Upload
dspino9
View
93
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
An empirical analysis through interpretations and descriptivecharts showing what is happening to correlations over time based on six different rollingwindows, and the crucial implications this has on three central areas in today’s widening anddeepening financial society. With a total of fifty-five asset pair correlations between elevendifferent assets, I will show the effect of rolling windows on correlation and will also determineif these asset pairs change over time, how they alter over time, and whether it is a good or badalteration. This paper also entails a description on the importance of correlation with respect to;portfolio diversification, derivative pricing, and VaR
Citation preview
An Empirical Analysis on the
Significance and Implications of
Forecasting Correlations Amongst Assets
David Reed Spinowitz Honors Essay
Advisor: Dr. Karagozoglu Hofstra University
Frank G. Zarb School of Business Hempstead, NY [email protected]
Abstract:
In this paper I conduct an empirical analysis through interpretations and descriptive
charts showing what is happening to correlations over time based on six different rolling
windows, and the crucial implications this has on three central areas in today’s widening and
deepening financial society. With a total of fifty-five asset pair correlations between eleven
different assets, I will show the effect of rolling windows on correlation and will also determine
if these asset pairs change over time, how they alter over time, and whether it is a good or bad
alteration. This paper also entails a description on the importance of correlation with respect to;
portfolio diversification, derivative pricing, and VaR
Acknowledgements:
My gratitude and appreciation goes out to Ahmet K. Karagozoglu, Ph.D. for his support,
time, useful discussions, comments, and valuable research guidance which helped a great deal to
improve the quality and structure of this paper. Most of all I thank him for introducing me to this,
and increasing my awareness to this important field.
First Draft: May 3, 2007
1
I. Introduction
Is it possible for one to forecast the correlations purely by monitoring its historical price
movements? If so, what does the accuracy of the forecast depend on and what type of impact can
these forecasted correlations have in regards to making financial decisions? Benjamin Graham
once said, “In the short run, the market is the voting machine, but in the long run it is a weighting
machine.” This “weighting machine,” or moving average, is debatably the most commonly used
and perhaps the most effective and helpful way as a means to identify the trends of a price and to
forecast correlation amongst asset pairs.
Under Markowitz’s theory (1952), a portfolio made up of investments with different
levels of risk, including some with a substantial amount of volatility and others that are fairly
secure, can actually moderate the overall risk the portfolio poses without sacrificing its potential
return. Volatility is one of the most important factors that contribute to the future correlation
between two securities. Using a moving average, one will reduce this volatility or daily
fluctuations to calculate an indication of the trend of correlation over time. The specified time
window used to forecast correlation with a moving average should be based on one’s objectives
in regards to time, the volatility of the underlying securities being analyzed, and the specific
asset class they are categorized in to. As time continues and new data is generated, the average
“moves” along with the value and price of the underlying security. For example a 1 month (22
day) moving average represent the movement in prices (or yield) over the past 22 days with each
new day’s data added as the oldest day’s data is dropped from the average. Accurate forecasts of
correlations are essential components in today’s financial society that enable one to price, and
trade derivatives, form diversified optimal portfolios, and calculate risk management or VaR
(value at risk).
2
One of the major skills a substantial amount of today’s society is trying to achieve is the
ability to build wealth and mitigating risks over time. Successively and continuously building
wealth is influenced by several important factors. A few fundamental investment principles that
contribute a significant amount of weight in regards to the success of this objective, is to
maintain a balanced portfolio, with respect to asset allocation and diversification. Each of these
principles depends a great deal on correlation and the accuracy of forecasted correlation over
time.
Asset diversification is significantly the most important factor that contributes to the
success in meeting an investor’s financial goals. This allocation involves assigning percentages
of the total investment portfolio to various asset classes, which is based on the correlations
between those assets. When ones portfolio is allocated across an assortment of asset classes,
strong returns from one asset class that’s thriving can offset small or negative returns from asset
classes that are performing poorly. Asset allocation takes into account the different ways that
stocks, bonds, cash, hybrids and alternative investments historically have performed and has
used those characteristics to improve the chances of achieving a desired total return over the long
term, while trying to mitigate risk per unit of return.
As a result of the considerably low correlation with conventional investments, alternative
investments such as futures on commodities may provide the opportunity to enhance the return
potential of an investor’s overall portfolio while maintaining or even lowering the portfolio’s
overall level of risk or volatility, exhibiting a higher Sharpe Ratio which is an indicator of the
excess return per unit of risk (measured by standard deviation).
3
With the possibility of a significant enhancement of ones returns, there is also a high
degree of risk that might not parallel an investor’s risk profile. These risks are derived from
several factors including the speculative strategies carried out by some of the fund managers and
the illiquidity inherent in certain investment structures. For the reason that these investments are
highly illiquid, investors can’t touch their money for a few years (varies from investment to
investment) therefore one has to acknowledge they will be invested for a significant period of
time, increasing the uncertainties in regards to correlation and their time varying characteristics.
In today’s world where anything has the possibility of being securitized and
collateralized, the significance of default risk correlation (especially between an entity and its
counterparty in a CDO), has been greatly increasing. According to Patel, (2003) “there are
currently four major data sets used to estimate correlation using various types of models: equity
prices, cash market credit spreads, credit default swap credit spreads, and default - based data.
Besides correlation between reference entities and counterparties, there is also correlation
between loss given default and the probability of default.”
Based on Hull, Predescu, and White’s findings (2005) “The basic Gaussian copula
survival time model provides a good approximation to our base-case structural model when the
correlation parameter in the model is set equal to the asset correlation in the structural model.
Even for relatively large credit spreads the prices given by the two models are fairly close. The
advantage of the structural model is that it provides a way of simultaneously modeling credit
rating changes and defaults. Also it is possible to make extensions to the model while
maintaining its economic integrity as a structural model.” Credit derivatives are extremely
helpful instruments for the management of credit risk within the banking and investment society.
4
When trying to forecast events in the future, there is an additional amount of correlation
risk added. As a result of the growth of securitization and the market uncertainties in regards to
volatility and correlation, the price paid or sold, in reality may not reflect the fair price of a
security. VaR is an extremely important element in the process of risk management and gives
another reason to accurately forecast correlation. If risk is measured based on correlation, the
default risks of certain underlying securities, volatility and other uncertainties in regards to time
are factors that must be forecasted with minimal error and precision.
As the complexities of the securities markets continue to deepen, volatility is becoming
harder and harder to forecast, even with the Black Scholes Model (knowing at least ten different
ways to derive it for more detail oriented purposes). In today’s society, correlation is relatively
more significant and substantially harder to forecast and determine a way to sufficiently assign a
number to its risk. Relatively speaking, efficient allocation of ones portfolio is extremely
important considering the scarcity of asset classes that offer diversification today, compared to
ten years ago.
II. Literature Review
II.i Articles covered in Literature:
Elton, Gruber and Spitzer (2006) analyzed different forecasting techniques with the hopes
of finding the best method of forecasting correlation coefficients with the lowest measured error.
There are different methods available to estimate expected value. Historical returns are often
used in the forecasting of expected return. Elton and Gruber (1973) and Elton, Gruber and
Ulrich (1978) developed the Constant Correlation Model (CCM) using historical average
correlation coefficients to predict future correlation. This appeared to produce better results over
5
the Single Index Model (SIM) where security returns are believed to be related to each other
exclusively by their responses to one common factor. These men displayed that all pair wise
correlation coefficients were equal to the mean correlation coefficient. Chan Korceski and
Lakonishok (1999) studied the difference of correlation coefficient and covariance. They tested
different forecasting methods and concluded the CCM had lowest mean squared errors, the
lowest amount by which the estimator differs from the amount to be estimated. Jagannathan and
Ma (2003) looked at the estimated return distribution parameters to obtain the best correlation
with the smallest amount of variance in a portfolio by using Global minimum Variance Portfolio.
They limited the amount invested in each security and believed they would end up with the same
result as if they decreased the extreme covariance estimates toward the mean. Ledoit and Wolf
(2004) still believed the CCM to be the best forecasting tool. Engle and Colacito (2003) used
other forecasts to predict the covariance between columns of a data mix consisting of variances
of variables along a main diagonal and the co variances between each pair of variables in another
matrix position. By using a random set of forecasted expected returns for the securities they
attempted to forecast the variance with the goal of finding the least amount of variance for each
expected return. This article also addressed the question if using time series to improve
forecasting was better than just looking at prior period’s value. Auto Regressive Integrated
Moving Average (ARIMA) was looked at, which used a long time series of average correlation
coefficients. Another method was the Exponential smoothing Value Model to estimate average
future correlations. It was concluded that averaging the pairwise correlation overtime increases
the forecasting reliability.
6
Portfolio theory is often used in the analysis of risk versus return in the marketplace.
Harry Markowitz (1996), a Nobel Laureate, explained how portfolio theory could measure risk
versus return of assets. Mathematical equations are used to show comparisons of risk and return
in an investor’s portfolio. When estimating expected returns an analyst would need to look at
expected volatility for that security, examining if stocks are correlated to each other and/or to
market events. Diversification will result by examining correlation in a portfolio, thus resulting
in a safer investment. If the belief is that the market is unstable, perhaps interest rates will
increase in the near future, one using portfolio theory would increase what they believe the
instability of the interest rate to be and the mathematical equations would decide on what all this
means for the portfolio as a whole. Via this method, it is shown that an asset’s return and risk is
being analyzed at the same time based on external factors, which are inputted into the equation.
An asset will display if it moves up or down with certain volatility relative to itself and any other
assets in the portfolio. By means of using this technique of analysis, a portfolio could be
constructed of assets that do not move together based on certain events. One asset may increase
in value and another asset my decrease, resulting in a better-balanced, diversified portfolio.
There have been recent developments in financial econometrics dealing with time-
varying volatility, stressing parsimonious models that are easily estimated according to
Andersen, Bollersley, Christoffersen and Diebold (2005). There are three themes discussed
throughout the paper; 1) the issue of portfolio level and asset level modeling, emphasizing the
distinction between risk measurement and risk management. 2) The issues concerning low-
frequency data vs. high-frequency data, and the associated issue of parametric vs. nonparametric
volatility measurement. 3) The issue of unconditional vs. conditional risk measurement. The
paper attempted to demonstrate the power and potential of dynamic financial econometric
7
methods for financial risk management. Standard methods (i.e. historical simulation) rely on
false assumptions. GARCH volatility models offer a convenient framework for modeling
important dynamic features of returns, including volatility mean-reversion, long-memory, and
asymmetries. Risk management requires a specified multivariate density model and standard
multivariate GARCH models are too heavily parameterized to be useful when dealing with large
scale problems. However, recent advances in multivariate GARCH models have potential to be
of use for medium-scale problems
Ledoit and Wolf (2004) strongly emphasize that using the sample covariance matrix for
portfolio optimization is extremely inefficient and inept. In its place they propose, “the matrix
obtained from the sample covariance matrix through a transformation called shrinkage. This
tends to pull the most extreme coefficients towards more central values, thereby systematically
reducing estimation error where it matters most.” According to Jobson and Korbie, (1980) the
sample covariance matrix is estimated with a substantial amount of error when the number of
stocks under consideration is relatively large. According to Sharpe (1963) and others, there is a
compromise between a substantially high structured estimator and a sample covariance matrix in
order to arrive at an efficient risk model
Ahmed (2000) attempts to forecast correlations for mutual funds using classified models
that are broken down based on index, historical and mean. According to him, he is the first to
estimate the correlation structure of mutual funds via forecasting models. “Test periods are
repeated by moving one year forward while dropping the first year. This process creates eight,
M1-M8, data sets for estimating correlations.” “This study classifies a mutual fund into one of
four style categories on the basis of the sensitivity of a fund’s standardized returns to those of the
four Wilshire indexes” – LCG, SCG, LCV, and SCV. The forecasted correlation estimates for
8
these mutual funds are derived from three different categories of models; “historical, mean, and
index.” “This study also compares both the forecasting ability of each model in intra- and inter-
style subs-samples.” The most attractive model will be the one with the lowest overall MSE or
“mean of the absolute errors.” Ahmed is trying to determine which method can be used to
forecast correlation with the most accuracy and the lowest errors. “This paper uses a return-based
classification method similar to Gallo and Lockwood (1997).” “Many studies have shown form
size, price-to-earnings ratios, and book-to-market ratios explain the cross-sectional variation in
stock returns.” Ahmed speaks of historical models, mean models and index models throughout
the beginning of his paper. “The index models, assumes securities move together because of their
response to a set of common factors.” “In its simplest form, the market model shows changes in
stock returns being correlated with changes in a broad market index.” He discusses two types of
index models; Style Index models and Multi-Style index models. The Style-Index model
“attempts to capture the influence of a fund’s commonality with a certain investment style. In
this model two factors, market index and style index are assumed to affect fund returns.” With
the Multi-Style index, “Eun and Resnick (1992) use a multi-index model in which stock returns
are dependant on three sized based indexes representing large, mid and small capitalization
firms” (LCV, SCG, SCV, LCV). Ahmed also discusses the Farma-French 3-Factor model
originally introduced by Korthari and Warner (1997) “Results indicate that estimates from
future correlations from the Multi-Style Index, Dynamic and Fama-French 3-Factor models have
the lowest prediction errors. Moreover, the relative ranks of Multi-Style Index and Fama-French
3-Factor models have lower dispersion across different forecasting time periods and in sub-
samples of funds belonging to similar or different ‘style’ categories” Besides being good for
explaining the historical structure of correlation among funds, the FF 3-Factor model can also be
9
used to forecast correlations. “In contrast, Eun and Resnick (1992) find the aggregate mean
model analogous to the Style Mean model in this paper to be the best performer for stocks.”-
(Ahmed, 2000)
Nobel Prize winner Robert Engle (2002) says that two of the basic components factored
into to any pricing model are the forecasts of both correlation and volatility (Engle 2002).
