In this paper, we evaluate the predictive content of 3 new business condition indexes and uncertainty measures that are estimated using high-frequency financial and low-frequency macroeconomic time series data. More specifically, our measures are defined as latent factors that are extracted from a state space model that includes multiple different frequencies of non-parametrically estimated components of quadratic variation, as well as mixed frequency macroeconomic variables. When forecasting growth rates of various monthly financial and macroeconomic variables, use of our new mixed frequency factors is shown to result in significant improvement in predictive performance, relative to a number of benchmark models. Additionally, when used to forecast corporate yields, predictive gains associated with the use of our measures are shown to be monotonically increasing, as one moves from predicting higher to lower rated bonds. This is consistent with the existence of a natural pricing channel wherein financial risk (as measured using our volatility factors) contains more predictive information for lower grade bonds. We also find that a variety of extant risk factors including the Aruoba et al. [(2009a). Real-time measurement of business conditions. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 27(4), 417427] business conditions index also contain marginal predictive content for the variables that we examine, although their inclusion does not reduce the usefulness of our measures.

This study classifies jumps into idiosyncratic jumps and co-jumps to quantitatively identify systematic risk and idiosyncratic risk by utilizing high-frequency data. We found that systematic risk occurs more frequently and has larger magnitudes than the idiosyncratic risk in an individual asset, which indicates that volatilities from one sector are largely derived from the contagious effect of other sectors. We further investigated the importance of idiosyncratic jumps and co-jumps to predict the sector-level S&P500 exchange-traded fund (ETF) volatility. It was found that the predictive content of co-jumps is higher than that of idiosyncratic jumps, suggesting that systematic risk is more informative than idiosyncratic risk in volatility forecasting. Additionally, we carried out Monte Carlo experiments designed to examine the relative performances of the four co-jump tests. The findings indicate that the BLT test and the co-exceedance rule of the LM test outperform other tests, while the co-exceedance rule of the LM test has larger power and a smaller empirical size than that of the BLT test.