Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Relation between volatility correlations in financial markets and Omori processes occurring on all scales

Philipp Weber, Fengzhong Wang, Irena Vodenska-Chitkushev, Shlomo Havlin, and H. Eugene Stanley
Phys. Rev. E 76, 016109 – Published 24 July 2007

Abstract

We analyze the memory in volatility by studying volatility return intervals, defined as the time between two consecutive fluctuations larger than a given threshold, in time periods following stock market crashes. Such an aftercrash period is characterized by the Omori law, which describes the decay in the rate of aftershocks of a given size with time t by a power law with exponent close to 1. A shock followed by such a power law decay in the rate is here called Omori process. We find self-similar features in the volatility. Specifically, within the aftercrash period there are smaller shocks that themselves constitute Omori processes on smaller scales, similar to the Omori process after the large crash. We call these smaller shocks subcrashes, which are followed by their own aftershocks. We also show that the Omori law holds not only after significant market crashes as shown by Lillo and Mantegna [Phys. Rev. E 68, 016119 (2003)], but also after “intermediate shocks.” By appropriate detrending we remove the influence of the crashes and subcrashes from the data, and find that this procedure significantly reduces the memory in the records. Moreover, when studying long-term correlated fractional Brownian motion and autoregressive fractionally integrated moving average artificial models for volatilities, we find Omori-type behavior after high volatilities. Thus, our results support the hypothesis that the memory in the volatility is related to the Omori processes present on different time scales.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
1 More
  • Received 8 November 2006

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.76.016109

©2007 American Physical Society

Authors & Affiliations

Philipp Weber1,2, Fengzhong Wang1, Irena Vodenska-Chitkushev1, Shlomo Havlin1,3, and H. Eugene Stanley1

  • 1Center for Polymer Studies and Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA
  • 2Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität zu Köln, 50937 Köln, Germany
  • 3Minerva Center and Department of Physics, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 76, Iss. 1 — July 2007

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×

Images

  • Figure 1
    Figure 1
    (Color online) Comparison between volatility and the cumulative rate N(t) of volatilities (absolute 1min returns) larger than a threshold q. The plots show the 15000min (approximately two months) after the market crashes on (a) 11 September 1986, with q=3, (b) 19 October 1987, with q=4, and (c) 27 October 27 1997, with q=4. In each plot (large plots and insets), the empirically found cumulative rate N(t) is represented by the black solid line, whereas the dashed line shows a power law fit to the data in the respective plot. The volatility (gray solid line) is displayed as a moving average over 60min in order to suppress insignificant fluctuations. The insets show the self-similarity of the data set meaning that while the big crash in the beginning introduces a behavior following the Omori law, some of the aftershocks introduce again a similar behavior on a smaller scale.Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 2
    Figure 2
    (Color online) Memory in volatility return intervals for different thresholds before (left column) and after (right column) detrending the time series according to Eq. (3). The analysis is shown for (a) the S&P500 index in the two months after the crash on 19 October 1987 and (b) an index calculated from the 100 most frequently traded stocks from the TAQ data base after the crash of 27 October 1997. Removing the Omori law reduces the memory in the data sets, but some memory still exists.Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 3
    Figure 3
    (Color online) Memory in volatility return intervals for threshold q=3 for (a) the S&P500 index in the two months after the crash on 19 October 1987 and (b) for an index calculated from the 100 most frequently traded stocks from the TAQ data base after the crash of 27 October 1997. The conditional expectation value ττ0τ conditioned on the previous return interval τ0 is smaller than 1 if τ0 is below the median while ττ0τ>1 if τ0 is above the median, indicating the memory in the records (circles). The effect gradually weakens upon detrending the time series by removing the influence of the major crash (squares) and even further when removing some subcrashes (diamonds).Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 4
    Figure 4
    (Color online) Probability P(tτ0) that after a return interval τ0 the next volatility larger than a threshold q=4 [q=3 in (d)] occurs within time t. Here, τ0 belongs to either the 25% smallest values (τ0, circles) or the 25% largest values (τ0+, squares) of τ. The memory in the original time series (filled symbols) is reduced by detrending according to Eq. (3) (open symbols), but some of the memory still remains. The results are shown for (a) the S&P500 index after a crash on 11 September 1986, (b) the S&P500 index after the crash on 19 October 1987, (c) an index created from the 100 most frequently traded stocks from the TAQ database after the crash on 27 October 1997, and (d) General Electric (GE) stock after 11 September 2001.Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 5
    Figure 5
    (Color online) Autocorrelation function of the return interval time series for threshold (a),(c) q=1 and (b),(d) q=2. The first row (a),(b) shows results from the S&P500 index in the three months after the market crash on 19 October 1987, while the second row (c),(d) results from an index created from the 100 most frequently traded stocks from the TAQ database after the crash on 27 October 1997. The Omori law due to the market crash (original data, solid lines) induces correlations leading to an offset in the autocorrelation function which is removed in the detrended τ̃ (dashed lines), but the data still show some long-term correlations even after removing the influence of the Omori law. However, after further detrending with respect to some subcrashes (dotted line), the autocorrelation is further reduced. All lines are smoothed by a moving average over ten return intervals.Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 6
    Figure 6
    (Color online) (a) Cumulative rate N(t) of events larger than a threshold q averaged over the 1000min after 22 shocks between 11σ and 16σ in the S&P500 one minute time series of the years 1984 to 1989. The data for each shock is normalized by N(1000) in order to make different shocks comparable irrespective of the current trading activity. Each cumulative rate (solid lines) for different thresholds q can be well fitted by a power law (dashed line) according to Eq. (2). The curves are displayed for q=1,3,5,6, where the exponent grows from Ω=0.05 to Ω=0.45. Hence, the bottom curve corresponds to q=1 with the smallest Ω whereas the top curve represents q=6 with the largest Ω. (b) Omori law (solid lines) after a large shock in the simulation of an ARFIMA model with power law autocorrelations (exponent 0.19) and a cumulative distribution with power law tails (exponent 3). The exponent obtained for the Omori law by a power law fit, Eq. (2), (dashed line) ranges from Ω=0.32 to Ω=0.81 for q=1,,4 (bottom curve: q=1, top curve: q=4). (c) In the simulation of a fractional Brownian motion (fBm) with power law autocorrelations (exponent 0.36), a large shock is also followed by an Omori process (solid line). Here, the exponent ranges from Ω=0.22 to Ω=0.71 for q=1,,4 (bottom curve: q=1, top curve: q=4).Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 7
    Figure 7
    (Color online) Root mean square fluctuation F(s) obtained by the second order DFA method (DFA2) for the volatility in the 15000min following market crashes in (a) the S&P500 index on 11 September 1986 and (b) on 19 October 1987, as well as (c) the market crash on 27 October 1997 for an index created from TAQ data for 100 stocks. F(s) is divided by s0.5 to clarify the deviation from uncorrelated data. Compared to the original volatility v(t) (circles), the memory is reduced in the detrended records ṽ(t) (squares), and even further after also detrending some subcrashes in ṽ̃(t) (diamonds).Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 8
    Figure 8
    (Color online) Autocorrelation function of the volatility time series after detrending. Compared to the volatility time series after detrending the major crash (circles), detrending subcrashes (squares) further reduces the autocorrelations. The results are shown for (a) the S&P500 index after a crash on 11 September 1986, (b) the S&P500 index after the crash on 19 October 1987, (c) an index created from the 100 most frequently traded stocks from the TAQ database after the crash on 27 October 1997. The autocorrelation function of the original volatility time series is not shown because it is not meaningful as it is dominated by the influence of the market crash.Reuse & Permissions
×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review E

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×