Testing for One-Factor Models versus Stochastic Volatility Models



The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the testing procedure is outlined
and the relevant limit theory is derived. Section 3 reports the findings from a Monte Carlo exercise,
in order to assess the finite sample behavior of the proposed tests. Concluding remarks are given
in Section 4. All the proof are gathered in the Appendix.

In this paper, -p, -d and -a.s. denote respectively convergence in probability, in distribution
and almost sure convergence. We write 1
1. for the indicator function, |_wJ for the integer part of
w, I j for the identity matrix of dimension J and Z ~ MN (, ) to denote that the random variable
Z is distributed as a mixed normal.

2 Testing for One-Factor vs Stochastic Volatility Models

2.1 Set-Up

As discussed above, our objective is to device a data driven procedure for deciding between one-
factor diffusion models and stochastic volatility models, under minimal assumptions.

We consider the following class of one-factor diffusion models

d Xt = μ ( Xt )d t + σt d W1 ,t

σt = σ (Xt)                                              (1)

and the following class of stochastic volatility models

d Xt = μ ( Xt )d t + σt d W1 ,t
σt2 = g(ft)

dft = b(ft)dt+σ1(ft)dW2,t,                                 (2)

where ft is typically an unobservable state variable driven by a Brownian motion, W2,t, possibly but
not perfectly correlated with the Brownian motion driving
Xt , thus allowing for possible leverage
effects.

The models in (1) encompass the class of parametric specifications analyzed by Alt-Sahalia
(1996), and they also allows for generic nonlinearities. The models in (2) include the square root
stochastic volatility of Heston (1993), the Garch diffusion model (Nelson, 1990), the lognormal
stochastic volatility model of Hull and White (1987) and Wiggins (1987), and are also related to
the class of eigenfuction stochastic volatility models of Meddahi (2001). Note that
ft may be a
multidimensional process, thus allowing for multifactor stochastic volatility processes. Also, the
one-factor model may be possibly nested within the stochastic volatility model, in the sense that we
can allow for the specification
σt2 = σ2 (Xt) g(ft). Andersen and Lund (1997) and Durham (2003)



More intriguing information

1. Feeling Good about Giving: The Benefits (and Costs) of Self-Interested Charitable Behavior
2. The name is absent
3. Revisiting The Bell Curve Debate Regarding the Effects of Cognitive Ability on Wages
4. EXPANDING HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE U.K: FROM ‘SYSTEM SLOWDOWN’ TO ‘SYSTEM ACCELERATION’
5. The name is absent
6. The Determinants of Individual Trade Policy Preferences: International Survey Evidence
7. Foreword: Special Issue on Invasive Species
8. Review of “From Political Economy to Economics: Method, the Social and Historical Evolution of Economic Theory”
9. The name is absent
10. The name is absent
11. The name is absent
12. Bridging Micro- and Macro-Analyses of the EU Sugar Program: Methods and Insights
13. Quality practices, priorities and performance: an international study
14. Testing Panel Data Regression Models with Spatial Error Correlation
15. LOCAL CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICE
16. The name is absent
17. Prizes and Patents: Using Market Signals to Provide Incentives for Innovations
18. The name is absent
19. The name is absent
20. Centre for Longitudinal Studies