimator of integrated volatility in the presence of jumps, whilethreshold-based estimator, both power and multipower, are much less sensitive to jumps and accordingly
less biased. Moreover, we show that while threshold power variation is particularly sensitive to the choiceof the threshold, threshold bipower variation is instead largely robust to this choice. This latter feature
is particularly important, since it suggests that results obtained in empirical applications using threshold
multipower variation are not too sensitive to the threshold employed.
The model we simulate is a one-factor jump-diffusion model with stochastic volatility, described by the
couple of stochastic differential equations:dXt= µ dt +d log vt=√

vt dWx,t + ct dNt ,(α − β log vt ) dt + ηdWv,t ,(3.1)

where Wx and Wv are standard Brownian motions with corr (dWx , dWv ) = ρ, vt is a stochastic volatility
factor, ct dNt is a compound Poisson process with constant intensity λ and random jump size which is
Normally distributed with zero mean and standard deviation σJ . We use the model parameters estimatedby Andersen et al. (2002) on S&P 500 prices and reported in Table 1. Similar estimates have been obtainedby Bates (2000); Pan (2002); Chernov et al. (2003).
The numerical integration of model (3.1) is performed with the Euler scheme, using a discretization step of∆ = 1 second. Each day, we simulate 7 · 60 · 60 steps corresponding to seven hours. We then use δ = 5
minutes, that is 84 returns per day.
The Monte Carlo experiments are devised to compare the efficiency of the proposed estimators in estimating
9

QuantityRR

σs2 dsσs4 dsEstimator

Relative bias (%)
no jumps

one jump

two jumps

two consecutive jumps

BPV-0.90 ( 0.55)

47.59 ( 1.78)

110.73 ( 4.78)

659.35 (25.86)

TRV-5.09 ( 0.53)-7.61 ( 0.51)-7.81 ( 0.52)-7.77 (0.51)

C-TRV-0.22 ( 0.48)

7.64 ( 0.54)

17.89 ( 0.60)

17.92(0.60)

TBPV-5.16 ( 0.59)-8.74 ( 0.58)-10.00 ( 0.56)-9.31 ( 0.56)

C-TBPV-1.09 ( 0.55)

3.23 ( 0.59)

9.91 ( 0.63)

19.03 (0.68)

QPV-2.72 ( 1.29)

88.97 ( 5.18)

284.79 ( 23.83)

1939.80 (118.49)

TQV-15.47 ( 0.99)-18.50 ( 0.92)-17.65 ( 0.96)-17.73 (0.94)

C-TQV-1.22 ( 1.06)

34.08 ( 1.46)

74.60 ( 1.95)

73.95 (1.97)

TQPV-9.29 ( 1.29)-14.69 ( 1.24)-18.15 ( 1.20)-16.46 (1.18)

C-TQPV-3.00 ( 1.29)

7.02 ( 1.51)

21.51 ( 1.72)

49.81 ( 2.53)

TriPV-1.79 ( 1.26)

208.83 ( 12.06)

754.97 ( 89.27)

10097.0 (707.38)

TTriPV

-9.50 ( 1.24)-14.05 ( 1.17)-16.07 ( 1.13)-14.91 (1.12)

C-TTriPV-2.33 ( 1.26)

9.63 ( 1.46)

26.19 ( 1.71)

71.32 ( 2.81)

Table 2: Reports the mean error in percentage form in estimatingRσsγ ds, with γ = 2, 4,

using the corresponding estimator, in the case of no jumps, one jump, two jumps and twoconsecutive jumps when simulating model (3.1). In parenthesis, the standard error of themean is reported.

the integral of σ 2 and σ 4 . Since we are keenly interested in studying the performance of competing estimatorsin presence of jumps, we generate different samples (with 1, 000 “daily” replications each) in the following
way. In the first sample, we do not generate jumps at all. In the second sample, we generate a single jumpfor each day. In the third sample, we generate exactly two jumps per day. In the fourth sample, we generate
two jumps per day and we force them to be consecutive (i.e., the second jump is forced to occur 300 seconds
after the first). This allows us to compute the expected value conditioned to the presence of zero, one,
two jumps, consecutive or not. For every simulated daily trajectory, we compute the estimates of BPV andtheir fourth-power counterparts QPV,TriPV as well as threshold estimators TRV, TQV, TTriPV and threshold
multipower estimators TBPV, TQPV,TTriPV. All these estimators are precisely defined in Appendix A. We
compute daily percentage estimation error and compute averages and standard deviations across the sample.
All results are reported in Table 2.
Results are compelling. Bipower variation (as realized volatility) does a good job in estimating integrated
squared volatility in case of no jumps. However, it is significantly biased if there is a jump in the trajectory(+47.59%) and largely biased (+110.73%) if there are two jumps in the trajectory. If the two jumps areconsecutive, the bias is huge (+659.35%). The bias of multipower variation in estimating integrated quarticity
is even larger.
10Threshold-based estimators, instead, are much more robust to the presence of jumps. The bias of threshold
power variation of Mancini (2007) in estimating integrated squared volatility is around −5% in absence ofjumps and around −8% in presence of one and two jumps, consecutive or not. The same happens whenestimating quarticity, the bias being around −15%. The presence of a negative bias is due to the fact that,by their proper definition, threshold estimators remove completely observations larger than the threshold.
When we correct for this as indicated in Section 2.4, the bias turns out to be positive since, when an
observation is above the threshold, we replace its power with its expected value under the assumption thatthe observation was actually above threshold; which is true under the null of no jumps, but needs not to betrue in presence of an actual jump, thus inducing a positive bias.
The estimators based on threshold multipower variation, introduced in this study, yield equally good results.
Threshold bipower variation has a bias of −5.16% in the case of no jumps, of −8.74% with a single jump,of −10.0% in the case of two jumps, and of −9.31% in the case of two consecutive jumps. When estimating
quarticity, these biases range between −9% and −15% according to the number of jumps and the estimator
used. Again, the corrected versions largely correct the bias under the null of no jumps, but turn the negative
bias in a positive one in the case of jumps. However, from our simulated experiment we can conclude thatthreshold-based estimators perform much better than multipower variation in presence of jumps.
Threshold estimators deliver more accurate estimates in the presence of jumps at the cost of introducing
this extra-parameter (the results presented above are based on the threshold (2.19) with cϑ = 3). Between
the two competing threshold estimators (power and multipower), our simulation experiments highlight a
substantial advantage in using threshold multipower variation instead of threshold power variation. Thisconclusion stems from considering the robustness of jump detection and volatility measuring with respect
to the parameter cϑ . We use simulated experiments to check the robustness of threshold estimators withrespect to this parameter, in the case of a single jump and in the case of two jumps. Results are shown in
Figure 1.
Bipower variation does not depend on the value of the threshold but it is largely biased, especially with
two jumps in the daily trajectory. Threshold estimators are less biased, however we can see that thresholdbipower variation is less sensitive to the choice of the threshold than threshold power variation. This isbasically due to the fact that, even if both TBPV and TRV converge to [X c ] as δ → 0, for fixed δ we have
TBPVδ −→ BPVδ while TRVδ −→ RVδ .
cϑ →∞

cϑ →∞

We also use Monte Carlo experiments to evaluate the efficiency in detecting jumps with the z statistics(A.7), constructed with multipower variation methods, the Tz statistics (A.12), constructed with threshold
multipower variation and the C-Tz statistics (2.24), corrected as explained in Section 2.4, as well as with thecorresponding logarithmic test statistics defined in Appendix A.
Results with different confidence levels are reported in Table 3 in the case of no jumps, a single jump, and11

Figure 1: Bias of the different estimators ofR

σs2 ds in the presence of a single jump (top)and two jumps (bottom), as a function of the threshold parameter cϑ .

12

SV1F
0.12
norm(0,1)z
C−T−z(cϑ=3)
C−T−z(c =5)ϑ

0.1

distribution density

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
−6

−4

−2

0
random variable

2

4

6

Figure 2: Distribution of the jump statistics z and C-Tz (with cϑ = 3, 5) on 1,000 replicationsof model (3.1) with cdN = 0.

two consecutive jumps, while Figure 2 shows the distribution of selected test statistics under the null.
The efficiency of detecting jumps with the Tz statistics is larger than that obtained with z statistics; howeveralso the noise is larger and well above the values expected by the significance level required. This comesfrom the fact that, under the null of no jumps that we are testing, it is better to use C-Tz statistics. Indeed,
Table 3 shows that the C-Tz (with cϑ = 3) statistics yield a noise which is almost identical to that of thez statistics still preserving a detection efficiency larger than that of the z statistics. Figure 2 shows the
distribution of the statistics under the null of no jumps, and we can see that the behavior on that sampleof the z and the C-Tz statistics, with both cϑ = 3 and cϑ = 5 is the same. With higher confidence level, theadvantage in using C-Tz statistics increases both in efficiency and noise. The advantage in using the C-Tz
statistics is very large if the jumps in the simulated trajectory are consecutive. In this case, the efficiency ofthe z test at the 99.99% confidence level is just 42.4%, while the corresponding efficiency of the C-Tz test is
93.1%. We conclude that, on our simulations, there is a clear advantage in using the C-Tz statistics.
The fact that the z statistics perform very well on continuous trajectories is not surprising, and is in linewith the results of Huang and Tauchen (2005); what is surprising is the high power of z-tests in detecting
jumps, since the z statistics is based on quantities which are poorly estimated, especially the quarticity.