“Simple methods such as rolling historical correlations and exponential smoothing are widely
used. More complex methods, such as varieties of multivariate generalized autoregressive
conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) or stochastic volatility, have been extensively
investigated in the econometric literature and are used by a few sophisticated practitioners.” “In
most cases, the number of parameters in large models is too big for easy optimization. In this
article, dynamic conditional correlation (DCC) estimators are proposed that have the flexibility
of univariate GARCH but not the complexity of conventional multivariate GARCH. These
models, which parameterize the conditional correlations directly, are naturally estimated in two
steps—a series of univariate GARCH estimates and the correlation estimate.” “In this article, the
accuracy of the correlations estimated by a variety of methods is compared in bivariate settings
where many methods are feasible.” “An alternative simple approach to estimating multivariate
models is the Orthogonal GARCH method or principle component GARCH method. This was
advocated by Alexander (1998, 2001). The procedure is simply to construct unconditionally
uncorrelated linear combinations of the series r. Then univariate GARCH models are estimated
for some or all of these, and the full covariance matrix is constructed by assuming the
conditional correlations are all zero.” “The goal for this proposal is to find specifications that
potentially can estimate large covariance matrices. In this article, only bivariate systems were
estimated to establish the accuracy of this model for simpler structures.” In this paper Engle
10
proposes the Dynamic Conditional Correlation (DCC) model. “These have the flexibility of
univariate GARCH models coupled with parsimonious parametric models for the correlations.
They are not linear but can often be estimated very simply with univariate or two-step methods
based on the likelihood function.” “The main finding is that the bivariate version of this model
provides a very good approximation to a variety of time-varying correlation processes. This is
true whether the criterion is mean absolute error, diagnostic tests, or tests based on value at risk
calculations.” Engle’s DCC first adjusts for differences between the variances than updates
correlations as new information is received.
Robert Engel’s “auto recessive conditional heteroskedasticity” model analyzes random
variables with different variances form the mean and how it applies to economic data over time.
Point forecast is the average of all possible results. The variance measures the difference
between the outcomes. The variance is calculated by averaging the squared deviations of each
result form this point forecast. The longer in time one goes out, the higher the variance found,
the less certainty of the future. There is a volatility clustering when large changes in prices are
followed by other large changes and small changes are usually followed by small changes.
Volatility is calculated by taking the square root of the rate at which the variance of returns
grows over time. Carr (2007) found a correlation using the ARCH Model between business
cycles and the uncertainty of inflation (not inflation itself).
According to Picerno (2000), during the time frame of 1965 – 1985 a portfolio consisting
of 20 stocks lowered the measure of risk, the standard deviation rate to 10%. During the time
frame of 1965 – 1997 50 stocks were required to maintain a 10% standard deviation. This
demonstrates that individual stocks are becoming more volatile. With this increase in individual
stock volatility, an increase in market volatility was not found to exist. Market volatility has
11
been flat and the volatility of individual stocks has increased. With a decrease in correlation,
stocks don’t move together in the same direction as much. This decreases the volatility of the
market as a whole, if one stock goes up, and there is less correlation, the other stock may go up.
Based on this, the more stocks one has in their portfolio, the greater the diversification. At some
point, the additional benefit of decreased risk will end as you keep adding more stocks to your
portfolio. It is important to try to find the middle of the road where one has the right amount of
stocks in their portfolio to decrease risk. Individual stock volatility has gone up over the years
for many possible reasons. Large companies are breaking up, creating smaller more specialized
companies with greater risk. Institutional investors have more effect on the market. If they all
follow one another such as one selling a specific stock and many institutional investors follow or
one buys a stock and they all follow, this will increase the volatility of that stock. Perhaps
Benjamin Graham in his well-known portfolio analysis theory of 1949 may be correct, where a
portfolio requires 10 to 30 stocks to provide just enough diversification.
Bernstein (2007) found that approximately 7 years ago, when the stock market took a
plunge, consumers invested in asset classes other then blue chip stocks to increase their
diversification and hopefully increase returns to their portfolios. The asset classes used in this
study all moved in opposite directions to the S&P 500. Consumers were looking for
uncorrelated assets to protect and diversify their portfolio. Based on the research performed in
this paper, it is concluded that as of today, the correlation to the S&P 500 index of blue chip
stocks has decreased for many of the asset classes used in this study. It is interesting to note that
the asset classes, high quality corporate bonds and Treasury bonds, had the strongest negative
correlation. Based on this, a consumer would need to hold these bonds in their portfolio along
with the blue chip stocks to maintain an efficiently diversified portfolio. The next group of
12
assets, which would provide slight diversification along with blue chip stocks, would be
commodities, T Bills and gold. An investor attempting today to diversify their portfolio by
focusing on different market sectors would have a hard time doing this. Based on this paper,
Consumer Staples appears to be the only market sector that is not increasingly correlated to the
S&P 500 index.
Bernstein (2007) believes if an investor wanted to invest in asset classes over a time
frame of less then 1 year, they would be better off investing in assets which are cash equivalents
such as T-Bills. A longer time frame for investing would allow one to invest in riskier assets thus
potentially resulting in greater returns the longer the investment horizon is. If one invests for at
least 10 years in the asset classes analyzed in this study, the probability of them not earning a
positive return on their investment decreases to 0% for all asset classes studied in this paper.
This study also showed that if they used rolling windows over only 10 years in time, depending
on what decade you studied, a different asset would be the preferential asset, bearing a higher
return in relation to its risk. For example, in the 1970’s Gold was the winner, in the 1980s it was
Non-U.S. Stocks with Art as a close second. In the 1990s the S&P 500 took the prize. In our
current decade, Real Estate and small stock asset classes are ahead the most for the decade so far.
Diversification is an important part of asset management as well as investing in the long run.
In an analysis by Lien (2005) correlations of international currencies did not stay
consistent over time. This could be due to factors such as the country’s economic situation,
monetary policy, a change in commodity prices of that country and political events as well.
When analyzing the correlation between international currencies, one should at least examine a
6-month correlation to obtain a better understanding of the currencies relationships to each other.
By examining the relationships between currencies, an investor would see what makes sense to
13
invest in. For example since EUR / USD has almost a 100% negative correlation to the USD /
CHF, a portfolio consisting of investments in each pair would result in no change in your
portfolio, one’s loss would wipe out the others gain.
A portion of today’s investors believes that the stock prices of Taiwan are influenced by
those of US, in which case a spillover result is created. Kuan and Thanh (2007) are testing this
belief and will determine if there is an interaction between US and Taiwan stock markets with an
asymmetric effect. To determine if an external shock could alter the relationship between stock
markets in a country or region, Kuan and Thanh considered the importance of contagion (The
probability of substantial economic changes in one country or area spreading to other countries
or areas). To test contagion between the U.S. and Taiwan stock markets, Kuan and Thanh used
forward forecasting (one-step tests and N-step tests). They concluded contagion does in fact exist
between U.S. and Taiwan stock markets based on the substantial increase of correlation
coefficients displaying the same trend among the markets. Their results displayed that if
contagion exists between the two countries, the average correlation coefficients exhibit a
significant decrease. This indicates that the stream of capital will flow into the country with the
higher return from the country with the lower return, relatively speaking.
There has been much research conducted to reinforce the belief of increased
diversification with the use of international stocks. Li and Rouwenhorst (2005) looked at the
correlation of intentional equity. When looking over the past 150 years, correlation was found to
vary greatly. This correlation was observed as being very high during times when the barriers of
trade were diminishing between countries. This research analyzes the past 150 years in order to
properly understand the effects of international diversification on a portfolio. Over 150 years of
data, from 1850 to present, were analyzed to determine the relationships between international
14
equity markets. There was found to be a substantial amount of volatility overtime in this study.
The biggest changes in volatility were during the late 19th Century, The Great Depression and the
late 20th Century. This displays the inconsistency of benefits when investing in international
equities. Over time, with the increase in integration between the economies of different
countries, came positive and negative changes for an investor of international equities. There
was more opportunity to invest in different countries, however with the addition of emerging
markets came and increase in risk. The correlation of international equities over time may be
affected by many variables such as fiscal or monetary policy, legal conditions in that country,
and the specialization of the country’s industry or even a cultural difference. An investor should
also look at the effects of correlation as well as the number of international markets available to
invest in.
A common uncomplicated belief is to diversify your portfolio into domestic and
international investments. McReynolds (2002) believes this strategy would not have been
beneficial to many investors in the 1990s due to the domestic market greatly outperforming the
international market. Even in the year 2000 when stocks started to decrease in value,
international equities also decreased. In the 1990s the correlation between U.S. markets and
international markets has increased, almost doubling. Diversification still allows investors to
decrease volatility in their portfolio. Since we do not have a crystal ball and cannot precisely
predict the future, it is still a wise choice to diversify by investing in international equity.
As volatility in the U.S. economy increases, the returns of particular emerging markets
decrease according to Bernstein (2007). A negative correlation was found for most of the
emerging markets studied to the VIX Index. As U.S. Market volatility increased as measure by
the VIX Index, the returns on most of the emerging markets would decrease. Certain monetary
15
conditions with higher debt make these emerging markets a riskier asset to invest in. The asset
class of emerging markets based on their negative correlation to the market volatility will under
perform as an asset class overall if U.S. market volatility increases. The U.S. market volatility
has increased according to the VIX Index, going from 11.6 at the end of 2006 to 14.6 after the
first quarter of 2007. Investing in a more conservative emerging market is suggested. If central
banks want to tighten the money supply and increase interest rates in a specific country, the
market there will have greater deficits and not be as good an investment. In addition to rising
interest rates, a recession domestically in the United States, and a downturn in commodities
could hurt the emerging markets. The emerging markets that are not as affected by these
elements are considered to be a more defensive emerging market and are believed to be a better
investment during volatile periods in the U.S. market.
De Chiara and Raab (2002) analyzed the commodity index fund (DJ – AIGCI), over a 10-
year period, from 1991 – 2001. The non-correlation between the commodities of this index is
from the microeconomic factors that affect the commodities. Some commodities are affected by
supply and demand factors while others are affected by the expectation of inflation, the weather,
and other events, which may move a specific commodities value. When inflation goes up, the
price of financial instruments goes up and interest rates go down. However, not all commodities
are affected in this manner. As previously stated, other events such as a change in supply and
demand could alter the price of commodities. “The principal benefits which historically have
been derived from diversified commodity exposure include: long term positive returns, robust
overall negative correlations with stocks and bonds, and generally reliable increases in the
Sharpe Ratio” (De Chiara and Raab, 2002) If there were expectations that a commodity’s supply
will decrease, an investor would expect prices to increase in the future. Expectations of inflation
16
are up and they may pay a higher interest rate to finance because they expect a higher price (a
return) at a later date. This is an instance where there is a positive correlation of the DJ-AIGCE
and interest rates. There are some commodity groups that will be affected by inflation.
Commodities as a whole are negatively correlated to stocks and bonds. An investor would be
better protected by adding a broad index of commodities such as the DJ – AIGCI to their
portfolio as opposed to adding just an individual commodity.
Simons (2005) found that the JOC – ECRI index of industrial commodities follows bond
yields. Bond yields no not follow this index in the short term. The problem with analyzing and
comparing this index is that the items that make up the index don’t move together as a whole.
Even if we just look at the metal segment of this index, there is still no movement together.
There was found to be no perfect clues as to what will drive the world’s economy. It is best to
look at all the different pieces and try to put this all together as a whole in order to increase our
knowledge of the market over a long-term outlook.
Currencies are affected by many market condition variables such as interest rates, supply
and demand, the political environment, economic growth, etc. In an analysis, Lien (2006)
concluded that Commodity prices are highly correlated to certain currencies. There is a lot of
volatility in the price of oil as displayed in 2005. Canada, a net oil exporter, benefited when the
price of oil increased. Japan, an oil importer, was hurt from this price increase in oil. High oil
reserves, the country’s location close to the U.S., political and economic instability in the Middle
East and South America, puts Canada in a very good position. Japan is a very big importer of
oil. The Japan Yen is highly correlated to oil prices. When oil prices increase greatly, the
economy of Japan is hurt with a lower value in the Yen. When examining oil importing or
exporting, an investor may choose to trade the Canadian Dollar against the Japanese Yen. As
17
expected, the price of oil is a main indicator as to the direction of the Canadian Dollar to the
Japanese Yen. Gold is another commodity, which was examined in this paper. The Australian
dollar is heavily correlated to the price of gold. Australia is the third largest producer of gold in
the world. When the price of gold increases in value, the value of the Australian dollar moves up
as well. Australia, with its close proximity to New Zealand, exports many New Zealand goods.
Their economic condition is connected to Australia. An investor who trades commodities may
also want to trade currencies based on their correlation. It would also just be wise when trading
commodities to at least watch the movements in the currency market.
There are a substantial amount of uncertainties when it comes to analyzing financial risk,
and forecasting the amount of risk associated to each unit of return. Lanza, Manera and McAleer
(2004) found that in today’s society there has been a relatively small amount of attention towards
the magnitude of correlations in the shocks to volatility. The volatility in the conditional
variance and the serial correlation to the mean make up the components of these shocks. This
paper attempts to estimate the dynamic conditional correlations in the returns on WTI oil, trying
to determine if the various future and forward returns are in fact substitutes or complements.
Lanza, Manera and McAleer found that the dynamic volatilities in the WTI oil forward and
future prices can be either interdependent or independent over different time periods. The only
cases which displayed low volatility were the returns of the three-month and six-month futures.
Drucker (2005) found that from the beginning of 2000, when the stock market began its
plunge, to the end of 2004, investments in REITs performed extremely well, earning an
annualized total return of 22.5%. The equity market at this time turned bearish resulting in an
annualized return of 2.3% for the same time period. REITs as an alternative investment allow the
investor to diversify their portfolios. It enables them to purchase an interest in real estate without
18
having to put down a lot of cash. REITs have been correlated with inflation. As inflation
increases a tenant’s rent increases, which generates more income for the landlord. REITs are
usually not thought of as being highly correlated to other assets. An investor would assume that
if interest rates fall, REITs performance would improve. With the lowering of interest rates,
comes a lowering of mortgage rates, which results in a decreased cost of borrowing. In addition,
if investors are earning less on other investments such as bonds, they may look elsewhere for
alternative investments such as REITs. However, it is noted in this article that there has not been
a strong correlation shown between interest rates and REITs. Between the middle of 2003 and
the beginning of 2004, the yield on a 5-year treasury increased 110 basis points and REITs return
increased by 20%. Between February 1996 and August 1996, yields on 5-year treasuries
increased 99 basis points while REITs increased slightly by 8%. The performance of REITs is
affected by factors other than interest rates. In the two years preceding the stock market crash in
2000, there was an oversupply of REITs on the market and share price was depressed. In this
period, the main interest of many investors was technology stocks. At the beginning of 2000,
money started flowing back to other investments such as REITs. It is interesting to note that
recently real estate values don’t seem to be as strongly correlated to values of REITs. Real estate
valuations have been increasing greatly the last 5 years. Commercial properties, however, have
not been so lucky. Occupancy rates have been suffering and rentals have decreased. Profit
margins of commercial properties have suffered. REITs are also affected by external factors
such as the government’s tax ruling on qualified corporate dividends. The dividends of REITs
don’t qualify for the 15% rate and are taxed at an ordinary income rate up to 35%. Investors
have been advised to hold REITs in tax-deferred accounts due to this higher tax rate.
19
The media sector of the market has historically been negatively correlated to the
homebuilding sector. Bernstein (2007) found that since 1998 the S&P 500 homebuilders index
has been negatively correlated to the S&P 500 Media index. Looking at 8 years out from 1998, a
negative correlation was found of –0.9 between these 2 sectors. The real estate market is
weakening. The S&P 500 Homebuilders index was down 30% for the first half of 2006
compared to a gain of 2% for the S&P 500 index. As real estate values increase, homeowners
may have more money to spend by taking out loans against the increased values of their homes.
If real estate values continue to decline for 2007 this would continue to effect consumer spending
which would affect the discretionary sector of the stock market. The media sector would be a
wise investment due to its negative correlation to the housing market.
Hedge funds have been increasingly correlated over most of the years analyzed in this
study to stocks. Bernstein (2007) believes that even with this positive correlation, hedge funds
were a worthwhile investment due to the extra value added over the period studied. Certain
mathematical equations were used in this analysis: Alpha, a positive alpha is basically the
additional return earned by the investor for taking the additional risk and not just accepting the
market return. Alpha is a funds excess return relative to its benchmark return, which is zero. It
measures the skill of the manager, taking out the return from the market. Information Ratio (IR),
uses the idea of tracking error, the numerator is the return in excess of a benchmark (µ-r) and the
denominator is the standard deviation of the differences between the portfolio returns and the
benchmark returns, i.e. the tracking error. Basically it is a measure of the excess return compared
to the benchmark. This ratio measures consistency based on performance. IR measures the value
added by a manager relative to their benchmark. The Sharpe Ratio is one of the most important
non-trivial risk adjusted performance measures. Taking the, risk free rate over a specific period
20
of time (r), subtracted from the return strategy over that specific period of time (µ) all over the
standard deviation of returns (σσσσ). A higher ratio means a better investment, more return for each
unit of assumed risk. When using these mathematical equations, one first removes the portion of
returns coming from correlations to stocks and bonds. This is performed in order to state the
value added solely by hedge funds.
II.ii Models and Empirical Results from Literature:
The average forecasted pair wise correlation from each forecasting model analyzed by
Elton, Gruber and Spitzer (2006) was altered to make them equal to the best forecast of the
average. The forecasted accuracy was measured with the root mean squared error, the amount by
which the estimator differs from the quantity to be estimated. By using this measure of error,
each technique had the same mean so the difference in forecasting reliability was solely from he
forecasted differences from the common mean. Minimum variance based on future correlation
forecasts and historic returns and variances for each security were analyzed as well each year for
33 years. The rolling average of the last 5 years average correlations and an exponential smooth
of the 5 averages outperformed the other forecasting techniques by obtaining a lower root mean
error. It was also found that when the firms were divided into 30 different industries a lower
error resulted. This research also analyzed to see if it is better to use more than one forecasting
technique. It was found that by putting equal weight to each forecasting technique, using a
rolling average of individual pair wise correlations of 30 industry groupings and using historical
forecasts, the best forecasting resulted with the lowest error.
In Engle (2002) eight different methods are used to estimate the correlations—two
multivariate GARCH models, orthogonal GARCH, two integrated DCC models, and one mean
21
reverting DCC plus the exponential smoother from Risk Metrics and the familiar 100-day
moving average. The methods and their descriptions are as follows:
1. Scalar BEKK—scalar version with variance targeting 2. Diag BEKK—diagonal version with variance targeting 3. DCC IMA—DCC with integrated moving average estimation 4. DCC LL INT—DCC by log-likelihood for integrated process 5. DCC LL MR—DCC by log-likelihood with mean reverting model 6. MA100—moving average of 100 days 7. EX .06—exponential smoothing with parameter = .06 8. OGARCH—orthogonal GARCH or principle components GARCH
Engle uses three different performance measures for the above models. He first compares the
MSE or mean absolute error of the estimated correlations. An F test is than conducted from the
regression output derived from the second measure, testing of the autocorrelation of the squared
standardized residuals. The third measure evaluates the estimator or forecasting the VaR using an
F test. In four out of the six cases the DCC mean reverting model has the least MAE. Very close
second and third-place models are DCC integrated with log-likelihood estimation and scalar
BEKK. The second standardized residual is tested for remaining autocorrelation in its square.
This is the more revealing test because it depends on the correlations. From all these
performance measures, the DCC methods are either the best or very near the best method.
Choosing among these models, the mean reverting model is the general winner, although the
integrated versions are close behind and perform best by some criteria. Generally the log-
likelihood estimation method is superior to the IMA estimator for the integrated DCC models.
First the correlation between the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the NASDAQ composite is
examined for 10 years of daily data ending in March 2000. Then daily correlations between
stocks and bonds, a central feature of asset allocation models, are considered. Finally, the daily
correlation between returns on several currencies around major historical events including the
22
launch of the Euro is examined. The correlation between the Dow and NASDAQ was estimated
with the DCC integrated method.
The second empirical example demonstrated by Engle (2002) is the correlation between
domestic stocks and bonds. “Taking bond returns to be minus the change in the 30-year
benchmark yield to maturity, the correlation between bond yields and the Dow and NASDAQ.
Although it is widely reported in the press that the NASDAQ does not seem to be sensitive to
interest rates, the data suggests that this is true only for some limited periods, including the first
quarter of 2000, and that this is also true for the Dow. Throughout the decade it appears that the
Dow is slightly more correlated with bond prices than is the NASDAQ.” “Currency correlations
show dramatic evidence of non-stationary. It is seen that this is the only data set for which the
integrated DCC cannot be rejected against the mean reverting DCC.”
High quality corporate bonds and Treasury bonds show the most negative correlation to
blue chip stocks, therefore resulting in the most diversification to the S&P 500. Bernstein (2007)
stated that in one-year time, from the beginning of 2006 to 2007, there has been a drastic change
in the correlation of T-bills to the S&P 500 going from a high negative correlation to a very
slight negative correlation. At the beginning of 2006, T-bills were considered to be the asset
class with the highest negative correlation to the S&P 500 index. Hedge funds, Real Estate, and
the MSCI EAFE have all increased their correlation to the S&P 500, and now all three of these
asset classes are highly correlated to the S&P 500, resulting in little diversification within a
portfolio. After the stock market crash of 2000, small company stocks have moved with the
market. The Russell 2000 index is also currently highly correlated to the S&P 500, moving in the
same direction as the index consistently for the past year. Art, as an asset class, also moves with
significant positive correlation to the S&P 500. Commodity futures as measured by the Goldman
23
Sachs commodity Index and Gold have decreased its correlation to the S&P 500, resulting in
only a slight correlation at the beginning of this year.
Bernstein (2007) found the majority of assets studied did reflect that over the years, the
probability of negative absolute returns did decrease the longer the asset was held in a portfolio.
Long Term Treasuries and the S&P 500 decreased the most (7-8%) in probability of negative
absolute return from holding the asset for only 1 month to holding it for 1 quarter. If an investor
decided to hold their investment for 3 years instead of just 1 month, this probability of obtaining
a negative return decreased by the following amounts:
S&P 500 25% T Bills 0% Art 7% Small Caps 32% Commodities 4% Real Estate 22% Non-US Stocks 21% Gold 8% Long Term Treasuries 33% One could observe that Commodities, Gold, and Art did not decrease as much as the other assets
by changing the time frame from 1 month to 3 years. T Bills is also an exception, bearing no risk
over the years. In a 5-year time frame Commodities, Gold and Art decreased the least in
probability of negative return. At the 10 period time frame of investment, all asset classes
reviewed showed 0% probability of negative absolute return.
For a one month period, the EUR / USD and the AUD / USD were highly correlated so
when the Euro goes up compared to the U.S. Dollar the AUD will also increase above the U.S.
Dollar (Lien). As the time frame increased this high positive correlation decreased. When
looking at 6 month correlations from 3/29/04 to 3/31/05, one could see an average high negative
correlation for the EUR / USD compared to the USD/ JPY and to the USD / CHF. A high
positive correlation during this period was found for the correlations of the EUR / USD to the
AUD / USD, The GBP / USD and the NZD / USD. Correlation over a time frame as short as one
month to one year changed.
24
Kuan and Thanh (2007) took a three-step approach when faced with the circumstances.
First they applied the “iterated cumulative sums of squares algorithm (ICSS) of Inclan and Tiao”
in order to determine the breakpoints on the markets of U.S. and Taiwan. Then a univariate
GED-EDGARCH model is used and dummy variables for structural breaks are brought into
variance equation to account for the break and asymmetry. This step is repeated until all the sub-
samples are statically insignificant. The fact that this model allows for asymmetry while omitting
the need to artificially impose positive constraints is extremely beneficial. To test the existence
of the contagion effect the DCC-GARCH model is then used to calculate approximately the
dynamic conditional correlation coefficients with structural break dummy variables. Engle’s
DCC model is estimated with a two step approach; equity returns, which is a series of univariate
GARCH estimates and the standardized noise, which is the correlation estimate. Kuan and
Thanh then used a one-step and N-step forward forecast test to determine whether the likelihood
of contagion occurred is larger than the given significant level at each break. The One-step test
standardizes every point in the series to have the value fluctuation around 0 while the N-step
tests the difference of value between the forecasting and the regression period. The One-step test
noticeably demonstrates the time-points of contagion. The N-step test that the correlation values
of the regression and the forecasting period are the same.
Li and Rouwenhorst (2005) found the variance of stocks decrease as more stocks are
added on to a portfolio. The variance will stop improving at a certain point when the number of
equities added becomes too large. In 1950 a portfolio of country indexes had a 90% risk
reduction. Around the year of 2000, this risk reduction fell to 65%. The high correlation of this
last period under analysis of 1972 to 2000 was also observed during the Great Depression of the
1930s. Historical data on international equity returns have been made available basically only
25
during the last 30 years. Based on the low amount of historical data before that time period, an
analysis on diversification of asset classes in different countries could not be performed. The
variance of a portfolio invested internationally was 10-30% of the variance of a portfolio
invested in only one market. A portfolio that invests in different international equities portrays
more diversification than a portfolio, which only invests, in one country. The only countries
where total return data was found since 1872 were France, Germany, The United Kingdom and
the United States. Correlation ranges were –0.073 during WW I (1915-1918) to 0.475 in most
recent period under analysis (1972-2000). Correlation during this period between The U.S. and
the U.K. ranged from approximately 0 to 50%. The correlation between Germany and France
ranges from –0.175 to 0.62. Substantial variation was found between correlations of
international markets over time. The returns for these countries were highly correlated at the
beginning of the 20th Century (1890-1914), the Great Depression (1930s), the Bretton Woods Era
(1946-1971) and the present period (1972-2000).
McReynolds (2002) in a 5 year study between domestic and international markets shows
the correlation of domestic markets with international markets. In the 5 years, 1997 to 2001,
correlation was up to 0.8. In the years 1985-1990, this correlation was only 0.43. Correlation in
the latter time period increased to almost a perfect market correlation of 1.0. This correlation
also seems to be more correlated when the market is in a downward trend. When markets
increase in value, the correlation of U.S. equity to international equity decreases. When
analyzing S&P 500 index from approximately 1972-2002, a standard deviation of 17.14 was
found. Looking at international equity during the same time period resulted in a standard
deviation for the MSCI EAFE of 22.5. If a portfolio was equally divided with these assets
during this period, its standard deviation was 17.47. This would result in a portfolio that was just
26
slightly more volatile than the portfolio with U.S. equity exclusively. Returns during this 30-
year period for the S&P 500 index were 12.24%, MSCI EAFE –11.15%, and the split portfolio
resulted in a return of 12.05%.
Bernstein (2007) compared the emerging markets 12-month performance correlation
(local currency) to the 12-month change in the VIX form December 1995 to March 2007. He
found that many emerging markets including Brazil, India and China, displayed a negative
correlation. Russia displayed approximately a .0 correlation and Hungary, Morocco, Venezuela
and Turkey had a positive correlation of their returns to U.S. market volatility. When looking at
the U.S. market return compared to the VIX, by using the S&P 500 and the Russell 2000, a
negative correlation was found. Another comparison was performed by analyzing the emerging
market’s financial condition, surplus or deficit and the market valuation of its equity based on
forward PE ratios. When looking at each study, it was found that countries such as India and
South Africa may be risky investments based on their high negative correlation to U.S. market
volatility and a deficit in their economy. Countries such as Brazil and Taiwan may be better
investments due to their correlation not being as negatively correlated to the VIX and each
country has a surplus account.
De Chiara and Raab (2002) performed an analysis consisting of a series of 5-year
windows from 1991 to 2001 showing negative correlation between the different Dow Jones
commodity sector indexes compared to the S&P 500 index and a Lehman Bond index. Positive
correlation was found between the commodity indexes and unexpected inflation. As a result of
the prices of financial instruments decreasing as inflation tends to rise, all else held constant, the
relationship between an index such as the DJ-AIGCI, and the course of the 3 month T-bill, would
most likely be positively correlated. Cooper and Aluminum was found to have a correlation of
27
returns greater than 0.50 to each other. Over longer time frames, only metals such as zinc seem
to determine the movement of long-term bond yields. There was no correlation of nickel to
yields on these bonds. From 1995 to the middle of 2002, there was a high correlation of
aluminum prices and long-term bond yields. As the dollar depreciates, the price of cooper
increases substantially. As the dollar strengthens, price of cooper decreases but the effect is not
as great.
Lien (2006) found Australia, Canada and New Zealand to have the highest correlation of
their currencies with commodities. From 2003 – 2005, there was an 80% correlation between the
Canadian Dollar and the price of oil. Historically as the prices of oil increased, the value of the
U.S. Dollar to the Canadian dollar decreased. The New Zealand Dollar to the U.S. Dollar and
the Australian Dollar to the U.S. dollar had a 96% positive correlation to each other when
analyzed from 2003 – 2005. Australian and New Zealand currency are both very positively
correlated to the price of gold.
Lanza, Manera and McAleer(2004) used several variations of Engles’ GARCH(1,1)
model. The Dynamic Conditional Correlation model of Engle (2002) and the Constant
Conditional Correlation GARCH model of Bollerslev (1990) where the estimated multivariate
models used. Due to the fact that Bollerslevs’ CCC model doesn’t account for asymmetric
shocks, an asymmetric GARCH model was proposed by Jagannathan and Runnkle (1992). To
incorporate the dynamics of time Engle proposed the DCC model (2002) and Tse and Tsui
proposed the Variable Conditional Correlation model. Although the dynamic conditional
correlations vary substantially, only 10% of the variations are not an economically meaningful
range of variance, while exhibiting a strong negatively distorted distribution.
28
The media industry was shown to be the most negatively correlated to the homebuilding
sector (-0.90) from June 1998 to May 2006. Bernstein (2007) looked at this data from
September of 1989 to May 2006, and found that the auto industryalso had a high negative
correlation to the homebuilding sector (-0.66). All the sectors in the S&P 500 Consumer
Discretionary Industries Index from 1998 to 2006 which were all negatively correlated to the
homebuilding sector were: Media, Automobiles, Leisure equipment and Products and Auto
Components. The sectors with high positive correlation (0.75- 0.92) to the homebuilder’s index
were: Specialty Retail, Hotel Restaurants and Leisure, Textile and Apparel, and Multilane Retail.
A statistical method, Regression Analysis, was used by Bernstin (2007) to find
correlations between different variables in order to forecast future values. Alpha of hedge fund
indexes were compared against U.S. stocks (S&P 500 Total Return Index) and U.S. Bonds
(Merrill Lynch Domestic Master Fixed Income Index). When looking at the correlation of the
hedge fund indexes to the stock market index, the hedge fund indexes produced positive Alpha
and IR which have grown in the past year. The Sharpe Ratio was higher for the hedge fund
indexes for most of the time period studied when compared to U.S. stock. Hedge fund indexes
did better then bonds since the middle of 2005.
II.iii Data from Literature:
Elton, Gruber and Spitzer (2006), in a study of stocks, took the average correlation within
groups of firms and between groups were found over 5 years and used to forecast the next year.
This was repeated for each year from 1968 to 2001. The firms were grouped according to the
industry type and firm attributes and weekly returns from the prior years were measured.
29
In Honggang and Gao’s, (2006) study, they used the raw daily price index data on DJIA
taken from Yahoo’s financial database and defined daily return as the difference of the log of the
close price index. They used 19,397 returns from 19,398 transaction dates data covering the
period from October 1 of 1928 to December 30 of 2005.
Ledoit and Wolf, (2004) studied the out-of-sample performance of their shrinkage
estimator, using historical data from DataStream to provide them with monthly U.S. stock
information. They used this information to create several value-weighted indexes to serve as
their benchmarks. “Starting in February 1983, the methodology is as follows. At the beginning of
each month, we select the N largest stocks as measured by their market value. The market values
of the stocks define their index weight. At the end of the month, we observe the (real) returns of
the individual stocks and, given their weights, compute the return on the index. This prescription
is repeated every month until the end of December 2002. As far as the benchmark size N is
concerned, we employ N = 30; 50; 100; 225; 500. This range covers such important benchmarks
as DJIA, Xetra DAX, DJ STOXX 50, FTSE 100, NASDAQ-100, NIKKEI 225, and S&P 500.”
“The out-of-sample period ranges from 02/1983 until 12/2002, so a total of 239 monthly realized
excess returns are obtained. Since the results depend on the monthly forecasts, which are
random. They repeated this process fifty times and further calculated the mean summary
statistics.
Each asset class used in the report by Bernstein (2007) was correlated to the S&P 500
calculated from monthly correlations based on a 5 year rolling window. This was done in order
to smooth out any short-term fluctuations and to use a complete cycle of information. The asset
classes analyzed were: Commodities (Goldman Sachs Commodity Index), Long-term
Treasuries, High-Grade Corporate Bonds, Cash (T-bills), Small Stocks (Russell 2000), Non-U.S.
30
Stocks (MSCI EAFE), Real Estate (NAREIT Index), Hedge Funds (HFRI Hedge Fund Index),
Art (Art Market Research) and Gold. Bernstein’s (2007) analysis used 12-month rolling returns,
January-to-January, February-to-February, etc. By analyzing the returns in this manner, certain
events which might effect the returns in a certain month would be removed and not tamper with
the results. We began looking at these returns from December 1969 until June 2006 with the
exception of real estate (began January 1972) and Art (began January 1976).
Data was analyzed by Lien (2005) for 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year to
correlate pairs of international currencies. The currencies used were: USD-U.S. Dollar: EUR-
euro: AUD- Australian Dollar: JPY-Japanese Yen; GBP-Pound: NZD-New Zealand Dollar:
CHF- Swiss Franc; CAD-Canadian Dollar.
The results of Kuan and Thanh (2007) are based on five years of historical data from
January 1, 1997 to October 31, 2001 and include 1,128 observations. They used three big
composite indexes from the US (NYSE, S&P 500, NASDAQ) and the Taiwan weighted stock
index. To compare the indexes on relative terms, they all started at 100 on January 1, 1997.
Cross sectional and time series data on historical returns on international markets were
used in the analysis of Li and Rouwenhorst (2005). Data was taken from the following: Global
Financial Data (GFD), Jorion and Goetzmann- a sample of equity markets, Ibbotson Associates-
database of international markets–(IA), and the International Finance Corporation –database of
emerging markets (IFC). Overall this study looked at 84 international equity markets. For some
countries data did not exist or was not available for certain years. Information only in the last
three decades was easily available.
In McReynold’s (2002) study, a rolling 5-year correlation was used for data collected
from the Center for Research in Security Prices to reflect U.S. equities and Morgan Stanley
31
Capital International Europe, Australia, and Far East index (MSCI EAFE) to represent
international equities.
The CBOE Volatility index (VIX) was used by Bernstein (2007) and was compared to
the returns of various emerging markets. The VIX is the ticker symbol for the Chicago Board
Options Exchange Volatility Index. The VIX is a measure of near term volatility of S&P 500
index options. This index shows the investors expectations of 30-day volatility using a wide
range of index options of the S&P 500 to show what an investor expects future volatility to be.
De Chiara and Raab, (2002) used the DJ-AIGCI and all commodity basket data prior to
the index launch on July 14, 1998, along with other return and correlation calculations, are
historical estimations using available data. DJ-AIGCI and commodity basket data prior to 1998
were calculated by based on the 1998-1999 percentage weights, with commodity basket weights
and calculations adjusted for data availability. The U.S. Treasury Bond return was calculated
using the Lehman Brothers Long Term Treasury Bond Index. Using a weekly rolling 3 month
Treasury Bill Yield rate from CRB they calculated the collateral yield.
In his study, Simons (2005) used The Journal of Commerce – Economic Cycle Research
Institute (JOC – ECRI) index of industrial commodities (this index includes the London Metal
Exchange’s –LME, which includes copper, aluminum, nickel, led, and zinc.
Lanza, Manera and McAleer, (2004) used the univariate and multivariate GARCH
models using daily data on WTI oil one month forward prices and one-, three-, six, and twelve-
month futures prices, along with their associated returns, for the period January 3, 1985 through
January 16, 2004.
As stated in Durcker’s (2005) paper, the NAREIT is actually the oldest family of indexes,
launched its first index in 1972 and is the industries most all-inclusive and offers uniformity for
32
long-term tracking. “Its total composite for all publicly traded equity REITs includes 190 names.
NAREIT also compiles a mortgage REIT index; a hybrid index that includes both equity and
mortgage REITs; and the Real Estate 50, an equity index that comprises the 50 largest companies
and is primarily targeted toward institutional investors that seek a large-cap benchmark.” “MSCI
and Wilshire are the other main indexes in this industry. MSCI, which took over management of
the Morgan Stanley RMS index last November, weeds out microcaps (those with a market cap of
less than about $300 million) using liquidity and minimum-market-cap screens. The 122 secu-
rities in it also exclude mortgage REITs, which more closely reflect interest rates than direct real
estate exposure. The Wilshire indexes, with 92 names, banish smaller caps, net lease companies,
and mortgage and health-care REITs”. “Unlike NAREIT, MSCI and Wilshire both adjust for
free float, which means they reduce the weight of rarely traded securities, such as those owned
by insiders. That adjustment enables many managers to replicate market performance more
closely. They can match their portfolios against an index that has eliminated shares that would be
unavailable for purchase.”
Bernstein (2007) examined correlation during the time period’s: June 1998 to May 2006
and from September 1989 to May 2006. Starting from the year 1998 was believed to be a better
choice due to the belief that speculation moved the market and not just the basic fundamentals at
the beginning of that period. Correlation was compared between the S&P 500 Consumer
Discretionary Industries Index and the S&P 500 Homebuilders Index. The Homebuilders Index
is made up of 5 companies and is a measure of confidence of U.S. homebuilders.
Rolling 5 year (60 month) windows were used in this study by Bernstein (2007), from
December 1998 to March 2006. The Hedge fund indexes used were the HFRI and the CSFB. To
33
analyze the U.S. Stock market the S&P 500 total return index was used and the Merrill Lynch
Domestic Master Fixed Income Index was used to analyze bonds.
III. Data
For this empirical analysis displaying the significance and implications of correlations
over time I used daily data from the Commodity Research Database (CRB). Using Stata, a
correlation matrix was created* of fifty-five asset pairs from ten different assets coming from
three asset classes: Commodities, Interest Rates, and Equities1. (See Table 2)
The Commodities asset class consisted of four assets: Precious Metals, Energy,
Gold/Silver and Goldman Sachs Commodity Index. The Interest Rate asset class consisted of
two assets: the one-year Treasury Bill and the thirty year Treasury Bond. The Equities asset class
consisted of five assets: S&P smallcap 600, S&P madcap 400, S&P 500, NASADAQ, and the
Russell 2000. The eleven asset sources, and the amount of daily data obtained from a specified
date are displayed in Table 1 of the Appendix. For each of the 55 asset pairs 6 different moving
windows were created: a 1 month (22 day), 3 month (66 day), 6 month 122 day), 1 year (252
day), 2 year (504 day), and a 3 year (756 day).
1 MVCORR function used in Stata to generate rolling window correlations is created by Christopher F Baum (2004) and can be downloaded from http://fmwww.bc.edu/repec/bocode/m/mvcorr.ado
34
IV. Empirical Results
When comparing the average daily correlations based on six different windows for all
fifty five pairs of assets there appeared to be some similar and unique trends amongst the
different asset pairs. Based on the graphs and data there seemed to be similar and unique trends
when comparing the three different asset classes; Commodities, Equities, and Interest Rates. As
the length of the rolling window of correlation increased (from a one month rolling window to
the three year rolling window), I found two trends that were constantly reappearing amongst the
asset pairs, and four trends that were common amongst a select few asset pairs.
Assuming normality and holding all else equal, the formula to calculate the sample
standard deviation (which is merely a measure of the dispersion of the return distribution for
each particular asset) of xi is:
( ) ( )11
2−−∑
=
= nxn
i
ix µσ
Assuming normality and holding all else equal, the formulas I used to calculate the
correlations for the 55 asset pairs for the n month (n day) moving average is:
( )( )[ ]
( ) ( )
n
xx
n
xx
nyyxx
ni
i
i
ni
i
i
ni
i
ii
AB
∑∑
∑+−
−=
+−
−=
+−
−
−−
×−−
=)1(
1
2)1(
1
2
)1(
1
1
ρ or
)(*)(
),(
BStdevAStdev
BACOVAB =ρ
This formula was repeated for each of the six rolling windows, where n=22 for the 1 month,
n=66 for the 3 month, n=122 for the 6 month, n=252 for the 1 year), n=504 for the 2 year, and
n=756 for the 3 year.
Evaluating the averages of the daily correlations based on different rolling windows
between the 1 year T-Bill and the S&P midcap 400 Index, the data and charts demonstrated that
there is a constant increase in the strength of their relationship as the length of the rolling
35
window increases. From the 1 month rolling window to the 3 year rolling window the data
indicated a constant increase in their correlation from .07 to.21, respectively (see chart 1). Based
on the data and empirical results, this trend, of a direct relationship between asset pair
correlation’s and the length of the rolling window used to calculate their average daily
correlation was a repetitive trend when comparing short and long term treasury yields to both
equity indexes. This repetitive trend may be attributed to the difference in trading volume
between the two assets, causing a positive relationship between their average daily correlation
and the length of the rolling window used. Another possible reason for the lower correlations
seen in the shorter rolling windows can be partially attributed to the low levels of volatility our
economy has been recently experiencing.
I observed similar trends across the Long-Term US Treasury Yields when compared to
the five equity indexes used, (which covered the different styles and sectors of the equity
industry). This trend was displayed when comparing both short term and long-term interest rates
to a majority of the equity indexes. While the 30 Year T-Bond displayed this trend of an
increasing correlation with the CRB Energy Index, the 1-year T-Bill did not. However the 1-year
T-Bill had a similar trend when compared to the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index and the 30
year T-Bond did not. This could be attributed to the fact that the Goldman Sachs Commodity
Index represents a diversified position in commodity futures, while the CRB Energy Index is
comprised of crude oil, heating oil, and natural gas. Knowledge of this relationship between the
differences in daily average rolling correlation across different windows in regards to the future
of energy and the direction its headed should and could be taken advantage of.
The relationship between commodities (especially energy) and US Treasury’s (both Long
Term and Short Term) should be carefully observed over the next decade or two. The differences
36
between the 1-month and 30 year Treasuries can be attributed to other factors besides their time
difference. In a normal economic environment one would receive a higher rate on the 30 year
compared to the 1-month and other T-bills. However, the U.S.’s yield curve has been flirting
with inversion for the past two years; in other words, there are times where one would receive a
lower rate on the 30 year T-Bond compared to the T-Bills. Also there were no 30-year T-Bonds
issued between October 2001 and August of 2005.
According to Alexander (2001), the short rolling windows have trivial coefficients due to
the high degree of multicollinearity between the assets. Therefore, this common problem, of
multicollinearity, makes it is more difficult to effectively interpret the true strength of the effect
each asset contributes to the total portfolio. Therefore if one decides to use a short rolling
window they must be aware of multicollinearity and not use indicators that expose the same sort
of information. When observing the shorter rolling window correlation coefficients of the asset
pairs, there is a greater chance that the standard errors will be depressed creating inaccuracy.
This inaccuracy can be applied to models used to forecast and efficiently manage risk, price
derivatives, and optimize ones portfolio.
