Estimation of the discontinuous leverage effect: Evidence from
the NASDAQ order book
Markus Bibingera , Christopher Neelyb , Lars Winkelmannc

arXiv:1704.06537v2 [] 8 Dec 2017

a Faculty

of Mathematics and Computer Science, Philipps-Universität Marburg
b Research Department, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis†
c Department of Economics, Freie Universität Berlin

Abstract
An extensive empirical literature documents a generally negative correlation, named the
“leverage effect,” between asset returns and changes of volatility. It is more challenging to
establish such a return-volatility relationship for jumps in high-frequency data. We propose
new nonparametric methods to assess and test for a discontinuous leverage effect — i.e. a
relation between contemporaneous jumps in prices and volatility. The methods are robust
to market microstructure noise and build on a newly developed price-jump localization and
estimation procedure. Our empirical investigation of six years of transaction data from 320
NASDAQ firms displays no unconditional negative correlation between price and volatility
cojumps. We show, however, that there is a strong relation between price-volatility cojumps
if one conditions on the sign of price jumps and whether the price jumps are market-wide
or idiosyncratic. Firms’ volatility levels strongly explain the cross-section of discontinuous
leverage while debt-to-equity ratios have no significant explanatory power.
Keywords: High-frequency data, market microstructure, news impact, market-wide
jumps, price jump, volatility jump
JEL classification: C13, C58

1. Introduction
Understanding the relation between asset returns and volatility is among the most enduring and highly active research topics in finance. From an economic point of view, there
seems to be a consensus that stock market returns and changes in volatility should be negatively correlated.1 The linear, inverse return-volatility relationship is usually attributed
to both changes in financial leverage and a time-varying risk premium; see Black (1976),
French et al. (1987), Duffee (1995), Bekaert and Wu (2000) and Bollerslev et al. (2006).
The financial leverage explanation motivates labeling the purely statistical relation between
stock returns and volatility as the “leverage effect.”
Estimation of the leverage effect is challenging. Aït-Sahalia et al. (2013) document that
the leverage effect fades out when using data sampled at increasing observation frequencies.
† The

views expressed are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect official positions of
the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the Federal Reserve System, or the Board of Governors.
1 Some papers define the leverage effect as the correlation between returns and the level of volatility. Duffee
(1995) discusses the relation between the two definitions.

1

In the framework of the Heston model, they show that discretization errors, volatility estimates and market microstructure noise bias the naïve return-volatility correlation estimator
towards zero. Recent research has tried hard to establish the leverage effect for intraday
data.
If the asset price and volatility processes have both Brownian and jump components,
then the relation between returns and volatility splits into continuous and discontinuous
parts. Continuous leverage refers to the relation between the Brownian components of the
price and volatility processes. Vetter (2012), Wang and Mykland (2014), Aït-Sahalia et al.
(2017) and Kalnina and Xiu (2017) study measures of continuous leverage. These papers
document a negative and usually time-varying continuous leverage effect. The discontinuous
leverage effect (DLE) measures the relation between sizes of contemporaneous price and
volatility jumps. Bandi and Renò (2016) highlight the crucial importance of both leverage
components for asset pricing and risk management. Specifically, they show how a pricevolatility cojump covariation affects return and variance risk premia. Their model estimates
suggest that discontinuous leverage explains about 25% of the S&P 500 return risk premium.
This economically sizable proportion depends on the frequency of price-volatility cojumps,
as well as the sign and magnitude of the covariation.
The existence of the DLE appears controversial, however.

Several previous studies

reached different conclusions regarding a DLE. Jacod et al. (2017) use truncated returns
and increments of local spot volatility estimates to construct correlation statistics for oneminute S&P 500 Exchange-Traded Funds (ETF) data from 2005 to 2011. These statistics
indicate little evidence of a DLE. In contrast, Bandi and Renò (2016) focus on a relatively
small set of very large price jumps and a spot variance estimator based on infinitesimal crossmoments for high-frequency S&P 500 futures from 1982 to 2009. Their parametric estimates
suggest a strong DLE with correlations from -0.6 to -1. Aït-Sahalia et al. (2017) find that the
DLE for five-second Dow Jones index data from 2003 to 2013 is usually different from zero.
Their empirical analysis does not recover the sign and magnitude of the discontinuous leverage, however. Finally, Todorov and Tauchen (2011) use five-minute option-implied volatility
index (VIX) data to evaluate volatility jumps in the S&P 500 index from 2003 to 2008. The
authors find that squared jumps in the S&P 500 index are strongly positively correlated with
jumps in the VIX. All these papers focus on stock market indexes, not individual stocks,
and only use methods that are not robust to market microstructure noise.
Our paper makes both methodological and empirical contributions. We introduce novel
methods to estimate and test the covariation of contemporaneous price and volatility jumps—
denoted by Aït-Sahalia et al. (2017) as the DLE. A direct extension of our covariation estimator consistently estimates the corresponding correlation. Aït-Sahalia et al. (2017) derive
a limit theorem for the DLE estimator that only applies to a setting without market microstructure noise. Christensen et al. (2014) point out, however, that it is important to
use noise-robust methods and thereby to avoid downsampling the data to lower observation
frequencies. Downsampling may result in spurious jump detection and affect the accuracy of
discontinuous leverage estimates. Using noise-robust estimators for jumps in log prices and
volatility, we establish a stable central limit theorem under market microstructure noise for
the DLE for finite activity price jumps or large jumps of an infinite activity jump component.

2

We provide a consistent, asymptotic test for the presence of the DLE.
We estimate the covariation using only the physical measure, i.e., observed stock prices.
DLE estimation requires three steps: price-jump localization, price-jump estimation and
estimation of changes in the spot volatility process at price-jump times. Under noise, none
of the three steps is standard. We use spectral methods in all three steps. Reiß (2011)
introduces spectral estimation of the quadratic variation from noisy observations. Bibinger
et al. (2014) and Altmeyer and Bibinger (2015) establish the asymptotic efficiency of spectral
estimators of the integrated volatility matrix in the multivariate case with noisy and nonsynchronous observations. Bibinger et al. (2017) propose a related spot volatility estimator.
Although spectral and the popular pre-average estimators have some similarities, they belong
to different classes of estimators; see Remark 1 of Bibinger and Winkelmann (2016). Our
theoretical contribution is to provide methods to detect and estimate price jumps and to
combine the three steps to infer the DLE.
To detect price-jump times, we refine the adaptive thresholding approach of Bibinger and
Winkelmann (2015). We construct an argmax-estimator, such as is often used in changepoint analysis. This refinement of the jump localization is motivated by the fact that
estimation of price jumps becomes more difficult in cases where the jump times are not
precisely determined. See Vetter (2014) for a related problem. To estimate the pricejump size at a detected jump time, we first review the pre-average method of Lee and
Mykland (2012) that extends the Lee and Mykland (2008) approach to a model with market
microstructure noise. While Lee and Mykland (2012) mainly focus on a global test for jumps,
we focus on local jump estimates. We generalize their stable central limit theorem from
a jump diffusion to more general semimartingale models. Estimating the entire quadratic
variation with jumps or testing for jumps over a whole day are related yet different problems.
Jacod et al. (2010) and Koike (2017) have developed rate-optimal consistent pre-average
estimators for the quadratic variation and Bibinger and Winkelmann (2015) provide spectral
estimators for this purpose. While these methods do not recover individual price jumps, the
Lee and Mykland (2012) method utilizes natural local average statistics to address inference
on price jumps under noise. The pre-average method attains the optimal rate of convergence
for local price-jump estimation. As one ingredient of the price-jump localization, we exploit
the simple structure of these pre-average statistics that permits an asymptotic theory based
on Gaussian approximations. Using spectral local statistics for price-jump estimation, we
derive a superior estimator with a smaller variance than the pre-average estimator. The
asymptotic variance of the spectral estimator attains the asymptotic lower bound. Thus,
we provide the first feasible, asymptotically efficient estimator of price jumps from noisy
observations. To estimate changes in the spot volatility at a price-jump time, we employ the
jump-robust techniques of Bibinger and Winkelmann (2016). Finally, we plug the price-jump
and volatility-jump estimates into the DLE statistic of Aït-Sahalia et al. (2017).
Our methods provide new empirical evidence about the DLE for 320 individual stocks,
which were actively traded at the NASDAQ stock exchange from 2010 to 2015. We find no
prevalent evidence of an unconditional DLE in individual stock data, but we identify two
forces that prevent significant unconditional discontinuous leverage estimates: First, while
downward price jumps are usually negatively correlated with contemporaneous volatility

3

jumps, upward price jumps are positively correlated with contemporaneous volatility jumps.
Second, market jumps, i.e. price jumps that coincide with jumps of a market portfolio, display a strong DLE. In contrast, idiosyncratic price jumps, which occur without a contemporaneous jump of the market portfolio, are associated with a much weaker DLE. We establish
an economically and statistically significant relation between cojumps in stock prices and
volatility by conditioning on the sign of price jumps and whether those jumps are systematic
or idiosyncratic. Apart from the sign of the DLE, we investigate its magnitude in crosssectional regressions. We show that firms’ debt-to-equity ratios do not explain much of the
cross-section of DLE estimates or the correlations of price-volatility cojumps. In contrast,
the volatility levels of individual firms strongly explain the magnitude of DLE estimates.
Our failure to find an unconditionally negative DLE is consistent with the asset pricing
models of Pástor and Veronesi (2012, 2013) in which specific events trigger jumps. That
is, the continuous leverage effect and the DLE are fundamentally different in that model.
Their learning model implies that changes in monetary or government policy trigger marketwide price and volatility cojumps, where the uncertainty about the impact of a new policy
regime on the profitability of private firms always raises volatility, regardless of the effect
on prices. News that causes asset prices to jump up while causing volatility to jump down
is incompatible with their model. Our results are also consistent with Pelger (2017), who
studies systematic and nonsystematic risk factors in S&P500 high-frequency firm data. That
is, we confirm that the DLE appears predominantly for systematic risk, while being weaker
and more often nonsignificant for idiosyncratic risk.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the model and assumptions. Section 3 presents the price-jump estimators, spot volatility estimation and the DLE
estimator. We compare the spectral approach for price jumps with the Lee and Mykland
(2012) pre-average estimator. Section 4 provides Monte Carlo evidence and Section 5 the
empirical findings. Section 6 concludes. The Appendix contains the proofs.
2. Statistical model and assumptions
We work with a very general class of continuous-time processes, namely Itô semimartingales. Its implicit no-arbitrage properties make it the most popular model for log-price processes in financial econometrics. The model is formulated for a log price, Xt , and its volatility,
σt , over a fixed time period t ∈ [0, 1], on some filtered probability space (Ω, F, (Ft ), P):
Xt

=

Z t
Z t
Z tZ
X0 +
bs ds +
σs dWs +
δ(s, z)1{|δ(s,z)|≤1} (µ − ν)(ds, dz)
0
0
0
R
Z tZ
+
δ(s, z)1{|δ(s,z)|>1} µ(ds, dz) ,
0

(1)

R

with a standard Brownian motion (Ws ), the jump size function δ, defined on Ω × R+ × R,
and the Poisson random measure µ, which is compensated by ν(ds, dz) = λ(dz) ⊗ ds with
a σ-finite measure λ. We write ∆Xt = Xt − Xt− with Xt− = lims<t,s→t Xs for the process
2
of jumps in (Xt ) and ∆σt2 = σt2 − σt−
for jumps of the squared volatility. Our notation

follows that of Jacod and Protter (2012). We impose mild regularity assumptions on the
characteristics of Xt .

4

Assumption 1. The drift (bt )t≥0 is a locally bounded process. The volatility never vanishes,
inf t∈[0,1] σt > 0 almost surely. For all 0 ≤ t + s ≤ 1, t ≥ 0, some constants Cn , Kn > 0,
some α > 1/2 and for a sequence of stopping times Tn , increasing to ∞, we have that


E σ(t+s)∧Tn − σt∧Tn |Ft ≤ Cn sα ,
h
i
E sup |σ(t+t)∧Tn − σt∧Tn |2 ≤ Kn s .

(2)
(3)

t∈[0,s]

Assumption 1 requires some smoothness of the volatility process. It does not exclude volatility jumps, only fixed times of discontinuity are excluded. We impose the following regularity
condition on the jumps.
Assumption 2. Assume for the predictable function δ in (1) that supω,x |δ(t, x)|/γ(x) is
locally bounded with a non-negative, deterministic function γ that satisfies
Z

(γ r (x) ∧ 1)λ(dx) < ∞ .

(4)

R

The index r, 0 ≤ r ≤ 2, in (4) measures the jump activity. Smaller values of r make
Assumption 2 more restrictive. In particular, r = 0 results in finite-activity jumps and
r = 1 implies that jumps are summable.
Remark 1. Assumption 1 is satisfied in a very general model, where the volatility process
σt is an Itô semimartingale
Z

σt

t

Z

t

Z tZ

= σ0 +
b̃s ds +
σ̃s dW̃s +
δ̃(s, z)1{|δ̃(s,z)|≤1} (µ − ν)(ds, dz)
0
0
0
R
Z tZ
+
δ̃(s, z)1{|δ̃(s,z)|>1} µ(ds, dz) ,
0

(5)

R

with a standard Brownian motion (W̃s ), when the characteristics in (5) are locally bounded
and when an analogous condition as (4) holds for δ̃ in (5) with r = 2. We may use the
same µ in (1) and (5), such that µ is a jump measure on R+ × R governing the jumps in
the log price and its volatility. The predictable functions, δ and δ̃, defined on Ω × R+ × R,
then determine common jumps of σt and Xt . Whenever δ δ̃ ≡ 0, there is no price-volatility
cojump. Our asymptotic theory and Assumption 1 allow for generalizations of (5). For
instance, long-memory fractional volatility components can be included. Thus, our theoretical
setup includes almost any popular stochastic volatility model that allows for both continuous
and discontinuous leverage effects.
In practice, one cannot observe the efficient price (1) directly and one must account for
market microstructure noise in analyzing price and volatility jumps. To efficiently exploit
available high-frequency prices, we posit a latent discrete observation model with noise:
Observe Ytni , i = 0, . . . , n, with Yt = Xt + t ,

(6)

where t captures the market microstructure noise. We use the typical notation, ∆ni Y =
Ytni − Ytni−1 , i = 1, . . . , n, for noisy returns and analogous notation for the processes (Xt )

5

and (t ). In our baseline setup, market microstructure noise is a white noise process (t )t≥0 ,
independent of Xt , with E[t ] = 0 and E[2t ] = η 2 , as well as E[4+δ
] < ∞ for some δ > 0, for
t
all t ∈ [0, 1]. The process Yt is accommodated on the product space (Ω̄, G, (Gt ), P̄), where
Gt = Ft ⊗ σ(s , s ≤ t) contains information about the signal and noise. Below we extend
the model to more general setups with serially correlated, heteroscedastic noise. Because
we apply our methods to locally infer price and volatility jumps of individual stock prices,
non-synchronicity of the multivariate data is of less importance here.
3. Inference on the discontinuous leverage effect
The DLE is defined as the covariation of contemporaneous price and volatility jumps.
We estimate it in three steps. We first address noise-robust estimation of price jumps in
Section 3.1, then we turn to noise-robust estimation of spot-volatility changes in Section
3.2. In Section 3.3, we show how to detect a priori unknown jump times in noisy data and
how to refine price-jump estimation for DLE estimation in this case. The covariation of the
price-jump and spot-volatility estimates at detected jump times gives the estimated DLE.
3.1. Price-jump estimation
3.1.1. Local jump estimator and test using pre-averaged log prices
Consider the statistic
T LM (τ ; ∆n1 Y, . . . , ∆nn Y ) = P̂ (tnl ) − P̂ (tnl−Mn ) , l = bτ nc + 1 ,

(7)

at a (stopping) time τ ∈ (0, 1) and with pre-processed price estimates
(j+Mn −1)∨n

P̂ (tnj )

=

X

Mn−1

Ytni .

