0
$\begingroup$

which are the best distributions in order to model the bonds and exchange rate returns distributions. I am searching for a distribution such as the log-normal one of the stocks ( N(m-0.5*v),Sqrt[v])

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Do you want to model the returns in a risk-neutral framework (for derivatives) or in the real world measure (for risk analysis/portfolio construction)?

For the first approach (say modelling under $Q$) you should go to the literature on bond and FX-derivatives. I would go more into detail if this is your aim. The formulation $N(\mu-\sigma^2/2,\sigma)$ suggests this a bit.

For the second (say modelling under $P$) I have 2 things to say:

  1. don't confuse it with risk neutral pricing. Looking at log-returns the expected return and the variance can be estimated from the sample directly, say as $\mu$ and $\sigma$. You don't have to plug-in $\mu-\sigma^2/2$ for the expected value
  2. A very flexible family of distributions is the Generalized Hyperbolic distrbution. There is also an R package for this ghyp.

EDIT after comment of OP:

If you look at the log-return of a stock price. ie. $X_i = \log(S_i)-\log(S_{i-1})$ then you can assume that has unlimited support (no left or right end point). If you look at simple returns $S_i/S_{i-1}-1$ then you have a left endpoint of $-1$ (if $S_i=0$). Thus if you want to use something like a normal-distribution then you should use log-returns. If you have the expected value $\mu$ and the variance $\sigma^2$ then you can model the log-return $X$ by a normal distribtion $N(\mu,\sigma^2)$.

The $N(\mu-\sigma^2/2,\sigma^2)$ comes from the SDE approach (world of $Q$) where $$ S_t = S_0 \exp( (\mu-\sigma^2/2) t + \sigma B_t ) $$ solves the SDE $$ dS_t/S_t = \mu dt + \sigma dB_t $$ as due to Ito's lemma you get a quadratic variation term $\sigma^2 t$.

EDIT 2: If you look at the log-returns and the mean is $\mu$ then it is $\mu$ and not $\mu - \sigma^2/2$. The latter is only used to identify $\mu$ as the drift of the SDE. If $\mu$ is the drift, then $\mu - \sigma^2/2$ is the expected value of $$ \log(S_{t+1}/S_t) = \mu-\sigma^2/2) t + \sigma B_t $$ as you can derive from the equation above.

if $\hat{\mu}$ is the mean log-return then your SDE should have drift $\hat{\mu} - \sigma^2/2$ in order to be consistent with this statistic.

You can use SDEs for risk mgmt. But if you just look at returns - why do you need a continuous time framework? VIX tells you something about the options market. The implied vol is often different from realized vol. These are 2 different but connected things.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I would like to measure the returns and risk of any instrument for a portfolio construction. Thus, i will use your second approach. But, why it is not different to apply the formulation μ−σ2/2 ? for the mean of of a log-normal distribution, in order to model the returns of a stock? $\endgroup$ – dimos Jun 1 '15 at 12:07
  • $\begingroup$ For instance, assume that i have a data set for the daily stock log- returns. I perform a test such as the jarque bera to see if the returns are normally distributed. After that, i calculate the sample mean and variance. FInally, i plug in the sample variance into the formula μ−σ2/2 to get the real mean. So, all this methodology is wrong? $\endgroup$ – dimos Jun 1 '15 at 12:13
  • $\begingroup$ I edited the answer. If you model the log-returns as normally distributed then you don't have to change the mean in any way. $\endgroup$ – Richard Jun 1 '15 at 12:25
  • $\begingroup$ So,the first one method comes from a statistical framework with a MLE estimation and the second one from the SDEs. What i cannot understand is that, is wrong to use the SDEs framework for risk management? i believe intuitively that this approach is more correct that the other one, due to the fact that you can use variance expectations such as the VIX index $\endgroup$ – dimos Jun 1 '15 at 12:34
  • $\begingroup$ one more edit. .. $\endgroup$ – Richard Jun 1 '15 at 13:31
0
$\begingroup$

To a first approximation bond and FX returns are also assumed log-normal, but of course with different mu and sigma.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So, the mu and sigma are the sample ones? $\endgroup$ – dimos Jun 1 '15 at 12:08
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, but be careful in the case of mu. In a short time sample mu can be too extreme (too high or too low); you need to "shrink it" towards a reasonable long term value, empirical or theoretical. $\endgroup$ – noob2 Jun 1 '15 at 17:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.