IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/war/wpaper/2017-29.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is CAViaR model really so good in Value at Risk forecasting? Evidence from evaluation of a quality of Value-at-Risk forecasts obtained based on the: GARCH(1,1), GARCH-t(1,1), GARCH-st(1,1), QML-GARCH(1,1), CAViaR and the historical simulation models depending on the stability of financial markets

Author

Listed:
  • Mateusz Buczyński

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

  • Marcin Chlebus

    (Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw)

Abstract

In the literature, there is no consensus which Value-at-Risk forecasting model is the best for measuring a market risk in banks. In the study an analysis of Value-at-Risk forecasting models quality over varying economic stability periods for main indices from stock exchanges was conducted. The VaR forecasts from GARCH(1,1), GARCH-t(1,1), GARCH-st(1,1), QML-GARCH(1,1), CAViaR and historical simulation models in periods with contrasting volatility trends (increasing, constantly high and decreasing) for countries economically developed (the USA – S&P 500, Germany - DAX and Japan – Nikkei 225) and economically developing (China – SSE COMP, Poland – WIG20 and Turkey – XU100) were compared. The data samples used in the analysis were selected from period 01.01.1999 – 24.03.2017. To assess the VaR forecasts quality: excess ratio, Basel traffic light test, coverage tests (Kupiec test, Christoffersen test), Dynamic Quantile test, cost functions and Diebold-Marino test were used. Obtained results shows that the quality of Value-at-Risk forecasts for the models varies depending on a volatility trend. However, GARCH-st (1,1) and QML-GARCH(1,1) were found as the most robust models to the different volatility periods. The results shows, as well that the CAViaR model forecasts were less appropriate in the increasing volatility period. Moreover, no significant differences for the VaR forecasts quality were found for the developed and developing countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Mateusz Buczyński & Marcin Chlebus, 2017. "Is CAViaR model really so good in Value at Risk forecasting? Evidence from evaluation of a quality of Value-at-Risk forecasts obtained based on the: GARCH(1,1), GARCH-t(1,1), GARCH-st(1,1), QML-GARCH(," Working Papers 2017-29, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    • Handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2017-29
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.wne.uw.edu.pl/index.php/download_file/3973/
    File Function: First version, 2017
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Engle, 2004. "Risk and Volatility: Econometric Models and Financial Practice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(3), pages 405-420, June.
    2. Paul H. Kupiec, 1995. "Techniques for verifying the accuracy of risk measurement models," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 95-24, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    3. Diebold, Francis X & Mariano, Roberto S, 2002. "Comparing Predictive Accuracy," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 20(1), pages 134-144, January.
    4. Robert F. Engle & Simone Manganelli, 2004. "CAViaR: Conditional Autoregressive Value at Risk by Regression Quantiles," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, American Statistical Association, vol. 22, pages 367-381, October.
    5. Michael McAleer & Juan-Angel Jimenez-Martin & Teodosio Pérez-Amaral, 0000. "Has the Basel II Accord Encouraged Risk Management during the 2008-09 Financial Crisis?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 09-039/4, Tinbergen Institute.
    6. Christoffersen, Peter F, 1998. "Evaluating Interval Forecasts," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(4), pages 841-862, November.
    7. Angelidis, Timotheos & Benos, Alexandros & Degiannakis, Stavros, 2004. "The Use of GARCH Models in VaR Estimation," MPRA Paper 96332, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Bollerslev, Tim, 1986. "Generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 307-327, April.
    9. Julio César Alonso & Mauricio Alejandro Arcos, 2006. "Cuatro hechos estilizados de las series de rendimientos: Una ilustración para Colombia," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, August.
    10. Su, Jung-Bin & Hung, Jui-Cheng, 2011. "Empirical analysis of jump dynamics, heavy-tails and skewness on value-at-risk estimation," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 1117-1130, May.
    11. Engle, Robert F. & Manganelli, Simone, 2001. "Value at risk models in finance," Working Paper Series 75, European Central Bank.
    12. Bollerslev, Tim, 1987. "A Conditionally Heteroskedastic Time Series Model for Speculative Prices and Rates of Return," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 69(3), pages 542-547, August.
    13. Robert Engle, 2001. "GARCH 101: The Use of ARCH/GARCH Models in Applied Econometrics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 157-168, Fall.
    14. Engle, Robert F, 1982. "Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity with Estimates of the Variance of United Kingdom Inflation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 987-1007, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Buczyński Mateusz & Chlebus Marcin, 2018. "Comparison of Semi-Parametric and Benchmark Value-At-Risk Models in Several Time Periods with Different Volatility Levels," Financial Internet Quarterly (formerly e-Finanse), Sciendo, vol. 14(2), pages 67-82, June.
