0

Assume we have a set of $N$ random variables with known multivariate distribution $\boldsymbol{X}\sim\mathcal{N}(\boldsymbol{\mu},\boldsymbol{\Sigma})$, and a series of realisations $\{\boldsymbol{X_t}\}=\{x_{1,t},x_{2,t},\dots,x_{N,t}\}$ for $t=1,2,\dots,T$.

At each time time $t$ we can calculate the cross-sectional mean $\mu^{cs}_t=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N(x_{i,t})$ and the cross-sectional volatility: \begin{equation} \sigma^{cs}_t = \sqrt{\frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^N(x_{i,t}-\mu^{cs}_t)^2}, \end{equation}

and hence we have the time series of cross-sectional values $\{\boldsymbol{\mu^{cs}_t}\}$ and $\{\boldsymbol{\sigma^{cs}_t}\}$.

Given the assumption of multivariate normality, is there an analytical solution for the limiting distribution of cross-sectional volatility (and mean)?

PS: the context is daily/weekly/monthly financial stock returns and then trying to model the cross-sectional volatility (a.k.a. return dispersion) over those same periods.

  • Are the $N$ random variables independent? – Abdoul Haki Aug 30 '21 at 13:40
  • Maybe but not necessarily. I have changed the notation to showcase multivariate normal distribution with a general covariance matrix $\Sigma$ – Emlyn Flint Aug 30 '21 at 14:16
  • @AbdoulHaki If Xs are stock returns then they can be safely assumed to be uncorrelated (though not independent) and their signs can be assumed to be independent in time as markets are quite efficient. – Cagdas Ozgenc Aug 30 '21 at 15:49
  • @CagdasOzgenc that is not a safe assumption at all. Stock are returns are definitely correlated through time. – Emlyn Flint Aug 31 '21 at 07:02
  • Stocks have contemporaneous correlation and almost nonexistent serial correlation. Please read carefully before you object. – Cagdas Ozgenc Aug 31 '21 at 19:42
  • With no serial correlation assumption (which is very reasonable) the distribution of variance is answered here https://math.stackexchange.com/a/442916/105543 and https://stats.stackexchange.com/a/96953/20980 with further simplifications if you assume $\mu$s to be 0 as well (which is also a very reasonable assumption) – Cagdas Ozgenc Aug 31 '21 at 20:02
  • @CagdasOzgenc The correlation distinction (which I fully agree with) was not clear in your first comment. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Thanks for linking the two answers. The generalised chi-squared should get me to where I need to be. – Emlyn Flint Sep 01 '21 at 09:31
  • I would however double check if zero serial correlation assumption is sufficient. Since we are dealing with squares independence assumption may be required (which is not true as we know from volatility clustering) – Cagdas Ozgenc Sep 01 '21 at 11:10

0 Answers0