(8)

i=j

Lee and Mykland (2012) propose a test for price jumps at time τ based on (7). The window
√
length for the pre-averaging is Mn = c n with a proportionality constant c. The following
proposition generalizes Lemma 1 in Lee and Mykland (2012), where the authors assume
that they observe discrete, noisy observations from a jump-diffusion model.
Proposition 3.1. Under Assumption 1 and Assumption 2 with r < 4/3 for equidistant
observations, tni = i/n, the Lee-Mykland statistic (7) obeys the stable2 central limit theorem,
 1

p
 (st)
Mn T LM (τ ; ∆n1 Y, . . . , ∆nn Y ) − ∆Xτ −→ M N 0, (στ2 + στ2− ) c2 + 2η 2 ,
3

(9)

as n → ∞, where M N stands for mixed normal.
Thus, in case of a price jump at τ , (7) consistently estimates the price-jump size. The central
limit theorem accounts for a contemporaneous volatility jump. If there is no volatility jump,
then στ2 = στ2− in (9). With the null hypothesis, ∆Xτ = 0, and alternative, |∆Xτ | > 0,
2 Stable

means stable convergence in law with respect to F .

6

Proposition 3.1 facilitates a consistent test for a jump in the stock price at time point
τ ∈ (0, 1).
3.1.2. Local jump estimator and test using spectral statistics
To estimate price jumps using spectral statistics, we consider an orthogonal system of
sine functions that are localized on a window around τ :
r

2
Φj,τ (t) =
sin jπh−1
n (t − (τ − hn /2)) 1[τ −hn /2,τ +hn /2] (t) , j ≥ 1 .
hn

(10)

Asymptotically efficient volatility estimation from noisy observations (6) motivates consideration of local averages of noisy log prices in the frequency domain; see Reiß (2011) and
Bibinger et al. (2014). Intuitively, spectral statistics,
Sj (τ ) =

n
X

∆ni Y Φj,τ ((tni−1 + tni )/2) , j ≥ 1 ,

(11)

i=1

maximize the local information load about the signal process and thereby allow for local
estimates of the efficient prices: Xτ and Xτ − . The scaling factor in front of the sine in (10)
R τ +h /2
ensures that τ −hnn/2 Φ2j,τ (t) dt = 1. We propose the following statistic:
T (τ ; ∆n1 Y, . . . , ∆nn Y ) =

Jn
X
p
(−1)j+1 a2j−1 S2j−1 (τ ) hn /2 ,

(12)

j=1

with weights (a2j−1 )j≥1 , to infer price jumps. (12) is a rescaled weighted sum of spectral
statistics over odd spectral frequencies up to some spectral cut-off frequency 2Jn −1. Excluding even frequencies and alternating the signs of addends facilitate a consistent estimation
of price jumps ∆Xτ , as in (9) above.

√
The window length is set to be hn = κ log (n)/ n for some constant κ. Despite the

logarithmic factor, the window length resembles the one in (8). We derive optimal oracle
weights by minimizing the variance, which depend on time through the volatility σt . Yet,
under Assumption 1, the error of approximating (σt2 ) constant on [τ − hn /2, τ ) and [τ, τ +
hn /2] is asymptotically negligible. Then, as in the weighted least squares approach, this
leads to optimal weights
aj ∝ 1/Var(Sj (τ )) .
In order to consistently estimate the jump (Xτ − Xτ − ), we set

a2j−1

PJn

j=1

a2j−1 = 1 such that

−1
Var S2j−1 (τ )
−1 
Jn
Var
S
(τ
)
2u−1
u=1

= P
= P

−1 2 −1
( 12 (στ2 + στ2− ) + π 2 (2j − 1)2 h−2
η )
n n

Jn
1
2
u=1 ( 2 (στ

−1 η 2 )−1
+ στ2− ) + π 2 (2u − 1)2 h−2
n n

(13)

.

For an adaptive method, we estimate these oracle optimal weights by plugging in the esti-

7

mated noise variance,
η̂ 2 = −n−1

n−1
X


∆ni Y ∆ni−1 Y = η 2 + OP̄ n−1/2 ,

(14a)

i=1

and the pre-estimated spot squared volatility,
−1

σ̂τ2−,pil

r n Jp
X

rn X
−1 2
=
Sj2 (τ − khn ) − π 2 j 2 h−2
η̂
n n
Jp
j=1
k=1



× 1 (Jp )

−1

Jp
X

−1 2
Sj2 (τ − khn ) − π 2 j 2 h−2
η̂
n n



≤ un



j=1

= στ2− + OP̄ n


−1/8

,

(14b)

with rn−1 = Rn1/4 for a constant R, a threshold sequence un = h$
n , 0 < $ < 1, and maximal
spectral frequency, Jp , leading to the above rate-optimal estimators under Assumptions 1
and 2 with r < 3/2. The notation Sj2 (τ − khn ) refers to squared spectral statistics computed
2
from rn−1 bins with sine functions centered around times, τ − khn , before τ . σ̂τ,pil
is the

analog of (14b), replacing τ − khn by τ + khn . Bibinger and Winkelmann (2016) detail the
construction and prove the asymptotic properties of pre-estimators (14a) and (14b) and also
suggest how to choose R and Jp .
Next, we state asymptotic results for T (τ ; ∆n1 Y, . . . , ∆nn Y ), which refers to statistic (12)
with estimated optimal weights.
Proposition 3.2. Under Assumption 1 and Assumption 2 with r < 4/3 for equidistant
observations, tni = i/n, our statistic (12) obeys the stable central limit theorem as n → ∞
and Jn → ∞:
  σ 2 + σ 2 1/2 
 (st)
τ−
η .
n1/4 T (τ ; ∆n1 Y, . . . , ∆nn Y ) − ∆Xτ −→ M N 0, 2 τ
2

(15)

In the case of no volatility jump at τ , στ = στ − and the asymptotic variance is 2στ η. Finally,
we extend Proposition 3.2 to a more realistic model that incorporates serially correlated,
heteroscedastic noise and non-regular sampling.
Assumption 3. Assume the existence of a differentiable, cumulative distribution function
F that determines the observation times via a quantile transformation, tni = F −1 (i/n), i =
0, . . . , n. Assume (F −1 )0 is α-Hölder continuous for some α > 1/2, i.e., |(F −1 )0 (t) −
(F −1 )0 (s)| ≤ |t − s|α for all s, t.


The noise process (t ) is independent of X. For all t, we have E[t ] = 0 and E 4+δ
< ∞, for
t
some δ > 0. Further, assume (tni ) is an R-dependent process, such that Cov(tni , tni+u ) = 0
for u > R and some R < ∞, then the long-run variance process converges as follows:
n−btnc

X


Cov btnc , btnc+l → ηt2 ,

(16)

l=−btnc

for t ∈ [0, 1], uniformly in probability. The process (ηt2 )t∈[0,1] is locally bounded and satisfies,

8

for all t, (t + s) ∈ [0, 1], the mild smoothness condition:
2
|ηt+s
− ηt2 | ≤ Ksα .

(17)

The noise does not vanish: ηt2 > 0 for all t ∈ [0, 1].
Proposition 3.3. Under Assumptions 1, 2 with r < 4/3 and 3, the statistic (12) obeys the
stable central limit theorem as n → ∞ and Jn → ∞
  σ 2 + σ 2 1/2
1/2 
 (st)
τ−
ητ (F −1 )0 (τ )
n1/4 T (τ ; ∆n1 Y, . . . , ∆nn Y ) − ∆Xτ −→ M N 0, 2 τ
. (18)
2
In analogy to Proposition 3.1, Propositions 3.2 and 3.3 show the consistency of the spectral
jump estimator and give a consistent test for a price jump at time τ . One can construct
standardized, feasible versions of (15) and (18) by inserting spot squared volatility and
long-run noise variance estimators. See (14a) and Bibinger et al. (2017) for such estimators.
In fact, the pre-estimation of optimal weights also provides estimates of the variances of
(12). The asymptotic variance of the Lee-Mykland statistic in (9) generalizes to (1/3)(στ2 +
στ2− )(F −1 )0 (τ )c2 + 2ητ2 under the conditions from Proposition 3.3. Lee and Mykland (2012)
provide a generalization to R-dependent noise using sub-sampling, and this directly applies
to our general setup with Assumption 3. The spectral price-jump estimator (12) and the preaverage jump estimator (7) have the same optimal convergence rate and similar asymptotic
properties.
1/2

Remark 2. Writing (9) with rate n1/4 instead of Mn , the variance of the Lee-Mykland
estimator (7) with στ = στ − becomes 23 στ2 c + 2η 2 c−1 . The variance is minimized by the
√
√
√
constant c = 3ηστ−1 , which yields 4στ η/ 3 in (9). Since 4/ 3 ≈ 2.31, this optimized
variance of (an infeasible) Lee-Mykland estimator is about 16% larger than the variance 2στ η
of the spectral estimator in (15). Moreover, according to the LAN result of Koike (2017), the
latter is optimal. That is, the variance of the spectral estimator coincides with a lower bound
for the asymptotic variance, which is given by the inverse of the Fisher information from
Proposition 5.2 of Koike (2017). Our estimator is hence the first feasible, asymptotically
efficient estimator for price jumps in the semimartingale model with market microstructure
noise.
We caution, however, that estimates via spectral statistics (12) and pre-averages (7) are
biased when a jump is not located close to time τ but instead close to the edges of the local
window. Figure 1 illustrates this. The bias for the Lee-Mykland estimator is linear. This
effect directly relates to the so-called “pulverisation” of jumps by pre-averages described in
Mykland and Zhang (2016). For our statistic, the bias hinges on the weights and the spectral
cut-off. The lower panel of Figure 1 reveals that the bias is similar for both methods. The
bias becomes important when studying price jumps at a priori unknown times, such as
when one is estimating the DLE. Section 3.3 discusses our solution. Related problems by
not knowing the exact timing of jumps arise and have been addressed in different ways in
Vetter (2014) and Bibinger and Winkelmann (2015).

9

Figure 1: Example for

PJ

p

j=1

j+1 Φ
J −1
2j−1,τ (t)
P(−1)
J

hpn /2 (top) and, with oracle optimal weights a2j−1

Figure 1: Example for j=1 J −1J(−1)j+1 Φ2j−1,τ (t) hn /2 (top) and, with oracle optimal weights
PJj+1 Φ2j−1,τj+1
simulation
Section setup
4, inj=1
/2p
(bottom)
as functions
a2j−1
(−1)
(t)Φ hn (t)
a2j−1 setup
from theinsimulation
Section
3.4.2,
hn /2 (bottom)
as
2j−1,τ
j=1 a2j−1 (−1)

P

p

from the
of time
t for three values
of J on
window
[τ −
hn /2,
+ window
hn /2], [τ
τ −
= h0.5,
h
=
0.2.
The
plots
demonstrate
that
if a
functions
of time
t for three
values
of Jτ on
/2,
τ
+
h
/2],
τ
=
0.5,
h
=
0.2.
The
n
n
n
n
that ifnot
a jump
occurs on the
interval,
not sufficiently
close
τ , the
estimation biased for the
jump occurs onplots
thedemonstrates
interval, and
sufficiently
close
to τand
, the
estimation
of to∆X
τ becomes
for the actual jump.
actual jump. of ∆Xτ becomes biasedP
p
Figure 1: Example for

J
−1 (−1)j+1 Φ
2j−1,τ (t) hn /2 (top) and, with oracle optimal weights
j=1 J
p
PJ
j+1 Φ
2j−1,τ (t) hn /2 (bottom) as
j=1 a2j−1 (−1)

a2j−1 from
the simulation setup in Section 3.4.2,
3.2. Spot volatility
estimation

functions of time t for three values of J on window [τ − hn /2, τ + hn /2], τ = 0.5, hn = 0.2. The

20
plotsthe
demonstrates
that if a jump occurs
on the interval,
and not sufficiently
to τjump
, the estimation
We estimate
contemporaneous
volatility
adjustment
to aclose
price
at time τ ∈ (0, 1).
of ∆Xτ becomes biased for the actual jump.

We employ the spectral spot squared volatility estimators of Bibinger and Winkelmann
(2016), smoothed over local windows before τ and after τ , to consistently estimate the
20 the oracle optimal weights
volatilities στ2 and στ2− . Based on estimates of

−2
2
η(k−1)h
2
n
σ(k−1)h
+ π 2 j 2 h−2
n
n
n
=P
−2 ,

η2
Jn
2
2 m2 h−2 (k−1)hn
σ
+
π
n
m=1
(k−1)hn
n


wjk = Ik−1 Ijk

(19)

inserting spot squared volatility and noise variance estimators, with
ζkad (Y ) =

Jn
X



2
η̂(k−1)h
2
n
ŵjk Sjk
− π 2 j 2 h−2
,
n
n

(20)

j=1

the spectral estimator of the spot squared volatility at time τ − is
bsh−1
n c−1

σ̂τ2−

= rn

ζkad (Y )1{hn |ζ ad (Y )|≤un } .

X

k

(21)

−1
k=bsh−1
n c−rn

To estimate the noise variance η 2 and pre-estimate the spot squared volatility in (19), we
use (14a) and (14b), respectively. To obtain (20), we adapt Sjk = Sj ((k −1/2)hn ) from (11).
−1
−1
Analogously to σ̂τ2− , σ̂τ2 is defined by summing over k ∈ {bsh−1
n c + 1, . . . , bshn c + rn }.