13Panel A

Panel B

Panel CNo jumps

Single jump

Two consecutive jumps

50%

95%

99%

99.99%

50%

95%

99%

99.99%

50%

95%

99%

99.99%

z

53.0

5.7

1.4

0.1

93.4

81.2

77.6

68.6

98.1

79.1

64.4

42.4

z1

53.0

8.9

3.3

0.4

93.4

82.4

79.8

73.5

98.1

89.7

85.9

76.2

z2

53.0

8.3

2.8

0.2

93.4

82.3

79.4

72.2

98.1

81.4

72.5

55.6

Tz

63.7

21.7

11.0

1.6

96.0

88.8

85.8

79.0

99.6

98.8

98.4

96.9

Tz1

63.7

24.8

16.4

4.7

96.0

89.7

87.3

81.3

99.6

98.8

98.7

97.7

Tz2

63.7

24.4

15.3

4.2

96.0

89.6

87.3

81.4

99.6

98.8

98.6

97.7

C-Tz

54.0

6.0

1.6

0.1

93.7

83.6

80.6

74.6

99.2

97.3

96.3

93.1

C-Tz1

54.0

8.7

3.1

0.3

93.7

84.5

81.8

77.1

99.2

97.4

96.7

95.7

C-Tz2

54.0

8.7

3.1

0.3

93.7

84.3

81.7

76.9

99.2

97.5

96.4

95.1

Table 3: Percentage of detected jumps in the case of trajectories with a no jumps (Panel A),a single jump per day (Panel B), and two consecutive jumps per day (Panel C), for different
significance levels. The C-Tz statistics are computed with cϑ = 3.

The motivation for this result is that the bias is larger with large jumps; but when the jumps are verylarge, they are also easier to detect. Thus, even if corrected threshold multipower estimators provide muchless biased estimates of integrals of power volatility, the advantage in using C-Tz statistics with respect tothe corresponding z statistics is not as large as one would expect from Table 2. This reasoning is instead
completely reversed if the jumps are consecutive; in this case, the quantities used to compute the z statistics
are hugely biased, see Table 2, and this reduces its efficiency dramatically.
Again, we can check the sensitivity of C-Tz tests with respect to the choice of the parameter cϑ . Figure 3
shows a direct comparison between threshold estimators in the case of a single jump in every trajectory. We
observe that the C-Tz test has more power than the z test and it is reasonably robust to the choice of cϑ .
Summarizing our result on simulated experiments, we conclude that:

1. When measuring integrated power volatility in the presence of jumps, multipower variation is largely
upward biased, while threshold-based estimator are slightly downward biased.
2. When measuring integrated power volatility, threshold multipower estimators are nearly insensitive
to the choice of the threshold for cϑ ≥ 3 while threshold power estimators are more sensitive to thischoice.

14

Figure 3: Jump detection efficiency for the model (3.1) in the presence of a single jump, asa function of the threshold parameter cϑ .

3. When testing for the presence of jumps, corrected threshold multipower estimators yield a significant
advantage with respect to multipower variation based tests.

The latter conclusion will be enforced by results in the next section. Thus, in our empirical analysis we will
use threshold bipower variation as an estimator of integrated volatility, and C-Tz statistics as jump detector.

4

Detecting jumps in data with jumps

In this Section, to further show the pitfalls which can be encountered in detecting jumps, we test the z
statistics and the newly proposed C-Tz statistics on data sets of daily observations which are well known todisplay jumps. We use formulas (A.7) and (2.24) to define the statistics.
The first set is represented by the time series of daily electricity prices. One basic feature of daily electricity
prices is to display very pronounced spikes, basically due to power shortages, see e.g Knittel and Roberts(2005); Geman and Roncoroni (2006) and references therein. We compute the jump detecting statistics on
the whole time series of daily logarithmic returns of eight electricity markets, both European and American.

15

These data sets display very pronounced jumps (the time series are plotted in the web appendix).
We find that the z statistics is not able to detect jumps in the electricity time series. Jumps are detected onlyin Pennsylvania; in the other markets, the null of a continuous trajectory is not rejected, which is completely
untenable for electricity prices. This disappointing results can be explained by the fact that most of thejumps in electricity returns are consecutive. After a spike, the price immediately reverts to its original level,
generating a second large jump. This completely messes up the measures based on multipower variation,
which hinges on the fact that, after a jump, there is a small return vanishing to zero in the limit.
To better point out this effect, we also compute the z test with staggered measures of multipower variation.
Staggered bipower variation has been suggested by Huang and Tauchen (2005) and ABD to accommodate
microstructure effects in high-frequency time series by breaking the correlation in the bid-ask noise. The
staggered multipower variation is defined as:[γ ,...,γM ]stag-MPVδ (X)t 1=[T /δ] M
X Y
1Mδ 1− 2 (γ1 +...+γM )|∆j−2(k−1) X|γk
M −2

(4.1)

j=M +1 k=1

The tests based on staggered multipower variation perform indeed much better, as shown in Table 4. However, they would have poor power in detecting jumps in the case of three consecutive jumps, or in the caseof “staggered” jumps. All these cases may be relevant in high frequency data, as those analyzed in theforthcoming sections.
A much better performance is instead obtained by the corrected test, as suggested by the theoretical properties of threshold multipower variation. When cϑ = 3 we detect jumps in all the electricity markets, withthe exception of Ohio, which has a kurtosis closer to the Normal value4 ; with cϑ = 5 the test has less power,and difficulties are found in time series with moderately high kurtosis (France, The Netherlands). This is
not surprising, since in the limit cϑ → ∞ the C-Tz test is identical to the z test. Thus, with an higher cϑ ,the corrected test gets closer to the z test.
We also analyze the time series of daily interest rate differences. Interest rates are also well known todisplay jumps, especially in presence of macroeconomic announcements, see e.g. Das (2002); Johannes (2004).
Moreover, it is well known that shorter maturity instruments display more jumps, because of liquidity reasons.
We then analyze the time series of daily observations for both the 7-day Eurodollar deposit rate and the
3-month Treasury Bill rate, in the period starting in June 1973 and ending in February, 1995, for a totalof 5,505 observations. The 7-day time series displays many jumps, and most of them are consecutive; anextensive discussion of the jump properties of these two data sets can be found in Renò et al. (2006).
The results are again shown in Table 4. On the 3-months time series, where jumps are rarely consecutive, all
the considered statistics detect the jumps. On the 7-days time series jumps are most pronounced; but the z
4 It is important to remark that high kurtosis does not imply presence of jumps; the presence of jumps in electricity market

is witnessed in the related empirical literature, if not evident by visual inspection of prices.

16

MarketperiodKurtosiszstag-zC-Tzcϑ = 3cϑ = 5

Electricity markets

Germany

1 Jan 01 → 25 Jul 05

29.9

1.59

8.63

10.68

7.82

France27 Nov 01 → 30 Jul 05

12.6

0.98

8.19

4.37

1.72

Spain

1 Jan 01 → 26 May 05

10.5

0.83

5.79

5.00

2.99

The Netherlands

1 Jan 01 → 10 Aug 05

11.6

1.01

6.00

3.20

1.63

California

2 Jan 02 → 12 Feb 07

52.9

-0.11

6.77

10.57

6.76

Texas

2 Jan 02 → 19 Mar 07

27.4

-0.91

1.61

8.18

4.68

Ohio

3 Jan 01 → 11 May 07

4.9

0.51

2.83

1.41

1.28

Pennsylvania

2 Jan 01 → 9 May 07

12.4

3.45

4.87

5.79

4.53

Interest rates

7-days1 Jun 1973 - 24 Feb 1995

30.8

2.02

11.51

15.39

7.52

3-months

1 Jun 1973 - 24 Feb 1995

18.6

6.90

6.22

8.73

7.04

Table 4: Jump detection statistics on daily electricity price returns in different markets, anddaily interest rate differences for two maturities.

statistics is not able to detect them. The fact that there are many consecutive jumps is signaled by the highvalue of the staggered z statistics. The corrected C-Tz statistics also detect the jumps; with a value muchhigher than that of the 3-months time series, in accordance with the evidence that jumps are more frequentand more pronounced in the 7-day time series. The C-Tz statistics is lower at cϑ = 5, since it becomes closer
to the z statistics as cϑ increases.
Concluding, consistently with the theory in the previous section, we find that the z statistics can be very
misleading in some situations, e.g. consecutive jumps. On the contrary, the C-Tz statistics is more efficientin detecting jumps, especially when consecutive.