    2. Andersen, Torben G. & Bollerslev, Tim & Christoffersen, Peter F. & Diebold, Francis X., 2005. "Volatility forecasting," CFS Working Paper Series 2005/08, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    3. Andersen, Torben G. & Bollerslev, Tim & Christoffersen, Peter F. & Diebold, Francis X., 2006. "Volatility and Correlation Forecasting," Handbook of Economic Forecasting, in: G. Elliott & C. Granger & A. Timmermann (ed.), Handbook of Economic Forecasting, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 15, pages 777-878, Elsevier.
    4. Carol Alexander & Emese Lazar & Silvia Stanescu, 2011. "Analytic Approximations to GARCH Aggregated Returns Distributions with Applications to VaR and ETL," ICMA Centre Discussion Papers in Finance icma-dp2011-08, Henley Business School, University of Reading.
    5. Halkos, George & Tzirivis, Apostolos, 2018. "Effective energy commodities’ risk management: Econometric modeling of price volatility," MPRA Paper 90781, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Degiannakis, Stavros & Potamia, Artemis, 2017. "Multiple-days-ahead value-at-risk and expected shortfall forecasting for stock indices, commodities and exchange rates: Inter-day versus intra-day data," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 176-190.
    7. Timotheos Angelidis & Stavros Degiannakis, 2005. "Modeling risk for long and short trading positions," Journal of Risk Finance, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 6(3), pages 226-238, July.
    8. Emrah Altun, 2019. "Two-sided exponential–geometric distribution: inference and volatility modeling," Computational Statistics, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 1215-1245, September.
    9. Karol Kielak & Robert Ślepaczuk, 2020. "Value-at-risk — the comparison of state-of-the-art models on various assets," Working Papers 2020-28, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    10. Degiannakis, Stavros & Floros, Christos & Dent, Pamela, 2013. "Forecasting value-at-risk and expected shortfall using fractionally integrated models of conditional volatility: International evidence," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 21-33.
    11. Timotheos Angelidis & Alexandros Benos & Stavros Degiannakis, 2007. "A robust VaR model under different time periods and weighting schemes," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 187-201, February.
    12. Caporale, Guglielmo Maria & Zekokh, Timur, 2019. "Modelling volatility of cryptocurrencies using Markov-Switching GARCH models," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 143-155.
    13. Stavros Degiannakis & Pamela Dent & Christos Floros, 2014. "A Monte Carlo Simulation Approach to Forecasting Multi-period Value-at-Risk and Expected Shortfall Using the FIGARCH-skT Specification," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 82(1), pages 71-102, January.
    14. Tim Bollerslev, 2008. "Glossary to ARCH (GARCH)," CREATES Research Papers 2008-49, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    15. Trino-Manuel Ñíguez & Javier Perote, 2012. "Forecasting Heavy-Tailed Densities with Positive Edgeworth and Gram-Charlier Expansions," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 74(4), pages 600-627, August.
    16. Stavroyiannis, S. & Makris, I. & Nikolaidis, V. & Zarangas, L., 2012. "Econometric modeling and value-at-risk using the Pearson type-IV distribution," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 10-17.
    17. Szymon Lis & Marcin Chlebus, 2021. "Comparison of the accuracy in VaR forecasting for commodities using different methods of combining forecasts," Working Papers 2021-11, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    18. Vincenzo Candila & Giampiero M. Gallo & Lea Petrella, 2020. "Mixed--frequency quantile regressions to forecast Value--at--Risk and Expected Shortfall," Papers 2011.00552, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2023.
    19. Jimenez-Martin, Juan-Angel & McAleer, Michael & Pérez-Amaral, Teodosio & Santos, Paulo Araújo, 2013. "GFC-robust risk management under the Basel Accord using extreme value methodologies," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 223-237.
    20. Chen, Cathy W.S. & Gerlach, Richard & Hwang, Bruce B.K. & McAleer, Michael, 2012. "Forecasting Value-at-Risk using nonlinear regression quantiles and the intra-day range," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 557-574.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    risk management; value at risk; GARCH; CAViaR; historical simulation; quality of model assessment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G32 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Financing Policy; Financial Risk and Risk Management; Capital and Ownership Structure; Value of Firms; Goodwill
    • C52 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Model Evaluation, Validation, and Selection
    • C53 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Forecasting and Prediction Models; Simulation Methods
    • C58 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric Modeling - - - Financial Econometrics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:war:wpaper:2017-29. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marcin Bąba (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fesuwpl.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.
    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy