Equity Volatility Term Structures and The Cross-Section of Option Returns

Equity Volatility Term Structures
and the Cross-Section of Option Returns

Aurelio Vasquez
ITAM School of Business
First Draft: October 14, 2011

This Draft: November 25, 2012
Abstract
The slope of the implied volatility term structure is positively related with future option
returns. We rank rms based on the slope of the volatility term structure and analyze the
returns for ve dierent option trading strategies. Option portfolios with high slopes of the
volatility term structure outperform option portfolios with low slopes by an economically and
statistically signicant amount. The results are robust to dierent empirical setups and are
not explained by well-known market, size, book-to-market, or momentum factors. Additional
higher-order option-related factors, volatility risk premiums, jump risk, and existing option
anomalies cannot explain the large option returns.
JEL Classication: C21, G13, G14.
Keywords: Equity Options; Volatility Term Structure; Implied Volatility; Predictability; Cross-
Section.
This work is part of my dissertation at McGill University. I am grateful for helpful comments from Diego Amaya,
Redouane Elkamhi, Alex Horenstein, Lars Stentoft, Richard Roll, and especially from my PhD supervisors Peter
Christoersen and Kris Jacobs. I also want to thank seminar participants at EFA Boston, ITAM, FMA New York,
Laval University, McGill University, MFA New Orleans, NFA Vancouver, TEC of Monterrey, Texas A&M, and UQAM
for helpful comments. I thank IFM
2
and Asociacin Mexicana de Cultura A.C for nancial support. Correspondence
to: Aurelio Vasquez, Faculty of Management, ITAM, Rio Hondo 1, Alvaro Obregon, Mexico DF; Tel: (52) 55 5628
4000 x.6518; E-mail: aurelio.vasquez@itam.mx.
1
1 Introduction
We investigate if the shape of the term structure of implied volatility is related to future one-month
option returns in the cross-section. Every month, we sort stocks by the slope of the volatility term
structure, group them in deciles, and examine the average future returns for ve option trading
strategies: naked call, naked put, straddle, delta-hedged call, and delta-hedged put.
We nd a strong positive relationship between the slope of the volatility term structure and
future option returns for all ve trading strategies. The straddle, a trading strategy that bets on
the direction of volatility, has an average monthly return of 9.6% for the decile with the lowest
slope of the volatility term structure and a return of 10.0% for the decile with the highest slope.
The long-short strategy generates a monthly return of 19.6% with a t-statistic of 9.17. The other
four option trading strategies also report large positive and signicant returns for the long-short
strategy. The long-short returns for the naked call and put strategies are 24.1% and 19.5% with
signicant t-statistics. The delta-hedged call and put strategies report a long-short return of 2.7%
and 2.2% with t-statistics of 7.97 and 8.35.
These ndings hold across dierent time periods, moneyness levels, and weighting method-
ologies. Naked put long-short returns are not signicant around earnings announcement dates.
Fama-MacBeth (1973) regressions and double sorts on rm characteristics further conrm our nd-
ings. The coecients of the slope of the volatility term structure and the long-short premia are
positive and signicant for all trading strategies when we control by rm size, book-to-market, re-
alized volatility, and option Greeks. After transaction costs, the straddle strategy is still protable.
The long-short straddle return decreases from 19.6% to a statistically signicant 5.5% monthly
return.
We compute the alphas of the long-short option strategies using the Carhart model as well
as the coskewness and cokurtosis factor models proposed by Vanden (2006) that include higher
order moments of the market return and the market option return. The alphas from the Carhart,
coskewness and cokurtosis models are large and signicant, and are very close to the raw returns.
The large option returns potentially represent a compensation for some risk. We perform an
exhaustive analysis using Fama-MacBeth regressions and double sorts to nd potential explanations
for our results. First, we show that the volatility risk premium cannot explain the large option
returns. Following Bollerslev, Tauchen, and Zhou (2009), we compute the volatility risk premium
as the dierence between risk-neutral volatility squared and realized volatility squared. When
the volatility risk premium is included in the Fama-Macbeth regressions, the coecient of the
slope of the volatility term structure remains positive and signicant for all ve trading strategies.
Additionally, the long-short premia are positive and signicant in the two-way sort analysis for all
ve option trading strategies.
Second, we check if our results are a compensation for jump risk. Bakshi and Kapadia (2003)
show that risk-neutral skewness and risk-neutral kurtosis proxy for jump risk. Yan (2011) demon-
2
strates that the slope of the volatility smilethe dierence between out-of-the-money and in-the-
money volatilitiesis a proxy for the jump magnitude. We compute the slope of the volatility
smile using the methodologies proposed by Xing, Zhang and Zhao (2010) and Yan (2011). After
controlling for jump risk, the Fama-MacBeth coecients of the slope of the volatility term structure
and the long-short premia in the double sorts remain positive and signicant for the ve option
trading strategies.
Third, we control for investor overreaction (underreaction) to current volatility changes (see
Stein (1989) and Poteshman (2001)). When investors overreact (underreact) to current volatility
changes, option volatility increases (decreases) and options become expensive (cheap). To ensure
that this phenomenon does not explain our results, we include ratios of current implied volatility and
several measures of lagged volatility in the Fama-MacBeth regressions. We nd that the coecients
of the slope of the volatility term structure remain positive and signicant for all trading strategies
except for the naked put strategy. For the other four trading strategies, misreactions to volatility
changes do not explain the relationship between the slope of the volatility term structure and their
returns. In the double-sorting exercise, the long-short premiums are positive and signicant for all
trading strategies.
Finally, we examine whether the large option returns documented in our paper are related to
existing option anomalies. Specically, we control for idiosyncratic volatility and for the dierence
between historical and implied volatility. Cao and Han (2012) nd that delta-hedged call returns
are negatively related to idiosyncratic volatility, and Goyal and Saretto (2009) nd that straddle
and delta-hedged call returns are positively related to the dierence between historical and implied
volatility. Fama-MacBeth regressions and double sorts show that our large returns are not related
to existing option anomalies.
This paper contributes to the nance literature in two ways. It is the rst study to show that the
slope of the term structure of implied volatilities has a positive relationship with subsequent option
returns in the cross-section. The shape of the volatility term structure has previously been used
to test the expectations hypothesis and the overreaction of long-term volatilities. Notable research
in this area includes papers by Stein (1989), Diz and Finucane (1993), Heynen, Kemna, and Vorst
(1994), Campa and Chang (1995), Poteshman (2001), Mixon (2007), and Bakshi, Panayotov, and
Skoulakis (2011). However, to the best of our knowledge no existing paper uses the shape of the
term structure to identify mispriced options.
A second contribution relates to the forecasting of future realized volatility. Since the slope of
the volatility term structure is positively related with option returns, we test if it forecasts future
realized volatility. Recent studies by Cao, Yu, and Zhong (2010) and Busch, Christensen, and
Nielsen (2011) show that short-term implied volatility, historical volatility and realized volatility
are all good predictors of future volatility.
1
We document that the long-term implied volatility also
contributes to the prediction of future realized volatility.
1
See Granger and Poon (2003) for a review on volatility forecasting.
3
Empirical option research has focused primarily on indexes.
2
This paper explores the cross-
section of equity options. In the literature on the cross-section of individual options, Cao and
Han (2012) nd that delta-hedged option returns are negatively related to total and idiosyncratic
volatility. Jones and Shemesh (2010) document the options weekend eect, option returns are lower
on weekends than on weekdays, and Choy (2011) reports a negative relationship between option
returns and retail trading proportions. Bali and Murray (2012) create skewness-assets using options
and the underlying stock and nd a negative relationship between the skewness-asset returns and
their risk-neutral skewness. The most closely related paper is Goyal and Saretto (2009), who show
that option returns are positively related to the dierence between individual historical realized
volatility and at-the-money (ATM) implied volatility.
The implied volatility term structure is used in the option pricing literature. Christoersen,
Jacobs, Ornthanalai, and Wang (2008) and Christoersen, Heston, and Jacobs (2009) show that an
option pricing model that properly ts the volatility term structure has a superior out-of-sample
performance compared to classical option pricing models such as the Heston model. This result
suggests that the volatility term structure contains crucial information on future option prices. Our
paper documents a positive relation between the slope of the volatility term structure and future
option returns.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section two describes the option data.
Section three describes the option trading strategies and the portfolio characteristics. The returns
from these strategies using dierent setups are in section four, and section ve contains a series of
robustness checks. Section six examines the forecasting power of the slope of the volatility term
structure on future volatility. Section seven concludes the paper.
2 Data
In this section, we describe the data and explain the lters that are applied.
We use the cross-section of options from the OptionMetrics Ivy database. The OptionMetrics
Ivy database is a comprehensive source of high quality historical price and volatility data for the
US equity and index options markets. We use data for all US equity options and their underlying
prices for the period starting on January 4, 1996 through June 30, 2007. Each observation contains
information on the closing bid and ask quotes for American options, open interest, daily trading
volume, implied volatilities, and Greeks. Implied volatilities and Greeks are computed using the
Cox, Ross, and Rubinstein (1979) binomial model.
OptionMetrics also provides stock prices, dividends, and risk-free rates. A complete history of
splits is also available for each security. The risk-free rates are linearly interpolated to match the
2
Coval and Shumway (2001) study index option returns and nd that zero cost at-the-money straddle positions
on the S&P 500 produce average losses of approximately 3% per week. Other studies of index option returns are
Bakshi and Kapadia (2003), Jones (2006), Bondarenko (2003), Saretto and Santa-Clara (2009), Bollen and Whaley
(2004), Shleifer and Vishny (1997), Jackwerth (2000), Buraschi and Jackwerth (2001), and Liu and Longsta (2004).
4
maturity of the option. If the rst risk-free rate maturity is greater than the option maturity, no
extrapolation is performed and the rst available risk-free rate is used.
Next, we apply standard lters for individual options as in Cao and Han (2012) and Goyal and
Saretto (2009). We eliminate the prices that violate arbitrage bounds.
3
That is, we eliminate call
option prices that fall outside of the interval (o 1c
r
1c
r
, o), and put option prices that
fall outside of the interval (o +1c
r
+1c
r
, o), where o is the price of the underlying stock,
1 is the strike of the option, r is the risk-free rate, 1 is the dollar dividend, and t is the time to
expiration. An observation is eliminated if the ask is lower than the bid, the bid (ask) is equal to
zero, or the spread is lower than the minimum tick size. The minimum tick size is $0.05 for options
trading below $3 and $0.10 for other options. Whenever the bid and ask prices are both equal to
the previous days quotes, the observation is also eliminated. We lter one-month options with zero
volume or zero open-interest to ensure that the one-month option prices are valid. Options with
underlying stock prices lower than $5 are removed from the sample. Finally, the moneyness of the
options must be between 0.95 and 1.05, and volatilities should lie between 3% and 200%.
4
Each month, we compute the slope of the volatility term structure for each stock. The slope of
the volatility term structure is dened as the dierence between the long-term and the short-term
volatility. The short-term volatility, 1\
1M
, is dened as the average of the one-month ATM put
and call implied volatilities. The long-term volatility, 1\
LT
, is the average volatility of the ATM
put and call options that have the longest time-to-maturity available and the same strike as that
of the short-term options. The longest time to expiration is between 50 and 360 days. Hence, the
maturity of the long-term options is dierent across stocks and, for any given stock, can change
across months.
5
3 Portfolio Formation and Trading Strategies
In this section, we explain how portfolios are constructed and provide a summary of dierent
characteristics across portfolios. Then, we describe the return computation for ve option trading
strategies: naked call, naked put, delta-hedged call, delta-hedged put, and straddle.
3.1 Portfolio Formation
