/

Nematrian Reference Library

[this page | back links]

Set out below is information (held by the Nematrian website) on the reference you have selected

Summary (partial) "Volatility is an alternative beta - a risk premium captured by hedge fund managers and investment bank proprietary traders - that is today moving closer to the main stream and should be thought of as a veritable asset class. For many investors, it is difficult to derive intuition as to why volatility should deserve an ongoing allocation within a larger portfolio. If volatility is an asset class, then to what accepted asset class can it be compared? Why is there a risk premium over the long-term for investing in this asset class? Who is willing to pay this risk premium and why? In what environments might the risk premium be too narrow or negative and in what environments might it be substantial? These are critical questions for the institutional investors attempting to diversify various systematic exposures (or beta exposures) across a broader portfolio. There is a strong case that a volatility investor can expect to earn positive returns over time just as a fixed income, credit, or equity investor would. To best understand this, it is helpful to compare the volatility asset class to the fixed income asset class. As such, the purpose of this paper is to explore the likenesses between volatility and fixed income in order to more firmly establish the case for volatility as an asset class."

Additional Nematrian Commentary This is a working paper version of a chapter that was due to appear in a book on Volatility as an Asset Class. It explores similarities between (short) volatility exposures and (long) bond exposures. We might add that both interest rates and implied volatilities exhibit a term structure, see e.g. Kemp (2009). Market Consistency: Model Calibration in Imperfect Markets.

See here to choose a new Category/Sub-Category or here for a list of all references held by the Nematrian website. Please contact us if any of the above material is inaccurate or if there are references you think should be included that we have excluded or vice-versa.

---