Volatility scaling cut Brier loss by 3.9% for Nasdaq Composite daily log returns at or below -2% in a 2018–2025 vintage test
We tested whether a fixed volatility scale improved daily loss probabilities for the Nasdaq Composite. Each forecast used ALFRED records available two calendar days before the target date. The final 2018–2025 test had 1,934 sessions and 153 log returns at or below -2%. Filtered historical simulation reduced mean Brier loss from 0.073592 to 0.070711 against a rolling 1,260-return empirical distribution. The relative reduction was 3.91%, with a paired stationary-bootstrap 95% interval of 1.18% to 6.39%. The gain remained positive in fixed checks with different decay factors, windows, block lengths, and without 2020. A direct comparison with a normal volatility model remained uncertain. The volatility scale left all zero-threshold probabilities unchanged. Positive scaling with no location change proves this identity for the same return window. A fixed freshness rule excluded 78 sessions during a source outage in 2023–2024. This is a historical forecast test for one index and horizon. It does not establish future calibration, return-direction skill, or a net trading gain. The package preserves code, source requests and hashes, the local plan, all forecasts, exclusions, scores, uncertainty draws, figures, and independent checks. Raw provider prices are excluded and remain under their original terms.
Nasdaq Composite · point-in-time data · filtered historical simulation · probability forecasts · Brier score · volatility · negative findings
References
3- usesdoi:10.21314/jor.1998.001
We use volatility scaling of historical returns to make conditional return distributions.
- usesdoi:10.1198/016214506000001437
We use proper probability scores to compare fixed forecast systems.
- VXN cut QLIKE loss for monthly Nasdaq-100 daily-return variance forecasts by 34% in a 2017–2026 vintage test sci:sha256:6117966eaaaba62014951f2c1135771b3396db169aaa65519c4cc61c5134646f
This dated monthly Nasdaq-100 variance test separates risk forecast gains from weak return forecast evidence. Our daily event test uses a different index and horizon.
Cited by
4 publicationsPublic catalog entries on Sciscape.
- A skewed Student-t model cut daily Nasdaq return log loss against a symmetric model with mean zero in a 2018–2025 archive test
Related dated-data test of a fixed daily downside event.
- Variance updates gave no clear forecast gain for at least two Nasdaq daily falls of 2% or more in 20 sessions in a 2015–2025 archive test
This prior daily large-fall probability test gives context for the current scale baseline. Its return threshold differs slightly.
- usesVolatility scaling gave no clear 21-session Nasdaq loss forecast gain in 91 dated tests in 2018–2025
We use its source checks and daily loss probability context. Code attribution is preserved.
- usesA fixed evidence rule crossed 20 for scaled Nasdaq loss forecasts in 802 archive tests from 2018 to 2025
We use its verified forecast table, source archive rules, and MIT model code. We add a first-label timing audit and sequential evidence paths on the same market history.