Each month, we form ten portfolios based on the slope of the volatility term structure, 1\
LT
1\
1M
.
Decile portfolios contain the one-month ATM options that are available on the second trading day
(usually a Tuesday) after the expiration of the previous one-month options, which occurs on the
third Saturday of the month. We extract the ATM put and call options that are one-month away
3
Duarte and Jones (2007) point out that options that violate arbitrage bounds might still be valid options. The
inclusion of options that violate arbitrage bounds does not change the conclusions.
4
The conclusions hold when the volatility range is 3% to 100%.
5
Note that option returns are computed only for short-term options. Long-term options are only used to extract
long-term volatility to compute the slope of the volatility term structure.
5
from maturity. The one-month option maturity ranges from 26 to 33 days. The strike price is as
close as possible to the closing price. For example, if the stock price is 17, and the two closest
strikes are 15 and 20, we select the options with strike price 15. If the selected put or call options
do not pass the ltering process, we choose the two options with a strike price of 20. If either of
those two options is ltered out, that particular stock is excluded for that month because it has no
valid options.
On the option expiry date, we compute the option returns for all ve trading strategies: naked
call, naked put, delta-hedged call, delta-hedged put and straddle. Then, we form decile portfolios
based on the slope of the volatility term structure. Since decile portfolios are formed based on the
options availability, stocks drop in and out of the sample from month to month. On average, there
are 386 stocks per month.
3.2 Characteristics of Portfolios Sorted by the Slope of the Volatility Term
Structure
Table 1 reports the time-series averages for dierent rm characteristics for the ten portfolios
ranked by the slope of the volatility term structure. The characteristics included are divided into
three groups: the variables related to the slope of the volatility term structure, rm and option
characteristics and higher moment measures.
[ Insert Table 1 here ]
The variables related to the slope of the volatility term structure are 1\
1M
, 1\
LT
and the slope
of the term structure 1\
LT
1\
1M
. The rm and option characteristics are the options size (in $
thousands), dened as the open interest for calls and puts multiplied by their price, the average
maturity of 1\
LT
, option Greeks, rm size, and book-to-market. Finally, the higher moment
measures are the risk-neutral volatility, skewness and kurtosis (RNVol, RNSkew and RNKurt)
extracted from one-month options using the methodology proposed by Bakshi, Kapadia, and Madan
(2003), the risk-neutral jump dened as the slope of the option smirk as proposed by Yan (2011),
idiosyncratic volatility computed from the one month daily returns using the Fama-French factors,
future volatility (1\ , dened as the standard deviation of the underlying stock return over the life
of the option), 1\ 1\
1M
, and the dierence between the current one-month implied volatility
and the average of the one-month implied volatility over the previous six months, 1\
1M
1\
avg
1M
.
As reported in Table 1, the slope of the volatility term structure increases from 13.7% to 7.6%
for portfolios 1 to 10. Companies with the lowest and highest slope of the volatility term structure
are the most volatile. Portfolios 1 and 10 have the highest 1\
1M
(with portfolio 2), the highest 1\
LT
,
the highest risk-neutral volatility and the highest idiosyncratic volatility. Companies in extreme
portfolios tend to be small, with a high risk-neutral jump, and have a lower risk-neutral skewness,
and vega exposure. No pattern is observed between the slope of the volatility term structure and
risk-neutral kurtosis, book to market, option size, and option delta.
6
From Table 1, the average maturity of long-term options is approximately 220 days (7 months)
for all decile portfolios. Thus, the slope of the volatility term structure is computed using volatili-
ties that are on average six months apart. Extreme portfolios have the lowest vegas of 7.3 and 7.2
compared with the vegas for portfolios 5 to 8 that are all over 9.3. According to vega, extreme port-
folios are the least sensitive to volatility movements. Additionally, these portfolios (with portfolio
2) hold the rms with the lowest value of $4.5 billion for portfolio 1 and $9.3 billion for portfolio
10. Firms in portfolios 5 and 6 have an average size of $15.1 and $18.7 billion, respectively.
While the slope of the volatility term structure increases from portfolio 1 to portfolio 10, the
dierence between 1\
1M
and 1\
avg
1M
decreases. Portfolio 1 has an average 1\
1M
1\
avg
1M
of 11.1%
that decreases to 10.2% for portfolio 10. However, 1\ 1\
1M
increases from portfolio 1 to
portfolio 10. Portfolio 1 has an average 1\ 1\
1M
of 7.4% that increases to 1.6% for portfolio
10.
In summary, Table 1 shows that the slope of the volatility term structure appears to be related
to past and future volatility. We now attempt to establish a cross-sectional relationship between
the slope of the volatility term structure and future option returns.
3.3 Trading Strategies and Option Returns
The analysis of option returns is not as straightforward as that of stock returns. Option investors
have several degrees of freedom when buying an option. Calls and puts with dierent maturities and
strike prices are available. Hence, many dierent trading strategies can be implemented. Saretto
and Santa-Clara (2009) analyze 23 dierent option trading strategies for the S&P 500 index. Since
liquidity is a major constraint when studying individual stock options, we work with the most
liquid options: at-the-money options that are close to expiration. In particular, we study ve
option trading strategies constructed with one-month ATM options: naked calls and puts, delta-
hedged calls and puts, and straddles.
The returns on these strategies are computed following Goyal and Saretto (2009). As reported in
Table 1, the average bid to mid option spread for portfolios 1 and 10 is 6.7% and 8.3%, respectively.
To avoid paying high transaction costs more than once, options are held until maturity. By holding
the options until maturity, the large transaction costs for the option are only paid when opening
the position and are avoided at expiration. If the option expires in-the-money, only the stock incurs
transaction costs (i.e., bid-ask spread).
3.3.1 Naked Option
A naked option consists of buying either a call or a put option with no underlying security protec-
tion. Naked options are very risky. If the underlying asset moves in the expected direction, large
returns are made. However, huge losses of up to 100% plus accrued interest are recorded if the
underlying stock moves in the opposite direction. A zero-cost naked option traded at time t has a
7
return equal to
r
call
t;T
=
max(o
T
1, 0)
c
t
r
f
t;T
, and (1)
r
put
t;T
=
max(1 o
T
, 0)
j
t
r
f
t;T
(2)
where c
t
and j
t
are the average of the bid and ask prices of a call and a put option, on trading day
t, r
f
t;T
is the future value of one dollar from time t to T, 1 is the strike price, and o
T
is the stock
price at maturity T.
3.3.2 Straddle
A straddle is an investment strategy that involves the simultaneous purchase (or sale) of one call
option and one put option. A long straddle return is dened as
r
straddle
t;T
=
jo
T
1j
j
t
+ c
t
r
f
t;T
(3)
where c
t
and j
t
are the average of the bid and ask prices of a call and a put option, on trading day
t, r
f
t;T
is the future value of one dollar from time t to T, 1 is the strike price, and o
T
is the stock
price at maturity T.
3.3.3 Delta Hedged Option
A more sophisticated trading scheme involves the delta of the option. Delta is the rate of change
of the option with respect to the stock price. A delta neutral or delta hedged position consists of
selling the option and buying delta units of the stock so that small stock movements do not aect
the prot and loss function of the investor. For simplicity, no rebalancing is performed and the
number of stocks is kept constant until the option expiration date. The return of a delta hedged
optiona combination of going long delta number of shares and short on the optionis
r
HedgedCall
t;T
=
(o
T
call
t
max(o
T
1, 0))
o
t
call
t
c
t
+ r
f
t;T
(4)
r
HedgedPut
t;T
=
(o
T
put
t
max(1 o
T
, 0))
o
t
put
t
j
t
r
f
t;T
(5)
where c
t
and j
t
are the average of the bid and the ask prices of a call and a put option, 1 is the
strike price, o
t
is the stock price,
t
is the delta of the option at time t and r
f
t;T
is the future value
of one dollar from time t to T.
8
4 Slope of the Volatility Term Structure and the Cross-Section of
Option Returns
In this section, we rst analyze the relationship between the slope of the volatility term structure
and the one-month option returns for the ve trading strategies: naked call, naked put, delta-hedged
call, delta-hedged put, and straddle. Second, we use the Fama and MacBeth (1973) cross-sectional
regressions and double sorts to determine the signicance of the slope of the volatility term structure
when controlling by volatility risk premium, jump risk, investor misreaction to volatility changes,
option anomalies, and rm characteristics. Then, we report the coskewness and cokurtosis risk
adjusted alphas for the long-short portfolio for all ve option trading strategies. Finally, we assess
the impact that transaction costs have on the returns of the ve trading strategies.
4.1 Sorting Option Returns by the Slope of the Volatility Term Structure
Each month, we rank stocks by the slope of their volatility term structure and form ten option
portfolios. Table 2 reports equally weighted portfolio returns for straddles, delta-hedged calls and
puts, and naked calls and puts. The option returns for all trading strategies increase from portfolio 1
to portfolio 10. In particular, the straddle returns are negative when the slope of the volatility term
structure is negative, and are positive when the slope of the volatility term structure is positive.
The long-short straddle strategy (portfolio 10 minus portfolio 1) yields a 19.6% monthly average
return with a t-statistic of 9.17. Both portfolios contribute equally to the long-short portfolio return
since the straddle returns are 9.6% and 10.0% for portfolios 1 and 10, respectively.
The other four option trading strategies also report signicant returns on the long-short trading
strategy. The naked call strategy yields an average long-short return of 24.1% with a t-statistic
of 5.6. The long-short portfolio for the delta-hedged call strategy has a return of 2.7% with a t-
statistic of 7.97. For both trading strategies, the return of portfolio 1 is negative and the return of
portfolio 10 is positive. The results for put options display the same trend. The long-short return
for the naked put strategy is 19.5% with a t-statistic of 4.79 while that for the delta-hedged put
strategy is 2.2% with a t-statistic of 8.35.
[ Insert Figure 1 here ]
Figure 1 displays the time series of the long-short portfolio returns. For all ve option trading
strategies, more than 50% of the returns are positive: 81% of the returns are positive for straddles,
83% for delta-hedged calls and puts, and 67% for naked calls and naked puts. The long-short
straddle positive returns decrease through the sample period; while in 1996 and 1997, long-short
returns of up to 150% are observed, after 2005 they are below 50%. For delta-hedged calls and puts,
9
the maximum positive long-short returns occur in 2001. Finally, the naked call and put strategies
do not show any pattern.
[ Insert Figure 2 here ]
Figure 2 displays the qq-plots of the long-short portfolio returns for all option trading strategies.
All ve option trading strategies have a right fat tail compared to the normal distribution. A fat
left tail is present in the long-short return of delta-hedged puts, delta-hedged calls and naked puts.
For naked calls, the left tail is thinner than that of the normal distribution. Fat tails in all option
return distributions are conrmed by the excess kurtosis, reported in Table 2, that ranges from 0.2
to 3.7. Finally, the long-short returns of all ve option trading strategies report a positive skewness.
In conclusion, we nd a clear positive relationship between the slope of the volatility term
structure and the cross section of option returns. Additionally, the option returns for all ve
trading strategies are not normally distributed; they have positive skewness and positive excess
kurtosis.
4.2 Controlling for Volatility Risk Premium and Jump Risk
To conrm that the slope of the volatility term structure is positively related with option returns
in the cross section, we run the two-stage Fama and MacBeth (1973) regressions. An advantage
of the Fama and MacBeth (1973) regressions is that they do not impose breakpoints for portfolio
formation but allow for an evaluation of the interaction among variables and the slope of the
volatility term structure. In the rst stage, for each month t, a regression is run with the option
return on the left hand side and the slope of the term structure along with other variables on the
right hand side. From stage one, we obtain a time series of t coecients that are averaged in the
second stage to obtain an estimator for each coecient. We evaluate the coecients signicance
using the Newey-West t-statistic with 3 lags.
Using Fama and MacBeth (1973) regressions, we examine whether the option returns are ex-
plained by the volatility risk premium or jump risk. Following Bollerslev, Tauchen, and Zhou
(2009), the individual volatility risk premium, \ 11, is computed as the dierence between risk-
neutral volatility squared and realized volatility squared. Risk-neutral volatility is extracted from
the model free measure proposed by Bakshi, Kapadia, and Madan (2003) and realized volatility is
computed with intraday 5-minute returns over the previous month. To account for volatility risk,
we include risk-neutral volatility, 1\ o|, in the regressions.
