![Realized volatility and transactions [An article from: Journal of Banking and Finance]](https://www.ebooknetworking.net/books/B00/0P6/bigB000P6NS44.jpg)
Realized volatility and transactions [An article from: Journal of Banking and Finance]
Book Details
Author(s)C.C. Chan, W.M. Fong
PublisherElsevier
ISBN / ASINB000P6NS44
ISBN-13978B000P6NS44
MarketplaceFrance 🇫🇷
Description
This digital document is a journal article from Journal of Banking and Finance, published by Elsevier in 2006. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available in your Amazon.com Media Library immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
Description:
This paper re-examines the impact of number of trades, trade size and order imbalance on daily stock returns volatility. In contrast to prior studies, we estimate daily volatility using realized volatility obtained by summing up intraday squared returns. Consistent with the theory of quadratic variation, realized volatility estimates are shown to be less noisy than standard volatility measures such as absolute returns used in previous studies. In general, our results confirm [Jones, C.M., Kaul, G., Lipson, M.L., 1994. Transactions, volume, and volatility. Review of Financial Studies 7, 631-651] that number of trades is the dominant factor behind the volume-volatility relation. Neither trade size nor order imbalance adds significantly more explanatory power to realized volatility beyond number of trades. This finding is robust to different time periods, firm sizes and regression specifications. The implications of our results for microstructure theory are discussed.
Description:
This paper re-examines the impact of number of trades, trade size and order imbalance on daily stock returns volatility. In contrast to prior studies, we estimate daily volatility using realized volatility obtained by summing up intraday squared returns. Consistent with the theory of quadratic variation, realized volatility estimates are shown to be less noisy than standard volatility measures such as absolute returns used in previous studies. In general, our results confirm [Jones, C.M., Kaul, G., Lipson, M.L., 1994. Transactions, volume, and volatility. Review of Financial Studies 7, 631-651] that number of trades is the dominant factor behind the volume-volatility relation. Neither trade size nor order imbalance adds significantly more explanatory power to realized volatility beyond number of trades. This finding is robust to different time periods, firm sizes and regression specifications. The implications of our results for microstructure theory are discussed.
