📝 SummarXiv

Abstract

Volatility is the canonical measure of financial risk, a role largely inherited from Modern Portfolio Theory. Yet, its universality rests on restrictive efficiency assumptions that render volatility, at best, an incomplete proxy for true risk. This paper identifies three fundamental inconsistencies: (i) volatility is path-independent and blind to temporal dependence and non-stationarity; (ii) its relevance collapses in derivative-intensive strategies, where volatility often represents opportunity rather than risk; and (iii) it lacks an absolute benchmark, providing no guidance on what level of volatility is economically ``fair'' in efficient markets. To address these limitations, we propose a new paradigm that reconceptualizes risk in terms of predictability rather than variability. Building on a general class of stochastic processes, we derive an analytical link between volatility and the Hurst-Holder exponent within the Multifractional Process with Random Exponent (MPRE) framework. This relationship yields a formal definition of ``fair volatility'', namely the volatility implied under market efficiency, where prices follow semi-martingale dynamics. Extensive empirical analysis on global equity indices supports this framework, showing that deviations from fair volatility provide a tractable measure of market inefficiency, distinguishing between momentum-driven and mean-reverting regimes. Our results advance both the theoretical foundations and empirical assessment of financial risk, offering a definition of volatility that is efficiency-consistent and economically interpretable.