Four proxy variables account for jump risk. Bakshi and Kapadia (2003) show that risk-neutral
skewness and risk-neutral kurtosis proxy for jump risk. Using the model free methodology by
Bakshi, Kapadia, and Madan (2003), we compute risk-neutral skewness and kurtosis, 1o/cn
and 11nrt. Another proxy for jump risk is the slope of the volatility smile, the dierence
between out-of-the-money and at-the-money volatilities. Two measures are used for the slope of
the volatility smile: Ojtio:o/cn by Xing, Zhang and Zhao (2010) and 1Jn:j by Yan (2011).
10
Table 3 reports the regressions of option returns on the slope of the volatility term structure,
volatility risk premium, and jump risk measures. The coecient of the slope of the volatility term
structure is positive and signicant for all ve option trading strategies. Comparing the univariate
and the multivariate regressions, we conclude that the strong positive relation between the slope of
the volatility term structure and option returns is not explained by the volatility risk premium or
by jump risk. The univariate regression for straddle returns shows that the coecient for the slope
of the volatility term structure is 0.840 with a t-statistic of 8.08. After including the volatility risk
premium and jump risk proxies, the coecient of the slope of the volatility term structure increases
to 0.952 and the t-statistic is now 10.44. Therefore, including volatility risk premium and jump
risk exacerbates the eect of the slope of the term structure instead of reducing it.
The results for the other four option trading strategies are very similar. For all four strategies,
the coecient of the slope of the term structure is positive and signicant. While for the delta-
hedged call and the naked call the signicance of the coecient increases, for the put strategies
the coecient signicance has a small decrease but remains signicant. Two control variables are
signicant for most of the ve regressions: OptionSkew and RNJump, the measures of the slope
of the volatility smirk. While OptionSkew has a positive and signicant relation with the four
option trading strategies aside from naked call, RNJump has a negative relation with three option
strategies and a positive relationship with the remaining two.
To further test that the abnormal option returns are not driven by the volatility risk premium
or the jump risk, we perform the double sorting methodology between the slope of the volatility
term structure and each measure. In the rst stage, we rank the stocks by the rm characteristic
and form ve portfolios. Portfolio 1 (5) has stocks with low (high) values of the characteristic.
In the second stage, we sort the stocks into ve portfolios using the slope of the volatility term
structure within each rm characteristic portfolio. Then, we compute the average option return for
each level of the slope of the volatility term structure and report the long-short option return.
Table 4 reports the long-short option returns and the t-statistics using two-way sorts for the
volatility risk premium and the jump risk measures for the ve trading strategies: straddle, delta-
hedged put, delta-hedged call, naked put, and naked call. The long-short option returns are positive
and signicant for the ve trading strategies across all measures. The long-short straddle returns
are between 12.4% and 14.3%, while the t-statistics are between 7.11 and 9.42. The long-short
delta-hedged put returns are signicant and range from 1.5% to 1.6%. Similar results are obtained
for delta-hedged call, naked put, and naked call returns: long-short returns are positive, signicant
and within a small range for all control variables.
The results for all trading strategies across dierent characteristics are comparable to those of
Table 2. The main dierence between the two tables is the number of portfolios used; in Table 2,
11
stocks are sorted into ten portfolios, while in Table 4 they are sorted into ve portfolios. When
the number of portfolios is reduced from ten to ve, the long-short returns are lower. However, the
reduction in the number of portfolios ensures that they are well populated.
To summarize, we have shown that the positive relation between option returns and the slope
of the volatility term structure is not explained by the volatility risk premium or jump risk. Fama-
Macbeth regressions and two-way sorts conrm that there is a positive relation between the returns
of ve option trading strategies and the slope of the volatility term structure. Moreover, controlling
for jump risk and volatility risk premium in the Fama-MacBeth regressions increases the eect of
the slope of the volatility term structure for all option trading strategies.
4.3 Controlling for Option Anomalies
Table 5 reports the results for the Fama and MacBeth (1973) regressions of option returns on
variables related to option anomalies and investor misreaction to volatility changes. The rst
variable is the dierence between historical and implied volatility. As previously stated, Goyal and
Saretto (2009) nd that straddle and delta-hedged call returns have a positive relation with the
dierence between historical and implied volatility, H\ 1\
1M
. The second variable is idiosyncratic
volatility, 1dio\ o|. Cao and Han (2012) report that delta-hedged call returns decrease with the level
of idiosyncratic volatility. Finally, we include a set of variables that control for investor misreaction
to volatility changes. Poteshman (2001) and Stein (1989) document that investors can underreact
or overreact to changes in volatility. Hence, investors might be buying (selling) options that are
overpriced (underpriced) and that will generate negative (positive) future returns. To account for
high volatility periods and investor misreactions, we include the ratios of current volatility against
measures of previous implied volatilities. The measures of previous volatility are the one-month
(1\
t1
1M
), 3-month (1\
t3
1M
), and 6-month (1\
t6
1M
) lagged implied volatility as well as the maximum
(1\
max
1M
) and the average implied volatility (1\
avg
1M
) over the previous 6-months.
Table 5 reports the coecients and t-statistics for the Fama-MacBeth regressions of the ve
option trading strategies. In the rst regression we include the slope of the volatility term structure,
idiosyncratic volatility and the dierence between historical and implied volatility. The second
regression includes all the ratios of short-term volatility and measures of lagged volatility. In the
rst regression, the coecient of the slope of the volatility term structure is positive and signicant
for all trading strategies. In the second regression, the coecient is also positive and signicant for
all trading strategies except for the naked put strategy. Additionally, compared with the results
of the univariate regression, the magnitude of the t-statistics for the slope of the volatility term
structure decreases for all regressions but remains signicant. In the rst regression, the decrease
is explained by the inclusion of H\ 1\
1M
that shows a positive and signicant coecient in four
regressions: straddle, delta-hedge put, delta-hedge call, and naked put. These results conrm the
12
ndings by Goyal and Saretto (2009), who show that H\ 1\
1M
has a positive and signicant
coecient for straddles and delta-hedged calls. In the second regression, the ratio between current
volatility and three-month lagged volatility has a negative and signicant relation with option
return. This relation explains the decrease in the coecient of the slope of the volatility term
structure.
Idiosyncratic volatility is signicant for naked put and naked call returns only. Conrming
the results by Cao and Han (2012), delta hedged call returns and idiosyncratic volatility show a
negative relation. However, the coecient of idiosyncratic volatility is not signicant for the delta-
hedged call long-short return. This lack of signicance might be caused by the rebalancing of the
delta-hedge strategy. While Cao and Han (2012) rebalance the delta-hedge several times before the
call expires, we set the delta-hedge one month before expiration without rebalancing.
Finally, we show that the slope of the volatility term structure is not a proxy for changes
in implied volatility. The coecient of the slope of the volatility term structure is positive and
signicant in all ve regressions. The coecient of most volatility ratios is negative and in some
cases signicant, conrming the negative relation observed in Table 1 between 1\
1M
1\
avg
1M
and
the slope of the volatility term structure. Two volatility ratios are consistently negative, and at least
one of them is signicant in the ve regressions: |:(1\
t
1M
,1\
t1
1M
) and |:(1\
t
1M
,1\
t3
1M
). The one-
month lagged volatility ratio is signicant for delta-hedged put, delta-hedged call and naked put,
and the three-month lagged volatility ratio is negative and signicant for all ve trading strategies.
To ensure that the slope of the volatility term structure is not a proxy for an existing option
anomaly, we use the double sorting methodology. Table 6 reports the long-short option returns and
the t-statistics for the option anomaly measures for the ve trading strategies. Once again, all the
long-short option returns are positive and signicant for the ve trading strategies. The long-short
straddle returns are between 8.2% and 14.3%, while the t-statistics are between 4.97 and 8.56. Note
that the lowest long-short return occurs when double sorting by the dierence between historical
volatility and implied volatility, H\ 1\
1M
. This result is not surprising since Goyal and Saretto
(2009) show that H\ 1\
1M
is positively related to the straddle and delta-hedged call returns.
What is important is that the slope of the volatility term structure predicts option returns over
and above H\ 1\
1M
. As for the other four trading strategies, the long-short returns are once
again positive and signicant.
Using Fama-MacBeth regressions and double sorts, we conclude that the slope of the volatil-
ity term structure detects option mispricing even in the presence of variables that are related to
option anomalies such as idiosyncratic volatility, historical minus implied volatility, and measures
of investor misreaction to volatility changes. Only the naked put strategy is explained by investor
misreaction.
13
4.4 Controlling for Stock Characteristics
Table 7 reports the results of the Fama and MacBeth (1973) regressions of option returns on rm
characteristics to further control that the slope of the volatility term structure predicts option
returns. In addition to the slope of the term structure, the regression includes the size of the rm,
book-to-market, historical volatility, skewness and kurtosis, realized volatility computed with ve
minute returns, and the option Greeks: delta, gamma and vega.
Table 7 presents the results of two regressions for each option trading strategy. The coecient
of the slope of the volatility term structure is positive and signicant in all regressions for the ve
trading strategies. The rst regression includes the slope of the volatility term structure and the
option Greeks. For the long-short straddle returns, the coecient of the slope of the volatility term
structure is 0.687 with a Newey-West t-statistic of 5.6. For delta-hedged put and delta-hedged call,
the coecients are 0.078 and 0.089 with a Newey-West t-statistic of 5.03 and 4.98. Finally, for
naked put and naked call, the coecients are 0.861 and 0.605 with signicant t-statistics of 4.20
and 2.69. The relationship between the slope of the volatility term structure is not explained by
the option Greeks.
In the second regression, we add the six rm characteristics to the Fama-MacBeth regressions:
size, book-to-market, historical volatility, skewness and kurtosis, and realized volatility. For strad-
dles, the coecient of the slope of the volatility term structure slightly increases to 0.738 with a
Newey-West t-statistic of 5.90. For the other four strategies, the magnitude of the coecient of
the slope of the volatility term structure increases in all of the strategies and the t-statistics are
above 4.03. Realized volatility reports a negative and signicant relation for all trading strategies
except for the naked put strategy. The higher the volatility from intraday returns is, the lower
the option return. The same negative relation applies for size: small rms report a higher return
than large rms. Finally, historical volatility displays a positive relation with option returns. The
other variables (book-to-market, skewness, kurtosis, gamma, and vega) show no strong relation
with options returns.
Table 8 reports the long-short option returns and the t-statistics for each rm characteristic for
the ve trading strategies using the two-way sort methodology. As in the previous double sorting
tables, all of the long-short option returns are positive and signicant for the ve trading strategies.
In this case, the long-short straddle returns range between 12.3% and 14.4%, while the t-statistics
are between 7.51 and 9.89. Conrming the main nding of this paper, the long-short returns for
the other four trading strategies are also positive and signicant.
In conclusion, the slope of the volatility term structure is positively related to the option returns
according to the Fama-MacBeth regressions and the two-way sorting methodology. We show that
14
the slope of the volatility term structure is not a proxy for rm characteristics such as realized
volatility, rm size, book-to-market, higher historical moments or option Greeks.
4.5 Alphas of Portfolios from Coskewness and Cokurtosis Pricing Models
Index options are nonredundant securities (Bakshi, Cao, and Chen (1997) and Buraschi and Jack-
werth (2001)). Since we are studying option returns, it is crucial to compute the alphas using
factor models that include the market return and the market option return. The coskewness and
cokurtosis pricing models developed by Vanden (2006) comply with this requirement. The coskew-
ness model incorporates not only the market return and the square of the market return but also
