beta estimate of high frequency data

22
Beta Estimate of High Frequency Data Angela Ryu Economics 201FS Honors Junior Workshop: Finance Duke University March 3, 2010

Upload: lanza

Post on 21-Jan-2016

17 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

DESCRIPTION

Beta Estimate of High Frequency Data. Angela Ryu Economics 201FS Honors Junior Workshop: Finance Duke University March 3, 2010. Data. XOM (Exxon Mobile) Dec 1 1999 – Jan 7 2009 (2264 days) GOOG (Google) Aug 20 2004 – Jan 7 2009 (1093 days) WMT (Wal-Mart) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

Beta Estimate of High Frequency Data

Angela Ryu

Economics 201FSHonors Junior Workshop: Finance

Duke University

March 3, 2010

Page 2: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

Data

• XOM (Exxon Mobile) – Dec 1 1999 – Jan 7 2009 (2264 days)

• GOOG (Google)– Aug 20 2004 – Jan 7 2009 (1093 days)

• WMT (Wal-Mart)– Apr 9 1997 – Jan 7 2009 (2921 days)

FOR ALL 3 stocks

Page 3: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

Motivation

• Multivariate Measures: Beta• Problem of balancing bias/precision– High frequency sampling:

biased, due to microstructure noise– Low frequency sampling:

imprecise• Theoretical approach requires more

background knowledge approach empirically!

Page 4: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

Preparation• Interday returns are excluded• Beta calculated from: (for βX = Y, X,Y stock

prices) • Sampling intervals: 1 to 20 minutes• Beta Calculation intervals: 1 to 50 days• Mean Squared Error calculated for each Beta interval

– MSE of GOOG(X) vs. XOM(Y) , 30 days interval?= Average of Squared Errors of each days predicted by using β

i.e. ypre_day31 = βday1_30 * xact_day31 SEday31 = (ypre_day31 – yact_day31 )2

ypre_day32 = βday2_31 * xact_day32 SEday32 = (ypre_day32 – yact_day32 )2

MSE30 = avg(SEday31 , SEday32 , ... SEday1093 )

Page 5: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

WMT vs. XOM (2 min.)

Page 6: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

WMT vs. XOM (5 min.)

Page 7: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

WMT vs. XOM (10 min.)

Page 8: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

WMT vs. XOM (15 min.)

Page 9: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

WMT vs. XOM (20 min.)

Page 10: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

XOM vs. WMT (2 min.)

Page 11: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

XOM vs. WMT (5 min.)

Page 12: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

XOM vs. WMT (10 min.)

Page 13: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

XOM vs. WMT (15 min.)

Page 14: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

XOM vs. WMT (20 min.)

Page 15: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

GOOG vs. WMT (2 min.)

Page 16: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

GOOG vs. WMT (5 min.)

Page 17: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

GOOG vs. WMT (10 min)

Page 18: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

GOOG vs. WMT (15 min.)

Page 19: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

GOOG vs. WMT (20 min.)

Page 20: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

Results

• 5 – 15 days interval for Beta gave least MSE for many stock pairs, for most sampling intervals

• As the sampling interval increased, MSE for shorter Beta intervals increased rapidly

• For 20 min. sampling interval, there is less increase of MSE as increase in Beta interval compared to shorter sampling intervals

Page 21: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

Analysis

• Against our intuition: why would more information harm prediction of the price?

• Possible interpretation– Given a sampling interval, after a certain range of

“information” gather for Beta estimation, say 5 – 15 days, more information distorts the prediction

– On the other hand, some short Beta intervals (e.g. 1 day, 2 days) for longer sampling intervals may be insufficient and result in high MSE

Page 22: Beta Estimate of  High Frequency Data

Questions & Further Steps

• Theoretical evidence? Any relevant papers?

• Is the estimator biased? Why?

• What is the role of Microstructure noise?

• Check calculations. Try with other stocks or possibly portfolios (industry/macroeconomic factors)

• Use Realized Beta and compare the results

Andersen, Bollerslev, Diebold and Wu (2003)