17

5

The forecasting model

Empirical evidence on strong temporal dependence of realized volatility has been already found for instancein Andersen, Bollerslev, Diebold and Labys (2001) and Andersen, Bollerslev, Diebold and Ebens (2001).
This evidence, together with our empirical results reported below, suggests that realized volatility series
should be described by long-memory type of models, see Andersen et al. (2003); Banerjee and Urga (2005);
McAleer and Medeiros (2006).
Recently, Corsi (2004) and Corsi et al. (2008) introduced a class of time series models called Heterogeneous
Auto-Regressive (HAR) models that successfully achieves the purpose of modeling the long memory behaviorof financial variables in a simple and parsimonious way.
Inspired by the HARCH of Muller et al. (1997) where the conditional variance is function of squared returns
over many horizons, Corsi (2004) proposed a stochastic additive cascade of three different realized volatility
components corresponding to the three main different time horizons operating in the market (daily, weekly
and monthly). This stochastic volatility cascade leads to simple AR-type models in the realized volatility
with the feature of considering realized volatilities defined over different time horizons (the HAR models).
Although the HAR model does not formally belong to the class of long-memory models, it is able to reproduce
a memory decay indistinguishable from that observed in empirical data.
To explicitly define the HAR models, and to extend them to disentangle the different contributions ofcontinuous and discontinuous quadratic variation, let first define the average multiperiod realized variation
i.e. a realized variation measure aggregated over longer horizons and normalized to the daily scale:
RVt−h:t =1(RVt−h + RVt−h+1 +... + RVt )
h

(5.1)

To keep the HAR model simple and intuitive we use three aggregation frequencies: daily (h = 1), weekly(h = 5) and monthly (h = 22). The standard HAR model can then be written as
RVt+1:t+h= β0 + βd RVt +βw RVt−5:t +βm RVt−22:t +εt(5.2)

where εt is a standard IID noise and where h = 1 forecasts daily volatility, h = 5 forecasts weekly volatility
and h = 22 forecasts monthly volatility. This model has been widely employed in recent applications; seefor example Forsberg and Ghysels (2007); Maheu and McCurdy (2006); Clements et al. (2008).
In what follows, the HAR model is extended to directly incorporate the different contribution of jumps.
ABD first added a jump component as
RVt+1:t+h
where Jbt is estimated as= β0 + βd RVt +βw RVt−5:t +βm RVt−22:t +βj Jbt + εt+Jˆt = It,J · (RVt − BPVt ) ,

18

(5.3)

(5.4)

x+ = max(x, 0), and It,J is an indicator function which is equal to 1 if jumps are detected on day t, andequal to 0 elsewhere. In their study, ABD use It,J = I{zt >Φα } , with zt given by (A.7) and Φα is the quantile
function of the Normal distribution at confidence level α. Clearly, different tests can be adopted, as forexample (A.8) and (A.9).
ABD estimated βj in equation (5.3) to be negative. Now, note that the total realized variance can be
decomposed in its continuous (Ct ) and jump (Jt ) component, (i.e. RVt = Ct + Jt ) and that RVt enters both
the weekly (RVt−5:t ) and monthly (RVt−22:t ) measures; as a consequence the jump component Jt is present
in all the regressors of model (5.3) making the interpretation of the impact of Jt non trivial. In order tocorrectly isolate the impact of the jump component Jt , an estimate of the continuous part should be employed
as dependent variable in place of the realized variance. A natural estimate of the continuous component is
simply the difference between the realized variance and the estimated significant jump. Estimating the jumpcomponent as in equation (5.4) and denoting the corresponding continuous part asct = RVt −Jbt
C

(5.5)

we get the following HAR-CJ model, similar to that used by ABD in their forecasting analysis5 :RVt+1:t+h

bt + βw C
bt−5:t + βm C
bt−22:t + βj Jbt + εt
= β0 + βd C

(5.6)

bt−5:t and C
bt−22:t are, analogously to the realized volatility measures, the weekly and monthly average
where Cct . Using model (5.6), ABD still estimate βjmultiperiod aggregation of the daily continuous component C

to be not significant, and the same conclusion has been reached by Forsberg and Ghysels (2007), Giot andLaurent (2007) and Busch et al. (2006); see also the analysis of Ghysels et al. (2006).
In the light of the above sections, it is natural to estimate the jump component using threshold bipower
variation instead. Moreover, since we introduced threshold multipower variation, we have more flexibility inchoosing the jump detector It,J and the measures of Ct and Jt in days in which It,J = 1. The motivation forusing an alternative bipower variation estimator is that in the measures (5.4) and (5.5) an unbiased estimateof [X c ] in the presence of jumps is needed. Now, Sections 3 and 4 show that bipower variation is a largely
biased measure of [X c ] in days where jumps are present. For this reason, we use TBPV in days in whichjumps are detected.
Formally, we define the HAR-TCJ model as:
RVt+1:t+hddd= β0 + βd T
C t + βw T
C t−5:t + βm T
C t−22:t + βj TcJ t + εt

(5.7)

where we employ the threshold bipower variation measure to estimate the jump component+
TcJ t = It,J · (RVt − TBPVt )5 ABD also consider weekly and monthly aggregation of the jump component.

19

(5.8)

d
and the corresponding continuous part T
C t = RVt −TcJ t , which is equal to RVt if It,J = 0 and to TBPVt if

It,J = 1.

Its square-root and logarithmic counterparts will read:1
2
RVt+1:t+hand
log RVt+1:t+h

1
2

1
2

1
2

1
2

d
d
d
= β0 + βd T
C t + βw T
C t−5:t + βm T
C t−22:t + βj TcJ t + εt

(5.9)



d
d
d
= β0 + βd log T
C t + βw log T
C t−5:t + βm log T
C t−22:t + βj log TcJ t + 1 + εt (5.10)

and the same transformations6 will be estimated for model (5.2) and (5.6).

To evaluate the forecasting performance of the different models, we use the R2 of Mincer-Zarnowitz forecasting regressions, as well as the (relative) RMSE in predicting the square root of RV, defined as:12  211
1T
2
c
1 X  RVt2 −RVt  
RM SE = 

1
T t=1
2
RVt

(5.11)

1c 2 is the predicted value implicit in the model7 .
where RVt2 is the measured value of realized volatility and RVt
We use the square root of RV since this is the value mostly employed in risk management applications.

6

Empirical Analysis

Our data set covers a long time span of almost 15 years of high frequency data for the S&P 500 futures and
US Treasury Bond with maturity 30 years, and nearly 5 years of 6 individual stocks. The purpose of thissection is mainly to analyze the impact of jumps on future volatility when threshold bipower variation is
employed as a measure of jumps. We will focus not only on the impact of jumps on future realized volatility,
but also on the performance of models which explicitly incorporate jumps in forecasting volatility.
All the analysis presented in this section is based on measures of threshold multipower variation with a valuecϑ = 3, and using the C-Tz statistics to detect jumps. Our tables are built at confidence level α = 99.9%
but the most interesting quantities will be computed and plotted for different values of α as well. Further
results with cϑ = 4, 5 can be found in a companion web appendix.8
6 We remark that in the logarithmic model the term log“”
TcJ t + 1 makes the estimates of the parameters βd , βw , βm , βj notinvariant to time scaling. To get approximate invariance, it is advisable to choose a time unit such that TcJ t >> 1. For thisreason, in what follow we use annualized quantities.
7 Patton (2006) suggest to use the absolute M SE as a proper loss function, see also the related discussion in Forsberg andGhysels (2007). However, the ranking of models made in section 6 does not change if we use M SE instead of the relative
RM SE (5.11), which we find more intuitive since it gives immediately the relative forecasting error.
8 The web appendix can be downloaded at http://www.econ-pol.unisi.it/∼reno, in the Research section.

20

102
101
100
99
0

20

40

60

80

20

40

60

80

2
1
0
−1
0

Figure 4: Rescaled time series (top) and 5-minutes logarithmic returns (bottom) of the
S&P500 on 12 April 1990. The solid and the dotted line are our estimated threshold withcϑ = 3 and cϑ = 5 respectively. The jump statistics are z = −0.2545, C-Tz = 4.5055 withcϑ = 3, C-Tz = 4.4745 with cϑ = 5.

6.1

Stock index futures S&P500 data

The first data set we analyze is the S&P500 futures time series. We dispose of all high-frequency transactions
from January 1990 to December 2004 (3,736 days). In order to mitigate the impact of microstructure effects
on our estimates, we choose, as in ABD, a sampling frequency of δ = 5 minutes, corresponding to 84 returns
per day.
Figure 4 is an example in which using the C-Tz statistics is effective. It displays the S&P 500 time series
on one specific day, in which there is an evident jump. However, in this day, the z statistics, which is basedon multipower variation, is negative and does not reveal a jump at any reasonable significance level; while
the C-Tz statistics, which is based on threshold multipower variation, does reveal a very significant jump.
Our interpretation for this day is that, since the jump appears in the form of two consecutive and very large
returns, this creates a huge bias (especially in the quarticity estimates) which makes the z statistics very
noisy. This bias is instead completely removed by the corrected threshold estimators. Other examples ofthis kind are shown in the web appendix.

21

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
z
C−Tz

50
0
99

99.1

99.2

99.3

99.4

99.5

99.6

99.7

99.8

99.9

100

Figure 5: Number of days which contain jumps in the S&P500 sample obtained with the
C-Tz statistics (2.24), as a function of the confidence level α. The total number of days is
3, 736.