the option return, the square of the option return, and the product of the market and the option
returns. Similarly, the cokurtosis model includes the cubes of the market return and the option
return, as well as the product between the market return and the option return squared, and the
product between the market return squared and the option return.
The general version of Vandens model is dened as
r
P
= c
P
+
1
1
m
+
2
o'1 +
3
H'1 +
4
l'1 + (6)
5
(1
o
1
f
) +
6
(1
2
m
1
f
) +
7
(1
2
o
1
f
) +
8
(1
o
1
m
1
f
) (7)
9
(1
3
o
1
f
) +
10
(1
3
m
1
f
) +
11
(1
2
o
1
m
1
f
) +
12
(1
o
1
2
m
1
f
) + -, (8)
where 1
m
is the market return, 1
o
is the market option return, 1
f
is the risk-free rate, and o'1,
H'1 and l'1 are the Fama-French and momentum factors. This equation embeds three factor
models: the Fama-French-Carhart model (the rst line of the equation), the coskewness model
(the rst and second lines), and the cokurtosis model (the entire equation). For the market option
return, we use the delta-hedged call return of the S&P 500 since it is related to the volatility risk
premium as documented by Bakshi and Kapadia (2003).
6
Table 9 contains the results of the coskewness and the cokurtosis model regressions for the
ve option trading strategies. The rst column presents the results of the regression of each option
trading strategy on the market return, the Fama-French and momentum factors, and the coskewness
factors. The alphas for all ve trading strategies are positive and statistically signicant at the
10% level. For example, the alpha of the long-short straddle portfolio is 26.2% with a signicant t-
statistic at the 1% level. This alpha is larger than the long-short portfolio return of 19.6% reported
in Table 2. The alphas for the other four trading strategies are positive and signicant and are
larger than the raw returns of the long-short trading strategy reported in Table 2.
6
Using any of the other four option strategies for the S&P 500 option return, that is naked call, naked put,
delta-hedged put or straddle, does not change the results.
15
The second column presents the results for the cokurtosis model. The alphas for all ve trading
strategies are positive and signicant at the 5% level. In particular, the alpha for the straddle
strategy is 19.5% with a highly signicant t-statistic. The alphas for the delta-hedged put, the
delta-hedged call and the naked put are also positive and signicant at the 1% level, and the alpha
of the naked call strategy is positive and signicant at the 5% level.
Three factors are signicant for most regressions: 1
2
m
1
f
, 1
3
m
1
f
, and 1
2
m
1
o
1
f
. The
square of the market return is a proxy for market volatility; its coecient is negative and signicant
for 8 out of 10 regressions. The higher the market volatility is, the lower the option returns. The
coecient of 1
3
m
1
f
is also negative and signicant for 4 out 5 regressions, and the coecient of
1
2
m
1
o
1
f
is positive and signicant for 4 out of 5 regressions.
We conclude that the coskewness and cokurtosis factor models that include the market return
and the market option return do not explain the long-short returns for straddle, delta-hedged put,
delta-hedged call, naked put, and naked call.
4.6 Transaction Costs
The results presented so far do not include transaction costs: the trading strategies are executed at
mid prices. As reported in Table 1, the average bid-to-mid percent spread for option prices is 6.7%
and 8.3% for portfolios 1 and 10. Hence, the bid-ask spreads will reduce the large prots of the ve
long-short trading strategies. To mitigate the eect of the bid-ask spreads, options are held until
maturity. When expired, the payo for the option is based only on the stock price and the strike
price. If the option expires in-the-money, the stock incurs transaction costs.
7
Financial research has reported that the eective option spreads are, in some cases, higher than
the quoted bid-ask spreads. Battalio, Hatch, and Jennings (2004) show that the ratio between
eective spreads and quoted spreads is higher than 1 in June 2000; however, after June 2002, the
ratio signicantly decreases, varying between 0.927 and 1.155, and is lower than 1 for two option
exchanges out of ve. In this study, we evaluate two ratios: 1.0 and 1.25. A ratio of 1.0 is equivalent
to paying the full spread when executing the option trading strategy. A ratio of 1.25 corresponds
to a spread that is 25% higher than the quoted spread.
Table 10 presents the long-short returns for the ve trading strategies for bid-ask ratios of 1.0
and 1.25. When the ratio is set to 1.0, the return of the long-short straddle portfolio is 5.5% with
a t-statistic of 2.67. At mid prices, the long-short return is 19.6%. Hence, bid-ask spreads reduce
the average return by 14.1%. When the ration is increased to 1.25, the long short straddle strategy
is no longer protable. It is important to note that most of the return is produced by the short
position in portfolio 1.
7
For stocks, bid and ask quotes are obtained from the CRSP database.
16
As explained by Saretto and Santa-Clara (2009), another source of transaction costs are margin
requirements. Saretto and Santa-Clara (2009) document that margin requirements are very high
when shorting options. To write an option, an investor needs to borrow about one and a half times
the cost of the written option to meet margin requirements. This borrowing cost further reduces
the returns and the capacity to implement the strategy. However, large rms can dedicate enough
cash to allow the execution of these strategies.
Table 10 shows that long-short returns for the other four trading strategies are not signicant
when transaction costs are introduced. We conclude that the straddle strategy is the only strategy
to report a long-short return that is protable and signicant for a bid-ask ratio of 1.0.
5 Robustness Analysis
In this section, we check the robustness of the relationship between the slope of the volatility term
structure and option returns. First, we investigate the robustness for dierent levels of moneyness
and dierent subsamples. Second, we relax the data lters to include options that violate arbitrage
bounds since they could be valid options. Then, we ensure that the results hold on earnings
announcement periods. Finally, we analyze the impact of portfolio weightings on the long-short
portfolio return. Table 11 presents the robustness analysis the long-short option returns for all ve
trading strategies. To facilitate a comparison between the primary results and the robustness test
returns, the rst row of Table 11 has the long-short returns of the baseline portfolio from Table 2.
Below, we mainly focus on the long-short straddle returns since the conclusions are very similar for
the other four trading strategies.
5.1 Moneyness
In our study, the moneyness level for call and put options is between 0.95 and 1.05. Table 11 shows
that when the moneyness bounds are changed to 0.975 and 1.025, the long-short straddle return is
20.8% with a t-statistic of 9.08. In this case, the number of stocks per month decreases from 386
to 210. If the moneyness is not bounded, the long-short straddle return decreases to 15.3% with a
t-statistic of 7.77, and the number of stocks per decile increases from 386 to 650. Table 11 shows
similar results for the other four trading strategies. Therefore, the moneyness level does not aect
the conclusions. The magnitude of the returns and the t-statistics remains very similar to those
reported in the primary analysis.
5.2 Sub-samples
In August 1999, stock options began to be listed in more than one U.S. option exchange. As a
consequence, option trading volume increased and bid-ask spreads decreased (see Fontnouvelle,
17
Fishe, and Harris (2003), Battalio, Hatch, and Jennings (2004), Hansch and Hatheway (2001)). To
assess the impact that multiple exchange listings had on option returns, we divide the sample into
two dierent sub-periods: 1996 to 2000 and 2001 to 2007. The long-short straddle returns decrease
from the rst period to the second. For the 1996-2000 period, the long-short straddle portfolio
has an average monthly return of 22.3% with a t-statistic of 7.41, and the 2001-2007 period has
a return of 17.5% with a t-statistic of 5.85. The decrease in option returns from the rst to the
second sub-period is compensated by a 32% decrease in trading costs as reported by Fontnouvelle,
Fishe, and Harris (2003).
Next, we ensure that the triple witching Friday is not driving the results. The triple witching
Friday refers to the third Friday of every March, June, September, and December when three
dierent types of securities expire on the same day: stock index futures, stock index options and
stock options. Since the market is particularly active in these months, we divide the sample into
two groups: options that expire on the triple witching-Friday and options that expire in any other
month. The two groups obtain similar option returns. Table 11 shows that the triple-witching
Friday group has a long-short straddle return of 18.0% with a t-statistic of 4.23 and the other
group has a return of 20.4% with a t-statistic of 8.52.
We also control for the January eect that causes stock prices to increase during that month.
Option returns in the month of January are compared to those for the rest of the year. As Table
11 reports, the January group has an average long-short straddle return of 25.0% with a t-statistic
of 3.23 while the non-January group has a return of 19.1% with a t-statistic of 8.58.
In conclusion, the relationship between the slope of the volatility term structure and the long-
short straddle returns holds for dierent sub-samples. This nding is also true for the other four
trading strategies.
5.3 Filters, Implied Volatility, and Arbitrage Bounds
Options that violate arbitrage bounds are excluded from the analysis. Duarte and Jones (2007)
note that options that violate arbitrage bounds might be valid options that, at some point in
time, have their prices below intrinsic value making it impossible to solve for an implied volatility.
To account for this bias and to include as many options as possible, we relax the lters. First,
all options with a positive volume are included even if they do not have an implied volatility.
Since some options do not have volatility, we now extract all of the implied volatilities from the
standardized OptionMetrics Volatility Surface database. 1\
1M
and 1\
LT
are dened as the average
implied volatility of the call and put options with 30 and 365 days to expiration, and an absolute
delta of 0.5. When no volatility is available, we look for a valid volatility on the 10 days before
the transaction date and select the volatility from the closest date to the transaction date. Third,
all options have exactly 30 days to expiration. When options with 30 days to maturity are not
available, we extract all of the at-the-money options with expirations between 20 and 40 days, and
choose the pair with the closest maturity to 30 days. When two pairs are available, say 28 and 32
18
days to expiration, we select the one with the highest total volume. All the other lters are applied:
positive bid-ask spread, volatility between 3% and 200%, moneyness between 0.95 and 1.05, and
underlying price above $5.
The results are robust to the inclusion of options that violate arbitrage bounds. As reported in
Table 11, the long-short straddle return is 17.7% with a t-statistic of 10.40. The average number
of stocks per month increases from 386 to 814. Options that violate arbitrage bounds only account
for 0.4% of the sample data. The increase in the number of stocks comes from the usage of the
OptionMetrics Volatility Surface to extract implied volatilities.
The delta-hedged put and delta-hedged call long-short returns are 2.2% and 2.7% with t-
statistics of 12.29 and 13.50, respectively. Naked put and naked call returns are 17.3% and 22.4%
with signicant t-statistics of 5.11 and 6.50. Note that the t-statistics for all strategies are larger
than those reported in Table 2.
In summary, option returns for all trading strategies are robust to the inclusion of options that
violate arbitrage bounds.
5.4 Earnings Announcements
Dubinsky and Johannes (2005) report that earnings announcements enhance the uncertainty of a
company, dened as the implied volatility. Volatility increases before earnings are announced and
decreases after the announcement. To conrm that the returns occur in periods other than the
earnings announcement periods, we exclude all rms that have an earnings announcement date
that falls between the transaction day and the expiration day.
When rms with earnings announcements are excluded, the magnitude of the long-short straddle
return increases to 21.0% with a signicant t-statistic of 8.56 as reported in Table 11. When rms
with earnings announcements are included, the long-short straddle return is 14.4% with a t-statistic
of 2.86. The long-short returns are also robust for delta-hedged puts, delta-hedged calls, and naked
calls. However, on earnings announcement dates, the naked put premium is not signicant. Thus,
earnings announcements cannot explain the large option returns for four option trading strategies:
straddle, delta-hedged put and call, and naked call.
5.5 Controlling for Portfolio Weightings
In the primary analysis, the portfolios are equally weighted. We now explore the robustness of the
results for two dierent weighting schemes. First, we study value-weighted portfolios which are
based on the option dollar volume for each stock. Second, stocks are weighted on the option dollar
value of their open interest. For straddles, portfolios are weighted by the minimum dollar value of
the volume or the open interest between the put and the call. With the new portfolio weightings,
the long-short option returns are signicant and of the same magnitude as the original returns for
all trading strategies. As shown in Table 11, the long-short straddle returns for the value-weighted
19
and the open-interest weighted portfolios are 16.1% and 18.6%, respectively, and the t-statistics