10

The theory by Bibinger and Winkelmann (2016) renders the following result:
Corollary 3.4. Under Assumptions 1 and 2 with r < 3/2 for equidistant observations,
tni = i/n, and under Assumption 3 for the noise, the statistics (21) with rn ∝ n−β log(n)
satisfy

 (st)

3
σ̂τ2 − σ̂τ2− − ∆στ2 −→ M N 0, 8(σs3 + σs−
)ηs

nβ/2

(22)

for all


r 
,
0 < β < 1/4 ∧ $ 1 −
2

(23)

with $ from the truncation sequence un , such that we come arbitrarily close to the optimal
rate n1/8 in (22).
Theorem 10.30 of Aït-Sahalia and Jacod (2014) provides a related result for volatility jump
estimation without microstructure noise, where the first line in their equation (10.81) for one
fixed point in time corresponds to our result under condition (23). The corollary provides
an asymptotic test of the hypothesis of no volatility jump, ∆στ2 = 0, against the alternative
that ∆στ2 6= 0. The statistic (27) in Bibinger and Winkelmann (2016) gives an efficient test.
For non-equidistant observations, the noise level in (22) includes ((F −1 )0 (τ ))1/2 , analogous
to (18) for price jumps.
3.3. Discontinuous leverage effect
This section introduces a covariation measure for contemporaneous price and volatility
jumps that combines the above spectral jump and volatility estimators. Our covariation
measure is related to that of Aït-Sahalia et al. (2017) who introduce the following as the tail
discontinuous leverage effect in their equation (2.7):
[X, σ 2 ]dT (a) =

X

2
∆Xs σs2 − σs−



1{|∆Xs |>a} .

(24)

s≤T

Based on our local methods and setting T = 1, we consider the DLE estimator
d

\
[X,
σ 2 ]1 (a) =

h−1
n −1

X

d τ̂ σ̂ 2 − σ̂ 2
∆X
τ̂k
τ̂k −
k



1{∆k [X,X]>a
\
2 ∨u } ,
n

(25)

k=2

d τ̂ is the estimated log-price jump (12) and σ̂ 2 and σ̂ 2 are the spot volatility
where ∆X
k
τ̂k −
τ̂k
estimates (21). Only finitely many addends with (large) price jumps in (25) are non-zero.
(25) makes it apparent that we need to detect these unknown price-jump times to estimate
the DLE. With a fixed a > 0, or with a = 0 in case of finite activity jumps, we first use a
thresholding procedure to locate bins ((k − 1)hn , khn ) that contain a (large) price jump. We
2
apply a bin-wise threshold, un (khn ) = 2 log(h−1
n )hn σ̂(k−1)hn ,pil , with pre-estimated squared

volatility, as defined in (14b). The moving threshold accounts for intraday volatility patterns.
\
To estimate changes in the quadratic variation, ∆k [X,
X], on bins with a price jump, we

11

adapt the statistics from Section 3.1.3 of Bibinger and Winkelmann (2015) and define
ad
ζek,l
=

X

ŵjk



1 2
2 Sjk

2
+ 12 S̃jl
− π 2 j 2 h−2
n

2
η̂(k−1)h
n
n



,

j∈Jn


ad ead
ζekad = max ζek,k
, ζk,k+1 ,

(26)

by summing over the set Jn of odd numbers up to the cut-off Jn and with spectral statistics
S̃jk = Sj ((k−1)hn ) shifted by hn /2 in comparison to Sjk = Sj ((k−1/2)hn ). This adjustment
of (20) allows for unbiased estimation of the increase in the jump variation on bins with
jumps. Due to the overlapping nature of shifted bins and the maximum operator in (26), a
jump on a bin also affects a neighboring bin. The weighting of a jump on a neighboring bin
is always smaller, however, than the weighting on the bin containing the jump. Thus, the
increment in jump variation on a bin containing a jump is estimated by
\
∆k [X,
X] = hn ζekad 1{e
ad ,e
ad )} .
ζkad >max(e
ζk−1
ζk+1

(27)

The thresholding procedure detects asymptotically small bins with jumps. However, following Bibinger and Winkelmann (2015), these bin-widths decay with order n−1/2 and are of
the same sizes as the bins in which the price-jump estimation is conducted. To solve the
bias problem in price-jump estimation at unknown times, we determine a price-jump time
τ more precisely and discuss how to apply our price-jump statistic, (12). While we can
directly estimate volatility jumps from (21), we need to adjust the price-jump estimation to
obtain an overall consistent estimator of the DLE.
\
To determine the jump time, τ̂ ∈ ((k − 1)hn , khn ), on a bin with ∆k [X,
X] > a2 ∨ un ,
more precisely, we partition this bin into Rn sub-intervals of lengths (rn +ln )/n with (rn +ln )
an even integer. The jump window (tnl−ln , tnl+rn ), with length hn or smaller and l = bτ nc + 1,
includes the price jump. rn determines the number of observations to the right of the price
jump up to the end of the jump window, ln or ln + 1 is the number of observations to
the left of the price jump down to the beginning of the jump window. For the price-jump
estimation, we then cut out this jump window that contains τ . Given tnl+rn and tnl−ln , we
thus use (12) with the basis (10) centered around Ytnl+r − Ytnl−l and with returns ∆ni Y in a
n

n

window [tnl−ln − hn /2, tnl−ln ] to the left of the jump window and [tnl+rn , tnl+rn + hn /2] to the
right of the jump window. This is the same as deleting observations Ytni on (tnl−ln , tnl+rn )
and shifting observations Ytni from the left and right towards the center. We identify a jump
window by comparing Rn pre-average jump estimators

rn + ln n
; ∆1 Y, . . . , ∆nn Y ,
(28)
n
√
with the statistics from (7), averaging over (rn + ln )/2  n instead of Mn observations.
d τ̂ .
The final jump-size estimator is denoted by ∆X
ι̇ = argmaxi=1,...,Rn T LM (k − 1)hn + (i − 1/2)

12

√
Proposition 3.5. When Rn → ∞, with Rn = O( n), such that (rn + ln ) ∝ nδ → ∞, for
d τ̂ with
some δ > 0, the adjusted price-jump estimation using ∆X
tnl−ln = (k − 1)hn + (ι̇ − 1)

rn + ln
rn + ln n
, tl+rn = (k − 1)hn + ι̇
,
n
n

(29)

with ι̇ defined in (28), satisfies (18) in Proposition 3.3.
While (rn + ln ) is set by the econometrician, the two summands ln and rn are unknown and
depend on the true value of τ . Proposition 3.5 establishes asymptotically efficient price-jump
estimation under noise, even if the jump time τ is unknown.
Analogously, the Lee-Mykland statistic (7) can be adjusted for the unknown time point,
τ , in the jump window (tnl−ln , tnl+rn ). We estimate the price to the left of the jump window
with P̂ (tnl+rn ) and to the right of the jump window with P̂ (tnl−ln −Mn ). This adjustment is
also robust in the sense that Proposition 3.1 remains valid.
Consider the two illustrative “extreme” examples in determining jump windows:
Example 1. Rn = 1 implies cutting out the whole bin with tnl−ln = (k − 1)hn and tnl+rn =
khn . We can show that the price-jump estimator (12) is consistent and preserves (almost)
the optimal convergence rate in this case. However, the constant in the variance in (15)
increases when the jump window is of order n−1/2 .
Example 2. Rn = nhn − 1, when τ̂k = argmaxi {tni ∈ [(k − 1)hn , khn )| |∆ni Y |}, implies
centering (12) around the largest absolute return on a bin. Since the noise is centered
and its variance ητ2k typically is rather small (see Hansen and Lunde (2006)), the time of
the largest absolute return might be considered a good candidate for the jump arrival and
the method would require one fewer tuning parameter. In particular, if one addresses jumps
much larger than ητk , the method could also perform well in practice. Theoretically, however,
centering the jump window around the largest absolute return is only suitable if one assumes
that ητk → 0 when n → ∞.
Aït-Sahalia et al. (2017) point out that a central limit theorem for the DLE in the presence
of market microstructure noise cannot generally be obtained with pre-averaging or related
approaches. However, by focusing either on the tail DLE, with some a > 0 or assuming
r = 0 in Assumption 2, we derive the following asymptotic result:
Proposition 3.6. Under Assumptions 1, 2 and 3, for any a > 0 in that the Lévy measure
µ does not have an atom, the estimator for the DLE (25) satisfies the feasible (self-scaling)
central limit theorem

n

β/2

Ph−1
n

k=1

d

\
[X,
σ 2 ]1 (a) − [X, σ 2 ]d1 (a)
(d)
−→ N (0, 1) ,
2


1/2
d τ̂
∆X
8η̂τ̂k σ̂τ̂3k + σ̂τ̂3k − 1{∆ [X,X]>a
\
2 ∨u }
k
k

(30)

n

with β as in (23). If no price jump is detected, we set the estimate equal to zero. In
particular, the limit theorem facilitates, for some α ∈ (0, 1), an asymptotic level α test with
asymptotic power 1 for testing the hypothesis H̃0 : [X, σ 2 ]d1 (a) = 0, against the alternative

13

H̃1 : [X, σ 2 ]d1 (a) 6= 0:
ϕ = 1

d
\
2 ] (a)|>q
|nβ/2 [X,σ
1−α/2
1

qP

−1
hn
(∆X τ̂k )2
k=1

c

8η̂τ̂k (σ̂τ̂3 +σ̂τ̂3
k

k−

)1{∆

,

(31)

2
\
k [X,X]>a ∨un }

where the (1 − α/2) quantile of the standard normal law is denoted by q1−α/2 .
One loses no generality by imposing the scaling T = 1; any fixed T ∈ R+ can be considered.
The condition that the Lévy measure µ does not have an atom in a is analogous to (10.76)
in Aït-Sahalia and Jacod (2014). There are only atoms in at most countably many values.
According to Aït-Sahalia and Jacod (2014), the condition holds for any a > 0 as soon as µ
has a density. This applies to all models used in finance with infinite jump activity.
Proposition 3.7. Under Assumptions 1, 2 and 3 and under the specific case of finite jump
activity, r = 0 in Assumption 2, the estimator for the DLE,
d

\
[X,
σ 2 ]1 =

h−1
n −1

X

d τ̂ σ̂ 2 − σ̂ 2
∆X
τ̂k
τ̂k −
k



1{∆k [X,X]>u
,
\
n}

k=2

together with β as in (23) and $ <

n

β/2

Ph−1
n

k=1

1+δ/2−1/4
2+δ/2

satisfies the feasible central limit theorem,

d

\
[X,
σ 2 ]1 − [X, σ 2 ]d1


d τ̂ 2 8η̂τ̂ σ̂ 3 + σ̂ 3
∆X
k
k
τ̂k
τ̂k − 1{∆

(d)

1/2 −→ N (0, 1) .

(32)

\

k [X,X]>un }

The upper bound on $ relates to Assumption 3 and the existence of higher moments of t .
If all moments of the noise exist, the bound imposes no condition on the truncation. For
δ → 0 in Assumption 3, $ < 3/8 leads to more conservative thresholds. Since r = 0 in (23),
we also derive the optimal rate in this case. Although we conjecture that this upper bound
on $ is not needed, it simplifies the proof considerably.
Proposition 3.6 follows from combining our results on jump localization, the estimation
of price jumps at detected jump times and from results of Corollary 3.4 about volatility jump
estimation. However, the proof cannot be extended in a similar way to the case r 6= 0 and
a = 0 when considering infinitely many small price jumps. It is unknown if an asymptotic
distribution theory is possible in this general case. Propositions 3.6 and 3.7 give us exactly
the statistics we require to apply in our data study, however.
Remark 3. Propositions 3.6 and 3.7 indicate that, in the asymptotic results of the estimated DLE, the estimation error for the volatility jumps dominates the error for the price
jumps. Consequently, the length of the jump window in Proposition 3.5 for price-jump estimation has asymptotically no effect on DLE estimation. Nevertheless, choosing Rn > 1
is of interest from an applied point of view. Removing jump windows has a locally similar
effect as downsampling the data to a lower observation frequency. Given the discussion by
Christensen et al. (2014) about spurious jump detection via downsampling, one would like
to avoid deleting large jump windows in the empirical application. The refined method is
superior to cutting out larger windows in that it poses less risk of estimating spuriously large
jumps.

14

In addition to the DLE of Aït-Sahalia et al. (2017), the leverage effect is also often defined
in terms of a correlation statistic. To gain further insights across individual firms in the
empirical Section 5, we follow Jacod et al. (2017) and consider a scaled measure of the DLE:
2
s≤T ∆Xs ∆σs 1{|∆Xs |>a}
q
qP
,
= qP
2
2 2
[X, X]dT (a)[σ 2 , σ 2 ]dT (a)
s≤T (∆Xs ) 1{|∆Xs |>a}
s≤T (∆σs ) 1{|∆Xs |>a}

P

[X, σ 2 ]dT (a)

(33)

that is, the correlation between contemporaneous price and volatility jumps. We may use
a = 0 in case of finite activity jumps, r = 0 in Assumption 2. Note that (33) is a path-wise
defined, integrated measure. (33) is a scalar parameter only under the restriction to timehomogeneous jump measures. Using Propositions 3.6 and 3.7, and setting T = 1, we obtain
the following result:
Corollary 3.8. Under all conditions from Proposition 3.6 and with
h−1
n −1

d

X

2 , σ 2 ] (a) =
[σ\
1

σ̂τ̂2k − σ̂τ̂2k −

2

1{∆k [X,X]>a
\
2 ∨u } ,
n

(34a)

k=2
d

h−1
n −1

\
[X,
X]1 (a) =

X

d τ̂
∆X
k

2

1{∆k [X,X]>a
\
2 ∨u } ,
n

(34b)

k=2

we derive a consistent estimator of (33) with
d

\
[X,
σ 2 ]1 (a)
q

d

d

2 , σ 2 ] (a)
\
[X,
X]1 (a)[σ\
1

[X, σ 2 ]d1 (a)
−p
= OP̄ (n−β/2 ) ,
[X, X]d1 (a)[σ 2 , σ 2 ]d1 (a)

with β as in (23). Analogously, in the setup of Proposition 3.7, we obtain the same result
for a = 0.
4. Simulations
This section reports the results of simulation studies of the finite-sample properties of the
price-jump estimators, the corresponding price-jump tests and the discontinuous leverage
statistics. The simulation study in Bibinger and Winkelmann (2016) evaluates the finitesample inference on volatility jumps.
This simulation study emulates that of Lee and Mykland (2012). Although their theory
only applies to the jump-diffusion setup, they simulate a more complex and realistic model,
including stochastic volatility and time-varying noise. The efficient price follows
Z

t

σs dWs , t ∈ [0, 1],

Xt = 1 +

(35)

0

with Heston-type stochastic volatility,

dσs2 = 0.0162 0.8465 − σs2 ds + 0.117 σs dBs ,

(36)

where B and W are two independent standard Brownian motions. We adopt the parameter

15

values of Lee and Mykland (2012) in (36) and assume 252 trading days per year and 6.5
trading hours a day. The model for the market microstructure noise is

tni = 0.0861∆ni X + 0.06 ∆ni X + ∆ni−1 X Ui , i = 0, . . . , n,

(37)

with (Ui )0≤i≤n being a sequence of normally distributed random variables with mean 0
and variance q 2 . We consider two parameterizations of q, which governs the noise level
(market quality parameter). The cross-correlation between X and noise violates one of our
theoretical assumptions, but we expect no degradation in the performance of our approach.
We estimate q in the presence of serial correlation with the noise estimator suggested in
Proposition 1 of Lee and Mykland (2012).
We implement the self-scaling adaptive version of (12) with pre-estimated optimal weights.
The caption of Table 1 gives values of hn . The pre-averaging for the Lee-Mykland statistics
p
(7) refers to a block-size, Mn = c n/k, where k denotes the order of serial correlation in
the simulated noise. The constant c is chosen according to Table 5 of Lee and Mykland
(2012).
Evaluation of the pre-average and spectral tests to infer price jumps
Lee and Mykland (2012) compare the performance of the noise-robust local jump tests
in Lee and Mykland (2012) to those in Lee and Mykland (2008), which are not designed
to be robust to noise. We replicate this simulation study and compare the finite-sample
performances of the statistics defined in (7) and (12). Considering the power of the tests
associated with Proposition 3.1 (Lee-Mykland) and Proposition 3.2 (our spectral method)
allows us to compare our results to those in Table 4 of Lee and Mykland (2012). Realizations
of Yi = Xtni + tni are generated for one trading hour using time resolutions of 1, 2 and 3
seconds, respectively (n = 3600, 1800, 1200). The jump size in τ is related to the noise level
q, i.e., ∆Xτ = 0 under the hypothesis and ∆Xτ = q, 2q, 3q under the alternative.
Table 1 shows the simulation results, along with the values reported by Lee and Mykland
(2012) in parentheses. Most of our results for the Lee-Mykland test closely track the ones
reported by Lee and Mykland (2012). Our results for the power under moderate noise and
smaller jumps are a bit better than expected from Lee and Mykland (2012), while some
results in the large noise case are smaller. In the large noise case, we report values where
Mn is doubled compared to the constant adopted from Lee and Mykland (2012), which
led to higher power. The windows used for the spectral method are much larger than the
values Mn /n for the Lee-Mykland statistics. At first glance it might seem surprising that
the power in Table 1 increases for larger noise. This is not, however, because of large noise
that makes precise testing and estimation more difficult, but because the jump sizes increase
along with q. Large jumps naturally lead to better testing results. The size of both tests
on the hypothesis appears to be accurate. The new spectral test (10) attains a considerably
better power in all cases.

16

Table 1: Comparison of size and power of the two tests.

Moderate noise case, q = 0.0005
Frequency (n)
Test
3 sec (1200)

∆Xτ = 0
LM
0.049∗

BNW
0.045

0.050∗

0.053

0.049

0.056

(0.034)

2 sec (1800)

(0.046)∗

LM
0.199∗

BNW
0.274

0.280∗

0.382

0.281

0.594

(0.059)

(0.030)

1 sec (3600)

∆Xτ = q

∆Xτ = 2q
LM
0.473∗

BNW
0.677

0.695∗

0.828

0.697

0.982

(0.320)

(0.071)

(0.709)∗

LM
0.777∗

BNW
0.924

0.937

0.988

0.950

1

(0.786)

(0.483)

(0.091)∗

∆Xτ = 3q

(0.920)∗
(0.988)∗

Large noise case, q = 0.005
Frequency (n)
Test
3 sec (1200)

∆Xτ = 0
LM
0.052∗

BNW
0.049

0.053∗

0.052

0.050

0.049

(0.046)

2 sec (1800)

(0.041)∗

LM
0.296∗

BNW
0.996

0.465∗

0.999

0.829

1

(0.275)

(0.046)

1 sec (3600)

∆Xτ = q

∆Xτ = 2q
LM
0.803∗

BNW
1

0.937∗

1

0.994
∗

1

(0.889)

(0.593)

(1)

LM
0.997∗

BNW
1

0.988
∗

1

0.997
∗

1

(0.997)

(0.998)

(0.918)∗

∆Xτ = 3q

(1)

(1)

The table lists the simulated values of standardized test statistics (7) and (12), from 6000
iterations for each configuration, exceeding the 0.05-quantile of the standard normal. “LM”
marks the Lee-Mykland test and “BNW” our proposed spectral test. We simulated from the
model given by (35), (36) and (37). In parentheses ( )∗ , we report the values from Table 4
in Lee and Mykland (2012) of their analogous simulation study. According to Table 5 in Lee
and Mykland (2012), we used constants c = 1/19 for q = 0.0005 and c = 1/9 for q = 0.005
to determine Mn in (7) (for ∆Xτ = 2q, 3q and q = 0.005, we doubled Mn , which increased
√
the power). For (12), we used hn = κ log (n)/ n with κ ≈ 5/12 for q = .0005 and κ ≈ 2/3
for q = .005.

Evaluation of the pre-average and spectral estimators for price-jump sizes
In the same setup, we compare the performance of the jump-size estimators. Table 2 confirms
that, in all configurations, with the same optimal parameter choice as above, our spectral
estimator attains a smaller root mean square error (RMSE) than the Lee-Mykland estimator.
Efficiency gains are most relevant for the configuration with moderate noise and the smallest
jump size. In this setup, our new estimator has a RMSE that is almost 50% smaller for
n = 3600. For large noise and jump size q, our new estimator reduces the RMSE by 20%.
These significant improvements of estimation accuracy are particularly relevant because the
moderate noise setting is realistic for current high-frequency data.
Figure 2 demonstrates the finite-sample accuracy of the normal limit laws in (15) and
(9). The empirical distributions closely approximate their normal asymptotic limit.
Evaluation of the discontinuous leverage estimator
We modify the simulation setup by adding one jump at a random time to the volatility in
(36). The volatility jump size is set to the median value from the empirical sample described
in Table 3. To create discontinuous leverage, we implement a contemporaneous downward
price jump of 0.2%, which is comparable to the sizes in Figure 4. Using a rather large price
jump and average volatility jump-size allows us to study the finite-sample accuracy of the
result (30). We can analyze the DLE estimator (25) because thresholding reliably detects
such jumps. We simulate one trading day with observation frequencies of 1, 2 and 3 seconds,

17

Table 2: Comparison of RMSEs for the two price-jump size estimators.

Moderate noise case, q = 0.0005
∆Xτ = q

Frequency (n)
Estimator
3 sec (1200)
2 sec (1800)
1 sec (3600)

LM
11.0
6.8
4.7

∆Xτ = 2q

BNW
9.9
5.3
2.6

LM
11.1
6.9
4.8

BNW
10.2
6.0
3.6

∆Xτ = 3q
LM
11.9
7.9
6.3

BNW
10.8
6.8
4.7

Large noise case, q = 0.005
∆Xτ = q

Frequency (n)
Estimator
3 sec (1200)
2 sec (1800)
1 sec (3600)

LM
14.8
10.0
5.6

∆Xτ = 2q

BNW
14.4
9.4
4.5

LM
15.0
10.2
5.9

BNW
14.5
9.5
4.6

∆Xτ = 3q
LM
15.2
10.6
6.4

BNW
14.5
9.5
4.6

The table lists the root mean square errors, rescaled by 104 , of the estimators (7)
and (12), from 6000 iterations for each configuration under the alternative when
price jumps are present. “LM” marks the Lee-Mykland estimator and “BNW”
our proposed estimator. We simulated from the model given by (35), (36) and
(37). Tuning parameters are reported in Table 1.

frequencies that generate 23400, 11700 and 7800 observations, respectively, over the day.
We estimate the DLE in a model with moderate microstructure noise. We first estimate
spectral statistics over a partition of the whole day, identifying price jumps by thresholding.
Next, we estimate the squared volatility before and after the jump by local averages of the
bin-wise, parametric estimates over 8 bins. Then, we estimate the local jump size using
(12) and implement the refinement from Section 3.3 for unknown jump times. We partition
the bin with the detected jump in R = 6 equidistant sub-intervals and apply the adjusted
jump size estimation using (28). The window sizes for the first step and the price-jump
estimation are equal: we use h−1 = 100 for 1-second frequency and h−1 = 50 for the two
smaller frequencies. The spectral cut-off frequency is set to J = 30 in all cases. Estimates
are reasonably robust to different values of h and J.
For the fixed, true value -2.324 of the DLE (24),3 we obtain these estimates:
Frequency 1 sec 2 sec 3 sec
Bias

-0.04

-0.02

-0.03

Variance

0.16

0.19

0.21

The inherently slow convergence rate of the estimation leads to pronounced finite sample
variances. Figure 3 shows QQ-normal plots for the test statistic obeying the central limit
theorem (30). The normal distribution fits reasonably well for all frequencies. Our test
for the DLE attains very high power (approximately 99%) in the case of one observation
per second and only slightly smaller power for the lower observation frequencies. Overall,
simulations indicate that the estimation performs well in this complex environment.

3 We

rescale all DLE values with 107 .

18

Figure 2: QQ-normal plots for the Lee-Mykland statistics (left) and our statistics (12) (right). The top
panels depict the 6000 iterations when ∆Xτ = 0. The bottom panels show results for the iterations when
∆Xτ = q = 0.0005.

Figure 3: QQ-normal plots for (30), 1-second (left) and 3-second frequencies (right).

19

5. The discontinuous leverage effect in stock prices
This section presents results of applying the spectral methods of Section 3 to stock
price data. We first introduce the dataset and discuss how to estimate price and volatility
jumps on these data. Second, we investigate the DLE, i.e., a covariation measure, and the
correlations of price and volatility cojumps. Finally, we explain the cross-sectional variation
in the DLE and correlation estimates across firms.
5.1. Price and volatility cojumps
We use NASDAQ order book data from the LOBSTER database. Initially, we pick the
30 stocks with the largest market capitalizations from each of the 12 NASDAQ industries
for a total of 12 ∗ 30 = 360 stocks.4 The sample spans January 1, 2010 to December 31,
2015, 1,509 days with trading from 9:30 to 16:00 EST. The tick-by-tick data shows evidence of market microstructure noise in that, for instance, returns have significant negative
first-order autocorrelation. The test of Aït-Sahalia and Xiu (2017), equation (40), displays
significant noise for 50% of all stocks, across all trading days.5 As shown in the simulations
of Winkelmann et al. (2016), spectral estimators perform particularly well with liquid stocks,
i.e., those having at least about one trade every 15 seconds. To restrict the analysis to very
liquid stocks, we exclude trading days for a given stock with fewer than 1,500 trades.6 This
selection procedure reduces the number of firms to 320. We focus on transactions with
non-zero returns but do not adjust the data further; that is, we do not clean or synchronize
trades. The number of observed trades varies substantially across stocks and days. There
is a maximum of 227,139 intradaily observations for the Apple Inc. stock on September 9,
2014; the median number of daily transactions across stocks is much smaller, only 5,977.
The local jump detection and estimation takes the time-varying trading activity into
account. We partition each trading day d into h−1,(d,s) = K (d,s) bins for every stock s. As
suggested by our theoretical results, the number of bins k = 1, ..., K (d,s) grows with the
√
number of trades n(d,s) with K (d,s) = b3 n(d,s) log(n(d,s) )−1 c. We detect price jumps by
(d,s)

applying the adaptive threshold, uk

2,(d,s)

= 2 log(K (d,s) )/K (d,s) σ̂k,pil , to bin-wise quadratic

variation estimates (27). It is well-known that the number of detected price jumps depends
on the thresholding procedure in the sense that a lower threshold usually increases the
number of detected small price jumps.7 We find that relatively small volatility changes at
price-jump time points strongly influence the DLE estimates. For that reason, we apply
the test for volatility jumps, as proposed by Bibinger and Winkelmann (2016), to focus
on price jumps with significant contemporaneous volatility jumps.8 The tests for volatility
4 The

industries can be found on www.nasdaq.com/screening/industries.aspx. The year 2013 serves as the
baseline year.
5 Aït-Sahalia and Xiu (2017) report similar percentages for the S&P100 in their Table 4. To control the
overall significance level of tests across firms and trading days, we use the Benjamini and Hochberg (1995)
step-up procedure at level α = 0.1. In case of no market microstructure noise our methods remain valid.
6 Results are robust to higher (2,000) and lower (1,000) thresholds.
7 The main results about the DLE are robust against different threshold choices. As a robustness check, we
substitute the log(K) term of the threshold to log(log(K)), which increases the number of price-jump days
per stock from around 14% to 29%.
8 Note that in (25), summands without volatility jumps “automatically” cancel out because σ 2 = σ 2 . To
τ
τ−
control the overall significance level of tests across firms and price jumps at level α = 0.1, we use the
Benjamini and Hochberg (1995) step-up procedure (the false discovery rate).

20

Apple Inc. 2013-08-13

Apple Inc. 2013-05-14

495

456
Transaction price (USD)
454

490
452
485
450

480

448

446

475

444
470
9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00

442
9:30 10:00 10:30 11:00 11:30 12:00 12:30 13:00 13:30 14:00 14:30 15:00 15:30 16:00

-2

-2

10

10

Figure 4: Incrementfinfquadraticfvariantion
Price )ftofdetectfpricefjump
process at the NASDAQ stock exchange of Apple Inc. on two different days with priceThresholdf(u
Leftfandfrightfspotfsquaredfvolatilityfatfpricefjump
volatility cojumps.
Number of trades: 87,445 (left), 40,707 (right).
n

jumps reduce the influence of the price-jump-detection threshold on the DLE estimates.
-3

-3

10

10

For price-jump estimation, we partition jump bins into R = 6 sub-intervals and center
(12) around the cut-out return obtained via (28).9 The number of frequencies studied
on each bin is J (d,s) = 5 log(n(d,s) ). We average the truncated spectral statistics over
√
4
R(d,s) = d3 n(d,s) / log(n(d,s) )e bins to estimate spot volatility to the right and left of the
-4

-4

10

10

detected price jump.
Figure 4 shows two examples of price-volatility cojumps of the Apple Inc. stock, an
-5