The standard deviation of the forecasted daily correlations may portray a constant flat
relationship across the different rolling windows, which can be attributed to no unusual
expectations in the markets. This chart displays the second major trend observed throughout my
analysis of the relationship between an asset pair’s correlation and the length of the rolling
window for their average daily correlations. When comparing the average of daily correlations
for the Russell 2000 Index and the CRB Energy Index to the length of the rolling window the
data clearly confirmed that a flat relationship existed. With a correlation of approximately zero
across each of the 6 rolling windows used, this pair of assets proves to be good assets to put into
37
a portfolio for two main reasons. First, with a correlation of almost zero, the movement of each
asset return is almost completely independent of one another. This independence enables
portfolio diversification by reducing the risk for a given level of return. When selecting assets for
ones portfolio, their time horizon is an important factor that has significant weight and must be
considered. While the relationship between other assets pairs varies from one rolling window to
the next, the relationship (correlation) remains constant for these two assets across all 6 rolling
windows. See chart 6 for similar asset pairs that exhibit this similar leveled trend across the six
rolling windows.
Chart 2 demonstrates an inverse (negative) relationship when comparing the average
daily correlation between the 1-year T-Bill and the 30-year T-Bond as the length of the rolling
window increases. Similar asset pairs that display this inverse relationship between correlation
and the length of the rolling window are seen when comparing precious metals to gold and
silver, along with short-term interest rate yields.
After analyzing chart 3 and the relationship of the average daily correlation between Gold
and Silver and other equity indexes as the length of the rolling window increases, an irregular
movement is displayed. The average daily correlation increases between the asset pair across
time, from the 2-month rolling window to the 6-month rolling window. The correlation between
the asset pairs after the 6 month rolling window begin to decline and display a trend of an
inverted relationship from the 1 year rolling window to the 3 year rolling window.
Similar to the previous movement in terms of irregularity, but different in terms of the
trend of the daily correlations is displayed in chart 4. This chart shows the relationship between
an asset pair’s correlation and the length of the rolling window for their average daily
38
correlations decreases from the 1 month rolling window to the 6 month rolling window. Then
from the 1 year rolling window to the 3 year rolling window the trend increases.
The average of daily correlations based on 6 different rolling windows for the CRB
Precious Metals Index and the NASDAQ Composite Index appear to exhibit a direct relationship
in regards to their correlation and the length of the rolling window used, (similar to the assets in
chart 1). However, the 3-year rolling window suddenly diverts off the trend and decreases by a
substantial amount. When comparing precious metals to midcap and smallcap equities and when
comparing long-term treasury yields to gold and silver a similar trend is observed.
Whether one is interested in; the management of risk (VaR), pricing derivatives, or
portfolio diversification, looking at average daily correlation between assets and being able to
forecast their relationship with precision is extremely significant. The above irregular trends
make it extremely hard to forecast correlation because of the volatility amongst the 6 different
rolling windows. Time horizon is an important factor that must be considered when trying to
forecast correlation. The volatility across the 6 different rolling windows makes it more difficult
to accurately forecast average daily correlation between any asset pairs.
Studying the standard deviation of rolling correlation with six different windows (see
chart 7), one can see that the window used to measure correlation has a big impact on what one
sees in regards to the time series properties of correlation. From this chart it is clear that there is a
similar trend across all 55 asset pairs when comparing the rolling correlation’s standard deviation
to the rolling window used. While standard deviations vary across asset pairs, they all have their
highest coefficients when looking at the 1 month rolling window. From the 1-month rolling
window to the 3-year rolling window the standard deviation of rolling correlation for the 55 asset
39
pairs decrease respectively. The fact that moving averages based on shorter time spans fluctuate
more than moving averages with longer time spans holds true across all 55 asset pairs.
Looking at the “Descriptive Statistics” chart in the appendix one can witness how
different observation windows effect the correlation over time. Looking at the S&P 500 Index
compared to the 30 year T-Bond 1 month rolling window, the assets have an average daily
correlation of .4312. When one uses the 3 year rolling window to compare the two, the average
daily correlation significantly drops to .1275 (a 30% difference in value). Then one can look at
the PHLX Gold/Silver Index compared to the Russell 2000 Index 1 month rolling window, the
assets have an average daily correlation of .034. When one uses the 3 year rolling window to
compare the two, the average daily correlation significantly drops to .0088, practically zero.
These are just two examples of the substantial differences between different moving averages
(rolling windows). Therefore when one is trying to; price a derivative, manage risk, or diversify
their portfolio, their time horizon and the time period used to forecast correlation (whether using
rolling windows, or any other type of forecasting method) are two factors that are of the utmost
importance.
A possible cause for a sudden increase in the spread of an asset pair’s confidence interval
may be attributed to a large, positive or negative, unexpected movement in the market. As a
result of a large standard deviation and standard error, confidence intervals can be relatively
wide. Comparing the Confidence Intervals for the one-month and 3 year rolling windows one
can see the variances of the value is proportional to the variance of the correlation forecast.
Therefore some type of adjustment should be made to account for the degree of uncertainty.
Looking at the irregularity of chart 3, one should adjust their significance downward for
uncertainties on correlation based on the concave shape across the 6-month and 1 year rolling
40
windows. Conversely the reciprocal action should be taken across the 6-month and 2 year rolling
windows in chart 4 based on the convexity of the trend. As you look at the confidence Intervals
from Graph 8B to graph 13B, moving from a 3 year rolling window to a 1 month rolling
window, it is clear the confidence interval increases as the rolling window used decreases.
There was a substantial amount of fluctuations across all 55 asset pairs when observing
the rolling window correlation estimates which decreased as the length of the rolling window
used increased. For this reason it is advisable to use a long averaging period on historical
volatility estimates. However, the longer the rolling window, the further ones risk (or time)
horizon is, the greater number of uncertainties one obtains. In general there are more similarities
between the 1 month (22 day) rolling windows compared to the 2 year and 3 year rolling
windows due to the fact that uncertainties increase with the risk horizon of ones timeline. For
example, partially as a result of this risk horizon, the standard deviation of the forecasted
correlation differs most in the asset pairs of the interest rates (both long-Term and Short-Term)
and the S&P500.
V. Conclusion
Forecasting correlation is important for three main reasons; portfolio diversification,
derivative pricing, and VaR. Accurate pricing of derivatives on volatility and correlation depends
significantly on how the underlying correlation and volatility fluctuate throughout different time
periods. The assessment of the conditional return distribution is a significant factor that
contributes to any type of financial risk supervision or management. According to Anderson,
Bollerslev, Diebold, and Labys (2005), correlation is itself highly correlated with realized
volatility, which they call the “volatility effect in correlation.” They point out that return
41
correlations tend to rise on high-volatility days, which can be seen throughout viewing different
charts and graphs in the appendix. I show how time varying information, through the use of
different rolling windows, can have significant impacts on one’s financial decisions with respect
to forecasting correlation.
Based on my literature review correlations are important and should be estimated well
and forecasted with precision and caution. There have been recent developments in financial
econometrics dealing with time-varying volatility, stressing parsimonious models that are easily
estimated according to Andersen, Bollersley, Christoffersen and Diebold (2005). GARCH
volatility models offer a convenient framework for modeling important dynamic features of
returns, including volatility mean-reversion, long-memory, and asymmetries. Risk management
requires a specified multivariate density model and standard multivariate GARCH models are
too heavily parameterized to be useful when dealing with large scale problems. However, recent
advances in multivariate GARCH models have potential to be of use for medium-scale problems.
Nobel Prize winner Robert Engle (2002) says that two of the basic components factored
into to any pricing model are the forecasts of both correlation and volatility (Engle 2002).
“Simple methods such as rolling historical correlations and exponential smoothing are widely
used. More complex methods, such as varieties of multivariate generalized autoregressive
conditional heteroskedasticity (GARCH) or stochastic volatility, have been extensively
investigated in the econometric literature and are used by a few sophisticated practitioners.” “In
most cases, the number of parameters in large models is too big for easy optimization. In this
article, dynamic conditional correlation (DCC) estimators are proposed that have the flexibility
of univariate GARCH but not the complexity of conventional multivariate GARCH. These
models, which parameterize the conditional correlations directly, are naturally estimated in two
42
steps—a series of univariate GARCH estimates and the correlation estimate.” “In this article, the
accuracy of the correlations estimated by a variety of methods is compared in bivariate settings
where many methods are feasible.” “An alternative simple approach to estimating multivariate
models is the Orthogonal GARCH method or principle component GARCH method. This was
advocated by Alexander (1998, 2001). The procedure is simply to construct unconditionally
uncorrelated linear combinations of the series r. Then univariate GARCH models are estimated
for some or all of these, and the full covariance matrix is constructed by assuming the
conditional correlations are all zero.” “The goal for this proposal is to find specifications that
potentially can estimate large covariance matrices. In this article, only bivariate systems were
estimated to establish the accuracy of this model for simpler structures.” In this paper Engle
proposes the Dynamic Conditional Correlation (DCC) model. “These have the flexibility of
univariate GARCH models coupled with parsimonious parametric models for the correlations.
They are not linear but can often be estimated very simply with univariate or two-step methods
based on the likelihood function.” “The main finding is that the bivariate version of this model
provides a very good approximation to a variety of time-varying correlation processes. This is
true whether the criterion is mean absolute error, diagnostic tests, or tests based on value at risk
calculations.” Engle’s DCC first adjusts for differences between the variances than updates
correlations as new information is received.
Robert Engel’s “auto recessive conditional heteroskedasticity” model analyzes random
variables with different variances form the mean and how it applies to economic data over time.
Point forecast is the average of all possible results. The variance measures the difference
between the outcomes. The variance is calculated by averaging the squared deviations of each
result form this point forecast. The longer in time one goes out, the higher the variance found,
43
the less certainty of the future. There is a volatility clustering when large changes in prices are
followed by other large changes and small changes are usually followed by small changes.
Volatility is calculated by taking the square root of the rate at which the variance of returns
grows over time. Carr (2007) found a correlation using the ARCH Model between business
cycles and the uncertainty of inflation (not inflation itself).
According to Alexander (2001), the short rolling windows have trivial coefficients due to
the high degree of multicollinearity between the assets. Therefore, this common problem makes
it more difficult to effectively interpret the true strength of the effect each asset contributes to the
total portfolio. Therefore if one decides to use a short rolling window they must be aware of
multicollinearity and not use indicators that expose the same sort of information. When
observing the shorter rolling window correlation coefficients of the asset pairs, there is a greater
chance that the standard errors will be depressed creating inaccuracy. This inaccuracy can be
applied to models used to forecast and manage risk, price derivatives, and optimize one’s
portfolio.
In VaR models, managers must consider the risk factors of the portfolio their running,
derived from the variations in value for a given pair of assets (for example the fluctuations of
exchange rates). Other important risks that must be considered when, pricing a derivative or
simply just trying to optimally diversify ones portfolio are the following; price risk, settlement
risk, default risk, systematic risk, operational risk, and liquidity risk. In today’s financial society,
moving averages are used to reduce daily volatility or noise that interfere with identifying
relationships across time and across different rolling windows with respect to correlation and
standard deviation. With the exponential amount of leverage being used today, there is an
44
unknown level of risk that must be accounted for, calculated and attributed to the exponential
usage of leverage.
Looking at chart 6, the standard deviation of the forecasted daily correlations may portray
a constant flat relationship across the different rolling windows, which can be attributed to no
unusual expectations in the markets. With a correlation of approximately zero across each of the
6 rolling windows used, this 55 asset pairs proves to be good assets to put into a portfolio for two
main reasons. First, with a correlation of almost zero, the movement of each asset return is
almost completely independent of one another. This independence enables portfolio
diversification by reducing the risk for a given level of return. When selecting assets for ones
portfolio, their time horizon is an important factor that has significant weight and must be
considered. While the relationship between other assets pairs varies from one rolling window to
the next, the relationship (correlation) remains constant for these two assets across all 6 rolling
windows.
Based on my observations, the shorter the rolling window used, the more volatile and
unpredictable the correlations are. These fluctuations decreased as the length of the rolling
window used increased, across all 55 asset pairs. As a result of the fluctuations of the shorter
rolling windows, an asset pair’s correlation might go from positive to negative, negative to
positive, or just experience a significant change in their correlation. If this data based on the
short term rolling windows were to be used for further analysis, such as forming an optimal
diversified portfolio, the results will most likely significantly fluctuate and be misleading. As a
result caution should be taken when using short rolling windows as a means of forecasting.
45
References
Andersen, Torben G.,Time Bollerslev, Peter F. Christoffersen and Francis X. Diebold. “Practical
Volatility and Correlation Modeling for Financial Market Risk Management.” Risks of Financial Institutions, July 22, 2005.
Alexander, C. (2001). Market Models: A Guide to Financial Data Analysis. Wiley, Chichester. Ch.5
Forecasting Volatility and Correlation
Berger, Eric and David Klein, “Stochastic Interest Rates: A Crucial Correlation”, Bloomberg, July 1997.
Berger, Eric and Aaron Gross, “Value at Risk: Testing the Depths of Derivatives”, Bloomberg, March 1998.
Bernstein, Richard, “Updated: Uncorrelated Assets Are Now Correlated”, Merrill Lynch U.S. Strategy Update, March 5, 2007.
Bernstein, Richard, “All Emerging Markets Are Not The Same” The Merrill Lynch Ric Report, April 10,2007
Bernstein, Richard, “Individual Investors Have The Advantage, Will They Use It? Media: The Anti Housing Consumer Play”, Merrill Lynch Ric Report, 2007.
Bernstein, Richard, “A Simple Risk Reduction Tool: Time” Merrill Lynch U.S. Strategy Update, 2007.
Bernstein, Richard, “Hedge Fund Update: Alpha / Information Rates (IR) and Correlation”, Merrill Lynch Ric Report, 2007.
Broszkiewicz , Suwaj, Weron R. Makagon and A. Wylomansak. “On Detecting and Modeling Periodic Correlation in Financial Data” Physics A: Statistical and Theoretical Physics, Vol 336, Issues 1-2, May 1,2004:196-205
Bruce, Robert, “Moving – and Far From Average” Focus Technical analysis-Bloomberg, December 1998.
Carr, Peter, “The Value of Volatility” Bloomberg, January 2007:134-137 www.bloomberg.com/news/marketsmag/qcorner/qcorner_jan07.pdf>
Chaplin, Geoff, “Credit Derivatives: mine’s a big one”,Reech Capital, PLC, www.sungard.com/reech/menus/documents/whitepapers/big_one.pdf
Christopher F., “Rolling RegressionsWith Stata”, Boston College, North American Stata Users’ Group Meetings, August 11, 2004.