are above 3.40. Hence, the results are robust to the weighting methodology.
6 Relation between the Slope of the Volatility Term Structure
and Future Realized Volatility
Since the slope of the term structure of volatilities is related to future option returns, the next step
is to assess whether the slope of the volatility term structure is related to future realized volatility.
Future realized volatility is dened as the standard deviation of the underlying stock return over
the life of the option. Following the analysis of Cao, Yu, and Zhong (2010), we perform time-
series regressions of future realized volatility (1\ ) on implied volatility (1\
1M
), long-term implied
volatility (1\
LT
), and historical volatility (H\ ). We report the average coecients and their t-
statistics. Cao, Yu, and Zhong (2010) show that 1\
1M
is superior to H\ in forecasting future
volatility. However, does 1\
LT
contribute to better forecast future realized volatility? We also
include realized volatility from intraday returns since Busch, Christensen, and Nielsen (2011) use it
to forecast future realized volatility. To further control by rm specic volatility and higher moment
variables, we also include idiosyncratic volatility, risk-neutral skewness, risk-neutral kurtosis, the
slope of the option smirk (Option Skew), and risk-neutral jump. For each rm, we perform the
following regression:
1\
i;t
= 1
0;t
+ 1
1;t
1\
1M
i;t
+ 1
2;t
1\
LT
i;t
+ 1
3;t
H\
1;t
+ Co:tro| \ aria/|c: + -
i;t
.
We run the two stage Fama and MacBeth (1973) regressions. In the rst stage, we run the
regression for each rm i across time. In the second stage, we obtain the average for each regressor.
To account for autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity, the regressors signicance is evaluated using
the Newey-West t-statistic with 5 lags.
Table 12 summarizes the results for three univariate and four multivariate regressions. The
univariate regressions show that 1\
1M
, 1\
LT
, and H\ contain information for future realized
volatility. The average adjusted 1
2
is 45%, 42%, and 30%, respectively. However, the bivariate
regressions suggest that 1\
1M
and 1\
LT
have a forecast ability for future realized volatility that
is superior to that of H\ . In bivariate regressions 5 and 6, the coecient of H\ is signicant for
only 8% and 3% of the rms, while the coecient of 1\
1M
is signicant for 86% of the companies
(regression 5) and the coecient of 1\
LT
is signicant for 79% of the companies (regression 5). In
the bivariate setting, 1\
1M
outperforms 1\
LT
given that 42% of the 1\
1M
coecients are signicant
to only 11% of those for 1\
LT
.
In regression 7, all control variables are included. The variables that better forecast future
realized volatility are 1\
1M
, realized volatility, and 1\
LT
since 32%, 13%, and 8% of their coecients
20
are signicant. In this regression, risk-neutral skewness, risk-neutral kurtosis, option skew, and
risk-neutral jump are signicant whereas historical volatility and idiosyncratic volatility are only
marginally signicant.
We conclude that 1\
1M
is the single best predictor of future realized volatility. Given that
1\
1M
s coecient is lower than one for all regressions, 1\
1M
is a biased estimator of future realized
volatility. As a predictor variable, historical volatility is outperformed by 1\
LT
, realized volatility,
risk-neutral skewness, risk-neutral kurtosis, option skew, and risk-neutral jump.
7 Conclusions
This paper documents a positive relation between the slope of the implied volatility term structure
and ve option trading strategies in the cross section. The slope of the volatility term structure is
dened as the dierence between implied volatilities of long- and short-dated at-the-money options.
Every month, we rank stocks according to the slope of the volatility term structure and study
subsequent one month option returns. We nd that as the slope of the volatility term structure
increases, so do the one-month future returns for ve option trading strategies: straddle, naked
call, naked put, delta-hedged call, and delta-hedged put. For straddles, the portfolio of stocks with
a high slope of the volatility term structure outperforms the portfolio with a low slope by 19.6%
per month.
The results for the other four trading strategies are very similar to those of straddles. A portfolio
that buys stocks with a high slope of the volatility term structure and sells those with a low slope
generates a signicant monthly return of 2.2% and 2.7% for delta-hedged puts and delta-hedged
calls, respectively. For naked puts and naked calls, this long-short strategy has a signicant return
of 19.5% and 24.1% per month.
Fama-MacBeth regressions and double sorts conrm the predictive power of the slope of the
volatility term structure. The abnormal returns for any of the ve option strategies are not ex-
plained by the volatility risk premium, jump risk, investor misreaction to volatility changes, option
anomalies or rm characteristics. Transaction costs, namely bid-ask spreads, reduce the straddle
monthly prots to a still attractive and statistically signicant return of 5.5% per month. However,
the returns for the other four option trading strategies do not survive transaction costs. Finally,
the large abnormal returns hold for dierent time periods, portfolio weightings, and for options
that violate arbitrage bounds. The only strategy that does not show a strong relation to the slope
of the volatility term structure is naked put. Naked put long-short returns are not signicant on
earnings announcement periods, and appear to be explained by changes between current and lagged
volatility.
A potential explanation for the positive relation between the slope of the volatility term structure
and future option returns are demand pressures of the type studied by Garleanu, Pedersen, and
Poteshman (2009). On the one hand, when 1\
1M
is too high compared to 1\
LT
, option investors
21
demand more options to hedge away further volatility increments. This positive demand pressure
makes these options more expensive. On the other hand, when 1\
1M
is too low compared to 1\
LT
,
there is no demand pressure and options become cheap. Carr and Wu (2008) provide evidence of a
similar phenomenon for variance swaps, where variance swap buyers are willing to suer negative
returns to hedge away upward movements in the variance. Something similar is also shown by
Black and Scholes (1972), who nd that options of high variance stocks are overpriced and options
of low variance stocks are underpriced. Therefore, demand-pressure eects might be causing the
mispricing in current option prices that leads to large future returns.
The explanation underlying the large and signicant individual option returns is, however, not
clear. Option returns are not explained by any of the three factor models used: Fama-French-
Carhart, Coskewness or Cokurtosis. Even after controlling by higher-order factors of the market
model and option-related factors, the alphas are still large and signicant. These returns might be
explained by a yet unknown risk factor. A theoretical option pricing model that accounts for the
large option returns should be investigated in future research.
22
References
Bakshi, G., Cao, C., Chen, Z., 1997, Empirical Performance of Alternative Option Pricing Models,
Journal of Finance 52, 2003-2049.
Bakshi, G., Kapadia, N., 2003. Delta-Hedged Gains and the Negative Market Volatility Risk Pre-
mium, Review of Financial Studies 16, 527-566.
Bakshi, G., Kapadia, N., Madan, D., 2003. Stock Return Characteristics, Skew Laws, and the
Dierential Pricing of Individual Equity Options, Review of Financial Studies 16, 101-143.
Bakshi, G., Panayotov, G., Skoulakis, G., 2011. Improving the Predictability of Real Economic
Activity and Asset Returns with Forward Variances Inferred from Option Portfolios, Journal of
Financial Economics 100, 475-495.
Bali, T., Murray, S., 2012. Does Risk-Neutral Skewness Predict the Cross-Section of Equity Option
Portfolio Returns?, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, forthcoming.
Battalio, R., Hatch, B., Jennings, R., 2004. Toward a National Market System for US Exchange-
Listed Equity Options, Journal of Finance 59, 933-962.
Black, F., Scholes, M., 1972. The Valuation of Option Contracts and a Test of Market Eciency,
Journal of Finance 27, 399-417.
Bollen, N., Whaley, R. E., 2004. Does Net Buying Pressure Aect the Shape of Implied Volatility
Functions?, Journal of Finance 59, 711-753.
Bollerslev, T., Tauchen, G., Zhou, H., 2009. Expected Stock Returns and Variance Risk Premia,
Review of Financial Studies 22, 4463-4492.
Bondarenko, O., 2003. Why are Put Options So Expensive?, Unpublished working paper. University
of Illinois, Chicago.
Busch, T., Christensen, B.J., Nielsen, M., 2011. The Role of Implied Volatility in Forecasting
Future Realized Volatility and Jumps in Foreign Exchange, Stock, and Bond Markets, Journal
of Econometrics 160, 48-57.
Buraschi, A., Jackwerth, J., 2001. The Price of a Smile: Hedging and Spanning in Option Markets,
Review of Financial Studies 14, 495-527.
Campa, J. M., Chang, K., 1995. Testing the Expectations Hypothesis on the Term Structure of
Volatilities in Foreign Exchange Options, Journal of Finance 50, 529-547.
Cao, C., Yu, F., Zhong, K., 2010. The Information Content of Option-Implied Volatility for Credit
Default Swap Valuation, Journal of Financial Markets 13, 321-343.
23
Cao, J., Han, B., 2012. Cross-section of Stock Option Returns and Stock Volatility Risk Premium,
Journal of Financial Economics, forthcoming.
Carr, P., Wu, L., 2008. Variance Risk Premiums, Review of Financial Studies 22, 1311-41.
Carhart, M., 1997. On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance, Journal of Finance 52, 57-82.
Choy, S. K., 2011. Retail Clientele and Option Returns, Unpublished working paper. University of
Toronto, Canada.
Christoersen, P., Heston, S., Jacobs, K., 2009. The Shape and Term Structure of the Index Option
Smirk: Why Multifactor Stochastic Volatility Models Work so Well, Management Science 55,
1914-1932.
Christoersen, P., Jacobs, K., Ornthanalai, C., Wang, Y., 2008. Option Valuation with Long-Run
and Short-Run Volatility Components, Journal of Financial Economics 90, 272-297.
Coval, J. D., Shumway, T., 2001. Expected Option Returns, Journal of Finance 56, 9831009.
Cox, J., Ross, S., Rubinstein, M., 1979. Option Pricing: A Simplied Approach, Journal of Financial
Economics 7, 87106.
Diz, F., Finucane, T. J., 1993. Do the Options Markets Really Overreact?, Journal of Futures
Markets 13, 299-312.
Duarte, J., Jones, C.S., 2007. The Price of Market Volatility Risk, Unpublished working paper.
Rice University and University of Southern California.
Dubinsky, A., Johannes, M., 2005. Earnings Announcements and Equity Options, Unpublished
working paper. Columbia University, New York.
Fama, E., French, K., 1993. Common Risk Factors in the Returns on Stocks and Bonds, Journal
of Financial Economics 33, 3-56.
Fama, E., MacBeth, J.D., 1973. Risk, Return, and Equilibrium: Empirical Tests, Journal of Political
Economy 81, 607-636.
DeFontnouvelle, P., Fishe, R. P. H., Harris, J. H., 2003. The Behavior of Bid-Ask Spreads and
Volume in Options Markets during the Competition for Listings in 1999, Journal of Finance 58,
2437-2463.
Garleanu, N., Pedersen, L. H., Poteshman, A. M., 2009. Demand-Based Option Pricing, Review of
Financial Studies 22, 4259-4299.
Goyal, A., Saretto, A., 2009. Cross-Section of Option Returns and Volatility, Journal of Financial
Economics 94, 310-326.
24
Poon, S.H., Granger, C.W.J., 2003. Forecasting Volatility in Financial Markets: A Review, Journal
of Economic Literature 41, 478539.
Hansch, O., Hatheway, F., 2001. Measuring Execution Quality in the Listed Option Market, Un-
published working paper. University Park, Pennsylvania.
Heynen, R., Kemna, A., Vorst, T., 1994. Analysis of the Term Structure of Implied Volatilities,
Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 29, 31-56.
Jackwerth, J., 2000. Recovering Risk Aversion from Option Prices and Realized Returns, Review
of Financial Studies 13, 433-451.
Jones, C., 2006. A Nonlinear Factor Analysis of S&P 500 Index Option Returns, Journal of Finance
61, 23252363.
Jones, C., Shemesh, J., 2010. The Weekend Eect in Equity Option Returns, Unpublished working
paper. University of Southern California.
Liu, J., Longsta, F. A., 2004. Losing Money on Arbitrage: Optimal Dynamic Portfolio Choice in
Markets with Arbitrage Opportunities, Review of Financial Studies 17, 611-641.
Mixon, S., 2007. The Implied Volatility Term Structure of Stock Index Options, Journal of Empirical
Finance 14, 333-354.
Poteshman, A. M., 2001. Underreaction, Overreaction, and Increasing Misreaction to Information
in the Options Market, Journal of Finance 56, 851-876.
Saretto, A, Santa-Clara, P., 2009. Option Strategies: Good Deals and Margin Calls, Journal of
Financial Markets 12, 391-417.
Shleifer, A., Vishny, R.W., 1997. The Limits of Arbitrage, Journal of Finance 52, 35-55.
Stein, J., 1989. Overreactions in the Options Market, Journal of Finance 44, 1011-1023.
Vanden, J.M., 2006. Option Coskewness and Capital Asset Pricing, Review of Financial Studies
19, 1279-1320.
Xing, Y., Zhang, X., Zhao, R., 2010, What Does Individual Option Volatility Smirks Tell Us about
Future Equity Returns?, Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 45, 641-662.
Yan, S., 2011. Jump Risk, Stock Returns, and Slope of Implied Volatility Smile, Journal of Financial
Economics 99, 216-233.
25
Figure 1: Time Series of Option Returns
Portfolio returns are generated as in Table 2. The gures below display the option returns of the long-short
portfolios dened as the dierence between decile 10 (highest slope of volatility term structure) and decile 1
(lowest slope of volatility term structure) portfolios. Panels A through E contain long-short returns for the
following strategies: straddle, delta-hedged put, delta-hedged call, naked put, and naked call. The sample
period is 1996 to 2007.
Panel A: Straddle Returns
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
-50
0
50
100
150
200
Time
R
a
w
-
R
e
t
u
r
n
s

(
%

p
e
r

m
o
n
t
h
)
Panel B: Delta-Hedged Put Returns Panel C: Delta-Hedged Call Returns
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
-10
0
10
20
30
Time
R
a
w
-
R
e
t
u
r
n
s

(
%

p
e
r

m
o
n
t
h
)
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
-20
0
20
40
Time
R
a
w
-
R
e
t
u
r
n
s

(
%

p
e
r

m
o
n
t
h
)
Panel D: Naked Put Returns Panel E: Naked Call Returns
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
Time
R
a
w
-
R
e
t
u
r
n
s

(
%

p
e
r

m
o
n
t
h
)
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
-200
0
200
400
Time
R
a
w
-
R
e
t
u
r
n
s

(
%

p
e
r

m
o
n
t
h
)
26
Figure 2: QQ-plot of Option Returns
Portfolio returns are generated as in Table 2. The gures below display the qq-plots of the option returns of
the long-short portfolios dened as the dierence between decile 10 (highest slope of volatility term structure)
and decile 1 (lowest slope of volatility term structure) portfolios. Panels A through E contain qq-plots of
the long-short returns for the following strategies: straddle, delta-hedged put, delta-hedged call, naked put,
and naked call. The sample period is 1996 to 2007.
Panel A: Straddle Returns
-2 0 2
0
0.5
1
1.5
Standard Normal Quantiles
S
t
r
a
d
d
l
e
Q
u
a
n
t
i
l
e
s
Panel B: Delta-Hedged Put Returns Panel C: Delta-Hedged Call Returns
-2 0 2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
D
e
l
t
a

H
e
d
g
e
d

P
u
t
Q
u
a
n
t
i
l
e
s
-2 0 2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
D
e
l
t
a

H
e
d
g
e
d

C
a
l
l
Q
u
a
n
t
i
l
e
s
Panel D: Naked Put Returns Panel E: Naked Call Returns
-2 0 2
-2
-1
0
1
2
N
a
k
e
d