-5

10

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

upward price jump in the left panel and a downward price jump in the right panel. The
Figure
5: Examples
of common
price
and volatility
jumps.
Upper figures
indicate
processes
estimates
of the price
jumps are
0.27%
and -0.24%,
respectively.
Note
thatprice
if one
would
as
functions
of
trading
hours.
Lower
figures
display
the
related
spectral
statistics
on
39
10
minute
approximate the price-jump sizes just by looking at Figure 4 and assuming a small noise
ˆ = 3.5×10−4 ,
partitions of the trading day. 2013-08-13: n = 87445, estimated quadratic variation QV
level, one may expect muchˆ larger price-jump
estimates. Christensen ˆet al. (2014) and
−5
estimated integrated volatility IV = 6.05 × 10 . 2013-05-14: n = 40707, QV = 2.29 × 10−4 ,
Barndorff-Nielsen
ˆ = 5.86 × 10−5 . et al. (2009) explain that seemingly large returns often consist of smaller,
IV
unidirectional returns on a short time interval.10 This explains how downsampling to lower
observation frequencies can affect both jump detection and the estimation of price-jump
analysis.
We also
need
a strategy
to volatility
deal with situations
when price jumps occur
than
two
sizes. Figure
4 also
suggests
that
jumped contemporaneously
withwith
the less
price
jump.
hours
However,offorthe
thestock
currentprice
example
this turned
out cases
to be of
minorsmaller
relevance
as wethe
do
That inis,between.
the variability
appears
in both
much
before
not
findjump
manythan
days afterwards.
where this is This
the case.
We propose
severalissucceeding
jumps
together and
price
apparent
jumptoingroup
volatility
not directly
determined
by
analyze
if
one
volatility
jump
has
occurred
by
looking
at
windows
left
and
right
of
the
series
of
jumps.
the price jump mechanically feeding through to higher volatility. Indeed estimated changes
Table
2 reports
the use
rejection
ratesinformation
for the 5% and
10%
significance
levels.the
Results
indicatebin.
that The
on a
in volatility
only
log-price
from
bins
that neighbor
price-jump
5%
significance
level
36% (INTC)
up to 75%
(AAPL) of jumps
in prices
are accompanied
by jumps
increase
in spot
volatility
evaluated
approximately
30 minutes
before
and after the
price
in
volatility.
For Amazon
we find
14 price-volatility
jumps
withpanel
respectoftoFigure
the 5% 4).
and Note
identically
jumps
is 184%
(left panel
of Figure
4) and 163%
(right
that with
the
respect
to
the
10%
significance
level.
In
comparison
with
detected
price
jumps,
it
appears
that
the
strong upward jumps in both the price and volatility processes, in the left panel of Figure
rejection
decreaseswith
in the
price jumps. This
leadscorrelation
to relativelyinstable
frequencies
4, is notrate
consistent
thepercentage
negative of
price-volatility
cojump
high-frequency
of
price
volatility
over
time across
stocks. Referring again to the 5% signifdata
that
Bandico-jumps
and Renò
(2016)
reportthe
forconsidered
S&P 500 futures.
icance
the Apple
stockabout
price displays
with
around 6%
of the trading
thesummary
lowest frequency
To level,
get deeper
insights
price and
volatility
cojumps,
Table 3days
shows
statisof
common
price
and
volatility
jumps.
With
around
17%
of
trading
days
Intel
has
the
largest
number
tics for detected cojumps and quantiles of the respective jump distributions. Panel A of Table
that centering the jump estimator around the19
largest absolute return on a detected bin, as described
in Example 2, does not change the main conclusions about the DLE. However, individual estimates of
price-jump sizes can differ quite substantially.
10 While Christensen et al. (2014) attribute a local drift to such phenomena, Barndorff-Nielsen et al. (2009)
explain this characteristic by the microstructure of the orderbook and call it “gradual jumps”.
9 Note

21

Table 3: Price and volatility cojumps: NASDAQ order book, 2010-2015.

Conditioning
criteria

# of
cojumps

Panel A: Apple Inc.
All jumps
Positive price jumps
· All
· Market
· Idiosyncratic
Negative price jumps
· All
· Market
· Idiosyncratic

Price-jump size
Q0.25
Q0.5
Q0.75

Volatility-jump size
Q0.25
Q0.5
Q0.75

stock
209

-0.095

-0.033

0.048

43.8

88.6

193.4

83
20
63

0.029
0.073
0.028

0.070
0.152
0.061

0.152
0.266
0.119

-28.4
-28.2
-28.4

84.8
124.7
80.6

180.3
266.0
153.3

126
19
107

-0.137
-0.172
-0.130

-0.084
-0.110
-0.084

-0.046
-0.050
-0.046

51.4
86.2
49.4

89.6
316.5
82.5

216.9
504.9
174.4

0.014

0.152

39.2

137.3

299.1

0.175
0.206
0.164

0.286
0.327
0.266

-23.3
154.2
-21.8

114.4
269.5
108.9

290.7
361.9
230.1

-0.160
-0.194
-0.154

-0.101
-0.141
-0.098

76.7
168.8
74.7

145.6
276.8
119.5

315.0
444.6
304.2

Panel B: Mean across all stocks
All jumps
73.8
-0.115
Positive price jumps
· All
38.5
0.108
· Market
9.9
0.139
· Idiosyncratic
28.6
0.101
Negative price jumps
· All
35.4
-0.254
· Market
7.6
-0.283
· Idiosyncratic
27.9
-0.242

Notes: Quantiles (Q) of the jump distributions are in percent. Market jumps refer to days with
jumps in the NASDAQ composite index. Idiosyncratic jumps refer to days without jumps in the
NASDAQ composite index.

3 shows summary statistics for the Apple Inc. stock; Panel B displays averages across the
320 stocks. We condition results on the sign of price jumps and whether they are market jumps or idiosyncratic. Following Li et al. (2017), we use a market index to observe
systematic risk. The market proxy is the NASDAQ Composite Index, which is the market
capitalization-weighted index of about 3,000 equities listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange.
The price-jump detection method proposed in Section 3.3 finds market jumps on 8% of the
days in the sample. We define idiosyncratic jumps as discontinuities where the index displays
no contemporaneous market jump.
The top row of Panel A of Table 3 shows that the Apple Inc. stock price displays 209
contemporaneous price-volatility cojumps, with more downward price jumps (126 or 60%)
than upward price jumps (83 or 40%). Panel B of Table 3 shows that the average number of
price-volatility cojumps in the six-year sample across all individual stocks is 73.8. Columns
three to five and six to eight of Table 3 show the quantiles of the price-jump and volatilityjump distributions. They indicate that idiosyncratic jumps are smaller than market jumps.
The magnitude of price jumps is in line with the sizes of -0.15 to 0.18% reported by Lee and
Mykland (2012) for the IBM stock in 2007.
The magnitude of volatility jumps is striking. The 0.75 empirical quantile of the volatilityjump distribution of the Apple Inc. stock for negative market price jumps is about 505%.
That is, volatility frequently jumps to more than five times its pre-jump size when prices
jump down. The analogous 0.75 quantile for volatility jumps, conditional on a negative
market price jump, averaged across all firms is 445%. Scheduled news announcements are
known to reduce trading and volatility right before the announcement but portend a strong

22

0.0005
-0.0005

Volatility jump

0.0015

Apple Inc.

-0.008

-0.006

-0.004

-0.002

0.000

0.002

0.004

Price jump

Figure 5: Scatter plot of price jumps and contemporaneous volatility jumps. Sample period 2010-2015.

response afterwards, which is manifested in large volatility jumps. The rows labeled “market,” in Panel B of Table 3, show that volatility jumps are usually positive for both positive
and negative price jumps. Overall, the volatility-jump distribution is right-skewed, indicating the important role of upward jumps in volatility.
5.2. The discontinuous leverage effect
This subsection characterizes the DLE of contemporaneous price and volatility jumps.
Figure 5 illustrates a typical relation between price jumps and contemporaneous volatility
jumps using data from Apple Inc. from 2010 to 2015. Following Duffie et al. (2000) and
Bandi and Renò (2016), one would expect an unconditional, negative linear relation between
the price and volatility-jump sizes. However, the figure does not depict such a uniformly
negative relation. Row 1 of Table 4 documents the absence of an unconditional pricevolatility cojump relation across firms. That is, the test (30) rejects the null hypothesis of
no DLE for only 10% of the 320 firms. The DLE estimates and correlation (33) are usually
close to zero, with inconsistent signs across firms. The median DLE across all firms is 0.17;
the corresponding correlation is 0.01. In other words, there is no prevalent unconditional
leverage effect using either measure of leverage.
This result confirms previous negative findings of parametric asset pricing models by
Chernov et al. (2003), Eraker et al. (2003) and Eraker (2004), who use U.S. stock index and
option data. Jacod et al. (2017) also find no significant correlation of price-volatility cojumps
in one-minute S&P 500 ETF data. Row 1 of Table 4 thus extends the literature’s negative
results on discontinuous leverage to the cross-section of individual stock price processes.
Given that it is difficult to reject the hypothesis of no DLE, the question arises if we
should expect the discontinuous relation to be similar to that of the continuous leverage.
As discovered by Lahaye et al. (2011), specific events cause large jumps and those jumps
are relatively rare. Volatility jumps are very large on impact, but the level of volatility
often subsequently decays quickly in the direction of a pre-event level. The impact of news
potentially drives common price and volatility jumps, as described by Pástor and Veronesi
(2012, 2013). We conjecture that such news effects usually trigger upward jumps in volatility,
regardless of the effect on prices, and thus produce a positive (negative) correlation of
volatility jumps with contemporaneous upward (downward) price jumps. To investigate this

23

Table 4: The discontinuous leverage across NASDAQ firms.

Row

Conditioning
criteria

Rejection
rate

DLE quantiles
Q0.25 Q0.50 Q0.75

Correlation quantiles
Q0.25 Q0.50 Q0.75

1

All jumps

0.10

-0.37

0.17

1.01

-0.12

0.01

0.15

2
3
4

Positive price jumps
· All
· Market
· Idiosyncratic

0.65
0.89
0.66

1.14
1.64
0.84

2.08
2.88
1.63

3.87
4.48
3.15

0.11
0.12
0.09

0.28
0.32
0.26

0.44
0.55
0.47

5
6
7

Negative price jumps
· All
· Market
· Idiosyncratic

0.63
0.85
0.67

-3.72
-3.75
-3.53

-1.75
-2.02
-1.69

-0.88
-1.03
-0.92

-0.47
-0.62
-0.52

-0.29
-0.31
-0.32

-0.09
-0.15
-0.14

Notes: The rejection rate indicates the percentage of firms having a significant DLE. We control the
overall significance at level α = 0.1 with the step-up procedure of Benjamini and Hochberg (1995). DLE
quantiles refer to a firm’s average DLE, rescaled by ×107 . The empirical quantiles contain all DLE
estimates and correlation coefficients Corr(∆X, ∆σ 2 ) across firms.

response pattern, we condition the DLE estimates on the signs of the price jumps.
Rows 2 and 5 of Table 4 show the outcomes of the DLE test (30) conditional on upward
and downward price jumps, respectively. We focus on stocks with more than 10 pricevolatility cojumps and exclude jumps larger than six standard deviations, which leaves us
with 307 firms. Quantiles of the DLE estimates and correlations indicate that the DLE
is negative for downward price jumps and positive for upward price jumps. That is, the
leverage statistic quantiles are uniformly positive (negative) for positive (negative) price
jumps. Row 2 of Table 4 shows that 65% of the firms display a significant DLE if prices
jump up. Similarly, row 5 of Table 4 shows that 63% of the firms have a statistically
significant DLE for negative price jumps. The positive (negative) relation between positive
(negative) price jumps and contemporaneous volatility jumps is also visible in the scatter
plot in Figure 5.
In addition to conditioning on the sign of the price jump, we consider the fact that
standard asset pricing models price different sources of risk differently. Systematic jumps
are often related to macroeconomic news announcements and trigger cojumps across a large
fraction of all firms while firm-specific jumps likely reflect idiosyncratic risk.
Conditioning on whether price jumps are market-wide or idiosyncratic reveals a strong
conditional relation between discontinuities in prices and volatility (see rows 3 and 6 of
Table 4). We focus on firms having more than 10 market price-volatility cojumps and omit
jumps larger than six times its standard deviation. This shrinks the number of firms to
230. For this sample, market upward jumps and contemporaneous volatility jumps (see row
3 of Table 4) display a significant DLE for 89% of the firms. The median DLE estimate
across all firms for a single price-volatility cojump is 2.88. The median correlation between
positive market jumps and volatility jumps is 0.32. Downward market jumps (see row 6 of
Table 4) exhibit a significant downward sloping relation for 85% of the firms. The median
DLE estimate for a single price-volatility cojump is -2.02 with a corresponding correlation of
-0.31. A comparison of rows 3 to 4 and 6 to 7 of Table 4 shows that market jumps are usually
more strongly correlated with contemporaneous volatility jumps than are idiosyncratic price

24

jumps. Market jumps show a stronger conditional DLE than do idiosyncratic jumps because
market events coincide with large price and volatility cojumps. This allows us to conclude
that the tail DLE is particularly strong.
In contrast to market jumps, idiosyncratic jumps are smaller, coming more from the
center of the jump distributions, and display a weaker DLE. Rows 4 and 7 of Table 4
indicate that about 66% of the stocks have a significant DLE for idiosyncratic jumps.
All in all, two forces prevent an unconditionally negative DLE: First, the sign of the pricevolatility cojump depends on the sign of the price jump. That is, positive (negative) price
jumps are positively (negatively) correlated with contemporaneous volatility jumps. Second,
the DLE is stronger for market price jumps and more often nonsignificant for idiosyncratic
price jumps.
The positive (negative) correlation between upward (downward) price jumps and contemporaneous volatility jumps might explain why Jacod et al. (2017) find no significant,
unconditional correlation between price and volatility jumps, while Todorov and Tauchen
(2011) report a strong positive relation between squared price jumps and jumps in volatility. Our results indicate that one would expect a positive unconditional DLE between
squared price jumps and volatility. The weaker relation between idiosyncratic price jumps
and volatility jumps relates to Yu (2012), who model a time-varying leverage effect in a
(semi)parametric stochastic volatility model where the time-variation is associated with the
size of returns. By conditioning on positive and negative price jumps, we focus on Yu’s positive and negative extreme states. Our analysis indicates that it is important to distinguish
market jumps and idiosyncratic jumps, which roughly implies distinguishing the tail from
the rest of the price-jump distribution.
5.3. Drivers of the discontinuous leverage
This subsection investigates several variables that might drive the cross-sectional variation in the DLE. A prime candidate for such a causal factor is a firm’s debt-to-equity ratio.
This explanatory variable is due to the original interpretation of the continuous leverage
effect as stemming from the levered nature of equity. The original interpretation of the
leverage effect is that a lower stock price will increase the debt-to-equity ratio and make
the stock price more volatile. Therefore, we investigate a firm’s debt-to-equity ratio as a
cross-sectional driver of the DLE.
We regress the DLE and correlation estimates for market upward and downward price
jumps on firms’ debt-to-equity ratios and the volatility levels.11 We treat the positive and
negative DLEs and correlations in separate regressions as an empirical matter because a
given firm usually has asymmetric positive and negative DLEs. Following the asset pricing
literature, we include common firm characteristics, such as firm size, the book-to-market
ratio, the book value of equity, profit, the cash-income ratio, the price-earnings ratio, and
a liquidity measure (number of trades) to control for other influences. Compustat provides
firm characteristics; we average characteristics and trades over the 2010-2015 sample before
using them in the cross-sectional regression.
11 The

volatility level can be considered as a component of financial leverage; see Bandi and Renò (2012) for
example.

25

Table 5: Regressions with discontinuous leverage estimates and correlations.

Dependent variable
d

\
Leverage [X,
σ 2 ]T
· Positive price jumps
· Negative price jumps

Debt-to-equity

Vola level

Size

# Trades

−0.523†

0.081

2.910‡

−0.298‡

(0.12)
†

(0.00)

(0.13)

−0.015

0.293

(0.50)

Correlation Corr(∆X, ∆σ 2 )
· Positive price jumps
−0.100
· Negative price jumps

R2

Explanatory variables

−2.950

‡

0.12

0.08

−0.385

(0.03)

(0.24)

(0.05)

−876.1

−2.890†

−1.220†

(0.33)

(0.00)

(0.96)

−0.401

885.9

(0.70)
†

(0.04)

(0.02)

4.300

0.13

(0.31)
‡

−1.500†

(0.64)

0.07

(0.83)

Notes: Regressions refer to the market jumps. † := ×10−7 , ‡ := ×10−11 . p-values in
parentheses. Cross-sectional regressions include further firm characteristics (not shown).
Sample of 215 firms.