De Chiara, Adam and Daniel M. Raab, “Benefits of Real Asset Portfolio Diversification” Euromoney International Commodities Review, 2002:3-10
Drucker, Vanessa, “High Fliers – Real Estate Investment Trusts Have Soared During The Past Five Years, But Where Do REITs Go From Here?” Bloomberg Wealth Manager, May 2005:51-57
46
Elton, Edwin J., Martin J. Gruber and Jonathan Spitzer, “Improved Estimates of Correlation Coefficients And Their Impact on the Optimum Portfolios”, European Financial Magement, vol 12,issue3, June2006 pg 303.
Engle, Robert F., “Dynamic Conditional Correlation: A Simple Class of Multivariate Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroskedasticity Models” Journal of Business and Economics Statistics, vol 20,No3: 339-350.
Gluck, Jeremy, “Derivatives: After last fall’s market meltdown and Brazil’s currency problems this year, a lot of people are taking a fresh, hard look at all sorts of derivative-related issues.” Bloomberg, March 1999.
Kuan-Min, Wang and Nguyen Thi Thanh-Binh, “Testing for contagion Under Asymmetric Dynamics: Evidence From The Stock Markets between U.S. and Taiwan”, Physica A: Statistical and Theoretical Physics, vol 376, March 15, 2007: 422-432.
Lanza, Alessandro, Matteo Manera and Michael McAleer, “Modeling Dynamic Conditional Correlations in WTI Oil Forward and Futures Returns”,NOTA DI LAVORO, APRIL 2004.
Ledoit, Olivier and Michael Wolf, “Honey, I Shrunk The Sample Covariance Matrix” Journal of Portfolio Management, November 2003.
Li, Honggang and Yan Gao, “Statistical Distribution and Time Correlation of Stock Runs”, Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Vol 377, issue 1, April 1, 2007: 193-198.
Li, Ling Feng and K. Geert Rouwenhorst, “Long-Term Global Market Correlations” Journal of Business vol 78, No 1, 2005.
Lien, Kathy, “Commodity Prices and Currency Movements”, January 25,2006 www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/06/commoditycurrencies.asp
Lien, Kathy, “Using Currency Correlations To Your Advantage”, Forex Capital Markets, May 19,2005. www.investopedia.com/articles/forex/05/051905.asp
Markowitz, Harry, “Risk Management: Improving Your Odds in the Crapshoot”, Bloomberg Forum, July 1996: 75-77.
McReynolds, Rebecca, “Suit Yourself”, Bloomberg Wealth Manager, September 2002: 64-68.
Parvez, Ahmed, “Forecasting Correlation Among Equity Mutual Funds”, Journal of Banking and Finance, April 13, 2000: 1187- 1208.
Patel, Navroz, “Credit Risk Cracking Correlation”, Tavakoli Structured Finance, Inc, Vol 16, No 7, www.tavakolistructuredfinance.com/credit_risk.html
Picerno, James, “Quality Control”, Bloomberg Wealth Manager, July/Aug 2000: 37-40.
Simons, Howard L., “The Bond Between Yields and Metals: It May Not Be As Solid As Analysts Say” Stocks, Futures and Options Magazine, Vol 4, No 9, September 2005.
Stohl, Andrew, “Calculating Moving Averages”, Focus Technical Analysis-Bloomberg, Ausut 2002.
47
Simons, Howard L., “The Bond Between Yields and Metals: It May Not Be As Solid As Analysts Say”
Stocks, Futures and Options Magazine, Vol 4, No 9, September 2005.
Stohl, Andrew, “Calculating Moving Averages”, Focus Technical Analysis-Bloomberg, Ausut 2002.
48
APPE*DIX
Symbol Asset *umber of Days Start Date
1I CRB Precious Metals Index 8,007 1/17/1975
1M CRB Energy Index (1977) 5,820 9/1/1983
GI Goldman Sachs Commodity Index 9,395 12/31/1969
XA PHLX Gold/Silver Index 5,772 12/19/1983
Interest Rates
IY T-Bill Yield, 1-Year 11,295 4/30/1953
UY T-Bond Yield, 30-Year 8,123 1/31/1919
Equity Indicies
MD S&P midcap 400 Index 6,519 1/2/1981
QQ S&P Small cap 600 Index 2,874 6/5/1995
R2 S&P 500 Index 19,796 1/3/1928
SP *ASDAQ Composite Index 5,563 10/11/1984
X5 Russell 2000 Index 7,027 12/29/1978
Commodity Indicies
49
Chart 1
Asset Pairs exhibiting a similar pattern: IR vs. EI IR vs. CI IR vs. EI IR vs CI EI vs. CI CI VS. CI IY vs. QQ IY vs. GI UY vs. MD UY vs. 1M SP vs. MD 1I vs. GS IY vs. R2 UY vs. QQ SP vs. X5
IY vs. SP UY vs. R2
IY vs. X5 UY vs. SP
UY vs. X5
Chart 2
Asset Pairs exhibiting a similar pattern: IR vs. CI CI vs. CI
1I vs. 1Y 1I vs. XA
Average of daily correlations based on different rolling windows for 1-Yr T-Bill vs. S&P midcap Index
0.07
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.18
0.21
0.05
0.07
0.09
0.11
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.19
0.21
1 month 3 month 6 month 1 year 2 year 3 year
Length of rolling window of correlation
Corre
latio
n
IY
UY
1I
1M
GI
XA
MD
R2
SP
X5
Interest Rates
Commodity Indices
Equity Indices
1yr T-bil l yield
30yr T-bond yield
CRB prescious Metals Index
CRB Energy Index
Goldman Sachs Commodity Index
PHLX Gold/Silver Index
S&P midcap 400 Index
S&P smallcap 600 Index
S&P 500 Index
Russell 2000 Index
Nasdaq Composite Index
Average of daily correlations based on different rolling windows for
1yr T-bill yield vs. 30yr T-bond yield
0.63
0.61
0.60
0.58
0.55
0.54
0.52
0.54
0.56
0.58
0.6
0.62
1 month 3 month 6 month 1 year 2 year 3 year Length of rolling window of correlation
IY
UY
1I
1M
GI
XA
MD
R2
SP
X5
Interest Rates
Commodity Indices
Equity Indices
1yr T-bil l yield
30yr T-bond yield
CRB prescious Metals Index
CRB Energy Index
Goldman Sachs Commodity Index
PHLX Gold/Si lver Index
S&P midcap 400 Index
S&P smallcap 600 Index
S&P 500 Index
Russell 2000 Index
Nasdaq Composite Index
Corre
latio
n
50
Chart 3
Asset Pairs exhibiting a similar pattern: CI vs. EI CI vs. IR
XA vs. QQ 1I vs. UY
XA vs. R2
XA vs. SP
XA vs. X5
Chart 4
Asset Pairs exhibiting a similar pattern: CI vs. EI CI vs. IR CI vs. CI
1M vs. MD 1M vs. UY 1I vs. GI
1M vs. SP
Average of daily correlations based on different rolling windows for S&P midcap 400 Index vs. PHLX Gold/Silver Index
0.11
0.13 0.13 0.13
0.11
0.08
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.14
1 month 3 month 6 month 1 year 2 year 3 year Length of rolling window of correlation
Corre
latio
n
IY
UY
1I
1M
GI
XA
MD
R2
SP
X5
Interest Rates
Commodity Indices
Equity Indices
1yr T-bill yield
30yr T-bond yield
CRB prescious Metals Index
CRB Energy Index
Goldman Sachs Commodity Index
PHLX Gold/Silver Index
S&P midcap 400 Index
S&P smallcap 600 Index
S&P 500 Index
Russell 2000 Index
Nasdaq Composite Index
Average of daily correlations based on different rolling windows for Goldman Sachs Commodity Index vs. S&P 500 Index
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
-0.036
-0.031
-0.026
-0.021
-0.016
-0.011
-0.006
1 month 3 month 6 month 1 year 2 year 3 year
Length of rolling window of correlation
Corre
latio
n
IY
UY
1I
1M
GI
XA
MD
R2
SP
X5
Interest Rates
Commodity Indices
Equity Indices
1yr T-bil l yield
30yr T-bond yield
CRB prescious Metals Index
CRB Energy Index
Goldman Sachs Commodity Index
PHLX Gold/Si lver Index
S&P midcap 400 Index
S&P smallcap 600 Index
S&P 500 Index
Russell 2000 Index
Nasdaq Composite Index
51
Chart 5
Asset Pairs exhibiting a similar pattern: CI vs. EI
1I vs. MD
1M vs. R2
Chart 6
Asset Pairs exhibiting a similar pattern: EI vs. EI IR vs. EI CI vs. EI CI vs. CI
R2 vs. X5 GI vs. UY 1M vs. R2 XA vs. GI R2 vs. MD GI vs. 1Y 1M vs. X5 XA vs. UY
R2 vs. QQ GI vs. R2 1M vs. MD XA vs. 1Y
MD vs. QQ 1M vs. 1I
MD vs. SP 1M vs. XA
MD vs. SPX 1M vs. QQ
QQ vs X5 1I vs. SP
QQ vs X5 1I vs. XP
GI vs. R2
GI vs. X5
GI vs. QQ
GI vs. MD
Average of daily correlations based on different rolling windows for
CRB Precious Metals Index vs. NASDAQ Composite Index
-0.04
-0.03
-0.03
-0.02
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.0375
-0.035
-0.0325
-0.03
-0.0275
-0.025
-0.022
-0.02
-0.0175
-0.015
-0.0125
-0.01 1 month 3 month 6 month 1 year 2 year 3 year
Length of rolling window of correlation
Corre
latio
n
IY
UY
1I
1M
GI
XA
MD
R2
SP
X5
Interest Rates
Commodity Indices
Equity Indices
1yr T-bi ll yield
30yr T-bond yield
CRB prescious Metals Index
CRB Energy Index
Goldman Sachs Commodity Index
PHLX Gold/Silver Index
S&P midcap 400 Index
S&P smallcap 600 Index
S&P 500 Index
Russell 2000 Index
Nasdaq Composite Index
CRB Energy Index vs. Russell 2000 Index
0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
1 month 3 month 6 month 1 year 2 year 3 year Length of rolling window of correlation
Corre
latio
n
Average of daily correlations based on different rolling windows for
IY
UY
1I
1M
GI
XA
MD
R2
SP
X5
Interest Rates
Commodity Indices
Equity Indices
1yr T-bil l yield
30yr T-bond yield
CRB prescious Metals Index
CRB Energy Index
Goldman Sachs Commodity Index
PHLX Gold/Silver Index
S&P midcap 400 Index
S&P smallcap 600 Index
S&P 500 Index
Russell 2000 Index
Nasdaq Composite Index
52
Chart 7
1I1M
1I1Y
1IGI
1IMD
1IQQ
1IR2
1ISP
1IUY
1IX5
1IXA
1M1Y
1MGI
1MMD
1MQQ
1MR2
1MSP
1MUY
1MX5
1MXA
1YGI
1YMD
1YQQ
1YR2
1YSP
1YUY
1YX5
1YXA
GIMD
GIQQ
GIR2
GISP
GIUY
GIX5
GIXA
MDQQ
MDR2
MDSP
MDUY
MDX5
MDXA
QQR2
QQSP
QQUY
QQX5
QQXA
R2SP
R2UY
R2X5
R2XA
SPUY
SPX5
SPXA
UYX5
UYXA
X5XA
1 month
3 month
6 month
1 year
2 year
3 year
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Asset Pair
STA*DARD DEVIATIO* OF ROLLI*G CORRELATIO* WITH 6 DIFFERE*T WI*DOWS
1 m
onth
3 m
onth
6 m
onth
1 year
2 year
3 year
53
1I1M1I1Y1IG
I1IM
D1IQQ1IR21ISP1IU
Y1IX51IXA1M1
Y1MG
I1MM
D 1MQQ
1MR2
1MSP 1MUY
1MX5
1MXA
1YGI 1YMD
1YQQ
1YR2
1YSP
1YUY
1YX5
1YXA
GIMD
GIQQ
GIR2
GISP
GIUY
GIX5
GIXAMDQ
Q MDR2 MDSP
MDUY MDX5 MDXA QQR2
QQSP QQUY
QQX5
QQXA R2SP
R2UY
R2X5 R2XA
SPUY SPX5
SPXA UYX5
UYXA X5XA
1 Month
3 Month
6 Month
1 Yea
r3 Yea
r5 Yea
r0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Ass
et P
air
s
Chart
7A
Cro
ss S
ect
ional S
tandard
Devi
ation A
cross
6 R
ollin
g W
indow
s fo
r all A
sset P
air
s
1 M
onth
3 M
onth
6 M
onth
1 Y
ear
3 Year
5 Y
ear
54
Chart 8A
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
1I1M
1I1Y
1IGI
1IMD
1IQQ
1IR2
1ISP
1IUY
1IX5
1IXA
1M1Y
1MGI
1MMD
1MQQ
1MR2
1MSP
1MUY
1MX5
1MXA
1YGI
1YMD
1YQQ
1YR2
1YSP
1YUY
1YX5
1YXA
GIMD
GIQQ
GIR2
GISP
GIUY
GIX5
GIXA
MDQQ
MDR2
MDSP
MDUY
MDX5
MDXA
QQR2
QQSP
QQUY
QQX5
QQXA
R2SP
R2UY
R2X5
R2XA
SPUY
SPX5
SPXA
UYX5
UYXA
X5XA
Asset P
airs
Standard D
eviation of M
oving C
orrelations (based on 756-day w
indow
)12/28/1998 to 10/27/2006
Graph 8B
95%
C
onfidence Interval for A
verage of M
oving C
orrelations
(based on 756-day w
indow
) 12/28/1998 to 10/27/2006
-0.3
-0.2
-0.10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.91
1.1
1I1M
1I1Y
1IGI
1IMD
1IQQ
1IR2
1ISP
1IUY
1IX5
1IXA
1M1Y
1MGI
1MMD
1MQQ
1MR2
1MSP
1MUY
1MX5
1MXA
1YGI
1YMD
1YQQ
1YR2
1YSP
1YUY
1YX5
1YXA
GIMD
GIQQ
GIR2
GISP
GIUY
GIX5
GIXA
MDQQ
MDR2
MDSP
MDUY
MDX5
MDXA
QQR2
QQSP
QQUY
QQX5
QQXA
R2SP
R2UY
R2X5
R2XA
SPUY
SPX5
SPXA
UYX5
UYXA
X5XA
Asset Pairs
Standard Deviation
average
LB-95
UB-95
55
Chart 9A
Standard D
eviation of M
oving C
orrelations (based on 504-day w
indow
)
12/26/1997 to 10/27/2006
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18 1
I1M
1I1Y
1IGI1IMD
1IQQ
1IR2
1ISP
1IUY
1IX5
1IXA1M1Y
1MGI 1MMD1MQQ
1MR21MSP1MUY
1MX51MXA
1YGI 1YMD1YQQ
1YR21YSP1YUY
1YX51YXAGIMDGIQQ
GIR2GISP
GIUY
GIX5GIXA MDQQMDR2
MDSPMDUYMDX5
MDXAQQR2
QQSPQQUYQQX5
QQXA
R2SPR2UY
R2X5R2XASPUY
SPX5SPXA
UYX5UYXA
X5XA
Asset Pairs
Standard Deviation
Graph 9B
95%
C
onfidence Interval for A
verage of M
oving C
orrelations (based on 504-day w
indow
)
12/26/1997 to 10/27/2006
-0.3
-0.2
-0.10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.91
1.1 1
I1M
1I1Y
1IGI1IMD
1IQQ
1IR2
1ISP
1IUY
1IX5
1IXA1M1Y
1MGI 1MMD1MQQ
1MR21MSP1MUY
1MX51MXA
1YGI 1YMD1YQQ
1YR21YSP1YUY
1YX51YXAGIMDGIQQ
GIR2GISP
GIUY
GIX5GIXA MDQQMDR2
MDSPMDUYMDX5
MDXAQQR2
QQSPQQUYQQX5
QQXA
R2SPR2UY
R2X5R2XASPUY
SPX5SPXAUYX5UYXA
X5XA
Asset Pairs
Correlation
average
LB-95
UB-95
56
Chart 10A
Standard D
eviation of M
oving C
orrelations (based on 252-day w
indow
)
12/27/1996 to 10/27/2006
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
1I1M
1I1Y
1IGI1IMD
1IQQ
1IR2
1ISP
1IUY
1IX5
1IXA
1M1Y
1MGI
1MMD
1MQQ
1MR2
1MSP
1MUY
1MX5
1MXA
1YGI
1YMD
1YQQ
1YR2
1YSP
1YUY
1YX5
1YXA
GIMD
GIQQ
GIR2
GISP
GIUY
GIX5
GIXAMDQQ
MDR2
MDSP
MDUY
MDX5
MDXA
QQR2
QQSP
QQUY
QQX5
QQXA
R2SP
R2UY
R2X5
R2XA
SPUY
SPX5
SPXA
UYX5
UYXA
X5XA
Asset Pairs
Standard Deviation
Graph 10B
95%
C
onfidence Interval for A
verage of M
oving C
orrelations
(based on 252-day w
indow
) 12/27/1996 to 10/27/2006
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.91
1.1
1.2 1
I1M
1I1Y
1IGI1IMD
1IQQ
1IR2
1ISP
1IUY
1IX5
1IXA1M1Y
1MGI 1MMD1MQQ
1MR21MSP
1MUY
1MX51MXA
1YGI1YMD
1YQQ
1YR2
1YSP
1YUY
1YX5
1YXA
GIMD
GIQQ
GIR2
GISP
GIUY
GIX5
GIXAMDQQ
MDR2MDSPMDUY
MDX5MDXAQQR2QQSPQQUY
QQX5QQXA
R2SP
R2UY
R2X5
R2XASPUY
SPX5SPXA
UYX5UYXA
X5XA
Asset Pairs
Standard Deviation
average
LB-95
UB-95
57
Chart 11A
Standard D
eviation of M
oving C
orrelations (based on 126-day w
indow
)
6/28/1996 to 10/27/2006
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35 1
I1M
1I1Y
1IGI1IMD
1IQQ
1IR2
1ISP
1IUY
1IX5
1IXA1M1Y
1MGI 1MMD1MQQ
1MR21MSP1MUY
1MX51MXA
1YGI 1YMD1YQQ
1YR21YSP
1YUY
1YX51YXA
GIMD
GIQQ
GIR2
GISP
GIUY
GIX5
GIXA MDQQ
MDR2MDSPMDUY
MDX5MDXAQQR2QQSPQQUY
QQX5QQXA
R2SP
R2UY
R2X5R2XASPUY
SPX5SPXA
UYX5UYXA
X5XA
Asset P
airs
Standard Deviation
Graph 11B
95%
C
onfidence Interval for A
verage of M
oving C
orrelations
(based on 126-day w
indow
) 6/28/1996 to 10/27/2006
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.91
1.1
1I1M
1I1Y
1IGI1IMD
1IQQ
1IR2
1ISP
1IUY
1IX5
1IXA1M1Y
1MGI 1MMD1MQQ
1MR21MSP1MUY
1MX51MXA
1YGI 1YMD1YQQ
1YR21YSP1YUY
1YX51YXAGIMDGIQQ
GIR2GISP
GIUY
GIX5GIXA MDQQ
MDR2
MDSPMDUYMDX5
MDXAQQR2
QQSPQQUYQQX5
QQXA
R2SPR2UY
R2X5R2XASPUY
SPX5SPXA
UYX5UYXA
X5XA
Asset Pairs
Standard Deviation
average
LB-95
UB-95
58
Chart 12A
Standard D
eviation of M
oving C
orrelations (based on 66-day w
indow
)
4/3/1996 to 10/27/2006
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4 1
I1M
1I1Y
1IGI1IM
D
1IQQ
1IR2
1ISP
1IUY
1IX5
1IXA1M1Y
1MGI 1MMD
1MQQ
1MR21MSP1MUY1MX51MXA
1YGI 1YMD1YQQ
1YR21YSP1YUY
1YX51YXAGIM
DGIQQ
GIR2GISPGIUY
GIX5GIXA MDQQMDR2
MDSP
MDUYMDX5
MDXAQQR2
QQSP
QQUYQQX5
QQXAR2SPR2UY
R2X5R2XASPUY
SPX5SPXAUYX5UYXAX5XA
Asset Pairs
Standard Deviation
Graph 12 B
95%
C
onfidence Interval for A
verage of M
oving C
orrelations
(based on 66-day w
indow
) 4/3/1996 to 10/27/2006
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.91
1.1
1.2 1
I1M
1I1Y
1IGI1IMD
1IQQ
1IR2
1ISP
1IUY
1IX5
1IXA1M1Y
1MGI 1MMD1MQQ
1MR21MSP1MUY
1MX51MXA
1YGI 1YMD1YQQ
1YR21YSP1YUY
1YX51YXAGIM
DGIQQ
GIR2GISP
GIUY
GIX5GIXA MDQQMDR2
MDSP
MDUYMDX5
MDXAQQR2
QQSP
QQUYQQX5
QQXA
R2SPR2UY
R2X5R2XASPUY
SPX5SPXA
UYX5UYXA
X5XA
Asset P
airs
Standard Deviation
average
LB-95
UB-95
59
Chart 13A
Standard D
eviation of M
oving C
orrelations (based on 22-day w
indow
)
1/31/1996 to 10/27/2006
0
0.025
0.05
0.075
0.1
0.125
0.15
0.175
0.2
0.225
0.25
0.275
0.3
0.325
0.35
0.375
0.4
0.425
0.45 1
I1M
1I1Y
1IGI1IMD
1IQQ
1IR2
1ISP
1IUY
1IX5
1IXA
1M1Y
1MGI1MMD
1MQQ
1MR2
1MSP
1MUY
1MX5
1MXA
1YGI1YMD
1YQQ
1YR2
1YSP
1YUY
1YX5
1YXA
GIMD
GIQQ
GIR2
GISP
GIUY
GIX5
GIXAMDQQ
MDR2MDSP
MDUY
MDX5MDXA
QQR2QQSP
QQUY
QQX5QQXA
R2SP
R2UY
R2X5
R2XA
SPUY
SPX5
SPXA
UYX5
UYXA
X5XA
Asset P
airs
Standard Deviation
Graph13B
95%
C
onfidence Interval for A
verage of M
oving C
orrelations
(based on 22-day w
indow
) 1/31/1996 to 10/27/2006
-1
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.10
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.91
1.1
1.2
1I1M
1I1Y
1IGI1IMD
1IQQ
1IR2
1ISP
1IUY
1IX5
1IXA1M1Y
1MGI 1MMD1MQQ
1MR21MSP1MUY
1MX51MXA
1YGI1YMD1YQQ
1YR2
1YSP
1YUY
1YX5
1YXA
GIMD
GIQQ
GIR2
GISP
GIUY
GIX5
GIXA MDQQ
MDR2MDSPMDUY
MDX5MDXAQQR2QQSPQQUY
QQX5QQXA
R2SP
R2UY
R2X5R2XASPUY
SPX5SPXA
UYX5UYXA
X5XA
Asset Pairs
Standard Deviation
average
LB-95
UB-95
60
Table 1
Stdev 1I1M 1I1Y 1IGI 1IMD 1IQQ 1IR2 1ISP 1IUY 1IX5 1IXA 1M1Y 1MGI 1MMD 1MQQ 1MR2 1MSP 1MUY 1MX5 1MXA 1YGI 1YMD 1YQQ 1YR2 1YSP 1YUY 1YX5 1YXA GIMD GIQQ GIR2 GISP GIUY GIX5 GIXA MDQQ MDR2 MDSP MDUY MDX5 MDXA QQR2 QQSP QQUY QQX5 QQXA R2SP R2UY R2X5 R2XA SPUY SPX5 SPXA UYX5 UYXA X5XA
1 month 0.25 0.24 0.26 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.17 0.25 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.38 0.33 0.36 0.40 0.22 0.35 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.26 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.40 0.07 0.30 0.07 0.09 0.37 0.10 0.29 0.11 0.38 0.03 0.30 0.43 0.12 0.30 0.37 0.25 0.30
3 month 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.10 0.15 0.08 0.16 0.16 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.31 0.27 0.29 0.34 0.18 0.28 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.32 0.05 0.25 0.05 0.07 0.30 0.08 0.23 0.09 0.31 0.03 0.25 0.37 0.09 0.23 0.30 0.17 0.24
6 month 0.15 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.09 0.12 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.27 0.23 0.25 0.30 0.16 0.25 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.16 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.29 0.05 0.22 0.04 0.06 0.26 0.07 0.20 0.08 0.27 0.02 0.22 0.33 0.08 0.20 0.26 0.15 0.21
1 year 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.23 0.19 0.20 0.25 0.13 0.20 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.13 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.24 0.04 0.19 0.03 0.05 0.21 0.05 0.17 0.08 0.22 0.02 0.19 0.27 0.08 0.17 0.22 0.13 0.18
2 year 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.14 0.11 0.12 0.15 0.10 0.12 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.15 0.03 0.16 0.02 0.04 0.13 0.03 0.15 0.06 0.13 0.01 0.16 0.17 0.06 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.15
3 year 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.02 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.11 0.05 0.10 0.01 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.11 0.09 0.10 0.12
Average 1I1M 1I1Y 1IGI 1IMD 1IQQ 1IR2 1ISP 1IUY 1IX5 1IXA 1M1Y 1MGI 1MMD 1MQQ 1MR2 1MSP 1MUY 1MX5 1MXA 1YGI 1YMD 1YQQ 1YR2 1YSP 1YUY 1YX5 1YXA GIMD GIQQ GIR2 GISP GIUY GIX5 GIXA MDQQ MDR2 MDSP MDUY MDX5 MDXA QQR2 QQSP QQUY QQX5 QQXA R2SP R2UY R2X5 R2XA SPUY SPX5 SPXA UYX5 UYXA X5XA
1 month 0.11 -0.03 0.18 -0.02 -0.04 -0.01 -0.06 0.00 0.00 0.58 -0.01 0.88 0.03 -0.02 0.01 -0.02 0.01 0.02 0.13 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.05 0.63 0.09 -0.03 0.05 -0.01 0.03 -0.01 0.03 0.04 0.17 0.88 0.93 0.87 0.01 0.92 0.11 0.88 0.87 0.07 0.85 0.07 0.82 0.04 0.97 0.11 -0.01 0.81 0.08 0.04 -0.01 0.11
3 month 0.12 -0.03 0.18 0.00 -0.03 0.00 -0.05 0.01 0.01 0.58 -0.01 0.88 0.03 -0.03 0.00 -0.03 0.01 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.61 0.10 -0.03 0.04 -0.01 0.03 -0.02 0.03 0.04 0.18 0.88 0.93 0.88 0.02 0.92 0.13 0.89 0.87 0.08 0.86 0.08 0.83 0.05 0.97 0.12 0.01 0.82 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.13
6 month 0.11 -0.03 0.17 0.00 -0.03 0.00 -0.05 0.02 0.00 0.57 -0.01 0.88 0.02 -0.03 0.00 -0.04 0.01 0.02 0.14 0.02 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.60 0.12 -0.03 0.04 -0.02 0.02 -0.03 0.03 0.04 0.17 0.89 0.93 0.88 0.04 0.93 0.13 0.89 0.87 0.09 0.86 0.08 0.83 0.07 0.98 0.12 0.03 0.82 0.09 0.07 0.00 0.13
1 year 0.11 -0.03 0.16 0.00 -0.02 0.00 -0.05 0.01 0.00 0.57 -0.01 0.88 0.02 -0.03 0.00 -0.04 0.01 0.01 0.14 0.02 0.13 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.58 0.15 -0.03 0.04 -0.02 0.02 -0.04 0.04 0.03 0.17 0.89 0.93 0.88 0.07 0.93 0.13 0.89 0.87 0.12 0.86 0.07 0.83 0.09 0.98 0.12 0.06 0.82 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.12
2 year 0.12 -0.04 0.16 0.00 -0.02 0.01 -0.05 0.00 0.01 0.55 0.00 0.89 0.02 -0.02 0.00 -0.04 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.04 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.55 0.19 -0.02 0.04 -0.01 0.03 -0.03 0.04 0.04 0.18 0.88 0.94 0.88 0.12 0.93 0.11 0.89 0.87 0.16 0.86 0.05 0.83 0.14 0.98 0.11 0.11 0.83 0.07 0.14 0.01 0.11
3 year 0.12 -0.05 0.16 -0.01 -0.03 0.00 -0.06 -0.01 0.00 0.54 0.01 0.89 0.03 -0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.03 0.02 0.15 0.05 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.54 0.21 -0.02 0.05 0.00 0.03 -0.02 0.04 0.04 0.18 0.87 0.93 0.88 0.14 0.93 0.08 0.88 0.87 0.17 0.85 0.02 0.82 0.16 0.98 0.07 0.15 0.82 0.04 0.16 0.00 0.08
STDEV 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.02
Range 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.14 0.10 0.12 0.16 0.09 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.13 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.05 0.15 0.02 0.05 0.12 0.01 0.05
1I1M 1I1Y 1IGI 1IMD 1IQQ 1IR2 1ISP 1IUY 1IX5 1IXA 1M1Y 1MGI 1MMD 1MQQ 1MR2 1MSP 1MUY 1MX5 1MXA 1YGI 1YMD 1YQQ 1YR2 1YSP 1YUY 1YX5 1YXA GIMD GIQQ GIR2 GISP GIUY GIX5 GIXA MDQQ MDR2 MDSP MDUY MDX5 MDXA QQR2 QQSP QQUY QQX5 QQXA R2SP R2UY R2X5 R2XA SPUY SPX5 SPXA UYX5 UYXA X5XA
LB-95-1mo -0.40 -0.51 -0.34 -0.50 -0.52 -0.49 -0.56 -0.52 -0.50 0.24 -0.51 0.69 -0.45 -0.51 -0.48 -0.52 -0.48 -0.46 -0.37 -0.49 -0.68 -0.57 -0.64 -0.75 0.19 -0.62 -0.53 -0.45 -0.51 -0.46 -0.50 -0.46 -0.43 -0.35 0.72 0.80 0.70 -0.78 0.77 -0.49 0.74 0.68 -0.67 0.64 -0.50 0.60 -0.72 0.90 -0.49 -0.87 0.56 -0.52 -0.70 -0.51 -0.49
UB-95-1 mo 0.62 0.44 0.69 0.47 0.44 0.48 0.44 0.53 0.49 0.92 0.49 1.08 0.51 0.47 0.49 0.47 0.50 0.50 0.64 0.53 0.82 0.76 0.80 0.84 1.06 0.79 0.48 0.55 0.50 0.52 0.48 0.53 0.52 0.68 1.04 1.05 1.04 0.81 1.07 0.72 1.03 1.05 0.80 1.06 0.64 1.05 0.79 1.04 0.71 0.86 1.06 0.67 0.78 0.49 0.72
LB-95-3 mo -0.23 -0.34 -0.20 -0.34 -0.34 -0.32 -0.38 -0.35 -0.32 0.37 -0.32 0.72 -0.29 -0.34 -0.30 -0.36 -0.29 -0.29 -0.19 -0.30 -0.53 -0.42 -0.48 -0.60 0.26 -0.47 -0.37 -0.28 -0.35 -0.29 -0.36 -0.27 -0.27 -0.19 0.77 0.84 0.75 -0.63 0.82 -0.37 0.79 0.73 -0.52 0.70 -0.37 0.65 -0.56 0.92 -0.37 -0.73 0.63 -0.38 -0.55 -0.35 -0.36
UB-95- 3mo 0.47 0.29 0.55 0.33 0.29 0.33 0.28 0.37 0.33 0.79 0.30 1.04 0.34 0.29 0.31 0.29 0.32 0.32 0.47 0.33 0.70 0.64 0.67 0.74 0.96 0.67 0.32 0.37 0.32 0.34 0.31 0.34 0.35 0.54 0.99 1.02 1.01 0.67 1.03 0.62 0.99 1.01 0.68 1.02 0.53 1.01 0.66 1.03 0.62 0.74 1.01 0.55 0.65 0.35 0.61
LB-95-6 mo -0.18 -0.29 -0.15 -0.27 -0.27 -0.25 -0.31 -0.29 -0.25 0.40 -0.25 0.74 -0.22 -0.27 -0.22 -0.29 -0.23 -0.22 -0.14 -0.22 -0.44 -0.34 -0.38 -0.51 0.28 -0.38 -0.30 -0.22 -0.29 -0.22 -0.30 -0.20 -0.20 -0.14 0.80 0.86 0.77 -0.53 0.84 -0.31 0.81 0.75 -0.43 0.72 -0.32 0.67 -0.46 0.93 -0.31 -0.63 0.66 -0.32 -0.46 -0.30 -0.29
UB-95-6 mo 0.41 0.23 0.48 0.26 0.22 0.25 0.22 0.32 0.26 0.75 0.22 1.03 0.27 0.22 0.23 0.21 0.26 0.25 0.42 0.26 0.65 0.59 0.61 0.68 0.91 0.61 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.27 0.24 0.27 0.28 0.49 0.98 1.01 0.99 0.62 1.02 0.57 0.98 0.99 0.62 1.00 0.47 0.99 0.60 1.02 0.56 0.68 0.99 0.49 0.59 0.30 0.55
LB-95-1 yr -0.11 -0.25 -0.09 -0.22 -0.23 -0.20 -0.26 -0.25 -0.21 0.41 -0.17 0.75 -0.15 -0.20 -0.15 -0.21 -0.19 -0.14 -0.09 -0.14 -0.32 -0.23 -0.26 -0.38 0.32 -0.26 -0.24 -0.14 -0.21 -0.15 -0.22 -0.14 -0.13 -0.09 0.81 0.87 0.78 -0.41 0.86 -0.25 0.83 0.77 -0.31 0.76 -0.27 0.67 -0.34 0.95 -0.25 -0.48 0.67 -0.26 -0.34 -0.26 -0.24
UB-95- 1 yr 0.33 0.18 0.40 0.22 0.18 0.21 0.17 0.27 0.21 0.72 0.15 1.02 0.19 0.15 0.16 0.13 0.22 0.17 0.36 0.19 0.59 0.52 0.55 0.61 0.84 0.55 0.18 0.22 0.18 0.19 0.15 0.21 0.20 0.43 0.96 1.00 0.99 0.55 1.00 0.51 0.95 0.98 0.54 0.97 0.42 0.98 0.53 1.01 0.50 0.60 0.97 0.43 0.52 0.26 0.48
LB-95-2 yr 0.00 -0.21 0.02 -0.17 -0.17 -0.15 -0.21 -0.24 -0.15 0.41 -0.10 0.78 -0.09 -0.16 -0.11 -0.16 -0.15 -0.10 0.00 -0.07 -0.10 -0.05 -0.06 -0.14 0.35 -0.06 -0.18 -0.07 -0.15 -0.09 -0.15 -0.11 -0.08 0.01 0.83 0.89 0.79 -0.18 0.88 -0.21 0.85 0.80 -0.11 0.80 -0.24 0.71 -0.13 0.96 -0.21 -0.22 0.71 -0.22 -0.13 -0.23 -0.20
UB-95-2 yr 0.24 0.13 0.30 0.17 0.13 0.17 0.11 0.24 0.17 0.70 0.11 1.00 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.08 0.20 0.13 0.29 0.15 0.46 0.41 0.42 0.48 0.75 0.43 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.09 0.19 0.15 0.34 0.94 0.98 0.97 0.42 0.99 0.43 0.93 0.94 0.42 0.93 0.35 0.94 0.40 1.00 0.43 0.45 0.94 0.35 0.40 0.24 0.41
LB-95-3 yr 0.04 -0.18 0.06 -0.13 -0.13 -0.12 -0.17 -0.22 -0.12 0.42 -0.06 0.81 -0.06 -0.13 -0.09 -0.13 -0.12 -0.07 0.06 -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 -0.04 0.38 0.04 -0.12 -0.03 -0.11 -0.06 -0.10 -0.09 -0.04 0.07 0.83 0.89 0.80 -0.07 0.88 -0.18 0.85 0.80 -0.02 0.80 -0.21 0.72 -0.04 0.96 -0.18 -0.11 0.72 -0.18 -0.03 -0.19 -0.17
UB-95-3 yr 0.20 0.08 0.26 0.11 0.08 0.12 0.05 0.21 0.11 0.65 0.08 0.97 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.18 0.10 0.23 0.13 0.41 0.36 0.37 0.45 0.69 0.38 0.07 0.13 0.11 0.13 0.06 0.18 0.13 0.28 0.92 0.97 0.97 0.36 0.98 0.34 0.92 0.93 0.36 0.90 0.24 0.92 0.35 0.99 0.33 0.40 0.93 0.26 0.35 0.20 0.32
61
Chart 14
Average R
ange o
f th
e a
verage d
aily c
orrela
tions
across 6
rollin
g w
indow
's for e
ach a
sset pair
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
1I1M
1I1Y
1IGI
1IMD
1IQQ
1IR2
1ISP
1IUY
1IX5
1IXA
1M1Y
1MGI
1MMD
1MQQ
1MR2
1MSP
1MUY
1MX5
1MXA
1YGI
1YMD
1YQQ
1YR2
1YSP
1YUY
1YX5
1YXA
GIMD
GIQQ
GIR2
GISP
GIUY
GIX5
GIXAMDQ
Q
MDR2
MDSP
MDUY
MDX5
MDXA
QQR2
QQSP
QQUY
QQX5
QQXA
R2SP
R2UY
R2X5
R2XA
SPUY
SPX5
SPXA
UYX5
UYXA
X5XA
Asset pair
s
Range
62
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
Range
1I1M
1I1Y
1IGI
1IMD
1IQQ
1IR2
1ISP
1IUY
1IX5
1IXA
1M1Y
1MGI
1MMD
1MQQ
1MR2
1MSP
1MUY
1MX5
1MXA
1YGI
1YMD
1YQQ
1YR2
1YSP
1YUY
1YX5
1YXA
GIMD
GIQQ
GIR2
GISP
GIUY
GIX5
GIXA
MDQQ
MDR2
MDSP
MDUY
MDX5
MDXA
QQR2
QQSP
QQUY
QQX5
QQXA
R2SP
R2UY
R2X5
R2XA
SPUY
SPX5
SPXA
UYX5
UYXA
X5XA
Asset pairs
Chart 7C
Average Range of the average daily correlations across 6 rolling w indow's for each asset pair
IY
UY
1I
1M
GI
XA
MD
R2
SP
X5
Interest Rates
Commodity Indices
Equity Indices
1yr T-bill yield
30yr T-bond yield
CRB prescious Metals Index
CRB Energy Index
Goldman Sachs Commodity Index
PHLX Gold/Silver Index
S&P midcap 400 Index
S&P smallcap 600 Index
S&P 500 Index
Russell 2000 Index
Nasdaq Composite Index
Pair
1MR2
R2X5
1MX5
R2SP
1YXA
MDR2
QQSP
GIR2
QQR2
GIX5
1MMD
GIXA
1IX5
1I1M
GIUY
MDQQ
GIMD
QQX5
1ISP
UYXA
MDSP
1MXA
1MQQ
MDX5
GIQQ
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Range < .02
Average 0.04
Max 0.16
Min 0.01
RANGE
Range
0.05
0.14
0.10
0.12
0.16
0.09
0.13
0.13
0.05
0.11
0.06
0.12
0.05
0.15
0.05
0.12
0.05
1IXA
Pairs w/ range >.04
1YSP
1YR2
1YQQ
1YMD
MDXA
MDUY
1YX5
1YUY
R2XA
R2UY
QQXA
QQUY
X5XA
UYX5
SPXA
SPUY
63
Graph 1
Daily Correlations Across 2 Different Rolling Windows Across Time comparing the daily correlation of the
1-yr T-Bill Yield & the S&P500 compared to the 30-yr T-Bond & S&P500
-0.85
-0.65
-0.45
-0.25
-0.05
0.15
0.35
0.55
0.75
tdat
e19
9606
2419
9612
1619
9706
1119
9712
0319
9806
0119
9811
2019
9905
1919
9911
1020
0005
0520
0010
2720
0104
2520
0110
1820
0204
1620
0210
0820
0304
0320
0309
2620
0403
2320
0409
1620
0503
1120
0509
0220
0603
0120
0608
23
Date (YYYY,MM,DD)
Corr
ela
tion
1yr T-bill for
1mo rolling window
30yr T-bond for
1mo rolling window
1yr T-bill for
2yr rolling window
30yr T-bond for
2yr rolling window
64
Graph 2 Daily Correlations Across 6 Different Rolling Windows Across Time for the 1-yr T-Bill Yield & the S&P500
-0.82
-0.62
-0.42
-0.22
-0.02
0.18
0.38
0.58
0.78
tdate
19960624
19961216
19970611
19971203
19980601
19981120
19990519
19991110
20000505
20001027
20010425
20011018
20020416
20021008
20030403
20030926
20040323
20040916
20050311
20050902
20060301
20060823
Time (YYYY,MM,DD)
Correlation
1yr T-bill for
1mo rolling window
1yr T-bill for
3mo rolling window
1yr T-bill for
6mo rolling window
1yr T-bill for
1yr rolling window
1yr T-bill for
2yr rolling window
1yr T-bill for
3yr rolling window Graph 3
Daily Correlations Across 6 Different Rolling Windows Acrosss Time for the
30-yr T-Bond Yield vs. the S&P500
-0.82
-0.62
-0.42
-0.22
-0.02
0.18
0.38
0.58
0.78
19960102
19960625
19961217
19970612
19971204
19980602
19981123
19990520
19991111
20000508
20001030
20010426
20011019
20020417
20021009
20030404
20030929
20040324
20040917
20050314
20050906
20060302
20060824
Date (YYYY,MM,DD)
Correlation
30yr T-bond for
1mo rolling window
30yr T-bond for
3mo rolling window
30yr T-bond for
6mo rolling window
30yr T-bond for
1yr rolling window
30yr T-bond for
2yr rolling window
30yr T-bond for
3yr rolling window
65
Graph 4
Daily Correlations of the 1-yr T-Bill Across 6 Different Rolling Windows and its Reactions Across Time
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
TIME (1996-2006)
Co
rrela
tio
n
1yr T-bill for
1mo rolling window
1yr T-bil l for
3mo roll ing window
1yr T-bill for
6mo rolling window
1yr T-bi ll for
1yr roll ing window
1yr T-bi ll for
2yr roll ing window
1yr T-bi ll for
3yr roll ing window
66
Chart
5
S&
P 5
00 v
s Inte
rest R
ate
s
-0.85
-0.65
-0.45
-0.25
-0.05
0.15
0.35
0.55
0.75 td
ate 19
9604
29 1996
0826 19
9612
23 1997
0423 19
9708
20 1997
1217 19
9804
20 1998
0817 19
9812
14 1999
0415 19
9908
12 1999
1209 20
0004
07 2000
0807 20
0012
04 2001
0404 20
0108
02 2001
1130 20
0204
03 2002
0731 20
0211
26 2003
0328 20
0307
28 2003
1121 20
0403
24 2004
0723 20
0411
18 2005
0321 20
0507
19 2005
1114 20
0603
16 2006
0714
Tim
e
Correlation
1yr T
-bill for
1mo rolling window
30yr T-bond for
1mo rolling window
1yr T-bill for
2yr rolling window
30yr T
-bond for
2yr rolling w
indow
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82