P
u
t
Q
u
a
n
t
i
l
e
s
-2 0 2
0
2
4
N
a
k
e
d

C
a
l
l
Q
u
a
n
t
i
l
e
s
27
Table 1
Characteristics of Portfolios Sorted by
the Slope of the Volatility Term Structure
This table reports the characteristics of ten portfolios sorted by the slope of the volatility term structure,
(o|ojc \ To dened as 1\
LT
1\
1M
) for the period January 1996 to June 2007. Average characteristics of
the portfolios are reported for 1\
1M
(the one-month implied volatility dened as the average of the ATM call
and ATM put implied volatilities), 1\
LT
(the long-term implied volatility dened as the average of the ATM
call and ATM put implied volatilities of the options with the more distant time-to-maturity), $ Size Options
(Open interest of the ATM call and put multiplied by their respective mid price, in $ thousands), DTM of
1\
LT
(average days to maturity of the long-term implied volatility), Delta Call, Delta Put, Gamma, Vega,
Size (market capitalization in $ billions), BE/ME (book-to-market ratio), risk-neutral volatility (1o|),
skewness (1:/cn) and kurtosis (1/nrt) as dened in Bakshi, Kapadia, and Madan (2003), risk-neutral
jump (1,n:j) is the slope of the option smirk dened as in Yan (2011), idiosyncratic volatility (idio\ o|),
future volatility (1\ ) computed as the standard deviation of the underlying stock return over the life of
the option), 1\ 1\
1M
, and the dierence between 1\
1M
and the average of 1\
1M
over the previous six
months, 1\
avg
1M
.
Deciles P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10
Slope of the Volatility Term Structure
Slope VTS -0.137 -0.065 -0.041 -0.026 -0.015 -0.005 0.004 0.015 0.030 0.076
IV
1M
0.720 0.578 0.504 0.463 0.427 0.403 0.389 0.391 0.414 0.495
IV
LT
0.583 0.514 0.462 0.436 0.412 0.398 0.394 0.406 0.443 0.571
Option and Firm Characteristics
$ Size Options 613 560 588 591 558 612 615 708 767 599
DTM of IV
LT
220 220 222 222 221 223 222 223 225 222
Put-Call Spread IV
1M
0.013 0.008 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.011 0.018
Bid to Mid Spread IV
1M
0.067 0.067 0.069 0.069 0.070 0.069 0.072 0.070 0.072 0.083
Delta call 0.556 0.555 0.551 0.551 0.546 0.539 0.534 0.527 0.527 0.525
Delta put -0.445 -0.448 -0.452 -0.453 -0.459 -0.467 -0.472 -0.480 -0.479 -0.479
Gamma 0.202 0.207 0.212 0.214 0.221 0.226 0.234 0.240 0.253 0.304
Vega 7.3 8.3 8.8 9.3 9.6 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.1 7.2
Size 4.5 8.1 11.0 14.3 15.1 18.7 20.8 21.2 18.7 9.3
BE/ME 0.352 0.425 0.369 0.369 0.392 0.364 0.369 0.359 0.338 0.338
Higher Moments
RNVol 0.624 0.549 0.496 0.466 0.440 0.426 0.420 0.429 0.465 0.573
RNSkew -0.386 -0.427 -0.472 -0.484 -0.516 -0.539 -0.562 -0.539 -0.525 -0.453
RNKurt 3.966 4.106 4.264 4.300 4.441 4.510 4.610 4.520 4.471 4.311
RNJump 0.012 0.007 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.007 0.008 0.008 0.010 0.017
IdioVol 0.032 0.027 0.024 0.022 0.020 0.020 0.019 0.019 0.021 0.026
FV 0.646 0.548 0.478 0.446 0.410 0.392 0.387 0.389 0.418 0.510
FV-IV
1M
-0.074 -0.030 -0.026 -0.017 -0.017 -0.011 -0.003 -0.002 0.005 0.016
IV
1M
IV
avg
1M
0.111 0.037 0.017 0.002 -0.010 -0.019 -0.028 -0.041 -0.061 -0.102
28
Table 2
The Slope of the Volatility Term Structure and
the Cross-Section of Option Returns
Portfolios are constructed as in Table 1. This table reports the monthly equal-weighted returns of decile
portfolios for ve option trading strategies: straddles, delta-hedged put, delta-hedged call, naked put, and
naked call. We report t-statistics (t-stat), standard deviation (StDev), skewness and kurtosis values of the
returns. The last column displays the dierence between decile portfolio 10 (highest slope of volatility term
structure) and decile 1 (lowest slope of volatility term structure). The sample period is 1996 to 2007.
Deciles P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P10-P1
Straddle Returns
Mean -0.096 -0.021 -0.046 -0.005 -0.031 -0.014 0.000 0.015 0.044 0.100 0.196
t-stat (-5.89) (-1.02) (-2.91) (-0.26) (-1.70) (-0.68) (-0.01) (0.68) (1.86) (4.22) (9.17)
StDev 0.189 0.242 0.185 0.235 0.213 0.239 0.237 0.261 0.276 0.276 0.248
Skewness 0.5 1.1 0.9 1.1 0.7 1.7 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.6 0.9
Kurtosis -0.1 2.5 1.7 1.8 0.9 5.4 4.9 5.7 6.2 7.1 2.5
Delta-Hedged Put Option Returns
Mean -0.016 -0.005 -0.009 -0.003 -0.006 -0.003 -0.003 -0.001 0.002 0.005 0.022
t-stat (-5.83) (-1.82) (-4.61) (-1.47) (-3.00) (-1.47) (-1.47) (-0.37) (1.13) (2.35) (8.35)
StDev 0.033 0.031 0.021 0.026 0.022 0.024 0.022 0.023 0.025 0.027 0.030
Skewness 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.0 1.7 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.2 0.3
Kurtosis 1.6 3.7 4.1 4.9 2.8 6.2 9.8 7.3 3.7 4.7 2.0
Delta-Hedged Call Option Returns
Mean -0.015 -0.001 -0.005 0.000 -0.002 0.000 0.002 0.003 0.007 0.012 0.027
t-stat (-4.25) (-0.47) (-2.64) (-0.08) (-0.94) (0.14) (1.01) (1.41) (2.74) (4.15) (7.97)
StDev 0.041 0.037 0.024 0.028 0.025 0.024 0.024 0.024 0.028 0.032 0.039
Skewness -0.4 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.6 2.2 1.3 1.7 1.3 0.7
Kurtosis 3.1 3.8 5.3 5.0 4.2 6.8 11.0 5.1 4.6 5.6 3.6
Naked Put Option Returns
Mean -0.165 -0.187 -0.205 -0.175 -0.209 -0.147 -0.157 -0.103 -0.038 0.030 0.195
t-stat (-3.37) (-3.53) (-4.05) (-3.05) (-3.95) (-2.28) (-2.84) (-1.55) (-0.58) (0.43) (4.79)
StDev 0.570 0.618 0.587 0.669 0.614 0.749 0.643 0.770 0.753 0.818 0.473
Skewness 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.8 1.7 2.6 1.6 2.2 1.8 1.5 1.2
Kurtosis 0.4 1.3 3.0 4.6 3.7 9.2 3.2 7.7 5.6 3.5 3.7
Naked Call Option Returns
Mean -0.052 0.089 0.066 0.145 0.098 0.127 0.137 0.140 0.148 0.188 0.241
t-stat (-1.06) (1.48) (1.26) (2.53) (1.83) (2.20) (2.26) (2.34) (2.19) (2.72) (5.60)
StDev 0.574 0.703 0.605 0.663 0.622 0.674 0.704 0.696 0.784 0.804 0.500
Skewness 0.8 1.1 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.0 0.6 1.2 0.7 0.5
Kurtosis 0.5 1.6 -0.4 -0.1 0.0 -0.3 2.1 -0.1 1.7 -0.4 0.2
29
Table 3
Controlling for Volatility Risk Premium and Jump Risk
Option trading strategies are constructed as in Table 2. This table reports the results from the Fama-
MacBeth monthly cross-sectional regressions of option returns on the volatility risk premium and jump
risk variables. The variables included are the slope of the volatility term structure, variance risk premium
(Bollerslev, Tauchen, and Zhou (2009)), risk-neutral volatility, skewness and kurtosis (Bakshi, Kapadia, and
Madan (2003)), option skew (Xing, Zhang and Zhao (2010)) and risk-neutral jump (Yan (2011)). The rst
row gives the coecients of the regression and the second row gives the t-statistics (in parentheses). Adjusted
1
2
is reported at the bottom of the table. The sample period is 1996 to 2007.
Straddle Delta-Hedged Put Delta-Hedged Call Naked Put Naked Call
(1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2)
Intercept -0.004 -0.041 -0.003 -0.007 0.001 -0.003 -0.149 -0.269 0.120 0.178
(-0.19) (-1.06) (-1.37) (-2.12) (0.62) (-0.93) (-2.62) (-3.44) (2.35) (2.61)
Slope VTS 0.840 0.952 0.094 0.103 0.107 0.112 1.013 1.056 1.009 1.246
(8.08) (10.44) (8.48) (9.52) (7.50) (8.40) (4.78) (4.46) (4.04) (4.90)
VRP -0.049 0.006 0.008 -0.063 0.011
(-0.78) (0.91) (0.94) (-0.54) (0.09)
RNVol 0.015 0.005 -0.001 0.244 -0.174
(0.23) (0.78) (-0.13) (1.98) (-1.12)
RNSkew 0.001 -0.001 0.000 -0.020 0.031
(0.08) (-0.31) (-0.13) (-0.62) (0.88)
RNKurt 0.001 0.000 0.000 -0.006 0.003
(0.17) (0.17) (0.45) (-0.67) (0.39)
OptionSkew 0.263 0.020 0.034 0.340 -0.024
(1.92) (1.32) (2.11) (1.45) (-0.11)
RNJump -0.314 -0.113 0.090 -0.579 0.543
(-1.71) (-5.93) (4.00) (-1.71) (1.87)
Adj. R
2
0.006 0.019 0.012 0.034 0.014 0.040 0.004 0.027 0.005 0.028
30
Table 4
The Slope of the Volatility Term Structure,
Volatility Risk Premium and Jump Risk,
and Option Returns
Each month, rms are rst sorted into quintiles based on the volatility risk premium and jump risk, and then,
within each quintile, rms are sorted by the slope of the volatility term structure, dened as 1\
LT
1\
1M
. The
slope-of-the volatility term structure portfolios are averaged over each of the ve characteristic portfolios.
The characteristic included are the variance risk premium (Bollerslev, Tauchen, and Zhou (2009)), risk-
neutral volatility, skewness and kurtosis (Bakshi, Kapadia, and Madan (2003)), option skew (Xing, Zhang
and Zhao (2010)) and risk-neutral jump (Yan (2011)). This table reports the average option return of the
dierence between quintile 5 and quintile 1, and the t-statistics (in parentheses). The sample period is 1996
to 2007.
Straddle DH-Put DH-Call Naked Put Naked Call
Control P5-P1 P5-P1 P5-P1 P5-P1 P5-P1
VRP 0.134 0.015 0.017 0.170 0.148
(8.87) (8.58) (8.39) (5.81) (4.34)
RNVol 0.142 0.016 0.018 0.166 0.184
(9.42) (10.47) (10.41) (5.52) (5.77)
RNSkew 0.132 0.015 0.018 0.166 0.160
(7.80) (8.62) (8.44) (5.04) (4.74)
RNKurt 0.143 0.016 0.018 0.167 0.170
(8.89) (9.49) (9.21) (5.28) (4.91)
OptionSkew 0.124 0.015 0.017 0.148 0.169
(7.11) (8.37) (7.84) (4.17) (4.74)
RNJump 0.132 0.015 0.017 0.158 0.166
(7.41) (8.16) (7.77) (4.61) (4.60)
31
Table 5
Controlling for Option Anomalies
Option trading strategies are constructed as in Table 2. This table reports the results from the Fama-
MacBeth monthly cross-sectional regressions of option returns on option anomalies. Variables related to
option anomalies are the one-year historical volatility of daily return minus implied volatility (H\ 1\
1M
),
idiosyncratic volatility (idio\ o|), and the ratios between 1\
t
1M
and one-month (1\
t1
1M
), 3-month (1\
t3
1M
),
6-month (1\
t6
1M
) lagged implied volatility as well as the maximum (1\
max
1M
) and average (1\
avg
1M
) implied
volatilities over the previous 6-months. The rst row gives the coecients of the regression and the second
row gives the t-statistics (in parentheses). Adjusted 1
2
is reported at the bottom of the table. The sample
period is 1996 to 2007.
(1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2)
Intercept -0.010 -0.025 -0.004 -0.005 0.000 -0.002 -0.218 -0.197 0.167 0.118
(-0.40) (-1.14) (-1.87) (-2.01) (-0.15) (-0.74) (-3.69) (-3.21) (3.09) (2.21)
Slope VTS 0.643 0.635 0.074 0.063 0.086 0.070 0.841 0.247 0.837 1.295
(4.66) (4.16) (4.14) (3.19) (4.42) (3.12) (4.19) (0.83) (2.94) (4.01)
HV-IV
1M
0.233 0.032 0.032 0.192 0.243
(2.93) (3.52) (3.09) (1.64) (1.35)
IdioVol -0.633 -0.055 -0.064 2.311 -3.138
(-0.92) (-0.61) (-0.68) (2.08) (-1.93)
IV
1M
IV
avg
1M
0.097 -0.007 -0.006 -0.160 0.672
(0.62) (-0.30) (-0.25) (-0.46) (1.63)
Ln(IV
t
1M
,IV
max
1M
) -0.038 -0.002 -0.005 -0.075 -0.027
(-1.19) (-0.49) (-1.37) (-1.30) (-0.46)
Ln(IV
t
1M
/IV
t-1
1M
) -0.005 -0.007 -0.008 -0.165 0.084
(-0.13) (-1.67) (-1.52) (-2.27) (0.90)
Ln(IV
t
1M
,IV
t3
1M
) -0.086 -0.006 -0.005 -0.056 -0.162
(-1.87) (-1.30) (-0.95) (-0.75) (-1.39)
Ln(IV
t
1M
,IV
t-6
1M
) -0.052 -0.003 -0.003 -0.017 -0.131
(-1.26) (-0.61) (-0.62) (-0.27) (-1.57)
Adj. R
2
0.015 0.017 0.027 0.031 0.031 0.030 0.016 0.017 0.020 0.022
32
Table 6
Option Anomalies and Option Returns
Each month, rms are rst sorted into quintiles based on option anomalies, and then, within each quintile,
rms are sorted by the slope of the volatility term structure, dened as 1\
LT
1\
1M
. The slope-of-the
volatility term structure portfolios are averaged over each of the ve characteristic portfolios. Variables
related to option anomalies are the one-year historical volatility of daily return minus implied volatility
(H\ 1\
1M
) and idiosyncratic volatility (idio\ o|). Variables related to investor misreaction to volatility
changes are the ratios between 1\
t
1M
and one-month (1\
t1
1M
), 3-month (1\
t3
1M
), 6-month (1\
t6
1M
) lagged
implied volatility as well as the maximum (1\
max
1M
) and average (1\
avg
1M
) implied volatilities over the previous
6-months. This table reports the average option return of the dierence between quintile 5 and quintile 1,
and the t-statistics (in parentheses). The sample period is 1996 to 2007.
HV-IV
1M
0.082 0.009 0.012 0.094 0.113
(4.97) (4.55) (5.19) (3.01) (3.42)
IdioVol 0.143 0.017 0.019 0.188 0.169
(8.56) (9.77) (9.26) (5.80) (5.28)
IV
1M
IV
avg
1M
0.083 0.010 0.012 0.082 0.115
(5.57) (5.33) (5.74) (2.85) (3.73)
Ln(IV
t
1M
,IV
max
1M
) 0.105 0.011 0.014 0.097 0.152
(6.36) (6.04) (6.06) (3.29) (4.33)
Ln(IV
t
1M
/IV
t-1
1M
) 0.113 0.012 0.014 0.123 0.135
(7.25) (7.26) (7.15) (3.67) (4.27)
Ln(IV
t
1M
,IV
t3
1M
) 0.109 0.012 0.015 0.124 0.134
(6.63) (6.80) (7.28) (3.75) (4.02)
Ln(IV
t
1M
,IV
t-6
1M
) 0.110 0.013 0.015 0.120 0.149
(7.07) (7.18) (7.38) (3.88) (4.39)
33
Table 7
Controlling for Stock Characteristics
Option trading strategies are constructed as in Table 2. This table reports the results from the Fama-MacBeth
monthly cross-sectional regressions of option returns on rm characteristics. Characteristics included in the
regressions are the slope of the volatility term structure, size (market capitalization in $ billions), BE/ME
(book-to-market ratio), historical volatility (H\ ), skewness (Ho/cn) and kurtosis (H1nrt), realized volatil-
ity from intraday ve-minute returns, delta, gamma, and vega. The rst row gives the coecients of the