The first two rows in Table 5 show the debt-to-equity ratio does not significantly influence
the cross-sectional variation in the DLE estimates. However, row 4 of Table 5 shows that
firms with a higher debt-to-equity ratio have a significantly stronger correlation of negative
market-wide price-volatility cojumps. An increase in the debt-to-equity ratio of 10 percentage points decreases the negative correlation of price and volatility cojumps by 0.04. This
is consistent with the traditional interpretation of the leverage effect.
In contrast to the debt-to-equity ratio, the regressions show that the level of integrated
volatility consistently explains the cross-sectional variation in DLE estimates across specifications. Firms with higher integrated volatility have a larger DLE (in absolute terms). This
finding is consistent with the idea that systematic risk is not diversifiable. It implies that
firms that respond more strongly to systematic risk, i.e. market jumps, tend to have higher
volatility levels, hence are more risky. In contrast to the DLE estimates, the price-volatility
cojump correlations decrease in absolute terms with the level of volatility.12 A relatively
high level of volatility results in a more dispersed relation between price jumps and contemporaneous volatility jumps. This result seems to contradict the idea that the debt-to-equity
ratio should have a positive relation with the volatility level, see Bandi and Renò (2012) for
example, and once more indicates the different natures of the continuous and discontinuous
leverage.
6. Conclusion
This paper makes both methodological and empirical contributions to the literature on
contemporaneous price and volatility jumps. We propose a nonparametric estimator of the
discontinuous leverage effect (DLE) in high-frequency data that is robust to the presence of
market microstructure noise. The new estimator allows us to study transactions data from
the order book without down-sampling to a lower, regular observation frequency. For DLE
estimation, we develop an efficient jump estimator for unknown jump times. We document
12 The

sign of the coefficient on the volatility regressor depends on whether the regressand is the covariance or
the correlation. This sign reversal may occur because the correlation is the DLE scaled by the product of
price-jump and volatility-jump variation and particularly the volatility-jump variation is highly positively
correlated with the volatility level.

26

the estimator’s superior asymptotic and finite sample qualities compared to a method with
pre-average jump-size estimation.
Previous research has found it difficult to empirically document a DLE. Studying contemporaneous price and volatility jumps of 320 individual NASDAQ stocks from 2010 to
2015, we also find mixed and mostly insignificant, unconditional DLEs when considering all
detected price and volatility cojumps. We show that the event-specific nature and distinct
sources of jumps obscure the true relation between price and contemporaneous volatility
jumps. We establish that a strong and significant DLE exists by conditioning on the sign of
price jumps and on whether the price jumps are market or idiosyncratic jumps.
The DLE is fundamentally different than its continuous counterpart, which was studied
by Kalnina and Xiu (2017) and Aït-Sahalia et al. (2017), for example. First, in line with the
model of Pástor and Veronesi (2012, 2013), a negative DLE across stocks exists for market
downward price jumps but DLE estimates are consistently positive for market upward price
jumps. Second, financial leverage, measured by a firm’s debt-to-equity ratio, only explains
price-volatility cojump correlations for negative market jumps. It is the level of volatility
which consistently explains the cross-section of DLE estimates.
Our findings have implications for the parametric modeling of asset prices. Our empirical
results cast doubt on the unconditional bivariate normality assumption of Bandi and Renò
(2016), which implies tail independence and a generally linear relation around the center
of the price-volatility cojump distribution. On the contrary, our results indicate that pricevolatility cojumps around the center of the joint jump distribution—i.e. smaller jumps—are
usually only weakly related, while jumps of the upper and the lower quantiles exhibit a
strong and significant DLE. The linear dependence, which was introduced by Duffie et al.
(2000), allows for tail dependence but imposes one linear relation for both upward and downward price jumps. This appears to be at odds with the data. A specification that combines
the uncorrelatedness assumption of Broadie et al. (2007) and a price jump sign dependence,
as modeled by Maneesoonthorn et al. (2017), appears as a candidate to adequately capture jump sizes of contemporaneous price and volatility cojumps. Working out the pricing
implications of such a parametric model might be a path for future research.
Finally, one would like to explore the cross-sectional and time series dimension of the
estimated DLE in more detail. Since we discovered a significant link with the level of
integrated volatility, it is natural to ask if an asset pricing framework, such as that in
Cremers et al. (2015), prices discontinuous leverage.
References
Aït-Sahalia,Y., Fan, J., Laeven, R.J.A., Wang, C.D. and Yang, X. (2017) Estimation of
the continuous and discontinuous leverage effect, forthcoming in Journal of the American
Statistical Association.
Aït-Sahalia,Y., Fan, J. and Li, Y. (2013) The leverage effect puzzle: Disentangling sources
of bias at high frequency, Journal of Financial Economics 109 (1), 224–249.
Aït-Sahalia, Y. and Jacod, J. (2014) High-frequency financial econometrics, Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.

27

Aït-Sahalia, Y. and Xiu, D. (2017) A Hausman test for the presence of market microstructure
noise in high frequency data, forthcoming in Journal of Econometrics.
Altmeyer, R. and Bibinger, M. (2015) Functional stable limit theorems for quasi-efficient
spectral covolatility estimators, Stochastic Processes and their Applications 125 (12), 4556–
4600.
Bandi, F.M. and Renò, R. (2012) Time-varying leverage effects, Journal of Econometrics
169 (1), 94–113.
Bandi, F.M. and Renò, R. (2016) Price and volatility co-jumps, Journal of Financial Economics 119 (1), 107–146.
Barndorff-Nielsen, O. E., Hansen, P.R., Lunde, A. and Shephard, N. (2009) Realized kernels
in practice: Trades and quotes, Econometrics Journal 12 (3), C1–C32.
Bekaert, G. and Wu, G. (2000) Asymmetric volatility and risk in equity markets, Review of
Financial Studies 13 (1), 1–42.
Benjamini, Y. and Hochberg, Y. (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and
powerful approach to multiple testing, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B 57
(1), 289–300.
Bibinger, M., Hautsch, N., Malec, P. and Reiß, M. (2014) Estimating the quadratic covariation matrix from noisy observations: Local method of moments and efficiency, Annals of
Statistics 42 (4), 80–114.
Bibinger, M., Hautsch, N., Malec, P. and Reiß, M. (2017) Estimating the spot covariation of
asset prices – Statistical theory and empirical evidence, forthcoming in Journal of Business
and Economic Statistics.
Bibinger, M. and Winkelmann, L. (2015) Econometrics of cojumps in high-frequency data
with noise, Journal of Econometrics 184 (2), 361–378.
Bibinger, M. and Winkelmann, L. (2016) Common price and volatility jumps in noisy highfrequency data, preprint, arxiv: 1407.4376.
Black, F. (1976) Studies of stock price volatility changes, Proceedings of the 1976 Meeting
of the American Statistical Association, Business and Economic Statistics, 6, 177–181.
Bollerslev, T., Litvinova, J. and Tauchen, G. (2006) Leverage and volatility feedback effects
in high-frequency data, Journal of Financial Econometrics 4 (3), 353–384.
Broadie, M., Chernov, M. and Johannes, M. (2007) Model specification and risk premia:
Evidence from futures options, Journal of Finance 62 (3), 1453–1490.
Chernov, M., Gallant, A.G., Ghysels, E. and Tauchen, G. (2003) Alternative models for
stock price dynamics, Journal of Econometrics 116 (1-2), 225–257.
Christensen, K., Oomen, R. and Podolskij, M. (2014) Fact or friction: Jumps at ultra high
frequency, Journal of Financial Economics 114 (3), 576–599.
Cremers, M., Halling, M. and Weinbaum, D. (2015) Aggregate jump and volatility risk in
the cross-section of stock returns, Journal of Finance 70 (2), 577–614.
Duffee, G.R. (1995) Stock returns and volatility – A firm-level analysis, Journal of Financial
Economics 37 (3), 399–420.
Duffie, D., Pan, J. and Singleton, K. (2000) Transform analysis and asset pricing for affinediffusions, Econometrica 68 (6), 1343–1376.

28

Eraker, B. (2004) Do stock prices and volatility jump? Reconciling evidence from spot and
option prices, Journal of Finance 59 (3), 1367–1403.
Eraker, B., Johannes, M. and Polson, N. (2003) The impact of jumps in volatility and returns,
Journal of Finance 58 (3), 1269–1300.
French, K.R., Schwert, W. and Stambaugh, R. (1987) Expected stock returns and volatility,
Journal of Financial Economics 19 (1), 3–29.
Hansen, P. R. and Lunde, A. (2006) Realized variance and market microstructure noise,
Journal of Business and Economic Statistics 24 (2), 127–161.
Jacod, J., Klüppelberg, C. and Müller, G. (2017) Testing for non-correlation between price
and volatility jumps, Journal of Econometrics 197 (2), 284–297.
Jacod, J., Podolskij, M. and Vetter, M. (2010) Limit theorems for moving averages of discretized processes plus noise, Annals of Statistics 38 (3), 1478–1545.
Jacod, J. and Protter, P. (2012) Discretization of processes, Springer.
Kalnina, I. and Xiu, D. (2017) Nonparametric estimation of the leverage effect: A trade-off
between robustness and efficiency, Journal of the American Statistical Association 112
(517), 384–396.
Koike, Y. (2017) Time endogeneity and an optimal weight function in pre-averaging covariance estimation, Statistical Inference for Stochastic Processes 20 (1), 15–56.
Lahaye, J., Laurent, S. and Neely, C.J. (2011) Jumps, cojumps and macro announcements,
Journal of Applied Econometrics 26 (6), 893–921.
Lee, S. and Mykland, P.A. (2008) Jumps in financial markets: A new nonparametric test
and jump dynamics, Review of Financial Studies 21 (6), 2535–2563.
Lee, S. and Mykland, P.A. (2012) Jumps in equilibrium prices and market microstructure
noise, Journal of Econometrics 168 (2), 396–406.
Li, J., Todorov, V. and Tauchen, G. (2017) Jump regressions, Econometrica 85 (1), 173–195.
Maneesoonthorn, W., Forbes, C.S. and Martin, G.M. (2017) Inference on self-exciting jumps
in prices and volatility using high frequency measures, Journal of Applied Econometrics
32 (3), 504–532.
Mykland, P.A. and Zhang, L. (2016) Between data cleaning and inference: Pre-averaging
and robust estimators of the efficient price, Journal of Econometrics 194 (2), 242–262.
Pástor, L. and Veronesi, P. (2012) Uncertainty about government policy and stock prices,
Journal of Finance 67 (4), 1219–1264.
Pástor, L. and Veronesi, P. (2013) Political uncertainty and risk premia, Journal of Financial
Economics 110 (3), 520–545.
Pelger, M. (2017) Understanding systematic risk: A high-frequency approach, working paper,
Department of Management Science & Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA
94305.
Reiß, M. (2011) Asymptotic equivalence for inference on the volatility from noisy observations, Annals of Statistics 39 (2), 772–802.
Todorov, V. and Tauchen, G. (2011) Volatility jumps, Journal of Business and Economic
Statistics 29 (3), 356–371.

29

Vetter, M. (2012) Estimation of correlation for continuous semimartingales, Scandinavian
Journal of Statistics 39 (4), 757–771.
Vetter, M. (2014) Inference on the Lévy measure in case of noisy observations, Statistics
and Probability Letters 87, 125–133.
Wang, C.D. and Mykland, P.A. (2014) The estimation of the leverage effect with highfrequency data, Journal of the American Statistical Association 109 (505), 197–215.
Winkelmann, L., Bibinger, M. and Linzert, T. (2016) ECB monetary policy surprises: Identification through cojumps in interest rates, Journal of Applied Econometrics 31 (4), 613–
629.
Yu, J. (2012) A semiparametric stochastic volatility model, Journal of Econometrics 167 (2),
473–482.
Zhang, L. (2006) Efficient estimation of stochastic volatility using noisy observations: A
multi-scale approach, Bernoulli 12 (6), 1019–1043.
Appendix. Proofs
Standard localization techniques allow us to assume that there exists a constant Λ, such
that
max {|bs (ω)|, |σs (ω)|, |Xs (ω)|, |δω (s, x)|/γ(x)} ≤ Λ ,
for all (ω, s, x) ∈ (Ω, R+ , R); i.e., characteristics are uniformly bounded. We refer to Jacod
and Protter (2012), Section 4.4.1, for a proof.
A.1. Proof of Proposition 3.1
We decompose the observations Ytni into signal Xtni and noise tni . In order to analyze
the discretization variance from the signal terms, an illustration of the pre-processed price
estimates (8) as a function in the efficient log-returns ∆ni X is helpful. Reordering addends,
similar as in the proofs of Zhang (2006), we obtain the identity
Mn−1

n −1
 l+M
X

l−1
X

Ytni −

i=l

l+M
n −1

X

Ytni = Mn−1
Ytni − Ytni−M
n

i=l−Mn

i=l

=

MX
n −1

∆nl+k Y

MX
n −1
Mn − k
Mn − k
+
∆nl−k Y
.
Mn
Mn

(A.1)

k=0

k=1

The expectation and variance of noise terms are readily derived using the left-hand side of
(A.1) and the fact that tni is i.i.d. with mean zero and variance η 2 . For the signal part, we
exploit the above identity and consider the right-hand side of (A.1). Considering the drift
part in the pre-processed price estimates (8), we can bound the right-hand side above by
MX
n −1
k=1

∆nl+k b

MX
n −1
Mn − k
Mn − k
+
∆nl−k b
≤ K Mn n−1 = O(n−1/4 ) ,
Mn
Mn
k=0

30

P-almost surely, with a constant K, using the fact that
MX
n −1

(1 − k/Mn ) +

MX
n −1

k=1

(1 − k/Mn ) = Mn .

k=0

We decompose the signal process, Xt =

Rt
0

bs ds + Ct + Jt , into its jump component, (Jt )t≥0 ,

and the continuous Itô semimartingale, (Ct )t≥0 . Under Assumption 2 and for r ≥ 1, we can
use the estimate
h Z t Z
1/r i


p
∀s, t ≥ 0 : E |Jt − Js | Fs ≤ Kp E
(γ r (x) ∧ 1)λ(dx)ds

(A.2)

s
R
(1/r)

≤ Kp |t − s|

to find that the jump terms in the right-hand side of (A.1) satisfy
MX
n −1
n −1
h MX

Mn − k i
Mn − k
∆nl−k J
+
= O Mn n−1/r ,
∆nl+k J
E
Mn
Mn
k=1

k=1

with some r < 4/3, where we omit ∆nl J for l = bτ nc + 1. Thus, the terms multiplied with
n1/4 tend to zero in probability by Markov’s inequality. Because the expectations of all
increments ∆ni C vanish and E[∆nl (C + J + )|∆Xτ ] = ∆Xτ for l = bτ nc + 1, we conclude
that




E T LM (τ ; ∆n1 Y, . . . , ∆nn Y ) |∆Xτ = ∆Xτ + OP̄ n−1/4 .
In the case that tni = i/n, Itô isometry and the smoothness of the volatility granted by (2)
and (3) imply that for l = bτ nc + 1,
E[(∆nl+k C)2 |Fτ ]

hZ
=E

(l+k)/n

i
σs2 ds Fτ + OP (n−2 )

(l+k−1)/n

=

στ2
n

+ OP n−1

p

Mn /n ,

for all k = 1, . . . , Mn − 1. Analogously, we obtain that
E[(∆nl−k C)2 |Fτ −Mn /n ] =

p

στ2−
+ OP n−1 Mn /n ,
n

for all k = 1, . . . , Mn − 1. Use of the identities
MX
n −1

(1 − k/Mn )2 =

1
1 1
Mn + + Mn−1 ,
3
2 6

(1 − k/Mn )2 =

1
1 1
Mn − + Mn−1 ,
3
2 6

k=0
MX
n −1
k=1

and the independence of the noise and signal terms yield the asymptotic variance,
Var

p

1
Mn T LM (τ ; ∆n1 Y, . . . , ∆nn Y ) → (στ2 + στ2− ) c2 + 2η 2
3

31

of the rescaled statistic. The form of the variance in (9) follows from the above. Using that
E[(∆nl+k C)4 |Fτ ] =



3 στ4−
3 στ4
+ OP n−2 , E[(∆nl−k C)4 |Fτ −Mn /n ] =
+ OP n−2
2
2
n
n

and with the assumed existence of E[4t ], the Lyapunov criterion with fourth moments obtained from (A.1) yields, together with the above considerations, the central limit theorem
(9).
Next, we prove that the convergence is stable in law. The latter is equivalent to the joint

√
weak convergence of αn = Mn T LM (τ ; ∆n1 Y, . . . , ∆nn Y ) − ∆Xτ with any G-measurable
bounded random variable Z:
E [Zg(αn )] → E [Zg(α)] = E[Z]E [g(α)]

(A.3)

for any continuous bounded function, g, and
α = 1/3(στ2 + στ2− )c2 + 2η 2

1/2

U,

(A.4)

with U a standard normally-distributed, random variable that is independent of G. In order
to verify (A.3), consider the sequence An = [(τ − Mn /n) ∨ 0, (τ + Mn /n) ∧ 1]. Each αn is
measurable with respect to the σ-field G1 . The sequence of decompositions
Z
C̃(n)t =

t

1An (s)σs dWs , C̄(n)t = Ct − C̃(n)t ,

0

˜(n)t = 1An (t)t , ¯(n)t = t − ˜(n)t ,
of (Ct )t≥0 and (t )t≥0 are well-defined. If Hn denotes the σ-field generated by C̄(n)t , ¯(n)t

W
and F0 , then Hn n is an isotonic sequence with n Hn = G1 . Since E[Z|Hn ] → Z in L1 (P),
it thus suffices that
E[Zg(αn )] → E[Z g(α)] = E[Z]E[g(α)] ,

(A.5)

for Z being Hq measurable for some q. Note that we can approximate the volatility to be
constant over local intervals [τ −Mn /n, τ ) and [τ, τ +Mn /n]. Then, for all n ≥ q, conditional
on Hq , αn has a law independent of C̄(n)t and ¯(n)t , such that the ordinary central limit
theorem implies the claimed convergence.
A.2. Proof of Proposition 3.2
A neat decomposition of the spectral statistics into observation errors and returns of the
efficient price is obtained with summation by parts
Sj (τ ) =

n
X
i=1

∆ni XΦj,τ ((tni−1 + tni )/2) −

n−1
X
i=1

tni Φ0j,τ (tni )

tni+1 − tni−1 
(1 + OP̄ (1)) ,
2

(A.6)

where the asymptotically negligible remainder comes from approximating
Φj,τ ((tni+1 + tni )/2) − Φj,τ ((tni−1 + tni )/2) with the derivative and end-effects. The system

32

of derivatives (Φ0j,τ )j≥1 is again orthogonal such that covariances between different spectral
frequencies vanish.
R1
0

First, we prove that the drift is asymptotically negligible under Assumption 1. Because
R1
√
√
Φj,τ (t) dt = 2 2hn /(πj) and 0 Φj,τ (t) dt = 2 2hn /π, we get with generic constant K

that P-almost surely
n
X

∆ni b Φj,τ ((tni−1 + tni )/2) ≤ K

i=1

n
X

√
(tni − tni−1 ) Φj,τ ((tni−1 + tni )/2) ≤ K

i=1

hn
,
π

and thus
Jn
Jn
n
X
X
X
p
−1
(−1)j+1 a2j−1
∆ni b Φj,τ ((tni−1 + tni )/2) ≤ K
(1 + j 2 h−2
hn
n /n)
j=1

i=1

j=1

=K

Jn 
X

1+

j=1

−1 p
j2
hn
κ2 log2 (n)

Jn

 log(n)
X
X p
p
j −2 hn log2 (n)
hn +
≤K
j=1

j=1

p
≤ K log (n) hn .
2

This yields that P-almost surely
r
n

1/4

Jn
n
X
hn X
j+1
(−1) a2j−1
∆ni b Φj,τ ((tni−1 + tni )/2) → 0 ,
2 j=1
i=1

which ensures that we can neglect the drift in the asymptotic analysis of (12).
Next, we analyze the variance of (12) with oracle optimal weights (13). A locally constant
approximation of σs , s ∈ [τ − hn /2, τ ) and σs , s ∈ [τ, τ + hn /2] is asymptotically negligible
under Assumption 1. Based on (A.6), using the fact that
Z

τ

Φ2j,τ (t) dt

τ +hn /2

Z

Φ2j,τ (t) dt = 1/2 ,

=

τ −hn /2

τ

yields the following variances of spectral statistics:
 1
π2 j 2 η2
.
Var Sj (τ ) = (στ2 + στ2− ) + 2
2
hn n
We thus obtain the conditional variance,


Var n1/4 T (τ ; ∆n1 Y, . . . , ∆nn Y ) Fτ
Jn
X
 −1
1 2
−1 2 −1
(στ + στ2− ) + π 2 (2j − 1)2 h−2
η
hn /2 + OP̄ (1)
n n
2
j=1
 PJn 1 2
2
2
2 −2 −1 2 −1 −1
η )
1
j=1 ( 2 (στ + στ − ) + π (2j − 1) hn n
=
+ OP̄ (1)
2
log(n)

= n1/2

33

Z
−1
1
1 ∞
dz
(1 + O(1)) + OP̄ (1)
=
1
2
2
2
2 2
2
0
2 (στ + στ − ) + π (2z) η
 σ 2 + σ 2 1/2
τ−
=2 τ
η + OP̄ (1) .
2
With δn ≤ n−1 , l = bτ nc + 1, we have that


E T (τ ; ∆n1 Y, . . . , ∆nn Y )|∆Xτ
r
Jn
hn X
a2j−1 (−1)j+1 Φ2j−1,τ (τ + δn )E[∆nl Y |∆Xτ ] + OP̄ (n−1/4 )
=
2 j=1
r
Jn
hn X
a2j−1 (−1)j+1 Φ2j−1,τ (τ + δn )∆Xτ + OP̄ (n−1/4 )
=
2 j=1
= (1 + O(δn ))∆Xτ + OP̄ (n−1/4 ) .
Considering further jumps on the estimation window, utilizing (A.2) yields

 X
Jn
X
p
(−1)j+1 a2j−1
∆ni J Φj,τ ((tni−1 + tni )/2) ≤ K log2 (n) hn sup |tni − tni−1 |1/r−1
E
j=1

i

i6=l

by the triangle inequality, decomposing |tni − tni−1 |1/r = (tni − tni−1 )|tni − tni−1 |1/r−1 and using
the same Riemann sum approximation as for the drift terms above. As for the Lee-Mykland
statistic, r < 4/3 ensures asymptotic negligibility of further jumps on [τ − hn /2, τ + hn /2].
Since we assume E[4t ] < ∞, we can establish a Lyapunov condition with fourth moments.
R1
R1
Integral approximations with 0 Φ4j,τ (t) dt and 0 (Φ0j,τ )4 (t) dt yield, with generic constant
C, for all j,
n

n
3
h2n X
E[(∆ni X)4 ]Φ4j,τ ((tni−1 + tni )/2) ≤ Cnh2n n−1 h−1
= O(hn )
4 i=1
2 n

as well as,
n

n
h2n X
−3
E[(tni )4 ](Φ0j,τ )4 (tni )(tni+1 − tni−1 )4 /16 ≤ Cnh2n h−5
log5 (n)
n n
4 i=1

≤ Cn−1/2 log2 (n) .
Considering signal and noise terms separately, we derive for the signal terms with Jensen’s
inequality for weighted sums,
n

Jn
n
4 i
h2n X h n X
E ∆i X
(−1)j+1 a2j−1 Φ2j−1,τ ((tni−1 + tni )/2)
4 i=1
j=1

≤n

Jn
Jn
n
X

X
h2n X
a2j−1 Φ42j−1,τ ((tni−1 + tni )/2) = O
a2j−1 hn = O(hn ) .
E[(∆ni X)4 ]
4 i=1
j=1
j=1

An analogous bound by Jensen’s inequality for the noise terms implies the Lyapunov condition.

34

Stability of weak convergence is proved along the same lines as for Proposition 3.1 and
we omit the proof. It remains to show that
Jn
i
h X
p


(−1)j+1 â2j−1 − a2j−1 S2j−1 (τ ) hn /2 = OP̄ n−1/4 ,
E

(A.7)

j=1

where â2j−1 denote the estimated oracle weights, to prove the claimed result. Using the
triangle and Hölder’s inequalities, we can bound the right-hand side of (A.7) by
Jn
ir h
h
X
n
E â2j−1 − a2j−1 S2j−1 (τ )
2
j=1
Jn  h
i h
i1/2 r h
X
2
2
n
≤
E â2j−1 − a2j−1 E S2j−1 (τ )
.
2
j=1
2

In order to analyze the magnitude of the error of pre-estimating the weights, â2j−1 −a2j−1 ,
we interpret (13) as a function of the variables στ2 , στ2− and η 2 . Differential calculus and the
delta method yield the upper bound,
Jn
X


1/2 p
2
hn /2
K a22j−1 δn (στ2 ) + δn (η 2 ) Var(S2j−1 (τ ))

j=1

≤

Jn
X
j=1

≤

Jn
X
j=1

K

−1/2
p
Var(S2j−1 (τ ))
2
δn (στ ) PJ
hn /2

−1
n
u=1 Var(S2u−1 (τ ))


K 1+


p 
p

j 2 −1/2
δn (στ2 ) hn /2 = O log3 (n)δn (στ2 ) hn = O n−1/4 ,
2
log (n)

for the right-hand side of (A.7) with generic constant K and bounds δn (στ2 ) ≤ Kn−1/8 and
δn (η 2 ) ≤ Kn−1/2 for the errors of pre-estimating στ2 , στ2− and η 2 with (14a) and (14b),
respectively. This ensures (A.7) and completes the proof of Proposition 3.2.
A.3. Proof of Proposition 3.3
The proof reduces to generalizing the analysis of the asymptotic variance and fourth
moments for a Lyapunov condition. Consider the noise term on the right-hand side of (A.6)
under R-dependent noise and for tni = F −1 (i/n). The expectation still vanishes and the
variance becomes the following:
"
E

 n−1
X

tn −tn
tni Φ0j,τ (tni ) i+1 2 i−1

2

#

i=1

" n−1
X
2tni (Φ0j,τ (tni ))2
=E
i=1

n

tn
i+1 −ti−1 2
+2
2

n−1
X R∧(n−i)
X

tn −tn tn
−tn
tni tni+uΦ0j,τ (tni )Φ0j,τ (tni+u ) i+1 2 i−1 i+u+1 2 i+u−1

i=1

u=1

" n−1
#
R∧(n−i)


X
X
n
n
0
n 2 ti+1 −ti−1
−1 0
−1
2
=E
(Φj,τ (ti ))
(F ) (τ )n
tni +
tni tni+1 (1 + O(1))
2
u=1

i=1

= ητ2 (F −1 )0 (τ )n−1

Z

1

Φ0j,τ (t) dt(1 + O(1)) = ητ2 (F −1 )0 (τ )n−1 π 2 j 2 h−2
n (1 + O (1)) .

0

35

#

We used the smoothness of (F −1 )0 and Φ0j,τ for approximations. The same Riemann sum
approximation as in the equidistant observations case applies for the signal term. Using a
(double-Riemann sum) integral approximation as Jn → ∞, analogously as in the proof of
R
Proposition 3.2, yields the asymptotic variance in (18). Introducing the shortcut, δi,v
=

1{|i−v|≤R} , we obtain the following estimates for the fourth moments:
"
E

 n−1
X

n

n

t
−t
tni Φ0j,τ (tni ) i+1 2 i−1

4

#

i=1

"

n−1
X

=E

tni tnv tnu tnr Φ0j,τ (tni )Φ0j,τ (tnv )Φ0j,τ (tnu )Φ0j,τ (tnr )

n
n
n
tn
i+1 −ti−1 tv+1 −tv−1
2
2

i,v,u,r=1

×

=

n−1
X

n
n
n
tn
u+1 −tu−1 tr+1 −tr−1
2
2

#


 R R

R R
R R
E tni tnv tnu tnr δi,v
δu,r + δi,u
δv,r + δi,r
δv,u Φ0j,τ (tni )Φ0j,τ (tnv )

i,v,u,r=1

× Φ0j,τ (tnu )Φ0j,τ (tnr )

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
tn
i+1 −ti−1 tv+1 −tv−1 tu+1 −tu−1 tr+1 −tr−1
2
2
2
2

2
= (F −1 (τ ))0 3 ητ4 n−2 − Rn ,
with a remainder, Rn , that satisfies for some constant C that
Rn ≤

np
X




R R
R
R
R
R
R R
R
R
R
R
C δi,v
δu,r δi,u
+ δv,r
+ δi,r
+ δv,u
+ δi,u
δv,r δi,v
+ δu,r
+ δi,r
+ δv,u

i,v,u,r=1
R R
R
R
R
R
+ δi,r
δv,u δi,v
+ δu,r
+ δi,u
+ δv,r



n−4




= O nR3 n−4 = O n−3 = O n−2 ,
such that Rn is asymptotically negligible. Inserting the estimate, the Lyapunov condition is
ensured in the generalized setting. Under R-dependence, the convergence of the generalized
variance and the generalized Lyapunov criterion imply the central limit theorem (18) and
stability is proved analogously as above.
A.4. Proof of Proposition 3.5
Suppose that τ ∈ ((k − 1)hn , khn ) and we run the procedure from (28) to find a subinterval that contains the jump. The variances of the statistics T LM (k − 1)hn + (i −

n
n
n
1/2) rn +l
n ; ∆1 Y, . . . , ∆n Y , i = 1, . . . , Rn , defined as in (7) with Mn replaced by (rn + ln )/2,
are readily obtained from (A.1) and given by


rn + ln n
Var T LM (k − 1)hn + (i − 1/2)
; ∆1 Y, . . . , ∆nn Y
n
2
r + l 
4η(k−1)h
ln στ2−
rn στ2
n
n
n
=
+
+O
.
+
rn + ln
n 3
n 3
n

36

√
In particular, for rn + ln = O( n), remainders in the proof of Proposition 3.1 become even
smaller and the noise term prevails in the variance, such that, for all i,
p


 (st)
n
n
2
n
rn + ln T LM (k −1)hn +(i−1/2) rn +l
n ; ∆1 (C +), . . . , ∆n (C +) −→ M N 0, 4η(k−1)hn ,

with Ct the continuous semimartingale part of Xt . Since, under Assumption 3, covariances
between


2
rn + ln

Ti +(rn +ln )/2−1

X

tnj −tnj−(r


n +ln )/2

j=Ti

i=1,...,Rn

, Ti = b(k−1)hn nc+(i−1/2)(rn +ln )+1,

are negligible, we deduce joint weak convergence to i.i.d. Gaussian limit random variables.
Similarly as in Lee and Mykland (2012), using basic extreme value theory, we derive that

Bn−1

max


p

n
n
n
;
∆
(C
+
),
.
.
.
,
∆
(C
+
)
−A
rn + ln T LM (k −1)hn + (i −1/2) rn +l
n
1
n
n

i=1,...,Rn

(st)

−→ ξ ,
with ξ a standard Gumbel random variable and
An = 2η(k−1)hn

p

p
log(Rn )
log(4π log(Rn ))
−1
2 log(Rn ) − η(k−1)hn p
, Bn = √
.
2η(k−1)hn
2 log(Rn )

For (rn + ln ) ∝ nδ , δ > 0, and if the jump is not located very close to the edges between the
sub-intervals, the statistic on the sub-interval with the jump tends to infinity. That is, for
Mn =

max

i=1,...,Rn

n
n
n
T LM (k − 1)hn + (i − 1/2) rn +l
n ; ∆1 Y, . . . , ∆n Y



,

where now (∆nj Y ) are inserted, not (∆nj (C + )), we have that
p
rn + ln Mn − An → ∞ .
As long as Mn > (rn + ln )−1/2+ for some  > 0, this holds true. We need to carefully
consider the potential bias issue discussed at the end of Section 3.1. The probability that
Mn ≤ (rn + ln )−1/2+ translates to the probability that a jump is located in some small
(in n decreasing) vicinity of the block edges. Using that jump times are locally uniformly
distributed, we obtain that
1

P Mn ≤ (rn + ln )

− 21 +



(rn + ln ) 2 + 
=P
min τ − (k − 1)hn − (i −
≤
i=1,...,Rn
n


= P U ∈ (0, 2(rn + ln )−1/2+ ) = O (rn + ln )−1/2+ ,


n
1) rn +l
n

with U a random variable uniformly distributed on [0, 1] and using the symmetry. Apparently, the probability converges to zero for  sufficiently small. This implies that, for
any such choice of Rn and rn + ln , the procedure asymptotically almost surely detects the
sub-interval which contains the jump.
Assigning jump times to a bin by thresholding induces a negligible error. This is proved

37

analogously as in the proof of Proposition 3.6 in the next paragraph.
Cutting out noisy prices in the window (tnl−ln , tnl+rn ) around τ , the adjusted statistics (12)
are asymptotically unbiased estimators of ∆Xτ . Considering their asymptotic properties,
we can exploit most parts of the proof of Proposition 3.2. The only relevant difference is
due to the increment over the cut-out window in the spectral statistics
r

Jn
hn X
(−1)j+1 a2j−1 (Ytnl+r − Ytnl−l )Φ2j−1,τ (τ ) .
n
n
2 j=1

The increments Ytnl+r − Ytnl−l take the role of ∆nl Y , l = bτ nc + 1, where the window of
n

n

statistics (12) is centered. Using Jensen’s inequality, we obtain that
Jn
hr h X
2 i
n
E
a2j−1 (−1)j+1 Φ2j−1,τ (τ )(Xtnl+r − Xtnl−l )
n
n
2 j=1

≤

Jn


hn X
a2j−1 Φ22j−1,τ (τ )E (Xtnl+r − Xtnl−l )2
n
n
2 j=1

≤ max(στ2 , στ2− )(tnl+rn − tnl−ln ) = O(n−1/2 ) .
Since Φ02j−1,τ (τ ) = 0, the summation by parts transformation (A.6) shows that the variance
due to noise is not affected by the adjustment. Overall, we conclude that for the adjusted
estimator,
d τ − T (τ ; ∆n Y, . . . , ∆n Y )| = O (n−1/4 ) .
|∆X
1
n
P̄
We conclude the result with Proposition 3.3.
A.5. Proof of Propositions 3.6 and 3.7
Denoting the finitely many stopping times with |∆Xτk | > a, as τ1 , . . . , τN , (24) can be
written
[X, σ 2 ]dT (a) =

N
X


∆Xτk στ2k − στ2k − .

k=1

The estimator (25) then becomes
d

\
[X,
σ 2 ]1 (a) =

N̂
X


d τ̂ σ̂ 2 − σ̂ 2
∆X
τ̂k
τ̂k − .
k

k=1

The case without price jumps on the considered interval, N = 0, is trivial. Consider the set

Ω̃n = ω ∈ Ω|τ1 > rn−1 hn , τN < 1 − rn−1 hn , τi − τi−1 > 2rn−1 hn , i = 1, . . . , N − 1

{
∪ ω ∈ Ω|τi = k · hn , i = 1, . . . , N − 1, k = 0, . . . , h−1
.
n −1
We can restrict to the subset Ω̃n , since P(Ω̃n ) → 1 as n → ∞. We infer the jump times
{τi , i = 1, . . . , N }, or the respective bins on which jumps occur by thresholding. To show
that this identification of jump times only induces an asymptotically negligible error, we

38

prove that
−1
hn
−1

X

d τ̂ σ̂ 2 − σ̂ 2
∆X
τ̂k
τ̂k −
k



1{∆k [X,X]>a
\
2 ∨u } −
n

k=2

N
X

d τ σ̂ 2 − σ̂ 2
∆X
τk
τk −
k




= OP̄ n−β/2 .

k=1

This is ensured by Corollary 3.4 and by Proposition 3.5 if
h−1
n −1

X

−1/8
1{∆k [X,X]>a
.
\
2 ∨u } − 1{τi ∈((k−1)hn ,khn )} = O P̄ n
n



k=2
{
−1
Denote K = {1 ≤ k ≤ h−1
n |τi ∈ ((k − 1)hn , khn )} and K = {2, . . . , hn − 1} \ K. The last

relation can be rewritten
X

1{∆k [X,X]≤a
\
2 ∨u } +
n

k∈K

X

−1/8
.
1{∆k [X,X]>a
\
2 ∨u } = O P̄ n
n



(A.8)

k∈K{

For each k in the finite set K, we prove that
−1/8
1{∆k [X,X]≤a
.
\
2 ∨u } = O P̄ n
n



The restriction to Ω̃n ensures that the considered jumps cannot occur on neighboring bins.
\
Corollary 3.3 and its proof in Bibinger and Winkelmann (2015) establishes that ∆k [X,
X] =
(∆Xτi )2 + χi with Var(χi ) = O(n−1/2 ). More precisely, as outlined in Section 3.1.3 of
Bibinger and Winkelmann (2015), for τi ∈ ((k − 1)hn , khn ), we have that
2
2
E[hn Sjk
] = 2 sin2 (πjh−1
n (τi − (k − 1)hn ))(∆Xτi ) + O(hn ) ,
2
2
2
E[hn max(S̃jk
, S̃j(k+1)
)] = 2 cos2 (πjh−1
n (τi − (k − 1)hn ))(∆Xτi ) + O(hn ) .
2
The contribution with the cosine term is by S̃jk
when τi ∈ ((k − 1)hn , (k − 1/2)hn ) and by
2
S̃j(k+1)
when τi ∈ ((k − 1/2)hn , khn ). When τi = (k − 1/2)hn , the cosine vanishes. Since

the Lévy measure does not have an atom in a, it thus holds that, for some fixed  > 0,
\
∆k [X,
X] = a2 +  + χi .
Using Chebyshev’s inequality, we derive that



\
P̄ ∆k [X,
X] ≤ a2 ∨ un ≤ P̄ |χi | >  − un = O n−1/2 .
Considering indicator functions
Var(1An ) ≤ pn , we obtain that
X

1An with pn = P̄(An ) → 0, using that E[1An ] = pn and

−1/4
1{∆k [X,X]≤a
= OP̄ n−1/8 .
\
2 ∨u } = OP̄ n
n





(A.9)

k∈K

Due to the maximum operator in (26), the term with the square cosine factor above feeds
in two successive statistics. The cosine giving some factor bounded from above by one, we

39

have for τi ∈ ((k − 1)hn , khn ) that
ad
ad
ζekad > max(ζek−1
, ζek+1
),

asymptotically almost surely. We conclude that the first sum in (A.8) is asymptotically
negligible.
For k ∈ K{ , neighboring a bin with k ± 1 ∈ K, it holds asymptotically almost surely that
ad
ad
ζekad < max(ζek−1
, ζek+1
), such that the indicator function sets it to zero. For all other k ∈ K{
\
satisfying by Lemma
we have that ∆k [X, X] = hn ζ̃k with ζ̃k the local estimate for σ 2
(k−1)hn

2 of Bibinger and Winkelmann (2016) the upper moment bound



E |ζ̃k |4+δ = O log(n)
for δ from Assumption 3. Markov’s inequality yields for k ∈ K{


(4+δ) 
\
P̄ ∆k [X,
X] > a2 ∨ un = O h4+δ
log(n) a2 ∨ un
.
n
Thereby we obtain that
X



−1 2+δ/2
log(n) a2 ∨ un
1{∆k [X,X]>a
\
2 ∨u } = OP̄ hn hn
n

p

(2+δ/2) 

.

(A.10)

k∈K{

If a > 0, then this sum decays very fast as n → ∞ and we clearly have OP̄ (n−1/8 ). If a = 0,
1+δ/2 p
−$(2+δ/2)
then the resulting order is hn
and the term is OP̄ (n−1/8 ) when
log(n)hn
$<

1 + δ/2 − 1/4
.
2 + δ/2

A slightly stronger condition even implies the summability,
X  X
P̄
n∈N

1{∆k [X,X]>a
\
2 ∨u }
n


> 0 < ∞,

k∈K{

and thus the almost sure convergence by Borel-Cantelli. With (A.10), we deduce (A.8) and
are left to consider price and volatility jump estimates at times τ̂i , i = 1, . . . , N̂ . In both
cases, a > 0 or a = 0 when r = 0 in Assumption 2, N < ∞ holds almost surely. On Ω̃n , all
involved local estimates for different price-jump times τi , i = 1, . . . , N , are computed from
disjoint datasets. The latter are not necessarily independent, but all covariations converge
to zero asymptotically. For the single price-jump estimates, we have by Proposition 3.5 that

d τ̂ = ∆Xτ̂ + O n−1/4 .
∆X
i
i
P̄
Based on Corollary 3.4, we obtain that


 (st) q

σ̂τ̂2i − σ̂τ̂2i − − ∆στ̂2i −→ 8(στ̂3i + στ̂3i − )ητ̂i Zi ,

for all i = 1, . . . , N̂ , with β from (23) and (Zi ) i.i.d. standard normals. By the asymptotic

40

negligibility of covariations, the vector

 (st)

nβ/2 σ̂τ̂21 − σ̂τ̂21 − , . . . , σ̂τ̂2N̂ − σ̂τ̂2N̂ − −→ U1 , . . . , UN̂ ,
converges stably in law, where U1 , . . . , UN̂ are independent and Ui =

q

(A.12)

8(στ̂3i + στ̂3i − )ητ̂i Zi .

Altogether, the asymptotic orders of different error terms and standard relations for weak
and stochastic convergences imply (30).
A.6. Proof of Corollary 3.8
According to the proof of Propositions 3.6 and 3.7, the identification of bins with (large)
jumps only induces an asymptotically negligible error. We are thus left to consider
PN̂


PN̂
2
d τ̂ σ̂ 2 − σ̂ 2
∆X
k
τ̂k
τ̂k −
k=1 ∆X τ̂k ∆στ̂k
.
−


1/2
2 PN̂
2 PN̂
2 1/2
2
PN̂
2
2
2
d
∆X τ̂k
k=1 ∆X τ̂k
k=1 σ̂τ̂k − σ̂τ̂k −
k=1 ∆στ̂k
k=1

P

N̂
k=1

From (A.12), we adopt that
nβ/2

N̂ 
X

N̂
 (st) X

2
d τ̂ σ̂ 2 − σ̂ 2
∆X
∆X τ̂k Uk .
−
∆X
∆σ
−→
τ̂k
τ̂k
τ̂k −
τ̂k
k

k=1

k=1

In the estimation of the discontinuous leverage, the estimation error of (∆στ̂2k ) dominates
the smaller error of estimating (∆X τ̂k ). Analogously, for estimating (33)
N̂ 
X

d τ̂
∆X
k

2

− ∆X τ̂k

2 


= OP̄ n−1/4 ,

k=1

readily obtained from Proposition 3.3 and the delta method, induces an error that is
negligible at first asymptotic order. For the second variation, we deduce that
nβ/2

N̂ 
X

σ̂τ̂2k − σ̂τ̂2k −

2

− ∆στ̂2k

2 

k=1

(st)

−→

N̂
X

2∆στ̂2k Uk ,

k=1

from (A.12) and applying the binomial formula or the delta method for the square function. Another application of the delta method yields

n

β/2

d

[X, σ 2 ]d1 (a)

\
[X,
σ 2 ]1 (a)





−p
d
d
[X, X]d1 (a)[σ 2 , σ 2 ]d1 (a)
2 , σ 2 ] (a)
\
[X,
X]1 (a)[σ\
1


N̂k
X
∆στ̂2k [X, σ 2 ]d1 (a)
∆X τ̂k
=
Uk
−
1/2
3/2 + OP̄ (1) ,
1/2
d
d
d
d
[X, X]1 (a)[σ 2 , σ 2 ]1 (a)
[X, X]1 (a)
[σ 2 , σ 2 ]1 (a)
k=1
q

such that we obtain a stable central limit theorem with rate nβ/2 and asymptotic variance
8(στ̂3k + στ̂3k − )ητ̂k
d

d

[X, X]1 (a)[σ 2 , σ 2 ]1 (a)



∆X τ̂k −

This implies Corollary 3.8.

41

∆στ̂2k [X, σ 2 ]d1 (a) 2
d

[σ 2 , σ 2 ]1 (a)

.