Figure 5 shows the number of jumps in this sample, as detected by the condition C-Tz > Φα and z > Φα as
a function of α. We see that with the statistics based on threshold multipower variation, we get an higher
number of jumps.
We estimate model (5.7), which we compare with model (5.6). We also estimate the standard HAR model(5.2) as comparison with a model with no separation between continuous and discontinuous component.
Results are reported in Table 5, where all jumps have been estimated with the C-Tz statistics.
Results are unambiguous. When the jump component is measured by means of bipower variation, as in the
HAR-CJ model, its coefficient is significantly negative for the square model and insignificant for the log andsquare root model in explaining future volatility. This surprising result is at odd, in our opinion, with theeconomic intuition which would suggest an increase in volatility after a jump in the price process (especially
if large and negative). Moreover, this result is even more puzzling, given that the unconditional correlations
between realized variation and jumps lagged by one day is significantly positive and around 20% for thevariances, 30% for the volatilities and 25% for the log volatilities.
ct estimated using bipower variation is
The explanation for this result is that the continuous component C
22

still contaminated by the jump component and hence, as for the case with the realized variance in model(5.3), the impact of jumps is also passing through the positive coefficients of the other regressors.
When instead the jump component is measured by means of threshold bipower variation, the coefficients βj
are positive, and highly significant in explaining future volatility for the square root and log model. Most
importantly, the HAR-TCJ model yields an higher R2 and a lower RM SE, thus showing a better forecasting
power. To better understand this point, we divide the sample in days immediately following the occurrenceof a jump, and days which follow days with no jumps. On these two samples we compute the R2 and RM SE
statistics separately, denoting them by J − R2 , J − RM SE and C − R2 , C − RM SE, respectively. The resultsin Table 5 show that the TCJ model largely improves the forecasting power on realized volatility in days
immediately following a jump, and it is still slightly more performing in days which do not follow a jump.
Our interpretation of this result is that, since we are better measuring the jump component, we are also
removing noise from the continuous component in the explanatory variables; and thus, we also get slightly
better results on days in which there were no jumps before.
Our findings are quite robust to the chosen confidence interval. Figure 6 displays the most important
quantities as a function of the confidence interval α. It shows that the jump component of the HAR-TCJ
model, as measured by the t−statistics of the coefficient βj , is always positive for all models and highly
significant for square root and log transformations; while the jump component of the HAR-CJ model ismainly significantly negative or not significant. Importantly, it shows that the HAR-TCJ model provides
superior forecasts when measured in terms of R2 and the RM SE, irrespective of the confidence level used
and model employed.
Figure 7 summarizes our findings. It reports the mean square error in forecasting daily realized volatility(h = 1) for all the considered models, computed on the full sample (top) and only on days subsequent theoccurrence of a jump (bottom). The figure shows that, using the RM SE metrics, in the full sample theranking depends on the specification: logarithmic models outperform the square root models, which in turnoutperform the square models. However, for all the three specifications the best performance is obtained by
the HAR-TCJ models which employ threshold bipower variation.
Most importantly, in days following a jump the ranking based on RM SE depends on the measure adopted forcontinuous variation. Indeed, the HAR-TCJ models provide the smaller RM SE, either in the logarithmic,
square root or square specification, and their performance does not decline with increasing confidence level.
We also estimate the forecasting models using weekly realized volatility and monthly realized volatility as
dependent variables. Results are shown in Tables 6 and 7, respectively. When forecasting weekly andmonthly volatility, the βj of the HAR-CJ model tends to be negative, sometimes significantly. Instead,for the HAR-TCJ model, the βj are largely positive and significant in the square root and log model, andinsignificant in the square model. Again, the R2 and the RM SE confirm, in days following a jump, the23

1tstat − βj − RV

2tstat − βj − RV 2

6

1

10

tstat − βj − log RV

8

4

0

6
2

HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ

−1

4
0

−2
−3
−4
99

99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

100

2

0.44
0.42
0.4

2

−2

HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ

−4
99

99.2

0

99.4

99.6

2

R − RVR − RV

0.61
0.605

HAR
HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJHAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ

0.6

1
2

99.8

100

−2
99

99.2

0.686

HAR
HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ

0.684

99.4

99.6

99.8

100

R2 − log RV
HAR
HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ

0.595
0.38

0.682
0.59

0.36

0.585

0.34
0.32
99
0.34

0.68

0.58
99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

100

RM SE (%) − RV

99
0.272

0.33
0.32
0.31

99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

RM SE (%) − RV

1
2

100

0.249

0.27

0.248

0.268

0.247

0.266

0.246

0.29
99

HAR
HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ
99.2

99.4

0.26

HAR
HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ

0.258
99

99.2

0.262

99.6

99.8

100

99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

100

RM SE (%) − log RV

0.245

0.264
0.3

0.678
99

99.4

0.243

HAR
HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ

0.242
99

99.2

0.244

99.6

99.8

100

99.4

99.6

99.8

Figure 6: Reports the t statistics of the coefficient βj , the R2 and the RM SE for the threemodels estimated on S&P 500 data for daily forecasting, for both the HAR-CJ and HARTCJ versions, as a function of the confidence level used for detecting jumps with the C-Tz
statistics.

24

100

RM SE (%)
0.34
0.33
0.32
HAR square
HAR−CJ square
HAR−TCJ square
HAR sqrt
HAR−CJ sqrt
HAR−TCJ sqrt
HAR log
HAR−CJ log
HAR−TCJ log

0.31
0.3
0.29
0.28
0.27
0.26
0.25
0.24
99

99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

100

J − RM SE (%)

0.65
0.6
0.55

HAR square
HAR−CJ square
HAR−TCJ square
HAR sqrt
HAR−CJ sqrt
HAR−TCJ sqrt
HAR log
HAR−CJ log
HAR−TCJ log

0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
99

99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

100

Figure 7: Top: RM SE of daily forecasts as a function of the confidence intervals, for all
the considered models. Bottom: J − RM SE, that is the mean square error restricted to days
immediately after a jump.

better forecasting ability of the HAR-TCJ model, which is not worse than HAR-CJ in days not following
a jump. Thus, the forecasting ability of the jump component, when it is measured by means of thresholdbipower variation, extends to a time span of at least one month.
The analysis with higher values of cϑ , shown in the web appendix, reveals that the βj coefficient of the TCJ
specification is mildly significant for cϑ = 4 and not significant for cϑ = 5. This is not surprising, since as
we increase cϑ we get closer to the results obtained with bipower variation. We also estimate the HAR-CJ
model using the jumps detected via the z statistics (A.7), as in ABD, and compare it with the HAR-TCJ

25

model estimated with the jumps detected via the C-Tz statistics (2.24). The results, omitted here for brevity
and shown in the web appendix, indicate that in this case the difference between the two models is evenhigher and that the R2 and RM SE of the HAR-CJ model are drastically worse for higher α, signaling thedifficulty of bipower variation based test to identify larger jumps. When using the same jumps detected withthe less performing z statistics, results are qualitatively unchanged, but with milder significance of jumps
and with the two models performing more closely for the highest confidence levels.

6.2

Individual stocks

We analyze a sample of six individual stocks, chosen among the most liquid stocks of S&P500. The stocks are
Alcoa (aa), Citigroup (c), Intel (intc), Microsof (msft), Pfeizer (pfe) and Exxon-Mobil (xom). Our sample
starts on 2 January 2001 and ends on 30 December 2005, containing 1, 256 days per stock. Since these stocks
are traded very actively, we still use a sampling frequency of δ = 5 minutes, corresponding to 78 returns perday.
To save space, we focus on the most important quantities (the significance of the jump and the R2 andRM SE of the forecasting model both on the whole sample and conditioned on days after the occurrence ofa jump), which are reported in Table 6.2 for the square root model and Table 6.2 for the logarithmic model.
We report results for α = 99.9% and α = 99.99%.
The results are still clearly cut, even if the sample size of individual stocks is reduced by more than one
third with respect to S&P500 data. Jumps have a substantial impact in determining future volatility, when
this effect is measured by means of threshold multipower variation. The t statistics of the βj coefficientis always larger for the HAR-TCJ model than for the HAR-CJ model, and mostly significant both for thesquare root and the logarithmic model. On the whole sample, the performance, measured in terms of R2
and RM SE, of the two models is practically the same, but conditioned on the occurrence of a jump, there
is a clear advantage in using the HAR-TCJ model, especially in the square root specification.
Thus, the results obtained on the S&P500 portfolio are replicated on its most liquid constituents, indicatingthat the impact of jumps on future volatility is not peculiar to the S&P500 returns considered in the previous
Section, and suggesting that it may simply come from aggregation, at the portfolio level, of the same effectat the individual stock level.

26

Daily S&P500 Regression (C-Tz statistics)

HAR:
HAR-CJ:
HAR-TCJ:

RVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd RVt +βw RVt−5:t +βm RVt−22:t +εtbt + βw C
bt−5:t + βm C
bt−22:t + βj Jbt + εt
RVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd CddddRVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd T
C t + βw T
C t−5:t + βm T
C t−22:t + βj T
Jt + εt
1/2

RVt+1

β0

βd

βw

βm

RVt+1

log RVt+1

HAR

HAR-CJ

HAR-TCJHAR

HAR-CJ

HAR-TCJHAR

HAR-CJ

HAR-TCJ

34.20026.76223.259

0.981

0.901

0.767

0.252

0.272

0.284

(3.771)(3.363)(2.753)(3.951)(3.795)(3.298)(4.457)(4.866)(5.168)

0.220

0.378

0.420

0.323

0.371

0.421

0.334

0.336

0.356

(2.329)(5.736)(6.170)(6.347)(8.958)(11.954)(13.138)(13.140)(14.829)

0.321

0.263

0.298

0.336

0.317

0.307

0.358

0.356

0.341

(3.821)(3.157)(2.609)(6.075)(5.811)(5.427)(9.463)(9.398)(9.421)

0.313

0.288

0.253

0.269

0.260

0.238

0.257

0.257

0.253

(4.817)(4.786)(3.852)(6.842)(6.725)(6.103)(8.873)(8.959)(9.067)βj-0.581

0.045-0.101

0.096

0.007

0.055

(-2.968)(0.925)(-1.626)(2.653)(0.683)(6.384)

R2

0.339

0.374

0.387

0.583

0.592

0.604

0.679

0.681

0.684

MSE

0.330

0.315

0.302

0.269

0.266

0.260

0.247

0.246

0.243

J-R2

0.148

0.196

0.306

0.373

0.385

0.480

0.607

0.607

0.643

J-MSE

0.437

0.359

0.268

0.381

0.317

0.261

0.317

0.296

0.256

C-R2

0.375

0.394

0.399

0.609

0.613

0.616

0.686

0.687

0.688

C-MSE

0.322

0.311

0.304

0.259

0.262

0.260

0.242

0.242

0.242

Table 5: OLS estimate for daily (h = 1) HAR, HAR-CJ and HAR-TCJ volatility forecast
regressions for S&P500 futures from January 1990 to December 2004 (3,736 observations).
The significant daily jump are computed using a critical value of α = 99.9% and the C-Tz
statistics computed with cϑ = 3. Reported in parenthesis are the t-statistics based on NeweyWest correction with order 5.

27

Weekly S&P500 Regression

HAR:
HAR-CJ:
HAR-TCJ:

RVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd RVt +βw RVt−5:t +βm RVt−22:t +εtbt + βw C
bt−5:t + βm C
bt−22:t + βj Jbt + εt
RVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd CddddRVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd T
C t + βw T
C t−5:t + βm T
C t−22:t + βj T
Jt + εt
1/2

RVt+1

HAR

β0

βd

βw

βm

HAR-CJ

RVt+1

HAR-TCJHAR

HAR-CJ

log RVt+1

HAR-TCJHAR

HAR-CJ

HAR-TCJ

47.23141.19937.791

1.532

1.457

1.340

0.403

0.422

0.435

(4.324)(3.976)(3.375)(4.306)(4.223)(3.937)(4.790)(5.066)(5.332)

0.097

0.190

0.210

0.176

0.213

0.244

0.205

0.210

0.229

(1.892)(4.858)(4.402)(5.360)(7.925)(9.392)(11.742)(12.129)(13.815)

0.367

0.351

0.392

0.368

0.355

0.352

0.358

0.350

0.330

(4.676)(4.298)(3.564)(6.145)(5.995)(5.858)(8.179)(8.081)(8.001)

0.335

0.320

0.305

0.344

0.339

0.330

0.357

0.359

0.362

(4.901)(4.375)(3.707)(6.390)(6.203)(6.060)(8.601)(8.779)(9.205)-0.3940.007-0.1050.040-0.0050.031(-2.570)(0.378)(-2.425)(2.465)(-0.689)(6.190)

βj

R2

0.499

0.534

0.554

0.690

0.700

0.709

0.768

0.770

0.772

MSE

0.273

0.260

0.252

0.205

0.202

0.199

0.187

0.186

0.185

J-R2

0.475

0.464

0.445

0.649

0.639

0.632

0.733

0.732

0.729

J-MSE

0.277

0.267

0.265

0.217

0.218

0.219

0.209

0.209

0.210

C-R2

0.506

0.545

0.568

0.695

0.706

0.716

0.771

0.773

0.776

C-MSE

0.273

0.259

0.251

0.205

0.201

0.198

0.186

0.184

0.183

Table 6: OLS estimate for weekly (h = 5) HAR, HAR-CJ and HAR-TCJ volatility forecast
regressions for S&P500 futures from January 1990 to December 2004 (3,736 observations).
The significant daily jump are computed using a critical value of α = 99.9%. Reported inparenthesis are the t-statistics based on Newey-West correction with order 10.

28

Monthly S&P500 Regression

HAR:
HAR-CJ:
HAR-TCJ:

RVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd RVt +βw RVt−5:t +βm RVt−22:t +εtbt + βw C
bt−5:t + βm C
bt−22:t + βj Jbt + εt
RVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd CddddRVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd T
C t + βw T
C t−5:t + βm T
C t−22:t + βj T
Jt + εt
1/2

RVt+1

HAR

β0

βd

βw

βm

HAR-CJ

RVt+1

HAR-TCJHAR

HAR-CJ

log RVt+1

HAR-TCJHAR

HAR-CJ

HAR-TCJ

78.41673.45570.663

2.872

2.797

2.688

0.753

0.767

0.774

(5.896)(5.623)(4.948)(5.872)(5.947)(5.862)(5.269)(5.469)(5.680)

0.061

0.124

0.129

0.109

0.135

0.149

0.126

0.130

0.138

(2.555)(5.292)(4.875)(5.914)(8.403)(9.179)(10.053)(10.516)(11.717)

0.219

0.206

0.242

0.279

0.272

0.279

0.266

0.261

0.250

(4.274)(3.742)(4.344)(5.547)(5.354)(5.366)(6.098)(6.019)(5.848)

0.386

0.386

0.385

0.401

0.400

0.397

0.458

0.460

0.466

(4.601)(4.316)(4.028)(6.392)(6.325)(6.405)(9.221)(9.322)(9.795)-0.284-0.002-0.0910.018-0.0100.016(-2.892)(-0.114)(-3.273)(1.441)(-1.738)(3.660)

βj

R2

0.471

0.500

0.517

0.650

0.659

0.668

0.739

0.743

0.747

MSE

0.300

0.290

0.285

0.209

0.206

0.205

0.187

0.186

0.185

J-R2

0.533

0.505

0.503

0.662

0.656

0.656

0.713

0.719

0.721

J-MSE

0.308

0.301

0.302

0.221

0.218

0.219

0.197

0.195

0.194

C-R2

0.467

0.500

0.519

0.649

0.660

0.669

0.741

0.745

0.748

C-MSE

0.299

0.289

0.284

0.209

0.205

0.204

0.187

0.185

0.184

Table 7: OLS estimate for monthly (h = 22) HAR, HAR-CJ and HAR-TCJ volatility
forecast regressions for S&P500 futures from January 1990 to December 2004 (3,736 observations). The significant daily jump are computed using a critical value of α = 99.9%.
Reported in parenthesis are the t-statistics based on Newey-West correction with order 44.

29

HAR:

RVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd RVt +βw RVt−5:t +βm RVt−22:t +εt
RVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd Ĉt + βw Ĉt−5:t + βm Ĉt−22:t + βj Jˆt + εt

HAR-CJ:
HAR-TCJ:

Stock

aa

c

intc

α (%)

xom

HAR-CJ

HAR-TCJHAR

HAR-CJ

HAR-TCJ

0.597

0.601

0.596

0.247

0.245

0.245

(0.534)(0.559)(0.569)(0.314)(0.292)(0.289)

0.597

0.601

0.597

0.247

0.245

0.245

(0.411)(0.454)(0.484)(0.319)(0.262)(0.257)

0.723

0.731

0.733

0.248

0.244

0.244

(0.770)(0.775)(0.820)(0.324)(0.239)(0.217)

0.723

0.732

0.731

0.248

0.244

0.244

(0.830)(0.854)(0.856)(0.361)(0.231)(0.219)99.99

68-0.147

2.473

99.9

105

-0.458

3.494

99.99

59

-0.937

3.139

99.9

99.9

43

92

48

131

(J-RM SE)

HAR

3.684

78

RM SE

(J-R2 )

HAR-TCJ

1.086

99.9

R2

HAR-CJ

121

99.99

pfe

βj t-stat

99.9

99.99

msft

Jumps

RVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd TˆC t + βw TˆC t−5:t + βm TˆC t−22:t + βj TˆJt + εt

2.706

1.483

0.611

0.661

0.500

4.925

3.461

2.721

2.567

3.109

99.99

83

0.877

2.968

99.9

98

0.051

2.892

99.99

54

0.108

2.411

0.774

0.774

0.773

0.226

0.226

0.226

(0.828)(0.833)(0.837)(0.227)(0.218)(0.214)

0.774

0.774

0.774

0.226

0.226

0.225

(0.786)(0.794)(0.803)(0.257)(0.235)(0.230)

0.748

0.749

0.749

0.242

0.242

0.241

(0.752)(0.753)(0.760)(0.311)(0.279)(0.265)

0.748

0.748

0.748

0.242

0.242

0.241

(0.652)(0.643)(0.674)(0.363)(0.332)(0.311)

0.481

0.488

0.491

0.287

0.281

0.281

(0.630)(0.650)(0.680)(0.368)(0.297)(0.272)

0.481

0.487

0.489

0.287

0.282

0.281

(0.609)(0.651)(0.677)(0.407)(0.318)(0.289)

0.674

0.678

0.681

0.237

0.236

0.235

(0.791)(0.778)(0.806)(0.239)(0.205)(0.191)

0.674

0.677

0.680

0.237

0.235

0.235

(0.749)(0.730)(0.776)(0.289)(0.246)(0.224)

Table 8: Reports number of jumps, t-stat on βj , R2 , RM SE, J − R2 and J − RM SE
for daily (h = 1) square root version of HAR, HAR-CJ and HAR-TCJ volatility forecast
regressions on six single stocks . The significant daily jump are computed using a criticalvalue of α = 0.999 and α = 0.9999 as reported, with the C-Tz statistics.

30

HAR:

RVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd RVt +βw RVt−5:t +βm RVt−22:t +εt
RVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd Ĉt + βw Ĉt−5:t + βm Ĉt−22:t + βj Jˆt + εt

HAR-CJ:
HAR-TCJ:

Stock

aa

c

intc

α (%)

xom

HAR-CJ

HAR-TCJHAR

HAR-CJ

HAR-TCJ

0.581

0.585

0.577

0.234

0.232

0.234

(0.531)(0.540)(0.529)(0.283)(0.267)(0.261)

0.581

0.585

0.578

0.234

0.232

0.234

(0.436)(0.463)(0.460)(0.279)(0.246)(0.244)

0.815

0.818

0.817

0.233

0.230

0.231

(0.792)(0.804)(0.825)(0.281)(0.230)(0.209)

0.815

0.819

0.818

0.233

0.230

0.230

(0.810)(0.828)(0.845)(0.304)(0.229)(0.212)99.99

68-0.556

1.818

99.9

105

0.069

4.105

99.99

59

-0.202

4.183

99.9

99.9

43

92

48

131

(J-RM SE)

HAR

2.618

78

RM SE

(J-R2 )

HAR-TCJ

0.684

99.9

R2

HAR-CJ

121

99.99

pfe

βj t-stat

99.9

99.99

msft

Jumps

RVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd TˆC t + βw TˆC t−5:t + βm TˆC t−22:t + βj TˆJt + εt

3.101

1.866

0.197

0.456

0.422

4.908

3.958

2.130

1.859

2.987

99.99

83

0.420

2.612

99.9

98

0.604

2.687

99.99

54

0.451

2.147

0.804

0.804

0.800

0.214

0.215

0.216

(0.823)(0.829)(0.828)(0.215)(0.199)(0.206)

0.804

0.804

0.802

0.214

0.214

0.215

(0.790)(0.807)(0.813)(0.244)(0.218)(0.225)

0.796

0.796

0.795

0.227

0.227

0.227

(0.738)(0.728)(0.741)(0.286)(0.262)(0.246)

0.796

0.795

0.794

0.227

0.227

0.227

(0.605)(0.593)(0.620)(0.335)(0.313)(0.294)

0.540

0.545

0.544

0.263

0.261

0.261

(0.574)(0.583)(0.601)(0.310)(0.268)(0.241)

0.540

0.544

0.543

0.263

0.261

0.260

(0.526)(0.550)(0.588)(0.339)(0.283)(0.253)

0.681

0.683

0.681

0.234

0.233

0.234

(0.768)(0.764)(0.767)(0.213)(0.194)(0.188)

0.681

0.683

0.682

0.234

0.233

0.233

(0.720)(0.708)(0.716)(0.256)(0.229)(0.216)

Table 9: Reports number of jumps, t-stat on βj , R2 , RM SE, J − R2 and J − RM SE
for daily (h = 1) logarithmic version of HAR, HAR-CJ and HAR-TCJ volatility forecast
regressions on six single stocks . The significant daily jump are computed using a criticalvalue of α = 0.999 and α = 0.9999 as reported, with the C-Tz statistics.

31

6.3

Bond data and the no-trade bias

Finally, we use a sample of 30-years US Treasury Bond futures from January 1990 to October 2003 for a
total of 3, 231 daily data points. All the relevant volatility and jump measures are computed again with
five-minutes returns, corresponding to 84 returns per day.
The first thing we note on bond data is an unnaturally high number of jumps. At the 99.9% confidence
level, the C-Tz statistics detects 570 jumps, corresponding to the 17.6 % of our sample. Visual inspection oftime series data reveals that in most of these days there are not jumps at all, but many intervals with zero
return instead.
The problem hinges from what we could call the no-trade bias of bipower variation. This can be explained
as follows. Suppose that data are not recorded continuously but, more realistically, that they are recorded
discretely. Denote by δ̄ the minimum distance between two subsequent observations. By construction, ifδ < δ̄, then MPVδ = 0 identically! Clearly, also TMPVδ = 0. This simple reasoning also explains why thepresence of null returns caused by absence of trading (stale price) in that interval induces a downward bias inmultipower variation measures. Note that realized volatility is immune from this bias instead. Moreover, thisbias has a larger impact on the jump detecting statistics, pointing toward rejection of the null. For example,
when considering the z statistics, this bias lowers both the BPV and TriPV measure, with the joint effect ofincreasing the numerator and decreasing the denominator, thus increasing the statistics considerably.
In our paper, this problem does not affect the S&P500 index, neither the stocks considered in our empiricalanalysis. However, it may affect US bond data, which are largely less liquid. Indeed, the percentage of zero
5-minutes return in bond data is very high, nearly 30%.
We accommodate this problem as follows: for bond data, we compute the C-Tz statistics using only returns
different from zero. Clearly, this biases the test toward the null, meaning that the detected jumps are thosewhich have a larger impact for the statistics. With this correction the number of significant jumps with
α = 99.9% reduced to 112 representing 3.4% of the sample.
Relevant estimation results for bond data when forecasting daily, weekly and monthly volatility are shownin Table 10 for α = 99.9%. Corresponding quantities for other values of α are shown in Figure 8. We findthat the HAR-TCJ model outperforms the HAR-CJ model. This is true even if the impact of the jump
on future volatility is generally insignificant, but nevertheless not negatively significant as for the HAR-CJ
estimates. An explanation for this finding might be that jumps in the bond market are less “surprising”
with respect to those in the stock markets, since most of them are related to scheduled macroeconomic
announcements. Indeed, related studies, for example Bollerslev et al. (2000), find two intraday spikes athours in which announcements are released. However, regarding forecasting, we confirm the results on
S&P500 and individual stocks.
32

US Bond Regressions (C-Tz statistics)
HAR:
HAR-CJ:
HAR-TCJ:
RVt+1
HAR

HAR-CJ

RVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd RVt +βw RVt−5:t +βm RVt−22:t +εtbt + βw C
bt−5:t + βm C
bt−22:t + βj Jbt + εt
RVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd CddddRVt+1:t+h = β0 + βd T
C t + βw T
C t−5:t + βm T
C t−22:t + βj T
Jt + εt
1/2

RVt+1

HAR-TCJHAR

HAR-CJ

log RVt+1

HAR-TCJHAR

HAR-CJ

HAR-TCJ

Daily forecasts

βj-0.0950.017-0.0380.029-0.0100.022(-2.050)(0.711)(-1.339)(1.355)(-0.692)(1.813)

R2

0.124

0.143

0.145

0.204

0.215

0.217

0.250

0.255

0.258

MSE

0.349

0.340

0.339

0.308

0.303

0.302

0.283

0.281

0.280

J-R2

0.034

0.056

0.051

0.067

0.077

0.078

0.088

0.086

0.097

J-MSE

0.486

0.375

0.343

0.413

0.337

0.326

0.355

0.316

0.309

C-R2

0.133

0.146

0.148

0.211

0.219

0.222

0.256

0.261

0.264

C-MSE

0.343

0.339

0.339

0.303

0.302

0.301

0.280

0.280

0.279

Weekly forecasts

βj-0.071

0.012-0.0500.013-0.026

0.007(-3.182)(1.324)(-3.363)(1.301)(-3.225)(1.101)

R2

0.295

0.336

0.343

0.415

0.439

0.445

0.472

0.487

0.492

MSE

0.206

0.197

0.196

0.174

0.170

0.169

0.163

0.161

0.160

J-R2

0.126

0.146

0.156

0.261

0.277

0.289

0.334

0.340

0.353

J-MSE

0.162

0.159

0.158

0.176

0.175

0.177

0.197

0.197

0.199

C-R2

0.312

0.356

0.365

0.426

0.451

0.458

0.480

0.494

0.500

C-MSE

0.208

0.199

0.197

0.174

0.170

0.169

0.162

0.160

0.159

Monthly forecasts

βj-0.0590.001-0.049-0.002-0.026-0.002(-3.999)(0.206)(-4.597)(-0.279)(-4.372)(-0.537)

R2

0.333

0.383

0.396

0.433

0.466

0.481

0.488

0.509

0.522

MSE

0.168

0.160

0.157

0.135

0.131

0.130

0.128

0.126

0.126

J-R2

0.334

0.345

0.357

0.430

0.454

0.482

0.467

0.487

0.513

J-MSE

0.145

0.138

0.130

0.122

0.119

0.116

0.124

0.123

0.124

C-R2

0.332

0.384

0.398

0.433

0.466

0.481

0.488

0.509

0.522

C-MSE

0.169

0.160

0.158

0.136

0.131

0.130

0.128

0.127

0.126

Table 10: OLS (partial) estimates for daily (h = 1), weekly (h = 5), monthly (h = 22)
HAR, HAR-CJ and HAR-TCJ volatility forecast regressions for US Bond from January 1990
to December 2004 (3,736 observations). The significant daily jump are computed using a
critical value of α = 99.9% and the C-Tz statistics. Reported in parenthesis are the tstatistics based on Newey-West correction.

33

2

1

tstat − βj − RV

2

1
0
−1

3

0

HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ−1

1
HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ

0

99.4

99.6

99.8

100

2

99.2

99.4

99.6

2

R − RV

0.15

−3
99

HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ

−1

−2

99.2

tstat − βj − log RV

2

1

−2
−3
99

tstat − βj − RV 2

R − RV

0.22

1
2

99.8

100

−2
99

99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

100

R2 − log RV

0.262
0.26

0.145
0.215

0.258

0.14

0.256
0.135

0.21
0.254

0.13
0.125

HAR
HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ

0.12
99

99.2

0.352
0.35
0.348

99.4

0.205

99.6

99.8

100

RM SE (%) − RV

0.2
99
0.309
0.308

HAR
HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ

0.307

0.346

0.306

0.344

0.305

0.342

0.304

0.34

0.303

0.338
99

99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

100

0.302
99

HAR
HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ
99.2

99.4

0.252
0.25
99.6

99.8

RM SE (%) − RV

1
2

100

0.248
99
0.284

HAR
HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ

0.283

HAR
HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ
99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

100

RM SE (%) − log RV
HAR
HAR−CJ
HAR−TCJ

0.282

0.281

99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

100

0.28
99

99.2

99.4

99.6

99.8

Figure 8: Reports the t statistics of the coefficient βj , the R2 and the RM SE for the threemodels estimated on US Bond data, for both the HAR-CJ and HAR-TCJ versions, as afunction of the confidence level used for detecting jumps with the C-Tz statistics.

34

100

Summarizing, our empirical findings further corroborate the theoretical and simulation results in the previous
sections on the superior performance of the threshold method in separating and estimating the continuousand jump components of the price process. Moreover, they show that, once the two components are correctly
measured and separated, the impact of past jumps on future realized volatility is positive and significant.

7

Conclusions

This paper shows that dividing volatility into jumps and continuous variation yields a substantial improvement in volatility forecasting, because of the positive impact of past jumps on future volatility. This important result has been obscured in the literature since, in finite samples, measures based on multipower
variation are largely biased in the presence of jumps. We uncover this effect by modifying bipower variation
with the help of threshold estimation techniques. We show that the newly defined estimator is robust to
the presence of jumps and quite unelastic with respect to the choice of the threshold. Our empirical results,
obtained on US stock index, single stocks and Treasury bond data, also show that jumps can be effectively
detected using the newly proposed C-Tz statistics. The models we propose provide a superior forecasting
ability, especially in days which follow the occurrence of a jump. The forecasting power on subsequent
volatilities extends for a period of at least one month. Clearly, this finding can be of great importance forrisk management and other financial applications involving volatility estimation.
These findings can also be important for the following reason. Recently, the financial econometrics literature
focused on the separation of the quadratic variation in its discontinuous and continuous part. While ingenuous, sophisticated and fascinating theories have been contrived to this purpose, these had still little impact
on empirical applications. Our study contributes to showing that the above mentioned separation theories(multipower variation, threshold estimation) can indeed be very useful in practical applications, since thetwo components seem to have different dynamics, with the continuous one being determined endogenously
in the market by heterogeneous agents, and the discontinuous one being exogenous and basically unpredictable. Moreover, the correlation between jumps and future volatility can be helpful not only for practicalapplications, but also in the comprehension of the price formation mechanism. Some papers, like Eraker
et al. (2003); Liu et al. (2003); Broadie et al. (2007); Todorov and Tauchen (2006) develop models which areconsistent with our findings. Still, an economic theory explaining our findings may represent an interesting
direction for future research.

35

ReferencesAı̈t-Sahalia, Y. (2004). Disentangling diffusion from jumps. Journal of Financial Economics 74, 487–528.
Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y. and J. Jacod (2007). Volatility estimators for discretely sampled Lévy processes. Annals of
Statistics 35, 355–392.
Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y. and J. Jacod (2008). Testing for jumps in a discretely observed process. Annals of Statistics.
Forthcoming.
Aı̈t-Sahalia, Y. and L. Mancini (2008). Out of sample forecasts of quadratic variation. Journal of Econometrics. Forthcoming.
Andersen, T., L. Benzoni, and J. Lund (2002). An empirical investigation of continuous-time equity return
models. Journal of Finance 57, 1239–1284.
Andersen, T., T. Bollerslev, and F. Diebold (2007). Roughing it up: Including jump components in themeasurement, modeling and forecasting of return volatility. Review of Economics and Statistics 89, 701–
720.
Andersen, T., T. Bollerslev, F. Diebold, and H. Ebens (2001). The distribution of realized stock volatility.
Journal of Financial Economics 61, 43–76.
Andersen, T., T. Bollerslev, F. Diebold, and P. Labys (2001). The distribution of realized exchange rate
volatility. Journal of the American Statistical Association 96, 42–55.
Andersen, T., T. Bollerslev, and F. X. Diebold (2003). Parametric and nonparametric volatility measurement.
In L. P. Hansen and Y. Ait-Sahalia (Eds.), Handbook of Financial Econometrics. Amsterdam: NorthHolland.
Andersen, T., T. Bollerslev, and D. Dobrev (2006). No-arbitrage semi-martingale restrictions for continuoustime volatility models subject to leverage effect and jumps: Theory and testable distributional implications.
Journal of Econometrics. Forthcoming.
Bandi, F. and T. Nguyen (2003). On the functional estimation of jump-diffusion models. Journal of Econometrics 116, 293–328.
Banerjee, A. and G. Urga (2005). Modelling structural breaks, long memory and stock market volatility: an
overview. Journal of Econometrics 129 (1-2), 1–34.
Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E., E. Graversen, J. Jacod, M. Podolskij, and N. Shephard (2006). A central limit
theorem for realised power and bipower variations of continuous semimartingales. In From Stochastic
Analysis to Mathematical Finance, Festschrift for Albert Shiryaev, pp. 33–68.

36

Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E., E. Graversen, J. Jacod, and N. Shephard (2006). Limit theorems for bipower
variation in financial econometrics. Econometric Theory 22, 677–719.
Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E. and N. Shephard (2004). Power and bipower variation with stochastic volatility
and jumps. Journal of Financial Econometrics 2, 1–48.
Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E. and N. Shephard (2006). Econometrics of testing for jumps in financial economics
using bipower variation. Journal of Financial Econometrics 4, 1–30.
Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E. and N. Shephard (2007). Variation, jumps, market frictions and high frequency
data in financial econometrics. In Advances in Economics and Econometrics. Theory and Applications,Ninth World Congress, pp. 328–372. Cambridge University Press.
Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E., N. Shephard, and M. Winkel (2006). Limit theorems for multipower variation in
the presence of jumps. Stochastic Processes and Their Applications 116, 798–806.
Bates, D. (2000). Post-’87 crash fears in the S&P 500 futures option market. Journal of Econometrics 94,
181–238.
Bollerslev, T., J. Cai, and F. Song (2000). Intraday periodicity, long memory volatility and macroeconomic
announcement effects in the US Treasury bond market. Journal of Empirical Finance 7, 37–55.
Bollerslev, T., U. Kretschmer, C. Pigorsch, and G. Tauchen (2007). A Discrete-Time Model for Daily S&P500
Returns and Realized Variations: Jumps and Leverage Effects. Journal of Econometrics. Forthcoming.
Bollerslev, T., T. H. Law, and G. Tauchen (2007). Risk, jumps and diversification. Journal of Econometrics.
Forthcoming.
Broadie, M., M. Chernov, and M. Johannes (2007). Model Specification and Risk Premia: Evidence from
Futures Options. The Journal of Finance 62 (3), 1453–1490.
Buraschi, A., F. Trojani, and A. Vedolin (2007). The Joint Behavior of Credit Spreads, Stock Options andEquity Returns when Investors Disagree. Working paper.
Busch, T., B. Christensen, and M. Nielsen (2006). The role of implied volatility in forecasting future realized
volatility and jumps in foreign exchange, stock, and bond markets. Working Paper, CAF, Centre forAnalytical Finance.
Chernov, M., R. Gallant, E. Ghysels, and G. Tauchen (2003). Alternative models for stock price dynamics.
Journal of Econometrics 116 (1), 225–258.
Christensen, K., R. Oomen, and M. Podoslkij (2008). Realised quantile-based estimation of the integrated
variance. Working paper.

37

Clements, M., A. Galvão, and J. Kim (2008). Quantile Forecasts of Daily Exchange Rate Returns from
Forecasts of Realized Volatility. Journal of Empirical Finance. Forthcoming.
Cont, R. and P. Tankov (2004). Financial Modelling with Jump Processes. Chapman & Hall - CRC.
Corsi, F. (2004). A simple long memory model of realized volatility. Manuscript.
Corsi, F., S. Mittnik, C. Pigorsch, and U. Pigorsch (2008). The volatility of realized volatility. Econometric
Reviews 27 (1-3), 1–33.
Das, S. (2002). The surprise element: Jumps in interest rates. Journal of Econometrics 106, 27–65.
Das, S. and R. Uppal (2004). Systemic Risk and International Portfolio Choice. The Journal of Finance 59 (6), 2809–2834.
Duffie, D., J. Pan, and K. Singleton (2002). Transform analysis and asset pricing for affine junp-diffusions.
Econometrica 68, 1343–1376.
Eraker, B. (2004). Do Stock Prices and Volatility Jump? Reconciling Evidence from Spot and Option Prices.
The Journal of Finance 59 (3), 1367–1404.
Eraker, B., M. Johannes, and N. Polson (2003). The impact of jumps in equity index volatility and returns.
Journal of Finance 58, 1269–1300.
Fan, J. and Y. Wang (2007). Multi-scale jump and volatility analysis for high-frequency financial data.
Journal of the American Statistical Association 102, 1349–1362.
Fan, J. and Q. Yao (2003). Nonlinear time series. Springer.
Forsberg, L. and E. Ghysels (2007). Why do absolute returns predict volatility so well? Journal of Financial
Econometrics 5, 31–67.
Geman, H. and A. Roncoroni (2006). Understanding the fine structure of electricity prices. Journal ofBusiness 79 (3), 1225–1261.
Ghysels, E., P. Santa-Clara, and R. Valkanov (2006). Predicting volatility: getting the most out of returndata sampled at different frequencies. Journal of Econometrics 131 (1-2), 59–95.
Giot, P. and S. Laurent (2007). The information content of implied volatility in light of the jump/continuous
decomposition of realized volatility. Journal of Future Markets 27 (4), 337.
Huang, X. and G. Tauchen (2005). The relative contribution of jumps to total price variance. Journal of
Financial Econometrics 3 (4), 456–499.
Jacod, J. (2008). Asymptotic properties of realized power variations and associated functionals of semimartingales. Stochastic processes and their applications 118, 517–559.
38

Jiang, G. and R. Oomen (2006). A new test for jumps in asset prices. Working Paper.
Johannes, M. (2004). The statistical and economic role of jumps in continuous-time interest rate models.
Journal of Finance 59, 227–260.
Knittel, C. R. and M. Roberts (2005). An empirical examination of deregulated electricity prices. Energy
Economics 27 (5), 791–817.
Kristensen, D. (2007). Nonparametric filtering of the realised spot volatility: a kernel-based approach.
Working paper.
Lee, S. and P. Mykland (2007). Jumps in financial markets: A new nonparametric test and jump clustering.
Review of Financial Studies. Forthcoming.
Liu, J., F. Longstaff, and J. Pan (2003). Dynamic Asset Allocation with Event Risk. The Journal of
Finance 58 (1), 231–259.
Maheu, J. and T. McCurdy (2004). News arrival, jump dynamics and volatility components for individual
stock returns. Journal of Finance 59 (2), 755–793.
Maheu, J. and T. McCurdy (2006). Do high-frequency measures of volatility improve forecasts of return
distributions? Working paper.
Mancini, C. (2007). Non-parametric threshold estimation for models with stochastic diffusion coefficient andjumps. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics. Forthcoming.
Mancini, C. and R. Renò (2006). Threshold estimation of jump-diffusion models and interest rate modeling.
Manuscript, University of Florence and University of Siena.
McAleer, M. and M. Medeiros (2006). Realized volatility: a review, forthcoming in Econometric Reviews.
Econometric Reviews. Forthcoming.
Muller, U., M. Dacorogna, R. Davé, R. Olsen, O. Pictet, and J. von Weizsacker (1997). Volatilities of different
time resolutions - analyzing the dynamics of market components. Journal of Empirical Finance 4, 213–239.
Pan, J. (2002). The jump-risk premia implicit in options: Evidence from an integrated time series study.
Journal of Financial Economics 63, 3–50.
Patton, A. (2006). Volatility Forecast Evaluation and Comparison Using Imperfect Volatility Proxies. Unpublished paper: Department of Accounting and Finance, LSE.
Podolskij, M. and M. Vetter (2006). Estimation of volatility functionals in the simultaneous presence of
microstructure noise and jumps. Working Paper.
Protter, P. (1990). Stochastic Integration and Differential Equations. Springer-Verlag.
39

Renò, R., A. Roma, and S. Schaefer (2006). A comparison of alternative nonparametric estimators of the
diffusion coefficient. Economic Notes 35 (3), 227–252.
Shalen, C. T. (1993). Volume, volatility and dispersion of beliefs. Review of Financial Studies 6, 405–434.
Silverman, B. W. (1986). Density Estimation for Statistics and Data Analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Todorov, V. and G. Tauchen (2006). Simulation methods for Levy-driven CARMA stochastic volatility
models. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 24, 455–469.
Wand, M. P. and M. C. Jones (1995). Kernel smoothing. Chapman & Hall.
Wang, J. (1994). A model of competitive stock trading volume. Journal of Political Economy 102, 127–168.
Woerner, J. (2006). Power and multipower variation: inference for high frequency data. In A. N. Shiryaev,
M. do Rosario Grossinho, P. Oliveira, and M. Esquivel (Eds.), Stochastic Finance, pp. 343–364. Springer.
Wright, J. and H. Zhou (2007). Bond risk premia and realized jump volatility. Working paper, Federal
Reserve Board.

40

A

Quarticity estimators and jump detection statistics

For estimation of the integrated quarticity, the literature focused on the following quantities:[T /δ][1,1,1,1]

QPVδ (X)t = µ−4
1 · MPVδ (X)t

= µ−4
1

1 X
|∆j−3 X| · |∆j−2 X| · |∆j−1 X| · |∆j X| −→
δ→0
δ j=4

and

[T /δ][4,4,4]

3 3 3
TriPVδ (X)t = µ−3= µ−3
4 · MPVδ (X)t4
3

3

where µ 4 ≃ 0.8309.

4
4
4
1 X
|∆j−2 X| 3 · |∆j−1 X| 3 · |∆j X| 3 −→
δ→0
δ j=3

Z t+T
t

Z t+T
t

σs4 dsσs4 ds

(A.1)

(A.2)

3

Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard (2006) develop a theory, based on multipower variation, that allows to test for the presence ofjumps in a time window [0, T ] with the desired level of significance. The following proposition defines the proper statistic totest for jumps.

Proposition A.1 (Barndorff-Nielsen and Shephard (2006)) Assume that:
1. ct dNt = 0 in model (2.1).
2. The volatility process is bounded away from zero.
3. The joint process (µ, σ) is independent of the Brownian motion W driving the variable X.
then, as δ → 0, we have:

1

δ− 2
G=

and

“
”
[1,1]
− RVδ (X)Tµ−2
1 MPVδ (X)Tq R
→L N (0, 1)ϑ̄ 0T σs4 ds
1

δ− 2
H=

„

2

with ϑ̄ = π4 + π − 5.

[1,1]

µ−2
1 MPVδ (X)T
RVδ (X)T

r
ϑ̄

RT

4 ds
σs
R0
( 0T σs2 ds)2«
−1

→L N (0, 1) ,

(A.3)

(A.4)

The same results with weaker assumptions have been reached by Barndorff-Nielsen et al. (2006). Proposition (A.1) is based onR[1,1]= µ21 0T σs2 ds and thus combining this result with equation (2.5) we have that:the fact that p − limδ→0 MPVδ (X)T

[1,1]

µ−2
1 MPVδ (X)T

− RVδ (X)T →p −

[1,1]

µ−2
1 MPVδ (X)T
RVδ (X)T− 1 →p − R T

NT
X

j=1

c2j ≤ 0,PNT

2
j=1 cjPNT 2 ≤ 0.
j=1 cj2
0 σs ds +

(A.5)

(A.6)

A feasible jump test can be now constructed using multipower estimators of the integrated quarticity given by equations(A.1)-(A.2). In their study, ABD use the test:
z=δ

1
−2

`
´
RVδ (X)T − BPVδ (X)T · RVδ (X)−1
T
s
,
ﬀ

ϑ̄ max 1,(A.7)

TriPVδ (X)T(BPVδ (X)T )2Monte Carlo studies of Huang and Tauchen (2005) showed that the statistics G and H in Proposition A.1 have a better power
if implemented in their logarithmic forms. We then define the logarithmic jump test statistics as follows:41

1

z1 = δ − 21

z2 = δ − 2

log RVδ (X)T − log BPVδ (X)Tr,
QPVδ (X)Tϑ̄
(BPVδ (X)T )2(A.8)

log RVδ (X)T − log BPVδ (X)Tr.
TriPVδ (X)Tϑ̄
2
(BPVδ (X)T )(A.9)

In what follows, we will use the following special cases of threshold multipower variation, which are the counterparts of (A.1)
and (A.2):[1,1,1,1]

TQPVδ (X)t = µ−4
1 · TMPVδ (X)t

−→

δ→0

[4,4,4]3 3 3
TTriPVδ (X)t = µ−3−→
4 · TMPVδ (X)t

δ→0

3

Z t+T
t

Z t+T
t

σs4 ds,(A.10)

σs4 ds.

(A.11)The theory of threshold multipower variation allows for additional tests, which are the natural counterparts of the statistics(A.8),(A.9). We then introduce the corresponding threshold z statistics, defined as:`´
RVδ (X)T − TBPVδ (X)T · RVδ (X)−11Ts,Tz = δ − 2ﬀ

TTriPVδ (X)Tϑ̄ max 1,(TBPVδ (X)T )2
1

log RVδ (X)T − log TBPVδ (X)Tr.
TQPVδ (X)Tϑ̄2
(TBPVδ (X)T )1

log RVδ (X)T − log TBPVδ (X)Tr.
TTriPVδ (X)Tϑ̄
(TBPVδ (X)T )2

Tz1 = δ − 2

Tz2 = δ − 2(A.12)(A.13)(A.14)and their corrected versions, which performs well under the null of no jumps, as discussed in Section 2.4:
1

log RVδ (X)T − log C-TBPVδ (X)Tr,
C-TQPVδ (X)Tϑ̄
2
(C-TBPVδ (X)T )1

log RVδ (X)T − log C-TBPVδ (X)Tr.
C-TTriPVδ (X)Tϑ̄
(C-TBPVδ (X)T )2

C-Tz1 = δ − 2

C-Tz2 = δ − 2

42(A.15)(A.16)