regression and the second row gives the t-statistics (in parentheses). Adjusted 1
2
is reported at the bottom
of the table. The sample period is 1996 to 2007.
(1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2) (1) (2)
Intercept -0.033 0.101 -0.009 -0.004 -0.002 0.010 -0.172 -0.369 0.063 0.459
(-0.83) (0.92) (-1.50) (-0.31) (-0.28) (0.61) (-1.63) (-1.25) (0.46) (2.05)
Slope VTS 0.687 0.738 0.078 0.084 0.089 0.095 0.861 0.738 0.605 0.875
(5.60) (5.90) (5.03) (5.35) (4.98) (5.24) (4.20) (4.03) (2.69) (4.15)
Ln(size) -0.013 -0.001 -0.001 -0.001 -0.021
(-2.51) (-1.19) (-1.54) (-0.10) (-1.71)
BE/ME 12.209 -1.608 -2.658 -42.021 44.679
(0.65) (-0.73) (-1.09) (-1.36) (0.92)
HV 0.198 0.017 0.016 0.212 0.058
(2.92) (1.92) (1.60) (1.48) (0.33)
HSkew 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.009 -0.001
(0.59) (0.66) (0.74) (0.66) (-0.08)
HKurt -0.001 -0.0001 -0.0001 0.002 -0.002
(-1.45) (-1.31) (-1.00) (0.01) (-1.13)
Realized Vol -0.204 -0.020 -0.022 -0.0002 -0.252
(-2.52) (-1.96) (-2.11) (-0.01) (-1.73)
Delta 0.081 0.084 -0.008 -0.008 0.001 0.001 -0.327 -0.364 -0.127 -0.093
(1.69) (1.81) (-1.17) (-1.40) (0.11) (0.21) (-2.89) (-3.01) (-1.02) (-0.76)
Gamma 0.008 0.168 0.001 0.038 0.003 0.038 -0.721 -0.168 0.564 0.615
(0.08) (1.66) (0.04) (1.85) (0.10) (1.54) (-1.96) (-0.59) (1.27) (1.81)
Vega 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.013 0.001 0.007 -0.001
(0.15) (1.18) (0.45) (0.93) (0.33) (0.48) (-1.94) (0.22) (0.79) (-0.18)
Adj. R
2
0.034 0.052 0.024 0.052 0.024 0.055 0.025 0.053 0.024 0.064
34
Table 8
Firm Characteristics and Option Returns
Each month, rms are rst sorted into quintiles based on rm characteristics, and then, within each quintile,
rms are sorted by the slope of the volatility term structure, dened as 1\
LT
1\
1M
. The slope-of-the
volatility term structure portfolios are averaged over each of the ve characteristic portfolios. Characteristics
included are market size (market capitalization in $ billions), BE/ME (book-to-market ratio), historical
volatility (H\ ), skewness (Ho/cn) and kurtosis (H1nrt), realized volatility from intraday ve-minute
returns, delta, gamma, and vega. This table reports the average option return of the dierence between
quintile 5 and quintile 1, and the t-statistics (in parentheses). The sample period is 1996 to 2007.
Size 0.137 0.015 0.018 0.172 0.163
(7.63) (8.11) (7.85) (5.24) (4.65)
BE/ME 0.134 0.015 0.018 0.162 0.164
(7.53) (8.11) (7.73) (4.67) (4.49)
HV 0.138 0.016 0.018 0.156 0.195
(9.49) (10.88) (10.50) (5.59) (6.35)
HSkew 0.127 0.014 0.017 0.149 0.169
(7.80) (8.02) (7.82) (4.67) (4.96)
HKurt 0.130 0.015 0.018 0.158 0.162
(7.61) (8.08) (7.98) (4.88) (4.48)
Realized Vol 0.136 0.016 0.018 0.161 0.183
(9.89) (10.85) (10.44) (5.31) (5.70)
Delta 0.144 0.015 0.018 0.168 0.146
(8.87) (8.13) (8.21) (4.62) (4.51)
Gamma 0.123 0.014 0.016 0.148 0.153
(7.51) (7.84) (7.69) (4.60) (4.50)
Vega 0.127 0.014 0.016 0.172 0.148
(8.18) (7.90) (7.75) (5.36) (4.66)
35
T
a
b
l
e
9
:
R
i
s
k
-
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
O
p
t
i
o
n
R
e
t
u
r
n
s
T
h
i
s
t
a
b
l
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
t
-
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
:
r
P
=
c
P
+
1
1
m
+
2
o
'
1
+
3
H
'
1
+
4
l
'
1
+
5
(
1
o
1
f
)
+
6
(
1
2m
1
f
)
+
7
(
1
2o
1
f
)
+
8
(
1
o
1
m
1
f
)
9
(
1
3o
1
f
)
+
1
0
(
1
3m
1
f
)
+
1
1
(
1
2o
1
m
1
f
)
+
1
2
(
1
o
1
2m
1
f
)
+
-
w
h
e
r
e
1
m
i
s
t
h
e
r
e
t
u
r
n
o
f
t
h
e
m
a
r
k
e
t
,
1
o
i
s
t
h
e
d
e
l
t
a
-
h
e
d
g
e
d
c
a
l
l
r
e
t
u
r
n
o
f
t
h
e
S
&
P
5
0
0
,
1
f
i
s
t
h
e
r
i
s
k
-
f
r
e
e
r
a
t
e
,
a
n
d
S
M
B
,
H
M
L
a
n
d
U
M
D
a
r
e
t
h
e
F
a
m
a
-
F
r
e
n
c
h
a
n
d
m
o
m
e
n
t
u
m
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
,
r
P
i
s
t
h
e
r
e
t
u
r
n
o
f
t
h
e
l
o
n
g
-
s
h
o
r
t
p
o
r
t
f
o
l
i
o
,
a
n
d
1
i
s
o
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
v
e
t
r
a
d
i
n
g
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
:
s
t
r
a
d
d
l
e
,
d
e
l
t
a
-
h
e
d
g
e
d
p
u
t
,
d
e
l
t
a
-
h
e
d
g
e
d
c
a
l
l
,
n
a
k
e
d
p
u
t
,
a
n
d
n
a
k
e
d
c
a
l
l
.
T
h
e
r
s
t
r
o
w
g
i
v
e
s
t
h
e
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
n
d
r
o
w
g
i
v
e
s
t
h
e
t
-
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
(
i
n
p
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
)
.
A
d
j
u
s
t
e
d
1
2
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
b
o
t
t
o
m
o
f
t
h
e
t
a
b
l
e
.
*
,
*
*
a
n
d
*
*
*
:
S
i
g
n
i
c
a
n
c
e
a
t
t
h
e
1
%
,
5
%
,
a
n
d
1
0
%
l
e
v
e
l
.
S
t
r
a
d
d
l
e
P
1
0
-
P
1
D
e
l
t
a
-
H
.
P
u
t
P
1
0
-
P
1
D
e
l
t
a
-
H
.
C
a
l
l
P
1
0
-
P
1
N
a
k
e
d
P
u
t
P
1
0
-
P
1
N
a
k
e
d
C
a
l
l
P
1
0
-
P
1
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
1
)
(
2
)
A
l
p
h
a
0
.
2
6
2
0
.
1
9
5
0
.
0
2
4
0
.
0
1
8
0
.
0
2
9
0
.
0
1
9
0
.
4
1
8
0
.
2
5
0
.
1
0
9
0
.
2
5
R
m
-
R
f
-
1
.
1
4
4
-
0
.
4
1
9
-
0
.
1
3
1
0
.
0
2
7
-
0
.
1
9
4
0
.
0
2
5
-
2
.
8
7
9
-
4
.
1
6
1
.
9
8
3
5
.
0
3
S
M
B
-
1
.
3
7
7
-
1
.
1
6
7
-
0
.
0
0
9
0
.
0
0
2
-
0
.
0
0
3
0
.
0
2
7
-
1
.
9
0
2
-
1
.
1
6
0
.
3
-
0
.
5
1
H
M
L
-
0
.
8
6
6
-
0
.
7
7
7
-
0
.
0
4
5
-
0
.
0
5
-
0
.
0
8
1
-
0
.
0
6
9
-
2
.
6
0
6
-
2
.
0
4
2
.
8
9
5
1
.
9
7
U
M
D
0
.
0
5
2
-
0
.
0
7
9
-
0
.
1
1
9
-
0
.
1
3
3
-
0
.
1
6
8
-
0
.
1
9
1
0
.
5
9
6
0
.
3
3
-
1
.
3
5
7
-
1
.
2
5
R
o
R
f
-
2
.
0
4
9
-
1
.
4
2
4
0
.
0
3
1
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
3
-
0
.
0
3
1
-
0
.
6
8
4
2
.
0
5
-
4
.
6
4
9
-
7
.
9
3
R
2m
R
f
-
1
8
.
3
2
-
1
8
.
4
9
5
-
1
.
8
9
7
-
2
.
6
2
4
-
2
.
0
2
6
-
2
.
9
4
7
-
2
6
.
5
4
4
-
0
.
2
9
-
1
1
.
3
6
9
-
4
2
.
6
9
R
2o
R
f
3
2
.
5
0
2
3
2
.
2
4
5
2
.
2
0
4
2
.
4
5
2
.
3
3
1
3
.
3
4
8
1
6
.
4
9
5
-
3
.
8
7
5
1
.
1
0
5
1
.
7
1
R
m
R
o
R
f
-
2
.
0
9
2
7
.
5
6
5
-
1
.
1
9
2
-
0
.
2
8
8
-
1
.
4
6
4
0
.
2
9
1
6
2
.
7
6
8
7
.
9
8
-
7
7
.
5
0
4
-
9
5
.
5
8
R
3o
R
f
-
5
2
6
.
1
-
3
8
.
4
-
1
9
-
1
0
3
6
8
3
R
3m
R
f
-
1
6
2
.
2
-
3
2
.
1
-
3
8
2
3
1
.
8
-
6
9
6
.
1
R
m
R
2o
R
f
1
2
7
.
1
-
2
2
-
6
2
.
1
4
9
8
.
2
-
6
6
9
.
4
R
2m
R
o
R
f
5
3
1
.
9
9
0
.
2
1
1
4
.
2
2
3
2
.
3
1
3
5
6
.
4
A
d
j
.
R
2
0
.
1
8
5
0
.
2
2
2
0
.
0
3
1
0
.
0
6
0
0
.
0
3
3
0
.
0
6
7
0
.
1
6
5
0
.
2
1
0
0
.
0
9
8
0
.
1
3
0
36
Table 10
Option Returns with Transactions Costs
Option trading strategies and statistics are constructed as in Table 2. Portfolio returns are computed with
bid and ask quotes. Once a month, options are bought and held until maturity. The long position buys at
the ask price and the short position sells at the bid price. Delta hedged strategies require a long or short
position in the stock at the beginning of the transaction. At maturity, the terminal payo depends on the
stock price and the strike price. If the option expires in-the-money, bid-ask prices of the stock price are also
accounted for in the portfolio return. A ratio of 1.0 pays the full bid-ask spread. A ratio of 1.25 increases
the bid-ask spread by 25%. The sample period is 1996 to 2007.
Ratio=1.0 Ratio=1.25
Straddle P1 P10 P10-P1 P1 P10 P10-P1
Mean -0.052 0.003 0.055 -0.034 -0.013 0.020
t-stat (-2.95) (0.14) (2.67) (-1.87) (-0.59) (1.00)
StDev 0.204 0.261 0.239 0.208 0.258 0.238
Skewness 0.4 1.7 0.6 0.4 1.7 0.5
Kurtosis 0.0 7.5 1.5 0.0 7.5 1.2
Delta-Hedged Put P1 P10 P10-P1 P1 P10 P10-P1
Mean -0.002 -0.005 -0.003 0.000 -0.007 -0.007
t-stat (-0.74) (-2.13) (-1.10) (0.06) (-2.94) (-2.71)
StDev 0.034 0.027 0.030 0.034 0.027 0.030
Skewness 0.2 1.2 0.1 0.3 1.2 0.1
Kurtosis 1.7 4.8 2.0 1.7 4.8 1.9
Delta-Hedged Call P1 P10 P10-P1 P1 P10 P10-P1
Mean -0.006 -0.003 0.004 -0.004 -0.005 -0.001
t-stat (-1.71) (-0.90) (1.05) (-1.02) (-1.64) (-0.32)
StDev 0.041 0.033 0.039 0.041 0.033 0.039
Skewness -0.1 1.4 0.4 -0.1 1.4 0.4
Kurtosis 3.1 5.6 3.2 3.0 5.7 3.1
Naked Put P1 P10 P10-P1 P1 P10 P10-P1
Mean -0.080 -0.061 0.019 -0.064 -0.077 -0.013
t-stat (-1.51) (-0.95) (0.52) (-1.17) (-1.22) (-0.36)
StDev 0.620 0.751 0.424 0.641 0.738 0.427
Skewness 1.1 1.6 0.6 1.0 1.6 0.3
Kurtosis 0.3 3.8 2.9 0.3 3.9 2.7
Naked Call P1 P10 P10-P1 P1 P10 P10-P1
Mean 0.032 0.080 0.048 0.054 0.061 0.007
t-stat (0.59) (1.27) (1.24) (0.98) (0.99) (0.19)
StDev 0.623 0.731 0.449 0.640 0.720 0.448
Skewness 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.2
Kurtosis 0.5 -0.1 0.5 0.5 -0.1 0.5
37
Table 11
Long-Short Option Returns for Dierent Sub-Samples
Option trading strategies are constructed as in Table 2. This table presents the long-short option returns
for dierent sub-samples. Moneyness is dened as the option strike over the stock price. The triple witching
Friday refers to the third Friday of every March, June, September and December when three dierent kind of
securities expire on the same day: stock index futures, stock index options and stock options. The arbitrage-
bounds group includes stocks that violate arbitrage bounds as suggested by Duarte and Jones (2007). Finally,
two portfolio weightings are performed: option dollar volume and option dollar open interest. The data
sample is from 1996 to 2007.
Long-Short Portfolio Returns
Baseline Portfolio 0.196 0.022 0.027 0.195 0.241
(9.17) (8.35) (7.97) (4.79) (5.60)
Moneyness between 0.975 - 1.025 0.208 0.021 0.024 0.143 0.273
(9.08) (6.93) (6.60) (3.37) (5.67)
Unbounded Moneyness 0.153 0.025 0.031 0.190 0.283
(7.77) (10.13) (9.62) (5.24) (6.92)
Period 1996-2000 0.223 0.029 0.036 0.162 0.311
(7.41) (5.91) (5.56) (3.00) (4.48)
Period 2001-2007 0.175 0.017 0.019 0.221 0.186
(5.85) (6.32) (6.48) (3.74) (3.47)
Triple Witching Friday Months 0.180 0.017 0.019 0.230 0.202
(4.23) (3.49) (3.19) (3.14) (2.48)
Non Triple Witching Friday Months 0.204 0.025 0.030 0.177 0.261
(8.52) (7.94) (7.67) (3.62) (5.22)
January 0.250 0.042 0.050 0.287 0.205
(3.23) (3.30) (2.81) (2.60) (1.27)
Non-January 0.191 0.020 0.024 0.187 0.244
(8.58) (7.79) (7.58) (4.32) (5.45)
Arbitrage Bounds 0.177 0.022 0.027 0.173 0.224
(10.40) (12.29) (13.50) (5.11) (6.50)
Earnings Announcement Months 0.144 0.015 0.017 -0.028 0.298
(2.86) (1.82) (1.89) (-0.29) (3.15)
Non Earnings Announcement Months 0.210 0.023 0.028 0.192 0.282
(8.56) (7.35) (7.10) (4.17) (5.62)
$ Volume Weighted 0.161 0.022 0.026 0.167 0.227
(3.40) (3.43) (3.19) (1.82) (2.41)
$ Open Interest Weighted 0.186 0.021 0.025 0.171 0.251
(4.55) (4.09) (3.85) (2.12) (3.04)
38
Table 12
Relation between the Slope of the Volatility Term-Structure and
Future Realized Volatility
This tables reports the average coecients and Newey-West t-statistics from the two pass Fama-Macbeth
(1973) regressions. Each month, future realized volatility is regressed on various volatility measures and
several control variables as in
1\
i;t
= 1
0;t
+ 1
1;t
1\
1Mi;t
+ 1
2;t
1\
LTi;t
+ 1
3;t
H\
1;t
+ Co:tro| \ aria/|c: + -
i;t
.
In the second step, the estimator for each coecient is the average of the time series coecients. Future
realized volatility, 1\
i;t
, is the standard deviation of the underlying daily stock return over the life of the
option. Volatility measures are 1\
1M
(the one-month implied volatility dened as the average of the ATM
call and ATM put implied volatilities), 1\
LT
(the long-term implied volatility dened as the average of
the ATM call and ATM put implied volatilities of the options with the longest time-to-maturity) and H\
(the one-year historical volatility of daily returns). The control variables included in this regressions are
idiosyncratic volatility, realized volatility computed with 5-minute intraday returns, risk-neutral skewness,
risk-neutral kurtosis, the slope of the option smirk (Option Skew), and risk-neutral jump. We report adjusted
1
2
and Newey-West t-statistics with 5 lags in parentheses. Additionally, this table reports the percentage
of single rms with t-statistics over 1.96 for each estimator. The sample period is 1996 to 2007.
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Intercept 0.012 -0.046 0.079 -0.012 0.011 -0.044 -0.013
(2.72) (-7.72) (12.77) (-2.00) (2.08) (-7.00) (-1.47)
IV
1M
0.914 0.716 0.865 0.613
(77.55) (25.17) (47.53) (17.82)
IV
LT
1.087 0.269 1.229 0.279
(73.48) (8.02) (40.38) (5.75)
HV 0.684 0.050 -0.135 -0.039
(45.36) (3.18) (-6.06) (-1.90)
IdioVol -0.523
(-1.93)
Realized Vol 0.148
(4.91)
RNskew 0.025
(4.80)
RNkurt 0.006
(4.46)
OptionSkew -0.149
(-3.91)
RNjump 0.235
(2.53)
Adj. R
2
45% 42% 30% 46% 46% 43% 51%
Percentage of t>1.96 (IV
1M
) 98% 42% 86% 32%
Percentage of t>1.96 (IV
LT
) 97% 11% 79% 8%
Percentage of t>1.96 (HV) 88% 8% 3% 3%
Percentage of t>1.96 (IdioVol) 3%
Percentage of t>1.96 (RVol) 13%
Percentage of t>1.96 (RNSkew) 8%
Percentage of t>1.96 (RNKurt) 6%
Percentage of t>1.96 (OptionSkew) 2%
Percentage of t>1.96 (RNJump) 6%
39

Equity Volatility Term Structures and The Cross-Section of Option Returns

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Equity Volatility Term Structures and The Cross-Section of Option Returns

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Equity Volatility Term Structures

and the Cross-Section of Option Returns

First Draft: October 14, 2011

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen